Late Roman ranks

[Nathan Ross]

centurion thus would be ordinarius/centenarius as pointed out earlier by Robert.

Probably - but the title centurio might still have been used...

There's a very interesting inscription from Maionia in Anatolia (AE 2004, 01396a), briefly mentioned by Lee in War in Late Antiquity. It was set up by Valeria to honour her fallen husband, the tribune Dassianus. The only study I can find is in French, so perhaps somebody can help with the Latin?:

"GR" // Dum tenera fuera(m) cognovera(m) compare[m dulcem] / singulaque meruit gradatim cuncta dec[ora] / centurio primus domesticus inde trib[unus] / culminis adeptus his viribus audax ina[nis] / in bello cecidit sic fata hoc tribue[[t]run[t] / ut Dassianum comitem rursum coniun[gerem] / et idem quae sunt humanis rebus adempta s[olacia] / tunc ad carum subolem Hadrianum me pro[duxi] / ut manibus eius qu(a)e sunt suprema futu[ra] / reddere vita(m) peti merui prece quodque r[ogavi] / orbe pererrato requiem mihi parcat de[us] / post bis tricenos transactos mensibus [annos] / nunc Ludi(a)e sedes consedi ultima(m) terram m[ea] / fatis iam debita reddi te qu(a)eso care f / adde sepulti // "GR"

There are a couple of interesting points here (beyond Valeria's rather touching devotion!) - Dassianus's ranks are listed as centurio primus (either 'first centurion' or 'centurion first (of all)' - I'm not sure), then domesticus (I would guess a member of the protectores domesticii), then tribune. The promotion from centurion to protector to tribune is quite common from the mid 3rd century onwards, but I think the protectores only became known as domesticii a bit later, perhaps under Constantius II.

There's also the mention of 'deus' - God singular, which suggests this is a Christian epitaph. Both these points might imply a later date for the inscription, maybe mid to late 4th century - which would mean that the rank title centurio was still in use then.

Of course, Dassianus could have started his career as centurion under Diocletian (say), then been promoted much later... But it would be fascinating to know in which war he fell - Lee calls it 'a useless war', which implies a civil conflict, although I don't know where the adjective appears in the text!

[Macedon]

Probably the fact that in Greek the word κεντυρίων (kentyrion - centurion) was being used (as stated in my former post) is also evidence that the Latin term survived and was being in broad use. Else, I am pretty sure, they would have transliterated the "new" one(s).

[Lyceum]

Probably the fact that in Greek the word κεντυρίων (kentyrion - centurion) was being used (as stated in my former post) is also evidence that the Latin term survived and was being in broad use. Else, I am pretty sure, they would have transliterated the "new" one(s).

Well, perhaps not necessarily, there are ample examples of Latin words being loaned into Greek which then retains more archaic forms even when barbarisms are affecting "native" Latin speakers in the west. This is particularly true of names (Oularios preserves the non fricative /w/ whereas Latin by then doesn't, Kostas preserves the nasalisations from analogy (/Konstans/, /Valans/), Konstantinos with its vowel length etc.

In terms of official titles you do fine Rex and Princeps (/rigas/, /prinkeps/) etc in Greek and I dare say others probably existed. So Centurio could still be relevant, or it could simply be that Greek is being conservative with these terms.

This is one of those areas which are seriously lacking in attention.

[Renatus]

There's a very interesting inscription from Maionia in Anatolia (AE 2004, 01396a), briefly mentioned by Lee in War in Late Antiquity. It was set up by Valeria to honour her fallen husband, the tribune Dassianus. The only study I can find is in French, so perhaps somebody can help with the Latin?:

"GR" // Dum tenera fuera(m) cognovera(m) compare[m dulcem] / singulaque meruit gradatim cuncta dec[ora] / centurio primus domesticus inde trib[unus] / culminis adeptus his viribus audax ina[nis] / in bello cecidit sic fata hoc tribue[[t]run[t] / ut Dassianum comitem rursum coniun[gerem] / et idem quae sunt humanis rebus adempta s[olacia] / tunc ad carum subolem Hadrianum me pro[duxi] / ut manibus eius qu(a)e sunt suprema futu[ra] / reddere vita(m) peti merui prece quodque r[ogavi] / orbe pererrato requiem mihi parcat de[us] / post bis tricenos transactos mensibus [annos] / nunc Ludi(a)e sedes consedi ultima(m) terram m[ea] / fatis iam debita reddi te qu(a)eso care f / adde sepulti // "GR"

There are a couple of interesting points here (beyond Valeria's rather touching devotion!) - Dassianus's ranks are listed as centurio primus (either 'first centurion' or 'centurion first (of all)' - I'm not sure), then domesticus (I would guess a member of the protectores domesticii), then tribune. The promotion from centurion to protector to tribune is quite common from the mid 3rd century onwards, but I think the protectores only became known as domesticii a bit later, perhaps under Constantius II.

There's also the mention of 'deus' - God singular, which suggests this is a Christian epitaph. Both these points might imply a later date for the inscription, maybe mid to late 4th century - which would mean that the rank title centurio was still in use then.

Of course, Dassianus could have started his career as centurion under Diocletian (say), then been promoted much later... But it would be fascinating to know in which war he fell - Lee calls it 'a useless war', which implies a civil conflict, although I don't know where the adjective appears in the text!

A French translation and commentary can be found here:
http://www.epigraphie-sfer.fr/rencontres...102008.pdf

A date in the third quarter of the 4th century or at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century is suggested.

The revised translation treats primus in centurio primus as not being part of Dassianus' title. His successive ranks are translated as Centurion tout d'abord, domestique, puis tribun, 'first of all centurion, domesticus, then tribune'.

Not having Lee's book to hand, I do not know the context in which he uses the word 'useless'. Inanis can mean 'useless' but its primary meaning seems to be 'empty, void'. The French translator renders it as sans vie, 'lifeless' - 'he fell lifeless in battle'.

[Macedon]

Probably the fact that in Greek the word κεντυρίων (kentyrion - centurion) was being used (as stated in my former post) is also evidence that the Latin term survived and was being in broad use. Else, I am pretty sure, they would have transliterated the "new" one(s).

Well, perhaps not necessarily, there are ample examples of Latin words being loaned into Greek which then retains more archaic forms even when barbarisms are affecting "native" Latin speakers in the west. This is particularly true of names (Oularios preserves the non fricative /w/ whereas Latin by then doesn't, Kostas preserves the nasalisations from analogy (/Konstans/, /Valans/), Konstantinos with its vowel length etc.

In terms of official titles you do fine Rex and Princeps (/rigas/, /prinkeps/) etc in Greek and I dare say others probably existed. So Centurio could still be relevant, or it could simply be that Greek is being conservative with these terms.

This is one of those areas which are seriously lacking in attention.

I of course agree that there can be no certainty, but the word centurion is not standard Greek (with it I mean it is relatively rare as a term) and is only marginally used when compared to the respective proper Greek words (taxiarchos, ekatontarchos/es etc). I think that were it not in use in proper military jargon, it would not be used at all. I would be much more uncertain if it was the predominant term used, for then chances for it to have been a Greek conservatism would surely be much more probable.

[Nathan Ross]

A French translation and commentary can be found here:
http://www.epigraphie-sfer.fr/rencontres...102008.pdf

Thanks Michael. I'd seen that one, but as my French is almost as nonexistent as my Latin I only read the translated inscription and not the commentary!

I don't have a page ref from Lee, only a note I made - actually he calls the war in question worthless, and simply gives an abbreviated translation (which he dates to c.350): 'My sweet husband... first centurion, then officer, then tribune... fell in worthless war.'

Florius Baudio (CIL 11, 4787) might be one of the first named ordinarii (protectori ex ordinario legionis II Italicae Divitiensium) - I've read a suggestion that he fell at Milvian Bridge, although quite why this should be assumed I don't know. I suppose a man with a Germanic name from a tetrarchic Rhine legion would need some reason to be buried at Spoleto?

So might ordinarius and centenarius just be different grades of centurion, rather than replacement titles? The word centurio might still be used to apply to either - especially, perhaps, by civilians like Dassianus's wife Valeria...

[Renatus]

I don't have a page ref from Lee, only a note I made - actually he calls the war in question worthless, and simply gives an abbreviated translation (which he dates to c.350): 'My sweet husband... first centurion, then officer, then tribune... fell in worthless war.'

For Lee's translation to be right, he must be reading ina[ni], instead of ina[nis], at the end of the fourth line of the Latin text, to agree with bello in the fifth. As the end of each line is lost, I suppose that either could be correct.

[Macedon]

By the way... you should really take a look into this : PHI

I very often use this site to make statistics on the usage of Greek words but it also has a substantial database on Roman inscriptions... Just choose Latin and enter the word you want to find, it returned more than 100 results on "centur". I also looked for "κεντυρ" and "εκατονταρχ" and as I suspected it found many more instances of the second than of the first, but still, quite a few of each one. It's a real treasury guys, I am sure that those who didn't know it will love it...

Just some examples..

hastatus prior Redulius Optatianus quartus pilus posterior Iunius Faustus

Lucius Aquilius Capitolinus primus pilus legionis III Cyrenaicae dedicavit

Severianae Piae Fidelis Felicis Aeternae centurioni sc cohortis IX principis posterioris

Marcus Aurelius Calpurnianus centurio numeri singularium Britannicorum Dibus Patronis

I sometimes feel like weeping when coming across the real, living terminology of the ancients... I am sure that we can really come to conclusions with so many clear examples. Of course all the refs are there too. Oh! And many, if not most, of the Latin inscriptions are from the Late Roman era.

[Nathan Ross]

you should really take a look into this : PHI

Thanks - that is useful (especially if you read Greek :wink: )

For Latin inscriptions I usually use the Clauss Slaby Epigraphik Datenbank, a mighty compendium, and quite easy to use.

One of the problems with these lists, of course, is that it's often hard to date the inscriptions. Of those you listed, only one is datable on text alone (Severianae, to the early third century).

Going through Class Slaby, I notice there are 83 results for 'centenari' (confused by centenario being also a grade of procurator) and 183 for 'ordinari' (confused by the consul ordinarius!), but a massive 3983 for 'centuri' (most of which are actual centurions). This possibly reflects the decline of the 'epigraphic habit' in the later third century, which I'm sure I've read mentions of somewhere...

However, on the subject of later centurions and their titles, I did come across a number of inscriptions to 'centurio ordinarius' - Valerius Castus (AE 1989, 00641) from Moesia, for example, centur(io) ord(inarius) leg(ionis) I Iov(iae) Scyt(hicae) una cum Val(erio) Valeriano centen(ario) socero suo posuit, or Septimus Messorinus (AE 2004, +01133) a Mithraic centurio ordinarius of II Adiutrix, and Valerius Longianus (CIL 05,00942), optio leg(ionis) XI Clau(diae) ann(os) XV centurio ord(inarius) ann(os) VI natus in M(oe)si(a) inferiore castell(um) Abritanor(um).

I would guess a tetrarchic or Constantinian date for these three, but it does suggest that ordinarius was, at least at first, a grade of centurion rather than an alternative title. Valerius Valerianus appears to be (?) a centenarius in the same legion as his ordinarius son-in-law Castus, so perhaps a higher grade?

[D B Campbell]

... but a massive 3983 for 'centuri' (most of which are actual centurions).

Careful! The vast majority are inscriptions bearing the so-called "centurial sign" (>), which the editors have chosen to expand as "centurio" -- so they aren't evidence for the use of that term; only for the use of the sign.

... it does suggest that ordinarius was, at least at first, a grade of centurion rather than an alternative title.

The debate has raged (well ... it used to rage) since Mommsen's time. The term ordinarius appears in several cases as the simple equivalent of centurion, and it is a mystery why ordinarius continues into Byzantine times, but centurio doesn't.

I wonder if it might have something to do with the Greek sources. The ordinarii are so-called because they lead the ordines -- Vegetius tells us this (2.7: ordinarii dicuntur qui in proelio ordines ducunt), but we can see "centurions" leading ordines back in the Republic. Anyway, although ordinarius is often found in the Greek authors transliterated into Greek characters (ὀρδινάριος), the more common term is ταξίαρχος (taxiarchos), the man who leads a taxis (a unit broadly equivalent to a centuria). Johannes Lydus (e.g.) equates ordinarioi (the Greek version) with taxiarchoi. Is it perhaps this obvious etymology that attracts the late authors to ordinarius/ὀρδινάριος? :? Just a random thought.

And no mention of lochagoi! :wink:

[Macedon]

True! Duncan is right! I started looking up the actual inscriptions and I never saw the word centurion or any derivative once! Well used to Greek inscriptions I was truly not aware of that problem... Is there any solid proof that the < sign should ALWAYS be interpreted as "centurio/a etc" or could it just be the office itself regardless its actual calling? Are full texts so rare in epigraphy as they seem to be?

As for the "lochagos" issue, here are some interesting texts I came across : Plutarchus mentions "ekatontarchs and lochagoi" as two different offices, implying that this of the lochagoi are inferior to a centurion/ekatontarch.

"αὐτοὶ συγκαλέσαντες ἑκατοντάρχας καὶ λοχαγούς", Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Crassus. Chapter 27 section 7 line 4. He many times distinguishes between taxiarchoi and lochagoi, which is less clear as evidence.

"οἱ δὲ ἑκατοντάρχαι προέστησαν ἀνείργοντες· καὶ τῶν ἄλλων λοχαγῶν φείδεσθαι βοώντων" Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Otho. Chapter 13 section 5 line 4.

Again, the ekatontarchoi are portrayed as an office superior and different to that of a lochagos.

"τῇ στρατιᾷ δὲ δραχμὰς πεντήκοντα ἑκάστῳ καὶ λοχαγῷ χιλίας καὶ χιλιάρχῳ μυρίας." Appianus Hist., Mithridatica. Section 490 line 5.

This is evidence that a lochagos is much more than a simple soldier being paid 20 times as much but 10 times less than a chiliarch. The issue here is that no other office is mentioned and Appian might as well include the ekatontarchs amidst the lochagoi.

"ἐκ μὲν τοῦ Καίσαρος στρατοῦ τριάκοντα λοχαγοὶ καὶ ὁπλῖται διακόσιοι, ἤ, ὡς ἑτέροις δοκεῖ, χίλιοι καὶ διακόσιοι" Appianus Hist., Bellum civile. Book 2 chapter 11 section 82 line 4.

Here we have a very interesting text that says that 30 lochagoi marshalled 200 men (1 per 8, them included) or 200 lochagoi marshalled 1,000 men (1 per 6, them included). This made me think that the lochagoi might indeed be the file-leaders, and in this way, one could sometimes include among them the ekatontarchs.

"στρατιώτῃ μὲν ἀνὰ πεντακισχιλίας δραχμὰς Ἀττικάς, λοχαγῷ δ’αὐτοῦ τὸ διπλάσιον καὶ χιλιάρχῃ καὶ ἱππάρχῃ τὸ ἔτι διπλάσιον" Appianus Hist., Bellum civile. Book 2 chapter 15 section 102 line 8.

Another pay rate... here the lochagos only gets twice as much and the chiliarches and ipparches twice as much as the lochagoi.

But Porphyrius writes : "ἐπεὶ καὶ λοχαγὸς ὁ ταξίαρχος." Porphyrius Phil., Quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquiae. Iliad book 14 section 200 line 136.

Porphyrius here says that lochagos is just another name for taxiarchos.

"οὗτος ἄριστος στρατηγός, ὅστις χιλίαρχος πρότερον ἐγένετο, καὶ χιλίαρχος ὅστις λοχαγός, καὶ λοχαγὸς ὅστις στρατιώτης" Menander Rhet., Διαίρεσις τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν (olim sub auctore Genethlio). Spengel page 357 line 5.

Menander also jumps from soldier to lochagos here and from lochagos to strategos...

In conclusion, my opinion is that the term lochagos, of course in Greek texts, may have been used at the time for all offices that fought as file-leaders in the Roman army, sometimes including the ekatontarchs/taxiarchs among them, other time not, in which case they would be petty officers leading a file of 6 or 8, both very usual depth numbers. Is there any evidence that the Roman centurions were paid as much as the rest of the first-rankers, as these texts seem to imply?

[Nathan Ross]

I started looking up the actual inscriptions and I never saw the word centurion or any derivative once!

Yes, this is a good point! I can't find a picture of AE 1989, 00641, but I would assume that as the words centur and ord are given outside brackets, they do actually appear on the inscription. Valerianus's centen as well.

So what was the difference between a centurio ordinarius and a centenarius, if both could serve (apparently) in the same legion? What's the source behind one being limitanei and the other comitatensis?

Duncan wrote:

The debate has raged (well ... it used to rage) since Mommsen's time.

Care to give us a quick precis? :-)

This made me think that the lochagoi might indeed be the file-leaders, and in this way, one could sometimes include among them the ekatontarchs.

This sounds like the latin Biarchus, supposedly a file leader. Although Appian is presumably describing the army of the Principiate, of course... Is there any possible link between the lochagos and the dekarch of the Strategikon?

[Macedon]

According to Mauricius the lochagos leads the primi and the dekarch the secundi, that is both lead one contubernion. When the two contubernia acted together as a file, it was the lochagos that would have the command. So the dekarch would be the half-file leader.

Pseudo-Mauricius Tact., Strategicon (sub nomine Mauricii Imperatoris vel Urbicii), B.12, ch.8.9, p.5, l.1 “Ἵνα δὲ καὶ ἄρχεσθαι εὐχερῶς δύνανται καὶ ἁρμοδίως συνδιάγειν ἀλλήλοις, χρὴ τούτους εἰς δύο κοντουβέρνια γενέσθαι, ἵνα οἱ μὲν πρῖμοί εἰσι μετὰ τοῦ λοχαγοῦ, οἱ δὲ σεκοῦνδοι μετὰ τοῦ δεκάρχου, οὕτως μέντοι ὥστε, κἂν ἐν τῇ διαγωγῇ διῄρηνται, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἐν τῇ τάξει ἡνωμένοι ὄντες οἱ δεκαὲξ τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῇ γνώμῃ τοῦ λοχαγοῦ πείθονται• ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ καὶ ἡ τάξις φυλάττεται καὶ εὐκόλως ἄρχεσθαι δύνανται.”

[D B Campbell]

Is there any solid proof that the < sign should ALWAYS be interpreted as "centurio/a etc" or could it just be the office itself regardless its actual calling?

This was my point. It is well-established that the retrograde C and various derivatives should be interpreted as an abbreviation for centurio, but that is not, in itself, evidence that these men continued to be called centurions. (I think they probably were, but this is not evidence of it.)

As for the "lochagos" issue, here are some interesting texts I came across ... Appianus Hist., Mithridatica. Section 490 line 5. ...

I had not noticed Appian's peculiar terminology before. It seems to be at odds with the other writers. If I had a concordance to Appian, this might be a fruitful area for investigation. "Who are Appian's lochagoi?" hock:

[Macedon]

Dionysius of Hallicarnasus, Philo Judaeus, Lucianus, Josephus, Onasander, Themistius, Libanius etc also mention the lochagoi closely linked with the taxiarchs when writing about the Roman army, even though mostly, as Appian too, as officers of a lesser stature. There must be something in it, some office of importance that we are missing. How about the biarchus that Nathan mentioned? Any more info on them? The earlier mention I found in TLG was from Dorotheus (3-4 c. AD) and then a handful of mentions in Athanasius (4 c. AD), Lydus and in the Basilica text, the latter being probably the most helpful.

Plus, one more thought that came to my mind... Could the < symbol for centurion be the origin for the same symbol being part of many countries' lower rank officer insignia (Greece included)?

About the centenarii abd the biarchii, the Basilica writes :

Ἡ διάταξις κελεύει δουκιναρίους μὲν εἶναι τεσσαράκοντα ὀκτὼ καὶ μὴ πλέον, κεντηναρίους δὲ ςʹ., βιάρχας δὲ σνʹ., κιρκίτορας τʹ. καὶ ἱππεῖς υνʹ.·

So..

Ducinarii 48 and no more
Centenarii 6
Biarchii 250
Circitores 300
Horsemen 450

First of all, this is about cavalry and not infantry, but interesting anyways. The listed unit is 754 men (according to Lydus, the circitores are servants/attendants) strong which would mean that each :

ducinarius commands about 15 men
centenarius commands about 125 men
biarchus commands 3 men (with himself)

Again, the biarchus is closer to a file-leader and centenarius closer to a centurion.

Any mention of a centenarius with certainty linking him with infantry? Maybe it was a cavalry office?