How many people are there in a century?

[andrewt]

Most of the dictionaries and other mainstream stuff say that a century is comprised of 100 men. My professor, however, told my class that centuries only had 60 men. Looking at various sources in the Internet, I found out that many sites had 80 men while many others have 60.

I'm wondering at these discrepancies. I'm thinking that it might have started at 60 but became 80 sometime after. I'm not sure about the 100. I think that number is wrong and people only think a century has 100 men because century currently stands for 100 in standard English.

Does anybody know why some sources say 60 and some say 80 and give a brief background on it?

[Rosacrux]

Basic organization of a legion:

Usually a Legion (in late Republic) numbered anywhere from 4.800 to 6.000 men*. A legion was divided into 10 cohorts (480 to 600 men each) and each cohort was divided into 3 maniples (160 to 200 men each). Each maniple was divided into two centuries (80 to 100 men each).


*note that in that period the strength of a Roman legion was double that number, because another similar (numrically) body of allied forces was attached to the Roman legion. That means that a "legion" would have anything from 9600 to 12.000 men in it and that the standard consul army of 2 legions was a body of 19.200 to 24.000 men - and still we are not counting several bodies of auxilliaries that were attached to the legion but not a part of it's organization.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Century does mean 100 but in Roman military terms it represented a fighting force of 80 men.

There have been a few suggestions why this is. Two possibles are:

1) Roman society was original organised in to many groups of 100 men (Centuries) which were a sub division of the roman Tribes and they operated as a voting block in the Centuriate Curiata.
So when a Roman army was raised it was organised on social grounds with Centuries being picked from the Tribes and added to the Cohorts and Legion. The head man of each Century was the Centurion.
With the reorganisation of the military over hundreds of years the traditional names of each military unit and officer were retained but the numbers serving were changed.
(A bit like Fusiliers, Grenadiers or Cavalry units in the British Army. They have changed function but the names have stuck.)

2) Another suggestion is that each Century did contain 100 men but only 80 were actualy fighting men with another 20 being camp and baggage train support to the 80, not counted in the units actual fighting strength.
These extra staff would be clerks, blacksmiths, surgeons, cooks, retainers and baggage handlers not expected to fight except as a last resort.

There are other suggestions and theories but nobody is absolutely certain.

Hope this helps.

Intrepid Sidekick
~ CA Staff ~

[andrewt]

Where did 60 come from then? A few other sources, including my Roman Civ professor said there were 60 soldiers, arranged in 3 rows of 20 soldiers each.

As for the centuriate assembly, in the late Republic, it was determined by wealth so some could've 3 people while others could've thousands but they have 1 vote each.

[Parmenio]

It varied a lot. 60-80 was typical, but I've seen very occassional circumstances of the maniples at double strength, so perhaps as high as 120.

That said it was not uncommon for campaigning legions to fight with units at half strength owning to attrition, so perhaps 30-40 wouldn't be outside the range either.

[The Wizard]

Maniples were early Republican organisations - we're talking about the organisation of a Marian/Caesarian/Imperial legion... which were organised into cohorts made up of centuries... each centurie was made up of 100 men in the beginning (hence the name "centurion"), and those 100 men were again organised into units of 10 men that shared a tent - a decurie. These men also had a commander, called - logically - a decurion. Don't ask me how many men were in a cohort, though... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Intrepid Sidekick]

"As for the centuriate assembly, in the late Republic, it was determined by wealth so some could've 3 people while others could've thousands but they have 1 vote each."

Yes this is true. I was talking of the very early republic when talking about the Centuries. As you said, each century did have one vote based on the majority of opinion (This opinion could be the result of bribes or threats) within that century. Centuries were originally based on family, class and wealth. The centuries were sub divisions of "Tribes"

As Rome expanded and citizenship was granted to more people there was a lot of "making do" and some centuries would be filled with plebs while others were, as you said, filled by only a dozen or so people (probably Equites or Patricians). This often lead to some very dodgy voting decisions and can be seen as one contributory part of the reason for the Republics collapse in to Dictatorship and Empire.

As for the 60 to a Century in the Roman army, I wont try and argue with your history professor. He knows more than I do. My guess though is that this may have been as result of attrition, requirements of the time or the particular organisation of the Roman Army of a particular general, period or place.

AFAIK though a classic full strength Roman Legionary Century after the reforms of Marius was 80 men. With double strength centuries of 160 each in the first cohort.

There is way too much of this topic (a fascinating topic) to discuss at length here. I was just trying to point to possible origins of the military term "Century".

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Intrepid Sidekick
~ CA Staff ~

[spmetla]

Glad to see someone as well versed in history as Intrepid Sidekick on the dev team.

Keep the rest of the devs in line, k http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The Wizard]

Hm, so the term centurie has other origins than the number centum... I didn't know that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ Oct. 23 2003,12:34)]Glad to see someone as well versed in history as Intrepid Sidekick on the dev team.

Keep the rest of the devs in line, k http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I bet it is the marketing team we have to worry about, not the devs.

"I think if we put horns on the helms of the Romans and Greek we could attract a much more diverse audience. Now about my idea to give the huns helmets with pointy spikes, you remember we were talking about it just last week..."

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

"Yes, and Praetorians with huge two-handed swords are far more interesting than those boring real ones Oh, don't forget to armor them in full plate"

or

"How about we take that barbarian with the big axe-thingy over there and make him look like one of those big orcs in the LotR movies? That would attract a lot more people, those LotR movies are huge cash-ins"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Scipio]

It is ussually 80 but thats for a standard consular army I mean an armythat is understrenght might want to even out the army by lowering or increasing the size of the centurie.

[andrewt]

I got a reply back from the TA since I couldn't find the professor's e-mail address.

This is from Michael Grant's "The Army of the Caesars". He said that the century probably orginally consisted of 100 men but it was around 80 during the battle of Actium and the empire of Augustus. The book is from 107 BC to the fall of the empire so it's probably 80 for the most part of the time covered in the game.

[Scipio]

Exactly but ther is always a chance of a legion needing to change the number in a century do to different conditions so you really cant say theres a set number that all consuls used but i geusse 80 is the average number and probobly the number that ca incorperates into rtw

[andrewt]

Well, if you build one from scratch, it's probably going to start at 80. That's the number CA probably should use then.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 23 2003,19:40)]I bet it is the marketing team we have to worry about, not the devs.
Possibly true; but without our talented (but much-maligned) marketing staff we quite likely wouldn't be making these games, and certainly wouldn't have the budget to do them justice... Happiness lies in the middle road http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Parmenio]

When it comes to marketing departments I'm with the late Douglas Adams.

...a bunch of mindless jerks who were first against the wall when the revolution came.

[Pellinor]

How come the Marketing profession always gets such a bad press?

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Pellinor @ Oct. 27 2003,06:44)]How come the Marketing profession always gets such a bad press?
because they are often the guys that want to sell out at the issues that has made the person/organization/company/whatever great.
And in this case, they are the ones that wanted the Pharaohnic units in the game.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Marketing = http://www.ie2.u-psud.fr/public/images/dessin/bd/hagar.gif

[the Black Prince]

the trouble with Rome and the Legions is that over time the military changed, was reformed, or the whole basis ignored to get as many men on the field as possible in times of crisis.

century means 100, this we know, but many accounts, especially later ones do put the number of men in a legion a century at 80 instead of a hundred. i can give you a basic outline of a standard legion
10 men = tent party
8 tent parties = 1 century
6 centuries = 1 cohort
10 cohorts = 1 legion = 4800

but even this isn't acurate as at the time of this organisation, the 1st, and most important cohort, was in fact a double cohort, and then you have to add in support staff, auxilaries scouts cavalry, the legate tribunes etc etc etc giving us about 5500 for 1 legion.
but this changed constantly. and was flexible. cohorts and even centuries were trained to operate as units independant of the legion. there were battles when cohorts from 2 or 3 different legions were mashed together to form an army - usually to respond to an emergancy (such as boudicca and watling street)

if each cohort and century could be independant, then it would need its own support staff - a doctor, clerk, blacksmith, you know the sort. and this is probably where the extra 20 men to make a full century = 100 comes from.

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Intrepid Sidekick @ Oct. 22 2003,07:48)]Century does mean 100 but in Roman military terms it represented a fighting force of 80 men.

There have been a few suggestions why this is. Two possibles are:

1) Roman society was original organised in to many groups of 100 men (Centuries) which were a sub division of the roman Tribes and they operated as a voting block in the Centuriate Curiata.
So when a Roman army was raised it was organised on social grounds with Centuries being picked from the Tribes and added to the Cohorts and Legion. The head man of each Century was the Centurion.
With the reorganisation of the military over hundreds of years the traditional names of each military unit and officer were retained but the numbers serving were changed.
(A bit like Fusiliers, Grenadiers or Cavalry units in the British Army. They have changed function but the names have stuck.)

2) Another suggestion is that each Century did contain 100 men but only 80 were actualy fighting men with another 20 being camp and baggage train support to the 80, not counted in the units actual fighting strength.
These extra staff would be clerks, blacksmiths, surgeons, cooks, retainers and baggage handlers not expected to fight except as a last resort.

There are other suggestions and theories but nobody is absolutely certain.

Hope this helps.

Intrepid Sidekick
~ CA Staff ~
Very good point, a lot of people forget the baggage handlers, cooks etc that are essentially part of the army

......Orda

[The Wizard]

....so we should expect valour 9 cooks in the game? YUM

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Pellinor @ Oct. 27 2003,03:44)]How come the Marketing profession always gets such a bad press?
Because many marketers always want to mass market everything. I've had a few marketing classes and the warning the professors always gave us was somewhere along the lines, "If you try to be something to everybody, you become nothing to everybody." That means you should focus on a market you are good at and stick to it. If you want to cater to somebody else, make another product. Otherwise, your product will be flawed to everybody.

Entertainment marketers are some of the most egregious offenders when it comes to this. They ruin every comic book, novel, movie, TV show and videogame that tries to be realistic. The problem is that if you want to a game for historical purists, you make a game for them. If you want a game for the mass market, you make a game for them. You don't start making a historical game then ruin it by adding things for the mass market. A niche product is a niche product is a niche product. If you try to mass market it, you aren't sure whether the mainstream will buy it and you end up losing your niche.

I like strategy games and I want this game to be historical. If it's going to be fiction, I might as well stick to Warcraft3. There's a reason I will be buying both games and it's because one is fantasy and the other is historical. If they're both going to be fantasy, what's the point, then?

Case in point, I didn't know that the horns on Vikings' helmets were unrealistic. Once I knew, I was disappointed. I still bought the game but if there were a lot of mistakes like that, I might not have since it destroys the historical feel of the game.

[lonewolf371]

A book I had published by Westpoint described things a little bit differently, here is what it said interpreted a little bit by me. It might be adjusted by my memory also, so this is not a direct quote.

The original legion was, obviously, the phalanx legion of early republican or possibly even Etruscan Rome, which consisted of 6 rows with 1000 men in each row, for a total of 6000 men. Each row had 10 centuries. In the Manipular Legion of High (Middle) Republican Rome, each century had 80 men, two centuries made a maniple, and individual fighting unit within one of the three lines of heavy infantry in the Manipular Legion. The three lines of heavy infantry with roughly 10 or so maniples each althought the last line, the triarii, were usually at "reduced" strength compared to the other lines. Then it evolved into the Cohortal Legion which lasted up through the Rome of Constantine when new reforms of the army came so often that a definate shape never again took place. This legion consisted of 10 cohorts of 600 men each, or 6 centuries, which made for 6000 men. Four cohorts would generally line up in the front of the battle formation and the other three would make two seperate rows behind them.

[lonewolf371]

A book I had published by Westpoint described things a little bit differently, here is what it said interpreted a little bit by me. It might be adjusted by my memory also, so this is not a direct quote.

The original legion was, obviously, the phalanx legion of early republican or possibly even Etruscan Rome, which consisted of 6 rows with 1000 men in each row, for a total of 6000 men. Each row had 10 centuries. In the Manipular Legion of High (Middle) Republican Rome, each century had 80 men, two centuries made a maniple, and individual fighting unit within one of the three lines of heavy infantry in the Manipular Legion. The three lines of heavy infantry with roughly 10 or so maniples each althought the last line, the triarii, were usually at "reduced" strength compared to the other lines. Then it evolved into the Cohortal Legion which lasted up through the Rome of Constantine when new reforms of the army came so often that a definate shape never again took place. This legion consisted of 10 cohorts of 600 men each, or 6 centuries, which made for 6000 men. Four cohorts would generally line up in the front of the battle formation and the other three would make two seperate rows behind them.