Forms of verbal address between officers and soldiers.

[Maiorianus]

Am I wrong to think that this would also depend on the historical period to which one is referring? I mean, "dominus" expresses a quite strong form of submission (its typical use is between master and slaves and, as somebody pointed out, dominus is more "lord" than "sir"). To immagine that in the Republican Army this form may have been addressed by a Roman citizen (legionary) to another Roman citizen (centurion) seems to me to be against what I remember of Roman society which, true, was quite stratified, but at the same time only slowly adopted external forms and customs which marked a strong difference among its members. Also, there would have only been a limited, if any, class difference between a legionary and a centurion.

[Tarbicus]

Plebeians and patricians were distinctly different classes, culminating in the need for their own separates tribunes. The law may have given them equal protection, but don't forget only patricians could wear certain clothing, etc. which is not exactly egalitarian. There was certainly class distinction right throughout Roman history, although a citizen enjoyed legal protection under law regardless of rank.

When a citizen became a soldier he in fact surrendered those rights and came under military law, just as soldiers do today.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Seems there is a wide variety of terms to go with the 'title'.
But would it not seem coorect to use the 'rank of the officer you were replying to? As in 'ita vero Centurio' or 'factum Tribune'?

[Tarbicus]

We need to go back to the reality of found evidence: the Vindolanda Letters. They clearly illustrate that senior officers were addressed as domine. Everything else is anachronistic.

[Neuraleanus]

Am I wrong to think that this would also depend on the historical period to which one is referring?

I understand that the latin changed a bit going from the principate to the dominate:

Early: Domine

Late: Domne

[Triarius]

This has become an interesting discussion! There seem to be two lines of thought developing:

The proper, chronistic form of address: what would a Roman actually have said?

What would be most interesting and least jarring to the modern reader of English?

I am curious and interested in the first, but primarily concerned with the second. Thus far, in my writing, I have avoided "Yes, sir"; "Yes, domine" (using italics to indicate a word foreign to English); "Yes, lord" or "Yes, master"; and using a complete Latin phrase, e.g., "Ita, domine." The words lord and master have significantly different connotations in modern English than they did in prechristian Latin. Present company excepted, I think that most modern readers would immediately think of either a feudal relationship, a master/slave relationship, or an Asian teacher/student relationship (which, oddly, is probably the closest of the three.)

Thus far, I have compromised with "Yes, centurio" (centurio being sufficiently close to "centurion") and other titles, most having been defined by context or very short asides, e.g., He turned to his optio, his second in command, and said…

But this is slightly clumsy, I feel.

So by all means, let the discussion and poll continue! 8)

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

What would be most interesting and least jarring to the modern reader of English?

I am curious and interested in the first, but primarily concerned with the second. Thus far, in my writing, I have avoided "Yes, sir"; "Yes, domine" (using italics to indicate a word foreign to English); "Yes, lord" or "Yes, master"; and using a complete Latin phrase, e.g., "Ita, domine." The words lord and master have significantly different connotations in modern English....

The question concerns a novel written in English; thus, IMO, a sudden Latin "domine" would look awkward and potentially misleading, since, as you noted, the English equivalents of "lord" and "master" today carry the baggage of couple of thousand years of history. I think, "yes, sir" would be the most appropriate contemporary equivalent, designating a conventional response to a superior.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Who was the officer being addressed in the tablet Tarb? A centurion of the legate in command?

[Robert Vermaat]

How about: certe, dominus / certainly, sir!

[Tarbicus]

Tablet 255 has a letter from a centurion to a prefect, where he referes to him both as lord (domine) and brother (they seem to have been close.
"Clodius Super to his Cerialis, greetings. I was pleased that our friend Valentinus on his return from Gaul has duly approved the clothing. Through him I greet you and ask that you send me the things which I need for the use of my boys, that is, six sagaciae, n saga, seven palliola, six (?) tunics, which you well know that I cannot properly get hold of here, since we are ... ready (?) for the boys' transfer (?). (2nd hand) May you fare well, my dearest lord and brother, and ... (Back, 1st hand) To Flavius Cerialis, prefect, from Clodius Super, centurion."

Tablet 258 has the following, from a centurion to a prefect again:
"... so that I might provide you with a bridge (?). (2nd hand) I pray that you are in good health, my lord. Farewell. (Back, 1st hand) To Flavius Cerialis, prefect, from ..., centurion (?)."

Tablet 318, from a either a centurion or prefect, to a prefect:
"... my lord, I have sent ... from the cohort of which I am in command to you so that you (?) might be able ..."

Elsewhere, those of seemingly equal status refer to each other as brother.

See this post I made recently in this thread.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 245#186245

There are many requests for leave, the recipient always being addressed as lord, but these seem to be to a prefect. However, when a prefect seems to be asking something of another prefect we see the term domine again.

I have to say the egalitarian theory of how Romans addressed each other pretty unlikely. Not only was there a class system, but patronage almost on a par with the Mafia (if not the model for the Mafia) was endemic in Roman society.

[Neuraleanus]

They are our best source on how romans greeted each other. If you're afraid of the "baggage" connected with the modern interpretation of lord or my lord, use domine. let the reader put in his or her own definition of what the word means. Afterall, that is the word the romans used. "Yes, sir" sounds very ackward and too modern.

[Triarius]

How about: certe, dominus / certainly, sir!

Of all the Latin phrases, I like this best. Shouldn't it still be domine, though? (My Latin is abysmally rusty—working on that.)

[Maiorianus]

I have to say the egalitarian theory of how Romans addressed each other pretty unlikely. Not only was there a class system, but patronage almost on a par with the Mafia (if not the model for the Mafia) was endemic in Roman society.

As to the first part of this sentence, I don't disagree that the Romans had a class system. However, the evidence we have shows that this system becomes stricter and stricter as time progresses from the Republic into the Empire and even more into Late Empire. The generic nobilitas (aristocracy) of the Late Republic becomes divided into subcategories (egregii, clarissimi, illustres), whose exact position in society becomes more and more precisely defined. The same trend can be seen with reference to the imperial institution: the princeps (first among peers) becomes a dominus, his advisers move from being a consilium (cum+sedeo: I sit with) to being a consistorium (cum+sisto: I stand with), the traditional salutatio (standing salute) is replaced by the proskynesis (prosternation). In short, hyerarchy and formalism appear to be increasing throughout the Roman history. In the same vein, it is legitimate to suppose that terms of deference and respect originally reserved only to the most senior persons start to be used more liberally to please whoever is (or feels like) a superior.

So, the address form and signs of respect in say, the Roman army of the Punic Wars, may have been less evident than in the Imperial Army. You referred to the differences between Patricians and plebeians but here we're still talking of a legionary addressing a centurion and I do not see how such a wide class gap could exist between the two.

Which leads me to the Vindolanda tablets: first of all, they tell us something on the social structure of an auxiliary cohort (if I remember correctly) at a specific point in time (end 1st century AD) in a specific province (Britannia). Even if we assume (which is perfectly plausible to me) that these tablets help understand the social structures of the entire Roman Army, their value is still limited to the time when they were written and I am not sure this can apply to two centuries before or two centuries after them.

But even if we admit that this is the case, they still relate, as you pointed out, mostly to cohort prefects which, if I remember correctly, were of equestrian rank. Here I have no problem to see a legionary (or centurion) addressing his prefect as "domine", but I still do not see that class difference between a legionary and a centurion which would justify the use of the word "dominus". And even if I can see it in the Imperial Army (with the above-mentioned increasing formalism in society), it sounds stranger to me for the Republican Army, where it is really hard to postulate a class difference between a legionary and a centurion.

That is why I expressed my doubts, which are just doubts...On your last sentence, on the other hand, I'm much more unconvinced that Roman patronage was a model for Mafia, as such models have existed throughout history and throughout most of the world. Also, unfortunately, there's much more that defines mafia than simply patronage, but here I'm definitely going off-topic...

[Triarius]

The postulated connection to the Mafia more probably comes through the Catholic Church, which certainly looks as if it took its organizational structure from the Roman army. But the patriarchical system has many roots, in many cultures. The patron/client relationship, so important to Roman society, is found in all human societies in one form or another.

Rank and distinction were certainly very important to Romans, whether natural or naturalized. But the army of Rome, starting in the late Republic and definitely by the early Principate, was a great leveler of social class distinction below the rank of Tribune or Praefect. Centurions almost always came from the ranks. They achieved equestrian status on retirement or promotion to Praefect. Only then was there a class distinction. Tribuni Augusticlavi were usually equestrian or senatorial. The Laticlavius was senatorial. At these levels a social distinction definitely existed.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

They are our best source on how romans greeted each other. If you're afraid of the "baggage" connected with the modern interpretation of lord or my lord, use domine. let the reader put in his or her own definition of what the word means.

Aha, and the meaning of the word "domine" is...lord or master. Which brings us back to my previous post.

Afterall, that is the word the romans used.

Yes, they did...they spoke Latin. The novel is in English, though.