Login

07-11-2004, 11:17 AM

I have this son of a senator whom his dad has sneaked into the army as tribunus laticlavius. Now, daddy is very ambitious and wants his son to get a promotion as soon as a chance presents itself. The info I have is a bit contradictory since military structures changed a lot during that time, and I wonder what would a possible promotion be, higher rank (and which?) or rather decorations? <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/>

07-11-2004, 02:49 PM

I have another question. 
 
In my books, Stilicho is always called general, but this seems too modern a word. What would his position have been - magister militum per Italiam? 
 
Getting the historical facts straight was fun, but re-creating the Roman world is a lot more difficult, I've realised, and it's the small things I can't find (no problem with the architecture of a Roman villa and such). Moreover, there is less info about the time ca 400 AD than about good ol' Ceasar. 
 
 <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/>

Frank Miranda · 07-11-2004, 07:51 PM

Stilicho's rank was simply titled magister militum denoting him as the senior most (and, therefore, commanding) general of the (Western) Empire. The Eastern half also had its magistri militum. Very few men held this post- Ricimer is one that comes immediately to mind. Depending on the state of the Late Empire at any given time, the position could be extremely powerful or partially symbolic. 
 
Adding a provincial or regional identifier (eg, per Italiam or per Thracias) would actually reduce him in rank a bit (although he would still be a "general"- just of a variably smaller area- and would not be senior to all other generals of his half of the Empire).

07-11-2004, 08:01 PM

Thank you. 
 
King Alaric of the Goths was magister militum per Illyricum for some time, and thus Stilicho was his superior. That explains a few things. 
 
That time was such a mess. But it is fun to write a novel about it, especially when your main characters are half-brothers, one a Roman officer and the other raised by the Goths. <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/>

07-12-2004, 06:31 AM

IIRC Stilicho would have been Magister Militum Praesentalis, or maybe even Magister Peditum Praesentalis. 
 
Again IIRC, the other western generals were not given the "militum" title unlike in the east where they were - a check of the Notitia should show this. I've seen it suggested that this was because in the west Stilicho made sure he was the top dog whilst in the east where non-generals still held a lot of power the system was set up to balance the generals. 
 
Nik

07-12-2004, 12:17 PM

So, would it be correct, in a formal situation, to say, "I will meet with the magister militum Flavius Stilicho." ? Because 'general' sounds too modern for my taste, and no title at all too informal. <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/>

**Robert Vermaat** · 07-12-2004, 12:24 PM

Gabrielle, 
Not that I find it an ugly picture, but might I respectfully request that you drop that signature-castle from your posts? 
It takes up a lot of space and add nothing to this forum. 
But please, do keep posting. 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

07-12-2004, 12:30 PM

Sorry, it didn't know this forum doesn't like signatures. I have it in my global accout an no other forum minds. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gabrielecampbell>gabriele campbell</A> at: 7/12/04 2:31 pm

Frank Miranda · 07-12-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:<hr>IIRC Stilicho would have been Magister Militum Praesentalis, or maybe even Magister Peditum Praesentalis.<hr> 
 
You are correct- Theodosius had promoted Stilicho to magister peditum praesentalis in the West- an office which he greatly expanded in power after the emperor's death and his own "guardianship" of Honorius. But he had previously held the post of magister utriusque militiae (also called magister militum praesentalis) in the East which was created after Theodosius combined foot and horse (temporarily) some years before. 
 
References (especially in literary sources, I am thinking Claudian for one) to him as magister militum were, then, probably unofficial but understandable since he had recently held that title (in the way, for example, that in modern time a former general would still be called a general, or a former colonel a colonel, etc). The intent, nevertheless, was clear: to identify him as the supreme commanding general. 
 
Quote:<hr>So, would it be correct, in a formal situation, to say, "I will meet with the magister militum Flavius Stilicho." ? Because 'general' sounds too modern for my taste, and no title at all too informal. <hr> 
 
Sounds fine either way- to me- but, personally, I don't see any problem at all in addressing him as "general." Every author of Roman historical fiction that I have read has done that. I am trying to remember how Breem titled Stilicho in Eagle in the Snow, but I am fairly certain it was as general. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=frankmiranda>Frank Miranda</A> at: 7/12/04 8:52 pm

07-12-2004, 07:04 PM

Thanks Frank, that clears up a lot. So he had different titles at different times, and that is what brought about the mess in the books (and websites) I checked. 
 
I think, I'll use 'general' in the dialogue then, but I'd like to sneak in his formal Latin title at least once. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gabrielecampbell>gabriele campbell</A> at: 7/12/04 9:04 pm

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me