The role of the Tribunes in the republican legion

[popularis]

I'd agree with Tom that the situation of junior officers in the republican army seems to have different, and perhaps less formal, than the imperial model. However, both senatorial and equestrian young men served as tribunes, in some capacity or other, and there is evidence that at least some of them had a combat role. The references below may have already been cited in some of the books mentioned by Tom, but they seem apposite to quote here.

I should mention that while there are number of problems with Suolahti's book, his description of the duties of the military tribunes is still pretty good, if you can find a copy.

There are many examples of military tribunes in combat, sometimes in charge of quite complex and important operations (e.g. Caesar, BG 2.26). The point is, however, that their place in each battle appears to have been dependent on the wishes of the commander, who would no doubt take into account the needs of the situation and the experience of the men under his command. Cato, for example, seems to have been given individual command of a legion (Plutarch, Cato min. 9). This is why I'm saying that they seem to have had no ex officio role on the battlefield, rather than that it was not normal for military tribunes to command troops in battle. In any case, the chance to gain a reputation for courage and skill (cf. the Harris argument) would obviously have appealed to many men serving as junior officers: many would have sought military tribunates for the chance to demonstrate their uirtus and scientia.

It is possible that the two military tribunes who were directly in charge of much of the legion's internal management at any one time were normally placed with that legion in battle, but - again - I'm not aware of any evidence that this was a set "responsibility" of the military tribunes (and it is perhaps curious that Polybius doesn't mention it if so). It's hard to reconcile this with, for example, Cato being given individual command of a legion, or with Caesar B.G. 1.52, where a legate and a quaestor was placed in charge of each legion "that every one might have them as a witness of its valour", although this was a normal duty of military tribunes (witnessing and rewarding conspicuously good behaviour, or punishing bad behaviour).

Just a quick note though. When we talk of "senatorial military tribunes" in the Republic, we're talking about men who were already members of the senate. The last attested (probable) example comes from 69BC (L. Cassius - Cicero, Verr. 1.30, cf. Broughton (1951-1986) 3.50; RE 13; Suolahti A204), but ex consuls served as military tribunes in the early second century BC - although at a time when something rather odd is happening with the military tribunate, and with Roman military command in general. A senator's son was an equestrian.

From Caesar's Commentaries, we have this description of a foraging party of five cohorts plus 300 veterans cut off by a German warband:

...those last enlisted, and unskilled in military discipline turn their faces to the military tribune and the centurions; they wait to find what orders may be given by them. ( Gallic Wars, Book 6, Chapter 39

This implies that, in a combat situation, soldiers were accustomed to take direct orders from tribunes as well as their centurions. There is, it seems, only a single tribune present, and the next event suggests he had seniority:

The veteran soldiers… under the conduct of Caius Trebonius, a Roman knight, who had been appointed over them, they break through the midst of the enemy, and arrive in the camp safe to a man (ibid, Chapter 40)

Trebonius was clearly the tribune mentioned previously, who had been appointed over them - but we don't know whether this was only the veteran detachment or the entire foraging party.

Just to be a pedant, but there's no evidence that Trebonius was a military tribune. You do, however, raise an intriguing point. Trebonius must have been in command of the 300 veterans, not the 5 cohorts, which separated themselves from the five cohorts and fought their way back to the camp. It would be very odd if Caesar praised Trebonius (and singling him out here is conspicuous praise enough) if he abandoned most of his command. Trebonius appears to have been a very senior officer: Caesar B.G. 6.33: "Having divided the army, he orders T. Labienus to proceed with three legions toward the ocean into those parts which border on the Menapii; he sends C. Trebonius with a like number of legions to lay waste that district which lies contiguous to the Aduatuci; he himself determines to go with the remaining three to the river Sambre".

EDIT: see mea culpa below.

However, while the last stand of the centurions is mentioned "some of whom had been promoted for their valor from the lower ranks of other legions to higher ranks in this legion, in order that they might not forfeit their glory for military exploits previously acquired, fell together fighting most valiantly", no mention is made of the tribune. We have to assume that he's one of the "part of the soldiers [who] arrived safe in camp contrary to their expectations" as a result of the centurions' actions.


But your general point is absolutely right: the military tribunes and prefects were senior to centurions, who would have been expected to follow their orders (for prefects giving orders to legionaries, see, for example, Caesar B.G. 1.52.7; 7.87).

Cicero's letters, dating from the exact same period, indicate that appointments within the army were (perhaps solely) at the behest of the proconsular governor

With the exception of the - presumably - 24 military tribunes elected each year to serve in the first four legions, the governor (be he proconsular or not) appears to have had the complete freedom to appoint his junior officers (prefects and tribunes) as he saw fit. This changed under the Principate, where the Emperor appears to have appointed all junior officers (and there's no mention of election for military tribunes), although governors could probably appoint military tribunes directly if they wished, and obviously would be able to make a field promotion if necessary (on this, see esp. Birley, A.R. (2003, ‘The commissioning of equestrian officers’, in Documenting the Roman Army. Essays in Honour of Margaret Roxan (Wilkes, J. ed.), London, 1-19). This doesn't mean, of course, that important men didn't put pressure on governors to appoint "friends" or family, in either period (on which, see Birley, and Cotton, H.M. (1981), ‘Military Tribunates and the Exercise of Patronage’, Chiron 11 (1981) 229-238).

Therefore, we might assume quite a latitude of different officer roles, many of them covered by the name 'tribune', from combat leadership to administration. The men filling these positions could well have been moved from one appointment to another, depending on their aptitude or inclinations, or the needs of the moment.

Yup. It's worth remembering that there was normally a large group of generally young men of high status who followed the commander and his officers. These young men could be given a variety of tasks, and appointed to formal officer positions if and when necessary.

Writing to Caesar in 54BC, Cicero puts forward one of his young clients, Trebatius Testa:

...no honester, better, or more modest man exists. Added to this, he is at the top of his profession as a jurisconsult, possesses an unequalled memory, and the most profound learning. For such a man I ask neither a tribuneship, prefecture, nor any definite office, I ask only your goodwill and liberality (Cicero, Ad Fam VII.5 CXXXIII)

This suggests that it was in Caesar's power to make a man prefect, tribune, or something else as he saw fit - interesting, too, that Cicero mentions nothing about any military abilities the man might have! Trebatius is granted a tribunate, but his duties appear to be non-military, in fact. Cicero writes to Testa in Gaul, wondering "why you despised the profits of a military tribuneship, especially as you are exempted from the labour of military duty." (Ad Fam VII.8 CXXXIX). This might suggest that such an exemption was by no means automatic for military tribunes, however.

In fact, from details in other letters it appears that Caesar used Testa as a legal advisor in Gaul. Cicero jokes about his protege being sent to Britain to 'capture a war chariot', but whether the humour here relates to the impossibility of a military tribune doing such a thing, or Testa's unwillingness to get involved in fighting, is unclear.

Trebatius does seem to have been particularly unsuited to military command! He did, as you say, have his uses: on Caesar's use of Testa as a legal advisor (and why would Caesar have wanted legal advice, especially constitutional advice, in the 50s BC? hmmm, let's think...) see Welch, K. (1998), ‘Caesar and his Officers in the Gallic War Commentaries’, in Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments (Welch, K., and Powell, A. eds.), Swansea, 85-110, p101. In any case, Caesar was still a regular provincial governor, and normally held assizes every year, and we know that judges or prefects could be appointed by the governor to preside over assizes in his absence: a further (non military) example of the range of available jobs you mention.

The following year, however, even the unmilitary Trebatius seems to have got his hands dirty: Cicero is glad to hear that Testa has been "sustaining your military service with a brave spirit, and were a gallant and resolute man" (Ad Fam, VII.18 CLXXII). So perhaps even 'civilian' officers like this had the potential to get involved in fighting, if the need arose.

Trebatius actually turned down the offer of a military tribunate. He appears, in the early part of his time with Caesar, to have been sick of camp life. It's this, I think, that Cicero is referring to in the quote above: the hardships of camp life (although how hard they were is open to question) were considered something of a rite of passage - on this, see Brunt (1971 - Italian Manpower) 159; Harris (1979 - War and Imperialism in Republican Rome) 19; Goldsworthy (1996 - The Roman Army at War) 169; and especially Phang, S.E. (2008), Roman Military Service. Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate, Cambridge. 3ff.

Have a look, for example, at the description of the younger Cato's military tribunate in Plutarch's life, chapter 9. The passage is presumably drawn from his friend Munatius' account of the campaign (Valerius Maximus 4.3.2, on which see Hillard, T.W. (1987), ‘Plutarch's Late-Republican Lives: Between the Lines’, Antiochon 21 (1987) 19-48, p32), which makes it an especially valuable account of the reputation a military tribune might seek to gain (and which does not praise his skill or courage in battle).

"He had in his following fifteen slaves, two freedmen, and four friends. These rode on horses, while he himself always went a-foot; and yet he would join each of them in turn and converse with them...he willingly shared the tasks which he imposed upon others, and in his dress, way of living, and conduct on the march, made himself more like a soldier than a commander, while in character, dignity of purpose, and eloquence, he surpassed all those who bore the titles of Imperator and General".