07-11-2017, 12:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2017, 03:32 PM by Nathan Ross.)
I think it's difficult to identify any standing 'general staff' prior to the tetrarchy, when such things became a lot more formalised. There were ministers in the imperial government concerned with military matters - the ab epistulis apparently handled officers' commissions and promotions - but the actual running of the army seems to have been in the hands of the (mainly senatorial) general officers. When the emperor took the field he would accompanied by a staff of ministers and secretaries, and a number of comites or 'companions' - usually senatorial legati - who could presumably be delegated to any tasks that needed doing.
One role that might be important is the praefectus fabrum, who seems to have been a sort of controller of works/logistics in the later Republican and early imperial army, although the exact duties of the role are unclear, and the prestige apparently decreased in later years.
At the level of the individual legions, it's possible that the praefectus castrorum might have had oversight on maintenance and supply of the troops in camp. The tribunes also had a small official staff of clerks and secretaries, headed by a cornicularius and assisted by a number of beneficiarii selected from the ranks. Any 'general staff meetings' would presumably include the legate and tribunes, the primus pilus, praefectus and perhaps also the primi ordines among the centurions, depending who was available at the time.
As far as we know, I think, there wasn't any centralised control of army equipment or weaponry. Military units made their own arrangements for supply - although we only have evidence for clothing requests, not armour or weapons (most of which was probably produced in the legion's own armoury). Most changes were probably made in a rather ad hoc way, responding to particular demands - the helmet strengthening that you mentioned might be a good example of this - although the 'Dacian falx' theory might not be accurate. It used to be thought that the manica arm protection was also intended as a defence against the falx, until an example turned up in Britain that predated the Dacian wars by several decades.
Under the tetrarchy, the imperial administration became far more elaborate and bureaucratic, and we see various levels of administrative hierarchy and central control, from imperial arms factories (fabricae), each with their official staff, to multiple Praetorian Prefects and provincial governors who controlled military supply and logistics.
You might like to take a look at Jonathan Roth's The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (1999), which has a useful chapter on military administration. Austin & Rankov's Exploratio, while mainly about military intelligence, has some discussion on the command hierarchy that would have used such intelligence. Fergus Millar's The Emperor in the Roman World is mostly concerned with the figure of the emperor himself and the ways that imperial orders and responses were passed down through the chain of command - it's a dense read, but worthwhile. Most books about the Roman army will cover the question of command, supply and decision-making to some extent - Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman Army at War might be a good place to start.
One role that might be important is the praefectus fabrum, who seems to have been a sort of controller of works/logistics in the later Republican and early imperial army, although the exact duties of the role are unclear, and the prestige apparently decreased in later years.
At the level of the individual legions, it's possible that the praefectus castrorum might have had oversight on maintenance and supply of the troops in camp. The tribunes also had a small official staff of clerks and secretaries, headed by a cornicularius and assisted by a number of beneficiarii selected from the ranks. Any 'general staff meetings' would presumably include the legate and tribunes, the primus pilus, praefectus and perhaps also the primi ordines among the centurions, depending who was available at the time.
As far as we know, I think, there wasn't any centralised control of army equipment or weaponry. Military units made their own arrangements for supply - although we only have evidence for clothing requests, not armour or weapons (most of which was probably produced in the legion's own armoury). Most changes were probably made in a rather ad hoc way, responding to particular demands - the helmet strengthening that you mentioned might be a good example of this - although the 'Dacian falx' theory might not be accurate. It used to be thought that the manica arm protection was also intended as a defence against the falx, until an example turned up in Britain that predated the Dacian wars by several decades.
Under the tetrarchy, the imperial administration became far more elaborate and bureaucratic, and we see various levels of administrative hierarchy and central control, from imperial arms factories (fabricae), each with their official staff, to multiple Praetorian Prefects and provincial governors who controlled military supply and logistics.
You might like to take a look at Jonathan Roth's The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (1999), which has a useful chapter on military administration. Austin & Rankov's Exploratio, while mainly about military intelligence, has some discussion on the command hierarchy that would have used such intelligence. Fergus Millar's The Emperor in the Roman World is mostly concerned with the figure of the emperor himself and the ways that imperial orders and responses were passed down through the chain of command - it's a dense read, but worthwhile. Most books about the Roman army will cover the question of command, supply and decision-making to some extent - Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman Army at War might be a good place to start.
Nathan Ross
