Navy and army

[Praefectusclassis]

Salvete!<br>
<br>
Would you consider the Roman Navy an integral part of the Roman Army or a seperate arm of service? Could studying uniforms provide us with an indication? I recall reading somewhere (but forgot where) that the navy might have worn a different colour of tunica. Could someone shed some light on this?<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
<br>
Jasper <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Good to have you join us as editor for the naval subjects.<br>
<br>
The navy is listed separately in the strength figures given for the armed forces of Diocletian (some 389.000 for army, some 40.000 for the fleet, the actual figures are suspiciously precise, not these round numbers, which may indicate (1) that they are fictitious or (2) that they are based on real strength reports) which gives the impression of being considered distinct branches in some manner. They do seem however to have been working together much more closely than in more recent times. There are papyri mentioning army soldiers at duty on board ships, there is an inscription mentioning a legionary <i> discens epibatam/epibatae</i> (trainee marine) and there were contingents of <i> liburnarii</i> in legions at the Danubian frontier in the fourth century AD. In addition there were the <i> cohortes classiariorum</i>, <i> cohortes classicae</i> and the <i> legiones</i> I and II <i> Adiutrices</i> originating from the navy but serving as land forces, this apart from the transfers individually or en bloc (eg the draft of naval troops to beef up <i> legio</i> X <i> Fretensis</i> you mentioned in your earlier post) between the services. The <i> De munitionibus castrorum</i> also seems to point to the inclusion of <i> classiarii</i> as part of an expeditionary army. In addition along the Rhine and Danube most fleet installations seem to be part of army (perhaps better: joint army-navy) bases. The evidence thus seems to me to point to a distinctive service, but one operating in a very close connection with the army.<br>
<br>
There is a reference in Vegetius about navy personel wearing blue tunics and in addition there are several depictions with soldiers wearing blue tunics of both dark and light shades. According to Fuentes the dark blue tunics belong to naval officers (naval centurions wearing red according to his theory), the light ones to other ranks for there are more depictions of the latter. The subject of Roman uniform colours is hotly debated though. In my view there is no (or perhaps not yet) compelling evidence to assume a uniform in the modern sense and Roman soldiers could probably wear what they wanted or could afford, the shades attested for the military (mostly white (cheapest) and various colours) not being distinct from those used in civilian life. There is a depiction late Roman guardsmen (<i> scholares</i>?) wearing a mixture of clothing including blue. The issue of a distinct naval uniform is in my view unresolved.<br>
<br>
Vegetius, <i> Epitoma rei militaris</i> 4.37.<br>
<br>
Nautaeque uel milites Venetam uestem<br>
induunt, ut non solum per noctem sed etiam per diem facilius lateant explorantes.<br>
<br>
'The sailors or soldiers wear blue clothing, so they remain hidden more easily while scouting not only at night but even during the day.'<br>
<br>
This may however have been limited to those serving at the scouting vessels, rather than all sailors and soldiers serving with the fleet.<br>
<br>
The Fuentes article is:<br>
<br>
Fuentes, N., 'The Roman military tunic' in: M. Dawson (ed.), <i> BARi 336: Roman military equipment: the accoutrements of war</i> (Oxford 1987), 41-71.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/28/01 10:34:23 am<br></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Last weekend I reread some of the material I have on the navy and the army units originating from fleet personel. One thing that I found puzzling was the fact that a legion of <i> classiarii</i>, probably the later I <i> Adiutrix</i> was addressed by an officer and encouraged to earn their new eagle and standards. This made me wonder whether there were significant differences between naval <i> signa</i> and army standards or not. In addition it seemed odd that Starr, admittedly not an up to date source, suggests that there was not a standardbearer for every ship's crew, but one for larger formations. Has that view been overturned in the interceding years by new evidence or different interpretations?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Sander,<br>
I guess what's puzzling you has another cause. The men of I Adiutrix (what's the exact reference of this officer encouraging?) had just been formed into a iusta legio. That's what they had demanded from Galba and had later been given. I suppose that's what the officer is referring to, he wants them to show they earned their promotion from the navy to a full-fledged legion.<br>
I'm not sure Reddé (that would be the only recent (1986) book about the navy) says anything about naval standards and standardbearers. I'll have a look when I get home.<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Ok, checked Reddé. He just names two signiferi and that's it, no commentary. They are CIL XI, 6107 and CIL X, 1080. I guess there are just to few standardbearers known for the fleet to do anything with. <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Salve!<br>
Sander mentioned the different Cohortes, originally constisting of sailors and/or marines. Does anyone know of any articles that discuss these units, preferably in depth?<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Works on the auxiliary forces usually mention these units, though none that I know of treat them in depth. The <i> cohortes classicae</i> are briefly discussed in Saddington's <i> The development of the Roman auxiliary forces from Caesar to Vespasian</i> (Harare 1982) as is the <i> legio classica</i> that was to become I <i> Adiutrix</i>. They are generally treated in coniunction with the various types of citizen cohorts (<i> cohortes civum Romanorum</i>, - <i> ingenuorum</i>, <i> Italica</i>) as the few soldiers serving in the first century AD attested are citizens. Some modern authors have therefore doubted that they were naval units and suppose that the <i> classica</i> refers to <i> classis</i> as a levy rather than to <i> classis</i> as navy since the fleet was according to them composed of <i> peregrini</i>. However if one assumes that the navy, like the auxiliary units, contained a mix of both <i> cives Romani</i> and unenfranchised provincials, they can still be considered as units of naval origin.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Was river patroling done by specialized troops (Navy or similar) or was it done by those stationed in forts along the limes? I would imagine that the Danube and the Rhine were partoled. Also a quick way to enter Germany (Drusus and then Germanicus) would be to enter along the rivers from the Channel (Ocean). I imagine there was a lot of naval and river activity during the Gothic problem in the third century (Black Sea and Danube). This type of activity was a Navy job but to go up a river is not the same thing as riding the ocean or sea waves. Did some degree of specialization occur over the centuries and "river marine corps" get created? <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Salve!<br>
<br>
Let's put it this way. We know for certain that river fleets existed on the Lower Rhine and Danube, both were quite possibly supported in the area around the river estuaries by, respectively, the North-Sea fleet and the Black-Sea fleet. On the upper reaches of Rhine and Danube, it seems that some of the legions guarding these areas had their own shipping available.<br>
However, there is, I think, hardly any or no evidence that these fleets actually patrolled the rivers. So yes, specialised troops were there, but if they went up and down the rivers in their liburnae (=small and fast bireme) remains to be seen.<br>
<br>
Greets,<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Are there any indications that the brown water navy on the major rivers was divided into specialised units for logistical support using eg the flatbottomed craft found at Zwammerdam and combat duties using long ships?<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Well...no. they probably had both types of ship, but we hardly know how the fleets were composed. If we only knew about different squadrons within each fleet, oh joy!<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
There is a famous reference to a Roman fleet deploying against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War in battle lines named after the legionary battle lines (with <i> triarii</i>). Was this retained in later times and if so, is there a connection with any titles borne by naval centurions of the imperial navy?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

- Addition to earlier posts: according to Starr, sailors could not expect promotion beyond the navarchy (see below) by transfer to any other branch of the armed services until Antoninus Pius. The same right was given to trierarchs by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.<br>
<br>
Starr gives one of the most complete pictures of the ranking structure in the navy, admittedly it's now 50 years old.<br>
Any ship was classed as a centuria, under the military command of a centurio. There seem to be no different ranks within the naval centurionate.<br>
Technical command of the ship was in the hands of a trierarch, originally a trireme's captain. Which of the two had the final word? It seems to be that the centurions ranked below the trierarch and navarch.<br>
Detachment/squadron-command was in the hands of a navarch. We have some evidence that Roman fleets (under the overall command of a prefect) were divided into squadrons. The chief naval officer, technical advisor to the prefect, was a navarchus princeps or navarchus archigubernes.<br>
<br>
Your quote about the legionary battle line in the fleet in the First Punic War could refer to the deployment of the fleet in different squadrons or the writer wanted to suggest that the Roman landlubbers defeated the Carthaginian seafarers on their own turf, by fighting as if they were on solid ground (literally!)<br>
However, that just my two cents, your guess is as good as mine!<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<br>
Update 1: Reddé, ´Les Marins´, in: Y.Le Bohec, La hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l´armée Romaine sous le Haut-Empire (Paris 1995), p.151 ff.: The system of double hierarchy with centurions in command of the soldiers/marines and a captain in technical command possibly still existed in the Republican period, when marines were often ordinary soldiers embarked for the occasion, at least in the second century, this distinction has disappeared. In the inscriptions we still see quite some centurions, but very few trierarchs and navarchs from that time. It is probable that these functions fused into one. It is difficult however, to really prove this hypothesis.<br>
<br>
Update 2: I´m now reading Goldsworthy´s The Punic Wars and in describing the battle of Ecnomus, he mentions the squadron of ´triarii´. His explanation of that nickname is the fact that the squadron was placed as a last reserve of the Roman fleet, behind the two combat squadrons and a squadron of towed transports. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 4/16/01 3:49:21 pm<br></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
The other branches of the Roman armed forces appear to lack a developed rank structure similar to that found in the legionary centurionate. Yet there are some indications that some sort of structure may have existed there as well even if the evidence for such auxiliary and naval ranking structure is extremely scarce. Auxiliary units could have a <i> decurio princeps</i> and in Reddé's 'Les marins' in <i> Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft</i> mention is made of a naval rank of <i> tertius ordo</i>. The <i> tertius ordo</i> would in a legion refer to a <i> centurio</i> of the third cohort. Could this term then be taken to mean an officer of the third squadron in fleet contexts?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'm not certain of my source, as this is from memory, but there was a unit of Tigris boat/barge men stationed on the River Humber for resupply and ferry purposes. If I get time I'll try to find the source. <p></p><i></i>