Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AE 1981 777
#31
Quote:
Robert Vermaat post=351281 Wrote:Centurions are found in (old-style) limitanei units, ordinarii are found in (new-style) comitatenses and auxilia palatini units.

Did you say, that there was no ordinarius in the units of the limitanei?

Old-style legions could also have both the ordinarius and centenarius, it seems:

D(is) M(anibus) / b(ene) m(erentibus) Castae quae vixit an(num) I d(ies) V et / Reginae quae vixit / ann(os) VII mens(es) V dies / XVIII filiabus dul/cissimis Val(erius) Castus / centur(io) ord(inarius) leg(ionis) I Iov(iae) / Scyt(hicae) una cum Val(erio) / Valeriano centen(ario) so/cero suo posuit (AE 1989, 00641, from Moesia)

As far as I can tell, only the mysterious ducenarius was restricted to non-legionary units.


Quote:I speculated, that the ordinarius like the primi ordinis were probably a rank-group like field-grade-officer in modern armies.

I think that was Mommsen's theory too, once upon a time. It's been kicked back and forth ever since... Another theory says that the centurio ordinarius was an officer commanding an ordo, i.e. a centuria or whatever of men, as opposed to a centurion on staff appointment or detached for some other duty. I'm not sure of that one myself though...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#32
The Ordo theory was one suggested by Phil Barker if I recall correctly. Since then it has been debunked.
Reply
#33
Quote:suggested by Phil Barker

Older even that that! The Ordinarii and Ordinati of the Roman Army :dizzy:
Nathan Ross
Reply
#34
Nathan wrote:
I think that was Mommsen's theory too, once upon a time. It's been kicked back and forth ever since... Another theory says that the centurio ordinarius was an officer commanding an ordo, i.e. a centuria or whatever of men.

Although this will not make any sense, thank you Nathan. It is a eureka moment. I now know who the centurio ordinaries are. His position was first introduced with the maniple legion. He is the centurion in command of creating the gaps when forming the quincunx formation. I cannot believe I did not see this years ago. It’s just another pitfall of being a blonde. This looks like there is a three tier promotion system for centurions. Combined with Renatus and yourself, this thread has proven to be invaluable to me.
Reply
#35
Quote:in order to increase the depth above 10 men, we need the remaining triarius posterior.
Well, we do have a pilus posterior of the 1st cohort of leg II Parthica at Apamea, if that helps, assuming that pilus = triarius, as under the Republic.


Quote:Should your theory prove right I will make sure that in the book you are given full credit for the concept of the junior centurion structure.

Thank you for sharing this information.
Not at all. All in the interests of the pursuit of knowledge.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#36
Renatus wrote:
Well, we do have a pilus posterior of the 1st cohort of leg II Parthica at Apamea, if that helps, assuming that pilus = triarius, as under the Republic.

Sorry, my response was a bit tongue in cheek. I know how many triarius posterior are available. However, the picture that is unfolding so far would suggest a centurio ordinarii is not a superior ranking, but simply someone who commands a number of vexillations required to create gaps in the line. What is emerging and this is starting to clear things up is a centurion can have two titles. For example, in the Principate, the first centurion of the maniple can also be the centurio ordinarii.
Reply
#37
Quote:
Frank post=351283 Wrote:
Robert Vermaat post=351281 Wrote:Centurions are found in (old-style) limitanei units, ordinarii are found in (new-style) comitatenses and auxilia palatini units.
Did you say, that there was no ordinarius in the units of the limitanei?
Old-style legions could also have both the ordinarius and centenarius, it seems:
D(is) M(anibus) / b(ene) m(erentibus) Castae quae vixit an(num) I d(ies) V et / Reginae quae vixit / ann(os) VII mens(es) V dies / XVIII filiabus dul/cissimis Val(erius) Castus / centur(io) ord(inarius) leg(ionis) I Iov(iae) / Scyt(hicae) una cum Val(erio) / Valeriano centen(ario) so/cero suo posuit (AE 1989, 00641, from Moesia).

Apologies people for this misunderstanding, obviously my memory failed me. I re-read the article and Rance proposed that the distinction between older-style units and new-style units was not centurio-ordinarius but centurio-centenarius: "The only titles attested in both the old and new hierarchies are tribunus, vicarius, primicerius and campidoctor."(p. 397).
Ordinarius was a synonym for centurion which became more fequently during the Late Roman period. So ordinarii are associated with old-style legions. My bad.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#38
Quote:Sorry, my response was a bit tongue in cheek.
Alas, a bit too subtle for me, I'm afraid!
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#39
Would I be going wildly off-piste if I raised the question of the title of Marcus Caelius, the centurion of leg XIIX who perished in the Varian disaster? This is Mike Bishop's excellent photograph of his inscription (CIL 13. 8648):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thearmatura...hotostream

The symbol for Caelius' title appears on the second line, before the reference to his legion. CIL assumes this to be a centurial sign in the form of a reversed C and, presumably by the same reasoning, EDCS expands it to '(centurioni)'. However, the form of the symbol seems to me to be too rounded, when compared with other Cs in the inscription, and I therefore take it to be an O, possibly standing for ordinario. Others also read it as an O but some assume a number or letter to have preceded it in the part of the inscription that is broken off. Thus, one sometimes finds it expanded to '[ I ] o(rdinis)' and Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg has '[t(riario)] o(rdini)'. If it is not damage to the stone, what appears to be a short horizontal line can be seen just to the left of Caelius' vitis, which could be the bar of a T or a line over a numeral. However, it does not seem to correspond exactly with the bars of other Ts in the inscription and, if it is a line over a numeral, the numeral would be very close to the O.

What do other members think and is there any literature justifying any of these interpretations?
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#40
Quote:However, the form of the symbol seems to me to be too rounded, when compared with other Cs in the inscription, and I therefore take it to be an O, possibly standing for ordinario. Others also read it as an O but some assume a number or letter to have preceded it in the part of the inscription that is broken off. Thus, one sometimes finds it expanded to '[ I ] o(rdinis)' and Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg has '[t(riario)] o(rdini)'. If it is not damage to the stone, what appears to be a short horizontal line can be seen just to the left of Caelius' vitis, which could be the bar of a T or a line over a numeral.
Like you, I have always been uncomfortable with the interpretation of that character as a centurial sign. Note that my colleague Lawrence Keppie, an epigrapher of the first order, has expanded the text to read "(primo) o(rdini) leg(ionis) XIIX" ("one of the primi ordines of Legion XVIII").

Domaszewski et al. (CIL Vol. XIII, 1907) didn't see a problem with reading the character as a centurial sign, and do not appear to have noticed the tiny horizontal line that you draw attention to:
[attachment=9115]CIL_XIII_8648.jpg[/attachment]

Similarly, Orelli (Inscriptionum Latinarum Selectarum Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 1, 1828, p. 158, no. 621) was principally concerned with interpreting the character as a centurial sign, and Henzen's revision (Inscriptionum Latinarum Selectarum Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 3, 1856, p. 58) only noted an attempt by the scholar Overbeck to read L(ega)TO (promoting Caelius to the position of legionary legate), which perhaps indicates that he had seen your horizontal line. When Dessau included it in his Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (no. 2244), he interpreted it as a centurial sign, while noting that, if those who claimed an "O" were correct, it might represent the numeral for 100.

I vaguely recall another argument disagreeing with the interpretation as "o(ptioni)", on the grounds that Caelius carries a centurion's vine stick. I can't remember where, but it shows that others have recognized that it's an O, not a centurial sign.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#41
Quote:If it is not damage to the stone, what appears to be a short horizontal line can be seen just to the left of Caelius' vitis, which could be the bar of a T or a line over a numeral. However, it does not seem to correspond exactly with the bars of other Ts in the inscription and, if it is a line over a numeral, the numeral would be very close to the O.
Here is the full resolution scan (2700dpi from my original neg). I think I would just err towards damage, but that's just me.

Mike Bishop

[attachment=9116]damageorcrossbar.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#42
Looking at the pattern of fracture and pitting, I must respectfully disagree and say that the horizontal line is not part of the damage.
Reply
#43
Whilst a relative innocent to the world of epigraphy and the monuments (apart from a long held desire to digitally copy and make a continuous 2d strip of Trajan's Column!) - can I ask a couple of related questions.....

- Do the stonemasons seem to have a predilection for centrally off-setting the inscriptions? ie are the individual lines normally 'centred' or are they more often left-aligned?
- I ask that for, what I would otherwise indeed have interpreted to be a definite 'O' (given the shape of other 'O's below) and not a 'C' at all, would, if centrally aligned and compared to the 'LIII' (which I assume, although the accompanying translation doesn't say, means he was aged 53), would tend to suggest that there is no other missing letter that has disappeared due to the damage as there simply isn't room

- If it is just an 'O', then what is intrinsically wrong with not interpreting his rank to be an 'Optio'? I can only assume that it is because the figure in the frieze seems to display a vine stick - which is just normally indicative of a Centurion?
- As far as I am aware, I don't believe we have any evidence of any rank insignia for Optio's, which begs the question as to what they would have had? A vine stick for Optio's would not, on the face of it, be unreasonable. Centurions had a transverse crest, different armour, sword on the other side, etc as well as a vine stick. Given the vine stick is known to be the visible symbol of the right to punish/chastise the soldiers, would it not be unreasonable, given the likely scope of his job, that the Optio, who is given nothing else, does have a vine stick?

- I note that he seems pretty old for a soldier (at 53), let alone 'just an optio' and could have served (assuming that the 'Varian War' is indeed the loss of Varus and his legions in AD9) since around 30BC

- I guess I ought to ask whether we have evidence of lots of definite Optios' similar tombstones that do not show vine sticks?
- otherwise perhaps it might be that the vine stick is the only likely 'insignia' for an Optio.......
Reply
#44
Quote:Do the stonemasons seem to have a predilection for centrally off-setting the inscriptions? ie are the individual lines normally 'centred' or are they more often left-aligned?
- I ask that for, what I would otherwise indeed have interpreted to be a definite 'O' (given the shape of other 'O's below) and not a 'C' at all, would, if centrally aligned and compared to the 'LIII' (which I assume, although the accompanying translation doesn't say, means he was aged 53), would tend to suggest that there is no other missing letter that has disappeared due to the damage as there simply isn't room
I would say (subject to correction, of course) that the stone carvers generally tried to centre inscriptions. This appears to be the case here. However, they were frequently unsuccessful; the last line of Caelius' inscription is an example. Moreover, there appears to be a mark after the 'LIII' which is interpreted in CIL as a leaf stop. If so, that would allow extra room to the left of the 'O' for another letter or symbol. I have to say that the short horizontal mark looks to me as if it is more than just damage.


Quote: I guess I ought to ask whether we have evidence of lots of definite Optios' similar tombstones that do not show vine sticks?
- otherwise perhaps it might be that the vine stick is the only likely 'insignia' for an Optio.......
The badge of office of an optio seems to be a long staff, apparently called a hastile. There are tombstones from Chester and Budapest showing this. See this thread:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...ation.html

I cannot think of a stone showing an optio with a vitis but others may know better.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#45
Avete omnes,

I don't post much, but follow avidly the discussions on this forum.

I have been following this thread with much interest, Just for educational purposes I decided to experiment on how this epitaph may have looked like had it been found in a slightly better state of preservation with all of the information intact.

Mind you this is all conjecture and I definitely am no expert.

Best regards and salvete Smile
[attachment=9124]m.caelius_epitaph_inscription_2.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
aka: Julio Peña
Quote:"audaces Fortuna iuvat"
- shouted by Turnus in Virgil\'s Aeneid in book X just before he is utterly destroyed by Aeneas\' Trojans.
Reply


Forum Jump: