Becoming a centurion

[Calvo]

There seems to be no general consensus as to the social background of most centurions, and which way was the most common that a soldier became a centurion. In general, there are 4 possible routes:

1. promotion from the ranks. A soldier could be promoted for his fighting skills, courage, years of experience, or personal connections, but in general, it took many years, if not decades

2. promotion from the pretorian guard, as the soldier has already demonstrated his loyalty to the emperor

3. direct commission, most for sons of equestrians or prominent families.

I sometimes wondered what the centurion's most important duties were, if it were in training, discipline, and leading men on the battlefield, I could imagine that the first way would be the most common and the 3rd way the least.
However, if his most important duty were in administrative tasks that required someone with more intellectual skills, then "direct commission" would be more common.

[Thomas Aagaard]

To make one of the problematic parallels to today...

Until 5 years ago most officers In the danish army had one year of service as a private/learning to be sergeants and then one year as a sergeant, before going to the officers school.

Experience with deployments was not common and limited to Bosnia and similar.

(but then 9/11 happened)
A few days ago one class finished and was promotes to first lieutenants... about 50% have had deployments to Iraq/afghanistan as privates or sergeants before becoming officers. In the class that finish next year its 66%.
(a few have done both)

I know the officers school and the army in general is pleased with this mix...
The cadets with no deployments are usually younger and a bit more academic and "by the book" in they way of thinking. And the experienced cadets are off cause a bit older and have the practical knowhow. and that is split between experience as privates and as sergeants.
So the two groups can support each other and the result is that both groups end up becoming better officers than they would otherwise.

So I would guess that type 1 and 3 your mention would be able to learn from each other... and it would make both groups better at both the admin tasks and at the actual leadership stuff.

but logic tells my that it is pretty much a question on when? During a civil war I would think type 1 is more common. In times of relative peace type 3 would become mere common. (if nothing ells by the simple fact that if there is not fighting, it is hard to show courage and do things that gets you promoted)

[Mark Hygate]

I think it's fair to say that there is one element (depending on the timing in the century's history) for the person that is being considered for promotion or appointment that is missing in Desmond's OP - that of a basic literacy and numeracy requirement.

Dear old Polybius well describes the Centurion of the original Early Republican Roman army - selected from amongst the troops by the Tribunes. Given that man would be from the ranks of the more prosperous land owning Farmers and almost definitely would be known from previous military service, then he would neatly fit into Desmond's Type 1. It would not be unreasonable for such men (perhaps prominent citizens even though they were technically Plebeians) to be both literate and numerate - both things being required to successfully manage decent farm holdings.

Post-Marian and the formation of the more permanent legions and those recruited from the poorest classes to fill the ranks, I do not believe much is known of the backgrounds to the Centurions, but being able to do basic ration, 'ammunition' and equipment returns for 83 men would require similar abilities.

Post-Augustan and the introduction of Type 2 & 3, who would already be so skilled, would not alleviate the requirement.

As with so may things, we have no real logistic and administrative manuals for the Romans that I am aware of, but lots of tantalising fragments that can shade our understanding. That said, it wasn't, isn't and won't ever be that 'General's; concentrate on logistics - it's always done by 'those chaps over there'. (That I spent more time on logistics than operations in my own career, naturally shades my views :whistle: )

In short - for Type 1, be they previously an Optio or Signifer, they would almost definitely be required to read, write and do sums at a basic level. Not too much perhaps, as this is one reason I am sure the Tribunes have most often been associated with staff work rather than command duties. That said, it is often assumed that there must also have been 'clerical support staff' available throughout the period. I am convinced that there must have been a 'War Department Bureaucracy' somewhere in Rome.

We do know, from the Vindolanda documents amongst many others, that many soldiers were indeed literate too, but this may apply more to later periods as education spread.

[Nathan Ross]

for Type 1, be they previously an Optio or Signifer, they would almost definitely be required to read, write and do sums at a basic level.

Certainly signifers, as they acted as clerks for the century. The tesserarius, too, would need to know which way up to hold a tablet.

The future emperor Pertinax, according to the Historia Augusta (Pertinax 1.5) started life as a grammar teacher, then applied for a post as centurion via his senatorial patron. He was made cohort prefect instead though - the pay for these positions was apparently the same, but perhaps the prospects were better for centurions. Pertinax went on to distinguish himself in the Parthian campaign of Lucius Verus, so we shouldn't assume that all direct appointees to military command were mere pen-pushers. I believe there are a number of centurions known from inscriptions who were appointed directly ex eques and either died in battle or won military honours.

I am sure the Tribunes have most often been associated with staff work rather than command duties.

Tribunes also had a full admin staff of beneficiarii and cornicularii, so didn't have to do the paperwork themselves. Their duties have been discussed quite a lot, and probably varied between periods and individuals (likewise for centurions, in fact).

We do know, from the Vindolanda documents amongst many others, that many soldiers were indeed literate too, but this may apply more to later periods as education spread.

Somebody suggested recently that the fragments of Virgil found on the tablets, assumed to be from a child's writing lesson, may actually have been by a soldier learning his letters. In this case the soldier would have been an auxiliary, so perhaps it was a good excuse to learn about the glorious mythology of Rome at the same time!

[Timianus]

Presumably, methods 1 & 3 would be accompanied by an appropriate donative to the patron and/or tribune making the commission?

[Calvo]

But according to many sources, centurions also need to lead their troops in combat, and in the day-to-day life, inspire fear and respect among the rank-and-file.
Taking these factors into account, apart from being literate and numerate, he would also need to be a competent swordsman, a firm disciplinarian and someone very familiar with the military mentality.
This way, I often doubt that an 18-year-old equestrian directly commissioned as a centurion would earn the respect of hardened veterans in the 40s with 20 years of soldiering behind them.

[Bryan]

The Roman class system was very stratified and it would be a common occurrence to see older men obey and follow a younger man. A Roman aristocrat would have grown up in a household with many slaves and servants that were forced to obey his every command. The equestrian youth would have sat in their father's meetings with clients and would have seen how to command men from a very young age. A Roman youth from a farming household in the classes of I-V spent his life farming, with only spare time spent training for war by his father or other family members. Maybe in the off season he had time for some hunting near his property. But a Roman aristocratic had the leisure time to do what they wanted as well as the money to afford it. For one seeking a military career, I doubt it would be too hard to spend multiple hours every single day training for war. Additionally, an equestrian youth could afford the best instruction, weaponry and armor available.

I can't remember the source, I will have to look it up, but I remember reading that Caesar preferred his gladiators to be sent to the homes of the nobility to be properly taught how to fight. That is, the noblemen were teaching the gladiators how to fight.

[Sean Manning]

I think it's fair to say that there is one element (depending on the timing in the century's history) for the person that is being considered for promotion or appointment that is missing in Desmond's OP - that of a basic literacy and numeracy requirement.

Dear old Polybius well describes the Centurion of the original Early Republican Roman army - selected from amongst the troops by the Tribunes. Given that man would be from the ranks of the more prosperous land owning Farmers and almost definitely would be known from previous military service, then he would neatly fit into Desmond's Type 1. It would not be unreasonable for such men (perhaps prominent citizens even though they were technically Plebeians) to be both literate and numerate - both things being required to successfully manage decent farm holdings.

...

As with so may things, we have no real logistic and administrative manuals for the Romans that I am aware of, but lots of tantalising fragments that can shade our understanding. That said, it wasn't, isn't and won't ever be that 'General's; concentrate on logistics - it's always done by 'those chaps over there'. (That I spent more time on logistics than operations in my own career, naturally shades my views :whistle: )

Maybe, but the quaestor was pretty important, and many many campaigns took place to secure supplies and money or deny them to the enemy. You talked about how logistics "wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be" the main concern of a general, so what about Robert Bruce in Britain, Wellington in Spain, or MacClellan in the Penninsula?

Arranging the food and money and political support for a campaign could take years, and it was difficult to delegate because much of it depended on the general's personal relationships and contacts. Logistics are also very prominent in technical sources such as Vegetius and Maurice.

But according to many sources, centurions also need to lead their troops in combat, and in the day-to-day life, inspire fear and respect among the rank-and-file.
Taking these factors into account, apart from being literate and numerate, he would also need to be a competent swordsman, a firm disciplinarian and someone very familiar with the military mentality.
This way, I often doubt that an 18-year-old equestrian directly commissioned as a centurion would earn the respect of hardened veterans in the 40s with 20 years of soldiering behind them.

Well, when that eques had been trained since boyhood for leadership, when military society closely resembled civilian, and when that veteran had been trained since childhood to respect equites, it might work better than you think! There are plenty of examples from later societies when experienced people agreed that the one with the highest birth needed to be in charge, even if he was much less qualified than someone else. For a Roman example, consider the career of G. Octavius the future Augustus.

Military experience in a modern army can be useful for understanding ancient warfare, but so many things were different in the ancient world that its important to test one's ideas against the sources.

[Mark Hygate]

.....................
Maybe, but the quaestor was pretty important, and many many campaigns took place to secure supplies and money or deny them to the enemy. You talked about how logistics "wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be" the main concern of a general, so what about Robert Bruce in Britain, Wellington in Spain, or MacClellan in the Penninsula?

Arranging the food and money and political support for a campaign could take years, and it was difficult to delegate because much of it depended on the general's personal relationships and contacts. Logistics are also very prominent in technical sources such as Vegetius and Maurice.....................

Sean, perhaps I should have 'whistled' even louder.....

I am not saying that logistics isn't terribly important (I'm already convinced) and that for a successful campaign is has to and had to happen. But, apart from a few really enlightened types, all really successful general's have entire teams supporting them - we just don't tend to hear much about those people, for logistics is not glamorous.

[Sean Manning]

I agree Mark. It is interesting that as far back as the Amarna Letters, we can see that Pharaoh was in correspondence about supplies with the governors of individual towns before a campaign. We see similar things in Neo-Assyrian times, and when documents reappear in later medieval Europe. But when we have to rely on narratives, we are lucky if the author gives any scraps of information about supplies and organization and recruitment. Talking about battles and sieges and skirmishes is just more exciting than explaining how the general managed to keep his archers supplied with arrows.

I'm not a Roman historian, so I'm curious. What do the sources tell us about the behaviour expected of centurions in the early empire? Polybius 6.24 implies that centurions were usually older, experienced men in the Middle Republic, and they received only twice the pay of a common soldier. I thought that the ratio was more like twenty to one in the early empire.7

McCall`s thoughts on how young aristocrats usually did their ten years as cavalry until the first century BCE, then as staff officers and hangers-on afterwards, are also interesting.

[Mark Hygate]

....................
I'm not a Roman historian, so I'm curious. What do the sources tell us about the behaviour expected of centurions in the early empire? Polybius 6.24 implies that centurions were usually older, experienced men in the Middle Republic, and they received only twice the pay of a common soldier. I thought that the ratio was more like twenty to one in the early empire.7

McCall`s thoughts on how young aristocrats usually did their ten years as cavalry until the first century BCE, then as staff officers and hangers-on afterwards, are also interesting.

It's only a name, but I've tended to think of Polybius' time as 'Early Republic' simply because, apart from Livy's early legion breakdown that otherwise seems difficult to reconcile to his later usages which fit Polybius' numbers much better, let alone connecting backwards or forwards, we really don't have anything much before - and then Late Republic as post-Marian to Augustus - but I only mention that to define the following terms/periods:

- Early Republic (Polybian organisation) - the Centurions are selected from amongst all the 'others' - the other Plebeian 'farmers'. They are 'first amongst equals'. Yes, they would tend to be older as they would require the experiences previously gained as how to fight and move in the legionary formations. 'Paid double' to cover costs, but they were placed 'over' the others to command and lead, but they were not yet an 'officer' class per se.

- Late Republic (post-Marian) - whilst often mentioned and noted for their abilities, I'm not aware of any sources that discuss 'where' and 'how' and 'how much'. Their role in battle isn't changed, but there is a lot of sense in assuming that 'they came from somewhere' (as it could be for Optio's perhaps) when the legions were raised - for someone has to train units from scratch and the division into centuries is the right level to do that

- Empire (post-Augustus) - now it's the permanent army and Centurions are very like an 'officer' class - with prestige and the costs to boot. Whilst I'm very comfortable actually equating the 60 'centurions' in a legion to a 'Sergeant's Mess' in more modern terms, they were the heart and soul of a legion and the ones to make sure stayed loyal - so yes, a much greater difference in pay. In battle, however, the job is the same.

I'm not particularly aware of the 'McCall' reference, I'm afraid, but yes - Equestrians (and hence the class and name associations) were required to serve as the Early Republic's cavalry arm. During the Late Republic they seem not to be much mentioned, but all the General's would have needed some sort of staff and Roman liaison officers were often attached to 'auxiliary' units (such as the Celtic, Spanish or Germanic cavalry) to help 'translate' Roman requirements - whilst a few could be family members and associates (and thus also young Patricians), I am sure many would have been younger Equestrians seeking patronage, fame and glory.

By the empire you have the whole Equestrian military service structure - including some Centurions as above indeed - and probably best considered as a true 'officer class'. Later on even trusted more than social-climbing avaricious Patrician-types!

[Bryan]

I think the story of Lucius Siccius Dentatus, as told by Dionysius of Halicarnassus is a good indication that uncommon bravery was a deciding factor when being chosen as a centurion.

"This is the fortieth year that I have been make gate campaigns for my country, and the thirtieth that I have continued to hold some military command, sometimes over a cohort and sometimes over a whole legion, beginning with the consulship of Gaius Aquillius and Titus Siccius, to whom the senate committed the conduct of the war against the Volscians. I was then twenty-seven years of age and in rank I was still under a centurion. When a severe battle occurred and a rout, the commander of the cohort had fallen, and the standards were in the hands of the enemy, I alone, exposing myself in behalf of all, recovered the standards for the cohort, repulsed the enemy, and was clearly the one who saved the centurions from incurring everlasting disgrace — which would have rendered the rest of their lives more bitter than death — as both they themselves acknowledged, by crowning me with a golden crown, and Siccius the consul bore witness, by appointing me commander of the cohort." (10, 36)

I am wondering if anyone has a better translation of this passage.

[Nathan Ross]

I am wondering if anyone has a better translation of this passage.

I certainly hope so - it's very interesting. Particularly this business of commanding cohorts - I thought we'd decided a while back that cohorts had no commanders? Mind you, this is very early - 5th C BC? - so things might have been different then...

[Sean Manning]

I'm not particularly aware of the 'McCall' reference, I'm afraid, but yes - Equestrians (and hence the class and name associations) were required to serve as the Early Republic's cavalry arm. During the Late Republic they seem not to be much mentioned, but all the General's would have needed some sort of staff and Roman liaison officers were often attached to 'auxiliary' units (such as the Celtic, Spanish or Germanic cavalry) to help 'translate' Roman requirements - whilst a few could be family members and associates (and thus also young Patricians), I am sure many would have been younger Equestrians seeking patronage, fame and glory.

I was thinking of The Cavalry of the Roman Republic (link). McCall argues that the idea that the Romans were not interested in cavalry, or were ineffective as cavalry, is incorrect, and that service as cavalry troopers was the key way in which wealthy Romans prepared for a business and political career as young men. Then oratory and business became more attractive than conspicuous bravery and glorious scars.

I was defining Middle Republic as from the Second Punic War to just before the Gracchi. I don't think it matters as long as people are clear on what they mean. All periods are arbitrary, and all that.

[Mark Hygate]

Sean,

I which case the 'Cavalry of the Republic' that McCall is referring to is the period I called 'Early Republic' (where the legion structure is shown by Polybius), but where the Equestrian class/members of Rome supplied their own horses and fought as the (normally) 300 cavalry attached to each Roman legion.

As opposed to the 'Late Republic' (post-Marian) times where the Roman's cavalry seems to have been supplied by their allies, be it Celtic, Spanish or Germanic.