Tesserarius - rank or role?

[Mark Hygate]

Please forgive me if this has been done to death in the past and searching just didn't reveal it......but having been mentioned in another context:

Is there, perhaps inscriptional, evidence that tesserarius appears to be a discrete rank or is it just a role - like (within context) 'duty Corporal'?

To better define the query - on the theory that a century could be:

- 10 contubernia of 8 each lead by a sesquiplicarius (Corporal?)for 80 milites
- with a Centurion, Optio and Signifer for a total of 83

Does a tesserarius appear as an additional rank (so for 84 perhaps in that context), or as a role carried out by one of the '80' like other beneficiarii, armaturae, curator, librarius, etc?

[Nathan Ross]

There are over a hundred inscriptions giving tesserarius as a position, sometimes in sequence with other positions leading towards the centurionate, or followed by others like custus armorum or cornicularius. Perhaps thinking of these positions within the century as 'ranks' is misleading though - they are more 'positions of responsibility'. The theory that tesserarii were paid incrementally more (as sesquiplicarii) is often stated, but I'm unaware of what the evidence might be.

I would guess that a man might be selected as tesserarius - perhaps by his centurion - based on his aptitude for the task: dependable, literate, conscientious, not a drunk or an idiot, etc. He may, of course, just have been a friend of the centurion - we can't discount the workings of patronage even at this low level. Once picked out in this way, however, the tesserarius would necessarily have been placed apart from his fellow milites to a limited extent, and so many have exercised some authority over them in the absence of higher command. Being selected for the position implies trust and capability, after all, and the potential of rising to higher things.

But I don't think the tesserarii would have been supernumerary to the rest of the century, if that's what you mean, any more than the musicians, for example, the legionary cavalry or those detached for admin duties at headquarters.

[Mark Hygate]

Nathan,

Thank you very much indeed, that was perfect. It confirms what I was thinking - that tesserarius is a 'role' rather than a 'rank'.

However, I am puzzled as to why you would think this man would then have been placed 'apart', or somehow segregated? Unless I miss something the tesserarius is simply the man in each century nominated to either collect, return or transmit to the next tesserarius the actual tesserus(?) and the spoken watchword. Whilst a position of trust certainly and perhaps therefore also an immune, why the assumption of a need for separation, let alone that it carried any additional authority?

As an aside - I really must see if I can find time to get to grips with the inscriptions available (I haven't managed to use the handy link properly yet) - a fascinating field of study even from the safety of an 'armchair'.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

If I may,

I theorize that the tesserarius may have shared a tent with the optio, signifier, and cornicern. The tesserarius, while not an officer, was not a regular legionary. It's very possible that he ran the day to day operation of the century. The centurions were almost always away on other duties, and the optio was most likely behind a desk much of the time. This man may have had the responsibility to make sure that duties were done properly. He most likely accompanied digging details, inspected latrines, and may have been something similar to "officer of the day" (I'm extremely hesitant to use comparisons to the modern military). I believe the tesserarius was sort of considered a "first among equals", and was likely senior in both age and service time. He was probably often a soldier who had signed on for a second term and had attained the position as a reward for accepting the centurions request for reenlistment.

I know that much of this is speculation. However, common sense dictates that this is the system that works best. This was not an "official" rank, but it was also not an "unofficial" rank. Like much of Roman culture, it has no parallel to our modern reasoning. I do not believe that the tesserarius wore a crest. I believe that he fought in the ranks, was well respected, older than most of the legionaries (and probably the centurio himself). He was a man with a privileged position, and could be punished by having his title stripped from him. Unless we have a new archeological discovery, we will probably never really know more than what we do now about this interesting and ambiguous position.

Respectfully,
Tyler

[Robert Vermaat]

Difficult to say. The Roman army was not a monolithic institution, and what started out as a clear rank could vary well evolve into a posting, a title or simply a pay grade.

[Mark Hygate]

Tyler,

Interesting thoughts...I'm afraid my view is much simpler.....

Whilst the Centurion could well be away involved in the 'command-level' duties I was thinking about, I don't see that he would necessarily be away that much when it comes to what his century is doing. Most of the things you mention I would have thought the Optio would be responsible for (he's the one, which is why I think of him like a Platoon/Drill-Sergeant) who's directly responsible for keeping the men in line - and literally so in battle.

On the assumption that each century has an Optio, a Signifer and 10 x contubernium/section leaders (sesquiplicarii) - why do we need a tesserarius doing anything special?

I would more likely think that the tesserarius would be one of the sesquiplicarii - unless it was based upon a tradition that it was one of the rank-an-file.

As an aside - I would have thought there would only be one cornicen to a cohort, with no need for one per century. Men in a century being close enough to be shouted at, but passing orders across a cohort would need something 'louder'.

[Sardaukar]

I'd think that in modern terms (just really big abstraction):

Centurion = junior to mid-level officer in legion, depending on position (Lieutenant to even Lt. Colonel (in case of Primipilus))
Optio = Company Sergeant Major
Tesserarius = Sergeant (as with other with similar pay)

No means meant to take really seriously, but I think it'd fit to give some comparisons.

[Mark Hygate]

............
Optio = Company Sergeant Major
Tesserarius = Sergeant (as with other with similar pay).........

Then you are arguing that the tesserarius is a completely separate person?

Having been thinking about it - I'm now much more tempted (forgetting size) to think of the century as a 'platoon'....

One 'officer' ('Captain' - using appropriate nomenclature); a 'Sergeant' (Optio); a signifer (radio-op - equivalent on battlefield to show where comms go); and sections headed by sesquiplicarii (Corporals).

A maniple would then equate to a 'company' (thinking here of the Napoleonic one of two platoons). Senior Captains cover the rest (they were all Centurions).

That would make Tribunes '(staff) Major's and Tribunus Laticlavius and Legate Lt Col and Colonl respectively - and I'd resist all the rank inflation of the last 200 years.

On topic, however, I think tesserarius is just a role - it doesn't need to be anything else or carry any other responsibility - perhaps, considering the platoon idea - then he's the 'runner' (when not in combat). He's just the one trusted and known to his colleagues in the other century's and the other 'officers' he reports too.

[Nathan Ross]

I am puzzled as to why you would think this man would then have been placed 'apart', or somehow segregated?

I didn't mean physically set apart - just that his position would give him seniority among his fellow legionaries. I don't see the tesserarius as being a separate officer-type position - just a legionary with a special responsibility and perhaps higher pay, which might later qualify him for promotion.

[Frank]

Why do you guys think, that the leader of a contubernium was a sesquiplicarius or a contubernium had a leader at all? There is no evidence for this, except Vegetius' late roman armies Decanus. For the imperial army, there was perhaps just "The Eldest" who was a kind of leader in the contubernium in the camp. On the battlefield there was no need for a contubernium leader.

Looking to the Analysis of David Breeze and Alfred von Domaszewski who afaik are still the standard about ranking of the roman army, the Tesserarius was one of 3 ranks (Tesserarius, Optio, Signifer) of the so called "Tactical Principales". Everybody had to serve in this group at least once during his career up to the centurionate. There is also the group of the lower principales (mainly clerks and technical staff) and the senior principales (working for the staff of the legion / auxilia cohors)

Looking to the several roster lists we have from roman units, the Tesserarius seems to be clearly a rank, not just a role. Nevertheless, we know nothing about his duties, except that he forwarded the tessera. So most propably he had additional duties in the office of the centurio, like the signifer, the optio and most propably a librarius. Of course there is a theory, that the only real rank of the principales was sesquiplicarius and duplicarius (perhaps sometimes triplicarius). However the modern military term "rank", does not really fit to the roman reality.

[Frank]

But I don't think the tesserarii would have been supernumerary to the rest of the century, if that's what you mean, any more than the musicians, for example, the legionary cavalry or those detached for admin duties at headquarters.

I doubt too, that a roman century had supernumerarii, except the centurio himself. There is no evidence for more than 10 contubernia or a special room for the principales in roman infantry camps. Well, there are some hints in cavalry camps.

However, due to the fact, that a roman legion was never fully staffed, it could have been easy to group the principales (signifer, optio, tesserarius and perhaps custos armorum) in one of these 10 rooms. I doubt, roman privates liked the idea, to live in the same room with a seargant for years more than modern privates do.

I am even not sure, if e.g. a cornicularius consularis, was a supernumerarius. Fact is, he was still on the payroll of a century. O course, no legate with a brain, let his cornicularius fight with his century. So perhaps only the additional centurions (there were up to 11 centurions in one cohort) were real supernumerarii.

[Sardaukar]

............
Optio = Company Sergeant Major
Tesserarius = Sergeant (as with other with similar pay).........

Then you are arguing that the tesserarius is a completely separate person?

Having been thinking about it - I'm now much more tempted (forgetting size) to think of the century as a 'platoon'....

One 'officer' ('Captain' - using appropriate nomenclature); a 'Sergeant' (Optio); a signifer (radio-op - equivalent on battlefield to show where comms go); and sections headed by sesquiplicarii (Corporals).

A maniple would then equate to a 'company' (thinking here of the Napoleonic one of two platoons). Senior Captains cover the rest (they were all Centurions).

That would make Tribunes '(staff) Major's and Tribunus Laticlavius and Legate Lt Col and Colonl respectively - and I'd resist all the rank inflation of the last 200 years.

On topic, however, I think tesserarius is just a role - it doesn't need to be anything else or carry any other responsibility - perhaps, considering the platoon idea - then he's the 'runner' (when not in combat). He's just the one trusted and known to his colleagues in the other century's and the other 'officers' he reports too.

I am arguing that tesserarius is both rank and role, since they apparently were paid more than ordinary milites. Optio would be definitely more than ordinary sergeant, being second in command under centurion, who could definitely classified as officer. Thus I think modern equivalent is Company Sergeant Major, senior NCO in unit. Signifer, tesserarius etc. would be the ordinary sergeants.

In that scale, tribunes would indeed be Majors, with senior tribune as Colonel, legate could be easily classified as Brigade General etc.

But this is just mental exercise, nothing really to do with historical reality, taken the difference between modern and Roman army.

[Sardaukar]

But I don't think the tesserarii would have been supernumerary to the rest of the century, if that's what you mean, any more than the musicians, for example, the legionary cavalry or those detached for admin duties at headquarters.

I doubt too, that a roman century had supernumerarii, except the centurio himself. There is no evidence for more than 10 contubernia or a special room for the principales in roman infantry camps. Well, there are some hints in cavalry camps.

However, due to the fact, that a roman legion was never fully staffed, it could have been easy to group the principales (signifer, optio, tesserarius and perhaps custos armorum) in one of these 10 rooms. I doubt, roman privates liked the idea, to live in the same room with a seargant for years more than modern privates do.

I am even not sure, if e.g. a cornicularius consularis, was a supernumerarius. Fact is, he was still on the payroll of a century. O course, no legate with a brain, let his cornicularius fight with his century. So perhaps only the additional centurions (there were up to 11 centurions in one cohort) were real supernumerarii.

Maybe optio could have been supernumerarious too, but I agree that signifer, tesserarius etc. were most likely not.

[Frank]

Actually, we have no clear evidence from primary sources.
We also do not know, how exactly the formation of a centuria was on the battlefield. All we see in books is a more or less reasonable speculation.
It seems, that there was just room for 80 men plus the centurio in the camps.

And whats the point about supernumerarii at all? Calculating full strength of a legion? A roman legion was never at full strength anyways. Perhaps at the first day of its existence, and even this is questionable.

[Mark Hygate]

Why do you guys think, that the leader of a contubernium was a sesquiplicarius or a contubernium had a leader at all? ...........

Looking to the several roster lists we have from roman units, the Tesserarius seems to be clearly a rank, not just a role. Nevertheless, we know nothing about his duties, except that he forwarded the tessera. .............

The first is a good point. Evolution from the Greek-style 'file leader'; a need for the lowest-level leadership to help control that file in battle; a leader with sufficient 'rank' to control his tent/section mates; and simple organisational mechanics to maintain good order and military discipline all suggest that such a person would be very useful, if not needed. I'd certainly argue for all that, although the 'pay-and-a-half' is possibly conjectural, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable, but he may just have been an immunis.

I bolded the important bit above - but would suggest that identifying such a man who could be trusted would certainly be a stepping stone on the way to being considered as a future Optio. If linking to the above, then he could just be the 'senior corporal' - there are good reasons to think that the ability to split a century in two (one under the Centurion/Tesserarius and the other under the Optio) may be desirable - thinking Hadrian's wall mile-castles and similar, for example.