Leaderboard

Now we run into an inescapable problem. Many assume that the Romans used a comparable pyramidical system of ranks - it seems obvious to us because modern systems are so similar and prevalent, not to mention easy to understand. But our organisational needs vary somewhat from those the Romans deemed important. Any specific comparison is not recommended. The equivalent ranks mentioned in Wikipedia are nonsense. There was no direct equivalence because ancient and modern use different tactics, organisation, and authority. Nowhere in the Roman sources is there a convenient listing of ranks. Vegetius merely mentions that troops 'rise through the ranks' and rotate among the cohorts. The thing is, our needs evolved from the use of gunpowder on the battlefield and the rapidly increasing need to manage a battlefield rather than lead it in the manner that the Romans used to. Centurions had far more authority to act on initiative than today - necessarily, because the Romans had not developed battlefield management and did not keep their generals at the back directing the battle. They never created a corps of runners, or any sort of overall communication system - messages were always sent ad hoc and it is mentioned that using runners was a risky venture due to casualties or mistakes. These days we need to spread our forces out, to prevent large casualties from single hits, to prevent flanking movements, and to deny territory to the enemy. The weight of fire that firearms development has made a difference too. Whereas in the days of muskets men were massed for maximising the short range inaccurate smoothbore flintlocks, the basic level of soldiering went down to the 'squad' in WW2 and now automatic weapons are making the smaller 'team' more usable. Back two thousand years and the squad is a disaster waiting to happen, easily overwhelmed by numbers, and thus the Romans group together in larger numbers. The only reason that basic units like the century were of around a hundred men (or a bit smaller in imperial times) was that was as many men as a single man could lead in battle conditions. If the Romans had been able to have one man lead the entire army in one go, they would have happily done that. Note how senior legionary officers behave. Caesar recalls how he ranged behind the line, urging men on, forcing them back into line when they wavered, or when he felt confident, picking up a sword and shield to fight alongside his men in the front rank. Try doing that today. There is a case for believing the Romans had a different system of rank - I've written often about this - based on temporary status in the same way a politician gathered offices during his career, but for this answer, avoid direct parallels. There are no NCO's as such, but there are soldiers with better status and some responsibility. Centurions are junior officers with their own hierarchy and social class. The remainder are senior officers, not career military men as such, though some did serve in that manner, but more often politicians or hopeful politicians serving their time to gain military kudos. If you want to create a sci-fi story and don't need precise Roman classifications, then adopt whatever names you need. You might even combine ancient and modern titles for added flavour. If this is a time travel scenario then your travellers are going to find a military system they would see some parallels in, but many nuances they did not expect. Always remember that money made the Roman world go round, and their military was no exception, effectively independent of the state though under the command of its representatives.