Military Tribunes and their significance

[tlclark]

Apologies in advance for my ignorance on this...

I've discovered that the term "Tribune" is a fungible term in Josephus' account, either meaning that Josephus has no clear idea about who and what the Tribunes were for, or there were no established definitions, but it made me curious.

At times they seem to be window-dressing at other times they are significant officers. The whole thing seems very fluid.

Particularly post-marius and early empire, what was the purpose or duities of a tribune? Presumably they were assigned to the legate but josephus has them doing all kinds of things independently.

How much discretion did a tribune have? How necessary were they? Clearly some are just political positions.

Travis

[Matthew Amt]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about tribunes, too. The first problem is that even just in the imperial legion, there are two types, five equestrian (angusticlavii) and one senatorial (laticlavius). Writers (such as Connolly, I think) tend to just apply a couple passages from Caesar in which some of his tribunes were an embarrassment, and write off all tribunes thereafter as mere staff officers.

But by mid-first century AD, equestrian tribunes *start* their military careers as independent commanders of auxiliary cohorts. Those that don't get eaten by their men then go on to be legionary tribunes. I don't recall which modern writer suggested it, but I'm convinced that each of a legion's equestrian tribunes was a field commander, in charge of two cohorts. Five guys, ten cohorts--makes sense to me.

Now, the one senatorial tribune is a kid just off the boat from Rome, a completely different career path. While he was technically second in command of the whole legion, my guess is that he stuck close to the legatus, kept his head down and his mouth shut, and tried to learn fast if he wanted to avoid getting a pilum up his bum. Some would be good, some would be bad. But the point is that the less experienced senatorial tribune was senior to the more experienced equestrian ones. And since they are all loosely called "tribunes", there is naturally confusion.

Since there was no formal "military academy", and Rome ran on personal connections, any tribune position would depend on influence and favors. But it really looks like those equestrians that made it to a legion would at least be competent, whereas it's quite possible that many senatorial tribunes were still just traditional good-old-boy appointments.

Vale,

Matthew

[Praefectusclassis]

Since there was a declining number of posts available for those equestrians ambitious to complete the tres militiae, so there's a good possibility that at least some attention was paid to the man's military capabilities. That's contrasted with the senatorial tribune: it seems that it was definitely and old-boy thing for these men just out of the vigintivirate. Moreover, right after they'd be doing everything but military service for about a decade and a half before they'd have a shot at the legateship. You wonder how much they'd remember?

Any chance you remember where you read the 1 tribune / 2 cohorts Matt?

[floofthegoof]

To add to the confusion, in the republic there were the tribunes of the plebs, an office created as a check to the power of the consuls. I read in Livy that in some years there were only 'military' tribunes elected, which has always confused me a great deal. It's a translation problem perhaps. These elected tribunes seem completely unrelated to the officer in the imperial army you guys are talking about.

[Praefectusclassis]

Yes, they are. The Tribunus Plebis theoretically still existed in the Empire, but afaik the Emperor was the only one actually doing his tasks. He wasn't a TP per se, just had his priviliges, 'tribunicia potestas', power of tribune (of the people).

[tlclark]

Yes, they are. The Tribunus Plebis theoretically still existed in the Empire, but afaik the Emperor was the only one actually doing his tasks. He wasn't a TP per se, just had his priviliges, 'tribunicia potestas', power of tribune (of the people).

After Augustus "restores" the republic in 23 he assumes the tribune power indefinitely, after which, the veto, clementia and sanctuary powers of the tribunes are largely moot.

But it does bring up an interesting point. A tribune of the pleb was elected to represent on of the traditional 14 "tribes" of Rome that had evolved into political districts. So the title "Tribune" makes sense.

Why is a military tribune called a "Tribune"? Was there some connection to the old tribal systems in the old republic?

Travis

[Praefectusclassis]

That's what the Oxford Classical Dictionary says: originally they led the tribal contingents. Later on, they were chosen by the people for the first four legions. Tribunes for extra legions were appointed by their commander.

[Tarbicus]

It seems that the military tribunes serving in legions changed in terms of their prowess post-Republic. Traditionally, they were the ones most likely to display virtus, sometimes (at least in legend) engaging an enemy in formal one-to-one combat, and the centurions more likely to show disciplina. But post-Republic the roles seem to swap, the tribunes being of a "meeker" character, and the centurions and men taking on the braver and more aggressive role. At least according to Lendon. If the Jewish War had happened 200 years earlier, it's likely that it would have been a tribune leading the men up the side of the Antonia tower, and a tribune who would have slipped on the Temple's floor.

[drsrob]

Military tribunes were basically staff officers. There were six to each legio from at least the 4th Century BC. From 362 BC (Varronian) or thereabouts 12 tribunes were elected yearly [Livy VII, 5,9]. This number was raised to 24 in 311 (Livy's text [IX, 13,3] is corrupt here, reading seni deni in quattuor legiones which would transalte as 16 tribunes to each of four legions. Almost certainly the deni should be stricken from the text).
From that time onwards the consular army consisted of 4 legions with 24 tribunes. From Polybius we learn of the duties of the tribunes. They held the yearly levy, organized the legions, supervised the construction of the marching camps etc. At that time the centurions were elected from and by the ranks and cannot have been the career soldiers they evolved into in the 1st century BC.
Until 367 BC the Romans did not elect consuls, praetors and aediles, but militairy tribunes with consular powers. There were six from 405 onwards and 3 or 4 before that. The first of these colleges was elected in 445. At fist they only appeard at roughly 5 year-intervals, but within a few decades the started to be elected on an almost yearly basis.
The alternative to military tribunes was a college of two magistrates, called consuls in our sources, but probably known as praetors at the time.

The purpose of the military tribunes with consular powers has been hotly debated. My personal opinion is that at first they were elected to assist the equally new censors with the census and organization of the army as the centuries were at that time both elective and military units. Abolition of the office was then a result of a reorganization that severed the link between votive centuries and the field army. Afterwards reorganization of the army no longer would have required a corresponding reorganization of the votive centuries, so it could be left to purely military officers. (this is a bit of a pet project of mine :wink: )

Anyway, the elected tribunes only served in the consular legions. Vacencies were filled by appointment. When legions stayed in existence for more than a year the magistrates in command could gradually replace the elected tribunes with their own choices.
After the social war and the civil wars between Marius and Sulla sevaral changes were made. The consuls were forbidden to leave Italy and proconsular authority was restricted to the provinces. The remaining legion were numbered consecutively from V onwards. The numbers I to IIII remained reserved for consular levies. As only the tribunes for the four consular legions were elected, that meant that in practice all tribunes were appointed. At this time they were all young knights, but usually sons of senators, these two classes not yet being separated.

The elected centurions were similarly replaced by appointed ones, due to the prolonged existance of the legions. They however would generally have been promoted from the ranks and therefore were experienced men. In the 1st century BC they therefore were the backbone of the legions instead of the tribunes.

Under the empire this changed somewhat. The office of military tribune became a career step for an equestrian career. Augustus reserved one position in each legion for sons of senators. At first they also were preferred for the command of cavalry, but that had changed by - I believe - the time of Claudius.

[Nathan Ross]

I thought I'd briefly resuscitate this topic to add a bit more information, largely taken from Eric Birley's essays on officers' careers in Roman Britain and the Roman Army

Aemilius Macer, writing during the reign of Alexander Severus, details the duties of the Military Tribune as follows:

To keep the troops in camp, to bring them out for training, to keep the keys of gates, from time to time to go the rounds of the guards, to be present at the soldiers' mealtimes and to test the quality of their food; to keep the quartermaster from cheating, to punish offences, to hear the soldiers' complaints and to inspect their sick quarters.
Macer - Digest XXXXIX.16

Which seems very similar to Vegetius' note that the officers should "attend to the appearance and discipline of the soldiers, be sure their apparel is neat and clean, their arms bright, and that they perform exercises and evolutions with dexterity." Birley also adds that the Tribune would probably be in charge of keeping strength reports on the legion, administrating its finances and the finances of the province in which it was based, as well as providing for the entertainment and safe conduct of ambassadors, for example.

Not a very martial set of duties, all told. We also have Pliny's testimony that his time as Tribune of the third legion in Syria was spent auditing the accounts of the legion and its auxiliaries and uncovering 'a great deal of shocking rapacity and deliberate inaccuracy' (Pliny. Epistles VII.31). Pliny also mentions in several of his letters the bartering for positions as Tribune between highly placed patrons on behalf of their friends' and clients' sons. Pliny was , of course, a 'senatorial' Laticlavius tribune, and these men seem to have been given lighter duties generally, serving for a minimum of only six months.

There is some evidence, however, that not all tribunes were glorified accounts clerks - or not all the time at least. In Caesar's Commentaries (VI.40) there is mention of one Caius Trebonius, an Equestrian (and almost certainly a Tribune) appointed to lead several cohorts on a foraging mission. When the mission is attacked, Trebonius leads the veterans in breaking through the enemy and getting back inside the camp - at this date, then, the tribune must have exercised a certain level of battlefield authority and expertise. This is backed up by some of the officers' careers reconstructed by Birley - the average age for a first commission as a Praefectus Cohortis was, Birley believes, 38 years old (although probably younger - most seem to have been recruited from the higher municipal offices in the provinces, and would therefore have been in their early thirties). The average age at death for a legion Military Tribune was 42. Clearly these men were not the callow youths of popular preconception!

Most appointments in each of the equestrian tres militiae were held for 2-4 years, and there are records of tribunes holding positions in several legions consecutively. Initial commissioning, and all advances in rank, were based on ability, character and (inevitably but far from solely!) influence. These were skilled and valued men, therefore, often with many years experience as military commanders, able to operate both within the military system and civil administration.

- Nathan

[tlclark]

Thanks Nathan,

Great post.

So in other words, they ran the gambit from useless to indispensible. (Just like modern officers)

I'm an army brat and my dad had officer's he hated and officer's he loved.

And just to put a plug in for military clerks (my uncle was one) if the money and gear ain't there, the army don't go. So this could be a very valuable position.

Thanks again!

Travis

[D B Campbell]

There's always a temptation to lump the senatorial tribunes in with the equestrian tribunes, but these were two very different categories of officer.

Pliny was , of course, a 'senatorial' Laticlavius tribune, and these men seem to have been given lighter duties generally, serving for a minimum of only six months.

Not necessarily lighter duties, but certainly different. Pliny the Younger (as you noted, Nathan) spent some of his legionary tribunate auditing the neighbouring auxiliary units (Plin, Epist. 7.31). On the other hand, as legionary tribune, Agricola appears to have seen active service during the Boudiccan revolt (Tac., Agr. 5).

The six-month thing, I think, is a misunderstanding. Eric Birley postulated a 2-3 year term, which has not been seriously questioned. We should remember, also, that senatorial tribunes were in their late teens; the oldest known laticlavii were aged 21 (afaik).

The average age at death for a legion Military Tribune was 42.

I'm a little sceptical about this statistic, Nathan.
After each stage in the equestrian career, many men would retire to civic life rather than proceeding to the next level. So, for every equestrian tribune who proceeded to a cavalry command, another one left the military and returned home.
I'd imagine only a small minority actually died during their tribunate; Birley (RBRA p. 136) could find only thirteen out of the hundreds (thousands?) of known careers.
What this does tell us is that the average age of the equestrian tribune was 42 (i.e., much older than his senatorial counterpart).

The Tribunus Plebis theoretically still existed in the Empire ...

Not theoretically, but actually! Agricola was tribunus plebis in AD 66 (Tac., Agr. 6), when one of his colleagues (there were 10 tribunes) was Arulenus Rusticus (consul AD 92).

[Nathan Ross]

The six-month thing, I think, is a misunderstanding. Eric Birley postulated a 2-3 year term, which has not been seriously questioned.

Birley's 2-3 years was, I thought, in reference to the equestrian tribunes - the 6-month term is usually referred to in connection with the senatorial officers. Pliny (Epistles 4.4) requests that Sosius Senecio procure for one Varisidius Nepos 'the honour of a six-months' tribunate' - possibly this is a mistranslation, but it would seem to indicate that this position existed as a particular (and perhaps rather ornamental) military commission for the sons of senators who for whatever reason did not wish to fulfill the longer term of service.

I'm a little sceptical about this statistic, Nathan.... What this does tell us is that the average age of the equestrian tribune was 42 (i.e., much older than his senatorial counterpart)

Yes, that was the impression I got as well. Birley is, as you say, drawing from a very small base of statistics here.

One interesting example of an officer's career would be that of Pertinax, who was commissioned Praefectus Cohortis at the age of 34 after several years as a teacher (!) - Pertinax had originally wanted be made centurion, which might suggest that there were better prospects for advancement in that role that as a prefect or tribune. As it was, he obviously acquitted himself very well in command of a Gallic cohort in Syria - this coincides with the date of the Parthian war, 162/163 - and was then made tribune of VI Victrix in Britain, then commander of the 1st Tungrians (milliary cohort) at Housesteads followed by a period as prefect of a cavalry ala in Moesia. Eventually, of course, after several civilian procuratorships, he was adlected to the senate in 170, commanded I Adiutrix as legate in 172, was consul in 175 and finally attained the giddy heights of Emperor - alas not for long... Obviously Pertinax was a very capable officer indeed, and would have had plenty of chances to distinguish himself in combat on several different frontiers. (This short resume is drawn from AR Birley's Septimius Severus: African Emperor)

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

the 6-month term is usually referred to in connection with the senatorial officers

Apparently it's an equestrian phenomenon.

I'm glad to see that Tony Birley recently stated that "we still do not really know what semestris tribunatus meant" (in J.J. Wilkes [ed.], Documenting the Roman Army, London 2003, at p. 3).
(The examples he cites are from Devijver's Prosopographia, so all equestrians.)

I would highly recommend Birley's paper, by the way: "The commissioning of equestrian officers", pp. 1-18.

[Nathan Ross]

Apparently it's an equestrian phenomenon.

Ah! Thanks for clearing that one up - I see what you mean about the misunderstandings, in that case.

I did actually read 'The Commissioning of Equestrian Officers' several years ago, but sadly neglected to make any notes...

- Nathan