Centuriones

[Gaius_Calvus]

Thanks -- very helpful.

To me, the three grades of pay would seem to indicate that the 15x pay could be any of the centurionate that were not also in command of a cohort; while the 30x scale were the senior men in command of cohors I-IX.

In the case of the primi ordines, res ipsa loquitur.

Vale

Calvus

[Gaius_Calvus]

Sorry, I missed your last para when I submitted my last post. We are in complete agreement.

Thanks for the info on pay scales. Very interesting.

Calvus

[Crispvs]

Whoops - my editing crossed your reply in the mail so to speak.

Crispvs

[SOCL]

Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, 100BC-AD200 seems to indicate that the first cohort was the only cohort in the legion with 5 centuriones (i.e. only one pilus, namely primus pilus), but that the other nine cohorts were made up of 6 centuriae, which implies six centuriones (p 14). Something different, though, is that he lists the order of seniority as:

• pilus prior
  pilus posterior
  princeps prior
  princeps posterior
  hastatus prior
  hastatus posterior

This is a change from the previous notion discussed in this thread that all the "posterior" ranks came before the "prior" ranks.

Goldsworthy also says that the primi ordines could not just be the 5 centuriones of the first cohort, but had to include all of the cohort commanders (i.e. every pilus prior). He cites that in Tacitus 3.22 refers to legio VII losing 6 centuriones primorum ordinum in battle in AD69 (p 15), but that Tacitus fails to mention any such catastrophe as the loss of the officers of an entire cohort, treating it is, indeed, extraordinary event, but not a disaster. This implies that the primi ordines could not have been only the 5 centuriones of the first cohort. Further, we then have to make an educated guess in saying that the senior centuriones of each cohort was included among the ranks of primi ordines.

I find this terribly facinating, and thought I'd put out some extra information and another viewpoint on this topic.

[drsrob]

The superior rank of centurions of the first cohort is supported by the remains of the legionary fortress at Inchtuthil (Pertshire) L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London 1984) pp. 174-175. As in other fortresses each barrack seams to house a century and has larger quarters at the end, presumably for the centurion.
One groep of ten rows has no normal centurion's quarters, but instead there are five larger houses with an atrium. The fifth being even larger than the other four. These houses were not intended for the tribunes; for them there were a row of even larger houses. So they must have been intended for the centurions of the first cohort, the larger one more specifically for the primipilus.
This suggests that the three pay scales, were as follows:

• 1. primipilus,
  2. other centurions of the first cohort
  3. all other centurions

Off course this does necessarily means that the primi ordines were the centurions of the first cohort, but it does seem likely.

[SOCL]

Another intetesting perspective:

Cowan, Roman Legionary, 58 BC-AD 69 (Osprey Publishing), p 8, states something that "Pili centurions seem to have been the most senior in the cohort (but they did not command it)..." This, despite the general understanding that the opposite was the case. Cowan goes on to say, "Despite the status of the primus pilus there is no evidence that he had overall command of the first cohort."

I find this a bit confusing as everyone else has stated or at least implied that the pili of each cohort commanded the cohort, and, if nothing else, at least the primus pilus commanded the first cohort. Cowan's statements, though, take a completely different stance on the matter. Is this an isolated statement, or is the debate existant, but not readily accepted or explained in most sources?

[Peroni]

I think what Ross means is in the quote..

"Despite the status of the primus pilus there is no evidence that he had overall command of the first cohort."

'No evidence' being the key words.

[adamparsons]

Given the casualties amongst the centurionate seem to be high, 6 centuriones primorum ordinum in the post above and presumably some ordinary centurions too, and this doesn't seem uncommon, promotion- even if convoluted must have been still fairly quick during wartime.

Regarding cohort commanders. I assume that if a cohort was detached, the senior centurion, though not technically the commander, would be in charge given he was the senior officer in the unit? Does anyone know of any evidence for this, I can't seem to find any, but there must be a tombstone with- ?? commanded the ?? cohort of LEG ?? somewhere hock: ?!? I'm not saying they WERE in command, just maybe they assumed active command on detachment.

It is also interesting to note, alongside the point that Rob was making, at Inchtuthil ( http://www.roman-britain.org/places/inchtuthill.htm#tic ) Each cohorts centurion quarters are the same size, all 6, surely if the senior was classed as centuriones primorum ordinum, or even just senior to the other centurions he would insist on a larger house than his subordinates in the same cohort-?

very interesting topic folks

[Tarbicus]

Wasn't one of the reasons that senior officers had large residences because they hosted the meetings for their staff each day? Wouldn't the number of staff they had to accomodate be an indication of who lived where, by how large the residence was?

[adamparsons]

Possibly, I was labouring under the apprehension that the principia fufilled this role for meetings/briefings of all sizes not just the morning address as it were.

Although (take inchtuthil again) why would the primus pilus have a larger house than the other 1st cohort centurions if he didn't command them (as alluded to in a previous post (though this is a very big if IMHO!! )

(not sure I believe it just playing devils advocate) This would support the idea that the senior was not in official charge/command of the other centuries in that cohort though.

[Tarbicus]

Higher pay means more slaves to accomodate, and then there is the evidence for families being present in forts, and not just late Empire.

[adamparsons]

Very true, If you looked at it from that angle, pay = space for family/slaves, then Robs pay based ranking of (pay in brackets) works perfectly with size alloted at Inchtuthil.

(60x) 1. primipilus,
(30x) 2. other centurions of the first cohort
(15x) 3. all other centurions

[SOCL]

It doesn't seem to me that command of the cohort means he must have a larger house. A larger house I would attribute to the higher status/grade in rank and, thus, the higher pay. I believe that more senior the rank, larger the house, and not necessarily attributed to command. Larger staffs I would attribute to higher command. In any event, then is the notion of the pili centurions commanding their cohorts actually a sort of wideranging myth or popular notion and not so much supported by actual evidence? (it's a question despite sounding like a statement) Or does there exist evidence that senior centurions actually did command their cohorts? :?

In any event, if the pili of each cohort commanded the cohort at any time, I would assume it would be during actions wherein the whole legion was engaged. If deployed to act autonomously in operations, though, I would assume someone of higher rank would be assigned to command the unit, perhaps a tribune or such as Cowan seems to imply. This is mostly speculation, though, as we can't be certain.

[adamparsons]

It doesn't seem to me that command of the cohort means he must have a larger house. A larger house I would attribute to the higher status/grade in rank and, thus, the higher pay.

This is probably true, its all dependant on IF they did command and if this gave added status or not.

Or does there exist evidence that senior centurions actually did command their cohorts? :?

This is what I was asking a few posts up- does anyone know of any tombstone or such referencing command of legionary cohorts, as opposed to auxilliary?

[D B Campbell]

Regarding cohort commanders. I assume that if a cohort was detached, the senior centurion, though not technically the commander, would be in charge given he was the senior officer in the unit? Does anyone know of any evidence for this, I can't seem to find any, but there must be a tombstone with- ?? commanded the ?? cohort of LEG ?? somewhere hock: ?!? I'm not saying they WERE in command, just maybe they assumed active command on detachment.

I can't think of any examples where we know of an entire cohort being detached from its parent legion for independent action. The limited evidence for the composition of vexillations appears to show that a mix of troops were drawn from different cohorts and centuries.

The only exceptions I can think of are the cohortal building inscriptions from Hadrian's Wall (e.g. RIB 1422), where no commander is stated. We may assume that the pilus prior took command, but there is no proof.
Unless someone knows differently ...