Login

03-26-2001, 10:42 AM

Salvete, 
 
Here are some questions regarding the navy, a blind spot in my knowledge about the Roman armed forces. The first ones concern the structure of the naval centurionate. 
 
* To what extent did the fleet officers resemble or differ from the ranking structure familiar from the legions? 
 
* Given the different types of ship and the size of their crews was there a varying rank structure in the naval centurionate? 
 
* Did the fact that a ship's crew could be significantly larger than the average army centuria influence the relative ranking of naval centuriones compared to their army counterparts? 
 
* Sailors and marines were from time to time transferred individually or en bloc to the army to serve in both auxiliary and legionary units. Were army and naval centurions regularly transferred or were their career paths in general separate? 
 
The second group concerns the nature of the navy's personel. 
 
* Modern works regularly mention both sailors and marines, but to what extent are the present day connotations of these terms deceptive? Were naval troops trained both as oarsmen and combat soldiers, doubling as both sailors and marines as the situation required, or were there separate career paths? 
 
Any information will be gladly received. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

***Praefectusclassis*** · 03-26-2001, 08:09 PM

Pffff, you go for the jugular straight away, right? You've got some difficult points there. I'll try to give some quick answers and elaborate when I've got more time (spent the evening repairing my bike, isn't that a Dutch thing to do?) 
 
It's extremely difficult to make a difference between sailors and marines during the Empire (in Republican times, legionaries were added to ships as marines). There's just one epitaph of a sailor who calles himself just that, nauta (ILS 9218). The rest are milites or manipulares and some tombstones show navy-personell with hasta, usually a sword and sagum or paenula. But this just shows that they think of themselves as military men (Ch.Starr, The Roman Imperial Navy (reprint 3rd ed.; Chicago 1993), p.58; M.ReddÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©, 'Les Marins', in: G.AlfÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶ldy, B.Dobson and W.Eck, Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der RÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschrift fÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼r Eric Birley (Stuttgart 2000), p.180). 
However, Tacitus does make a difference when describing Batavian pests: "Some of the rowers [remiges] were Batavians, and, feigning clumsiness, tried to impede the sailors [nautae] and marines [propugnatores]"(Hist.4.16). 
Of course the legiones Adiutrices (recruited from the fleets in 68-69AD) and legio X Fretensis (brought up to strength with fleet personnel at the same time) are often pointed at to answer this question (see e.g. H.F.Miller, 'Legio I Adiutrix', in: Greece and Rome 28 (1981), p. 73-80. Since there cannot have been something like 12000 marines in the fleets from Misenum and Ravenna, all 'sailors' 'must' have been trained as soldiers. The problem with this evidence is that there is no way we can prove that these legions were up to strenght in these times of crises, or that the emperors were just scraping the barrel for anyone who could hold a weapon. 
 
The short answer to some of your other questions is in the article by ReddÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â© mentioned above (p.182), which reads something like "If we systematically collect the indications of grade and salary mentioned in the inscriptions, we may conclude that the imperial navy was organized hierarchically on the same principle as the army. They had the same system of pay and immunities, applied to functions which are appropriate to the navy (subunctor, naupegus, uelarius, proreta, gubernator etc.), sometimes identical to the army (armorum custos, signifer, cornicien, bucinator, optio etc.)" 
And (p.184), "We see especially the officers qualified for admittance to the legionary centuriate: at the start of the third century, C. Sulgius Caecilianus passes succesively from the navy to the army, back to the navy, before ending his carreer as legionary prefect. Another inscription proves moreover that the navarchus princeps was qualified for the rank of primus pilus." 
 
Well, time's up for now. I'll try to come back to the other questions later this week. 
 
Jasper Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 3/26/01 10:13:34 pm

03-27-2001, 06:37 AM

Salve, 
 
Thanks for your answer, I will be looking forward to read more. I have one more request to make, could you perhaps post the ISBN number of the book you mention (G.AlfÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶ldy, B.Dobson and W.Eck, Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der RÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschrift fÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼r Eric Birley (Stuttgart 2000))? 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

***Praefectusclassis*** · 03-27-2001, 08:05 AM

You're welcome. I'll post the ISBN when I get back home. I could scan ReddÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©'s article and mail it to you. It answers nearly all your questions'. 
 
Greetings 
 
Jasper

03-27-2001, 08:38 AM

Salve, 
 
Thanks for the offer of the article, but I will order the complete book if it is still available from the publisher. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

***Praefectusclassis*** · 03-27-2001, 02:54 PM

This is it: 
G.AlfÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶ldy, B.Dobson and W.Eck, Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der RÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschrift fÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼r Eric Birley (Stuttgart 2000), Franz Steiner Verlag, 3-515-07654-9 
 
According to the KUN library, the book costs DM 148,-! EM 
 
Greetings 
 
Jasper

03-29-2001, 12:33 PM

Salve, 
 
Thanks for posting the ISBN number. Here some other questions about naval affairs, this time concerning the service conditions. 
 
Most publications dealing with the pay of the Roman army deal with the land forces (legionaries, auxiliaries and praetorian guardsmen), but not with the navy. What evidence is available for naval pay and would it be different or identical from that of the legionaries or auxiliaries? 
 
Would naval troops also receive donativa like the other armed services? Auxiliaries could receive them as well as the citizen troops of the legions and the guard: citizen cohorts were eligible for such bonuses according to the will of Augustus and Hadrianus distributed this kind of reward to the auxilairies of the army of Numidia. Is it safe to assume that fleet personel would also be included in the distribution of imperial largesse? 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

***Praefectusclassis*** · 03-29-2001, 06:41 PM

Salve, 
There is no good evidence for naval pay. The structure was probably the same as in the army, since we know both duplicarii and at least one sesquiplicarius (Starr, p.81; Watson, Roman Soldier, p.101-102, p.191, n.259). there is however no evidence for the base rate. 
Starr thinks sailors got the same pay as auxiliaries, but Watson argues it may have been a little lower, because of the assumed lower status of the navy (mainly because of the slightly longer length of service). Donatives could be an indication for the relation between the amounts of pay, but there is no evidence for that (which is logical, otherwise I would have been able to give an answer to the above question) 
 
By the way: in addition to my answer about the difference between rowers and marines, Vegetius (4.32), thrustworthy as he is , says that ship's captains were to train steersmen, rowers and soldiers, which implies that they were different functions. 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 3/29/01 8:43:03 pm

03-30-2001, 06:56 AM

Salve, 
 
Thanks for your answer. Let me bug you with a couple more before I give it a rest: would the difference in status seemingly implied in the varying terms of service (26 vs 25 years) have made much of a difference in practice ? Many troops, both legionary and auxiliary, that were in theory required to serve for 25 years seem to have been kept into service longer for whatever reason (eg hope of further promotion, lack of money to pay out retirement grants) and the discharge of soldiers seems to have taken place every two years at certain times. Does the evidence available for naval troops show a corresponding pattern, though then with 26-27 years of service rather than 25-26? 
 
In addition sometimes the space allotted to troops is used to gauge status differences between the various types of troops, though this notion has been questioned (rightly so , in my opinion) because of garrisoning practices swould have legionary troops stationed at the smaller frontier forts (which have on average smaller living space in barrack blocks the the large legionary bases) and auxiliaries at the legionary castra. Do naval bases have barrack blocks that differ in layout and allotted space from those of the land forces? 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/30/01 8:57:17 am

***Praefectusclassis*** · 03-30-2001, 07:53 AM

Salve! 
I'll try to find (you do give me a lot of homework, Sander , but please continue to bug me, as it pushes me to inquire in to aspects of the navy I've often disregarded 'till now) out about any difference between practice and theory on regarding length of service. However, we must always bear in mind that there are only 60- or 70-something diploma's of naval units and, I believe, about 5 times as many for the army. So evidence is always more difficult to get. 
 
On barrack size, we are again less well off. For instance, Roman boat-houses (trireme size!) have yet to be found, although it is by all means quite probable that they existed. Ravenna has completely disappeared under the city and there has never been a good dig in Misenum. Dover is one of the few forts that has been thoroughly researched. 
The fortress there is about the size for a normal cohors quingenaria, however internal evidence suggests that the garrison was slightly larger at about 640. This would be a nice number, since 10 crews for liburnes amount to about 640 people (it has been suggested that one squadron consisted of 10 ships). Perhaps I should add that there stands a very large question mark over the size of the navy as a whole and the individual squadrons! 
Ps.Hyginus however, includes naval personnell from the praetorian fleets in his camp as well and forces them somewhere in there, but what evidence that constitutes is doubtful. 
 
Greets, 
 
Jasper

04-17-2001, 06:06 AM

Salve, 
 
An article on a 2nd century 'mixed' diploma that I came across reordering my paperwork this weekend had different lengths of service recorded for the auxiliaries and the naval troops which confirms the formal pattern of longer service requirements for classici. 
 
Roxan, M.M., 'An auxiliary/fleet diploma of Moesia Inferior: 127 august 20' in: ZPE, 287-299. 
 
Vale, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 4/17/01 8:06:23 am

***Praefectusclassis*** · 04-17-2001, 06:51 AM

Hi, 
What year would that article have been published? Your quite right about the difference in length of service by the way. In 207 it even went up to 28 years! (from some other ZPE article, but I haven't got it at hand now) 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper

04-17-2001, 08:36 AM

Salve, 
 
The 28 years I also noticed on one of the papers I reread. BTW was that a standard term in the third century or an exception? 
 
The article I mentioned is in ZPE 118 (1997), the number and year were omitted on my listing of books and articles. However a quick search to find out the details delivered this useful link for finding ZPE articles and even downloading them: 
 
www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak...index.html 
 
Vale, 
 
Sander van Dorst

***Praefectusclassis*** · 04-17-2001, 03:25 PM

Salve! 
Sometime between 22 November AD 206 and the end of AD 207 Septimius Severus lenghtened the naval length of service by two years to 28 years permanently. Why this happened is unknown and open to speculation. 
W.Eck/H.Lieb, 'Ein Diplom fÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼r die Classis Ravennas vom 22.November 206', in: ZPE 96 (1993), 75-88 
 
Greets, 
 
Jasper

04-17-2001, 07:42 PM

Salve, 
 
Thanks for your answers and the references. 
 
The mixed diploma has quin(is) et vicen(is) (25) for the auxiliaries and sen(is) et vicen(is) (26) or more ( plurib(usve)) as have some others I checked out. The 26 years feature on the overwhelming majority of the strictly naval diplomata, though some mixed ones (XVI, 45; XVI, 50; XVI, 56; , Trajanic dates) have just the expression for twenty five and more. Could this be an indication that the sailors may have served the shorter term or should one consider the and more clause to encompass the 26 years? The latter appears in my opinion more likely. 
 
In a previous mail I was wrong about I Adiutrix being encouraged to earn its new standards. The reference to new standards and a new eagle was made by Cerealis regarding the legio II Adiutrix during the suppression of the Batavian revolt: Tacitus', Historiae 5.16 ( illa primum acie secundanos nova signa novamque aquilam dicaturos). 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Is the Roman Navy a major navy in the world at that time???	jc02005	2	1,786	09-17-2007, 09:57 AM Last Post: caiusbeerquitius