Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Roman army - ranks (basic info please!)
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
An easy question for all you lot!! Can someone very briefly run me through the roman army ranks - my particular concern is tryign to get my head round the 'class basis' of them.
Do I take it that an enlisted legionary (a pleb)(ie, lower class) could, over the years, make it to centurion, and that a centurion was, effectively, a non-commissioned officer?
Could 'plebs' rise even higher? Could they ever become 'gentlemen' (ie, 'officers'?)
And what about the 'patricians' (ie, upper class)(and should that really include the equestrian ranks, and what about the nobiles, let alone the optimes - oh, it's so complicated!).
What were the army ranks appropriate to someone who wasn't a pleb/lower class? Did they go in at a particular 'junior officer' rank, like a subaltern/lietenant would, and what where the ranks thereafter?
Very many thanks for any enlightnement! If this isn't the right place for this question, I'll repost on War and Conflicts. Not sure how it classifies! -
Message 2
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Hi Eliza,
Yup - it's all a bit complicated! I think it also matters what period of Rome that we're looking at. There's no way I could answer this off the top of my head without getting most of it wrong, but if no-one answers today I'll bring a book in to work tomorrow from home and let you know what it says.
Oh, one thing I do remember reading which I found quite surprising, was that it was actually possible for a Roman soldier to avoid action during his military career.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 3
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Eliza
The Roman army went through many changes during its history and it would be impossible to give one answer to your question that encompassed all the changes.
If you mention which era you are interested in there are many on here that could help.
But for a very brief analyisis.
The Republican Roman army was early on basically class based but every Legionary was a land owning citizen and officers of high rank were politicians. The wealthier you were the better equipment you could afford and this dictated where you fought within the Legionary line up.
This changed during the latter Republic where training and age dictated where you fought within the Legion.
The wealthy equestrian class made up the officer classes and the cavalry, but most cavalry during the Republic was recruited from ally states.
By the time of the early Empire it was perfectly possible for a pleb to rise up through the ranks to become a senior officer, in fact the Praefectus Castrorum (second in command of a Legion) was an ex-ranker, and probably a pleb. Most officers were still from the equestrian class but also full time career soldiers.
Generally from the late Republic onwards the criteria for advancement within the military was purely ability. Any healthy reasonably tall citizen could join the army and from there it was possible to rise to any rank, even Emperor!
But from the mid 3rd century on the situation changes totally, every freeborn individual within the Empire is a citizen and nobody wants to be in the military anymore. Only about 1% of the roman army was actually from Italy. The organisation had changed yet again and ranks with it.
By the time of the late Empire there was yet another organisation for the army, with cavalry holding the dominant ranks.
It is impossible to compare ranks using modern terminology, for instance there is no modern rank that equates to Centurion, it was a combination of NCO and junior officers as well as what we would regard as staff officers. -
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Hi Eliza,
As RF says a lot depends on 鈥榳hen鈥. The army in 200 BC was a very different creature to the military in 300 AD. Your use of the word 鈥榩lebs鈥 suggests a Republican time period. I鈥檓 mainly concerned with the army after the invasion of Britain. If you want to continue the thread, and why not, you better decide on a period of interest.
Based on the sources available I imagine there are many interpretations. EV鈥檚 differs in some respects to mine. Let鈥檚 assume we are a British based Roman legion helping with the construction of Hadrian鈥檚 Wall.
Our legion had a full strength of 5500 professional infantry divided into 10 cohorts. Each cohort had 6 centuries (80 men), except the first cohort which had 5 double centuries (160 men) probably because as well as fighting men it included the immunes who were excused ordinary duties: administrators, priests, surveyors, engineers, smiths and so forth. We had 120 mounted scouts.
The CO was a legionary legate (legatus legionis) of senatorial rank on a 3 year posting. He was on his way to being consul if he lived long enough and didn鈥檛 blot his copybook. He was supported by 6 military tribunes also on 3 year postings; the senior in rank (though not in age) was the tribunus laticlavius also of the senatorial class, who would hope to be given his own legion in a decade or so. The others, tribuni angusticlavii, were of equestrian rank. If they did well they might be made COs of an auxiliary regiment. In time emperors became suspicious of the senate and equestrians became legionary commanders.
The senior promoted soldier was the camp prefect (praefectus castrorum) who was an ex-senior centurion 鈥 who was in charge of organization, training etc. This post is said to have been abolished about 200 AD. The senior serving centurion of the senior cohort was called the pilus primus; he also had the right to attend councils of war.
The men were enlisted for 25 years. Each century had a centurion (who lived in a two room flat at end of barrack block), an optio (second in command) and a variety of other 鈥楴COs鈥 such as a tessarius (who organized guard duties) and a signifier (standard bearer and treasurer of burial club). The centurions were the back bone of the army. Most were promoted rankers but some (specialists perhaps) are said to have entered the army at that rank. Centurions were promoted through the cohorts but were occasionally given commands, and there were plenty of opportunity for positions on the provincial governor鈥檚 staff or as senior officials in some regions of the province.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 5
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
TP
I basically agree with the organisation that you describe, but I do dispute your maths!
Nine cohorts of 480 men and one of 800 men would give a full strength legion a total of 5,120. Granted the addition of musicians officers and specialist would have increased this paper total.
What is evident from surviving pay records is that every unit was under strength, much like the armies of today. It is probable that most Legions averaged around 4,000 men and much less after a campaign.
There is also evidence that officers falsified records to claim the wages of men that never existed.
Of course by the end of Septimius Severus reign in AD 211 this organisation had changed again. The legion was bigger and the senatorial class had been removed from military service, the legion was now commanded by Praefefecti Legiones rather than a Legatus Legionis
So how commands a legion and which rank is composed from which social class is very dependent on when we are talking about.
If we are just referring to Roman troops station on Hadrians wall then we still have massive change. From the initial builders being the elite of the Roman army to at the end the troops being third rate border troops recruited from the local population who were not good enough to join the regular army. -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Hi EV,
Well arithmetic may not be my strong point! But I agree legions may well have been understrength and by the late Empire even their establishment may well have been much smaller.
One thing I didn't agree with in your first posting was the role of the praefectus castrorum as second in command of the legion. Surely this was the tribunus laticlavius, despite his inexperience? Perhaps you were thinking of Poenius Postumus, who was praefectus castrorum of the Legion II Augusta, and got caught up in Boudicca's rebellion. Anyway I guess the wise commander took note of the views of all his senior 'professionals'.
Also I think that to say that wealthy equestrians made up the officer classes, is at least an over-simplification. Up to 200 AD (I think) the senatorial legate was always employed. Perhaps I had better check before I am too dogmatic.
Clearly you don't rate the 4th century limitanei very highly, but could they have been that bad. They fended off the Picts most of the time.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Hi TP
Calling the Praefectus Castrorum the second in command is I agree open to question, some call him the assistant to the commander or even the third in command, depending on which modern historian is writing the book!
His role as you correctly point out was administrative, but he was generally left in command of the camp or base when the legion was deployed.
Also I think that to say that wealthy equestrians made up the officer classes, is at least an over-simplification.
听
Of course as I said to start with my rundown is very simplified, but the equestrian class supplied the bulk of the Tribuni officers within a legion, if officer is the correct word.
Even before Severus the two Egyptian Legions were commanded by a Praefecti Legionis of equestrian rank, rather than the normal senatorial ranked Legatus Legionis.
Clearly you don't rate the 4th century limitanei very highly, but could they have been that bad.
听
It is not really my rating but how they were rated by the Roman army, defiantly third rate in terms of training, pay and equipment.
Top of the pile was the field army units ranging from the elite guar units of the Domestici et Protectores and Scholae units, to the average legio and auxilia.
Second rate were the Comitatenses and Pseudocomittatenses.
And third rate were the Milites, Limites and Gentes of the border units.
I do not know what units were on Hadrians wall during the late 4th and early 5th centuries, were they Limites or did they still retain their old cohort names?
Of cousre we have not even mentioned late Empire titles such as Dux and Comes. -
Message 8
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:22 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 6
A very quick list - from bottom up, Imperial Legion of the Early Principate.
GENERALLY PLEBIANS:
Tiro (Recruit)
Gregarius (Ordinary soldier)
Immunis (Specialist)
Tesserarius (Officer of the Watch)
Optio ('Centurion in waiting')
CENTURIONS - PLEBS OR EQUESTRIANS:
Hastatus Posterior
Hastatus Prior
Princeps Posterior
Princeps Prior
Pilus Posterior
Pilus Prior
GENERALLY EQUESTRIANS:
Primus Pilum (Chief Centurion)
Praefectus Castrorum (Camp Prefect, 3rd I/C)
EQUESTRIANS:
Tribunus Augusticlavius (Junior Tribune)
PATRICIANS:
Tribunus Laticlavius (Senior Tribune, 2 I/C)
Legatus Legionis (Legion commander)
There were also the standard bearers - the signifers (cohort standards), imaginifer (bearer of the image of the Emperor) and aquilifer (eagle-bearer). I'm not sure quite where they fitted into the scheme, but I'm guessing they were between tesserarius and optio, with the exception of the aquilifer who was probably equivalent to a junior centurion.
Auxiliary Infantry were organised in much the same way, although being organised into units of 1000 or 500 they were commanded by a Tribune or Prefect (frequently a promoted legionary centurion). Auxiliary centurions were frequently drafted in from the legions, since being able to read and write was a qualification for promotion to the centurionate, and this was a talent relatively rare amongst the non-citizens from which the auxilia were recruited.
CAVALRY:
Eques (Trooper)
Sesquiplicarius (Junior officer)
Duplicarius (Middle rank officer)
Decurion (Troop Commander)
Praefectus Alae (Regimental commander).
Cavalry were primarily auxiliaries, so only the Prefect and possibly Decurions would be Equestrians, the rest non-citizens (lower than plebs!!)
The Praetorian Guard had roughly the same rank-system as a legion, but there were more cohorts, and two Patrician Prefects instead of a legate. -
Message 9
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Hi Anglo-Norman,
Thanks. I should think Eliza has got more than she bargained for by now. Only small points but it's tribunus angusticlavius, not 'augusticlavius'. Also you describe optio as 'centurion in waiting' although the rank 'optio ad spem ordinis' is usually translated in this way. There was no pilus posterior in the 1st cohort of a legion.
Finally, and I know we are struggling a bit with ranks here, was the primus pilum really an equestrian? I know that this has been a debated point and I'd be interested if you have an expert reference.
Do you know a good modern book on the Imperial Army? I have Yann le Bohec's 'The Imperial Roman Army' published by Batsford and translated from the French. Also the little book by Graham Webster produced by the Grosvenor Museum, Chester - but that is ages old now.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 10
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
A cheap and very informative book is 鈥淭he Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome鈥 published by The Wargames Research Group.
It is getting a bit old now and does not go into any great depth other than the essentials. But it has always been a mine of information and was groundbreaking when published.
And more importantly put a lot of historian false presumptions to bed.
It has receive a fair bit of criticism for being written by amateurs, mostly from established historian who did not take kindly to lesser mortals getting the facts right.
It also contains one of the best breakdowns of late imperial shield patterns taken from the Notitia Dignitatum, something that to my knowledge has not been improved on since. -
Message 11
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Thursday, 31st January 2008
Very good Anglo-Norman
Now describe the tunics of each please !
-
Message 12
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:27 GMT, in reply to Xenos5 in message 11
Xenos5, you're not trying to cause trouble are you?
TwinProbe,
As far as I can tell, there seems to be some debate (as there is with everything in the Roman Army!!) over ang/augusticlavius. All my books, I think, say 'aug'. I confess I was being a little too lax in my use of the term optio. It is frequently used as shorthand for optio ad spem ordinis, but you are quite right that there were other classes of optio - optio valetuniarius (hospital administrator) for example.
It's a moot point as the the social rank of the primus pilum. There is a certain logic that the more senior the centurion, the more likely it is that he would be an equestrian (if only because he was more likely to be able to afford to buy his way up a rank). In retrospect, however, suggesting that they were generally equestrians was pushing it a bit! Of course, this also raises the vexed question of promotion within the centurionate - did they go up or sideways? Or both? Was the princeps prior of the first cohort senior to the princeps prior of the second cohort? And so on...
Books - I'm quite taken with Adrian Goldsworthy's 'Complete Roman Army' - it is nothing of the sort, but still a comprehensive and scholarly review. Alas, from an academic viewpoint he doesn't cite references (although his 'Roman Army at War' does). Osprey have done some good ones - their 'Warrior' series (although one or two bits are a little out of date), 'Elite' book on Roman Army tactics and 'Fortress' book on legionary fortresses are useful. If you don't suffer from seasickness, 'Roman Britain and the Roman Navy' (DJP Mason) is a class act. For the history of a particular unit, 'The Second Augustan Legion and the Roman Military Machine' (various authors, National Museums and Galleries of Wales) is superb. 'The Roman Army 31BC - AD 337' (Brian Campbell) is a terrific collection of contemporary sources - extracts from histories, transcripts of letters and diplomata etc.
You might want to have a look at this thread from the Roman army Talk forum: -
Message 13
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Thank you very much indeed for all your replies, which I am slowly ingesting and digesting.
Many thanks - ES -
Message 14
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 1st February 2008
PS - my timeframe is probably post-British-occupation, but pre-end-of-Empire.
Was there any tradition of 'second sons' going into the army, while the first born stayed in Rome to run their cursus honoarius (sp?), or did all the males weave in and out of politics and the army (depending on ability presumably!)
(By the way, did wealthy Romans go in for primogeniture, or was the family loot shared out amongst the males - assumign the females got dowries?) -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:22 GMT, in reply to ElizaShaw in message 14
Service in the army, first as senior tribune, and then a bit later in his career as legate WAS part of the standard cursus honorum (although there were exceptions - IIRC there's no evidence that Vitellius did his stint in the army).
In the Early Principate, command of an army typically went by default to the local governor, but appointments could be made by talent. Vespasian was dragged out of semi-exile for the Jewish War more or less because he was the only general of talent that Nero hadn't bumped off! -
Message 16
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 1st February 2008
To Anglo Norman,
Delighted to read the lists. I have books about the Roman army which confused more than informed..... um.... what exctaly do you mean by the First Principate?
Would the cavalry terms have been used during J. Caesar's time - and were the units called 'wings' then? (The Latin word escapes me for the moment; you'll probably know what I mean.)
Regards, P. -
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Hi AngloNorman,
I hoped you might reply to the original post as soon as I saw it!
The list of books looks great, although I can't believe that Adrian Goldsworthy would omit references in a book called "Complete Roman Army" - it must have cost a lot in sales. One book you didn't list that I really enjoyed - although it's probably really dated now - was "The Roman Soldier" by G.R. Watson.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Do you know where I can buy a replica late Republican helmet from? I've decided to cycle into work but refuse to wear a modern cycle helmet as that would make me look silly and anyway, they don't protect you against slashing sword strokes from rabid Gauls... -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Hi Anglo-Norman,
Thanks for your many helpful suggestions. I think that the ang/augusticlavius question must be resolved in favour of 'angusticlavius'. The Latin for 'narrow' is angustus.
The equestrian military tribunes were entitled to a narrow purple stripe as opposed to the broad purple stripe (latus clavus) for those of senatorial rank.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 19
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:12 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 18
For the record, Roman military tunics of the 1st/2nd century Ad seem to have been made by sewing two squares of cloth of between 1m and 1.5m sq together on three sides, leaving gaps for head and arms in the sewn up sides. They were sleeveless, the appearance of sleeves coming from the bunching caused by the belt. Colour is a matter of fierce debate, but probably white and/or red. My favourite theory, put forward by Graham Sumner and which seems to match the available evidence, is that each soldier had three tunics: white unbleached wool for day-to-day wear, bleached white for parade and red to be worn with armour.
RainbowfFolly, dod you want a Coolus or a Montefortino style? The Coolus is a bit more stylish, but the Montefortino might fit better over your Pyramid Hat. -
Message 20
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 1st February 2008
Hi AngloNorman,
As I'm not too "au fait" with military apparel I only really know the Montefortino. But I want a Coolus now and not just because of the great name!
Time to ditch the pyramid hat I think. Hossam definitely lied to me when he said it would improve my luck with ladies...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 21
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Saturday, 2nd February 2008
Right, now we are over the excitement over Roman military fashion, could someone have a go at my post 16 as I want to know.
Regards, P. -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 2nd February 2008
Hi Priscilla,
Sorry for the delay but you did ask Anglo-Norman specifically, and I think he said the 鈥榚arly鈥 Principate.
The Romans citizens really hated the idea of the return of kings. Emperor (imperator) really meant 鈥榞eneral鈥 and only later came to mean supreme leader. Hunting around for a suitable title Augustus came up with princeps or 鈥榗hief鈥, and his period of rule is therefore called the principate. In theory he was 鈥榝irst among equals鈥 but this was highly theoretical.
This legal fiction continued for some time. I don鈥檛 know a great deal about the constitution of the Roman republic but I doubt if any emperor after Marcus Aurelius ever thought of himself, even in theory, as a servant of the senate and Roman people. If you spoke to Diocletian or Constantine (which you probably would never be able to) they would have been dominus or 鈥榣ord鈥.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 2nd February 2008
Just a slight aside on "princeps". The word was well chosen by Octavian while he was "remodelling" his identity as a part of stating his public intention never to step down from office.
His first move in this matter was - like all good little demi-gods - to ask his mammy. Atia was the one who recommended "Caesar" as a title, but she - and a few other pals who he consulted - advised against the senate's offer of appointment to dictator. It had, by then, rather unhappy associations, especially in their own family. More importantly it reflected a relationship between senate and "top man" that wasn't one Octavian wanted to perpetuate. The dictatorship was a contract given by the senate to an individual. Its terms, even when open ended, implied a time limit, and also cemented the view that no one could outrank the senate indefinitely without expecting trouble (check out great-uncle Julius).
Octavian, who had already begun calling himself Augustus (a name originally designed to remind the senate after his consulship ended that he still commanded the allegiance of the army), hit upon the name "princeps", one that had become an almost derogatory term in Rome at the time, and one popular when describing upstarts, especially in the ranks.
The word comes from two latin roots "primus" (first) and "capare" (to be able). "Princeps" therefore literally means "the quality of being able to declare oneself best", and was used first to describe enemy leaders who Rome had faced in politics or battle and who had, by proving themselves capable, risen to a position of respect amongst their peers (and were therefore often very good targets for execution if defeated). Soldiers had adapted the term to apply to any uppity buck in the cohort who fancied himself as a general, and there is no doubt that Octavian knew this too.
It was therefore a masterstroke. It had the term "first" in it. But better, it at once advertised to the senate that he was changing the rules of dictatorship and the relationship that hitherto had defined them, and advertised to his most important followers (the legionaries) that he knew full well he was being audacious in what he was up to. This, we can assume, would only have endeared him to them all the more. It is telling that he always referred to himself as "princeps" from that point on when dealing directly with the military, just as it is that they in turn always referred to him as "emperor".
But in the end of the day, subtle and all as it was, it was essentially an "in-joke". One can see why his successors chose the "emperor" tag in preference. -
Message 24
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Saturday, 2nd February 2008
Thank you for that Nordman and the other als. It's going to be a problem explaining this to my house painter with whom I'm sort of talking history.... that started when I was referred to as 'she who must be obeyed.'
Same princeps, really.
Regards, P. -
Message 25
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 3rd February 2008
Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:55 GMT, in reply to priscilla in message 24
Priscilla,
Sorry about not getting back, but I had an epileptic fit - my first in ages
- and I've been staying away from my laptop until my head recovers.
The Principate, depending on who you believe, covered the Roman Emperors up to either Domitian (81-96), Commodus (180-192) or Diocletian (284-305). There after the Empire became the Dominate.
I tend more towards assuming the Principate ended around the reign of Commodus. What you describe as the 'Early Principate' is therefore a matter of choice, but I tend to assume up to and including the Flavian Dynasty (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian 69-96). -
Message 26
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 3rd February 2008
ElizaShaw
PS - my timeframe is probably post-British-occupation, but pre-end-of-Empire.
Was there any tradition of 'second sons' going into the army, while the first born stayed in Rome to run their cursus honoarius (sp?), or did all the males weave in and out of politics and the army (depending on ability presumably!)
听
If the timeframe is early 5th century than most of the information given so far is of little use. The Roman army ranks and organisation had changed totally from the Early Empire.
Recruiting was a matter of obligation and conscription. Wealthy landowners were required to provide men for military service but they themselves were under no obligation to serve.
Sons of soldiers were required to serve, but most of the military was now recruited from outside the Empire. The largest proportion was German with plenty of Goths and other barbarians. Prisoners of war were also recruited and defeated enemies were a major source of manpower within the 5th century Roman army.
Military service was not considered a good career by the wealthy or poor 5th century Roman and most avoided it if they could. The rich provided others to serve and some poor cut off their own thumbs to avoid service, in fact self mutilation got so widespread that the army was forced to accept them, but a landowner was expected to supply two mutilated men in place of one able bodied man!
The Legion of the 4th and 5th century was now about 1,200 strong and cavalry had become the senior units along with the Auxilia Palatina.
The Legion was commanded by a Tribunus who was assisted by a Primicerius who was an ex ranker promoted through the ranks of centurions.
It is thought that the Legion had 6 Ordines each of two Centuria, one Centuria was commanded by a Ducenarius and the other by a Centenarius. The Ducenarius also apparently commanded the Ordines assisted by a Biarchus.
Each Centuria was now made up of ten squads of ten men (or ten squads of eight men, depending on the source).
Each ten man squad was called a Contubernia and led by a Caput Contuberii, who may have had the rank of Semissalis or that may have been a separate individual within the Contubernia.
There is a lot less firm evidence for the late Roman army compared to earlier times and a lot of this is conjecture. -
Message 27
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 4th February 2008
Hi Nordmann,
Did Augustus officially drop the "Senatus" from the title of "Princeps Senatus", or was it just shortened to "Princeps" for convenience?
hit upon the name "princeps", one that had become an almost derogatory term in Rome at the time, and one popular when describing upstarts, especially in the ranks.听
You couldn't point me in the right direction for some sources on this could you? A century or so before, "Princeps Senatus" was a prestigious title for a senator - what had gone wrong since? Actually, just looking at the Wikipedia page, I notice their list of "Princeps Senatus" (whilst probably not complete) peters out around 70BC only to resume with Augustus. So as you say, in the interim it appears something must have gone a bit pear-shaped in respect to the dignity associated with the title. Maybe it was simply that after all the civil wars, corruption and strife there was a shortage of senators who could meet the following criteria: ...The successful candidate had to be a patrician with an impeccable political record, respected by his fellow senators.听
Cheers,
RF -
Message 28
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 4th February 2008
Hi RF
It's mentioned in a few books, I believe, but the author I read who discusses the title in its own right is Mason Hammond in his "Augustan Principate in Theory and Practice during the Julio-Claudian Period".
In the opening chapter he discusses how extraordinary it seemingly was for Octavian to settle on such a title - apparently voluntarily. The word "princeps", he says, had traditionally been applied to "men who, without holding any extraordinary office, were nevertheless admitted by the public to be outstanding鈥. Up to the time of Marius and Sulla it had become, in fact, even more refined, indicating a man of senatorial rank and good patrician stock to whom others deferred, or a potent foe of Rome for whom the state had become obliged to show respect, even if they might never choose to make him an ally. Hannibal, for example, was termed a "prince of Carthage", and even Spartacus ("princeps ab servitium") had ironically acquired it.
It was Marius and Sulla between them, however, who managed to destroy the concept and make the term unpopular. Marius, who also styled himself "princeps", more or less ruined it for senators using the term with any much pride afterwards, so unpatrician and all as he had been. The majority of senators were filled with both revulsion against him for his lowly background and self-loathing in that they had so often to depend on him. Sulla, in his pogroms, finished the job by showing that a "senatorial princeps" deserved nothing by way of respect automatically, and in fact the term tended to mark one out as a potential threat to "the republic", at least in the version of the concept that Sulla fancied himself saviour of.
Hammond remarks that the term had never lost its military application however, where it had first been applied to generals and leaders against whom Roman armies had toiled in an effort to subdue. The execution of such a leader in Rome when conducted under a triumph or other such public ceremony invariably used the term in teh accompanying advertising and ritual.
By the collapse of the Second Triumvirate therefore it is not hard to imagine in what light the general public (and common footsoldier) viewed the term. Disgraced or hypocritical senators and the like had used it. Declared foreign enemies of the state had had it applied to them. In recent years it had been applied to other more dubious entities. Marius had claimed it in his consulships. Sulla had encouraged its application to him towards the end of his dictatorship, when he seriously considered a bid for monarchy. Pompey had revelled in it. Julius Caesar had had it bestowed upon him posthumously by Octavian propagandists. The ordinary person could see that it was a description of a rogue, though one with quite a bit of power, and in that sense it was used in the vernacular to describe a "chancer" or "person of inflated self-opinion".
Hammond says that Octavian therefore chose it in the full knowledge that it would antagonise the patricians but please the masses enormously. In doing so he provided the patricians with direct evidence of their own impotency in the new order, where those masses, and the military which enforced the laws that governed them, were both on his side. -
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 4th February 2008
I should have said that Hammond also makes the point that Augustus, despite his little "joke", still took the senate very seriously indeed. He wore armour under his toga when attending contentious senate debates, and did not dare assume full "imperator" without senate acquiescence until 23BC. Even then he chickened out of attempting to halve the size of the body as he had intended, and his occasional purges seemed more intent on removing the most obsequious flatterers than serious political critics. He knew the latter could be managed, but that the former were ultimately his most dangerous enemies, since only control of his own pride could contain them.
Or, to paraphrase grandad in "Only Fools And Horses" when he remarked about the escaped lunatic axe murderer - "He might be mad, but he ain't bloody stupid!" -
Message 30
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 5th February 2008
Hi Nordmann,
Cheers for that. I'd assumed the "first amongst equals" was to placate the Senate - not to irritate it whilst appealing to the masses.
Sulla had encouraged its application to him towards the end of his dictatorship, when he seriously considered a bid for monarchy.听
That's just anti-Sullan propaganda spread by later Romans who couldn't appreciate his lovability and cuddliness...
Are you sure that Sulla would have seriously considered a bid to be king? I can see there's an argument for it, but in my mind, it would have been the last thing I would have thought he would do. In his eyes, he'd built a reputation as someone who had "restored" the Republic, and a bid for kingship (with no automatic guarantee of success) would have destroyed this reputation entirely. In addition, as a a Roman who was approaching 60, I'd have expected that his reputation after his death would have been firmly in his mind - would he honestly have preferred the reputation of a Marcus Manlius to a Camillus?.
hmmm... Maybe I should stop playing "Jupiter" from Holst's "Planets Suite" whenever I read and write about Sulla as it colours my judgement on the guy somewhat. But... sniff... he was such a great man...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 31
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 5th February 2008
To be perfectly honest it's not something I believe of the man myself (not because he was cuddly, mind you). Others (like Hammond for example) are more convinced, probably based on good old Dio C's account. But the "he was really trying to be a king, you know" slur was such a common political taunt that it might indeed have been possible, given Sulla's deep sense of irony and caustic sense of humour, for him to have accepted such an offer had the senate proposed it. I think it would have appealed to the "well screw the lot of you" side of his relationship with Rome, a place to which he felt he owed no favours at all. He liked to keep people guessing, and he would definitely have encouraged the rumours.
Try David Bowie's "The Laughing Gnome" the next time you're reading about Sulla. It's a sort of antidote ... -
Message 32
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 5th February 2008
Hi Nordmann,
I can actually imagine in his memoirs, the great man modestly saying something along the lines of "In my weakest moments, I considered a bid for kingship, but I, being the greatest of all Republicans, immediately realised how wrong I was to be seduced by power.".
I reckon Appian and Plutarch had access to - and used - his now lost memoirs, but I'm interested in what sources Dio Cassius used. The other major source I can think of for this period was Livy, as he was devoting about book per year in his histories. I know using the Periochae to try to understand Livy's views is like using the contents page to judge a book, but proscriptions aside, the words used in Books 86-90 seem to be very pro-Sulla. After saying that, the words of the epitomator may not actually be the "essence" of what Livy was trying to say, and ummm... the translation I've read could be written by someone as insanely pro-Sullan as myself...
So any ideas on what could Dio Cassius have used as his sources for his claim that "Sulla wanted to be king"?
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Listen to "The Laughing Gnome" whilst reading about Rome's last great Republican? Any more anti-Sullan "wit" and you'll find yourself in the proscriptions, and before you ask - no, they're not Elvis Costello's backing group... -
Message 33
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Wednesday, 6th February 2008
Anglo-Norman
Trouble ? Moi ???
X -
Message 34
Posted by Plato's Atlantis (U13721555) on Sunday, 30th November 2008
Great-BRITAIN as a Bysantine" Military Theme-Dependancy": ( dd 500 - 1200 ad.)
The ( british-)Roman Army ranks during the Bysantine Period ( dd 600 - 750-ad,in asia Minor & Persia.)
are a differend question for , unwittingly it effected lifestyle greatly in the British isles.
In Britain the kings dressed after 500 ad like east-roman kings or bysantine kings, so from this
it follows thAT THEY ALSO MAY HAVE ADOPTED THE
Bysantine military titles.
King Athur ( A french Celt, )who was not british from Britain but on the contrary fought against the saxon invader that occupied Britanny
( not from the mainland, but from ex-Saxon re-patriates from (greater-)Britain.)
Re- Styled himself from simple DUX- or COUNT- Bellorum to " IMPERATOR- REX Brittanorum."
His timeline is 480-520 ad ( from: Geoffey Ash.)
His Territory extended from Brittany in France to Mount Badon ( in Western-Germany.)and centered
upon the province of ARTOIS- ARDUWAN(= "Athur's Kingdom".)
" King" Arthur bade allegiance to an( very-Early- Bysantine )East- Roman Emperor called: who came before Heraclius I forget. Marcian or something.
Arthur fought his Nephew who had ste himself up as LEGATUS Angusticlavius at TRIER in 500 ad.
TRIER(= Ulpia Trajanus City.)was also known as the THIRD Rome( long before Moskou!)and thus
Arthur's nephew styled himself as "Emperor HERMAN or Arminius of ' Rome '
For the obscure reason that this Arminius had employed merchant Soldiers from the SELDJUKES ( who did not exist in 500 ad.)Arthur attacked'Rome'
and carried off his nephew and 25 " Roman- Senators", in 520 ad
But he could not consolidate his Raid or conquest nor restyle himslef
" Emperore of " Romer" because
His other Nephew MORDRED apparently occupied his hometown as a new King. History gets confused here
Some historiand don't know what came first the battle of Clamdan/ Camelot or Mount Baden.
Others think that the whole Story of Camelot/Avalon & King Arthur refferred to another" King " called Dux-Siagrius who was ambushed by yet another " King "(= Count - Bellorum )CHLODOWICH or Luitwig or CLOVIS.
Anyway my in staying with the Topic,
point is that around 500 ad the classic roman army in North-Europe had adopted Early Bysantine/Roman Millitary Ranks.
What these Ranks were and how their transition was is Stuff for further debate.
Some russian fellah(Formor I forget his name)has
recently suggested that the KINGS of Great Britain,
from 1000 till 1200 ad were non existend because
britain during that period was under siege by the Norsemen from Danemark
Who got their legitimate kingship from yet other Bysantine Emperors and had Greek Roman military titels @!
This Russian even suggested that lacking records by Nordseman (looting Library-Books for homereading.)Later historywriters inserted bysantine (= greek-)Kingnames for the lost british ones !
CONCLUSION
: Brittish Roman military ranks( dd 100-425 ad from the Roman-upper ranks pulling out by Aetius.)
may indeed not have been subjected or effected by continental rank-system changes until 500 ad
when they were steathingly replaced by bysantine ones.
Sorry If my contention has confused common history !
Sincerely " Plato's Atlantis "( TU- Delft, Holland.) Dec-2008 -
Message 35
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 30th November 2008
Sorry If my contention has confused common history !
听
It's all the capitalised shouting that confused me - it makes your post read like it's been written with a form of Tourette's Syndrome which affects only fingers en route to keyboards.
Anyway, what you say is quite right. Your "contention" does not just "confuse" common history. It is so ludicrous that it ends up making even the most contentious common history seem like a pillar of rock-solid fact. But don't worry too much about it. Both the Tourettes and the complete departures into fantasy you exhibit seem to be symptomatic of all those who suffer from the "Belief-in-Arthur" ailment. I'd like to say you'll get over it in time but sadly experience has taught me that its sufferers are doomed to an early death of logic from which their mental capacities never recover.
But hey - you deserve high praise for one observation, though. To date you are the first Arthurite to equate Badon with all the myriad Badens out in what you quaintly still refer to as "West Germany" (modern history isn't your thing either, is it?). How on earth the brain-dead hadn't spotted that one before defeats me! I mean, it's so obvious, isn't it? Badon / Baden - trust those crafty Germans to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for so long through the simple transposition of "O" and "E". It certainly throws a whole new spotlight on the small French/German border hamlet of Camolet!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.