I have always found the modern rank names interesting from a historical perspective. Privates were usually milita and therefore "private citizens," Corporals were the "body" of the military, Sergeants are servants to the people and staff (sergeant is derived from servant), LTs are "juniors" to the next rank, Ensigns were usually responsible for the ship's ensigns/flags, Colonels usually lead a Legion or "column" (colonel is derived from the head of a column of troops), and General Officers were originally supposed to be knowledgeable about all parts of their command in general
Captain from the latin "capus", head, since he was the head of the smallest military formation that could independently move (or, in the case of a band of mercenaries, sign contracts). LT from the French "lieutenant", who keep a position in place of another. So a temporary substitute (or "the voice") of the Captain.
@@neutronalchemist3241, many moons ago I did 4 years in the United States Marine Corps. I never knew any of this. 😄 I continue to learn about the military all these years later. Thanks for the add info, Neutron. 👍
@@neutronalchemist3241 Thanks for the information! I did not know about those two. I knew the LT was a "junior" but not that it was to take the place of another.
@@HistoriaMilitum For some exceptional people, I could see that making sense. But, for me, lol, no that would be embarrassing. Also, they don't made headstones big enough to fit my entire resume on them.
If a Sergeant Major "asks" a LT or Captain to do something, it might not be an order, but it had better be treated as such if the young officer knows what's good for him. Funny that in ancient Rome, it literally could be an order.
Sergeants major don't give orders to LTs on their own. If the commander tells then to pass something along they will but it isn't an order and the E9 will fond himself on the commanders carpet for it. He's still an enlisted man. The only real difference is LTs and Captains don't give him orders because good commanders set the expectation that the sergeant major works for him and him only. Both are professionals they behave professionally. But thays really only CSMs. The staff officers that have a SGM under them as their NCOIC still are in charge. Your comment doesn't really represent reality
In other words, they will both go through the battalion or whatever commander to have the other receive some type of an order. A good CSM will suggest things to help the young officer but he's not his boss and he won't act like it. Just like a 1SG isn't telling platoon leaders what to do.
As someone that has worked as part of an Army Div HQ, I have seen this firsthand. The CG has even flat out "informed" the LT and CPT that when the CSM tells you to do something, it's usually because he (the CG) said it needed to be done.
I've seen a Command Sergeant Major have a 2LT do pushups in front of a Battalion formation for being late. He did so respectfully, but she had no choice but to comply, as his authority exceeded his rank.
When Pyrrhus the famous hellenic king, cousin of Alexander the Great first came to Italy to fight the Romans at the request of the Greek cities there, he thought that he had mere barbarians to fight, who's success in war was because they had never faced the Macedonian phalanx in combat. On the day of battle, he was surprised at how the romans sallied out from their camp in good order and was impressed by the disciplined and soldierly manner of its soldiers and noted that this was no barbarian army that he faced, but a disciplined fighting force, one indeed who's organization was more highly developed than his own.
I remember learning a bit about Pyrrhus in high school - that he had a reputation for winning battles and losing many men - the origin of, "pyrrhic victories." From what you tell me here, maybe he had a habit of underestimating his enemy.
@@cedricgist7614 It wasn't so much that he lost many men, he would consistently suffer fewer casualties that the Romans in his battles. The problem was the Romans had a much larger pool of manpower. So even with greater numerical losses the Romans could bounce back and form new legions, whereas his kingdom was far shorter on manpower. The Romans were notoriously proud and would willingly continue to fight after suffering massive casualties, because they always went all in and hated conditional peace. Pyrrhus assumed wrongly that after suffering such major losses that the Romans would abandon their interest in magna grecia, and so instead he got stuck in a war that he eventually abandoned, making his Victories strategically worthless.
2:42 No, it isn't. "Equites" means "riders". The name comes from the horses. The term "equestrian" didn't "become" associated with horses, it has always been associated with them.
No one else has ever presented such detailed information on military subjects as your channel. I am a 50 plus year student of ancient military history and you are without peer. Thank you
I appreciate the narrator's Vulgate Latin pronunciation (as opposed to Church pronunciation). This is how I learned Latin under the legendary Mrs. Agnes Beatrice Butterfield Shea at Walt Whitman High School, Huntington Station, New York - back in the near-Stone Age.
TO NOTE: Modern Military rank is "Pay Grade" not command(Respect from troops). 2nd Lieutenant or maybe 1st Lieutenant are not at same respect level as Sergeant Major on barrack or maybe on battle field which commonly lead by Captain or higher rank in modern era. In classical era(which mentioned in this video) they really are based on Troops respect not just organization rule and pay grade. No matter rich/noble you are, no troops = no command. P.S. On second thought~ roman military/ ranks is kinda how Mafia works
Absolutely captivating history documentary! The way it dives into the life and tactics of a Roman general truly brings history to life. The visuals and storytelling make you feel like you're marching alongside the legions. This is a must-watch for anyone who loves history and wants a deeper understanding of Rome’s military brilliance. Well done!
I would argue that a legion was closer to a division. People often forget that most legions often had their organic numbers in auxiliary troops, many of whom were armed identically to the legionaries.
Yes , and no, because units and formations change with time. An infantry battalion or a cavalry regiment would be just that: units of infantry or cavalry soldiers. WW1, the artillery would be held at division level, but by WW2 you are seeing a lot of combined arms battle-groups at brigade or even task forces built around a single battalion. A battalion of mechanized infantry would have a battery of guns, a platoon or company of tanks/TDs, perhaps a company of combat engineers, sigs, medical aid people and a logistics detachment. The Germans were pretty good at ad-hoc Kampfgrouppen [battle-groups] based on what was available, and the perceived role or mission. The US/allied troops had either "Combat Commands" /Regimental combat teams, and the Brits generally a Brigade. The allies had a more rigid system than the Germans, which was better logistically, but the Germans were more able to get a "quart out of a pint pot". For the Germans, there was no limits to the battle-group size, and combat teams of mixed corps soldiers could be based on a company, battalion, regiment or even several divisions. So the author is correct in that the legion and the brigade are equivalent no only in terms of brigade personnel size, but also the all-arms composition of the components. "Brigaded" means to bind units together. And brigades have varied a lot in size, some being the size of a division. Brigades could vary as being part of a division, and then the divisional commander would allocate/attach special units to it, whereas and independent brigade would have all the "bells and whistles" required to fight a tactical battle mostly with it's won resources. So the Roman legion was more like an independent brigade than a division.
In terms of size a legion was roughly equivalent to a regiment, but in terms of function it abaolutely fulfilled that of the division or brigade. Autonomous xombined arms unit capable of strategic deployment without need dor extreneous supporting elements, and capable of conducting virtually any type of operation alone, bjt still capable of forming a cohesive larger force with other legions if necesseary.
@@egoalter1276 Traditionally, Regiments were of a single combat type or corps: infantry, cavalry, artillery, and of later armour, AAA, etc. And the regiment would raise however many battalions according to requirements and doctrine of the nation. The brigade and the division was almost always a combined arms formation. Say an infantry regiment of 3 bns, an artillery regiment [battalion].some engineers, signals, and logistics troops. So although the core of the unit was the infantry regiment, the attachments made it more of a unit with combined arms assets. The UK for example, had a two battalion regiment: a home/defense, or depot battalion, and one serving overseas to keep its empire under control. But in times of war, any number of battalions could be raised of the same Regiment : 4th battalion grenadier guards, 6th battalion DLI, and so on. Germans had the infantry regiment, usually of 3 bns, but the 'core" of their army was not based on regiments, but divisions, where teach division was associated with a military district, and a depot/training battalion did all the basic training for the division. Of course, as time went on, smaller and small units had their own [organic] combined arms capability. In the US, that would take the form of a regimental combat team, for example an infantry regiment of 3 battalions plus some bits and bobs added on, so basically a brigade in form if not in name.
Indeed, that was my point. Brigade and division are both strategically mobile combined arms elements. They are essentially interchangable. Regiments are the ones focused on a single mission. And some organizational structures dont use regiments at all, and the combat battalions are directly brigade organic. Legions were not regiments, as they were combined arms units, but its irrelevant weather you call thsm a brigade or a division, because a brigade and a division is the same thing.
I love when you show game clips of like total war such a good use of resources it probably helps the amount of time it takes to pop out these videos since you don’t have to animate that part God bless Rome Roma Invicta
I think you little bit downgrade Roman ranks. Centurions in Republican era were often Equestrians and they were expected to be both Captain and Sargent Major in one, being among best fighting man in unit, but also well conected to gain position. Leading centurion in cohort would be equivalent of battalion comander and Primus Pillus was highest field officer, fighting with his legion in the field. Magister Castrotum was always former Primus Pilus and often man with most military experience in legion. So he was effectively chief of staff for legion and all attached auxilliary units. More often then not he was of equestrian class with lifelong military career. I am not sure did single legions in province had Legatus or governer was legatus too. Governers of provinces with two or more legions had title Dux, and with 2-3 legions commanded about equal number of auxillia units and could in need call thousands of retired legionaires settled in provinces, so we are talking of force equalling Army Corps. That would be probably 3 star general in modern era. In late Empire was also Magister Militum who was equivalent of modern Chief of Staff or 4 star general.
I'd like that immensely too although it would be more vague and complicated as well as almost certainly city-state based. Spartan and Helot interactions would be cool AF.
one should remember when the Senatorial class sent its candidate for Tribunus Laticlavius ... they usually underwent preparation for this since pre-school ... Aristocrats hiring ex-centurions to train their children, so that they have a better chance of getting selected for the job ... this is no simple "he is rich" situation ....
Really? Because that very much sounds like it's a "he is rich" situation. Has the best teachers. why? He is rich Has the best trainers. Why? He is rich Has the best education. Why? He is rich. Has the best life. Why? He was born rich.
@@cherrycoyote55except for the fact that in a just 'he is rich' situation they would be given the position with no training or preparation. Here they got the job because they were the best option for it, and who cares that they were said better option in part due to wealth? Saying they wouldn't be allowed to use that money to train their kids would be like saying parents aren't allowed to try help their children survive
In Late Antiquity, though, senators were increasingly reluctant to even get their children to serve as tribunus laticlavus, and by late 3rd century, even banned altogether... by that point, equestrians dominated military command.
@@HistoriaMilitum : In Aalen there is famous Limesmuseum about Romans, a bit northern, in Ellwangen, the Alemannenmuseum. Quite practical for a historical daytrip.
4:19 What you're describing (the cohort) is similar in size to a battalion, and consequently its commander would normally hold the rank today of lieutenant colonel.
I feel as if the 500 strong auxiliary alae command would be more akin to a BN commander LTC (O5) given that it’s more similar to that both an administratively in responsibility and maneuver command element size (BNs are about 3-4 times as big as COs) as well as the seniority of the commander.
A Roman Legion was equivalent to a full division in a modern army. So that would be a major general position (O-7). Certain web pages I looked at state that Legatus was equivalent to a general position. But no colonel is commanding a division unless everybody else is dead. If the praefectus castrorum position resulted in basically admission to the equestrian class upon retirement, that would be the equivalent of the CW-5 position in the contemporary US Army. I'm going a lot by what I saw in the HBO series "Rome" but when Lucius Vorenus was promoted to prefect he had to go through a ritual process and got a distinctly different uniform. There was definitely a full level qualitative shift in going from even first cohort centurion to prefect. That's like going from regular enlisted to warrant officer. Warrant officers hold a commission from their service secretary. Full commissioned officers hold a commission from the President of the United States. If a CW-5 asks an LT or a Capt to do something, the CW-5 might not technically have the authority to order them, but the CW-5 has so much experience and achievement to get to that rank that they will do it. My understanding is that veteran plebian roman legionnairies with good service records would be offered the position of prefect, which was like contemporary warrant officers (the ranks go from WO-1 to WO-5) in the U.S. army. So there were several or dozens of prefects in any given legion. The highest ranking prefect would be praefectus castrorum. Lucius Vorenus was definitely made a prefect but I don't know specifically how high his rank was. When he meets Pompei he says he is praefectus equitatus, as best I can make it out. But when he served under Antony in Egypt he was directly working under Antony and seems like he was praefectus castrorum. Finally, one has to realize that for a good number of the ancient Roman officer positions, there is no direct equivalent in the modern NATO or U.S. army because we are not a formal aristocracy.
when Vorenus was introduced to Attia in episoe 2 or 3 (dont remember right now) Octavian introduced him as First Spear Centurion - either Centurio Primipillus or Centurio Pillus Prior and those were very high ranks. But then producers messed it up by promoting him to Praefectus so its was like promotion from senior warrant officer to full officer...
This is a very fascinating video. That the Romans had a rank structure and hierarchy quite "modern" in its organization and progression ladder is probably an indicator as to why they were so effective as a fighting force. While aristocratic youths were often slotted in automatically as officers (basically the modern equivalent of college grads being automatically commissioned as lieutenants), there was still recognition that a 20-year experienced soldier who came from the lower classes was still obviously the superior soldier (the modern equivalent of a SGM or CSM)
@2.40 you've got that sightly backwards, it's not that the Engish word 'equestrian' came to be affiliated with horses because the roman class could own horses. It's that the name equestrian (or the Latin "equis") literally *means* person who rides a horse. I.e. the horseriding was the primary meaning, the connotations of class came second. (I guess you could say you... put the cart before the horse?)
These rules were generally valid during the Republic period. During the empire there were soldiers who rose in rank from simply soldiers to generals and even to emperor, as we have the example of emperor Galerius who even became superior emperor during the tetrachy.
Actually, the roman word eques ( the singular form of equites ), meaning rider/equestrian or "knight" if you are so inclined, and the modern word equestrian both derive from latin "equus" - (somewhat unsurprisingly) meaning horse. So the statement is just.. kind of correct.
I would not compare a camp perfect to an sergant major. It was a command positon. He raised from the ranks, often a former Primus Pilus (First Centurion in a Legion) was commanding during the march the advance party of the Logion, choose the camp place for the night und commanded the building of the camp. Often he was the first of the Legion Leadership commanding the battel if it happended during march.
poltical connections certainly helped especially if you were on the good side of the emperor otherwise you would never get a promotion. some generals were very much poltical appointments and some were even senators who had no previous experience other than being a favourite of a particular emperor also sometimes governors also took on military roles.
You couldn't be anything without having first been a tribune, so formally all the Roman politicians had a previous military experience in a commanding position. Sometimes it seems strange, IE during the civil war, to see someone we only know as a politician rise one or more legions and command them on the field. But for the Romans to be a politician and to be a potential commander of an army was the same thing.
We already made a video about auxiliaries and the countless nuances of their units. Our video on cavalry units explains a bit about how they were posted across the empire. Glad you enjoyed!
Centurions were not Senior NCO positions. They were Battalion and Company commanders (Capt - Lt Col). The Primus Pilus was probably more akin to a Col and Div CoS. The Legate would equate to a 2* Gen, with the senior tribune equating to Div XO. The Camp Prefect might fit as a 1* running Div logistics.
Yes and No Centurions are a career path starting from commanding a century aka roughly a company to commanding the Double Strength First Cohort AS Primus pilus roughly commanding a Regiment the equilivant of a Lieutenant Colonel
No, he doesn't pronounce Tacitus correctly. -us should make an -oos sound in classical Latin. "ta-ki-toos". His classical accent is better than many youtubers i've seen but there are small but somewhat frequent issues with it
@ Sure: I know - I took Latin at high school (outside the U.S.) and I know the 'u' phoneme (no real equivalent in English, at least not as spoken in most places today) is the same as in 'u' in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. I was just glad the 'c' was rendered 'k' and not 's' or 'ch' (the latter of which pronounced as in the English 'church' or Italian 'celo', which would have been correct in Low or Mediaeval Latin, or the Latin spoken in the Vatican today).
It is wither ch or ts. That is how it is pronounced in all sjrviving direct line descendents of the language. Just because we have a single politician in a single letter complaining about how proler high class pronunciation of a hard c ought to be k making the latter redundant in the alphabet, bears no relation to the common pronunciation of the grapheme in the two millenia long history in the massive geographical breadth of the empire, and it directly disagrees with all contemporary linguistic evidence. I find the practice snobbish and ill founded.
@@egoalter1276 Latin transliterated into Greek used a kappa to represent the letter C. Kappa makes a hard C sound, always, and Caesar is rendered in the Bible as Καισαρος(Kaisaros), Cicero wrote his own name in Greek as Κικερων (Kikeron). So in the 1st century from Italy to Jerusalem C was holding a hard K sound, a fairly "massive geographical breadth" which also spans from upper class of Cicero to the Hoi Polloi of 1st century Christians . Furthermore Sardinian is often considered to be the closest living language to Classical Latin, a Latin descendent, and it has a hard C despite your claim. So no, I think your claims are blatantly wrong.
@@egoalter1276 Please spell the English language correctly. Besides, which I find your comment offensive. I was trying to complement the content creator and add my insight. Your comment is bullying, ill-conceived, brutish and misspelt. Besides it adds zero.
Barracks Lawyer here: Consul would be more akin to the rank of Commander in Chief given it stradles both a civillian as well as military hierarchy simultaneously.
That really only applies until the Late Republic. Pompey and Caesar are the last Roman generals invested with the full power of the state. After them being Consul is very much ceremonial and doesn't command the same importance unless the Emperor is also Consul.
All "centuriones" were COs whose ranks were between lieutenant-captain despite the play roles of modern NCOs today. They were rised by promotion from enlisted troops as lower COs always subordinated to higher COs as "tribunii laticlavii", "legatii", "prefectii" or so, even one "prefectii castrorum" or "primis pilus". Cheers.
Very well informed. I appreciate the comparisons of the Roman ranks to modern military. However, a modern US Army Company Commander (usually a Captain O-3) would lead about 200-250 soldiers, not 500. The only companies with 500 soldiers are due to unique circumstances, such as a Division Headquarters unit. I served in a Division HQ, to which our company was around 500. We had a Major (O-4 fourth officer rank) leading the company, and a Major General (O-8 eighth officer rank) leading the Division (three to four brigades or about 3 or 4 Roman Legions). In matters pertaining to the company, the Commandant (her title) would issue an order for us to follow as a company. In matters pertaining to the entire division, the General would issue an order for the entire Division spread throughout the world, to follow. I hope this further explains how a modern Army company sized element functions.
Folks seem to forget that there are levels to CSMs, and there is a big difference between a SGM and CSM. If a Corps or Division CSM asks an officer to do something, it’s an order and it better be done.
@egoalter1276 It is not a lawful order, as even a Corps CSM does not carry the Commission of an Officer. However, Senior CSMs are often functioning as the right hand of the Commander, so it is likely a lawful order issued by the Corps Commander (a Lieutenant General) being delivered by the CSM, which would carry the same weight as being delivered by the LTG themselves. Source: I am an Army Officer
@@ThePimpedOutPlatypus Yes, but in that case the sergant Major is the courier for an order by the general officer to whom he is aide. The highly experienced NCO can, and probably should make better informed observations and suggestions to a junior officer, which said junior officer is highly advised to take under stron consideration, but If I understand what you are saying correctly, they can not be orders, with legal ramifications for disobeying them. Certainly the general officer whos staff the senior NCO is part of in this example is likely to consider the NCOs judgement to be correct, and may reprimand a junior officer disregarding said suggestions, probably rightfully, for being a bellend, but the act of disregarding the consuel or wishes of a senior NCO by a junior officer is not in and of itself against the chain of command, and will likely go without comment or consequence if the junior officer just so happens to be right in having done so. Would you consider that an accurate reading of the question at hand?
That is a Lictor, a symbolic bodyguard in this instance to a Consul Ordinarius (they would have the right to twelve each), they are primarily a status symbol of the magistrate's imperium (hierarchal authority).
Senatorial admirals were almost entirely confined to the Republican era. (IIRC Bibulus was one of the last admirals of senatorial rank, and Actium essentially killed off the navy as a career path for senators) Some of the procurator positions were also military, they were admirals, or praefectus classis, of which there were a dozen or so. Plebeians held far more power in the navy than in the army; the highest a plebeian could reach was nauarchus princeps (roughly 2-star admiral, maybe 3 if you were talking about the praetorian fleets) and were often de facto the actual admirals because a lot of the people appointed to serve as praefectus classis rarely had any experience of naval matters; a plebeian primus pilus in the regular army might, at best, become a praefectus castrorum.
I don't think there was a "Legatus Pro Praetore"... only Augusti. The senatorial provinces were governed by Proconsul populi romani who inherently held imperium as magistrates but were martially restricted to auxiliary oversight in unopposed regions, unless under extraordinary circumstances. They were far more preoccupied with administering cities, adjudicating, and supervising procurators.
at 8:42 you say that "because they are not exactly military positions, we can't really equate them to any modern rank" I believe their modern equivalents might be Secretary of Defense, where they're not at the top (president/commander in chief), but second to the top.
Can try make a vid on "How Samurai fought in Battles" using "Shogun 2: Total War" engine? Do Samurais or Ashigarus in mass battles fought like 1 on 1 taking turns? How are they not worried for lack of shields to protect themselves from flank attacks
A Cohort isnt the equilivant of a company. A modern Captain would BE the lower Rank of a Centurion. Cohorts would BE Led by the modern equilivant of a Major, the Roman prefect or the Centurion Rank of a pilus Prior. A Double Strength Cohort or vexillation of roughly 1000 men would BE Led by a tribune or the Centurion Rank of Primus pilus. A legate would BE the equilivant of a colonial the senatorial tribune would BE the Lieutenant Colonel and the praetor WHO command a Legion and auxillary cohorts attacked to IT would BE a Major General, a Consul would BE a Lieutenant General WHO usually Led 2 Legions plus auxillary and a modern General would BE a dictator or Consul WHO got Overall command of a full consular Army 4 Legions plus auxillary troops.
As number of men commanded, a Centurio would be a Captain or a Major (even a Colonel, in the case fo the Primus Pilus, that was part of the main staff), but functionally the Centurio was armed like his men and fought alongside them. That would make him more a Sgt. or Sgt. Major.
A cohort is indeed larger than a company, but if you call it a battalion, the auxiliary prefects who commanded them would have to be equated to Lt. colonels, which seems far too prestigious for their position. Lt. Colonels were second in command of a full brigade, while auxiliary prefect led semi-autonomous cohorts with no relation to the legion. Therefore, you can see how there is no true perfect comparison, and we thought its best to compare ranks 1-to-1 from top to bottom, which seems to make the most sense (apart from some unit sizes as you mentioned). For the ranks of Praetor and higher, I agree with your comparison to the general ranks.
@@HistoriaMilitum why would it be too prestigous ? remember that an auxillary prefect is still from the equestrian class a class that modern officers can only dream of being so wealthy and they can do more than modern lt colonels that are restricted to just military stuff, add to this that auxillary units were also cavalry it maybe looks like i lowballed the prefects compared to modern lt colonels.
@@neutronalchemist3241 sergeants seem to me the decanus or principales ,the guys who are experienced have the know how like writing or construction works, sure centurions fought on the front but they arent all the same rank and even the lowest centurion had a lot of power over the century and influence on decision making. centurions led whole legions in some scenarios i dont believe something like that happened with a modern brigade that a mere sergeant led an entire brigade
You could and you can get general rank by 2 methods: 1) Spend 20-30 years in the military, get yourself a very loud and known name, get support of soldiers and common folk, get some powerful acquaintances, make modest charity donation to to responsible people and enjoy success; 2) Skip most of previously said steps, get yourself some powerful acquaintances and make a not so modest charity donation to responsible people to show your skill to achive fast strategical victory (don't worry, you will have A LOT of time and possibilities to show your skills of recovering and multiplying spent resources). This two methods work and worked 100% everywhere in the world
It's a shame modern armies don't have political officers similar to the Roman tribune. It would give Ministry of Defence employees some military experience and would be an effective way of improving morale. If the food was bad, a soldier was being bullied, an officer misused his authority, a soldier faced restrictions on practising his religion, equipment was defective, or the regiment collectively believed a war was not in the national interest they could go the political officer to raise their concerns
I think a legion would be closer to an infantry division, not a brigade. I mean, if you compare the amount of infantrymen (discarding the support units), the numbers are far closer.
Add the differing education each class had received before serving. So plebe maybe some kind of trade, equestrian maths, commerce, senatorial, the full monte probably by a Greek philosopher. The senatorial starting as 2nd isn't as crazy as it sounds to us. 14:13 More akin to Masters level.
Huge part of Romes success was the grounded in reality aspect if its political leaders going actually to war and having to stand with their lives for their conviction.. Think about how different our political landscape would be if that was a r.equirement
The Fabri, a type of specialist above Miles, were commanded by the legion's Praefectus Fabrum. While the Praefectus Castrorum mentioned in the video was also in-charge of engineering.
I'd like to know: What were the equivalent of police officers, in those days? For example, if I were living in Athens, or Alexandria and I decided to murder my neighbour for shits n giggles, how would justice be done? Was it up to my neighbour's family to find out what happened and then kill me in response? Were there dedicated police investigators who would investigate such crimes? What if my neighbour's family had decided to mob me, in response to my murdering their father - If there were 12 of them, trying to break down my front door and lynch me, were there city guards who I could send for, who would race to my house to protect me from being lynched? Or would I have needed to have hired my own private group of guards to protect me from potential consequences?
an excellent topic for investigation. but... i was a bit unclear on the senate... so i assume the senators came from wealthy families and directed/conducted the roman governments wishes. then you seemed to say they would apply for the Tribunus position in the military. I just wanted to be sure i understood the senator role vs 'the applied for' roles. so assuming they gained a Tribunus position, then i assume they no longer have senatorial duties? (which is typically running the administration of the republic/empire). So for the wealthy aristocratic class its: senate (for a handful years?) and then into Tribunus which is military leadership roles in the military? So they don't ever have to be a general infantry man or cavalry? they always in position of command?
Just because someone is from the senatorial class doesn't right away mean they are in the administrative body that is the senate. That position had to be earned, and was often held by the most experienced men who finished the career ladder or were in between positions. Remember that the ladder was very competitive to climb and some people could be in the senate for several years while they kept applying for higher positions, like Praetor. But everyone who earned their place in the senate had once served as a tribune in a legion and then held some higher administrative posts, which was one of the definite requirements to be a senator (in the administrative sense). And it was possible, though not at all respectable, to be a non ambitious senatorial man who chose to not pursue the career ladder, not hold military positions, and not to earn his place in the senate. Not everyone was driven by such ambition, but most strived for it or were pressured to progress!
Good thing I looke at the older video, which was great, otherwise I would have tapped out at the fractal wrongness of "this is how the English word equestrian came to be related to horses".
I argue, a roman legion is a brigade/division equivalent and cohorts are regiments though the 1st cohort is a small brigade. Maniples of 2 century is a battalion and a century is a company. This may not be apparent but once you added the allied alaes or auxiliary cohorts they made sense.
considering that at the root of the USA constitution is Roman law, it is logical that they also took over the Roman military system adapted to the times And that the USA is a modern Roman republic - from the arrogance of Americans towards the rest of the world Aggressive armies that are fear and trembling for the neighbors and the gangs that rule within the US, just like in Rome You have bread and games (NFL, NHL, NBA, Baseball, NASCAR) You have slave owners and slaves working for $5 an hour 80 hours a week no vacation, no health insurance, no sick leave and no maternity leave - Congress is as decadent and corrupt as the Roman Senate And the US president is like a Roman dictator / Emperor
@@tihomirrasperic And most other Empires were still worst. The only reason why "West is bad" is because they did apologized. It was actually British Empire who trigger global crackdown on slavery, hurting interest of "innocent" Congo slave traders. Who now cry what victims of colonialism they were.
Interesting perspective you offer, but perhaps a little too lowly ranked. Legions functioned more akin to modern divisions and legions rarely operated alone (that in north-west Spain being an on-going exception). Hence, I was taught that legion commanders were two star Major-Generals. A deputy legion commander was therefore a Brigadier (in the British empire system), Brigadier-General in the US system; regardless, a one star general in rank. The province commanders etc are more akin to your 3 and 4 star appointments. At least, that was my understanding of how things worked.
Thats another good way to look at it! We chose to compare based on unit size (brigade = 5000) but you are comparing it to a division based on the scale of operation and administration. I suppose there are numerous comparisons that can be made!
I looked at this because as a Marine, LTCs do command battalions and Majors are XOs, seeing a lot of COL rates as Brigade Combat Team COs and LTCs as XOs. Did not expect to see that, but saw several. A BCT having on paper 4.4k soldiers seems big for a Colonel to command. Really feels like the Brigadier General with a Colonel XO feels more appropriate especially considering the historical nature of a colonel commanding one of the 3 or 4 regiments within a brigade. I will say modern Brigades do mostly resemble infantry regiments anyways so a Colonel in command does make some sense technically.
@@RandomDudeOYT both of you are mixing peacetime and wartime acts in peaceful times The 2nd lieutenant commands the platoon The 1st lieutenant commands a platoon / rarely a company Captain - commands the 1st platoon and company Major, deputy battalion commander, or battalion commander / member of the headquarters of a higher unit Lieutenant colonel - battalion commander or deputy regiment commander A colonel commands a regiment or is a member of the headquarters of a higher unit Generals command brigades, divisions, corps and armies *** but in wartime it is not rare The 1st lieutenant commands the company The captain commands the battalion The lieutenant colonel commands the regiment A colonel commands a brigade or even a division
@@RandomDudeOYT Nowadays' brigades, more resembling regiments? O_o I have to day, this sounds weird. In nipbers, brigades and regiments have nothing in common, as brigades have had always more men than just one regiment.
@@RandomDudeOYT modern brigades resembles a mid ww1 german regiments. German divisions were too big at the start of ww1 (18000 men) because they have 2 brigades that has 2 regiments in it and also some attachments bring it to 22000 sometimes. They phased them out eventually and distributed weaponry at lower levels so they focused on regiments directly reducing it to (13-15,000). Regiment is supposed to be the biggest "pure" military unit. Brigades is supposed to be a basic stand alone combined arms forces. But technology and doctrines change and we mix those things up now. Now battlefield maneuvers can be conducted at battalion or company levels.
Personally, I feel that the Praefectus Castrorum is more like a Chief Warrant Officer (CWO-5) than a Command Sergeant Major (CSM, NCO, OR-9, E-9) but what do I do know?
I would agree in the British army a centurion would equate to a very senior warrant officer (E9) lower cohorts or a Commissioned Warrant officer (Captain) senior cohorts or Major for primus pilus, a Praefectus Castrorum equivalent to a commissioned warrant officer (Lt Col). for you info commissioned Warrant Officers are known as Late Entry Officers of (Rank) LE
@@talsius.1019 Sorry, but when I meant Warrant Officer, I meant the American Warrant Officer not the British/Commonwealth Warrant Officer as, YES, those are more like a US Command Sergeant Major in role & function. Incidentally, when you mentioned Late Entry Officers, did they wake up & arrive late when they applied? Just curious.
@@fredhercmaricaubang1883 Hi yes I understand that a US Warrant Officer is a Non Command Commissioned Officer, they tend to be Technical specialists, I worked with some during my time in the British Army. We have no distinction in the British Army in that Technical Officers are all known with the same Officer rank. The difference here is that when a soldier( extensively Senior Warrants E9) is commissioned his commission is known as a late Entry Officer as they did not join as young men and completed Sandhurst for their commission but were commissioned in general after 22 years of service in the Ranks (enlisted men). This designation for instance Capt (LE) informs all that this officer is a former seasoned soldier of 20+ experience and is held in very high regard and can and have filled posts as a Regimental and/or Brigade 2IC (second in command or XO?) dependant of Rank. I hope this helps but we arrived late to the party but I would suggest we had more fun! 🤣🤣
The camp prefect was a retired senior centurion. This was the top command position in a legion's default professional core. He would be more compared to a colonel then some non-com position.
@@Jauhl1 Hi correct the Praefectus Castrorum who was in effect the second in command of the legion, with the Tribunes as Staff Officers; and as you say a promoted Centurion and almost certainly a former Primus Pilus. The Praefectus position in effect still exists in the British Army as the Camp Commandant whose acts as the second in command of a Brigade formation and is normally a Lt Col (Late Entery). Note the Late Entry denotes that this Officer was commissioned from the ranks and in almost all cases a former Command Sgt Major or in the British Army a command Warrant Officer Class 1 and not a young regular officer
One Legión isn't really a brigade equivalence because it isn't only legionaries. Te Auxilia forces must be nearly the same legionaries effectives. And total effectives must be a divisionary forces when effectives were completed.
Brigades and divisions are interchangable in modern orders kf battle, and mostly concern weather the combat battalions are organized into regiments, or are organic to the sivision HQ, and weather there are two or more regime ts of the primary combat arm. Brigades and divisions are essentially doctrinally equivalent, with the only difference being the officer to enlisted rario of the primary operational manouver unit.
@egoalter1276 Any armies have this own definitions about infantry units.... Change doctrines and isn't necessary the same in different countries. I remember when the creation of the DEV "División Española de Voluntarios" aka "División Azul" in WW2 who fought against the Soviets, will be reduced because a Spanish Army Division is four regiments based and the German Divisions had three regiments instead. The number of effectives was different too, and the number or voluntaries and officers was reduced in order to adapt the force at German division structure. Regards!
@@soyelmasguapo Indeed, there is a wide variety both geographically, and through time. Which is why I believe it is best to compare doctrinally, rather than in raw numbers, between a modern and classical force.
@@laisphinto6372 Thats actually a good question. How organic were auxilia to legions? Would a legion stay witht he same set of auxilary formations manned by largely the same people throughout a campaign, or would it change as the legion moved and auxilary contracts ran out? Because for its full effectiveness a legion needs its auxilary cavalry vanguard and missile units.
Prefect: Praetorian lead Legate / Legatus Legionis: Legion lead Dominius: Lictors lead (senate guard) Prefectus Urbanus: Urbanae Cohortes (Roman police) Prefectai: Germanic Guard lead Dux Militaris: oversees all of legions Dux Civilis: oversees: Urbanae and lictors Legatus Lanius: oversees Frumentarii
What's your source for a position named Legatus Lanius? I'm pretty sure the frumentarii were independently led by Princeps Peregrinorum. Dux, as a rank, was not a position until the Dominate (Late Roman Empire) period. The overall head of the Lictors was called the Magister Lictorum, while escort leads were called Primus.
In a church sermon guide there is a note that at the time of Constantine Christians were so significant in the Roman army that both Constantine and his rival was trying to recruit them. The rival Maxentius was less consistent and convincing in his appeal to the Christians. So why were the Christians so so significant and numerous? The claim is that they took the lower administrative posts, the unpopular administration jobs and allowed non Christians to jump their rank. They also were honest and so won the support of people above and below them. Because of their mostly secret faith they would volunteer to man the gates on Roman religious holydays, etc. To the Pagan Romans this duty was onerous as they were missing both the party and the chance to make significant political contacts at the ceremonies. Keeping your head down and taking the jobs others did not want grew their numbers right under Rome's nose.
Glad to see nothing change for officers since antiquity. Your best time as officer is junior grade all the way until you get full train track. After that is either get out and do something else or get boredom with paperworks.
A Roman legion actually would've been more equivalent to a US Army division, or even a small corps, than to a brigade. Size wise, yeah, it had around the same number of troops as a modern American brigade. But we're talking about a world that had maybe 5% of today's population. Back then, armies were around 20,000 to 50,000 strong. *Functionally*, a Roman legion carried the weight and performed the tasks of a modern American division or corps.
@@Alexis-iz9km Sorry for late reply. I did not even get the notification. I will be happy to share the link when the game is ready to release. at the moment, I can only talk about it on UA-cam. but if you follow me on UA-cam, you don't miss the updates when there are any.
Formally the cursus honorum was still in place, but the senatorial Tribunes, that only served for future politic career, were only formally attached to military units, and were no more part of the chain of command.
Download Warhammer 40,000 Tacticus for free here: play.tacticusgame.com/HistoriaMilitum
the code "historiamilitum" doesnt work
I did a lot of research related to the US military and the Roman army to come up with this list.
Better I should have waited for your video 😅
@@sudhanshuraj3059 I'm sure your personal research gave you more extensive knowledge though. Did you come up with a similar list?
@HistoriaMilitum Yes, very similar, and thank you for your good words
You should ask the guys at snowprint studios to give you a code with a bunch of neurotrope shards
I have always found the modern rank names interesting from a historical perspective. Privates were usually milita and therefore "private citizens," Corporals were the "body" of the military, Sergeants are servants to the people and staff (sergeant is derived from servant), LTs are "juniors" to the next rank, Ensigns were usually responsible for the ship's ensigns/flags, Colonels usually lead a Legion or "column" (colonel is derived from the head of a column of troops), and General Officers were originally supposed to be knowledgeable about all parts of their command in general
Wow. Very informative post. Thank you.
Captain from the latin "capus", head, since he was the head of the smallest military formation that could independently move (or, in the case of a band of mercenaries, sign contracts). LT from the French "lieutenant", who keep a position in place of another. So a temporary substitute (or "the voice") of the Captain.
@@neutronalchemist3241, many moons ago I did 4 years in the United States Marine Corps. I never knew any of this. 😄
I continue to learn about the military all these years later. Thanks for the add info, Neutron. 👍
@@neutronalchemist3241 Thanks for the information! I did not know about those two. I knew the LT was a "junior" but not that it was to take the place of another.
In german a Captain is a Hauptmann ( Main man/ Head man). A Colonel is an Oberst ( Highest), formerly Oberster Feldhauptmann/ Highest Fieldcaptsin..
9:46 Imagine applying for a job and have your CV engraved on a stone slab
In reality, for permanent recordings (IE the manumissio of a former slave) Romans engraved lead sheets.
Imagine having your CV as your grave stone!
@@HistoriaMilitum For some exceptional people, I could see that making sense. But, for me, lol, no that would be embarrassing. Also, they don't made headstones big enough to fit my entire resume on them.
If a Sergeant Major "asks" a LT or Captain to do something, it might not be an order, but it had better be treated as such if the young officer knows what's good for him. Funny that in ancient Rome, it literally could be an order.
any SGM worth a crap would never do such a thing.
Sergeants major don't give orders to LTs on their own. If the commander tells then to pass something along they will but it isn't an order and the E9 will fond himself on the commanders carpet for it. He's still an enlisted man. The only real difference is LTs and Captains don't give him orders because good commanders set the expectation that the sergeant major works for him and him only.
Both are professionals they behave professionally.
But thays really only CSMs. The staff officers that have a SGM under them as their NCOIC still are in charge.
Your comment doesn't really represent reality
In other words, they will both go through the battalion or whatever commander to have the other receive some type of an order. A good CSM will suggest things to help the young officer but he's not his boss and he won't act like it. Just like a 1SG isn't telling platoon leaders what to do.
As someone that has worked as part of an Army Div HQ, I have seen this firsthand. The CG has even flat out "informed" the LT and CPT that when the CSM tells you to do something, it's usually because he (the CG) said it needed to be done.
I've seen a Command Sergeant Major have a 2LT do pushups in front of a Battalion formation for being late. He did so respectfully, but she had no choice but to comply, as his authority exceeded his rank.
17:55 I thought this was gonna go the "you can attempt a coup" route lmao.
my thoughts exactly amicus
The forbidden promotion from General to Commander in Chief 🤣
I was thinking that too. And eventually, for a lot of them, it did.
That would be just as accurate; a whole new branch of promotion to emperor opens up! :D
Lmaooo
When Pyrrhus the famous hellenic king, cousin of Alexander the Great first came to Italy to fight the Romans at the request of the Greek cities there, he thought that he had mere barbarians to fight, who's success in war was because they had never faced the Macedonian phalanx in combat. On the day of battle, he was surprised at how the romans sallied out from their camp in good order and was impressed by the disciplined and soldierly manner of its soldiers and noted that this was no barbarian army that he faced, but a disciplined fighting force, one indeed who's organization was more highly developed than his own.
I remember learning a bit about Pyrrhus in high school - that he had a reputation for winning battles and losing many men - the origin of, "pyrrhic victories." From what you tell me here, maybe he had a habit of underestimating his enemy.
@@cedricgist7614 It wasn't so much that he lost many men, he would consistently suffer fewer casualties that the Romans in his battles. The problem was the Romans had a much larger pool of manpower. So even with greater numerical losses the Romans could bounce back and form new legions, whereas his kingdom was far shorter on manpower. The Romans were notoriously proud and would willingly continue to fight after suffering massive casualties, because they always went all in and hated conditional peace.
Pyrrhus assumed wrongly that after suffering such major losses that the Romans would abandon their interest in magna grecia, and so instead he got stuck in a war that he eventually abandoned, making his Victories strategically worthless.
2:42 No, it isn't. "Equites" means "riders". The name comes from the horses. The term "equestrian" didn't "become" associated with horses, it has always been associated with them.
Yes! This bugged me, too.
To be more precise, all terms come from the latin "equus", which means "horse".
No one else has ever presented such detailed information on military subjects as your channel. I am a 50 plus year student of ancient military history and you are without peer.
Thank you
I appreciate the narrator's Vulgate Latin pronunciation (as opposed to Church pronunciation). This is how I learned Latin under the legendary Mrs. Agnes Beatrice Butterfield Shea at Walt Whitman High School, Huntington Station, New York - back in the near-Stone Age.
Near Stone Age?
Near as approaching the Stone Age?
Or, near as just left the Stone Age?
Could be an important differentiation.
😂
@@wayne9518 I'll turn 72 this December. Take your pick, pal. :D
These types of videos help so much with my readership and fantasy world building. Thanks and keep up the great content!
TO NOTE: Modern Military rank is "Pay Grade" not command(Respect from troops). 2nd Lieutenant or maybe 1st Lieutenant are not at same respect level as Sergeant Major on barrack or maybe on battle field which commonly lead by Captain or higher rank in modern era. In classical era(which mentioned in this video) they really are based on Troops respect not just organization rule and pay grade. No matter rich/noble you are, no troops = no command.
P.S. On second thought~ roman military/ ranks is kinda how Mafia works
Absolutely captivating history documentary! The way it dives into the life and tactics of a Roman general truly brings history to life. The visuals and storytelling make you feel like you're marching alongside the legions. This is a must-watch for anyone who loves history and wants a deeper understanding of Rome’s military brilliance. Well done!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed! :)
I would argue that a legion was closer to a division. People often forget that most legions often had their organic numbers in auxiliary troops, many of whom were armed identically to the legionaries.
There is no question you are correct.
Yes , and no, because units and formations change with time. An infantry battalion or a cavalry regiment would be just that: units of infantry or cavalry soldiers. WW1, the artillery would be held at division level, but by WW2 you are seeing a lot of combined arms battle-groups at brigade or even task forces built around a single battalion. A battalion of mechanized infantry would have a battery of guns, a platoon or company of tanks/TDs, perhaps a company of combat engineers, sigs, medical aid people and a logistics detachment. The Germans were pretty good at ad-hoc Kampfgrouppen [battle-groups] based on what was available, and the perceived role or mission. The US/allied troops had either "Combat Commands" /Regimental combat teams, and the Brits generally a Brigade. The allies had a more rigid system than the Germans, which was better logistically, but the Germans were more able to get a "quart out of a pint pot".
For the Germans, there was no limits to the battle-group size, and combat teams of mixed corps soldiers could be based on a company, battalion, regiment or even several divisions.
So the author is correct in that the legion and the brigade are equivalent no only in terms of brigade personnel size, but also the all-arms composition of the components.
"Brigaded" means to bind units together. And brigades have varied a lot in size, some being the size of a division.
Brigades could vary as being part of a division, and then the divisional commander would allocate/attach special units to it, whereas and independent brigade would have all the "bells and whistles" required to fight a tactical battle mostly with it's won resources.
So the Roman legion was more like an independent brigade than a division.
In terms of size a legion was roughly equivalent to a regiment, but in terms of function it abaolutely fulfilled that of the division or brigade. Autonomous xombined arms unit capable of strategic deployment without need dor extreneous supporting elements, and capable of conducting virtually any type of operation alone, bjt still capable of forming a cohesive larger force with other legions if necesseary.
@@egoalter1276 Traditionally, Regiments were of a single combat type or corps: infantry, cavalry, artillery, and of later armour, AAA, etc. And the regiment would raise however many battalions according to requirements and doctrine of the nation. The brigade and the division was almost always a combined arms formation. Say an infantry regiment of 3 bns, an artillery regiment [battalion].some engineers, signals, and logistics troops. So although the core of the unit was the infantry regiment, the attachments made it more of a unit with combined arms assets.
The UK for example, had a two battalion regiment: a home/defense, or depot battalion, and one serving overseas to keep its empire under control. But in times of war, any number of battalions could be raised of the same Regiment : 4th battalion grenadier guards, 6th battalion DLI, and so on.
Germans had the infantry regiment, usually of 3 bns, but the 'core" of their army was not based on regiments, but divisions, where teach division was associated with a military district, and a depot/training battalion did all the basic training for the division.
Of course, as time went on, smaller and small units had their own [organic] combined arms capability. In the US, that would take the form of a regimental combat team, for example an infantry regiment of 3 battalions plus some bits and bobs added on, so basically a brigade in form if not in name.
Indeed, that was my point. Brigade and division are both strategically mobile combined arms elements. They are essentially interchangable. Regiments are the ones focused on a single mission. And some organizational structures dont use regiments at all, and the combat battalions are directly brigade organic. Legions were not regiments, as they were combined arms units, but its irrelevant weather you call thsm a brigade or a division, because a brigade and a division is the same thing.
It's wild that after practically 2000 years, some things barely change
I love when you show game clips of like total war such a good use of resources it probably helps the amount of time it takes to pop out these videos since you don’t have to animate that part God bless Rome Roma Invicta
I think you little bit downgrade Roman ranks. Centurions in Republican era were often Equestrians and they were expected to be both Captain and Sargent Major in one, being among best fighting man in unit, but also well conected to gain position. Leading centurion in cohort would be equivalent of battalion comander and Primus Pillus was highest field officer, fighting with his legion in the field. Magister Castrotum was always former Primus Pilus and often man with most military experience in legion. So he was effectively chief of staff for legion and all attached auxilliary units. More often then not he was of equestrian class with lifelong military career. I am not sure did single legions in province had Legatus or governer was legatus too. Governers of provinces with two or more legions had title Dux, and with 2-3 legions commanded about equal number of auxillia units and could in need call thousands of retired legionaires settled in provinces, so we are talking of force equalling Army Corps. That would be probably 3 star general in modern era. In late Empire was also Magister Militum who was equivalent of modern Chief of Staff or 4 star general.
Oh my god he finally uploaded again. I’ve been waiting since forever LETS GOO
Can you do a similar video for Greece, or at least one of the city-states?
I'd like that immensely too although it would be more vague and complicated as well as almost certainly city-state based. Spartan and Helot interactions would be cool AF.
A very needed video, indeed.
Nvm I was tryna be supportive
one should remember when the Senatorial class sent its candidate for Tribunus Laticlavius ... they usually underwent preparation for this since pre-school ... Aristocrats hiring ex-centurions to train their children, so that they have a better chance of getting selected for the job ... this is no simple "he is rich" situation ....
That is an excellent point.
Really? Because that very much sounds like it's a "he is rich" situation.
Has the best teachers. why? He is rich
Has the best trainers. Why? He is rich
Has the best education. Why? He is rich.
Has the best life. Why? He was born rich.
@@cherrycoyote55except for the fact that in a just 'he is rich' situation they would be given the position with no training or preparation. Here they got the job because they were the best option for it, and who cares that they were said better option in part due to wealth? Saying they wouldn't be allowed to use that money to train their kids would be like saying parents aren't allowed to try help their children survive
In Late Antiquity, though, senators were increasingly reluctant to even get their children to serve as tribunus laticlavus, and by late 3rd century, even banned altogether... by that point, equestrians dominated military command.
A note: In Germany there is the town Aalen, in roman time there was a fort or q cavallry Ala- no surprise.
Thats really interesting! Thanks for sharing
@@HistoriaMilitum : In Aalen there is famous Limesmuseum about Romans, a bit northern, in Ellwangen, the Alemannenmuseum. Quite practical for a historical daytrip.
4:19 What you're describing (the cohort) is similar in size to a battalion, and consequently its commander would normally hold the rank today of lieutenant colonel.
Right, but he would be commanding foreign (non-Roman troops). Meaning a senior Capt or Maj could be a fair comparison.
I feel as if the 500 strong auxiliary alae command would be more akin to a BN commander LTC (O5) given that it’s more similar to that both an administratively in responsibility and maneuver command element size (BNs are about 3-4 times as big as COs) as well as the seniority of the commander.
Of course
A Roman Legion was equivalent to a full division in a modern army. So that would be a major general position (O-7). Certain web pages I looked at state that Legatus was equivalent to a general position. But no colonel is commanding a division unless everybody else is dead. If the praefectus castrorum position resulted in basically admission to the equestrian class upon retirement, that would be the equivalent of the CW-5 position in the contemporary US Army. I'm going a lot by what I saw in the HBO series "Rome" but when Lucius Vorenus was promoted to prefect he had to go through a ritual process and got a distinctly different uniform. There was definitely a full level qualitative shift in going from even first cohort centurion to prefect. That's like going from regular enlisted to warrant officer. Warrant officers hold a commission from their service secretary. Full commissioned officers hold a commission from the President of the United States. If a CW-5 asks an LT or a Capt to do something, the CW-5 might not technically have the authority to order them, but the CW-5 has so much experience and achievement to get to that rank that they will do it. My understanding is that veteran plebian roman legionnairies with good service records would be offered the position of prefect, which was like contemporary warrant officers (the ranks go from WO-1 to WO-5) in the U.S. army. So there were several or dozens of prefects in any given legion. The highest ranking prefect would be praefectus castrorum. Lucius Vorenus was definitely made a prefect but I don't know specifically how high his rank was. When he meets Pompei he says he is praefectus equitatus, as best I can make it out. But when he served under Antony in Egypt he was directly working under Antony and seems like he was praefectus castrorum. Finally, one has to realize that for a good number of the ancient Roman officer positions, there is no direct equivalent in the modern NATO or U.S. army because we are not a formal aristocracy.
when Vorenus was introduced to Attia in episoe 2 or 3 (dont remember right now) Octavian introduced him as First Spear Centurion - either Centurio Primipillus or Centurio Pillus Prior and those were very high ranks. But then producers messed it up by promoting him to Praefectus so its was like promotion from senior warrant officer to full officer...
"Hiring a cashier, requeiements: 18 years or older, 20 years of experience."
This is a very fascinating video. That the Romans had a rank structure and hierarchy quite "modern" in its organization and progression ladder is probably an indicator as to why they were so effective as a fighting force.
While aristocratic youths were often slotted in automatically as officers (basically the modern equivalent of college grads being automatically commissioned as lieutenants), there was still recognition that a 20-year experienced soldier who came from the lower classes was still obviously the superior soldier (the modern equivalent of a SGM or CSM)
A praefectus castorum normaly is a former centurio (Officer not NCO/Sgt.) in his last year of service. There are 11 ranks of centuriones (Lt./Captain)
@2.40 you've got that sightly backwards, it's not that the Engish word 'equestrian' came to be affiliated with horses because the roman class could own horses. It's that the name equestrian (or the Latin "equis") literally *means* person who rides a horse. I.e. the horseriding was the primary meaning, the connotations of class came second.
(I guess you could say you... put the cart before the horse?)
These rules were generally valid during the Republic period. During the empire there were soldiers who rose in rank from simply soldiers to generals and even to emperor, as we have the example of emperor Galerius who even became superior emperor during the tetrachy.
Actually, the roman word eques ( the singular form of equites ), meaning rider/equestrian or "knight" if you are so inclined, and the modern word equestrian both derive from latin "equus" - (somewhat unsurprisingly) meaning horse. So the statement is just.. kind of correct.
I would not compare a camp perfect to an sergant major. It was a command positon. He raised from the ranks, often a former Primus Pilus (First Centurion in a Legion) was commanding during the march the advance party of the Logion, choose the camp place for the night und commanded the building of the camp. Often he was the first of the Legion Leadership commanding the battel if it happended during march.
poltical connections certainly helped especially if you were on the good side of the emperor otherwise you would never get a promotion. some generals were very much poltical appointments and some were even senators who had no previous experience other than being a favourite of a particular emperor also sometimes governors also took on military roles.
You couldn't be anything without having first been a tribune, so formally all the Roman politicians had a previous military experience in a commanding position.
Sometimes it seems strange, IE during the civil war, to see someone we only know as a politician rise one or more legions and command them on the field. But for the Romans to be a politician and to be a potential commander of an army was the same thing.
I'm proud of Caius, dude did well.
Great Video and very as easy to understand by these diagrams. Well animated❤
It's really interesting to see the details of the the command structure of the legions!
Fascinating stuff, would love a video on Auxilleries, and where certain ones were posted in the empire.
We already made a video about auxiliaries and the countless nuances of their units. Our video on cavalry units explains a bit about how they were posted across the empire. Glad you enjoyed!
Centurions were not Senior NCO positions. They were Battalion and Company commanders (Capt - Lt Col). The Primus Pilus was probably more akin to a Col and Div CoS. The Legate would equate to a 2* Gen, with the senior tribune equating to Div XO. The Camp Prefect might fit as a 1* running Div logistics.
This seems like an accurate comparison to me
I'm guessing the point of the tribunus laticlavius being the legatus' second-in-command is so that he can learn how to command from him.
Aren't captains more like centurions, considering equestrians even started out as centurions?
Yes and No Centurions are a career path starting from commanding a century aka roughly a company to commanding the Double Strength First Cohort AS Primus pilus roughly commanding a Regiment the equilivant of a Lieutenant Colonel
It’s interesting in the UK some of these titles still exist ‘procurator fiscal’ in Scotland for example
5:33 Thank you for pronouncing the name Tacitus (with a hard "k") and indeed all other Latin in this clip correctly.
No, he doesn't pronounce Tacitus correctly. -us should make an -oos sound in classical Latin. "ta-ki-toos". His classical accent is better than many youtubers i've seen but there are small but somewhat frequent issues with it
@ Sure: I know - I took Latin at high school (outside the U.S.) and I know the 'u' phoneme (no real equivalent in English, at least not as spoken in most places today) is the same as in 'u' in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. I was just glad the 'c' was rendered 'k' and not 's' or 'ch' (the latter of which pronounced as in the English 'church' or Italian 'celo', which would have been correct in Low or Mediaeval Latin, or the Latin spoken in the Vatican today).
It is wither ch or ts. That is how it is pronounced in all sjrviving direct line descendents of the language. Just because we have a single politician in a single letter complaining about how proler high class pronunciation of a hard c ought to be k making the latter redundant in the alphabet, bears no relation to the common pronunciation of the grapheme in the two millenia long history in the massive geographical breadth of the empire, and it directly disagrees with all contemporary linguistic evidence.
I find the practice snobbish and ill founded.
@@egoalter1276 Latin transliterated into Greek used a kappa to represent the letter C. Kappa makes a hard C sound, always, and Caesar is rendered in the Bible as Καισαρος(Kaisaros), Cicero wrote his own name in Greek as Κικερων (Kikeron). So in the 1st century from Italy to Jerusalem C was holding a hard K sound, a fairly "massive geographical breadth" which also spans from upper class of Cicero to the Hoi Polloi of 1st century Christians . Furthermore Sardinian is often considered to be the closest living language to Classical Latin, a Latin descendent, and it has a hard C despite your claim. So no, I think your claims are blatantly wrong.
@@egoalter1276 Please spell the English language correctly. Besides, which I find your comment offensive. I was trying to complement the content creator and add my insight. Your comment is bullying, ill-conceived, brutish and misspelt. Besides it adds zero.
Enjoyable video. Thank you for making it.
18:20 has an unfortunate name
Not as bad as Biggus Dickus. Or maybe he does...
This is why I love the timestamp comments when they pop up cause I almost spit my drink out I was laughing so hard
Barracks Lawyer here: Consul would be more akin to the rank of Commander in Chief given it stradles both a civillian as well as military hierarchy simultaneously.
That really only applies until the Late Republic. Pompey and Caesar are the last Roman generals invested with the full power of the state. After them being Consul is very much ceremonial and doesn't command the same importance unless the Emperor is also Consul.
wrong
Your mom here: get off the Internet and go clean your damn bedroom!
WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORKS
All "centuriones" were COs whose ranks were between lieutenant-captain despite the play roles of modern NCOs today. They were rised by promotion from enlisted troops as lower COs always subordinated to higher COs as "tribunii laticlavii", "legatii", "prefectii" or so, even one "prefectii castrorum" or "primis pilus".
Cheers.
you should do onw for early and late repubblic too, this is awesome
Yes, the late republic is coming up next!
Very well informed. I appreciate the comparisons of the Roman ranks to modern military. However, a modern US Army Company Commander (usually a Captain O-3) would lead about 200-250 soldiers, not 500. The only companies with 500 soldiers are due to unique circumstances, such as a Division Headquarters unit. I served in a Division HQ, to which our company was around 500. We had a Major (O-4 fourth officer rank) leading the company, and a Major General (O-8 eighth officer rank) leading the Division (three to four brigades or about 3 or 4 Roman Legions). In matters pertaining to the company, the Commandant (her title) would issue an order for us to follow as a company. In matters pertaining to the entire division, the General would issue an order for the entire Division spread throughout the world, to follow. I hope this further explains how a modern Army company sized element functions.
Folks seem to forget that there are levels to CSMs, and there is a big difference between a SGM and CSM.
If a Corps or Division CSM asks an officer to do something, it’s an order and it better be done.
An order has a legal definition.
I am unsure weather it *can* be an order.
@egoalter1276 It is not a lawful order, as even a Corps CSM does not carry the Commission of an Officer. However, Senior CSMs are often functioning as the right hand of the Commander, so it is likely a lawful order issued by the Corps Commander (a Lieutenant General) being delivered by the CSM, which would carry the same weight as being delivered by the LTG themselves.
Source: I am an Army Officer
@@ThePimpedOutPlatypus Yes, but in that case the sergant Major is the courier for an order by the general officer to whom he is aide. The highly experienced NCO can, and probably should make better informed observations and suggestions to a junior officer, which said junior officer is highly advised to take under stron consideration, but If I understand what you are saying correctly, they can not be orders, with legal ramifications for disobeying them. Certainly the general officer whos staff the senior NCO is part of in this example is likely to consider the NCOs judgement to be correct, and may reprimand a junior officer disregarding said suggestions, probably rightfully, for being a bellend, but the act of disregarding the consuel or wishes of a senior NCO by a junior officer is not in and of itself against the chain of command, and will likely go without comment or consequence if the junior officer just so happens to be right in having done so. Would you consider that an accurate reading of the question at hand?
1. When are you talking about? Depending on the time period, there were up to 60 legions at a time.
Early Principate
@@HistoriaMilitum Okay.
First! And very interesting topic indeed!
Imagine the world today if politicians were only eligible for office by serving in armed forces first.
Don't you think the world will be better and we have less greedy and puppet leaders
re - 14:50
Love the image here!!! Is that a Censor? The one holding the Fasces?
That is a Lictor, a symbolic bodyguard in this instance to a Consul Ordinarius (they would have the right to twelve each), they are primarily a status symbol of the magistrate's imperium (hierarchal authority).
Wow, great video! Roman Empire is Legend
Senatorial admirals were almost entirely confined to the Republican era. (IIRC Bibulus was one of the last admirals of senatorial rank, and Actium essentially killed off the navy as a career path for senators)
Some of the procurator positions were also military, they were admirals, or praefectus classis, of which there were a dozen or so.
Plebeians held far more power in the navy than in the army; the highest a plebeian could reach was nauarchus princeps (roughly 2-star admiral, maybe 3 if you were talking about the praetorian fleets) and were often de facto the actual admirals because a lot of the people appointed to serve as praefectus classis rarely had any experience of naval matters; a plebeian primus pilus in the regular army might, at best, become a praefectus castrorum.
I don't think there was a "Legatus Pro Praetore"... only Augusti.
The senatorial provinces were governed by Proconsul populi romani who inherently held imperium as magistrates but were martially restricted to auxiliary oversight in unopposed regions, unless under extraordinary circumstances. They were far more preoccupied with administering cities, adjudicating, and supervising procurators.
at 8:42 you say that "because they are not exactly military positions, we can't really equate them to any modern rank"
I believe their modern equivalents might be Secretary of Defense, where they're not at the top (president/commander in chief), but second to the top.
Can try make a vid on "How Samurai fought in Battles" using "Shogun 2: Total War" engine?
Do Samurais or Ashigarus in mass battles fought like 1 on 1 taking turns?
How are they not worried for lack of shields to protect themselves from flank attacks
11:13 so, Subutai wouldn't be given command in Rome?
A Cohort isnt the equilivant of a company.
A modern Captain would BE the lower Rank of a Centurion. Cohorts would BE Led by the modern equilivant of a Major, the Roman prefect or the Centurion Rank of a pilus Prior. A Double Strength Cohort or vexillation of roughly 1000 men would BE Led by a tribune or the Centurion Rank of Primus pilus. A legate would BE the equilivant of a colonial the senatorial tribune would BE the Lieutenant Colonel and the praetor WHO command a Legion and auxillary cohorts attacked to IT would BE a Major General, a Consul would BE a Lieutenant General WHO usually Led 2 Legions plus auxillary and a modern General would BE a dictator or Consul WHO got Overall command of a full consular Army 4 Legions plus auxillary troops.
As number of men commanded, a Centurio would be a Captain or a Major (even a Colonel, in the case fo the Primus Pilus, that was part of the main staff), but functionally the Centurio was armed like his men and fought alongside them. That would make him more a Sgt. or Sgt. Major.
A cohort is indeed larger than a company, but if you call it a battalion, the auxiliary prefects who commanded them would have to be equated to Lt. colonels, which seems far too prestigious for their position. Lt. Colonels were second in command of a full brigade, while auxiliary prefect led semi-autonomous cohorts with no relation to the legion. Therefore, you can see how there is no true perfect comparison, and we thought its best to compare ranks 1-to-1 from top to bottom, which seems to make the most sense (apart from some unit sizes as you mentioned). For the ranks of Praetor and higher, I agree with your comparison to the general ranks.
@@HistoriaMilitum why would it be too prestigous ? remember that an auxillary prefect is still from the equestrian class a class that modern officers can only dream of being so wealthy and they can do more than modern lt colonels that are restricted to just military stuff, add to this that auxillary units were also cavalry it maybe looks like i lowballed the prefects compared to modern lt colonels.
@@neutronalchemist3241 sergeants seem to me the decanus or principales ,the guys who are experienced have the know how like writing or construction works, sure centurions fought on the front but they arent all the same rank and even the lowest centurion had a lot of power over the century and influence on decision making. centurions led whole legions in some scenarios i dont believe something like that happened with a modern brigade that a mere sergeant led an entire brigade
You could and you can get general rank by 2 methods:
1) Spend 20-30 years in the military, get yourself a very loud and known name, get support of soldiers and common folk, get some powerful acquaintances, make modest charity donation to to responsible people and enjoy success;
2) Skip most of previously said steps, get yourself some powerful acquaintances and make a not so modest charity donation to responsible people to show your skill to achive fast strategical victory (don't worry, you will have A LOT of time and possibilities to show your skills of recovering and multiplying spent resources). This two methods work and worked 100% everywhere in the world
It's a shame modern armies don't have political officers similar to the Roman tribune. It would give Ministry of Defence employees some military experience and would be an effective way of improving morale. If the food was bad, a soldier was being bullied, an officer misused his authority, a soldier faced restrictions on practising his religion, equipment was defective, or the regiment collectively believed a war was not in the national interest they could go the political officer to raise their concerns
I'm not sure if I missed the Centurion position?
I think a legion would be closer to an infantry division, not a brigade. I mean, if you compare the amount of infantrymen (discarding the support units), the numbers are far closer.
Add the differing education each class had received before serving. So plebe maybe some kind of trade, equestrian maths, commerce, senatorial, the full monte probably by a Greek philosopher.
The senatorial starting as 2nd isn't as crazy as it sounds to us.
14:13 More akin to Masters level.
interesting video idea, I don't think I have ever seen a video like this
What was the difference between a military & civilian tribune? Why did they have the same title?
Huge part of Romes success was the grounded in reality aspect if its political leaders going actually to war and having to stand with their lives for their conviction.. Think about how different our political landscape would be if that was a r.equirement
the code "historiamilitum" doesnt work
Thats strange.. Maybe try again in a few days.
This was just great.
Isn't _brigade_ a French unit of army? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare with their ranks and organization?
0:05. What video game is that?
What is the music that is playing in the background? Seems to be playing throughout the video. It's familiar, but I just cannot place it.
Where did the architecti or engineers fall into this? What rank would thier detachment leader carry?
The Fabri, a type of specialist above Miles, were commanded by the legion's Praefectus Fabrum. While the Praefectus Castrorum mentioned in the video was also in-charge of engineering.
I'd like to know:
What were the equivalent of police officers, in those days?
For example, if I were living in Athens, or Alexandria and I decided to murder my neighbour for shits n giggles, how would justice be done? Was it up to my neighbour's family to find out what happened and then kill me in response? Were there dedicated police investigators who would investigate such crimes?
What if my neighbour's family had decided to mob me, in response to my murdering their father - If there were 12 of them, trying to break down my front door and lynch me, were there city guards who I could send for, who would race to my house to protect me from being lynched? Or would I have needed to have hired my own private group of guards to protect me from potential consequences?
Great question.
Good matching of ranks
an excellent topic for investigation. but... i was a bit unclear on the senate... so i assume the senators came from wealthy families and directed/conducted the roman governments wishes. then you seemed to say they would apply for the Tribunus position in the military. I just wanted to be sure i understood the senator role vs 'the applied for' roles. so assuming they gained a Tribunus position, then i assume they no longer have senatorial duties? (which is typically running the administration of the republic/empire). So for the wealthy aristocratic class its: senate (for a handful years?) and then into Tribunus which is military leadership roles in the military? So they don't ever have to be a general infantry man or cavalry? they always in position of command?
Just because someone is from the senatorial class doesn't right away mean they are in the administrative body that is the senate. That position had to be earned, and was often held by the most experienced men who finished the career ladder or were in between positions. Remember that the ladder was very competitive to climb and some people could be in the senate for several years while they kept applying for higher positions, like Praetor. But everyone who earned their place in the senate had once served as a tribune in a legion and then held some higher administrative posts, which was one of the definite requirements to be a senator (in the administrative sense). And it was possible, though not at all respectable, to be a non ambitious senatorial man who chose to not pursue the career ladder, not hold military positions, and not to earn his place in the senate. Not everyone was driven by such ambition, but most strived for it or were pressured to progress!
I would have thought Sargent Major wasn’t an Officer rank? That it was below Lieutenant? Or are you using it in a different context maybe?
Good thing I looke at the older video, which was great, otherwise I would have tapped out at the fractal wrongness of "this is how the English word equestrian came to be related to horses".
I argue, a roman legion is a brigade/division equivalent and cohorts are regiments though the 1st cohort is a small brigade. Maniples of 2 century is a battalion and a century is a company.
This may not be apparent but once you added the allied alaes or auxiliary cohorts they made sense.
considering that at the root of the USA constitution is Roman law, it is logical that they also took over the Roman military system adapted to the times
And that the USA is a modern Roman republic
-
from the arrogance of Americans towards the rest of the world
Aggressive armies that are fear and trembling for the neighbors
and the gangs that rule within the US, just like in Rome
You have bread and games (NFL, NHL, NBA, Baseball, NASCAR)
You have slave owners and slaves working for $5 an hour 80 hours a week
no vacation, no health insurance, no sick leave and no maternity leave
-
Congress is as decadent and corrupt as the Roman Senate
And the US president is like a Roman dictator / Emperor
@@tihomirrasperic And most other Empires were still worst. The only reason why "West is bad" is because they did apologized. It was actually British Empire who trigger global crackdown on slavery, hurting interest of "innocent" Congo slave traders. Who now cry what victims of colonialism they were.
Interesting perspective you offer, but perhaps a little too lowly ranked. Legions functioned more akin to modern divisions and legions rarely operated alone (that in north-west Spain being an on-going exception). Hence, I was taught that legion commanders were two star Major-Generals. A deputy legion commander was therefore a Brigadier (in the British empire system), Brigadier-General in the US system; regardless, a one star general in rank. The province commanders etc are more akin to your 3 and 4 star appointments. At least, that was my understanding of how things worked.
Thats another good way to look at it! We chose to compare based on unit size (brigade = 5000) but you are comparing it to a division based on the scale of operation and administration. I suppose there are numerous comparisons that can be made!
Does a Lt.Colonel lead a Brigade or is it commanded by a General(1star)
This is neat. Can you do it for the Eastern Roman Empire too?
Wow it certainly was a very long process but that's why they were so good
Just a small remark: in Conventional Latin ae and oe are pronounced [e] (so aeternae will sound like eterne)
Lt Col doesn’t command a Brigade. They command a Battalion.
I looked at this because as a Marine, LTCs do command battalions and Majors are XOs, seeing a lot of COL rates as Brigade Combat Team COs and LTCs as XOs. Did not expect to see that, but saw several. A BCT having on paper 4.4k soldiers seems big for a Colonel to command. Really feels like the Brigadier General with a Colonel XO feels more appropriate especially considering the historical nature of a colonel commanding one of the 3 or 4 regiments within a brigade. I will say modern Brigades do mostly resemble infantry regiments anyways so a Colonel in command does make some sense technically.
@@RandomDudeOYT both of you are mixing peacetime and wartime acts
in peaceful times
The 2nd lieutenant commands the platoon
The 1st lieutenant commands a platoon / rarely a company
Captain - commands the 1st platoon and company
Major, deputy battalion commander, or battalion commander / member of the headquarters of a higher unit
Lieutenant colonel - battalion commander or deputy regiment commander
A colonel commands a regiment or is a member of the headquarters of a higher unit
Generals command brigades, divisions, corps and armies
***
but in wartime it is not rare
The 1st lieutenant commands the company
The captain commands the battalion
The lieutenant colonel commands the regiment
A colonel commands a brigade or even a division
@@RandomDudeOYT
Nowadays' brigades, more resembling regiments? O_o I have to day, this sounds weird. In nipbers, brigades and regiments have nothing in common, as brigades have had always more men than just one regiment.
@@RandomDudeOYT modern brigades resembles a mid ww1 german regiments. German divisions were too big at the start of ww1 (18000 men) because they have 2 brigades that has 2 regiments in it and also some attachments bring it to 22000 sometimes. They phased them out eventually and distributed weaponry at lower levels so they focused on regiments directly reducing it to (13-15,000).
Regiment is supposed to be the biggest "pure" military unit. Brigades is supposed to be a basic stand alone combined arms forces. But technology and doctrines change and we mix those things up now. Now battlefield maneuvers can be conducted at battalion or company levels.
I don’t see where it says a Lt Col commands a brigade? It says he is the BDE Executive and COL is the commander.
Personally, I feel that the Praefectus Castrorum is more like a Chief Warrant Officer (CWO-5) than a Command Sergeant Major (CSM, NCO, OR-9, E-9) but what do I do know?
I would agree in the British army a centurion would equate to a very senior warrant officer (E9) lower cohorts or a Commissioned Warrant officer (Captain) senior cohorts or Major for primus pilus, a Praefectus Castrorum equivalent to a commissioned warrant officer (Lt Col). for you info commissioned Warrant Officers are known as Late Entry Officers of (Rank) LE
@@talsius.1019 Sorry, but when I meant Warrant Officer, I meant the American Warrant Officer not the British/Commonwealth Warrant Officer as, YES, those are more like a US Command Sergeant Major in role & function. Incidentally, when you mentioned Late Entry Officers, did they wake up & arrive late when they applied? Just curious.
@@fredhercmaricaubang1883 Hi yes I understand that a US Warrant Officer is a Non Command Commissioned Officer, they tend to be Technical specialists, I worked with some during my time in the British Army. We have no distinction in the British Army in that Technical Officers are all known with the same Officer rank. The difference here is that when a soldier( extensively Senior Warrants E9) is commissioned his commission is known as a late Entry Officer as they did not join as young men and completed Sandhurst for their commission but were commissioned in general after 22 years of service in the Ranks (enlisted men). This designation for instance Capt (LE) informs all that this officer is a former seasoned soldier of 20+ experience and is held in very high regard and can and have filled posts as a Regimental and/or Brigade 2IC (second in command or XO?) dependant of Rank. I hope this helps but we arrived late to the party but I would suggest we had more fun! 🤣🤣
The camp prefect was a retired senior centurion. This was the top command position in a legion's default professional core. He would be more compared to a colonel then some non-com position.
@@Jauhl1 Hi correct the Praefectus Castrorum who was in effect the second in command of the legion, with the Tribunes as Staff Officers; and as you say a promoted Centurion and almost certainly a former Primus Pilus. The Praefectus position in effect still exists in the British Army as the Camp Commandant whose acts as the second in command of a Brigade formation and is normally a Lt Col (Late Entery). Note the Late Entry denotes that this Officer was commissioned from the ranks and in almost all cases a former Command Sgt Major or in the British Army a command Warrant Officer Class 1 and not a young regular officer
One Legión isn't really a brigade equivalence because it isn't only legionaries. Te Auxilia forces must be nearly the same legionaries effectives. And total effectives must be a divisionary forces when effectives were completed.
Brigades and divisions are interchangable in modern orders kf battle, and mostly concern weather the combat battalions are organized into regiments, or are organic to the sivision HQ, and weather there are two or more regime ts of the primary combat arm.
Brigades and divisions are essentially doctrinally equivalent, with the only difference being the officer to enlisted rario of the primary operational manouver unit.
@egoalter1276 Any armies have this own definitions about infantry units.... Change doctrines and isn't necessary the same in different countries. I remember when the creation of the DEV "División Española de Voluntarios" aka "División Azul" in WW2 who fought against the Soviets, will be reduced because a Spanish Army Division is four regiments based and the German Divisions had three regiments instead. The number of effectives was different too, and the number or voluntaries and officers was reduced in order to adapt the force at German division structure. Regards!
@@soyelmasguapo Indeed, there is a wide variety both geographically, and through time. Which is why I believe it is best to compare doctrinally, rather than in raw numbers, between a modern and classical force.
yeah but that would be legion plus auxillary. that would be like a tank brigade plus infantry elements
@@laisphinto6372 Thats actually a good question. How organic were auxilia to legions? Would a legion stay witht he same set of auxilary formations manned by largely the same people throughout a campaign, or would it change as the legion moved and auxilary contracts ran out? Because for its full effectiveness a legion needs its auxilary cavalry vanguard and missile units.
Good info, but it needs to specify what time it's talking about. Republic? Empire, and if so which emperor?
Generally the Principate period, visual examples seem to suggest early.
Interesting evolution
Prefect: Praetorian lead
Legate / Legatus Legionis: Legion lead
Dominius: Lictors lead (senate guard)
Prefectus Urbanus: Urbanae Cohortes (Roman police)
Prefectai: Germanic Guard lead
Dux Militaris: oversees all of legions
Dux Civilis: oversees: Urbanae and lictors
Legatus Lanius: oversees Frumentarii
What's your source for a position named Legatus Lanius? I'm pretty sure the frumentarii were independently led by Princeps Peregrinorum.
Dux, as a rank, was not a position until the Dominate (Late Roman Empire) period.
The overall head of the Lictors was called the Magister Lictorum, while escort leads were called Primus.
In a church sermon guide there is a note that at the time of Constantine Christians were so significant in the Roman army that both Constantine and his rival was trying to recruit them. The rival Maxentius was less consistent and convincing in his appeal to the Christians.
So why were the Christians so so significant and numerous? The claim is that they took the lower administrative posts, the unpopular administration jobs and allowed non Christians to jump their rank. They also were honest and so won the support of people above and below them. Because of their mostly secret faith they would volunteer to man the gates on Roman religious holydays, etc. To the Pagan Romans this duty was onerous as they were missing both the party and the chance to make significant political contacts at the ceremonies. Keeping your head down and taking the jobs others did not want grew their numbers right under Rome's nose.
Which US Captain commands 500 men?
Great question
Navy Captain?
500 men would be more like a battalion, commanded by a Major.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 Navy Captain (O-6) is equivalent to ground forces Colonel.
mine commanded 430 something before people got recycled.
Glad to see nothing change for officers since antiquity. Your best time as officer is junior grade all the way until you get full train track. After that is either get out and do something else or get boredom with paperworks.
Cool, thanks!
A Roman legion actually would've been more equivalent to a US Army division, or even a small corps, than to a brigade.
Size wise, yeah, it had around the same number of troops as a modern American brigade. But we're talking about a world that had maybe 5% of today's population. Back then, armies were around 20,000 to 50,000 strong. *Functionally*, a Roman legion carried the weight and performed the tasks of a modern American division or corps.
Fascinating
😎☠️😎AWESOME AWESOME VID. Thank u for all the hard work for such an educational and entertaining vid. Keep up the KILLER work BROTHER
😎😎😎☠️☠️☠️😎😎😎
Try with less hieroglyphs please
What about "prefectus evocati" ?
and I was just doing some research on military ranks from ancient times for the Civ like video game I am developing...
Cool, are you an independant dev?
@@Alexis-iz9km
Yes, indeed.
let's say... with a team of gamers such as me.
I intend to create a great franchise with this game.
@@SkyFly19853 Nice, if you have a link, website or anything, i'm curious to see what you are doing :)
@@Alexis-iz9km true, this thing hes doing seems pretty interesting
@@Alexis-iz9km
Sorry for late reply.
I did not even get the notification.
I will be happy to share the link when the game is ready to release.
at the moment, I can only talk about it on UA-cam.
but if you follow me on UA-cam, you don't miss the updates when there are any.
How do this career ladder changed in the 3rd Century when senators no longer hold military positions?
Formally the cursus honorum was still in place, but the senatorial Tribunes, that only served for future politic career, were only formally attached to military units, and were no more part of the chain of command.