The Centurion and his horse questions.

[Magnus]

LOL...so you post ideas as to why a centurion may need a horse, then disagree with yourself. :?: And besides, if a column of route is going to be attacked by the enemy, the cavalry is there as is usually a vanguard to give the rest of the legion time to organize itself into formation. Even then, that's some pretty standardized skills for the legions, so I doubt extra orders beyond a few toots on the cornu would be required. (it's basically go from column, into battle formation facing the direction of the bad guys)

[D B Campbell]

We're getting a bit bogged down in "how we think a centurion should behave". Let's stick to the evidence.

Some centurions (we've found two so far, but no-one has done a focussed study) thought it was important to show a horse on their tombstone. (If it were an eques, we wouldn't be saying "maybe he just likes horses", so why is it any different for a centurion?) We have a papyrus (PSI (6.)729) that records a centurion selling a horse. The poet Statius appears to refer to the legionary centurion when he writes of "an equestrian sent amongst the infantry" (Silvae 5.1.95-6: maniplos inter missus eques), which may (or may not) imply riding a horse. But then there's Arrian, who seems to suggest that the centurions travel en masse with the other senior officers, who were definitely mounted. And, as Graham Webster's quote reminds us, the tradition of wearing greaves might have arisen because they were mounted.

Those are the "pro"s. What have we got in the way of "con"s? Some centurions don't show a horse on their tombstone? (Well, some centurions don't show a transverse crest -- does that mean they didn't have one?) And Josephus says, of Vespasian's marching legionaries, "many a centurion accompanied them, according to their custom of watching the column" (BJud. 3.124). (Of course, he doesn't specify that they were on foot.)

Have I missed anything?

[Matt Lukes]

Greek infantrymen wore greaves, so the suggestion they were too encumbering for Romans and thus they were retained only by the cavalry is a stretch theory to my mind; it make sense for cavalrymen to use them since a rider's shins are up at a level they could be attacked, but since there are many grave stelae that show cavalrymen without them, they're hardly an indicator.

The one Centurio who was originally a cavalryman doesn't seem a reasonable piece of evidence either since I've read a number of recent history cases of former cavalrymen and users of horses to always have an affinity for them regardless of moving on to tanks or whatever (e.g. the Wehrmacht's 24. Panzer-Division and Artillerie-Regiment 171). If there were one of a Centurio who died during his service and was always in the infantry, that'd be more telling, but then one example is hardly universal proof now is it? That's why I pointed out the error of assuming unviersality. Grave stelae in general aren't necessarily terribly helpful for the question of riding because they weren't put up by the person, so don't indicate necessarily what he thought important but what was normal or his relative thought was important- often they simply show 'stuff'- armor, greaves, phalarae, etc. so for all we know the idea was to show valuable possesions. A horse would certainly be valuable.

Some of the other 'pros' for riding I don't agree with either- an eques is not a Centurio, selling a horse simply means ownership that could be booty for all anyone knows, and I'm not sure how referring to an equestrian amongst the infantry could possibly mean a regular Centurio, which is what is being discussed, right? The only one that does seem to fit is the mention of Centuriones travelling with the other officers- although the horse-mounted men wouldn't be travelling faster than the marching army, so it doesn't necessarily mean the Centuriones were doing more than marching too.

I would think the cons could only be the problems with the pros since riding is the questionable position- marching is the default. I'd say the cons are that none of the pros so far is particularly compelling.

It seems likely we're just going to be left (once again LOL) with just theories based on 'not impossible' or 'reasonable' ideas...

[Magnus]

And here's a novel idea, most likely none of us reenactor centurions have horses, so that kind of rules out riding at events. :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, any one have a saw horse? That should do for most events! :mrgreen:

[jkaler48]

And here's a novel idea, most likely none of us reenactor centurions have horses, so that kind of rules out riding at events. :lol:

And also this may apply:

"On their arrival, as they were not mounted on horses, the event commander takes horses from the military tribunes and Centurions, nay, even from the Roman knights and veterans, and distributes them among the Cavalry reenactors."

[D B Campbell]

... I'm not sure how referring to an equestrian amongst the infantry could possibly mean a regular Centurio, which is what is being discussed, right?

I think you misunderstood the Statius quote. He's talking about a centurion and calls him "a horseman sent amongst infantrymen". The problem is that legionary centurions were virtually equestrians (some were already; others would be promoted on achieving the rank of primipilaris). So Statius may simply mean "an equestrian sent amongst infantrymen".

... riding is the questionable position- marching is the default. I'd say the cons are that none of the pros so far is particularly compelling.

I'd rather say that neither position has provided the killer argument. Many centurions came from the ranks of the equites singulares, so these ones were already accomplished horsemen. (Maybe that's why Julius Rufus was selling his horse -- maybe he'd just been promoted from the guard! did he already have a horse, or did he have to buy one?

[MeinPanzer]

I'd be tempted to say that the bottom panel signifies his service as a cavalryman, while the top two panels (especially the right hand panel, with greaves and what I think is a centurion's helmet), signify the latter part of his career.

Hmmm ... I disagree, Tom. I think all of the iconography relates to Severus's final posting as a centurion. The clincher for me has always been the Epidaurus centurion's tombstone (see below), which I have only ever seen illustrated in Roy Davies' article on "Police Work in Roman Times", History Today 18 (1968), p. 707.[attachment=0:1gcquwen]<!-- ia0 RomanCenturion_Epidaurus.GIF<!-- ia0 [/attachment:1gcquwen]
Maybe this, and the Severus tombstone, was what convinced Graham Webster that the centurions rode on the march. But it is interesting to note that, in Arrian's order of march, the centurions do not accompany their centuries, but "march" with the tribunes, who were most definitely mounted (Arrian, Ectaxis 5-6).

I've asked this in previous discussions of this stele and I've never gotten a clear answer, but why are people sure he is a Roman cavalryman? IIRC, it is dated to the 1st c. BC, and so he very well may simply be a late Hellenistic cavalryman, as regional cavalry forces survived throughout Greece well after Roman occupation. Everything about him looks Hellenistic, and the inscription doesn't indicate anything about who he is beyond that he is a Greek. So why is it being taken as the stele of a centurion?

[D B Campbell]

... and the inscription doesn't indicate anything about who he is beyond that he is a Greek. So why is it being taken as the stele of a centurion?

Do you have a copy of the inscription? (I was going by the Mansell Collection description -- it's the only place I've ever seen this stele.)

[MeinPanzer]

... and the inscription doesn't indicate anything about who he is beyond that he is a Greek. So why is it being taken as the stele of a centurion?

Do you have a copy of the inscription? (I was going by the Mansell Collection description -- it's the only place I've ever seen this stele.)

It's published in IGIV.897 and is in the stele database:

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

And it's clear that it simply reads TIMOKLE XAIRE - laconic even for a modest Greek funerary stele.

[Magnus]

And here's a novel idea, most likely none of us reenactor centurions have horses, so that kind of rules out riding at events. :lol:

And also this may apply:

"On their arrival, as they were not mounted on horses, the event commander takes horses from the military tribunes and Centurions, nay, even from the Roman knights and veterans, and distributes them among the Cavalry reenactors."

What is your quote from John?

Also, Duncan, it seems more so that along with his military decorations, that a centurion on his grave stele may want to show off the fact that he is part of the equestrian order, hence the horse.

[jkaler48]

And here's a novel idea, most likely none of us reenactor centurions have horses, so that kind of rules out riding at events. :lol:

And also this may apply:

"On their arrival, as they were not mounted on horses, the event commander takes horses from the military tribunes and Centurions, nay, even from the Roman knights and veterans, and distributes them among the Cavalry reenactors."

What is your quote from John?

.

uh - I was illustrating your being correct about the unlikeliness of there ever being enough horses for Centurions (should that be historically correct) by a Julius Caesar style paraphrase as might be given in a report about a reenactment event .

[D B Campbell]

It's published in IGIV.897 and is in the stele database: http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/ .

Thanks for the link. I had assumed that there must have been more of an inscription than the single line shown in the photo. But if that is the sum total then, I agree, he is unlikely to have been a centurion. (I have no idea why the Mansell Collection have labelled it thus.)

[Matt Lukes]

... I'm not sure how referring to an equestrian amongst the infantry could possibly mean a regular Centurio, which is what is being discussed, right?

I think you misunderstood the Statius quote. He's talking about a centurion and calls him "a horseman sent amongst infantrymen". The problem is that legionary centurions were virtually equestrians (some were already; others would be promoted on achieving the rank of primipilaris). So Statius may simply mean "an equestrian sent amongst infantrymen".

Ah, okay, I read equestrian as equestrian- the social rank- not as horseman. But even so my problem with the statement being relevant stands- it's still not meaning the average Centurio, right?

... riding is the questionable position- marching is the default. I'd say the cons are that none of the pros so far is particularly compelling.

I'd rather say that neither position has provided the killer argument. Many centurions came from the ranks of the equites singulares, so these ones were already accomplished horsemen. (Maybe that's why Julius Rufus was selling his horse -- maybe he'd just been promoted from the guard! did he already have a horse, or did he have to buy one?

What references do you have for the 'many centurions came from the ranks of the equites singulares? I'm not familiar with that fact. It seems reasonable that if >Clemens were seconded to a cavalry unit, he must have ridden- but the question is did a Centurio normally ride instead of march, and just because one could doesn't mean one did.

[popularis]

It's published in IGIV.897 and is in the stele database: http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/ .

Thanks for the link. I had assumed that there must have been more of an inscription than the single line shown in the photo. But if that is the sum total then, I agree, he is unlikely to have been a centurion. (I have no idea why the Mansell Collection have labelled it thus.)

I take it that there isn't a better image of this? I'm rather interested in his feet (specifically, in the type of shoes he's wearing)!

Blue skies

Tom