09-13-2002, 06:11 PM
Salve,<br>
<br>
<br>
In the republican period there was not yet the varied hierarchy that eventually developed in the imperial army. Only a limited number of functions is known, among them those of standardbearer and rearrank officer (<i> optio]/i]/<i> our</i></i>. The centurions at this date received only twice the rate of the rankers and no difference in pay is attested for the standardbearers and rearrank officers. It was only in the long service force instituted by Augustus that gradually a hierarchy developed that comprised catgeories similar to modern non commissioned officers.<br>
<br>
The lowest grade in the imperial army was the recruit, <i> tiro</i>, who was not yet accepted as a soldier and received no pay, presumably living of his <i> viaticum</i>, travelling allowance/enlistment bounty. Next were the common soldiers, called <i> milites gregales</i> or - <i> gregarii</i>, herd animals. Alternatively they could be termed <i> simplares</i>, soldiers on basic pay, or <i> munifices</i>, men liable to fatigues. Distinguished from their comrades not by higher pay, but by the privilege of exemption from fatigue duties were the <i> opera vacantes</i> or <i> immunes</i> (a term similar in origin would be modern German <i> Gefreiter</i>). These comprised specialists of various kinds whose special responsibilities and duties excused them the less desirable duties. Though no extra pay was involved the fact that officers used to be bribed to escape <i> munera</i> an <i> immunis</i> would have enjoyed some financial gain from his position. Above these categories were the <i> sesquiplicarii</i>, men on basic pay and a half, and <i> duplicarii</i>, men on double basic pay. The <i> triplicarius</i>, soldier on three times basic pay, may have existed only for a limited time, though cavalry pay may have been granted to make extra distinctions in pay. These higher paid individuals were eventually termed <i> principales</i>. Though at first the term appears to have included the <i> immunes</i> as well, it seems that the meaning was later on narrowed down. The positions and functions associated with pay grades are disputed as only in a few cases a direct link between function and pay is directly attested. However career inscriptions listing a succession of military posts, presumed to indicate either equal or superior rank, are used to argue for assigning particular functions to certain pay grades. This is not yet an exact science however and remains the subject of debate pending discovery and publication of more enlightening source material.<br>
<br>
Main references of interest:<br>
<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'Paygrades and ranks below the centurionate' in: <i> Journal of Roman Studies[/link] 61 (1971) 130-135.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The career structure below the centurionate during the principate' in: <i> Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen </i></i> II-1 (Berlin-New York 1974), 435-451.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The organisation of the career structure of the immunes and principales of the Roman army' in: <i> Bonner Jahrbücher</i> 174 (1974), 245-292.<br>
<br>
Also check the threads on hierarchy in the index.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
<br>
In the republican period there was not yet the varied hierarchy that eventually developed in the imperial army. Only a limited number of functions is known, among them those of standardbearer and rearrank officer (<i> optio]/i]/<i> our</i></i>. The centurions at this date received only twice the rate of the rankers and no difference in pay is attested for the standardbearers and rearrank officers. It was only in the long service force instituted by Augustus that gradually a hierarchy developed that comprised catgeories similar to modern non commissioned officers.<br>
<br>
The lowest grade in the imperial army was the recruit, <i> tiro</i>, who was not yet accepted as a soldier and received no pay, presumably living of his <i> viaticum</i>, travelling allowance/enlistment bounty. Next were the common soldiers, called <i> milites gregales</i> or - <i> gregarii</i>, herd animals. Alternatively they could be termed <i> simplares</i>, soldiers on basic pay, or <i> munifices</i>, men liable to fatigues. Distinguished from their comrades not by higher pay, but by the privilege of exemption from fatigue duties were the <i> opera vacantes</i> or <i> immunes</i> (a term similar in origin would be modern German <i> Gefreiter</i>). These comprised specialists of various kinds whose special responsibilities and duties excused them the less desirable duties. Though no extra pay was involved the fact that officers used to be bribed to escape <i> munera</i> an <i> immunis</i> would have enjoyed some financial gain from his position. Above these categories were the <i> sesquiplicarii</i>, men on basic pay and a half, and <i> duplicarii</i>, men on double basic pay. The <i> triplicarius</i>, soldier on three times basic pay, may have existed only for a limited time, though cavalry pay may have been granted to make extra distinctions in pay. These higher paid individuals were eventually termed <i> principales</i>. Though at first the term appears to have included the <i> immunes</i> as well, it seems that the meaning was later on narrowed down. The positions and functions associated with pay grades are disputed as only in a few cases a direct link between function and pay is directly attested. However career inscriptions listing a succession of military posts, presumed to indicate either equal or superior rank, are used to argue for assigning particular functions to certain pay grades. This is not yet an exact science however and remains the subject of debate pending discovery and publication of more enlightening source material.<br>
<br>
Main references of interest:<br>
<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'Paygrades and ranks below the centurionate' in: <i> Journal of Roman Studies[/link] 61 (1971) 130-135.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The career structure below the centurionate during the principate' in: <i> Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen </i></i> II-1 (Berlin-New York 1974), 435-451.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The organisation of the career structure of the immunes and principales of the Roman army' in: <i> Bonner Jahrbücher</i> 174 (1974), 245-292.<br>
<br>
Also check the threads on hierarchy in the index.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
