The role of the Tribunes in the republican legion

[popularis]

Just to be a pedant, but there's no evidence that Trebonius was a military tribune. (...) 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".

But the C. Trebonius in 6.33 surely cannot be the same man as the equestrian in 6.40! The former was away with his three legions laying waste while the attack on Q Cicero's fort, in which the latter played a part, was in progress. I'm assuming that the reason Caesar mentions the second Trebonius as being 'a Roman knight' is to differentiate him from the man of the same name, senatorial legate in command of legions (Quaestor in 60BC, and later one of Ides of March conspirators).

We've cross-posted, I think! See my mea culpa above.

However, while the last stand of the centurions is mentioned (...) 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.

Exactly - the 'part of the soldiers who arrived safe' were the veterans led by Trebonius. No other mention of the tribune indicates that Trebonius himself was that man!

A quick edit here: the part which survived "contrary to their expectations" would seem to me to be from the new recruits, not the veterans. The structure of the battle, to me, is as follows:

1. The veterans decide to break through to the camp, and get home "safe to a man". The camp followers stay close behind them, and also get home safely.

2. Then the new recruits lose their nerve on the hill and decide to make a break for safety, but make a hash of it. The centurions make a brave stand, and as a result some of the new recruits get home, while others are surrounded and killed (Militum pars horum uirtute [the centuriones of the preceding sentence] summotis hostibus praeter spem incolumis in castra peruenit, pars a barbaris circumuenta periit.)

In other words, the part of the soldiers who got home safely "contrary to their expectations" were the new recruits, not the veterans (who in the narrative were already home and dry before the centurions make their stand) - so their tribune, possibly leading the recruits down from the hill, could well have made it to the fort.

To quote the passage (translation is from this page: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.6.6.html ):

The veteran soldiers ... do not approve of this. Therefore encouraging each other, 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. The camp attendants and the horse following close upon them with the same impetuosity, are saved by the courage of the soldiers. But those who had taken their stand upon the eminence having even now acquired no experience of military matters, neither could persevere in that resolution which they approved of, namely, to defend themselves from their higher position, nor imitate that vigor and speed which they had observed to have availed others; but, attempting to reach the camp, had descended into an unfavorable situation. The centurions, 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. The enemy having been dislodged by their valor, a part of the soldiers arrived safe in camp contrary to their expectations; a part perished, surrounded by the barbarians.

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.

These men were referred to as cohortales, is that right? I think Catullus wrote about a couple of associates of his who went off to Asia as 'friends' of the governor, and didn't get as much out of it as they'd hoped! And as the useful quote from Plutarch's Cato shows, just about every officer on campaign, down to the tribunes, appears to have had a handful of 'friends' tagging along.

Probably worth remembering, too, that in the republican era there were no firm boundaries between 'military' and 'civilian' - any appointment could just as easily be both. So long as a man had pedigree and connections, he could potentially end up doing just about anything. During the civil wars, Caesar's Quaestor in Illyricum, Q Cornificius, conducted a successful independent campaign against Pompeian forces there, in command of two legions.

There's a few terms used to describe such men. Contubernales is one of them, cohortales another. I don't think there's a technical or legal definition. And no, there's no clear dividing line between civilian and military in a lot of contexts: for example, a prefect could be given command of troops (military), or responsible for assizes (civilian), or for governing a town that needed a Roman to keep an eye on it (a mixture of the two).

Trebatius actually turned down the offer of a military tribunate.

Is that attested elsewhere? From the tone of Cicero's correspondence I got the impression that Testa had taken the job, but grumbled about it!

[/quote]

Well, I was a lot more certain before the Trebonius mix up There are a whole batch of letters to go through, and I'll get back to you on this.

blue skies

Tom