Diocletian: legions and rank structure

[Lupianus]

Nathan, to be honest I struggle a bit with Latin metric poetry. It's quite time consuming (for me at least). So only a rough idea: The text bemoans an unnamed man's untimely death at young age (iuvenili aetati) – or at least before he had been able to fully enjoy the fruits of his labour (meritis gauderet suis quae olim labore quaesiit). Before he could bed his wife they both were laid down in this grave (uno iacent ambo non toro sed tumulo). No offspring was left to remember them, so his comrads (contubernales), to whom he had been a dear friend (omnibus semper suis fuit carus amicus), decided to erect this monument, allegedly against his or their vows and custom (contra votum).

The "contubernales" in particular seem to suit a military context, indeed. If the deceased had been an officer I reckon those would be his mess mates. They may be paying tribute to themselves (therefore perhaps "contra votum") by mentioning the man's select company ("viri lecti" is rather unspecific, I'm afraid; could imply promotion or just be a honouring or complacent description) . Maybe the inscription was dedicated by soldiers to their deceased officer – yet the text reveals a higher level of education, so maybe not.

No mention of centurions here. And still possible it's got nothing to do with the army at all. However, at first glance that context seems widely accepted, and for good reasons.

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks again!

This doesn't actually sound military to me. The later Roman bureaucracy adopted a lot of military stylings, and it seems far more likely that this is the epitaph of a young man who worked in one of the imperial offices, perhaps in the palace at Aquileia. A soldier would surely have merited 'militiae' rather than just 'labore', and if he was under 30 ('iuvenili' would suggest that, I think) then he would be rather young to be even a centurion! 'Contubernales' is used a civilian context now and again, I think.

Certain references in the Theodosian Code, I believe, imply that civilians of rank could hold the ducenae dignitas (or whatever it was called). So I think it's a bit of a push to see this inscription as evidence of ducenarii in the legions!

[Aussum]

I agree that seems to disprove Hepworth's thesis about who were ducenarii.

I just read Ross Cowan's latest Osprey and immediately came across a conflict.
According to Hepworth, a centurio ordinarius meant an "ordinary" centurion in cohorts II - X.
Cowan says that the term ordinarius comes from being a member of the primi ordines.

Has a different scholarly consensus been reached during the last 50 years? The primi ordines
interpretation seems odd considering that ordinarius becomes the general term for all centurions.

[Nathan Ross]

Has scholarly opinion come to a different conclusion during the last 50 years?

So little new evidence has come to light that 'scholarly opinion' is precisely that! The correct answer could be either, or neither...

Ordinarius might just be a synonym of centurion, perhaps connoting the command of a unit rather than a staff position of some kind? Who knows...

[Robert Vermaat]

Incidentally, I don't know who J.R Hepworth was

Hepworth seems to disappear after his Ph.d. He refers to his Masters thesis in the bibliography (also from Durham), but it is not available.

He shares that trait with Nicasie, who wrote about the late Roman army for his Phd but no more thereafter.

[Aussum]

Nathan,

I went back and reread Hepworth's discussion of our pal, Florius Baudio.

Hepworth places his service during the reign of Gallienus. The key phrase on his gravestone being viro ducenario protectori ex ordinario. Hepworth keeps pushing his theory that protectors were primi ordines then serving in the field army, this being an early case. The use of the term ordinario for centurion seems 4th century, not third and Hepworth is contending that Legio II Ital Div is based on the Rhine in the 250s.

I'd like to get your thoughts on him and the other members of that vexillation. I think Cowan said that cohorts VI & VII are attested in Italy during this time.

Thanks again!
Austin

[Nathan Ross]

The use of the term ordinario for centurion seems 4th century, not third and Hepworth is contending that Legio II Ital Div is based on the Rhine in the 250s.

Not a common view, I think. Ordinarius does seem to be tetrarchic at the earliest; none of the handful of centurio ordinarius inscriptions are explicitly dated, but seem to have an early 4th century pagan focus.

In fairness to Hepworth, he was perhaps one of the first English-language scholars to study much of this material, and clearly a lot of his views are hypothetical. Nowadays we tend to have different hypotheses, but it's always possible that we're not correct either!

Sylvian Janniard, in Centuriones ordinarii et ducenarii dans l'armee romaine tardive, believes, for example, that the late Roman army was 'decimalised' (following the rank structures alluded to on the Aurelius Gauis inscription). He says (in my own very approx translation): 'Beginning at the start of the 3rd century, certain centurions were designated by the term ordinarius/atus. In the context of tactical evolution, it is strongly probable that the new name reflected a change in their function, that is to say the command of the lines of battle (ordines). Perhaps this relates to a reintroduction of the manipular order [and the word ordinarius] was an informal equivalent to the lines of the principes and hastati.'

Janniard further suggests that ducenarius was the informal term (in 'sermo castrensis', or camp Latin) for a first cohort centurion commanding a double century of 200 men.

Needless to say, I don't agree with any of this (I don't think legions were decimalised, and I don't think double strength first cohorts survived the 3rd century). But it goes to show the range of possible opinions available!

I'd like to get your thoughts on him and the other members of that vexillation. I think Cowan said that cohorts VI & VII are attested in Italy during this time.

Ross Cowan was writing in the limited format of an Osprey book, so had to go with the most plausible option - I've heard him suggest that actually II It Divitensium might have been a former Maximianic unit fighting for Maxentius in a rearguard action in the Apennines! We don't know, incidentally, that Baudio was commanding the legion, although it does seem overly coincidental otherwise.

But we're probably looking at Constantine's men here, and they probably came from Divitia on the Rhine. Cohorts VI and VII appear on the tombstones, given in the place where more usually the centurion's name would appear. One man (AE 1882, 258) was apparently recruited five years before in Raetia - indicating either that Constantine controlled that province, or that the man was perhaps a former Maxentian soldier drafted into the legion after the battles in northern Italy.

There was an older unit called Divitiensium though, the numerus exploratorum Germanicianorum Divitiensium, who were based in Germania Superior in the third century. One of their inscriptions gives them the title Alexandrianorum, so presumably dating to Alexander Severus. Whether this unit came from some other place called Divitia (possible), or the same place, but before the building of the Constantinian fortification, is unclear.

There's also the numerus Dalmatarum Divitensium that appears on two tombstones from Turin - which Ross Cowan suggests as Maxentian casualties. Flavius Felix signifer de numero Divitensium... civis Am/bianensis turns up on a tombstone from Serdica - perhaps the same unit operating elsewhere in the 4th century, but note the man comes from Amiens!

[Aussum]

the rank structures alluded to on the Aurelius Gauis inscription

That would be the references to optio triarius, optio ordinatus, optio princeps?
Terms that are new, old and antique all in one inscription!

The one thing that does seem clear to me is that the third century was not kind to the First cohort. Starting the century back to six centurions and the assumption of normal-sized centuries (AE 1993, 1364 and CIL 13, 06801) and ending the century being vexillated like all the rest - III Italica in Mauritania (AE 1972, 00710) - the First cohort lost its luster. Perhaps ordinarius became the common term because all centurions were now the same? The goal was no longer to make the primi ordines but to make praepositus (or dux, or Caesar or Augustus!)?