04-14-2001, 08:40 AM
- Addition to earlier posts: according to Starr, sailors could not expect promotion beyond the navarchy (see below) by transfer to any other branch of the armed services until Antoninus Pius. The same right was given to trierarchs by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.<br>
<br>
Starr gives one of the most complete pictures of the ranking structure in the navy, admittedly it's now 50 years old.<br>
Any ship was classed as a centuria, under the military command of a centurio. There seem to be no different ranks within the naval centurionate.<br>
Technical command of the ship was in the hands of a trierarch, originally a trireme's captain. Which of the two had the final word? It seems to be that the centurions ranked below the trierarch and navarch.<br>
Detachment/squadron-command was in the hands of a navarch. We have some evidence that Roman fleets (under the overall command of a prefect) were divided into squadrons. The chief naval officer, technical advisor to the prefect, was a navarchus princeps or navarchus archigubernes.<br>
<br>
Your quote about the legionary battle line in the fleet in the First Punic War could refer to the deployment of the fleet in different squadrons or the writer wanted to suggest that the Roman landlubbers defeated the Carthaginian seafarers on their own turf, by fighting as if they were on solid ground (literally!)<br>
However, that just my two cents, your guess is as good as mine!<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<br>
Update 1: Reddé, ´Les Marins´, in: Y.Le Bohec, La hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l´armée Romaine sous le Haut-Empire (Paris 1995), p.151 ff.: The system of double hierarchy with centurions in command of the soldiers/marines and a captain in technical command possibly still existed in the Republican period, when marines were often ordinary soldiers embarked for the occasion, at least in the second century, this distinction has disappeared. In the inscriptions we still see quite some centurions, but very few trierarchs and navarchs from that time. It is probable that these functions fused into one. It is difficult however, to really prove this hypothesis.<br>
<br>
Update 2: I´m now reading Goldsworthy´s The Punic Wars and in describing the battle of Ecnomus, he mentions the squadron of ´triarii´. His explanation of that nickname is the fact that the squadron was placed as a last reserve of the Roman fleet, behind the two combat squadrons and a squadron of towed transports. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 4/16/01 3:49:21 pm<br></i>
<br>
Starr gives one of the most complete pictures of the ranking structure in the navy, admittedly it's now 50 years old.<br>
Any ship was classed as a centuria, under the military command of a centurio. There seem to be no different ranks within the naval centurionate.<br>
Technical command of the ship was in the hands of a trierarch, originally a trireme's captain. Which of the two had the final word? It seems to be that the centurions ranked below the trierarch and navarch.<br>
Detachment/squadron-command was in the hands of a navarch. We have some evidence that Roman fleets (under the overall command of a prefect) were divided into squadrons. The chief naval officer, technical advisor to the prefect, was a navarchus princeps or navarchus archigubernes.<br>
<br>
Your quote about the legionary battle line in the fleet in the First Punic War could refer to the deployment of the fleet in different squadrons or the writer wanted to suggest that the Roman landlubbers defeated the Carthaginian seafarers on their own turf, by fighting as if they were on solid ground (literally!)<br>
However, that just my two cents, your guess is as good as mine!<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<br>
Update 1: Reddé, ´Les Marins´, in: Y.Le Bohec, La hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l´armée Romaine sous le Haut-Empire (Paris 1995), p.151 ff.: The system of double hierarchy with centurions in command of the soldiers/marines and a captain in technical command possibly still existed in the Republican period, when marines were often ordinary soldiers embarked for the occasion, at least in the second century, this distinction has disappeared. In the inscriptions we still see quite some centurions, but very few trierarchs and navarchs from that time. It is probable that these functions fused into one. It is difficult however, to really prove this hypothesis.<br>
<br>
Update 2: I´m now reading Goldsworthy´s The Punic Wars and in describing the battle of Ecnomus, he mentions the squadron of ´triarii´. His explanation of that nickname is the fact that the squadron was placed as a last reserve of the Roman fleet, behind the two combat squadrons and a squadron of towed transports. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 4/16/01 3:49:21 pm<br></i>
