Roman term for \'General\'

[Carus Andiae]

What was the Roman term for a General c. 1st C AD? It seems a basic question, but apparently it's so basic no book ever bothers to say.

I know Duk, but I have a feeling that is later, and Imperator, but I thought by that date at least it was reserved for Emperors.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Tarbicus]

Well, according to "Caesar's Legion: The Epic Saga of Julius Caesar's Elite Tenth Legion and the Armies of Rome" by Stephen Dando-Collins, it goes:

Brigadier General:
Legatus Legionis

Major General:
Praetor / Propraetor

Lieutenant General:
Consul / Procunsul

Roman Field Marshal or Five-Star General:
Generals of consular rank endowed with special powers by the Emperor usually reserved for him alone, on a temporary basis, for particular military operations. Agrippa, Tiberius, and Drusus are such examples under Augustus.

Cheers.

[Matt Lukes]

I believe 'Imperator' was, at one point at least, the term used for the general of an army.

Matt

[Vincula]

Depends what you mean by general
Govenor of a province leading his army to war? Corbulo was a legate.
Imperial prince invading enemy lands? Germanicus was a Caesar.
Emperor leading a conquest? Trajan was an Imperator.
ect ect

[Quintius Clavus]

The mistake is in trying to find equivilent titles in the ancient Roman army to modern senior officer ranks. Unlike modern armies, where the professionals (of the long service variety) are the senior officers, the Roman army's long-service professionals were of centurion-rank and below. The men who held senior officer rank served as part of their careers, which also included civilian positions. I suggest reading Susan Mattern's "Rome and the Enemy" for a discussion of the men who made the decisions in the Roman Republic and Principate.

Imperator, under the republic, was an acolade conferred by the army upon a commander after winning a victory. Not every victorious commander was so hailed. It was a very coveted acolade by the consuls, proconsuls, praetors and propaetors who led Roman armies in the Republic. A few victorious commanders who were not members of the imperial family or its close associates, were so hailed during the principate of Augustus, but very soon the title became the sole perogative of the ruler, thus it became our modern word Emperor.

The term "Dux" is known from the later empire, and is the origin of the term and title "Duke". Even there, and Aitor and others can correct me, it was a combination military and civil title, associated with territorial governance. I simply do not know if it was used earlier in the imperial period. I haven't read any of the Principate's historians in side by side Latin-English translations. Translators might avoid the term "Duke" (its direct equivilent) as an anachronism, which definitely calls up medieval images.

Under the Principate, the command of armies was usually in the hands of provincial governors, in the so called imperial provinces. They are the ones who often waged the wars. Their title, incorporating the term "legate" was one of several levels of legates. A legate is someone to whom authority has been delegated, thus, the emperor delegates authority (imperium) to govern provinces or to command legions to "legates". Various types of legate became formalized under the principate, but is was a gradual process.

Regarding Germanicus' title in the campaigns against the Germans 14-16 AD, he was also a Legate. As a member of the imperial family, he could claim the name Caesar through his mother to Octavia (her mother, his grandmother), Augustus' sister. It was not yet a title. Please remember that through the Julio-Claudian line of emperors, all were in some way related by blood to Augustus. (Technically Tiberius, alone among them, was not so related by his own direct blood)

Marcus Quintius Clavus/Quinton

[Praefectusclassis]

Quinton is quite right. It should also be noted that in the imperial age, if troops called someone Imperator who was not the emperor, it was in fact as good as them saying you should go for broke and try for the highest position!

[Carus Andiae]

Trust the Romans to complicate matters! :lol:

So what title would Vespasian have carried during the Jewish War (prior to his elevation to Emperor)? Nero dragged him back out of pseudo-exile for the task, but did he make him Governor of Judea?

[drsrob]

Trust the Romans to complicate matters! :lol:

So what title would Vespasian have carried during the Jewish War (prior to his elevation to Emperor)? Nero dragged him back out of pseudo-exile for the task, but did he make him Governor of Judea?

Vespasian would have been a legatus Augusti pro praetore, 'lieutenant' of Augustus with propraetorial powers. (lieu-tenant is a french word meaning literally 'place-holder' or substitute)

[Kate Gilliver]

Legates seem to have been used regularly for the first time in the late Republic (though then they were just legati rather than the legati Augusti Rob mentioned); Pompey was given permission to appoint 24 legates (Plutarch, Pompey 26) to assist him in his campaign against the pirates in 67 BC; this enabled him to conduct his campaigns much faster and claim victory within a few months, but also allowed him to reward his followers and build up debts of patronage. More significantly, after his second consulship in 55 BC Pompey was awarded the province of Spain but opted not to go there in person and instead appointed two legates to govern the Spanish provinces on his behalf (Velleius Paterculus 2.48; Dio Cassius 39.39). This meant he could remain in Rome at the centre of Roman politics and influence which he must have hoped would give him the upper hand in dealing with Caesar and other political rivals. This is probably the model Augustus drew on when it came to governing ‘his’ provinces: he got to appoint the legates so senators were dependent on the emperor’s patronage if they wanted a serious provincial or military command; the emperor got to stay in Rome at the centre of things; and because they were his legates acting under his auspices, the emperor got the credit for any victories, as Marcus Crassus found out in 29 BC when he was denied the right to dedicate the spolia opima after personally killing Deldo, the king of the Bastarnae, and despoiling the body when commanding an army as legatus Augusti (Dio Cassius 51.24, and see Livy 4.20 for some rather dubious scholarship on the part of the then Octavian).

Legates did attempt to turn their armies against their imperial masters (eg: Scribonianus, Saturninus), but such occasions are extremely rare in the early imperial period and we should not underestimate the part that patronage played – at all levels – in ensuring the loyalty of the army and its commanders to the emperor.

kate

[Carus Andiae]

Thanks all! Isn't it wonderful what a wealth of knowledge is collected here!