03-06-2010, 10:35 PM
Quote:I still don't, however, think that the C. Trebonius of 6.40 is necessarily the tribune of 6.39. For a start, it makes sense that the veterans - convalescent soldiers from a number of different legions - would have had no tribunes or, necessarily centurions, so someone would have had to have been appointed to their command; secondly it is odd that he would be praised for abandoning most of his command; thirdly, the context suggests that he was only in command of the veterans, and not the whole force.
There were centurions amongst the convalescent veterans, in the fort at least - Sextus Baculus is mentioned as one of them. We don't know whether any went out with the foraging party though. True enough, the 'military tribune' mentioned in 6.39 might have fallen with his men, and Trebonius, in charge of the veterans, may have occupied some other position - but if he was a prefect, would he not have been senior to the putative tribune, in which case it was still his responsibility to bring the force back in one piece? As an equestrian in battlefield command of troops, however, tribune would seem the obvious rank for him to be holding - so either there were two tribunes, one of them (Trebonius) in charge of the veterans and the other luckless one in command of the five cohorts, or Trebonius was the sole commander. Either way, we still have a tribune in charge of troops, and the troops looking to him for orders. Caesar can sometimes be a bit shifty in apportioning blame when things go wrong - usually, as here, the untested nature of new recruits is cited. He certainly suggests that Trebonius has made the best of a bad job - perhaps, in fact, it was Quintus Cicero who should have carried the can, for sending out a foraging party into 'enemy' territory unsupported by cavalry, but Caesar didn't want to risk annoying the older brother, Marcus Cicero?
- Nathan
Nathan Ross
