03-23-2016, 11:09 AM
It is always astonishing that you can write a profound article of 18 pages about such a short inscription. It just shows us, how unkown the Rangordnung of the roman army still is.
I am afraid, we have still not found the real pattern of promotion. Not for NCOs and not for centurions. We even do not know, what was really considered a rank by a roman, and what was just a function. For example optio carceris. It sounds like a function. And the rank of this optio was perhaps sesquiplicarius. If not even duplicarius finally, because he was promoted to evocatus from there after 16 years of service. But pay = rank is just one of many theories out there.
Interestingly Caesius never served as a "taktische Charge" (optio, signifer in a centuria). Domaszewski called that a must, for any promotion to centurio. Even some cornicularii (highest senior NCO), who had always served in offices (librarii, etc. ) and never served in a centuria, became optio spei before they could advance to centurio. Another sign, that Caesius had strong patronage?
I am afraid, we have still not found the real pattern of promotion. Not for NCOs and not for centurions. We even do not know, what was really considered a rank by a roman, and what was just a function. For example optio carceris. It sounds like a function. And the rank of this optio was perhaps sesquiplicarius. If not even duplicarius finally, because he was promoted to evocatus from there after 16 years of service. But pay = rank is just one of many theories out there.
Interestingly Caesius never served as a "taktische Charge" (optio, signifer in a centuria). Domaszewski called that a must, for any promotion to centurio. Even some cornicularii (highest senior NCO), who had always served in offices (librarii, etc. ) and never served in a centuria, became optio spei before they could advance to centurio. Another sign, that Caesius had strong patronage?
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
