The role of the Tribunes in the republican legion

[LVCIVS SERGIVS ANTONINVS]

SALVETE OMNES,

I would like to initiate a new topic (in fact my very first topic in this forum) about the part played by de tribunes of the republican legion in combat operations. Most modern authors define the duties of the tribunes as chiefly administrative ( training, financial, discipline, logistics, and so on..) but often their tasks in combat are relegated to a secundary role. Nevertheless in some instances they seem to have assumed a more active part in leading legionary units in the front line. I would be very grateful to all who would want to contribute their knowledge on this subject and maybe bring new light to this poor ignorant....

Thank you

Toni

[popularis]

SALVETE OMNES,

I would like to initiate a new topic (in fact my very first topic in this forum) about the part played by de tribunes of the republican legion in combat operations. Most modern authors define the duties of the tribunes as chiefly administrative ( training, financial, discipline, logistics, and so on..) but often their tasks in combat are relegated to a secondary role. Nevertheless in some instances they seem to have assumed a more active part in leading legionary units in the front line. I would be very grateful to all who would want to contribute their knowledge on this subject and maybe bring new light to this poor ignorant...

EDIT: Hello! Welcome to the forum! And it's certainly not an ignorant question - far from it, it's actually a rather tricky issue.

"The republican legion" is a bit of a broad brush phrase in itself, so I'm going to confine my answer to the 2nd and first centuries BC. And, basically, you've hit the nail right on the head: they do not appear to have had any ex officio combat duties [1].

They were, however, trained leaders [2], often experienced officers [3], and men of relatively high status [4]. Such men could, obviously, be very useful to their commander, who was free to employ his legates, military tribunes, prefects, and members of his cohors as he saw fit. As a result, not unexpectedly, we often find military tribunes performing combat command roles, or commanding detachments or forts, but this seems to have been as a result of their commander's estimation of their individual usefulness, not their military title.

blue skies

Tom


For those who'd like some references:

[1] For military tribunes not having an ex officio combat role, it's Breeze, D.J. (1969), ‘The Organization of the Legion: The First Cohort and the Equites Legionis’, Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969) 50-55; cf. Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War (1996) 15.

On military tribunes in general, there's also Jakko Suolahti's indispensable (alas) The Junior Officers of the Roman Army, 1955. EDIT: gratuitous plug, but if any publishers are interested in a book on junior officers in the late Republic...

[2] a lot of what it took to be a successful junior officer on the battlefield was a question of attitude and an ability to give orders and inspire troops, and that involves skills and a mindset which elite youth were trained for from birth. On this, see Goldsworthy (1996) 121ff. - but for a parallel example, see the work by Prag on the link between elite Hellenistic gymnasia and military leadership in Sicily (Prag, J. (2007 - JRS 97) 87ff.).

[3] this point is often neglected - by the first century BC many were relatively inexperienced, but with six military tribunes a legion, the chances are that a few would have known what they were doing. In any case, Caesar's rant at BG 1.39 should not be taken too far (as it too often is).

[4] A sometimes overlooked point: in such a class-ridden society, a commander who did not look and act the part - and have the required authority which came from social status - would probably have been less effective. And there is no evidence, despite a lot of discussion about a decline in the status of the post, that military tribunes were not equestrians (see, for example, Suolahti (1955) 298ff.; Smith (1958 - Service in the Post Marian Roman Army) 60, 68; Gruen (1974 - The Last Generation of the Roman Republic) 116; De Blois, L. (1987), The Roman Army and Politics in the First Century B.C., 17)

[LVCIVS SERGIVS ANTONINVS]

Hi Tom!

Thank you for your swift and very interesting answer, of course i will follow your references. I pretty agree with your points of view.
I'm far from being an expert on these themes, although reading a couple of days ago Yann Le Bohec 's "The roman army" (spanish version) I found that he thinks the tribunes in combat were each of them in command of two legionary cohorts (Yann le Bohec, "El ejército romano", p.53). As you said before, these men were trained leaders, often experienced officers, and men of relatively high status, so by which reason was the roman army not going to take advantage of such useful leaders in a more regular basis? Also there is still the question of numbers: the tribuni angusticlavii in a legion numbered five, just five and not four or seven; taking into account that the cohorts of a legion were ten, then this number of officers matches exactly with each of the tribunes commanding two cohorts. What do you think about this hypothesis ?

VALETE

Toni

[popularis]

I'm far from being an expert on these themes, although reading a couple of days ago Yann Le Bohec 's "The roman army" (spanish version) I found that he thinks the tribunes in combat were each of them in command of two legionary cohorts (Yann le Bohec, "El ejército romano", p.53). As you said before, these men were trained leaders, often experienced officers, and men of relatively high status, so by which reason was the roman army not going to take advantage of such useful leaders in a more regular basis? Also there is still the question of numbers: the tribuni angusticlavii in a legion numbered five, just five and not four or seven; taking into account that the cohorts of a legion were ten, then this number of officers matches exactly with each of the tribunes commanding two cohorts. What do you think about this hypothesis ?

Hi Toni!

I haven't looked at Le Bohec's book in years, sorry. In answer to your questions though:

1) I know its obvious, but to avoid confusion: tribuni militum laticlauii and angusticlauii belong to the imperial period - so this can't have been true of the Republican army (and I assume that Le Bohec's supposition refers to the Imperial period).

2) The evidence for the number of military tribunes in a legion, six, comes from Polybius. It's entirely possible that the number changed at some point between Polybius' writing and the battle of Zela in 67BC [1].

3) What evidence is there to support this suggestion? I don't know of any. If we assume that military tribunes must have had ex officio combat roles, then this would be one way they could have been organised, but this is piling supposition on supposition!

As a rule, I'm not in favour of inventing systems and structures solely because it seems logical to us. It's worth remembering, for example, that individual legions didn't have their own designated commanders (the legatus legionis) until the mid-late Augustan period. In any case, the suggestion seems inherently unlikely: while many were experienced, many would also have been very inexperienced, and two cohorts is a lot of men and responsibility.

blue skies

Tom


[1] where 24 military tribunes were killed - Appian, Mith. 13.89, Plutarch, Luc. 35.1 - but where, on the evidence of both authors, there were only three legions at the battle. Brunt suggests a fourth legion, the one left behind by Lucullus (Brunt (1971 - Italian Manpower) 454-455; cf. Harmand, H. (1967), L’Armeé et le Soldat a Rome de 107 à 50 avant notre ère, Paris. 341ff.), which is very possible. However, while Plutarch and Appian say that 24 military tribunes (chiliarchoi) were killed, Appian also notes that "so great a number of officers (hegemones) had seldom fallen in any Roman defeat"? Why does he not say "all the military tribunes in each legion were killed" which, frankly, seems a much more impressive statement? I think Appian probably had his reasons, and that six per legion is a good assumption, but I wouldn't say it was rock solid: there had been a few significant military reforms in the intervening years; the service qualification for military tribunes had lapsed; there was some kind of law regarding military tribunes passed in the late second century; and as for continuity in Roman institutions, it's worth remembering that the number of quaestors and praetors, for instance, had increased in the intervening period. Frankly, I don't have an answer on this!

For what it's worth, Brizzi (Brizzi, G. (1995), ‘La gerarchia militare in età repubblicana’, in La hiérarchie (rangordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le haut-empire (Le Bohec, Y. ed.), Paris, 15-21.) 16-17, suggests ten military tribunes a legion, one for each cohort. An ingenious suggestion, but there's absolutely no evidence I know of to support it.

[Nathan Ross]

I'd agree with Tom that the situation of junior officers in the republican army seems to have different, and perhaps less formal, than the imperial model. However, both senatorial and equestrian young men served as tribunes, in some capacity or other, and there is evidence that at least some of them had a combat role. The references below may have already been cited in some of the books mentioned by Tom, but they seem apposite to quote here.

From Caesar's Commentaries, we have this description of a foraging party of five cohorts plus 300 veterans cut off by a German warband:

...those last enlisted, and unskilled in military discipline turn their faces to the military tribune and the centurions; they wait to find what orders may be given by them. ( Gallic Wars, Book 6, Chapter 39

This implies that, in a combat situation, soldiers were accustomed to take direct orders from tribunes as well as their centurions. There is, it seems, only a single tribune present, and the next event suggests he had seniority:

The veteran soldiers… 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 (ibid, Chapter 40)

Trebonius was clearly the tribune mentioned previously, who had been appointed over them - but we don't know whether this was only the veteran detachment or the entire foraging party.

Cicero's letters, dating from the exact same period, indicate that appointments within the army were (perhaps solely) at the behest of the proconsular governor - Caesar in Gaul was able to take on young men and appoint them to different roles as he saw fit. Even the Consuls in Rome are unable to influence Caesar's choice of men or appointments. Therefore, we might assume quite a latitude of different officer roles, many of them covered by the name 'tribune', from combat leadership to administration. The men filling these positions could well have been moved from one appointment to another, depending on their aptitude or inclinations, or the needs of the moment.

Writing to Caesar in 54BC, Cicero puts forward one of his young clients, Trebatius Testa:

...no honester, better, or more modest man exists. Added to this, he is at the top of his profession as a jurisconsult, possesses an unequalled memory, and the most profound learning. For such a man I ask neither a tribuneship, prefecture, nor any definite office, I ask only your goodwill and liberality (Cicero, Ad Fam VII.5 CXXXIII)

This suggests that it was in Caesar's power to make a man prefect, tribune, or something else as he saw fit - interesting, too, that Cicero mentions nothing about any military abilities the man might have! Trebatius is granted a tribunate, but his duties appear to be non-military, in fact. Cicero writes to Testa in Gaul, wondering "why you despised the profits of a military tribuneship, especially as you are exempted from the labour of military duty." (Ad Fam VII.8 CXXXIX). This might suggest that such an exemption was by no means automatic for military tribunes, however.

In fact, from details in other letters it appears that Caesar used Testa as a legal advisor in Gaul. Cicero jokes about his protege being sent to Britain to 'capture a war chariot', but whether the humour here relates to the impossibility of a military tribune doing such a thing, or Testa's unwillingness to get involved in fighting, is unclear.

The following year, however, even the unmilitary Trebatius seems to have got his hands dirty: Cicero is glad to hear that Testa has been "sustaining your military service with a brave spirit, and were a gallant and resolute man" (Ad Fam, VII.18 CLXXII). So perhaps even 'civilian' officers like this had the potential to get involved in fighting, if the need arose.

- Nathan

[popularis]

I'd agree with Tom that the situation of junior officers in the republican army seems to have different, and perhaps less formal, than the imperial model. However, both senatorial and equestrian young men served as tribunes, in some capacity or other, and there is evidence that at least some of them had a combat role. The references below may have already been cited in some of the books mentioned by Tom, but they seem apposite to quote here.

I should mention that while there are number of problems with Suolahti's book, his description of the duties of the military tribunes is still pretty good, if you can find a copy.

There are many examples of military tribunes in combat, sometimes in charge of quite complex and important operations (e.g. Caesar, BG 2.26). The point is, however, that their place in each battle appears to have been dependent on the wishes of the commander, who would no doubt take into account the needs of the situation and the experience of the men under his command. Cato, for example, seems to have been given individual command of a legion (Plutarch, Cato min. 9). This is why I'm saying that they seem to have had no ex officio role on the battlefield, rather than that it was not normal for military tribunes to command troops in battle. In any case, the chance to gain a reputation for courage and skill (cf. the Harris argument) would obviously have appealed to many men serving as junior officers: many would have sought military tribunates for the chance to demonstrate their uirtus and scientia.

It is possible that the two military tribunes who were directly in charge of much of the legion's internal management at any one time were normally placed with that legion in battle, but - again - I'm not aware of any evidence that this was a set "responsibility" of the military tribunes (and it is perhaps curious that Polybius doesn't mention it if so). It's hard to reconcile this with, for example, Cato being given individual command of a legion, or with Caesar B.G. 1.52, where a legate and a quaestor was placed in charge of each legion "that every one might have them as a witness of its valour", although this was a normal duty of military tribunes (witnessing and rewarding conspicuously good behaviour, or punishing bad behaviour).

Just a quick note though. When we talk of "senatorial military tribunes" in the Republic, we're talking about men who were already members of the senate. The last attested (probable) example comes from 69BC (L. Cassius - Cicero, Verr. 1.30, cf. Broughton (1951-1986) 3.50; RE 13; Suolahti A204), but ex consuls served as military tribunes in the early second century BC - although at a time when something rather odd is happening with the military tribunate, and with Roman military command in general. A senator's son was an equestrian.

From Caesar's Commentaries, we have this description of a foraging party of five cohorts plus 300 veterans cut off by a German warband:

...those last enlisted, and unskilled in military discipline turn their faces to the military tribune and the centurions; they wait to find what orders may be given by them. ( Gallic Wars, Book 6, Chapter 39

This implies that, in a combat situation, soldiers were accustomed to take direct orders from tribunes as well as their centurions. There is, it seems, only a single tribune present, and the next event suggests he had seniority:

The veteran soldiers… 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 (ibid, Chapter 40)

Trebonius was clearly the tribune mentioned previously, who had been appointed over them - but we don't know whether this was only the veteran detachment or the entire foraging party.

Just to be a pedant, but there's no evidence that Trebonius was a military tribune. You do, however, raise an intriguing point. Trebonius must have been in command of the 300 veterans, not the 5 cohorts, which separated themselves from the five cohorts and fought their way back to the camp. It would be very odd if Caesar praised Trebonius (and singling him out here is conspicuous praise enough) if he abandoned most of his command. 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".

EDIT: see mea culpa below.

However, while the last stand of the centurions is mentioned "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", 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.


But your general point is absolutely right: the military tribunes and prefects were senior to centurions, who would have been expected to follow their orders (for prefects giving orders to legionaries, see, for example, Caesar B.G. 1.52.7; 7.87).

Cicero's letters, dating from the exact same period, indicate that appointments within the army were (perhaps solely) at the behest of the proconsular governor

With the exception of the - presumably - 24 military tribunes elected each year to serve in the first four legions, the governor (be he proconsular or not) appears to have had the complete freedom to appoint his junior officers (prefects and tribunes) as he saw fit. This changed under the Principate, where the Emperor appears to have appointed all junior officers (and there's no mention of election for military tribunes), although governors could probably appoint military tribunes directly if they wished, and obviously would be able to make a field promotion if necessary (on this, see esp. Birley, A.R. (2003, ‘The commissioning of equestrian officers’, in Documenting the Roman Army. Essays in Honour of Margaret Roxan (Wilkes, J. ed.), London, 1-19). This doesn't mean, of course, that important men didn't put pressure on governors to appoint "friends" or family, in either period (on which, see Birley, and Cotton, H.M. (1981), ‘Military Tribunates and the Exercise of Patronage’, Chiron 11 (1981) 229-238).

Therefore, we might assume quite a latitude of different officer roles, many of them covered by the name 'tribune', from combat leadership to administration. The men filling these positions could well have been moved from one appointment to another, depending on their aptitude or inclinations, or the needs of the moment.

Yup. 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.

Writing to Caesar in 54BC, Cicero puts forward one of his young clients, Trebatius Testa:

...no honester, better, or more modest man exists. Added to this, he is at the top of his profession as a jurisconsult, possesses an unequalled memory, and the most profound learning. For such a man I ask neither a tribuneship, prefecture, nor any definite office, I ask only your goodwill and liberality (Cicero, Ad Fam VII.5 CXXXIII)

This suggests that it was in Caesar's power to make a man prefect, tribune, or something else as he saw fit - interesting, too, that Cicero mentions nothing about any military abilities the man might have! Trebatius is granted a tribunate, but his duties appear to be non-military, in fact. Cicero writes to Testa in Gaul, wondering "why you despised the profits of a military tribuneship, especially as you are exempted from the labour of military duty." (Ad Fam VII.8 CXXXIX). This might suggest that such an exemption was by no means automatic for military tribunes, however.

In fact, from details in other letters it appears that Caesar used Testa as a legal advisor in Gaul. Cicero jokes about his protege being sent to Britain to 'capture a war chariot', but whether the humour here relates to the impossibility of a military tribune doing such a thing, or Testa's unwillingness to get involved in fighting, is unclear.

Trebatius does seem to have been particularly unsuited to military command! He did, as you say, have his uses: on Caesar's use of Testa as a legal advisor (and why would Caesar have wanted legal advice, especially constitutional advice, in the 50s BC? hmmm, let's think...) see Welch, K. (1998), ‘Caesar and his Officers in the Gallic War Commentaries’, in Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments (Welch, K., and Powell, A. eds.), Swansea, 85-110, p101. In any case, Caesar was still a regular provincial governor, and normally held assizes every year, and we know that judges or prefects could be appointed by the governor to preside over assizes in his absence: a further (non military) example of the range of available jobs you mention.

The following year, however, even the unmilitary Trebatius seems to have got his hands dirty: Cicero is glad to hear that Testa has been "sustaining your military service with a brave spirit, and were a gallant and resolute man" (Ad Fam, VII.18 CLXXII). So perhaps even 'civilian' officers like this had the potential to get involved in fighting, if the need arose.

Trebatius actually turned down the offer of a military tribunate. He appears, in the early part of his time with Caesar, to have been sick of camp life. It's this, I think, that Cicero is referring to in the quote above: the hardships of camp life (although how hard they were is open to question) were considered something of a rite of passage - on this, see Brunt (1971 - Italian Manpower) 159; Harris (1979 - War and Imperialism in Republican Rome) 19; Goldsworthy (1996 - The Roman Army at War) 169; and especially Phang, S.E. (2008), Roman Military Service. Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate, Cambridge. 3ff.

Have a look, for example, at the description of the younger Cato's military tribunate in Plutarch's life, chapter 9. The passage is presumably drawn from his friend Munatius' account of the campaign (Valerius Maximus 4.3.2, on which see Hillard, T.W. (1987), ‘Plutarch's Late-Republican Lives: Between the Lines’, Antiochon 21 (1987) 19-48, p32), which makes it an especially valuable account of the reputation a military tribune might seek to gain (and which does not praise his skill or courage in battle).

"He had in his following fifteen slaves, two freedmen, and four friends. These rode on horses, while he himself always went a-foot; and yet he would join each of them in turn and converse with them...he willingly shared the tasks which he imposed upon others, and in his dress, way of living, and conduct on the march, made himself more like a soldier than a commander, while in character, dignity of purpose, and eloquence, he surpassed all those who bore the titles of Imperator and General".

[Nathan Ross]

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).

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! This would be the simplest explanation, although of course we don't know for sure - he could have been a prefect especially deputised to command the detachment of veterans left at the fort. I wouldn't think he was a legate though - previously, the legate Q Cicero is mentioned as having command 'over the legion and camp' (6.32), which would seem to include everyone in it. Where there are dual legates in command (as with Sabinus and Cotta at the same fort the year before), Caesar would surely name them both.

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.

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!

Writing to Porcius Cato while governor of Cilicia, Cicero mentions that "five cohorts—without a legate or a military tribune, and, in fact, actually without a single centurion" had been detached to Philomelium (ad fam XVIII). This suggests that tribunes could be sent out in command of quite sizeable bodies of men, perhaps if suitable legates were not available.

- Nathan

[popularis]

Trebonius was clearly the tribune mentioned previously, who had been appointed over them - but we don't know whether this was only the veteran detachment or the entire foraging party.

Just to be a pedant, but there's no evidence that Trebonius was a military tribune. You do, however, raise an intriguing point. Trebonius must have been in command of the 300 veterans, not the 5 cohorts, which separated themselves from the five cohorts and fought their way back to the camp. It would be very odd if Caesar praised Trebonius (and singling him out here is conspicuous praise enough) if he abandoned most of his command. 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".

I seem to have made a mistake here. The C. Trebonius of 6.33 was sent with three legions and told to return in seven days, at the same time that Caesar himself was due to return to the fort at Aduatuca. However, Caesar hadn't returned to the fort, which was under the command of Q. Cicero and was (at the time of the German assault) lightly defended (6.35). The assault of 2000 Germans severely tested the defences (6.37-38), and the Germans themselves initially thought that the foraging party was the return of the legions (6.39).

None of this makes sense if the C. Trebonius of 6.33 (with three legions) had already returned to the fort with his three legions. Therefore the senatorial C. Trebonius of 6.33 and the equestrian C. Trebonius of 6.40 are not the same man (the rank issue should have tipped me off - sorry for the error!). I'm going to have to do some reading, I think

I still don't, however, think that the C. Trebonius of 6.40 is necessarily the tribune of 6.39. For a start, it makes sense that the veterans - convalescent soldiers from a number of different legions - would have had no tribunes or, necessarily centurions, so someone would have had to have been appointed to their command; secondly it is odd that he would be praised for abandoning most of his command; thirdly, the context suggests that he was only in command of the veterans, and not the whole force.

Blue skies

Tom

[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

[Nathan Ross]

I still don't, however, think that the C. Trebonius of 6.40 is necessarily the tribune of 6.39. For a start, it makes sense that the veterans - convalescent soldiers from a number of different legions - would have had no tribunes or, necessarily centurions, so someone would have had to have been appointed to their command; secondly it is odd that he would be praised for abandoning most of his command; thirdly, the context suggests that he was only in command of the veterans, and not the whole force.

There were centurions amongst the convalescent veterans, in the fort at least - Sextus Baculus is mentioned as one of them. We don't know whether any went out with the foraging party though. True enough, the 'military tribune' mentioned in 6.39 might have fallen with his men, and Trebonius, in charge of the veterans, may have occupied some other position - but if he was a prefect, would he not have been senior to the putative tribune, in which case it was still his responsibility to bring the force back in one piece? As an equestrian in battlefield command of troops, however, tribune would seem the obvious rank for him to be holding - so either there were two tribunes, one of them (Trebonius) in charge of the veterans and the other luckless one in command of the five cohorts, or Trebonius was the sole commander. Either way, we still have a tribune in charge of troops, and the troops looking to him for orders. Caesar can sometimes be a bit shifty in apportioning blame when things go wrong - usually, as here, the untested nature of new recruits is cited. He certainly suggests that Trebonius has made the best of a bad job - perhaps, in fact, it was Quintus Cicero who should have carried the can, for sending out a foraging party into 'enemy' territory unsupported by cavalry, but Caesar didn't want to risk annoying the older brother, Marcus Cicero?

- Nathan

[popularis]

I still don't, however, think that the C. Trebonius of 6.40 is necessarily the tribune of 6.39. For a start, it makes sense that the veterans - convalescent soldiers from a number of different legions - would have had no tribunes or, necessarily centurions, so someone would have had to have been appointed to their command; secondly it is odd that he would be praised for abandoning most of his command; thirdly, the context suggests that he was only in command of the veterans, and not the whole force.

There were centurions amongst the convalescent veterans, in the fort at least - Sextus Baculus is mentioned as one of them. We don't know whether any went out with the foraging party though. True enough, the 'military tribune' mentioned in 6.39 might have fallen with his men, and Trebonius, in charge of the veterans, may have occupied some other position - but if he was a prefect, would he not have been senior to the putative tribune, in which case it was still his responsibility to bring the force back in one piece?

There probably were centurions among the 300 veterans, if only because of the the law of averages! However, what I meant to say was that the veterans would probably not have been formed into centuries (they were, presumably, to be returned to their units when recovered) - which is surely what Caesar is referring to when he says that they were "sub uexillo una mittuntur" (gathered together under one standard) at 6.36 - so it seems to me that the normal chain of command would have been missing, hence the need for a prefect to command them.

The "were prefects senior in rank to military tribunes" question is a very tricky one. Most military prefectures at the time were, clearly, more important than a normal military tribunate by virtue of their greater responsibility. However, a minor prefecture would probably not have been automatically more important than a military tribunate: see, for example, Caesar, B.G. 3.7.2-4, which refers to the "praefectos tribunosque militum" sent to gather corn in 56BC. For me, there's not necessarily a need to assume that there was one overall commander for the foraging party/parties: the whole affair appears to have been pretty badly organised, and given that it involved animals and men spread out over a few miles for a short space of time (a few hours) it might not even have been practical or considered necessary for there to have been an overall commander.

In any case, the crucial passage is: "Hoc veteres non probant milites, quos sub vexillo una profectos docuimus. Itaque inter se cohortati duce Gaio Trebonio, equite Romano, qui eis erat praepositus" (translated by by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn as: 'The veteran soldiers whom we stated to have set out together under a standard, do not approve of this. Therefore encouraging each other, under the conduct of Caius Trebonius, a Roman knight, who had been appointed over them...'). The natural reading of "eis" in this context seems to me to be to associate it with "veteres milites", rather than to the whole force. I also think there is an implied contrast bewteen the luckless anonymous military tribune in charge of the panicked new recruits, and the decisive C. Trebonius and his veterans: the suggestion being that the tribune should have done exactly what Trebonius and his men did, rather than try to hold the high ground at first, then indecisively try to break though - note that the new recruits seem to be arguing amongst themselves as the Germans attack, while the veterans band together and encourage each other to take decisive action.

As an equestrian in battlefield command of troops, however, tribune would seem the obvious rank for him to be holding - so either there were two tribunes, one of them (Trebonius) in charge of the veterans and the other luckless one in command of the five cohorts, or Trebonius was the sole commander.

I have to disagree with the idea that a tribune is the logical rank. This was an ad hoc grouping of soldiers from many units: this is exactly what a prefect would be appointed to command. We can agree to disagree though!

Either way, we still have a tribune in charge of troops, and the troops looking to him for orders.

Absolutely. I'm only niggling away at the "was Trebonius a military tribune" issue because, well, I have a catalogue of junior officers (with another name now), and I want to get his post right

Caesar can sometimes be a bit shifty in apportioning blame when things go wrong - usually, as here, the untested nature of new recruits is cited. He certainly suggests that Trebonius has made the best of a bad job - perhaps, in fact, it was Quintus Cicero who should have carried the can, for sending out a foraging party into 'enemy' territory unsupported by cavalry, but Caesar didn't want to risk annoying the older brother, Marcus Cicero?

A nice suggestion, and one I'm not going to argue with. I think there might be a subtle rebuke at 6.36, where Caesar presents Cicero's reasons for allowing the foraging party, despite, it seems, instructions to the contrary ("Cicero, qui omnes superiores dies praeceptis Caesaris cum summa diligentia milites in castris continuisset"). In addition, 6.34 presents the logic for Caesar's orders, including the possibility of ambush in heavily forested terrain, while 6.37 explicitly mentions that the German attack was concealed by the woods. So I think there is some implied criticism of Cicero, but it could have been much more direct.

[Nathan Ross]

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:

Yes, that does seem right - either the translation you provided is superior to mine, or I'm just paying more attention now! It does look like the whole of the five cohorts gave up their stand on the hill and made the dash for the fort though ("But those who had taken their stand upon the eminence... had descended into an unfavorable situation") - the centurions went with them, perhaps as a vanguard to 'dislodge' the enemy occupying the ground before the fort, and died fighting to protect their men as they went.

I think it was Cicero who once praised the clarity and precision of Caesar's prose style - "Like a naked figure standing in the sunlight", or something like. So many of these passages appear very muddled though - probably a fault of the translation? I still haven't worked out why his tenses are all over the place either!

- Nathan

[Sean Manning]

While I haven't checked the Latin, I think Caesar is using the historical present in that passage. Latin authors often describe past events in the present tense to make it seem as if the events are happening right before the reader. But they don't always convert every verb in a sentence from the perfect to the historical present, just the most dramatic ones. It looks strange in translation because we don't use the same device in English.

[Nathan Ross]

Latin authors often describe past events in the present tense to make it seem as if the events are happening right before the reader. But they don't always convert every verb in a sentence from the perfect to the historical present, just the most dramatic ones.

Ah, that would explain it! Thanks Sean.