"Romans" or "soldiers" in Act 23:10, 23, 31

[Thomas]

"Isn't it awkward and redundant to read "Romans" in those passages"
Not that I know of.
'Romans' there means 'soldiers.'  There's no redundancy in those 3 passages.

Thanks for the reply, but no, "Romans" doesn't mean "soldiers."  The Peshitta has another word for "soldiers," which is actually a loanword from Greek--אֵסטרַטִיָוטָא (estratiyuwta)--used 9 times in the book of Acts alone.  So I see no reason why you would claim that "Romans" means "soldiers."  Can you provide the slightest support for this notion?

In regards to my assertion that the Peshitta reading "Romans" was redundant, here is what I meant.

In Act 23:23, the chiliarch / commanding officer--obviously a Roman himself--is quoted as saying, "Go and prepare two hundred רֻהומָיֵא / στρατιώτας to go to Caesarea."  Does it make more sense for this to read "Romans" or "soldiers."  Why would the commander speak of his people as "Romans" instead of "soldiers"?