Praefectus Navis/ium

[Praefectusclassis]

When does the Praefectus Navium (re)appear on the scene? He figures in a couple of early inscriptions from the neighbourhood of the fleet at Forum Iulii and then disappears. Florian?

[Flavius Promotus]

The Notitia Dignitatum tells of a praefectus navium amnicarum et militem deputatorum among the forces of the dux Moesiae II (Or. 40, 36).

The location is - as far as I know - not clear, but may have been Transamarisca (modern Totrokan/Tuturkan). Important site, as Constantine built an importent counterfortress (Daphne) on the north bank of the Danube. The specialist unit for artillery and crossbow support (ballistarii Daphnenses) stationed there was later moved to the field army, but they kept their name.

That's all I know about a praefectus navium in the N.D. :oops:

The epigrphic habit of the late Roman period makes this a difficult terrain :?

[Praefectusclassis]

Reason I was asking is that I found out yesterday that the captains in Republican times are called Praefectus navis (by Livy, trierarch by the Greek authors), there are Praefecti navium in/around Forum Iulii and then they disappear. The ship's captain becomes trierarch (or centurion, depending on the theory) and then 400 years later they dig that title up again... Interesting!

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

Ahhh...those early fleets. So glad they are not around in the provinces :wink:

BUT - what about the whole issue of praefecti whatshemacallits in relation to naval units in general. Such as the praefecti ripae that keep popping up in the first half of the first century? What do we do with those? Are they to do with the fleet - and are those in the N.D? Florian? Or are they sth else? They do seem to do a lot of digginf up of various forms of praefecti in the 4th/5th century...

Hope all's well,
C.

[Praefectusclassis]

Simple. I think the fleets of the pre-Flavian first century are no way as rounded out and matured as is often pretended. 'Sociae triremis' in Annales IV.5 is no coincidence, methinks.

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

sorry, seems to always take me ages to reply - and happy birthday by the way (too embarassed to put it in the proper forum 2 days late...)

I agree that pre Flavian fleets aren't sorted properly, in fact, I even doubt that they are fleets - in the sense of the later, established classes - at all. But if we are dealing with more or less random naval units, established for campaigns/wars an then trundling on in a more or les ad hoc fashion (see Saddington on this), isn't it interesting that in the 4th/5th century they start picking up the same titles again? And what does that mean for the later fleets? Are they haphazard and do not follow one set organizational scheme? Or is the use of early titulature just some odd sense of continuation? (Sorry Florian, don't mean to irritate you...)

Interesting...

[Praefectusclassis]

see Saddington on this

note? :wink:

I even doubt that they are fleets

Well, that depends a lot on your definition of fleets. From my research into the 1st C BC, it seems that (but still need to discuss this with my advisors) squadrons with some kind of (semi-) permanence are actually quite a bit older than Augustus' much vaunted decision to found standing fleets. In fact, it looks for all accounts and purposes a lot like developments in the army! You might say that the Italian fleets are like the legions (duck!), while the other squadrons (thinking of Sicily, Egypt, Bosporus/Pontic, etc squadrons) are more like the auxiliary fleets. By the second half of the 1st C AD, the client kingdoms are incorporated into the empire one by one and the local fleets either disappear or become formal squadrons.

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

right. As for Saddington refs:

Saddington, D.B.

- (1988), "Praefecti Classis, Orae Maritimae and Ripae of the second triumvirate and the early empire" in Jahrbuch RGZM 35, 299-313

- (1990a), "Praefecti Classis and Praefecti Castrorum in the Julio-Claudian Period" in Limes XIV, 67-70

- (1990b), "The Origin and Nature of the German and British Fleets" in Britannia XXI, 223-232

As for the rest, I found that the classes on the Northern Frontier as usually known (i.e. Britannica, Germanica, Pannonica and Moesica) don't appear in the archaeology or epigraphy before the Flavians, although there may be a case for the German fleet from the Claudian period onwards... but there is obviously some form of naval activity before that (cue Tacitus et al rabbiting on about various bits of naval action but never mentioning fleets...) - and this is where odd titles such as the praefecti variae appear. And these are then taken up later...

So basically I define fleets - for the Northern Frontier - as the four mains standing squadrons that are around from the mid-late C1st until the C3rd-4th... and am intrigued by the re-emergence of the earlier titles later.

God, this is a mammoth post...

As for legions and auxiliaries, I agree that the developments look like that in the Med in the late C1st BC and early decades AD, but I think diplomas and the little (if at all) understood rank structure of the - under my definition - "standing fleets" in the North shows them to be an entity of their own, as they do not fit in with the rest, do get some special privileges (kiddies) and do have some nasty aspects of service, too (like having to serve longer...)

As for the Bosporus/Pontic fleet - that gives me headaches. All these little client-kingdom fleets turn pseudo Roman are very odd, and I am not sure if the Romans actually knew what they were doing with them... but it would surely make for an interesting discussion!!! (hint, hint...)

so much for that...
C.

[Praefectusclassis]

Thanks for those references (luckily not all unknown :wink: )

but it would surely make for an interesting discussion!!! (hint, hint...)

Ok!
The Romans may not have know what they were doing with them. Do we?

Do you think that the rank structure in all the fleets was the same, similar or different according to expected tasks?

[Praefectusclassis]

Thanks for those references (luckily not all unknown :wink: )

but it would surely make for an interesting discussion!!! (hint, hint...)

Ok!
The Romans may not have know what they were doing with them. Do we?

Do you think that the rank structure in all the fleets was the same, similar or different according to expected tasks?

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

ranks structure... you ask questions. I can only think, literally, as there is nowhere near enough material for the provinces to consider any rank structure. I think we can (more or less, and including the old trierarch-nauarch issue) set up a rank structure for the Praetorian fleets and believe that this borrows heavily from the ranks in the legion, but must - ultimately - be seen as an independent concept, as there are too many discrepancies...

As for the Provincial fleets (following the above definition :wink: ), all we know of them fits in neatly with the praetorian fleet structure. So I guess, in a way, there may well have been a consistent fleet administrative procedure and rank structure. - But there are a number of issues to be dealt with, such as joint fleet activity during campaigns and the mixture of Latin and Greek titulatures.

I don't think that the "established" late C1st-3rd fleets had varying rank structures, but am entirely unsure as to what goes on before and after that...

Basically, in terms of epigraphy I think there is simply not enough material to argue for adaptive structures or rigid ones. The former may be a distorted impression due to the lack of evidence, while the latter may be reading too much into it... But in diplomas the fleet priviliges are fairly consistent from Germany to Moesia over a period of almost 200 years, which - to me - seems at odds with an entirely flexible development, unique to each fleet.

Do I make sense? I doubt it. Too much time in a dark cellar with books... What do you think??

C.
PS. Much prefer the role of being the one to ask questions...

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Christoph,
Yeah, you do make sense - to me anyway, but I sit among books all the time as well.
The mixture of Latin and Greek titulatures is an interesting one. We have Tacitus saying they are different (Ann, 14.8: Anicetum trierarcho Herculeio et Obarito centurione classiario), but he could be contradicted by one of the very newest, early diplomas (RMD 4, 205) in the title awarded to "nauarchis et trierarchis et remigibus / qui militaverunt in classe Ravennate", but in fact given to a centurio. Sloppiness? Or are they in fact in the same category?

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

how do you always manage to get me into a debate I don't want to be in :evil:

I really haven't a clue how to solve the conundrum... the diploma would suggest that they are the same - don't think the guy in question would appreciate being given the "wrong" type of diploma, seeing its status...and Tacitus doesn't actually specify that they are different, he merely implies it, doesn't he?

But how, then, do the ranks work? There is an interesting little ditty by Pferdehirt in the "Jahresbericht" at the end of JRGZM 44/2 (1997), 707-717, in which she tries to address (and simplify) the problem along similar lines, basically saying the ranks are interchangeable... but I think her explanation is too simple. I still prefer the notion that the centurion is in charge of everyone (and I think there are some arguments in the epigraphy for such an interpretation), but you silly diploma is a rather hefty argument against it...

To steer away from it... I was actually thinking more of the "same/equivalent" ranks in e.g. the Moesian fleet beign referred to in Greek (i.e. stolarchos etc.), as these may indicate some different developments from the other fleets (though I don't buy it...its my German blood coming through that wants everything "ordentlich" and rigidly structured. Like a Prussian grenadier corps! :lol: )

C.