01-21-2017, 05:39 AM
My Christmas present to myself was a copy of H. Devijver’s The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army, wherein he discusses Pertinax’s equestrian military service at pages 69-70.
“Suffice it to note here that Pertinax performed the tres militia:
1. The command of a cohors quingenaria.
2. A legionary tribunate and an iteration of the secunda militia as commander of a cohors milliaria.
3. The command of an ala quingenaria.”
What I find confusing about this summary of Pertinax’s tres militia, however is that it is ostensibly based on primary sources including passages from the Historiae Augustae, Dio Cassius and an inscription unearthed near Cologne which reads:
An article from Livius proposes the following reconstruction:
I do not see any reference to the First Tungrorum Cohort, however, in The HA or Dio Cassisus. Accordingly, why does the author of the Livius article believe that Pertinax served as a praefect of this particular cohort? Moreover, if it was cohors milliaria, as Devijver believes, why does the inscription contain the abbreviation for praefectus instead of tribunus? I can’t imagine that a soldier of Pertinax’s singular ability was promoted to the secunda militia, as the tribunus militum legionis, then demoted to praefectus cohortis.
Finally, how common was iteratio? In other chapters of his book, Devijver describes a pyramidal conception of the militia (e.g., “only some 3% of the officers of the militia prima can ever hope to reach the militia quarta”) that sounds awfully like the American military’s shortsighted “up or out.” Thank you in advance for answering my questions.
“Suffice it to note here that Pertinax performed the tres militia:
1. The command of a cohors quingenaria.
2. A legionary tribunate and an iteration of the secunda militia as commander of a cohors milliaria.
3. The command of an ala quingenaria.”
What I find confusing about this summary of Pertinax’s tres militia, however is that it is ostensibly based on primary sources including passages from the Historiae Augustae, Dio Cassius and an inscription unearthed near Cologne which reads:
HELV ACI
Q P P GAL
OR E CT
RAE AEF
AE RO
VRA NTA
RAE OC
VG D
M
AGR S
PVBLIO HELVIO PERTINACI
EQVO PVBLICO PRAEFECTO COHORTIS IIII GAL-
LORVM EQVITATAE TRIBVNO LEGIONIS VI VICTRICIS
PRAEFECTO COHORTIS I TVNGRORVM PRAEFECTO
ALAE ……… PRO-
CVRATORI AD ALIMENTA
PRAEFECTO CLASSIS GERMANICAE PROCVRATORI
AVGVSTI AD DVCENA III DACIARVM IDEM
MOESIAE SVPERIORIS
AGRIPPINENSES
PVBLICEI do not see any reference to the First Tungrorum Cohort, however, in The HA or Dio Cassisus. Accordingly, why does the author of the Livius article believe that Pertinax served as a praefect of this particular cohort? Moreover, if it was cohors milliaria, as Devijver believes, why does the inscription contain the abbreviation for praefectus instead of tribunus? I can’t imagine that a soldier of Pertinax’s singular ability was promoted to the secunda militia, as the tribunus militum legionis, then demoted to praefectus cohortis.
Finally, how common was iteratio? In other chapters of his book, Devijver describes a pyramidal conception of the militia (e.g., “only some 3% of the officers of the militia prima can ever hope to reach the militia quarta”) that sounds awfully like the American military’s shortsighted “up or out.” Thank you in advance for answering my questions.
Kurt Zimmerman