answersLogoWhite

0

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

FranFran
I've made my fair share of mistakes, and if I can help you avoid a few, I'd sure like to try.
Chat with Fran
SteveSteve
Knowledge is a journey, you know? We'll get there.
Chat with Steve
ProfessorProfessor
I will give you the most educated answer.
Chat with Professor
More answers

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
User Avatar

There is no such thing as a century of 100 men in the Roman army. A century consisted of 80 men. It was commanded by a centurion. Do not be misled by the word "century". It as nothing to do with the number 100 in army terms.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
User Avatar

There was actually no military unit consisting of one hundred soldiers. You might be thinking of a centurion, but despite the name, the lowest ranking centurion was in charge of only eighty men.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
User Avatar

A roman officer in command of 100 men was called a Centurion
(In Latin "Cent" means 100)

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago
User Avatar

A centurion, but only in the very Early Roman Republic, after that a centurion commanded 80 men.

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago
User Avatar

A centurion

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
User Avatar

a category

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Roman officer in command of 100 soilders?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp