Centurion Rank

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Primi Ordines is what I was thinking of, I can't remember all the different terms.

[Renatus]

I have thought about this in relation to Vegetius’ inclusion of both a centurio primi pili (i.e., primus pilus) and a triarius prior in his First Cohort. At first sight, since pilani and triarii are synonymous, this seems to place two senior centurions in the same cohort and, as triarius prior is a rank otherwise unattested, the reference is generally thought to be an error. On the other hand, I have long held that Vegetius is, generally speaking, an honest reporter of his sources and, as he shows no indication of having known that centurions could be designated prior or posterior, there is the possibility that he found a reference to a triarius prior in a source now lost to us. Livy, in dealing with the army of the mid-fourth century BC, states that the senior centurion, primus pilus in his day but then called primus centurio (7.41), was placed in battle “inter triarios” (8.8.16), without saying in terms that he led or commanded the triarii. This opens the possibility that the primus centurio might have been supernumerary to a triarius prior who actually commanded the first vexillum of the triarii.

[Mark Hygate]

To me, messing around with the 'Centurions Mess' would be analogous today with trying to re-organise the WO's & Sgts Mess! Dangerous stuff. :wink:

For that reason, and with, afaik no particular sources that really suggest otherwise (that I have seen so far, but it's not an area I've particularly studied) I would be more inclined to suggest that there were 60 centurions in a 'full' legion at all times.

In the Polybian construct they seem to be clear - each segment/maniple (including the Triarii) has its pair of centurions and their ranks are most likely synonymous with the ranks quoted 300+years later in the Imperial construct; with the change from triarii to pilus happening when the cohort structure was permanently established.

When the legion was supplemented in the post-Augustan period and the first cohort enlarged, however, I strongly suspect this is why the 10-century construct of the First Cohort became commanded by the slightly different ranks seen in the primi ordines (ordo itself referring to the century-pairing). At this point the '60th Centurion' became the Praefectus Castrorum.

This is by far the simplest interpretation and is a change that slightly awards the senior centurions of a legion, whilst not messing around with the careers of the majority and promises that the most senior even has a new 'higher' step possible; let alone providing an experienced military specialist of Equestrian status to advise the legion's commander.

It's the work of a clever and experienced military administrator - and I think both Augustus or Tiberius could fit that bill.

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
I have thought about this in relation to Vegetius’ inclusion of both a centurio primi pili (i.e., primus pilus) and a triarius prior in his First Cohort.

Thanks Renatus for reminding me of this source. Now I have a legitimate reason to call the triarii ‘prior.’ Livy (44 33) has the primus pilus present at the council of war, then after the pilus centurion notified what was to be done to each of the centurions under his command. Now if the primus pilus was then required to command the triarii or any other unit, how could he be sure the other centurions are following the plan? The primus pilus has to be independent and mounted so he can move around and supervise the other 60 centurions under his command.

Contrary to the traditional thinking, the triarii have no centurions of their own. The triarii are under the command of the centurions belonging to the principes. The triarii are not really expected to be used in battle, but when they are, after the principes fall back, the centurions of the principes take command of the triarii. This arrangement is very predominant in the organisation of the Servian legion, that is the centurion will fall back with the tired men, then pick up the fresh men under his command and advance towards the enemy.

Whether you like it or not, the legion is a voting body. Both Dionysius and Livy make this clear in their outline of the century assembly. In the century assembly there are no posterior centuries, there are all prior. However, there is the centuria praerogativa. This century votes first and if you see a connection between the first centurion, don’t rule it out as a coincidence until you are prepared to thoroughly investigate it.

The description of the century assembly as given by Cicero has convinced many scholars of a major reform of the century assembly. They are right, and this change to the century assembly had its biggest impact on the property class the triarii belong to. There total numbers got reduced. In its military application, to compensate for this loss, the Romans incorporated Class IV into the legions official organisation. Overtime, Class V and Class VI will be officially incorporated into the legion’s organisation. This is how they keep the legion numbers constant every time the century assembly is forced by the plebs to be a more democratic assembly. Of course they are going to run out of classes to incorporate into the legion, but by then the legion will be a constant.

Before this happens, in the early republican legion, there are no posterior centuries. When it came to voting or assembling for a campaign, the army did this on the Campus Martius, so the Roman knew how much space they needed to assembly the army. It took me awhile, but in my research I have only just noticed that the depth of the legion from Servius Tullius to Vegetius matched the number of centuries in a tribe. Tis is because every unit has a fixed frontage. When the tribes increase overtime, only then do the Romans have the numbers to create posterior centuries. That is centuries belonging and voting with the prior voting centuries. This first occurs in 102 BC, and it is adhering to the first expansion of the tribes as created by Pythagoras.

Does all of this make the Roman legion a rigid beast as Mark would think? The Roman legion is such flexible apparatus it makes other western ancient armies look amateurish. It is a creation of pure Pythagorean geometry that it is best to think of it as moving blocks. Each block within a legion is designed to act independently, and be capable of forming gaps in the line, and every other thing a legion is known to do. You can station the blocks in a single line, or with the frontage of one block. Depending on the blocks you can make multiple blocks deep as Regulus did at Bagradas, or you can position the blocks in such as manner as explained by Polybius at Cannae. To give the legion greater flexibility, the blocks can also be dissected into half blocks. So if you ever turn up at my place and wonder what all those coloured blocks are doing on the floor, it is me working out frontages for a particular battle. If there are only red blocks, you will understand these are the prior centuries. If there are blue and red blocks it is because the blue are the posterior centuries, so you can get an idea of what period I am working on.

Sorry for ranting, but as I know the triarii are not allocated centurions, the primus pilus is in additional to the other 60 centurions. However, I would like to point out that a 40-century legion only has 40 centurions. It makes you wonder, what would be the outcome if Polybius legion was actually a 40 century legion? Would that mean 20 centurions commanded the hastati and 20 centurions the principes. If the 20 centurions of the hastati had to supervise the velites when they were skirmishing, taking the premise there are 1200 velites (sorry Mark), each centurion would supervise 60 velites. If the 20 centurions had to supervise the 600 triarii, each centurion would have 30 triarii. Could it be possible that Polybius has accidentally integrated the details of the 4000 man legion, with the 5000 man legion? If he has done that, that would give everyone a run for their money.

Steven

[Renatus]

Are you familiar with this article?

G. V. Sumner, 'The Legion and the Centuriate Organisation', JRS 60 (1970), 67-78

I haven't read it myself but it looks interesting.

[Mark Hygate]

..... Livy (44 33) has the primus pilus present at the council of war, then after the pilus centurion notified what was to be done to each of the centurions under his command. Now if the primus pilus was then required to command the triarii or any other unit, how could he be sure the other centurions are following the plan? The primus pilus has to be independent and mounted so he can move around and supervise the other 60 centurions under his command.

Contrary to the traditional thinking, the triarii have no centurions of their own. The triarii are under the command of the centurions belonging to the principes. The triarii are not really expected to be used in battle, but when they are, after the principes fall back, the centurions of the principes take command of the triarii. This arrangement is very predominant in the organisation of the Servian legion, that is the centurion will fall back with the tired men, then pick up the fresh men under his command and advance towards the enemy.....................

Does all of this make the Roman legion a rigid beast as Mark would think? ............... Could it be possible that Polybius has accidentally integrated the details of the 4000 man legion, with the 5000 man legion? If he has done that, that would give everyone a run for their money.
............

Well, it's always interesting.....

- Livy [44.33] notes an unusual circumstance in a particular case - normally, as Polybius [VI.24] makes completely clear all 30 of the senior centurions (and I'm at a bit of a loss as to how almost anyone can read that section and not interpret that each maniple (including the triarii) has a pair of centurions for a total of 60) go to the military council - which makes perfect sense given that the maniple is the operational and tactical unit of the time.

- not having centurions for the triarii (this rather strange, I believe, idea that those of the principes command them) would certainly preclude the oft used tactical element of sending the triarii off to do something, particularly to a flank; let alone having the necessary command presence camping the other side of a street from the troops he's now also commanding.

- lastly on that vein, I'm not aware that there's any source that suggests that centurions (of any stripe) were normally mounted.

- I think you and I must have a very different interpretation of 'rigid' vs 'flexible'. Having standards of organisation set is what allows flexibility. Certainly the idea of ever changing organisational structures due to population trends or the movements of the stars is about as un-military as I can think - the logistical nightmares resulting would wear our Quartermasters faster than they could be trained!

- As to the 4,000/4,200 - 5,000 legion; I do not believe you are wrong! They are the same structure.......

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
Are you familiar with this article? G. V. Sumner, 'The Legion and the Centuriate Organisation', JRS 60 (1970), 67-78. I haven't read it myself but it looks interesting.

It’s not one of my favourites. It’s one of those academic papers I dislike because the author only uses data that supports his theory, while leaving out information that would destroy his theories credibility. That’s not to say his paper didn’t influence me, because it did. After rereading it some eight years ago, I decided to adopt the opposite approach to Sumner.

Sumner page 67: “The method of approach to be adopted here is that of reversing the historical process and working backwards from the relatively more certain data of the Middle Republic to the period where hypothesis and conjecture reign It is perhaps a clumsy method. But, given the nature of the evidence, it appears to offer a better hope of illumination than an attempt to start from the Servius Tullius rex. It is appropriate therefore to begin with Polybius”

The Servian constitution outlining the voting assembly and therefore the army, is the most comprehensive data that it is the best place to start. There is nothing comparable to it in the Middle Republic. When I began my research, after realising that no one throughout the ages had worked on the concept of Polybius being wrong about his legion, or just plain unreliable, I adopted that policy and disregard anything written by Polybius until I could prove it to be correct. I treated Polybius as the fly in the ointment.

Sumner page 68: “The manipular arm of Polybius shows no significant correspondence with the organization of the Comitia Centuriata in any of its forms.”

Establishing a connection between the Comitia Centuriata and the maniple legion will not happen by looking at the legion of Polybius and the Comitia Centuriata. You have to be prepared to crunch the numbers.

Sumner page 69: “It would seem almost impossible to believe that Livy’s legion ever existed in reality…It would be over-optimistic to suppose that the residue would have any claim to authenticity”

Let's look at Polybius, especially in light of his comment (6 24) “The velites are divided equally among all the companies; these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla, and their officers are called centurions or ordinum ductores.” Regardless of how this is translated, Polybius is not sure what these units are. Would you trust someone who is not sure?

Sumner page 69: “But if we regard the legion as consisting of 60 centuries (as stated by Cincius), there is an anomaly, A century being half a maniple, a century of the 1200 hastati in the Polybian legion would amount not to 100 men, but only 60 men, and the same goes for the principes. As for the triarii, a century of them would number a mere 30 men.”

Well what can I “suffer yee all who follow Polybius.” I find it fascinating that people still gravitate to Polybius like a moth to light. Then they go about bashing squares into holes and come up with the 1200 hastati organised into maniples of 120 men, as are the principes, but then have the 600 triarii in maniples of 60 men. So when is a maniple a maniple? Polybius seems to believe a maniple numbered over 100 men. So how do the disciples of Polybius deal with this? They simply add in the velites. Yeah that solves the problem…well so they think.

Sumner page 71: “In other words, Livy’s information concerns the fact that the election of the 24 military tribunes, 6 to each of the four legions, as known from Polybius, actually began about 311 BC. This would make it probable that the increase to four legions was recent in 311 BC, and would be in line with the other indications that the four manipular legions were introduced during the Second Samnite War.”

At this point Sumner fails to draw the reader’s attention to Livy (6 22), for the year 382 BC, 71 years earlier, four legions were enrolled each of 4000 men.” With six military tribunes allocated to a legion, this amounts to 24 military tribunes. So what is Sumner on about? Also “indications” is not evidence…empirical data is.

Sumner page 71: “In other words, from 405 to 367 BC there was a single legio with six military tribunes. By 362 BC, a second legion had been created, so that each of the two consuls….commanded a legion, and there were six military tribunes to each legion.”

Following Sumner that between 405 BC and 367 BC, there was a single legion, how would Sumner explain the following?

In 401 BC, four campaigns were simultaneously undertaken, two consular tribunes maintained the siege of Veii, while another two consular tribunes campaigned against Falerii and Capena. A fifth consular tribune attacked the Volscian hill town of Anxur. The sixth consular tribune acted as the city prefect.

They did this with one legion!

In 395 BC and 391 BC, of the six consular tribunes, four consular tribunes conducted simultaneous military campaigns against Falerii and Capena. In 389 BC, one year after the sack of Rome, Camillus (dictator) held a levy of the iuniores and seniores and divided the army into three divisions. One division marched against the Veientes, the second division encamped in front of Rome, while the third division campaigned against the Volscians.

One legion divided into three divisions….Sumner proved the Romans are supermen. And what about the four legions reported at the battle of the Allia in 386/7 BC?

Sumner is so obsessed with his theory he is blind to the primary sources, but this doesn’t stop him. Again on page 71, which must be the most famous paper in academia for lacking common sense, Sumner writes:

“In the 360’s they were surely in no position to create 6000 new hoplites out of thin air, or out of the earth. We may assume that each legion had scarcely more than 3000 hoplites, with centuries containing only 50 men.”

In replying to your question Renatus I have forgotten how ridicules this paper is. It is utter garbage. If I had the inclination, which I don’t, I could pull apart most of what is written, simply by referring to the primary sources.