Speculatores

[Renicus Ferrarius]

Greetings after a long absence.

I read the wikipedia entry on the Speculatores (army scouts) which noted that these agents would go in plainclothes (occulta speculator).

Were they ever incorporated into something like an agency, like Hadrian's frumentarii? What kinds of ranks would spy commanders have in Rome- Legatus?

[M. Demetrius]

Could it be that publicly they were not recognized as what they were? No resources to support this, just curious. :|

E.g., "Here we have one of our most illustrious undercover agents, Lucius Marcus Secretus Maximus (but of course we've changed his name for his own protection). He has been instrumental in finding out state secrets from various city officials in Calabria and Illyria, besides sitting on the Council in Masillia. Some of the information he has brought us has led to the trials of 32 corrupt city officials, all of whom were convicted and executed. He is a great Roman. Let's have a round of applause!" hock:

I suspect covert then is like covert now. The use of the word Occultus probably means just that. Only the most inner circle of officers and Imperial counselors would know who he was. The rest would receive communication from couriers, probably, and some code word or instructions from higher ups would lead the local legatus or tribunus to take the information seriously.

[Nathan Ross]

You might want to check the chapter on Speculatores in Austin's Exploratio:

Spies: Speculatores

Despite what the Wikipedia entry implies, all the uses of speculatores mentioned by Austin appear to be military - they were army espionage men and messengers. Their 'plain clothes' work would be in enemy terrain, disguised as deserters or travelling merchants, gaining access to the enemy camps and forts. This sort of work made them highly independent, but most of them functioned within normal military infrastructure - Austin suggests there were ten speculatores attached to every legion. As such, they would take orders via the usual chain of command, reporting to their own centurions and tribunes, the legion legate and/or the provincial governor (who would have kept a number of them on his staff). The speculators of the praetorian guard, being based in Rome, had more of an internal security function and were used as executioners on occasion, but were still regular members of the guard, reporting to their own tribunes and to the emperor directly.

Civilian espionage during the early principiate seems to have been rather ad hoc, with a network of unofficial informers (delatores) and investigators (curiosii) supplying information to the various imperial offices and provincial governors. Under Hadrian, the soldiers detached from the legions to oversee military supply were formed into a corps of their own, the frumentarii, based in Rome under the princeps peregrinorum and reporting directly to the emperor himself, bypassing the provincial offices. This, and their work with civilian supply networks, made them useful internal security investigators - but their bad reputation was probably as much to do with the potential of their job for corruption and extortion as with any nefarious undercover activities!

[M. Caecilius]

Amongst the Legionary Coinage of Marcus Antonius (minted shortly before Actium) is one dedicated to the "Chortis (Sic) Speculatorum", (RRC 544.12) with its own set of standards. The only other special unit mentioned on the coinage series are the "Chortium Praetorianarum" (RRC 544.1 and RRC 544.8 ). The rest of the series is dedicated to the 23 legions of the triumvir.

There are perhaps a few useful details here. One would be the ration - 23 legions, to an uncertain number of Praetorian Cohorts (in the plural on the coins) to one single cohort of Speculatores (in the singular on the coins), but that might be reading too much into it. The Speculatores have their own standards, while the Praetorians are accompanied by an eagle, strangely enough; on these standards are wreaths and prows, suggesting some naval association. It also suggests that they were separate from the actual legions, though possibly taken from them directly as the Praetorians were.

Eckhel mentions a "M. Staberius, "(centurio) COH(ortis) VI SPECULAT(orum)CLAS(sis) MISEN(ensis)", "centurion of the VI Cohort of Speculatores of the Misenum Fleet" (Eckhel, Doctrina Nummorum Veterum, Volume VI, Vienna, 1796), but I could not trace that inscription and the book is rather old. The Heidelberg Epigraphic Databank records (searchable here), after a brief perusal, let me come up with some other indications of centurions of speculatores, namely L. Catius L. f. M. n. (AE 1895,124=AE 1995,259, Paliano in Italy's Regio I), and L. Magius Sex. f. Urgulanianus, centurion of the speculatores before he became Primus Pilus and Praefect of a Vexillatio, and finally tribune of the Urban Cohort (AE 1982,164 = AE 1984,183, Suessa Aruncia, also in Regio I). AE 1926,45 (Rome) also speaks of a Speculator in a centuria of one Domitius. This would indicate that the Cohortes Speculatorum persisted, and included centuries. As to who commanded the Cohort itself, logically it would be a tribune or a prefect, but that's speculation.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to Austin at the moment. Does he mention any of this evidence, and if so, what does he make of it?

[Nathan Ross]

"M. Staberius, "(centurio) COH(ortis) VI SPECULAT(orum)CLAS(sis) MISEN(ensis)"

Very odd! I've never heard of naval troops being organised into cohorts, unless they were operating as land-based auxiliary units. I suppose there may have been speculatores attached to the fleet - but could the inscription be a bit garbled? Centurion of a praetorian cohort, attached as a speculator to the fleet, perhaps?

... other indications of centurions of speculatores... would indicate that the Cohortes Speculatorum persisted, and included centuries.

Not sure - these could be centurions of the speculatores augusti (also mentioned in inscriptions), which I think were part of the praetorian guard. Alternatively, the speculatores of a legion could be commanded by a centurion, maybe. But I don't see evidence for full cohorts of them. The Antonian coins relate to a very specific late republican organisation, with the praetorian cohorts raised from veterans (originally all centurions, says Appian), so the 'cohortis speculatorum' could just an oddity of the era.

I do not have access to Austin at the moment. Does he mention any of this evidence, and if so, what does he make of it?

He doesn't, as I recall - although all I have to refer to at the moment are the excerpts on Google Books!

[M. Caecilius]

Very odd! I've never heard of naval troops being organised into cohorts, unless they were operating as land-based auxiliary units. I suppose there may have been speculatores attached to the fleet - but could the inscription be a bit garbled? Centurion of a praetorian cohort, attached as a speculator to the fleet, perhaps?

Considering the inscription does not appear in the Epigraphy Databank, which includes most of CIL and AE, I would assume it has been lost, which seems to have been the fate of quite a few inscriptions before (and since) CIL was first published, a century after Eckhel. Simple google searches for M. Staberius also offer no results but references to Eckhel. However, it's interesting to note (as Eckhel does), that for both this inscription and the coins, the context is naval, and refers to cohorts. Eckhel does mention that speculatores were attached to the fleets as swift scouting ships and lookouts, rather than undercover or plain-clothes spies.

But I don't see evidence for full cohorts of them. The Antonian coins relate to a very specific late republican organisation, with the praetorian cohorts raised from veterans (originally all centurions, says Appian), so the 'cohortis speculatorum' could just an oddity of the era.

Probably, but it is weird that they were important enough to be reckognised by Antony as a unit apparently separate from the legions, and due some special status. The accounts of Actium itself also do not seem to say anything about this. It'd be interesting to know why Antony, if it was his initiative, sought it necessary to organise a specialised corps of army or naval scouts, and if it was not his initiative, who used them. I do not think Caesar ever speaks of them, as far as I know, for the Gallic or Civil Wars, nor does Augustus seem to perpetuate these cohorts in his military settlement.

Not sure - these could be centurions of the speculatores augusti (also mentioned in inscriptions), which I think were part of the praetorian guard. Alternatively, the speculatores of a legion could be commanded by a centurion, maybe.

As most inscriptions I could find in this context are from Rome or Region I (Latium et Campania), my guess would also be that they are members of the praetorian cohorts. They did seem to have centuries, so they would be somewhat separate units, if the inscriptions are anything to go by; whether they would fill out a full cohort cannot be said with the available evidence being limited to a coin type from 31 B.C. and a now-lost inscription.

[Nathan Ross]

They did seem to have centuries, so they would be somewhat separate units, if the inscriptions are anything to go by

Alternatively, might some of them have been supernumery centurions on the legion's books, who rather than commanding their own centuries functioned as part of the headquarters staff as independent intelligence officers?

Also, if we assume that there were ten or so speculators on the strength of the legion, these men would presumably still have been mustered on the rolls of their centuries, like the legion cavalry, so a speculator saying that he was a member of a certain century doesn't have to mean that the whole century was composed of speculators!

[M. Caecilius]

Alternatively, might some of them have been supernumery centurions on the legion's books, who rather than commanding their own centuries functioned as part of the headquarters staff as independent intelligence officers?

They could be, but I wonder whether they would be "centurio speculatorum" in that case, rather than "centurio praepositus speculatorum" (or similarly defined as a special duty), like those who were given numeri, vexillationes, or even exploratorum, attested in some inscriptions - unless we have to see here a career move, and they were centurions before being upgraded to praepositus. That's pretty much speculation about Roman procedure, though, so I won't argue this very loudly!

Also, if we assume that there were ten or so speculators on the strength of the legion, these men would presumably still have been mustered on the rolls of their centuries, like the legion cavalry, so a speculator saying that he was a member of a certain century doesn't have to mean that the whole century was composed of speculators!

That seems likely and eliminates AE 1926,4 as evidence for independent units, but as you say yourself, the centuriones speculatorum Augusti are attested in inscriptions. As you intimate above though, centurions don't necessarily mean there were full centuries underneath them, rather than a few men taken from the rolls, and they often found themselves posted throughout a province on special duties, assisted by a few men, but I do wonder whether the combined evidence cannot be used to make a case. A shaky case, sure, as your objections show, but a case nevertheless.

[Nathan Ross]

the centuriones speculatorum Augusti are attested in inscriptions.

This might be a tricky distinction actually - the speculators of the guard appear to have been a particular unit given that title, whereas the speculators of the legions were perhaps legionaries given extra duties. I think Caesar does actually mention the latter, although the references are in the Austin chapter I linked above. To confuse things further, speculator seems to be used more openly to describe a spy of any sort! Clearly it could refer either to an activity or a specific title.

Meanwhile, talking of inscriptions I just came across this one, CIL 03, 03524 from Aquincum, dated AD228:

Sc(h)ola speculatorum legionum I et II Adiutricium Piarum Fidelium Severian(a)r(um) refecta per eosdem quorum nomina infra scripta sunt dedicante Fl(avio) Aeliano leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) Kal(endis) Octob(ribus) Modesto et Probo co(n)s(ulibus) Ael(ius) Optatus Ael(ius) Candidus Macr(ius?) Sabinianus Iul(ius) Secundianus Iul(ius) Emeritus Cass(ius) Fuscinus Iul(ius) Probinus Ael(ius) Urbanus Pub(lius) Martinus Val(erius) Festus Iul(ius) Alexander Fl(avius) Emeritus Val(erius) Clementinus Iul(ius) Priscanus Ver() Verissimus Iul(ius) Ingenu(u)s Iul(ius) Celerinus Iun(ius) Adiutor Aur(elius) Lupus Fl(avius) Celsinus curante Aur(elio) Pertinace frumentario

The 'schola' in this case might refer to all the speculators collectively - there are about 20 names, plus the frumentarius Aurelius Pertinax named as curator (perhaps in overall command? Or am I reading this wrongly?) - given that there are two legions involved, this might back up the idea of ten speculatores per legion. No mention of a centurion though!

[M. Caecilius]

I agree that there would have been a distinction between the Speculatores Augusti and those attached to the legions, although ultimately, they may come from the same tradition, perhaps originating with Antony. The praetorian cohorts existed, after all, during the Republic as guards of the headquarters, to be remodelled by Augustus (and Tiberius, thanks to Sejanus), although they seem to disappear from the regular legions so far as I am aware (i.e. guards of the praetorium of the governor or legate do not seem to be called praetorians any longer). And as you indicate, Roman terms are often far less rigid than we would wish for.

Interesting inscription.

The schola here seems to refer to a building, as it's been rebuilt by the by the people named, as a meeting hall for the Speculatores as a group (also a called a schola, possibly), which itself is interesting. This would again indicate some seperation. They still belong to the Legio I and II respectively, but also share some organisation and self-consciousness as speculatores.


As you say, there are exactly 20 names, not counting Aurelius Pertinax, so your conclusion about 10 per legion seems correct.

As to Aurelius Pertinax, he is curante, not curatore. I'd see this in direct relation to the restoration of the schola, or else the setting up of the inscription; in this sense, he'd be more of a delegate for the men who commissioned and payed for the rebuilding. The 20 Speculatores payed and comissioned the rebuilding, Aurelius Pertinax saw to it, and the propraetorian legate Flavius Aelianus dedicated it.

It's interesting to note that Aurelius Pertinax sets himself apart as a frumentarius, although I don't know what conclusion to draw from that.

There are incidentally two more references to Scholae of the Speculatores which I could find.

CIL 03, 07741 = CIL 03, 14479 (Alba Iulia in Dacia):

[Pro sa]lute Severi [et Anto]nin[i A]u[gg(ustorum) et [[Getae Caes(aris)]]] / sc[ho]lam specu[latoru]m [3 impen]/dio suo fecer[unt 3]NN[3] / iussu Mevi Suri c[o(n)s(ularis) Dac(iarum)] III n[om(ina) eor(um) in]fr(a) scrip(ta) [sunt] // Ulp(ius) Bacchius |(centurio) leg(ionis) XIII G(eminae) / Iul(ius) Tacitus |(centurio) leg(ionis) V M(acedonicae) P(iae) / Cla(udius) Claudianus |(centurio) leg(ionis) V M(acedonicae) P(iae) / [A]el(ius) Valerius corn(icularius) / [An]t(onius?) Va[3 c]orn(icularius) / [3]AN[3] / [3]CL[3] / [3]FA[ // ] Gaiu[s 3] / [3] Cocc[eius 3] / [3]VR[ // ]imian(us) / [[6]] / [3]ian(us) / [3]s / [3]n(us) / [

Which wierdly enough mentions the building of a Schola at their own expense by by three centurions (one from XIII Gemina and two from V Macedonica Pia) at the behest of Mevius Surus (governor of Dacia around AD 198-199 accordin to Piso). Three centurions seem quite a lot: The Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae.426 (available at scribd), associates them with the praetorium of the governor, and explains that the centurions and cornicularii are former speculatores who were promoted, though Piso does not explain how he reaches that conclusion.

According to his reconstruction in three columns, we have again 20 speculatores (of which one suffered Damnatio Memoriae, interestingly enough), 10 for each legion - reflecting your example - plus five people who were promoted and replaced, but still seem to have kept some connection to their former corps.

Piso also refers to a doctoral thesis on Speculatores (amongst other): M. Clauss, Untersuchungen zu den principales des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian : cornicularii, speculatores, frumentarii, Thesis (doctoral)--Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 1973.

Then there is CIL 08, 2603 from Lambaesis:

Genio / scholae suae / P(ublius) Aurel(ius) Felix / speculator / leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) / domo Thamug(adi) / donum dedit

Although it's speculative that P. Aurelius Felix means a Schola Speculatorum with "schola suae", or something else entirely.

The evidence seems to suggest that there was some kind of group feeling, beyond merely special duties assigned to legionaries. The existence of a specific schola and the interpretation that people who had left the group after promoting still kept some ties to them, would indicate this. The schola also seems semi-official; I don't think it's a group of the army as a century or cohort would be, and more of a 'club' with a religious dimension, but in both the (re)building dedications, the governor is involved.

[D B Campbell]

Considering the inscription does not appear in the Epigraphy Databank, which includes most of CIL and AE, I would assume it has been lost, which seems to have been the fate of quite a few inscriptions before (and since) CIL was first published, a century after Eckhel.

Do you have a page (or even chapter) reference in Eckhel? I think it more likely that Eckhel miscopied the inscription, but I'd like to have a look at what he says. (I cannot see any reference to speculatores in the second edition of his Vol. VI.)

[M. Caecilius]

Eckhel mentions the coin type with the Cohors Speculatorum under Marcus Antonius, pp.53-55; the inscription more specifically on p.54 (right-hand column). He quotes Muratorius, which I could backtrack to Lodovico Antonio Muratori's Novus thesaurus veterum inscriptionum Volume II. DCCCLV.3 (under Classis/Fleet inscriptions). In Agro Bojano ex Donio (Bovianum?)

D.M. / M. Staberius M.F. Quir. Lacer / 7 Coh VI Speculat Class Misen / V Fecit Sibi et Staberiae Veri/dianae Matri [//////] et L. Staber/rio Procillo filio dulcissimo / vix Ann XII M. VII. D. IIII Hor II.

My translation: To the Spirits of the Deceased. Marcus Staberius Lacer(?), son of Marcus, of the Quirina voting tribe, Centurion of the 6th Cohort of Speculatores at the Fleet of Misenum put this up for himself while alive and his mother Staberia Verdiana [erasure] and Lucius Staberius Procillus, his sweetest son (who) lived 12 years, 7 months, 4 days and 2 hours.

Alternatively, it might be that he was centurion of the 6th Cohort (Praetorians, as the Urban Cohorts were numbered consecutively to the Praterians) and at a different time, speculator of the Misenum Fleet. A Cohors VI Speculatorum would require at the least six full cohorts of spies, which is perhaps a bit exaggerated, considering we can't put more than 20 of these people in a two-legion province...

[Nathan Ross]

The evidence seems to suggest that there was some kind of group feeling, beyond merely special duties assigned to legionaries...The schola also seems semi-official... more of a 'club' with a religious dimension.

Definitely the sense of a select or elite group - as they would be, if there were only ten of them in a legion, and presumably appointed on merit. The idea that Pertinax was promoted from the speculatores to the frumentarii is interesting too.

it might be that he was centurion of the 6th Cohort (Praetorians, as the Urban Cohorts were numbered consecutively to the Praterians) and at a different time, speculator of the Misenum Fleet.

Yes, that does seem a more reasonable interpretation. I've come across other inscriptions to the Rome cohorts that don't actually state anything more than the cohort number.

So could the full text run as follows?

"M. Staberius,(centurio) COH(ortis) VI SPECULAT(or)CLAS(sis) MISEN(ensis)"

[M. Caecilius]

So could the full text run as follows?

"M. Staberius,(centurio) COH(ortis) VI SPECULAT(or)CLAS(sis) MISEN(ensis)"

I would say so, yes.

Interesting career, though. From speculator in the rather little-respected navy to centurio in the most prestigious unit, with no other service in between that he cares to mention. That appears to be quite a career jump. Did our spy find out something? Speculator with a praetorian Cohort VI and then centurio in the Misenum Fleet would sound less strange, but short of assuming an error on the in/transcription (which is the very last resort and should be avoided), there's no way I see to have the inscription say that.

It also seems interesting that he bears the same nomen as his mother, and a fairly rare nomen at that (the Epigraphy Databank knows only one member of that gens, in Numidia). There's a few ideas that would cross the mind (father unknown; both are freed slaves and he got citizenship after his navy service) beyond his father having married someone from the same gens but that's pure speculation.

I wonder what has become of the inscription. As said, the Epigraphy Databank does not feature it, but if someone could find it in CIL, that might be useful.

[Jona Lendering]

(1)
There is an exceptionally interesting speculator in the gospel of Mark (6.22). In this Greek text, the author takes care to use the Latin word "speculator" to describe the executioner of John the Baptist. In my opinion, the point Mark tries to convey is that a Jew would not touch the holy man, so a Roman had to do the dirty deed. (The whole story is, of course, one of dark corruption: what kind of ancient father would allow his six-year old daughter to dance for his guests?) Would this speculator be a normal soldier, or is the soldier's rank used to indicate someone who is essentially a Roman ambassador at Antipas' court?

(2)
That speculatores could be quite high-ranking persons is shown by inscription AE 2006, 1597, which mentions one L. Aemilius Antoninus, who erected a monument to his wife, the daughter of a man of consular rank.

...]
v(iri) c(larissimi) co(n)s(ularis) filiae
L(ucius) Aemil(ius) Antoni-
nus specul(ator)
[six lines]

It was found in Tyre, and as it happens, I just uploaded a photo here.