Marcus Antonius guard in 44 BC

[Macedon]

According to Appian, Marcus Antonius enlisted 6,000 men, all having held the rank of lochagos during Caesar's campaigns. Among them he appointed taxiarchoi as was proper for the organization of the unit (App, Bellum Civile, 3.1.5). Is there a Latin account of this? I am trying to identify the ranks since the usual translation of lochagos as centurion (often quite clear in Appian) in this case seems to me problematic. First because of the simultaneous mentioning of the taxiarchoi and because 6,000 veteran centurions sounds like too much. So, I want to see whether he speaks of first rankers (dekadarchoi) which is the usual translation of the term in Greek manuals of the broad era.

I have to add here that Appian also comments on the fact that the taxiarchoi participated in his councils, which would be a bit strange to point out if these were military tribunes.

[Nathan Ross]

Keppie notes the same passage, but finds it unlikely that the men were really all former centurions:

Keppie - Legions and Veterans, p.102

Although it might be worth mentioning that Cicero, in the First Philippic, describes Antony massacring the centurions of three legions that refused to support him at Brundisium. Cicero gives the number of men slain at 300, indicating that there could have been 100 centurions in a legion at this date (quite how that works I don't know!), or men referred to as such... Caesar had demobilised a lot of men in Campania...

[popularis]

Sorry for the late side note:

'taxiarchos' is a very tricky word - see, for example, the entry on LSJ, here: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/lsj.htm...ontext=lsj which defines it variously as centurion, military tribune, ordinarius, even as legate! It could also mean senior centurion, possibly primuspilus (cf. Plutarch, Pomp. 78.1-79.1 on L. Septimius).

Because it isn't a directly translatable word it needs context. Here, we don't really have any. Antonius' guard was not (necessarily) organised like a normal legionary force. This was a new kind of Roman military unit: a large-scale personal guard, not a legion. We can't be sure it didn't have a different kind of organisational structure as well.

However, given the normal organisation of Roman citizen units, and the later praetorian units, it is likely that the guard was led by tribunes of some sort. Possibly tribuni cohortis rather than tribuni militum.

Perhaps, given the uniqueness of the unit, some ambiguity was present in Appian's own sources, and this is why Appian chose an ambiguous term.

You make an interesting point about the detail that they 'participated in his council'. This would be an argument against taxiarchos for tribune. However, I'm not sure that I would translate τῶν φανερῶν βουλευμάτων as 'his consilium', rather as 'those plans that he made known'. In other words, I think it's a more general comment about Antonius' public statements and private schemes.

It promotes the idea of Antonius as duplicitous, while emphasising that the taxiarchoi were important figures within Antonius' guard - a clear foreshadowing of their later role in promoting reconciliation with Octavian later in Book 3 (cf. Appian, BC 3.29-32). It also shows how Antonius was actively courting veterans and, perhaps, promoting them above their 'station' - which, again, foreshadows their later resistance to his orders.

[Macedon]

Of course such terms are very problematic and this is a major reason why I questioned this interpretation in the first place. Nevertheless, it is also true that Appian in particular, generally clearly uses the term lochagos as centurion. I think that should the number not sound too high to my ears, I would simply accept it as that and this is why I would welcome any Latin text on this issue. The problem arises when we come to the office of the tribunus, for here, he often uses the most common chiliarchos, thus creating problems with the positive identification of taxiarchos, even though, he indeed seems to most commonly use it as tribunus. Of course you are right that some ambiguity might have been present in Appian's sources, although if something really unique would have been chosen as a (temporary maybe) solution, I would expect Appian to have reported it.

As I understand the "made them participators of his open plans/intentions" part, Appian is talking of the decision making process (of non secret plans) and not just the announcement of decisions. However, with your reading, the term would with even more difficulty be perceived as "tribunes" since I hold it highly doubtful that simply announcing his decisions to such officers would be considered (extraordinarily) honorable treatment, so either way, the question remains...

[popularis]

Of course you are right that some ambiguity might have been present in Appian's sources, although if something really unique would have been chosen as a (temporary maybe) solution, I would expect Appian to have reported it.

And I would too. I think it more probable that Appian's source/s didn't use a specific military term. It was quite common, as you know, for Latin authors to use phrases such as 'was in placed in command of' or 'led', when we might prefer an actual title! I suspect Appian might not have known their precise rank either.

I side with those who think that 'lochagos' might be being used figuratively here, or at least was in Appian's source. That sounds like too many centurions to me. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I doubt the statement is correct at face value.

As I understand the "made them participators of his open plans/intentions" part, Appian is talking of the decision making process (of non secret plans) and not just the announcement of decisions.

To clarify, by 'public statements and private schemes' I was referring not to the role of the taxiarchoi but to Appian's portrayal of Antonius! I assume that they would have been in the consilium, of course. I just don't think the consilium is the focus here - the counsels/plans are figurative ones. The question of their rank indeed, remains. Tribunes of some sort is just a best guess.

For me, two things are being emphasised in this short sentence. First is the fact that Antonius promoted these men from the centurionate to some elevated rank and made them part of his cohors. This was promoting them above their station, and such pandering to the ranks was a sign of weakness in Antonius and of the upheavals the Roman state was undergoing. Nevertheless, by promoting them, flattering them, and treating them as officers and as part of his cohors, they were supposed to obey him.

Second, the 'plans that he made known' is Appian's way of suggesting that Antonius had another agenda which he kept private. We *all* know what this is, but Appian's just flagging it up again - this is the very start of Book 3, after all, so we might need a bit of a reminder.

Appian therefore sets up the moment when Antonius' hidden agenda became clear, and these men did not obey his orders. Antonius' weakness in raising men above their station is shown to be a folly. He can't control even those who owe their position to his generosity; by pandering to the army he has become subject to their whims. Octavian, initially, has his weak moments too, but he will assert his authority over the troops in the end.

All of which is a long way of saying that I wouldn't want to look too deeply into this passage for the structure of Antonius' guard in the late 40s. I think the passage too problematic - 6,000 centutions? - and too interested in foreshadowing Antonius' eventual failure to bear the weight of deep technical analysis. Of course, we may have to agree to disagree!

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
I have to add here that Appian also comments on the fact that the taxiarchoi participated in his councils, which would be a bit strange to point out if these were military tribunes.

Military tribunes are known to attend councils of war. My understanding is they could be the senior military tribune from each legion.

Nathan wrote:
Although it might be worth mentioning that Cicero, in the First Philippic, describes Antony massacring the centurions of three legions that refused to support him at Brundisium. Cicero gives the number of men slain at 300.

I wonder if those 300 could have also included a number of optiones, who out of loyalty to their centurion, were also executed?

[Macedon]

Military tribunes are known to attend councils of war. My understanding is they could be the senior military tribune from each legion.

Yes, this is what makes the specific statement strange, for the taxiarchoi in question are officers appointed in this specific unit.