Cohort commander?

[Macedon]

So, no commanders of legionary cohorts! :wink:

Well... as I admitted I am no expert on Roman military details, so I really do not know whether a praetorian legion counts as normal or what peculiarities it exhibited throughout the centuries but it seems that my decision to look into the speirae has produced some interesting results.

Contrary to the word "coorti" we have many instances of "speirae" to be able to produce sounder conclusions.

What crops up most often is some rank called in Greek "eparchos", which usually means governor (so it seems to be a direct translation of "praefectus", which is something very common for Greeks trying to translate Roman ranks) but here it certainly is the leader of a speira. The word praefect also often (not as often) appears (as in the example I brought forth in this epigraph from Massilia). Another rank also appears some very limited times called "speirarchos" which would be a direct, easy way to call someone "leader of a speira", a term that may be colloquial Greek.

So, it seems that the speirae were commanded by :

praefectoi
eparchoi (the Greek translation of praefectus)
speirarchoi (Greek word meaning "leaders of speirae")

all three of course being one and the same thing.

Yet, apart from the chiliarchos part which also appears, albeit seldomly, also in connection to speirae, there is another rank that crops up in relation with the speira, that of the praepositos, twice linked with the speira and a number of times independent of it as in an ile or a legion and I am inclined to believe that it was not a commanding rank but some honorary position.

So, whatever this speira is, it was commanded by a praefectus who in Greek was also called eparchos or speirarchos. But is it certain that a speira is a cohort? I actually found some bilingual epigraphs in both Latin and Greek (like the stele of Rosetta...), where the Roman term is indeed coh(ortis) and the Greek translation speira.

Regions : Northern Greece (IG X) : Macedonia
IG X,2 2 309 Previous Inscription IG X,2 2 308 IG X,2 2 310 Next Inscription
Makedonia (Derriopos) — Pašino Ruvci — 112/113 AD — CIL III 7318 — Dimitsas, He Makedonia 267 + 270 — Spomenik 71 (1931) 178, 468

[D]is Manibus #⁹⁰⁰
[T(itus) Flav]ịus Capiton mil(es) coh(ortis)
[Hispa]ne(n)s(is) ∙ XIII mil(i)tavit ∙ an(n)is ∙ II
[vixit] an(n)is ∙ XXV ∙ fecit T(itus) Flavius
[Her]mas l(ibertus) ex textamento {²⁶testamento}²⁶.

ἔτος {²anaglyphum}² ξσʹ
Θεοῖς Δαίμοσιν #⁹⁰⁰
[Τ(ίτου) Φ]λ̣αουίου Καπίτωνος
[σ]τρατιώτου σπείρης ∙ ιγ̣ʹ
[Ἱσ]π̣ανῆς, ἐστράτευσε̣[ν ἔτ]-
[εσι δ]υ̣σίν, ἔζησεν ἔτεσι [εἴκο]-
[σι πέντ]ε̣· Ἑρμᾶς κατ[ὰ] δ̣[ια]-
[θήκην]. vacat

Now, an interesting fact I came across was that I found no speira (cohort) numbered over 6.. Any insight? Shouldn't there be 10 cohorts in a legion? When looking for latin inscriptions, I think that there are multiple with numbers greater than 6 but I unfortunately cannot check them...

Finally, regarding the legionary cohorts, I will name some of the legions in the epigraphs and you can look into them :

eparchos of the 1st speira of the Apamenoi of the 3rd Gallic legion

chiliarchos of the 1st speira of the Ulpia Petraea legion

chiliarchos of the 1st speira miliaria Spanon

eparchos of the 1st speira of legion Flavia

eparchos of the 2nd speira of legion Claudia

eparchos of the 5th speira of legion Gordiana

eparchos of the 6th speira of Praetoria

chiliarchos of the 4th speira of the Raetoi

These are some of the examples and there are also multiple instances of cavalry speirae, also often numbered.



Not knowing Latin, I just looked for the terms in question and here are some results. What do you make of these ?

1. Corinth 8,3 135
Saronic Gulf, Corinthia, and the Argolid (IG IV) : Korinthia

C(aio) Caelio C(ai)
fil(io) Ouf(entina) Martiali, praef(ecto)
coh(ortis) I Raetorum quae tendit
in Raetia, trib(uno) leg(ionis) XIII Gem(inae) quae

2. Taşliklioğlu II:86,14
Thrace and Moesia Inferior

[— — — — — — — — — — —]
[praef(ecto) coh(ortis) — —]
[e]q̣[uit(atae), praef(ecto) coh(ortis) I {²⁷II(?)}²⁷ Chalci]-
denoru[m, praef(ecto) alae]
I Panno[n]ịọ[rum, praef(ecto)]
vehiculorum [Imp(eratoris) Cae]-

3. IScM V 36
Scythia Minor

Venustus
praef(ectus) coh(ortis) I Ger(manorum)
coniugi piis-

4. IDR II 641
Dacia

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[pr]aef(ecto) coh(ortis) [— — — — — — — — —]
[tr]ib(uno) coh(ortis) I (miliariae) [— — —]
praef(ecto) al(ae) [— — — — — — — — — — —]
proc(uratori) Au[g(usti) — — — — — — — — —]

5. IDR III,1 11
Dacia

Q(uintus) Petro[nius]
Novatus [praef(ectus)]
coh(ortis) V Gal[l(orum) v(otum) p(osuit)(?)].

M(arco) Ulp(io) Gem[ellino]
praef(ecto) coh(ortis) II [Fl(aviae) Com(magenorum)(?)]
q(uin)q(uennali) IIvir(o) qu[aestor(i)]

6. Ephesos 1189
Ionia: Ephesos

M(arco) Gavio P(ublii) filio Palatina Basso
Romae praef(ecto) coh(ortis) VI Britt(onum) eq(uitatae) P(iae) F(idelis), trib(uno)
mil(itum) leg(ionis) I adiutric(is), adlecto in dec(urias) V inter
selectos, praef(ecto) eq(uitatae) alae Cl(audiae) novae, donis donato
bello Dacico ab Imp(eratore) Caesare Nerva Traiano
Aug(usto) Germanico Dacico corona murali hasta
[p]ura vexillo, praef(ecto) orae Ponticae maritimae.
Μ(άρκῳ) Γαου[ί]ῳ Π(οπλίου) υἱῶι Παλατεί̣να Βάσσωι, Ῥώμης

7. Ephesos 1305
Ionia: Ephesos

ae et Cariae, tribuno
cohort(is) VI civium
Romanorum, praef(ecto)
cohortis secundạẹ
Hispaniorum

8. Gerasa 173
Arabia: Gerasa

Poblilia Firm[o]
trib(uno) coh(ortis) XXVI vol(untariorum),
trib(uno) mil(itum) leg(ionis) X P(iae) F(idelis),
praef(ecto)
alae Silianae bis torq(uatae),

9. I.Messina 147,XI
Sicily, Sardinia, and neighboring Islands

Gal(eria) ∙ Iuncinus
praef(ectus) ∙ fabr(um) ∙ praef(ectus)
coh(ortis) ∙ IIII ∙ Raetorum
trib(unus) ∙ milit(um) ∙ leg(ionis) ∙ XXII
Deiotarianae
praef(ectus) ∙ alae ∙ Astyrum
praef(ectus) ∙ vehiculorum
iuridicus ∙ Aegypti.

10.

Exoratus
praef(ectus) coh(ortis)
V Lucens(ium)

So, Greek epigraphy clearly follows the Latin one. tribunus cohortis is rendered chiliarchos speiras/coortis, praefectus cohortis is rendered eparchos/praefectos speiras.

Regarding the tribunus issue, I saw that normally, when the rank is given independently of a cohort it is given as tribunus militum legionis (although a number of times I found it as tribunus legionis). In contrast, when linked with a cohort, it is always tribunus cohortis and never (as far as I checked) tribunus militum cohortis. Do you think that these might be different ranks/positions?

[Macedon]

Even though the epigraphical examples are numerous, in Greek sources only Josephus mentions eparchs as leaders of speirae but an interesting number of others link chiliarchs with them.

Josephus of course but also NT (second epistle of Ioannes and Acts of the Apostles), Zonaras and a number of other predominantly religious authors who relate the stories in the NT. However, the most direct account comes from Etymologicum Gordianum which at the "speiros" entry writes :

καὶ σύνταγμα στρατιωτικὸν ἀνδρῶν τριακοσίων· ἡ οὖν σπεῖρα καὶ ὁ χιλίαρχος ὡς ποῦ φησὶν, οὐχὶ πάντας εἶχεν ὁ χιλίαρχος τοῦ οἰκείου τάγματος, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τὸ τ μόνους

This translates as "A military unit of 300 men, known as speira and the chiliarch who, as they say, the chiliarch did not command all in the tagma (a term that can mean any unit but usually used as a synonym for legion when used for the time in question) but only the 300.

Unfortunately, the EG was compiled much later (11th c.) but its author has surely drawn from older sources...

Well... these are the sources I found thus far on the matter, I really hope I helped with at least clearing up some of the terminology, especially in the Greek sources and epigraphy, although I fear I may have added to the confusion in the process...

[Frank]

Well... as I admitted I am no expert on Roman military details, so I really do not know whether a praetorian legion counts as normal

Depends on what you call normal. For early-/mid-empire NO. The praetorians were not organized as a legion. They were just 5 to 16 cohors equitata leaded by 2 equestrian prefects. And also their cohors structure was not normal for a legion. But, in late empire this new structure became somewhat "normal".

The central cohorts in Rome (praetorians, urban cohorts and vigiles) were of the new type. Finally standardized by the reforms of Augustus. Like the Auxilia was standardized during this military reform. This new type of cohors, ala or equitata was leaded by a prefect or tribune. The legion remained structured traditionally with just minor changes. And without a clear cohort commander. At least we don't know about him.

Yet, apart from the chiliarchos part which also appears, albeit seldomly, also in connection to speirae, there is another rank that crops up in relation with the speira, that of the praepositos, twice linked with the speira and a number of times independent of it as in an ile or a legion and I am inclined to believe that it was not a commanding rank but some honorary position.

The praepositus was the temporary commander of a vexillatio (detachment). It could be 30 men or 3000 men combined for a certain task or campaign. Another term is princeps (vexillationis), curator, curam agens.

Now, an interesting fact I came across was that I found no speira (cohort) numbered over 6.. Any insight? Shouldn't there be 10 cohorts in a legion? When looking for latin inscriptions, I think that there are multiple with numbers greater than 6 but I unfortunately cannot check them...

Thats fully normal for auxilia cohorts. There was often more than one with the same name showing their origin e.g Cohors I Batavorum .... Cohors VI Batavorum, or as high as XXXII voluntariorum c.R.
Could be any number, but they were not combined to a legion. Every auxilia was acting independently and reporting directly to the province governor, if not attached to an exercitus (army) during a campaign.

Finally, regarding the legionary cohorts, I will name some of the legions in the epigraphs and you can look into them :

eparchos of the 1st speira of the Apamenoi of the 3rd Gallic legion

chiliarchos of the 1st speira of the Ulpia Petraea legion

eparchos of the 1st speira of legion Flavia

eparchos of the 2nd speira of legion Claudia

eparchos of the 5th speira of legion Gordiana

Well, these sound like legionary cohorts. Are you sure you translated it correctly? Does it really mean "of legion" in greek? I just checked one of them, the Ulpia Petraea you listed and found:

IV Ulpia Petreorum
V Ulpia Petreorum eq
VI Ulpia Petreorum

These 3 are auxilia cohors; again no legionary cohors. Did your greek source mean the Cohors I Ulpia Petreorum?

Not knowing Latin, I just looked for the terms in question and here are some results. What do you make of these ?

1. Corinth 8,3 135
Saronic Gulf, Corinthia, and the Argolid (IG IV) : Korinthia

C(aio) Caelio C(ai)
fil(io) Ouf(entina) Martiali, praef(ecto)
coh(ortis) I Raetorum quae tendit
in Raetia, trib(uno) leg(ionis) XIII Gem(inae) quae

...

These again are all auxilia cohors, no legionary cohors commanders. This guy was Praefectus cohortis I Raetorum (an auxilia) and then was promoted to a Tribunus legionis XIII Gemina, without mentioning a cohors number, because he did not command a cohort in the legion.
A legionary cohort commander would be something like "Tribunus cohortis II legionis XIII Geminae". I doubt, you will find one, because no historian did so far, afaik.

Regarding the tribunus issue, I saw that normally, when the rank is given independently of a cohort it is given as tribunus militum legionis (although a number of times I found it as tribunus legionis). In contrast, when linked with a cohort, it is always tribunus cohortis and never (as far as I checked) tribunus militum cohortis. Do you think that these might be different ranks/positions?

Roman epigraphs are sometimes confusing, especially if the space on the tombstone is rather small.
Tribunus Militum and Tribunus Legionis could mean the same. It is a Tribune of a legion.
Just Tribunus militum could also mean a praetorian tribune, if clear looking the context.
Tribunus cohortis always means a leader of an auxilia cohors.
However, there was a ranking amongst tribunes depending on the rank of the unit the tribune leaded. A tribune of the praetorians or of an ala millaria was higher ranked than a tribunus cohortis or tribunus legionis. Also in late empire there were multiple ranks of tribunes.

Regarding the equestrian career there are 4 ranks (until the Flavians just the lower 3)
1. praefectus cohortis (quingenaria)
2. tribunus militum legionis or tribunus cohortis (millaria)
3. praefectus alae (quingenaria)
4. tribunus alae (millaria)



So, I am afraid, as insightful your information about greek sources and terms are, they all treat auxilia cohors not legionary cohors.

[Macedon]

Interesting... It is true that the word "legion" does not appear in these instances as they do not appear in the latin counterparts. So, let's take the following two examples :

Τιβ(έριος) Ἰούλιος Ἀ̣λέξανδρος Tiberius Iulius Alexandros
γενάμενος ἔπαρχος σπείρης αʹ having become eparchos of the 1st speira
Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ of Flavia.

Λού]κιον Ἐγνάτι Lucius Egnatius
ο[ν Λ. υἱ]ὸν Τηρητείνα Κού- L. son of Tereteina Cuartus
αρ[τον ἔ]παρχον σπείρης eparch of the 2nd speira
β̣ʹ [Κλ(αυδίας) Γορ]διανῆς of Claudia Gordiana (Gordianes - gen.)

These are both auxiliary cohorts?

Both use names in genitive, so in Greek Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ really means OF Flavia. I thought they would mean of legion Flavia but as I realize now they are just names for the cohorts instead of the legion they may belong to? And the number just means that there were more auxiliary cohorts of these names? So every time we see something in the format

cohort xx of name

it is always an auxiliary cohort?

If so, then, do we have examples of any cohorts actually belonging to legions in epigraphy? I couldn't find a single example for that which is kind of strange. Even ekatontarchs (centurions) linked with legions are always plainly called "ekatontarchs of Legion X" but they surely were not freely assignable to any legionary sub-division.... They seem to be treated exactly like the chiliarchs in epigraphy.

Very interesting discussion guys, it was long now I needed some initiation in this subject...

[Frank]

These are both auxiliary cohorts?

Both use names in genitive, so in Greek Φ̣λ̣α̣ο̣υ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ really means OF Flavia. I thought they would mean of legion Flavia but as I realize now they are just names for the cohorts instead of the legion they may belong to? And the number just means that there were more auxiliary cohorts of these names? So every time we see something in the format

cohort xx of name

it is always an auxiliary cohort?

Yes, Cohors I Flavia just means, that this unit was founded by a Flavian emperor (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian). Sometimes it could mean, that some famous Flavius was a commander of this cohort. But that seems not to be the case here. There is also a Legio IV Flavia Felix and a Legio XVI Flavia Firma. These names behind the number are just titles (Felix) and/or honoring the empire (Flavia). Without the explicit mention of Legio(nis), it is never a legion.

If so, then, do we have examples of any cohorts actually belonging to legions in epigraphy? I couldn't find a single example for that which is kind of strange. Even ekatontarchs (centurions) linked with legions are always plainly called "ekatontarchs of Legion X" but they surely were not freely assignable to any legionary sub-division.... They seem to be treated exactly like the chiliarchs in epigraphy.

All staff members of a legion (tribuni, praefectus castrorum, etc.) usually just name their legion, because they worked for the legion and did not command a single cohort or belonged to a cohors de facto.

Centurions sometimes used their full titel, which includes the cohors, e.g. centurio decimus hastatus posterior legionis X. Decimus means the 10th Cohort. And even the pilus prior, who was the highest ranked centurio of a legionary cohort, just said soemthing like Centurio pilus prior cohortis III legionis X, or Tertius pilus prior legionis X, which unfortunately means nothing according to leadership.

This is exactly the issue we are discussing in this thread. There was never mentioned a permanent commander of a legionary cohort! No tribunes, no praefects and no centurions. Just commanders of auxilia cohorts or temporary vexillationes. Such a vexillatio leaded by a tribunus legionis or a centurio could be exact 1 legionary cohort. But again, this means nothing about regulary, permanent command of legionary cohorts, if the cohors is acting together with the other 9 cohorts of the legion in camp or on the battlefield.

[popularis]

Roman epigraphs are sometimes confusing, especially if the space on the tombstone is rather small.
Tribunus Militum and Tribunus Legionis could mean the same. It is a Tribune of a legion.
Just Tribunus militum could also mean a praetorian tribune, if clear looking the context.
Tribunus cohortis always means a leader of an auxilia cohors.

Tribunus militum as a praetorian commander: do you have a reference for this? I'd expect tribunus cohortis x praetoriae.

In general, cohorts of Roman citizens had tribunes in command.

In the Republic, it was not unknown for Roman citizens to be levied into cohorts, rather than into legions - it happens during the Social war, and at various times in the civil wars. Either there wasn't enough time to marshall them into legions, or there weren't enough of them to form a legion, or both. It's the 'raise as many men as you can and bundle them into units' approach to military organisation, and effective in the short term.

This continued into the Triumviral/Augustan period. Some of these cohorts (Cohors VI uoluntarionum, etc.) were still commanded by tribunes (Purtisius Atinas, ILJug. 2) - although others, such as the cohors Apula (C. Fabricius Tuscus, AE 1973, 501), were commanded by prefects.

Why auxiliary units of Roman citizens would be commanded by tribunes, I'm not entirely sure, but I can make a guess. A tribune isn't just a commander. Just as the tribuni plebis had a responsibility to look out for the welfare of the people, so a military tribune had a responsibility to look out for the welfare of the troops, and to represent the views of their troops to the (pretty much all powerful) commander. Of course, all good officers make sure their troops are in good condition, morale, etc., but the title of tribune (and, I think, its historical function) conveys a sense that there was a formal duty of care that went beyond this. Tribunes of the people became more politically radical as time went on, and tribunes of the soldiers more like conventional military officers.

My guess is that it was thought appropriate for a Roman citizen soldier to have a tribune as an officer.

In addition, more prosaically, it also meant that even though these soldiers weren't in 'proper' legions, they still had the 'right' officers.

However, there was a ranking amongst tribunes depending on the rank of the unit the tribune leaded. A tribune of the praetorians or of an ala millaria was higher ranked than a tribunus cohortis or tribunus legionis. Also in late empire there were multiple ranks of tribunes.

Regarding the equestrian career there are 4 ranks (until the Flavians just the lower 3)
1. praefectus cohortis (quingenaria)
2. tribunus militum legionis or tribunus cohortis (millaria)
3. praefectus alae (quingenaria)
4. tribunus alae (millaria)

Minor quibble: you can't really generalise about the pre-Flavian equestrian cursus, it's all very fluid. In the Augustan period, it's incredibly fluid, and infantry cohort commanders are fairly rare. So, from Augustus to Tiberius, it's generally:

1. command of an auxiliary infantry cohort (optional), either as praefectus or tribunus, depending on the unit
2. legionary military tribunate
3. command of an auxiliary equestrian unit

with other commands as necessary coming afterwards. However, centurions can be promoted directly to cavalry commands, and most officers only hold one command.

By Claudius, command of an auxiliary infantry cohort is more common, and there are more of them. But Claudius, famously, reverses the order of the other two posts:

1. command of an auxiliary infantry cohort
2. command of an auxiliary equestrian unit
3. legionary military tribunate

It's only really under Nero that the classic pattern starts to settle down, partly as the Roman army starts to settle down. Rome doesn't really have a single 'army' in terms of higher-level command structures, organisation, and management until the Augustan period. It's no surprise that it takes 50 years or so for the command structures to stabilise.

[Frank]

Tribunus militum as a praetorian commander: do you have a reference for this? I'd expect tribunus cohortis x praetoriae.

Fully correct, thats what I expeceted, too. But, if I remember right, I have read the short term Tribunus Militum naming a praetorian tribune, if it is absolutely clear from context, that he is a praetorian. However, perhaps I myself or one of the authors I have read about this subject lately (Domaszewski, Dobson, Breeze, Bohec, Speidel, ...) mixed something up.

In general, cohorts of Roman citizens had tribunes in command.
...

Some of these cohorts (Cohors VI uoluntarionum, etc.) were still commanded by tribunes (Purtisius Atinas, ILJug. 2) - although others, such as the cohors Apula (C. Fabricius Tuscus, AE 1973, 501), were commanded by prefects.

I have to admit, that I am less firm about republican armies. For me a cohors voluntiarium c.R. in imperial times is nothing else than an auxila made from roman citizens from a tactical point of view. The issue of this thread is, who commanded the 10 cohorts of a regular legion and a cohors c.R. belongs not to a legion. So unfortunately the fact, that the cohors c.R as the auxilia was lead by praefects and tribunes doesn't help much.

Looking to vexillationes, things were even worse in very early empire. During his campaign in the Alps Augustus had to split legions into big vexillationes in order to take several routes thru the alps. The problem was, that a vexillatio of roman citizens, which is supposed to fight (not just move) had the need of a commander who is a (ex-)magistrate elected by the people of Rome. So just some of the higher tribunes were that experienced.
Later emperors dealt more flexibly with that issue, than the rather traditional and cautious Augustus in his early years as a princeps.

Minor quibble: you can't really generalise about the pre-Flavian equestrian cursus, it's all very fluid.

Fully correct, things were different from Augustus to Claudius, from Claudius to Vespasian and from Vespasian on. It even becomes more complex, if you add the career of the primipiles, which also needed time to evolve. My intent was not to generalise, but a short answer to Macedons question, if there were tribune ranks. Of course you can write a 200 page book just about the equestrian career, and some guys did.

[LVCIVS SERGIVS ANTONINVS]

Concerning the role of the late republican legionary cohort as a tactical unit, and therefore the eventually need for a cohort commander leading the troops, let's look at these two examples of caesarian troops battling against gallic warriors. In these instances, cohorts made frequent sallies to break the encirclement by the tribesmen. There is no mention whatsoever of a cohort commander, the cohorts nevertheless appear acting as tactical units with freedom of action. It seems to me, a personal perception of course, that the cohorts must have had a tactical command to lead the units in the offense and in the retreat, not just a collective leadership of six centurions trying to coordinate between them in the thick of the struggle.

-----------------------

Caesar, Bello Gallico V, XXXIV

"nostri, tametsi ab duce et a fortuna deserebantur, tamen omnem spem salutis in virtute ponebant, et quotiens quaeque cohors procurrerat, ab ea parte magnus numerus hostium cadebat."

"Our men were equal to them in fighting, both in courage and in number, and though they were deserted by their leader and by fortune, yet they still placed all hope of safety in their valour, and as often as any cohort sallied forth on that side, a great number of the enemy usually fell."

B.G. V, XXXV

"Quo praecepto ab eis diligentissime observato, cum quaepiam cohors ex orbe excesserat atque impetum fecerat, hostes velocissime refugiebant. Interim eam partem nudari necesse erat et ab latere aperto tela recipi."

"--Which command having been most carefully obeyed, when any cohort had quitted the circle and made a charge, the enemy fled very precipitately. In the meantime, that part of the Roman army, of necessity, was left unprotected, and the weapons received on their open flank."


.....

Any comments?

[popularis]

Tribunus militum as a praetorian commander: do you have a reference for this? I'd expect tribunus cohortis x praetoriae.

Fully correct, thats what I expeceted, too. But, if I remember right, I have read the short term Tribunus Militum naming a praetorian tribune, if it is absolutely clear from context, that he is a praetorian.

Would that be Virgius Marsus?

AE 1978, 286 = AE 1996, 513 (Marruuium, Regio 4, Italia)

A. Virgio L. f. Marso / prim(o) pil(o) leg(ionis) III Gallicae / iterum praef(ecto) castr(orum) Aegy(pti) / praef(ecto) fabr(um) tr(ibuno) mil(itum) in praet(orio) / diui Aug(usti) et Ti. Caesaris Aug(usti) / cohort(ium) XI et IIII praetoriar(um) / IIIIuir(o) quinq(uennali) delato hon/ore ab dec(urionibus) et popul(o) in col(onia) Troad(ensium) / Aug(usta) et Marru(u)io testamento / dedit uicalibus Anninis imagin(es) / Caesarum argentias(!) quinque / et sestertia X milia / uicales Annini{s} honor(is) / causa

An interesting inscription, but not uncontroversial I rather side with Keppie in suspecting that whoever in Marruvium was responsible for the inscription made a mistake!

EDIT: I'm an idiot who doesn't read his own notes. And I'm answering my own question. Anyhow, there's also L. Ouinius Rufus:

CIL 10.4872 = ILS 2021 (Venafrum, Regio 10, Italia).

L. Ouinius L. f. Ter(etina) Rufus / prim(us) ordo cohortium praet(oriarum) / diui Augusti prim(us) pil(us) leg(ionis) XIIII Gem(inae) / trib(unus) mil(itum) cohort(is) XI urb(anae) trib(unus) mil(itum) / coh(ortis) [.]III praet(oriae) praef(ectus) fabr(um) IIuir / L. Ouinio M. f. Ter(etina) patri / M. Ouinio L. f. Ter(etina) Vopisco fratri / Allidiae L. f. Rufae matri / Pulliae Primae uxori

So yes, tribunus militum is perfectly acceptable as a commander of a praetorian or urban cohort. I suspect that over time the title was elided in the same way that command of a cavalry cohort was:

tribunus militum cohortis x praetoriae -> tribunus cohortis x praetoriae
praefectus equitum alae x -> praefectus alae x

a vexillatio of roman citizens, which is supposed to fight (not just move) had the need of a commander who is a (ex-)magistrate elected by the people of Rome. So just some of the higher tribunes were that experienced.

You're right about this being off topic. But prefects of non-Senatorial rank could command Roman citizen troops, it's just that they didn't usually do it.

Of course you can write a 200 page book just about the equestrian career, and some guys did.

200 pages, pfft, weaklings. Demougin is probably still the best analysis of the equestrian cursus in the early Empire, and her first major book and accompanying catalogue alone is about 1600 pages

[D B Campbell]

Now, an interesting fact I came across was that I found no speira (cohort) numbered over 6.

See below:

[D]is Manibus #⁹⁰⁰
[T(itus) Flav]ịus Capiton mil(es) coh(ortis)
[Hispa]ne(n)s(is) ∙ XIII mil(i)tavit ∙ an(n)is ∙ II
[vixit] an(n)is ∙ XXV ∙ fecit T(itus) Flavius
[Her]mas l(ibertus) ex textamento {²⁶testamento}²⁶.

ἔτος {²anaglyphum}² ξσʹ
Θεοῖς Δαίμοσιν #⁹⁰⁰
[Τ(ίτου) Φ]λ̣αουίου Καπίτωνος
[σ]τρατιώτου σπείρης ∙ ιγ̣ʹ
[Ἱσ]π̣ανῆς, ἐστράτευσε̣[ν ἔτ]-
[εσι δ]υ̣σίν, ἔζησεν ἔτεσι [εἴκο]-
[σι πέντ]ε̣· Ἑρμᾶς κατ[ὰ] δ̣[ια]-
[θήκην]. vacat

I've never heard of a cohors XIII Hispanorum. Does the inscription really say that?! :dizzy:

btw The theory is that each new levy began a new series of auxiliary units, so cavalry alae rarely got beyond I, and (as you noted) infantry cohorts rarely got beyond V or VI. Larger numerals (e.g. cohors XX Palmyrenorum) are usually presumed to have been specially numbered for a particular reason.

[D B Campbell]

Konrad Stauner, Das offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus, 2004. He quotes Iosephus Flavius and Appian.

The passage you quote sounds awfully like Polybius.

Josephus (Jewish War III.87-88) certainly refers to centurions checking in with tribunes, and then all of them (if Josephus' problematic ταξίαρχοι is a catch-all term for centurions and tribunes) checking in with the legate. But I don't recall anything more detailed.

Would you mind posting the Appian reference, please?

[Renatus]

Josephus (Jewish War III.87-88) certainly refers to centurions checking in with tribunes, and then all of them (if Josephus' problematic ταξίαρχοι is a catch-all term for centurions and tribunes) checking in with the legate. But I don't recall anything more detailed.

There is also this:
http://pace.mcmaster.ca/york/york/showTe...=16&go.y=9

[Frank]

Konrad Stauner, Das offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus, 2004. He quotes Iosephus Flavius and Appian.

The passage you quote sounds awfully like Polybius.

Actually I myself did not quote Stauner word-for-word. I did summarize his german translation of the ancient greek quotes on page 73, which are:

Ios. bell. Iud. 3,87f and
App. civ. 5,46

unfortunately I can't read the greek text in the footnote, just his german translation.

Josephus (Jewish War III.87-88) certainly refers to centurions checking in with tribunes, and then all of them (if Josephus' problematic ταξίαρχοι is a catch-all term for centurions and tribunes) checking in with the legate. But I don't recall anything more detailed.

Josephus obviously describes the situation on a campaign, when multiple legions camp together. What Stauner translates is:

"Mit Tagesanbruch treten die Soldaten vor den Zenturionen an, um sie zu begrüßen, diese vor den Tribunen, mit denen dann die Legaten zu demselben Zweck vor den Oberbefehlshaber treten. Dieser gibt Ihnen herkömmlicherweise die Losung und die sonstigen Befehle, die sie ihren Untergebenen mitzuteilen haben."

The relevant part of the Appian quote is " ... wie es immer üblich ist, daß der Tribun, der um die Losung bittet, dem Kommandanten die tägliche Aufstellung über die Präsenzstärke übergibt ..., as it is always usual, that the tribune, who asks for the orders, also gives the daily-report to the commander."

The interesting insight for me regarding our discussion is, that the centurio pilus prior, who might be the cohort commander according to his rank, is not mentioned. It is all about the tribunes. Stauner says not, that centurions, tribunes and legates go to the governor. He just says tribunes and legates in his german translation. Perhaps a little dispute about subtleties of the greek grammar?

Even legates plus tribunes makes just sense, if all are in the same camp accidentally. But all centurions of 3-4 legions (180-240 men) going to the province governor every morning? Sounds weird, 20-30 legates and tribunes, like Stauner says, are heavy enough imho.

PS: I should have choosen ancient greek as my 3rd language on highschool (after Latin and English). French was a waste of time anyways :dizzy:

[Frank]

I've never heard of a cohors XIII Hispanorum. Does the inscription really say that?! :dizzy:

Me too, but I found this on google:

http://books.google.de/books?id=74vdDeva...&q&f=false

Somebody speaks french please, and could tell us, what this guy says on the bottom of page 348 about this cohort?

[Frank]

oops double post sorry