Speculator

[garrelt]

I'm glad we all could help.
Looking forward to the end result.
I will stay at the explorator side.

Also thanks Graham.
Your books were a very good help for me for putting my reconstruction together.

[Graham Sumner]

Also thanks Graham.
Your books were a very good help for me for putting my reconstruction together.

Thanks. nice to hear they were of some use. Care to post a picture of your reconstruction?

Graham.

[D B Campbell]

Speculatores=> Legion (infantry)
Dressed and equipped as an average legionary.
In service of a commander/provincial governor/emperor.
Working alone.
Information gathering within the auxilia/legion/army for possible political opponents, mutiny, etc.
You could say that they were the Roman army secret service.

There is a theory that speculatores were cavalry troops, which perhaps derives from Manfred Clauss, Untersuchungen zu den Principales des römischen Heeres (1973) -- I have not read this -- and a tendency (in the work of Michael Speidel, especially) to see all Praetorian cavalry as speculatores. This seems doubtful to me, but I haven't seen the detailed argument.

I came across an interesting inscription, though.
ILS 2378 (= CIL 3, 1650):
D M | L Blassius Nigellio | specul leg VII Cl vixit | ann XXXV
"To the spirits of the dead / Lucius Blassius Nigellio / speculator in legion VII Claudia lived / for 35 years"

Interesting, because the relief sculpture doesn't show a cavalryman, but a man and his companion in a four-wheeled three-horse wagon (two horses and a spare?); the companion holds a distinctive spear resembling the so-called "beneficiarius-lance". Interesting.

[garrelt]

Thanks. nice to hear they were of some use. Care to post a picture of your reconstruction?

You can find my reconstruction by following this link at our site.
http://home.kpn.nl/creij006/pages/e/auxilia.htm

Also you can find it at this link http://www.romanarmy.net/offdutybat1.htm .
and somewhere in <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3169">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3169<!-- l

[hansvl]

There is a theory that speculatores were cavalry troops, which perhaps derives from Manfred Clauss, Untersuchungen zu den Principales des römischen Heeres (1973) -- I have not read this -- and a tendency (in the work of Michael Speidel, especially) to see all Praetorian cavalry as speculatores. This seems doubtful to me, but I haven't seen the detailed argument.

I came across an interesting inscription, though.
ILS 2378 (= CIL 3, 1650):
D M | L Blassius Nigellio | specul leg VII Cl vixit | ann XXXV
"To the spirits of the dead / Lucius Blassius Nigellio / speculator in legion VII Claudia lived / for 35 years"

Interesting, because the relief sculpture doesn't show a cavalryman, but a man and his companion in a four-wheeled three-horse wagon (two horses and a spare?); the companion holds a distinctive spear resembling the so-called "beneficiarius-lance". Interesting.

Well, some inscriptions clearly state the (praetorian) speculator as a mounted soldier, e.g. AE 1955, 24 = AE 1984, 99 (from Rome):
P(ublio) Sulpicio / L(uci) f(ilio) Ouf(entina) / Peregrino / Mediolaniens(i!) / equiti speculat(ori) / vixit annis / XXVIII / militavit / annis VIIII / L(ucius) Sulpic(i)us / C(ai) f(ilius) Ouf(entina) Messor pater et frater
(To Publius Sulpicius Peregrinus, son of Lucius, of the Oufentina voting tribe, from Milan, speculator cavalryman. He lived 28 years, was a soldier for 9 years. By Lucius Sulpicius Messor, son of Caius, of the Oufentina voting tribe, his father and brother [in arms?])

The praetorian speculatores (or a certain part of them) may have formed a distinct cavalry force. See for instance CIL 11, 395 = ILS 2648 (from Rimini, dated 66 AD).
This inscription clearly speaks of a exercitator equitum speculatorum. A proof that (a part of) the speculatores of the praetorian guard formed a mounted force:
.
M(arco) Vettio M(arci) f(ilio) Ani(ensis) / Valenti / mil(iti) coh(ortis) VIII pr(aetoriae) benef(iciario) praef(ecti) pr(aetorio) / donis donato bello Britan(nico) / torquibus armillis phaleris / evoc(ato) Aug(usti) corona aurea donat(o) / |(centurioni) coh(ortis) VI vig(ilium) |(centurioni) stat(orum) |(centurioni) coh(ortis) XVI urb(anae) |(centurioni) coh(ortis) / II pr(aetoriae) exercitatori equit(um) speculatorum princip(i) / praetori(i) leg(ionis) XIII Gem(inae) ex trec(enario) [p(rimo) p(ilo)] leg(ionis) VI / Victr(icis) donis donato ob res prosper(e) / gest(as) contra Astures torq(uibus) phaler(is) arm(illis) / trib(uno) coh(ortis) V vig(ilum) trib(uno) coh(ortis) XII urb(anae) trib(uno) coh(ortis) / III pr(aetoriae) [tr(ibuno)] leg(ionis) XIIII Gem(inae) Mart(iae) Vic(tricis) / proc(uratori) Imp(eratoris) [[[Neronis]]] Caes(aris) Aug(usti) prov(inciae) Lusitan(iae) / patron(o) coloniae speculator(es) X h(onoris) c(ausa) / C(aio) Luccio Telesino C(aio) Suetonio Paulino co(n)s(ulibus)
Clearly this guy had a very succesful career: from simple miles praetorius to procurator.

Also: AE 1954, 162 (from Lucus Feroniae in Tuscany):
T(ito) Nasidio Messori / veterano / ex equitibus speculator(ibus) / donis donato / militaribus ab Aug(usto) / adlecto ex decreto dec(urionum) / remissa honoraria / aedilitate / IIviro col(oniae) Iul(iae) felicis / Luco Feroniae / Hedia Verecunda / uxor / l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)
(This mounted speculator, most probably a praetorian, received military decorations from Augustus and after his military career became chief administrator of the colonia of Lucus Feroniae in Tuscany)

This idea that the speculatores of the Praetorian Guard were mounted forces is already expressed by Durry (Les cohortes prétoriennes, 1938, p.28 and 110), who saw them as a special mounted guard of the emperor. A role that was taken over by the equites singulares from Trajan onwards.

But the tendency to see all Praetorian cavalry as speculatores seems very weird to me: in the inscription records both terms are stated (see above), but not as synonyms. In the incriptions AE 1954, 162 and AE 1955, 24 ‘equiti’ and ‘equitibus’ are ment to specify that as speculator they were mounted, not that they were cavalry.
Moreover, in the laterculi of praetorian cohorts speculator and eques appear as seperate indications of rank/function (e.g. CIL 6, 2379 = CIL 6, 32520 = CLE 1670 = ICUR-7, 18469 = Philippi 762 = AIIRoma-9, 89 = AE 1968, 26 = AE 1999, +421 or CIL 6, 2382 = CIL 6, 32638 = EpThess 38 = AIIRoma-6, 29 = AE 1964, +120a, see attachment)

All in all, some speculatores (of the praetorians) were clearly part of a mounted force. But that doesn’t mean every speculator was a cavalry man.

Greets,

Hans[attachment=0:2925u89c]<!-- ia0 $CIL_06_02382.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:2925u89c]

[D B Campbell]

There is a theory that speculatores were cavalry troops ... and a tendency to see all Praetorian cavalry as speculatores.

Well, some inscriptions clearly state the (praetorian) speculator as a mounted soldier ...

I did not mean to dispute this, Hans -- only to question whether the same were true of the legions. But -- given that not all Praetorian cavalry were speculatores -- I did wonder whether all Praetorian speculatores were cavalry (a point which you have addressed below).

This idea that the speculatores of the Praetorian Guard were mounted forces is already expressed by Durry (Les cohortes prétoriennes, 1938, p.28 and 110), who saw them as a special mounted guard of the emperor. A role that was taken over by the equites singulares from Trajan onwards.

Interesting ... but that would really only apply to the short period between the dissolution of the custodes corporis Caesaris and the institution of the equites singulares Augusti. More likely they had some other function?

But the tendency to see all Praetorian cavalry as speculatores seems very weird to me: in the inscription records both terms are stated, but not as synonyms. In the incriptions AE 1954, 162 and AE 1955, 24 ‘equiti’ and ‘equitibus’ are meant to specify that as speculator they were mounted, not that they were cavalry.

So this would tend to suggest that not all Praetorian speculatores were cavalry -- thank you. (btw I think you are drawing a distinction between "cavalry" and "mounted soldier", but I'm not clear why! Isn't a soldier with a horse necessarily a cavalryman?)

All in all, some speculatores (of the praetorians) were clearly part of a mounted force. But that doesn’t mean every speculator was a cavalry man.

Agreed. (My original point.)

[hansvl]

Well, some inscriptions clearly state the (praetorian) speculator as a mounted soldier ...

I did not mean to dispute this, Hans -- only to question whether the same were true of the legions. But -- given that not all Praetorian cavalry were speculatores -- I did wonder whether all Praetorian speculatores were cavalry (a point which you have addressed below).

I did not mean to rebute you, Duncan, on this. I just wanted to point out that some of the praetorian speculatores specifically indicate they were mounted, most of them however just mentioned their function as speculator. Does that mean that the latter are surely infantry? Not necessarily, I think.

This idea that the speculatores of the Praetorian Guard were mounted forces is already expressed by Durry (Les cohortes prétoriennes, 1938, p.28 and 110), who saw them as a special mounted guard of the emperor. A role that was taken over by the equites singulares from Trajan onwards.

Interesting ... but that would really only apply to the short period between the dissolution of the custodes corporis Caesaris and the institution of the equites singulares Augusti. More likely they had some other function?

I need to say Durry saw more roles for the speculatores augusti: as special couriers, as a sort of frumentarii avant la lettre, etc. I only wanted to say that Durry saw their position as a mounted escorte (this is the term Durry used) close to the emperor while on mission, taken over by the equites singulares augusti.

(btw I think you are drawing a distinction between "cavalry" and "mounted soldier", but I'm not clear why! Isn't a soldier with a horse necessarily a cavalryman?)

Well I do have a tendency to confuse people when I want to make a point but not making myself clear enough. I actually wanted to make a distinction between the speculator as a mounted soldier and the equites of the praetorian cohorts who form the actual praetorian cavalry. That is why you see the distinction on the praetorian laterculi between speculatores and equites. A praetorian speculator can be an eques, but an eques cohortium praetorianorum is not by definition a speculator (or am I making a mess of it again?)

All in all, some speculatores (of the praetorians) were clearly part of a mounted force. But that doesn’t mean every speculator was a cavalry man.

Agreed. (My original point.)

Well, in the end we do agree, let's drink to that.

[D B Campbell]

I just wanted to point out that some of the praetorian speculatores specifically indicate they were mounted, most of them however just mentioned their function as speculator. Does that mean that the latter are surely infantry? Not necessarily, I think.

Point taken, Hans. But I wonder why some specifically mention eques (as if some maybe were not).

And does this have implications for the provincial speculatores? They do not seem to be drawn from the equites legionis -- at least, they don't say so.

I actually wanted to make a distinction between the speculator as a mounted soldier and the equites of the praetorian cohorts who form the actual praetorian cavalry. That is why you see the distinction on the praetorian laterculi between speculatores and equites. A praetorian speculator can be an eques, but an eques cohortium praetorianorum is not by definition a speculator (or am I making a mess of it again?)

That's an interesting distinction, Hans. I was assuming that, of the 300+ (450?) Praetorian cavalry, some were seconded for service as speculatores. (I assumed some infantry, too -- but that remains speculation.) So the cavalry force would be commensurately reduced. Does that make sense?

Well, in the end we do agree, let's drink to that.

Well said, my friend!

[hansvl]

I just wanted to point out that some of the praetorian speculatores specifically indicate they were mounted, most of them however just mentioned their function as speculator. Does that mean that the latter are surely infantry? Not necessarily, I think.

Point taken, Hans. But I wonder why some specifically mention eques (as if some maybe were not).

Well, that's my line of thinking too. On the other hand, we have to admit that the inscriptions of praetorian speculatores only give us proof that among them there were (some) cavalrymen (eques, ex equitibus, exercitator equitum speculatorum). There is no specific indication of infantry (because that was the obvious thing, and cavalry the minority?)

The possibility (probability) of the praetorian speculatores being only cavalry, doesn't mean the other speculatores of the legions were by definiton cavalry as well.

I was assuming that, of the 300+ (450?) Praetorian cavalry, some were seconded for service as speculatores. (I assumed some infantry, too -- but that remains speculation.) So the cavalry force would be commensurately reduced. Does that make sense?

Durry thinks that there were 900 equites (les cohortes prétoriennes, p. 99). One turma per manipulus. He states that a praetorian guardsman could become an eques after 4 to 5 years service. Becoming a speculator comes later in the careerstructure. So this could well mean speculatores were seconded cavalrymen. It would reduce the regular cavalry with one third though (assuming the speculatores were 300 strong). Another indication that the praetorian speculatores were a mixed subunit?

Greets,

Hans