Military Tribunes and Legates

[louisxyz]

Hi i was just wondering if anyone could enlighten me on the functions of the military tribunes and legates in the republican roman army, More specifically where they exclusively political appointments, or professional soldiers? did they have a place in the command structure, or were they merely adjutants and aides to the general? would it be possible for a lowly miles to ascend to this position? and finally what is the difference between the two?

gratias agam si quis huic respondere possit

[Vindex]

Well...

I am sure someone will come up with relevant references (other than Polybius which I am assuming you have read/are reading) but the quick differentiation is that the Military Tribune was more of a political appointment for young men of Patrician rank and the Legates of the Legions tended to be the professional soldier for want of a better term. The Legate was there whether one of the Consuls appointed for an expeditionary excursion was "hands on" or not, but the Legate would always be there are part of the Chain of Command.

The Military Tribune is not to be confused with the Tribune of the People which was non military and very much a political appointment.

And frankly no, I doubt very much whether two lowly miles would ever be tribune, but they might, just might, rise to the rank of Legionary Legate (but again doubtful - Rome was a world of patronage and client. You needed clout to get on).

Vale!

[JeffF]

Military tribunes were of two classes. In the early imperial period 5 of the 6 tribunes of a legion were of the equestrian class (Tribuni angusticlavii) and served as the staff for a legion commander. They were usually quite professional in that they had long military careers switching from command of an auxiliary cohort to the staff tribunes of a legion and on to command a cavalry alae. The remaining tribune of a legion was the one of senatorial rank (tribunus laticlavius). He was second in command of the legion but generally younger than the equestrian tribunes and usually was serving in his first military assignment as a step on the way to greater political responsibilities. Selected senatorial ranked individuals went on to become legion commanders, legates. This assignment was not right after serving as a tribune so there would be a significant gap of years between the two. From the early imperial period the third in command of a legion was the camp prefect (Praefectus castrorum) who had previously served as primus pilus (the senior centurion of a legion) but usually came from a lower social class (though there are many examples of equestrian ranked individuals joining the army with the rank of centurion - centurions were usually promoted from the ranks). The Camp Prefect was therefore a distinguished soldier with decades of experience and no doubt legates and senatorial tribunes leaned heavily on the advice from such men.

This differs from the time of Caesar. Apparently the six tribunes of a legion were all of equal rank and consisted of equestrians but at that time young sons of patrician and senator fathers were usually initially classed as equestrians.

By the time of Septimus Severus senatorial class legates were becoming a rarity, he had a policy of promoting equestrian ranked legion commanders called legion prefects instead as a way of minimizing the possibility of patricians usurping the position of emperor. This presumes then that the use of senatorial class tribunes also came to an end.

[Vindex]

Show's you how wrong your memory can be.:oops:

Try this link...

http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/Ancient_Wa...archy.html

[D B Campbell]

... the functions of the military tribunes and legates in the republican roman army ... did they have a place in the command structure, or were they merely adjutants and aides to the general?

These men were the command structure! Under the (Middle) Republican system, the "general" was one of the consuls. Each consul could be assigned two legions, each of which had six tribunes, who were experienced young equestrians. Overall command of each legion could be held by the consul himself, or by a praetor (a senator who had not yet held the consulship). The consul might arrange to delegate command of a legion or a smaller task force to a "legate", who was usually a more junior magistrate (maybe a man who had not yet held the praetorship).

Under the Late Republic, with many more legions under arms, the command structure began to change, so that it was closer to the imperial system that Jeff described above. The main difference was that armies were no longer commanded by magistrates during their year of office. The commands were now held by proconsuls (ex-consuls) and propraetors (ex-praetors). Each legion still had its six tribunes, and legionary commands were still allocated on an ad hoc basis to the general's associates, who were given the title of legate.

All very confusing.

Would it be possible for a lowly miles to ascend to this position?

Nope. All of these men were drawn from the equestrian and senatorial elites.

[popularis]

Hi i was just wondering if anyone could enlighten me on the functions of the military tribunes and legates in the republican roman army, More specifically where they exclusively political appointments, or professional soldiers?

**Warning: quite a few simplifications follow.**

Legates: chosen by the senate and later (sometimes) by the commander - it was an honour for Pompeius to be able to appoint his own.

Military tribunes: 6 (probably) per legion by the late Republic. 24 elected by the people every year, the remainder appointed by the man responsible for commanding them.

As to "political appointments" vs "professional soldiers", that's probably the wrong question to ask Even noted military specialists (Petreius, Gabinius) were also politicians, and their appointment to any post was doubtless a political act. By the same token, even 'homines militares' should not be thought of as 'professional soldiers', any more than Cicero should be described as a 'professional orator'; politician, military officer, orator - a member of the Roman elite was expected to be able to be all three, and no-one wanted to limit himself to one field, however good he was at it.

did they have a place in the command structure, or were they merely adjutants and aides to the general?

The Republic had no set command structure at all between the centurion and the commander. Command structures in between were determined by each commander as he saw fit. So most legates would probably have fitted into the command structure (they were senior men, after all), but military tribunes (and the other equestrian-ranked officers, the prefects) could be assigned command roles, or not, at the commander's discretion.

That's not to say that they're "merely adjutants and aides to the general" though. The regular (military) duties of a military tribune as described by Polybius (6.19ff. off the top of my head), for example, would have kept them busy enough.

would it be possible for a lowly miles to ascend to this position?

Not in the Republic, at least, not easily. Between 50BC (when the demand for manpower and the need to keep good centurions on side breaks down some social barriers) and the Claudian period (when a separate career path develops for former centurions), it was possible for primipilares - who would have started much lower - to be promoted to officer positions, including the military tribunate. Getting much higher would have been pretty difficult though! Caesar is said to have put former centurions in the senate, so I suppose it's just possible you could get legates who had served as a miles, but generally, no.

Now as a rider to all this, lots of young members of the Roman uber-elite (e.g. the sons of senators) served in the army as - technically - common soldiers. But they don't seem to have been sharing tents with the unwashed masses.

and finally what is the difference between the two?

Legates: men of senatorial rank. You can't (or at least shouldn't, it gets hazy at times) be a legate in the Republic unless you hold senatorial rank. In other words, men who had held at least the quaestorship.

Military tribunes and equestrian-ranked prefects: men of equestrian rank (at least).

In practice, this status distinction is what assigns a lot of individuals (about whom we know very little) to a legateship or a military prefecture in modern accounts, i.e. 'so-and-so had held senatorial office, so he must have been a legate'.

As to roles and responsibilities:

Military tribunes were normally much more junior men (both in age and social status) and had responsibilities overseeing the day-to-day activities of the legion. However, there were (probably) six military tribunes, and one or two could be spared for a separate command if necessary. These commands were generally modest by the late Republic (unlike those of, say, the early second century).

A legate was a much more senior man, and while his role was what his commander decided it should be, he would normally have been given important tasks, such as the command of one or more legions, control of a key part of the army in battle, or oversight of an important delegation.

[Nathan Ross]

Military tribunes: ...24 elected by the people every year, the remainder appointed by the man responsible for commanding them.

...military tribunes (and the other equestrian-ranked officers, the prefects) could be assigned command roles, or not, at the commander's discretion.

Was there any regulation on the appointment of the 24 elected tribunes? It would seem that they were intended for the 4 annual consular legions - but did they solely go to them, or could they be sent to provincial commands as well? If they were kept only for the consular legions it would mean that, for example, Caesar's officers in Gaul were almost entirely his own selected appointees.

If we assume that appointment to an 'active' provincial tribunate was a bit of a plum job (and Cicero's letters contain a few requests for positions, so it must have been desireable), we might wonder what the benefit of the elected tribunate actually was - or was it perhaps just an extension of the vigintivirate? In which case, was it maybe the forerunner of the 'senatorial' laticlavius tribunate of imperial times?

Legates: men of senatorial rank. You can't (or at least shouldn't, it gets hazy at times) be a legate in the Republic unless you hold senatorial rank. In other words, men who had held at least the quaestorship.

Military tribunes and equestrian-ranked prefects: men of equestrian rank (at least).

Maybe worth noting that Quaestors (holders of the most junior magistracy) could also serve as field commanders, either independently or under a Promagistrate. A few senior command positions were held by neither legates nor tribunes: Publius Crassus, son of the unlucky triumvir, commanded the cavalry in the battle against Ariovistus, but appears to have had no official 'rank' (or none that Caesar wants to disclose!) - he was also very young at the time.

This maybe underlines that in the Republic there was no effective distinction between political and military power - or between social prestige (which young Crassus possessed) and military command.

- Nathan

[popularis]

Was there any regulation on the appointment of the 24 elected tribunes? It would seem that they were intended for the 4 annual consular legions - but did they solely go to them, or could they be sent to provincial commands as well? If they were kept only for the consular legions it would mean that, for example, Caesar's officers in Gaul were almost entirely his own selected appointees.

Precisely. The legal term for an elected military tribune appears to have been "tribunis militum legionibus quattuor primis" (Cic. Cluen. 148; cf. Livy 27.36.14; Lintott (1999), The constitution of the Roman Republic, 138 n74). So far as I can see, that must have been what they were and, yes, it would have been a bit of a drawback if you didn't get a good placement having been elected. You might also end up with an ungenerous commander (Catullus 10.9ff.; 28 doesn't hold back here).

There were benefits to being elected though - mostly in terms of prominence in Rome, and the chance to be in the public eye. It must have added some prestige, but the fact that there's no epigraphic attestation of a difference in title even in high-status cursus inscriptions that mention the military tribunate (cf. the Iulian elogia), means that it probably didn't mean too much in tangible terms. There's an obvious connection here with the uirgintisextiuirate, but I wouldn't push a link too far with the "senatorial" military tribunate, which was a different beast.

Maybe worth noting that Quaestors (holders of the most junior magistracy) could also serve as field commanders, either independently or under a Promagistrate.

Yup, well reminded!

A few senior command positions were held by neither legates nor tribunes: Publius Crassus, son of the unlucky triumvir, commanded the cavalry in the battle against Ariovistus, but appears to have had no official 'rank' (or none that Caesar wants to disclose!) - he was also very young at the time.

He almost certainly had an official position as a prefect in charge of the cavalry (prefectures were an official post, and pay to prefects had to be accounted for in the same way as military tribunes). He's described as "qui equitatui praeerat" (B.G. 1.52.7 - although this is not the same as the later post of praefectus equitum or praefectus alae). Prefects (with the exception of praefecti fabrum) are rarely explicitly named as praefecti in any Roman sources in the Republic - for the reason below, I think Caesar is being oddly explicit here, rather than coy

Most prefectures, including this one were ad hoc (as above, the commander decided his command structure, and could make anyone, certainly any equestrian, a prefect and give them a task). It's an example of the loose command structure, by the way, that the young man given the job of commanding the cavalry ends up giving orders to reserve infantry on his own initiative.

This maybe underlines that in the Republic there was no effective distinction between political and military power - or between social prestige (which young Crassus possessed) and military command.

No effective distinction whatsoever (some odd religious distinctions, but no practical ones in terms of who held and sought it). It's also worth pointing out that Caesar was trying to ingratiate himself with Crassus Snr. at the time - hence not only the important appointment, but also the conspicuous praise (cf. Welch (1998) ‘Caesar and his Officers in the Gallic War Commentaries’, in Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments (Welch, K., and Powell, A. eds.) 92-93). Note, however, that M. Antonius got a similar command as a young man under Gabinius - command of the cavalry, which also involved climbing walls during seiges (typical cavalry activity?) (Plutarch, Ant. 3).

[louisxyz]

thank you for all these answers they have been extremely helpful. i now see the distinction clearly. I also did not know qaestors held military posts thank you!

i think some of my confusion comes form the fact that whereas the Latin word tribunus is very specific, whereas legati is very general and most often in Caesar simply means ambassadors or just general commanders, rhater than a specific military post.
thanks again!