Talk:Centuria

Untitled (Relationship of Maniples & Centuriae)
It states that centurias were grouped by pairs forming maniples. However, maniples no longer existed since the Marian reforms; and centurias came into existence since Marian reforms. Is there something wrong or I just don't know something? --Windom 09:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that while the maniple was the basic unit of the middle Republican legions, it consisted of paired centuries; 'prior' and 'posterior'. The titles for centurions were based on the maniples (ie, 'hastatus prior') and were retained even after the system was based on centuries and cohorts. I do have a question on the first century of early Imperial units, however; the article states that it contained six double-strength centuries, but I have always seen it shown with five, for a total strength of 800 (there is no 'pilus posterior' in the first.) 75.3.148.148 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse the distraction, but editors occasionally take seriously what each other say on the talk pages (especially when they come on like they know whereof they speak, and when they go into detail). I upgraded the "Untitled" heading (that presumably was slapped on by a well-coded bot), having first checked the article text before speaking-as-if-with-authority. Even tho WP editors don't always get it right (even in the articles), you have be a special sort of jerk to bother enhancing untitled sections better than typical bots do. Some such jerks as i not only enhance them, but do so on the basis of consulting at least a source that ajerkial (a-, or an- before vowels, the Latin for "non-") editors are diligent at correcting. I speak, in fixing the above section title, on the authority of having consulted at least the lead of the accompanying article, which states (based on unstated sources, but at least plausibly enuf to avoid having been corrected in the years (or hour) since the lead was last edited) that the plural's spelling follows what looks to me like Latin grammar. YMMV, and correct me in turn, if you either dare, or have researched more diligently than i just did (or claimed to have done). (Some editors will also take note of how i used an anchor to preserve the prior addressability of this section, in spite of adding a section title more informative than the (admittedly admirably accurate) title "Untitled" which i found here.) --Jerzy•t 10:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Pardon my intrusion,, but I must correct a parenthetical element of your comment. The prefix a(n)- is derived not originally from Latin but from the Greek prefix α(ν)- of the same meaning, sometimes called "alpha privative". Latin borrowed it from Greek, as does English in words like "anesthetic" (depriving of sensation) and "atheist" (without belief in any god(s)).
 * Grammar (of a particle or affix) expressing absence or negation, for example the Greek a-, meaning ‘not’, in atypical. Oxford Dictionaries
 * "Alpha" is the name of the Greek letter α, cognate and corresponding to "a" in the Latin alphabet.
 * --Thnidu (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Held a Flag?
The current article states that the Centurion "held a flag". The standard bearer of the Roman Armies was the rank of aquilifer; I'm removing the part of the sentence indicating the Centurian was the standard bearer. Dean (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dab'n & articles must become separate pages
While there's nothing wrong with an article describing the process of an sort of thing passing thru a progression of forms in order to respond to changing needs, the collection together of different sorts of thing united not by function but by anology is a fundamental error and problem. The accompanying article needs at least to have the final sense of a function related merely by analogy and name split off as a Hatnote Dab linking to a stub page, perhaps worthy of expansion. -- 2601:199:C202:287E:5131:C9FB:CE00:7C0B (talk) Jerzy•t, 07:29 & 09:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

First file
Consensus on the Primus pilus page is that "first spear" is the accepted translation. There is no reason for it to be different here. The "first file" translation is only citable to forum posts and amateur theories. Unless you can cite grammarians making such arguments, amateur Latin grammar arguments in the notes to edits or in the talk page constitute independent research and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Adding a "citation needed" tag does not change the fact that the theory cannot be cited. Discussions on Latin grammar are to be had in citable academic circles, not in the Wikipedia comments section. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there a reputable (say, research) WP:RS saying so? I looked for one, and did not find any. If someone has a source, let's add back the text with whatever the source says and a WP:CITE. If there is no source, there should be no text (WP:V: any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation). Викидим (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (this is a completely separate remark) Note that the maniple of triarii was called pilus, this is a much more likely origin of the term ("first maniple"). I will check the source I found a bit more, of course, before adding this to the article. Викидим (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My hunch (inspired by an old Latin dictionary entry) was right, here is the source:
 * "The maniple was arranged in two rows, each of which was properly called an ordo, and somewhat less properly, a centuria. The maniple of triarii was known simply as the pilus; while the words hastatus and princeps were applied as adjectives directly to the word manipulus as often as they were to the soldiers. In every cohort there was, therefore, a pilus, a manipulus princeps, a manipulus hastatus, and these divided into two ordines, a prior and a posterior ordo. The name primus pilus, then, denotes the first maniple of the first cohort, primus hastatus (manipulus), the second, etc. The name secundus pilus refers to the first maniple of the second cohort, and so on, till we reach the decimus hastatus, the third maniple of the tenth cohort. The centurions themselves might be known with their maniple in the genitive case after their title, viz., centurio primi pili, (?) centurio primi principis, etc. But they were most commonly known briefly by the name of their maniple, viz., the centurion of the second maniple of the sixth cohort would be called sixtus princeps. The senior captain (centurio prior) commanded the maniple, so that the phrase primum pilum ducere means exactly what it says. In all this, of course, there is no new doctrine, except that insufficient emphasis has generally been laid upon the fact that the basis of all these divisions and classifications is the maniple and that this word is to be understood with most of the descriptive adjectives"

- Max Radin. The Promotion of Centurions in Caesar's Army in: The Classical Journal, Apr., 1915, Vol. 10, No. 7 (Apr., 1915), pp. 300-311, underlining is mine Викидим (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good work, and an excellent source. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)