Primus Pilus

[Quadratus]

I am by no means a specialist, but it seems to me that the idea of neat one-to-one relationships between job and rank is a fairly modern one and rarely achieved in practice.

I am thinking particularly of the British Royal Navy where 'Warrant Officers of Wardroom Status' survived into the late 19th century. These included not only non-combatants like the Schoolmaster, Surgeon and Chaplain, but the Master (originally Ship Master, later Sailing Master) and the Gunner, whose rank eventually evolved into the commissioned Gunnery Officer, but started life as a warrant rank.

These people were, in modern terms, heads of department and commanded everyone, including commissioned officers within those departments, although ranking below, or at least, separately from them, and being in general promoted from the ranks. The true place of the of the Masters in the pecking order was such that, when they were finally absorbed into the commissioned ranks, most became Commanders, some Captains ('full bird colonel' equivalent) and the most senior Captains with 6 years seniority – equivalent to a Brigadier/1-star general in modern terms.

There was also the situation of Viceroy's Commissioned Officers (VCO's) in the Indian Army, before independence. These ranked below all King's or Queen's Commissioned Officers, but in practice, frequently commanded them – even if they did say 'please'. These too were frequently promoted rankers.

So, while neither of these examples is identical to the position of the centurionate, they do suggest that in a society where there are fairly rigid distinctions based on birth interacting with a military system which must be, at least in practice, meritocratic (don't laugh all you military people out there!) there is likely to be a degree of rank/job/status confusion. The young gentlemen have high social status, but know s*d all, while the grizzled rankers and trained specialists have lower social status but are essential to get the job done.