Most of what has been written here so far about the careers of equestrians refers, as Carina has pointed out, to the army of the Imperial era, after the sequence of prefect/tribune posts was set out by Claudius. Before this, the career of a Roman 'officer' would certainly have been a lot less easy to predict. Remember that in Caesar's day, for instance, legions had no fixed commanders - during the Gallic wars, legates were moved from one legion to the next depending (it seems) on their personal attributes (or the favour of Caesar, perhaps!) - at one point, the fourteenth legion was commanded by two legates at the same time. What goes for legates would probably have gone for tribunes too - I think it's better to see the tribunes of a legion - and those others of similar rank filling posts in the army - as a sort of floating officer cadre, moved from post to post as the need arose. In Caesar's Commentaries, there are few tribunes mentioned - perhaps many of the political placemen were indeed kept in admin positions, as the majority of Caesar's army at any point was engaged in securing food supplies and manning bases and winter camps. Actually combat was comparatively rare.<br>
There are mentions of tribunes in battle - in Commentaries VI.40 Caesar writes of a vexillation of five cohorts and 300 veterans "under the conduct of Caius Trebonius, a Roman knight (i.e equestrian tribune), who had been appointed over them…" Granted these men were originally a foraging party before they were attacked by German raiders, and it's not clear whether Trebonius (not the later assassin, incidentally!) was leading the full five cohorts or just the veterans, but clearly as a tribune he had battlefield seniority.<br>
As for tribunes commanding two cohorts - I don't see why not, although I doubt this was a fixed command. If a vexillation of two (or more) cohorts were being detached from the legion, obviously the senior centurion of either could not have commanded both, so who better than a tribune?<br>
<br>
Commissioning and promotion in pre-Imperial times seems to have been fairly haphazard. Cicero's letters provide an insight into the nepotistic practices of his day. Writing to Caesar in February 54bc, he recommends one Trebatius Testa, an equestrian and a promising young lawyer, for a post in the army of Gaul: "no honester, better, or more modest man exists," says Cicero. "Added to this, he is at the top of his profession as a jurisconsult, possesses an unequaled memory and the most profound learning. For such a man I ask neither a tribuneship, prefecture, nor any definite office, I ask only your goodwill and liberality..." No mention of military experience, and so we can assume that Testa has none, but Cicero's letter implies that a tribuneship or prefecture for such a man would not be unheard of. In the same letter, Cicero quotes Caesar on one Miscinius Rufus, a previous appointee, now an officer under Quintus Lepta, Caesar's Praefectus Fabrum. Caesar says "send me someone else to promote". For commanders of the day, of course, giving military appointments and promotions was a great way to increase and stabilise a personal client network; I suspect this might have been why the emperors formalised the process!<br>
<br>
Earlier in the thread, Aaron mentioned Horace at Philippi:<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>For instance, in the case of Horace himself, he was the son of a freedman, clearly low-class, and yet somehow ended up commanding a whole legion before the civil wars were all over<hr><br>
<br>
I'm not sure that Horace commanded a legion at any time - it's most likely that he was a tribune at the battle, and was later famed for throwing his shield away and fleeing before combat (possibly a story made up to appease the Augustan regime, or to echo a famous poem by Archilochus, in which a mercenary soldier dumps his shield and deserts the fight - the poem was quite famous in Greece, and led to Archilochus being banned in Sparta for his unmanly sentiments!). Brutus and co recruited their army in the east, of course, as Italy was closed to them - Horace would have been one of the many wealthy young Romans studying at the academies of Athens and Rhodes, which had been finishing schools for young gentlemen for centuries. His father was supposedly a freedman, but to have afforded an Athenian education for his son he must have become fairly rich since manumission (not at all unlikely - remember the millionaire ex-slave Trimalchio in Petronius). As a freedman, he could not have joined the equestrian order, but his son Horace would have been a full Roman citizen, and therefore eligible - Brutus and Cassius, in desperate straits, would likely not have enquired into the exact circumstances, but it was wealth and standing that mattered, and as a university student Horace obviously had both. He had no military experience, of course, but the idea seems to have been that wealth and status brought obligation and a natural sense of responsibility. This notion prevailed into modern times - the British Navy of the 18th century was led by aristocrats, and didn't perform too badly.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, Roman social classes are quite confusing - the patrician/plebian distinction had no real political effect after the early years of the Republic, and was not connected with the senatorial/equestrian divide - either could be patricians or plebians. Equestrians did become senators, and vice versa (though less often), but in the late republic the patrician order had decayed to a few ancient families. Imperial bloodlines resuscited the old distinction for a while, but in terms of actual social, political or military effect the only differences that mattered were between the nobility - senatorial and equestrian - and the rest.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
