Centurion Rank

[Vindex]

"I forgot about ILS 2446 (CIL 8, 18072):

[Ta]bularium princi[pis cum im]ag(inibus) | d[om]us divinae option[es coh(ortis) pri]mae | de suo feceru[nt] | Q(uintus) [Semp]ronius Felix p(rimi) p(ili) P(ublius) Aeli[us Macrinus] princ(ipis) | L(ucius) [Vale]rius Ianuarius has(tati) C(aius) Iu[l(ius) Longinian(us) p]r(incipis) pos(terioris) | C(aius) [Ant]onius Silvanus has(tati) pos(terioris) ...

This (fragmentary) inscription, set up by the optiones of the primi ordines of the Third Augusta legion at Lambaesis around AD 250 shows that the third in seniority (L. Valerius Ianuarius' centurion) was simply known as the hastatus (not hastatus prior). "

So, Fulginus is back as third in seniority???

Edited to add: Good discussion though....

Not sure about you guys but I'm putting a cold towel round my head and going to bed before I go MAD!!!!!!!!

[Renatus]

[Ta]bularium princi[pis cum im]ag(inibus) | d[om]us divinae option[es coh(ortis) pri]mae | de suo feceru[nt] | Q(uintus) [Semp]ronius Felix p(rimi) p(ili) P(ublius) Aeli[us Macrinus] princ(ipis) | L(ucius) [Vale]rius Ianuarius has(tati) C(aius) Iu[l(ius) Longinian(us) p]r(incipis) pos(terioris) | C(aius) [Ant]onius Silvanus has(tati) pos(terioris) ...

This (fragmentary) inscription, set up by the optiones of the primi ordines of the Third Augusta legion at Lambaesis around AD 250 shows that the third in seniority (L. Valerius Ianuarius' centurion) was simply known as the hastatus (not hastatus prior).

It also shows that the title of the princeps prior was abbreviated to princeps. However, in the passage from DBC 3.64 quoted by Macedon, Caesar gives this officer his full title when describing the incident at Dyrrachium in which all the centurions of the First Cohort of the Ninth Legion were killed except the princeps prior.

I can see from the Latin quotes above that the "ordinus" was a very important word in Roman military nomenclature and with regard to the office of the cenurion. What does it exactly mean? Can it be a centuria as Duncan has suggested?

It seems that ordo in the plural can also, in effect, mean 'cohort'. In DBC 3.53, Caesar refers to the promotion of the centurion Scaeva from the Eighth Cohort (ab octavis ordinibus) to primus pilus, i.e., to the primi ordines.

[D B Campbell]

So, Fulginus is back as third in seniority???

Maybe. :?

OK, probably. :wink: As I said before, it can be problematic, reading evidence from the "High Empire" back into a Caesarian context.

[D B Campbell]

It seems that ordo in the plural can also, in effect, mean 'cohort'.

That's logical. The (multiple) centuries of the cohort. The word still means centuria.

In DBC 3.53, Caesar refers to the promotion of the centurion Scaeva from the Eighth Cohort (ab octavis ordinibus) to primus pilus, i.e., to the primi ordines.

Literally "from the eighth centuries", i.e. the centuries of the eighth cohort.

[D B Campbell]

As for the word "ordo", in Byzantine works, as an "ordinos" we can often see it mean "rank". ... I have, nevertheless also encountered it as "file" too, ...

Must be a loan-word from Latin, George. Maybe one of the late lexica defines it?

Just to confuse the "Greek" issue, centurio is often "translated" into ancient Greek (i.e. not Byzantine Greek) as ταξίαρχος, although centurions do not ordinarily command a file of 128 men (the usual Hellenistic meaning of τάξις). :roll:

[Macedon]

In Greek literature, and I would dare suggest in Latin too, terms do not always retain the same meaning throughout the ages. When the same source uses the same term in multiple meanings things get even more complex (as is the case with "ordinos" in Uranus' work). The quotes I gave are very clear so I do not think that giving more instances or the term would really be useful here. Yet, Byzantines did use a lot of Graecisized latin in their terminology which, in my opinion, might prove helpful in understanding their use in latin as well, at least regarding late Roman practices. So, according to you guys, is an ordinos only some kind of unit (a centuria or a cohort) and certainly not (maybe also) a more generic term for line or rank? IF my latin quotes were from Byzantine texts in Greek, I would translate them as "centurions of the first line (or rank of the line)" rather than centurions of the first centuria or cohort. I remind you that my latin is only an intuitious recognition of certain words that I have come across a number of times or that resemble Greek words, so I do not speak as someone with any authority here, I am just trying to see whether Byzantine terminology in Greek could be used as a helpful analogy when discussing latin terms.

Taxis is another term with a number of meanings... it basically only means arrangement, order. Polybius certainly uses the term taxiarch to describe centurions. A taxis of Phocas was 1,000 men, of Xenophon 100 and their leader was called a hekatontarch (regarding the Persians of Cyrus), which closely resembles Polybius' use for the Romans. I guess that such differences will also be met in the use of latin terms...

P.S. I added some quick translations to the Greek quotes I offered above for those who do not know ancient Greek.

[Vindex]

...It also shows that the title of the princeps prior was abbreviated to princeps.

Would that not be just to fit it on the inscription but differentiate from all the other 'p' rank titles?

[Renatus]

...It also shows that the title of the princeps prior was abbreviated to princeps.

Would that not be just to fit it on the inscription but differentiate from all the other 'p' rank titles?

I think not. There is enough room on that line to adjust the spacing to include an abbreviation of prioris, had the stonecutter wished to do so. It is more logical to assume that the prior centurions in the principes and the hastati were treated in the same way.

[Mark Hygate]

Then there is an argument of whether this particular officer is the 3rd or 5th in seniority.

Given the apparent rank structure of the later Imperial First Cohort (my quick reference was to Connolly to check), then I'd go with 3rd. This would be consistent with the Polybian order of selection and you know how hidebound those/us military types are!

Michael Speidel, in the article that I cited, ranks centurions in the following order: pilus prior, princeps prior, hastatus prior, pilus posterior, princeps posterior, hastatus posterior.

Absolutely, I had no intention of disagreeing. Your reference above is for Cohorts II-X (Imperial Legion) as well as pre-Imperial Coh I. It's all those together, where the inference seems to be that the 3 Priors came before the 3 Posteriors, that would lead us to the conclusion that this chappie ranked 3rd.

On Maniples/Ordines...

It's a small part of a little treatise that I hope to submit to this august forum for consideration, but there is evidence throughout all 700+ years (C3BC-C4+AD) for maniples and ordines to suggest that they were more than just an administrative unit. One of the reasons is that I suspect a simple military command reason - only one of the centuriones is allowed on leave at a time, perhaps, let alone the practice of detaching same for odd-jobs around the place. This is one reason the Imperial period 'double-century' First Cohort is not so unusual to consider.

[Renatus]

Absolutely, I had no intention of disagreeing. Your reference above is for Cohorts II-X (Imperial Legion) as well as pre-Imperial Coh I. It's all those together, where the inference seems to be that the 3 Priors came before the 3 Posteriors, that would lead us to the conclusion that this chappie ranked 3rd.

Quite so. I was agreeing with you.

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
So, according to you guys, is an ordinos only some kind of unit (a centuria or a cohort) and certainly not (maybe also) a more generic term for line or rank? IF my Latin quotes were from Byzantine texts in Greek, I would translate them as "centurions of the first line (or rank of the line)" rather than centurions of the first centuria or cohort.

I also would support an ordo as relating to ranks, or lines of men, and not to a century or cohort. In order to better understand the centurion, I’ve compared the centurion command structure in the legion from the Servian army to the legion of Vegetius I have been painstakingly researching for what seems most of my life. In the Servian army, a centurion commanded a century, which would better be described as a voting century, which is based on property class and age division, and modelled on the Century Assembly. Because of this, I believe the centurions are selected from Class I. I’ve based this on the classis outnumbering the infra classem in the legion by 2:1. The maniple legion introduced a more democratic legion, which is based on the Tribal Assembly, and power rested with Class II, a point Cicero mentions. The number of classis to infra classem in the maniple legion is 1:1. However, as Polybius tells us the centurions were chosen from only three of the four classes that define the maniple legion, a centurion can no longer command a voting century, but a centurion now commands ordines, or ranks of men.

Livy’s (42 34 5) account of the promotion of Spurius Ligustinus, being promoted from the tenth ‘ordo’ of the hastati to the first century of the hastati (primum hastatum prioris centuriae), then first leader of the principes prior centuries (primus princeps prioris centuriae) to the position of first centurion (primus pilus) of the triarii,” relates to the voting century structure, and not to the structure a centurion commanded in the legion. What I am trying to say, is the voting century structure is engaged when promoting a centurion.

It looks like in 102 BC, a year infamous in the Pythagorean system the Romans adhere to, the property class for entry into the legion is abolished. Therefore, there is no voting century (century assembly or tribal assembly) present in the organisation of the Roman legion. It seems the term century now only applies to the number of men a centurion commanded, which is still determined by rank.

Steven

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Phil Barker was the one who interpreted the Ordo as a Late Roman unit consisting of more than one Century, rather than as a rank or file of men where the Centurion stood when commanding.

[antiochus]

I know I am heading into a storm of controversy here, but I believe the primus pilus centurion in the early to mid republic was an additional centurion. This gives each legion 61 centurions. Of the remaining 60 centurions, the senior centurion is the first centurion of the principes. Once this rank is achieved, the next stage is the primus pilus.

I’ve come across some papers having the primus pilus commanding the triarii. However, this would be a position of low prestige considering the triarii on many occasion were assigned to guard the camp, guard the baggage camp, and performed duties such as ditch digging. So why would a primus pilus be given the command of ditch diggers? The reason why Livy discusses the triarii separately from the rest of the legion is because the triarii are not organised into centuries or maniples. Polybius does the same. In fact Polybius’ description of the centurions can be reconciled with Livy’s legion. They make a perfect match.

So if I presented the case the primus pilus was additional to the 60 legions for the early and mid republic, does anyone know if there are references in the primary sources that would challenge this notion.

Steven

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think it has some plausibility. It remind sme of the Ordinarius - which we think is a Century commander in the Legiones Palatina/Auxilia Palatina/Comitatenses, but we also see the term Centenarius in both the Limitanei and comitatenses.

It has been though that the Ordinarius was possibly a "primus pilus" of the Centenarii.

[Nathan Ross]

It has been though that the Ordinarius was possibly a "primus pilus" of the Centenarii.

Hmm, would that work?

Bearing in mind we're talking about late Roman ranks here (i.e. a long way from Caesar!), the two theories I've heard about the ordinarii suggest either that they were synonymous with the primi ordines of the principiate - the leading centurions of the legion (this is Mommsen's theory I think), or that the term simply means a ranking centurion commanding a century, as opposed to a centurion doing something else (which sounds vague, but that's what I recall of Frank Gilliam's Ordinarii and Ordinati essay of 1940...).

The primus pilus, however, disappeared decades before, so this doesn't help any discussions about him!