Conterburnium \'squad leader\'?

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Just a quick question - if the smallest sub-unit within a legion was the <i> conterburnium</i>, is there any evidence that there was a 'leading hand' or 'squad leader' who led or organised this unit? Or were they all equals? <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Hey, I just became a signifer! EM <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

And that should have been <i> contubernium</i>. <!-- <br>
Better watch it, or I'll get busted down to ranker again. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[JRSCline]

A bit OT here, but congrats, Tim! Movin' on up! (And when you get to 200, you'll be a primus pilus and can pick the legion of your choice to lead...)<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
J. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
The 'squad leader' of a <i> contubernium</i> or <i> familia</i> (late Roman army) was called <i> decanus</i> or <i> caput contubernii</i> according to Vegetius (<i> Epitoma rei militaris</i> 2.8).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<br>
Addendum<br>
<br>
M.P. Speidel, 'Who fought in the front?' in <i> Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der roemischen Kaiserzeit</i> supplies these additional references:<br>
<br>
The <i> Strategikon</i> of Maurice has both the terms of <i> dekarchos</i> and <i> archoon tou kontouberniou</i>. In addition he mentions tetrarchs as leaders of four.<br>
<br>
The text of <i> AE</i> 1951, 30 mentions a <i> decanus num(eri) scut(ariorum)</i>. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 6/4/01 8:29:04 pm<br></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Thanks Sander - the detail about the leaders of four is also interesting. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
You are welcome.<br>
<br>
A word of caution though. Note that these terms are all dating from late sources (4th century CE on), so actually using such designations in a setting at the start of the first century CE is probably not wise. The same is true of a lot of terminology regarding ranks etc, which tends to be used in modern studies for earlier stages of the Roman army's evolution when such terms are actually not attested (eg the use of the 2nd century CE term <i> principales</i> for NCO's of the republican - and first century CE army). It would not be right to have characters in the script use such words in dialogue. It is in my opinion better to avoid an anachronistic technical vocabulary (otherwise one could as well use Sutton Hoo helmet for 2nd century CE gladiators). Thus there were very likely similar 'squad leaders' in the early imperial army, but it is simply not known for sure by what name they were then called.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

I'm aware of that caution regarding Vegetius. Any suggestions as to what term I might use? How about 'caput'? A bit like the mafia's 'capo' after all. ;> <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
The word <i> caput</i>, meaning head, was part of the contemporary vocabulary, yet it is not attested in use as a military term for section commanders. It is the word from which other terms like captain (in modern German <i> Hauptmann</i>, literally headman) are derived. I am not sure about Italian <i> capo</i>, but it appears as a deriviation from the same word.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander <p></p><i></i>

[derek forrest]

I note that in Joan Alcocks book "Food in Roman Britain "she refers to a find of a large mortaria from Usk marked "mixing bowl for the contubernium of Messor". She then goes on to say that "this seems to indicate that Messor the caput contubernii had the bowl for mixing the dough". She does not give the latin or date the find. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Here are the inscriptions I listed in a thread on the <i> clades Variana</i> forum.<br>
<br>
<i> AE</i> 1975, 638a.<br>
7(centuria) Cris(pi?) con(tubernio) Cusioni<br>
<br>
<i> AE</i> 1975, 638b.<br>
7(centuria) Firmi contubarnio(sic) Maximi coh(ortis) II T(hracum)<br>
<br>
<i> AE</i> 1976, 370.<br>
[Pe]lveis contub(e)rnio Messoris<br>
<br>
<i> AE</i> 1994, 1261.<br>
7(centuria) T(iti) Veci co(ntubernii) Prudentis<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[derek forrest]

Interesting Sanders but nothing about "Caput" <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Sale,<br>
<br>
That is correct, all references to any designation are from the fourth century AD or later. There are no earlier sources that indicate the titles used before. However it does show that the squads were termed in a similar fashion as other military units, with the commander's name in the <i> genetivus</i> (second case) as commonly encountered in connection with the <i> centuriae</i> and with some auxiliary <i> alae</i> and <i> cohortes</i> as well.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Thanks to Vibius Maurinus a reference in Josephus, <em>BJ</em> 5.503 (perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg....ection=491 ) to <em>dekadarchès</em> as a title for squad leaders in the first century AD Roman army.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sandervandorst@romanarmytalk>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 5/14/03 10:55:38 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Thanks to Vibius Maurinus a reference in Josephus, BJ 5.503 (perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg....ection=491 ) to dekadarchès as a title for squad leaders in the first century AD Roman army.<hr><br>
<br>
So they existed, but still dont have a name for it in Latin. Josephus was a Greek speeker, he was using the term from Hellenistic military manuals for a file of 8 men.<br>
<br>
When did they start getting different pay, and actually became a "rank" though? Treadgold in <em>Byzantium and Its Army 284-1081</em> states they were being paid differently and considered a "office" by the Sixth Century, in turn citing AHM Jones <em>Later Roman Empire</em> and a 1978 article in <em>Chiron 8</em> by a R.P. Duncan-Jones. Those are some old works, is that view still valid? <p></p><i></i>