08-28-2016, 12:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2016, 12:18 PM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
(08-25-2016, 10:44 PM). Nathan Ross Wrote: there must have been some sort of 10/10 division or difference within them, based on the numbers of standard bearers -
indeed, there is nothing else I can add.
perhaps the information regarding the number of optiones is interesting as well, which were little more than administration-chiefs of the centuriae (here for Perge also just 10 each, which is in my opinion a very important hint regarding the internal structure).
P.Münch. 1 2 (from Elephantine) names the officers of the ἀριθμοῦ Ἐλεφαντίνης (Numerus Elephantinum or Elephantinorum). The officer Σερήνου is ὀρδινάριοι (ordinarius) καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ πρίορες (and prior) - his colleague Μακαρίου was ὀρδιναρίου καὶ ἀδιούτορος (ordinarius and adiutor). That additional tasks were given into the hands of certain officers is not new.
In the case of my "prior" I cannot read more than that he was "the First". The first of all ordinarii? The priores were senior officers. Generally also referred to as principes or priores.
(See Gascou, Deux inscriptions byzantines de Haute-Égypte, esp. p. 338.).
--------
edit:
There is an interesting and important note in the Strategicon regarding the primani and secundi of the contuberni. I have written a long text here in this post. But I think that this is another topic and therefore I have deleted some of my sentences. Attached to this post is an unfinished page from my next work. As said, it's not finished, but it gives a good first view about the internal structure of the contuberni. If somebody has a question regarding this issue please don't hesitate to ask.
--------
That a centurion (or centenarius) was still deployed in front (of course I mean the centurion with his complete centuria) - and the other centurion was a "secundus" (or posterior) and stood behind or beside him - cannot be provided by sources and is unlikely for this advanced era. I mean we have really enough papyri connecting the ordinarii with the priores or even principes. So, on the other hand there is to my knowledge no papyrus connecting an ordinarius to a "secundus" or something similar.
I don't want write an essay about it now. But I think that a kind of "pairing" goes hand-in-hand with a kind of internal hierarchy (except we consider prior and posterior as equals). One centurio is inferior and the other one is superior. Such a traditions/customs should result in a different payment of those officers, which cannot be observed in papyri regarding the late 5th, 6th or even ealry 7th century. Also the 20 officers from our Perge-Legion get the same anonna. I love the idea that there was still a kind of "pairing", but as said, it's very unlikely for the time-era in question.
In the first moment one could think that there were 20 centuriae. But against this opinion speaks the fact regarding the optiones and standard-bearers - also the high ammount of cavalry. The rank of the old cavalry-decurio was abolished, however, we have more than one example of a new cavalry-centenarius. I think it is plausible to a certain degree that infantry- and cavalry-ordinarii get indeed the same salary ... not least since the importance of cavalry has increased.
...
@ Dear Steven, you can of course enlarge the infantry contubernium in my schematic from 8 to 10 soldiers. A file hasn't necessarily just 8 men. The Strategicon teach us that for some troops 10 is possible as well - albeit this is just valid for cavalry and psiloi (armaturae). If you calculate 10 men for a contubernium (a file) then you have a troop of 1000 men infantry. This depends on how many soldiers you calculate for the munifices (tirones) at the end of slab C.
