RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Maniple titles in the imperial legion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Nathan wrote:
The difference with the legion ranks being, presumably, that the auxiliary centuries were not graded as hastati etc.
 
Nathan, is there any records giving the ages of the auxiliary infantry? If there are records of auxiliary infantry being in the twenties, then I believe they would be classified as hastati as I cannot see any reason for the auxiliary not to follow Roman doctrine.
(06-21-2016, 10:32 PM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]is there any records giving the ages of the auxiliary infantry... I cannot see any reason for the auxiliary not to follow Roman doctrine.

As far as I know, auxiliary recruitment was probably the same as legionary, with the average recruitment age at c.19-20 years old.

There are quite a few legionary inscriptions from the 1st-2nd centuries giving the traditional identification within the cohort as hastati posterioris or pili prioris or whatever, which suggests that the legions preserved the old Republican manipular names for these subdivisions. However, as far as I'm aware no auxiliary inscriptions use this formula.

The auxiliary cohorts were only formalised in the early Principiate, so presumably they didn't adopt the old Republican subdivisions, just as they didn't have a primus pilus. This might mean that all the centuries - and all the centurions - within the cohort were the same.

I still don't know whether there's any proof that the 'princeps' really was the cohort's leading centurion, or a centurion at all!
Nathan wrote:
As far as I know, auxiliary recruitment was probably the same as legionary, with the average recruitment age at c.19-20 years old.... However, as far as I'm aware no auxiliary inscriptions use this formula.
 
If an auxiliary enrols at the age of 19 years for a period of 20 years service, then that auxiliary surely would be organised by age bracket in the same fashion as the legions. It would only seem logical. A 480 man auxiliary cohort (minus the 120 cavalry), of three maniples would be best served with each maniple of differing age so that one maniple consisted of the youngest age division, another the middle age division, and the third maniple, the oldest age division. Logic also dictates that if the terms hastati, principes and pilani did not apply to these three auxiliary maniples, there must have been some form of identity or a term applied to each of the three maniples.
 
Nathan wrote:
This might mean that all the centuries - and all the centurions - within the cohort were the same.
 
The Romans are too formularised and would not leave something on an ad-hoc basis. The units that made up the cohort would have had a name, and that name had to have some organisational significance.
 
Nathan wrote:
I still don't know whether there's any proof that the 'princeps' really was the cohort's leading centurion, or a centurion at all!
 
Thankfully, you aren’t looking to me for help. I have found that much of this period, academic opinions have become fact that I find it difficult trying to work out fact from fiction. I have covered the promotions of centurions for the republic in the book, but that mainly centres on Livy’s account of the career of Spurius Ligustinus (200 BC to 177 BC), which is straight forward and self explanatory.
 
My final conclusion on the centurion ordinarii, it is the title of the centurions who are responsibility for creating intervals in the line. It is not a higher ranking but a position.

So if the terms hastati, principes and pilani do not apply to the auxiliary, especially to the rankings of the auxiliary centurions, then maybe something is being overlooked or has been erroneously dismissed by academics in the distant past.
(06-22-2016, 05:21 AM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]that auxiliary surely would be organised by age bracket in the same fashion as the legions. It would only seem logical.

While the legions preserved the old Republican names for the divisions within the cohort, these names don't seem to have been related to age.

There are inscriptions giving the age at death of various men of the Hastati, Principes and Pilani, and they're quite similar - a man of the hastati posterioris aged 39 (AE 2008, 272), a man of the principes priores aged 32 (CIL 03, 06594), a hastatus who served for 23 years (CIL 03, 6605), and so on.

The traditional names may have related to the position in the battle line, or to administration within the legion, but not to differences in age or equipment.

So there's no logical reason why an independent auxiliary cohort of c.500 men would have been organised in the same way. If they were, or had some equivalent organisation, it was never recorded.
Nathan wrote:
There are inscriptions giving the age at death of various men of the Hastati, Principes and Pilani, and they're quite similar - a man of the hastati posterioris aged 39 (AE 2008, 272), a man of the principes priores aged 32 (CIL 03, 06594), a hastatus who served for 23 years (CIL 03, 6605), and so on.

At Pharsalus, Pompey’s evocati were distributed among the army while the older troops guarded the camp. Having the older troops guarding the camp is a tradition that can be traced back to the battle of Silva Arsia in 509 BC. So something has changed after the time of Julius Caesar.

So Nathan where can I find out what dates those CIL records relate to?
(06-22-2016, 11:30 AM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]where can I find out what dates those CIL records relate to?

Very few career inscriptions give dates, but in these cases a number have the formula dis manibus, which usually (not always) means late 1st century or after, and a couple are for legions formed in the 2nd century (II Traiana, for example).

The legions of the civil war still retained their late republican recruitment pattern, with temporary en masse enlistment and discharge. After the Augustan establishment this changed, and we have standing legions with ongoing recruitment.

Older men still served in the legions of the earlier principiate, after their standard twenty years of service, as veterani, grouped together in separate units of (apparently) cohort strength sub vexillo. These men do seem to have been commonly used as camp guards, as you suggest. You can find bits of Keppie's essay on the Vexilla Veteranorum online. I don't know if there's any evidence for the practice surviving much after the 1st century though.
Nathan wrote:
Very few career inscriptions give dates, but in these cases a number have the formula dis manibus, which usually (not always) means late 1st century or after, and a couple are for legions formed in the 2nd century (II Traiana, for example).
 
Would you say all of these records fall between 18 BC and 192 AD?
 
Nathan wrote:
You can find bits of Keppie's essay on the Vexilla Veteranorum online. I don't know if there's any evidence for the practice surviving much after the 1st century though.
 
Thanks I have this paper. Some parts of Vegetius hint that the practice still continued after the principate.
(06-22-2016, 12:10 PM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]Would you say all of these records fall between 18 BC and 192 AD?

No, they go into the mid third century. These, for example:

CIL 03, 06594a: Alexandria. mil(item) leg(ionis) II Tra(ianae) For(tis) Ger(manicae) Severianae coh(orte) VIII pr(incipis) pri(oris)... (the legion title is Severan, the 'Germanica' title might relate to Caracalla's Alamannic war of AD213)

AE 1940, 00014: Romula. Leg(ionis) XXII Pr(imigeniae) P(iae) F(idelis) // [[Philippianoru]]m / coh(ortis) V / (h)astati prio(res) / et posterio(res) // Ge/rm/a(niae) // su/pe/r(ioris)... (if the expansion of the title is correct, this one dates to Phillip 'the Arab', c.AD249)

IGLS-04, 01375: Apamea. mil(iti) leg(ionis) II Parth(icae) / Severian(ae) P(iae) F(elicis) F(idelis)] / Aet(ernae) |(cohorte) II pr(incipis) pr(ioris)...

AE 1993, 1572: Apamea. mil(iti) leg(ionis) II Part(h)ic(a)e Anto/ninianae Piae F(elicis) F(idelis) Aet(ernae) / coh(orte) VI princ(ip)is prioris / qui vixit an(n)is XXXX...

These last two are also early 3rd century, probably both dating to the Parthian expedition of Caracalla.

The earliest inscriptions with this formula appear to date from the 1st century, but I don't know if anyone has ever been able to establish a start and end date for it (if there was one). It does seem that men of certain legions were more inclined than others to use this formula in their identification.

At a guess, I would say it died out some time in the mid third century (when we see a number of other changes to the legions, including the disappearance of the primus pilus), perhaps to be replaced for a while by the odd system of centurion positions (triarius/ordinatus/princeps) mentioned on the Aurelius Gaius tombstone.
Thanks for that Nathan. Confirms the terms hastati and principes were around after 192 AD. AE 2008, 272 having a hastati aged 39 years is extremely difficult to understand. Could it be a badly worn inscription that has been interpreted to be 39? CIL 03 06594 of a principes prior aged 32 fits perfectly into the age divisions I have. Any clue regarding the time frame of CIL 03 6605 ?
(06-22-2016, 03:09 PM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]AE 2008, 272 having a hastati aged 39
Any clue regarding the time frame of CIL 03 6605 ?

I can put your mind at rest about AE 2008, 272, I think - turns out he was a centurion!

CIL 03, 6605 is a soldier of II Traiana at Alexandria, Cohort IV, hastati prioris, who served 23 years. The legion makes this 2nd century, perhaps 3rd.

However, the idea that the imperial Roman legion was divided into strict age categories is hard to support. Quite apart from the practicalities of doing such a thing in a standing formation with continual recruitment, the ages-at-death given in the inscriptions of soldiers that record their position in the cohort are too varied, I would say, to describe any pattern.

For example:

EDCS-22300520, Ancyra: has(tati) / prior(is) - vixit annis XXXX / (40 years old)

EDCS-27800654, Alexandria: hastati pr(ioris) - vixit / an(nos) XXXI (31 years old)

CIL 14, 02272, Albanum: vixit / ann(is) XXXI - has(tati) pri(oris) (31 years old)

EDCS-64500240, Albanum: has(tati) pri(oris) - vix(it)] ann(os) XLIII  (43 years old)

AE 1975, 00170, Albanum: ha(stati) p(rioris?) - vix(it) an(nos) XXXII (32 years old)


CIL 14, 02278, Albanum: (h)ast(ati) po/s(terioris) - vixi/t annos / XXXII (32 years old)

EDCS-64500248, Albanum: has(tati) post(erioris) - vix/it ann(os) XXXV (35 years old)


CIL 14, 00229, Ostia Antica: pri(n)cipis prioris - vix(it) an(nos)] / XXXXV (45 years old)

AE 1993, 01581, Apamea: pr(incipis) pr(ioris) - vixit an/nis XXX (30 years old)


CIL 03, 00187, Apamea ad Orontem: prin(cipis) / posteri(oris)  - vixit annis LIIII (54 years old)

CIL 03, 00195, Cyrrhus: pr(incipis) / post(erioris) - vixit ann(os) XXXVIII (38 years old)

AE 2009, +00057, Alexandria: pri(ncipis) post(erioris) - vix]it annos XXI (21 years old)

CIL 06, 37261, Albanum: pri(ncipis) pos(terioris) - vi(xit) an(nos) XXXVII (37 years old)

AE 1993, 01579, Apamea: principi(s) posteriori(s) - vixit annis XXX (30 years old)


EDCS-64500243, Albanum: vixit an(nis) L - [pi]l(i) pri(oris) (50 years old)

CIL 14, 02291, Albanum: pil(i) pri(oris) - qui v]ix(it) ann(os) XXXI (31 years old)


EDCS-34300294, Roma: pil(i) / post(erioris) - vixit / annos XXX (30 years old)

EDCS-47400392, Apamea: pil(i) post(erioris) - vixit ann(os) XXX (30 years old)

AE 1992, 01686, Apamea: pil(i) post(erioris) - vix(it) annis XXXVII (37 years old)

AE 1968, 00105, Albanumm: p(ili) [p]o[s(terioris) - v(ixit) an(nos) [X]XVII (27 years old)


Meanwhile, so many of these inscriptions appear to be Severan that I wonder whether this fashion for 'manipular' positions was a relatively brief innovation of that era?
The earliest reference to the inscription referred to in AE 2008, 272 seems to be IGLS 13, 9187. It reads:

D(is) M(anibus) / L(uci) Pupiani / L(uci) f(ilii) Pol(lia) Ver/ini Foro / Semproni / ex evocato / Aug(usti) |(centurionis) leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) / item I Miner(viae) / et II Ital(icae) milit(avit) / ann(is) XXI usqu(e) / in IV |(cohorte) hast(atus) post(erior) / vix(it) an(nis) XXXIX / mens(ibus) II die(bus) V / L(ucius) Pupianus Iustus / frater et Pontiana / Iusta co(n)iux fecerunt

Echoing Nathan, L. Pupianus Verinus was a centurion, so his age does not present a problem. He had served in the Praetorian Guard for 16 years before transferring to the legions and was in his third legionary centurionate when he died at the age of 39. He appears to have been hastatus posterior of the Fourth Cohort of (presumably) Leg III Cyrenaica at the time of his death.
Nathan wrote:
I can put your mind at rest about AE 2008, 272, I think - turns out he was a centurion!
 
Oh that is good. Harmony has now been partially restored to the cosmos. However, the following are creating a few disruptive black holes:
 
EDCS-22300520, Ancyra: has(tati) / prior(is) - vixit annis XXXX / (40 years old)
EDCS-64500240, Albanum: has(tati) pri(oris) - vix(it)] ann(os) XLIII (43 years old)
CIL 14, 00229, Ostia Antica: pri(n)cipis prioris - vix(it) an(nos)] / XXXXV (45 years old)
AE 1993, 01581, Apamea: pr(incipis) pr(ioris) - vixit an/nis XXX (30 years old)
CIL 03, 00187, Apamea ad Orontem: prin(cipis) / posteri(oris) - vixit annis LIIII (54 years old)
AE 2009, +00057, Alexandria: pri(ncipis) post(erioris) - vix]it annos XXI (21 years old)
EDCS-64500243, Albanum: vixit an(nis) L - [pi]l(i) pri(oris) (50 years old)
CIL 14, 02291, Albanum: pil(i) pri(oris) - qui v]ix(it) ann(os) XXXI (31 years old
EDCS-34300294, Roma: pil(i) / post(erioris) - vixit / annos XXX (30 years old)
EDCS-47400392, Apamea: pil(i) post(erioris) - vixit ann(os) XXX (30 years old)
AE 1992, 01686, Apamea: pil(i) post(erioris) - vix(it) annis XXXVII (37 years old)
 
If all of the above were Severan, then there could be an explanation. Can it be determined if they are all Severan? It would be even better if they all turned out to be centurions. I have a few electronic books on AE records but not to this detail. Can I ask what is your source or sources? Just as I thought I was finishing up my research, this challenge comes along. Oh when will it ever end? This book is now in its twelfth year.
(06-25-2016, 06:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]Can it be determined if they are all Severan? It would be even better if they all turned out to be centurions.

The Apamea and Albanum ones are II Parthica, so probably dated c197-240. The others are impossible to date accurately, I think; most appear to be 2nd or 3rd century.

However, all of them are soldiers (one an imaginifer, I think), not centurions.

Data from this site:

Epigraphik Datenbank
Thanks for all your imput Smile Nathan and Steven. To me the rank structure for the Auxilla  would mirror the Legion ie the 6th century of a Auxilla COH would be the same rank as the 6th in Legion. The legion title for the rank would not be used in the Auxilla as it was not maned by Citizens under the old Maniple property bases. This may? explain the lack of written evidence. Also to make a distinction between  the two wings of the army. Other wise great stuff.
Regards Brennivs Big Grin
(06-25-2016, 06:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: [ -> ]EDCS-22300520, Ancyra: has(tati) / prior(is) - vixit annis XXXX / (40 years old)
EDCS-64500240, Albanum: has(tati) pri(oris) - vix(it)] ann(os) XLIII (43 years old)
CIL 14, 00229, Ostia Antica: pri(n)cipis prioris - vix(it) an(nos)] / XXXXV (45 years old)
AE 1993, 01581, Apamea: pr(incipis) pr(ioris) - vixit an/nis XXX (30 years old)
CIL 03, 00187, Apamea ad Orontem: prin(cipis) / posteri(oris) - vixit annis LIIII (54 years old)
AE 2009, +00057, Alexandria: pri(ncipis) post(erioris) - vix]it annos XXI (21 years old)
EDCS-64500243, Albanum: vixit an(nis) L - [pi]l(i) pri(oris) (50 years old)
CIL 14, 02291, Albanum: pil(i) pri(oris) - qui v]ix(it) ann(os) XXXI (31 years old
EDCS-34300294, Roma: pil(i) / post(erioris) - vixit / annos XXX (30 years old)
EDCS-47400392, Apamea: pil(i) post(erioris) - vixit ann(os) XXX (30 years old)
AE 1992, 01686, Apamea: pil(i) post(erioris) - vix(it) annis XXXVII (37 years old)

I have gone through this list and offer some comments on the individual inscriptions. In some cases, I have added what seem to be the primary sources. The EDCS references are the EDCS ID numbers and are not searchable. The AE references are to articles in AE that are not necessarily the primary source. For instance AE 2009, +000057 refers to four inscriptions other than the one cited. I work on the assumption that the editors of the inscriptions have expanded the abbreviations correctly.

EDCS-22300520=CIL 03, 00263: optio.
EDCS-64500240=DocAlb-1979-86: fragmentary, rank does not survive.
CIL 14, 00229: fragmentary, rank does not survive.
AE 1993, 01581: rank not given, possible miles.
CIL 03, 00187: strator, possible veteran.
AE 2009, +00057=CIL 03, 12058a: rank not given, at that age almost certainly miles.
EDCS-64500243=DocAlb-1986-35a: rank not given, possible miles, possible veteran.
CIL 14, 02291: fragmentary, rank does not survive.
EDCS-34300294=CIL 06, 03404: rank not given, possible miles.
EDCS-47400392=Legio-II-Parth 00007: miles.
AE 1992, 01686=CBI 00705: beneficiarius.

I have specified ranks because, if the ages of the soldiers are relevant, it would seem unlikely that any century would have been made up entirely of young soldiers but would have required a leavening of more experienced men. As can be seen, some of these inscriptions relate to principales or immunes who are also likely to have been older and more experienced. The men in their fifties may have been time-expired, although they are not specifically stated to be veterans. Deducting their length of service from their ages gives ages at enlistment, if they were both still serving, of 24 and 32, both of which are above the average.
Pages: 1 2 3 4