Roman ranks Help

[Graham Sumner]

I think that most of us would agree that the Roman Army whilst being so advanced in many ways is nevertheless quite different to a modern army.

However like a modern army the Roman Army did have a large range of specialist troops immunes and other officers including many grades of centurion rank.

In modern times such professions and ranks would be indicated in someway so that everyone knows who everyone is. Badges exist that indicate what specialist function a soldier does, the sergeants have stripes etc.. These badges of rank and status not only help to identify who everyone is and what everyone does but of course are also badges of merit and something to show off, not only to other soldiers but to family members too.

There are hints the Romans may have done the same. The third century Historia Augusta for example mentions that Aurelian added stripes to soldiers tunics if they had awards or gave more stripes to those who already had some, up to five stripes. Presumably this is the sort of thing we can see on the tunics of the Piazza Armerina mosaics. There are also several examples of military belt fittings which show off the Beneficiarius lance head motif.

In the second century a soldier writes that now that he has become an immunes he can sit around all day and not break stones like the other soldiers. How would this be possible unless there was some obvious way that would let everyone else know that he was entitled to do such a thing? Something more than just wearing a clean tunic surely?

On the battlefield it is probably not important that a general knows where his librarians are. However in camp it would be and equally it would be important that others knew who they were and that they themselves would be keen to show off this status. Surely something more than just picking up a wax tablet or a scroll case!

I am intrigued to hear what others think, in particular those RAT members with military experience. Is it possible to get by, by bluffing or does everyone else in camp know each other by sight alone and know what everyone else does and what rank they are? Any suggestions for what the Romans may have done in these circumstances?

I am thinking of the scene in the film 'Centurion' when the dispatch rider arrives in camp and asks a scruffy soldier where the general is! {yes this is Hollywood the answer would surely be, in the large tent in the middle of the camp!! :-D ) Of course the big joke is, is that the scruffy soldier is in fact the General! The poor dispatch rider was also probably totally confused by all the senior centurions who along with the general are equally scruffy and barely distinguishable from their men. Equally no one asks for proof that the DR is who he say's he is! :dizzy: However you get the point.

Thanks for any input.

Graham.

[Vindex]

With British military experience, I would observe the following:

1) All distinguishing indications of rank or specialisation are indeed visual. This is not necessarily at a great distance, but once seen, never forgotten (particularly PTIs in the modern military). I have always assumed that within a Legion, soldiers would know which cohort/century/contubernium their colleagues belonged to. This could be as subtle as a different facing crest/sword worn on a different side, to coloured neckerchiefs

2) In competing ranks, soldiers are very aware of seniority; who has done what, where they are in the pecking order/promotion stakes etc. This translates to knowledge of equivalent ranks in different organisations so in a Roman Legion, I have also assumed that after the Senior Centurion, the next senior man was not necessarily centurion of the second century in the First Cohort because when casualties were taken, how could you constantly change the centurion from his century? It would be far too disruptive to a fighting unit (particularly on campaign when casualties could be expected to be high.

3) Just as a centurion would know who was immediately above and below him, his optio would know too.

4) Any rank or specialisation which gives privileges or, better still, exemptions from duty are greatly sought after and can be lucrative in many various ways for those who can grant the privileges.

5) Soldiers like shiney things. ANY shiney thing (I sound like Cat in Red Dwarf). Shiney things are collected even if they don't really have a use. So a shiney thing which gives you a rank or precedence is also going to be sought after - phalera, armillae, even a signet ring or - as recently brought up elsewhere - the high percentage of cameo rings on military sites.

I'm sure I'll think of some more...

[Graham Sumner]

Thanks Moi

I am thinking more in terms of the 'undress' uniform if you like rather than 'battle dress'.

The idea that naval personnel or legions raised from the fleet might have worn blue focale was raised by Nick Fuentes many years ago. Unfortunately we have very little evidence on scarf colour and we do not appear to see them when armour is not worn, although they may be worn under the paenula cloak..

So for example how could you tell the difference between a hydraularius a horrearius and a horologiariius!!! :unsure: It might not be important in the strategic sense but it might have been important perhaps to those guys. Or based on personal experience do you (or anyone else) think it need not be important to be able to tell the difference?

The belt fittings I mentioned above would certainly fit into your category 5, although once more there are very few examples we have to work with and again even in that instance there were different grades of beneficarii

Equally what happens when new people arrive or are transferred etc... :errr: Does everyone just have to learn very quickly as you mention?

Graham.

[Vindex]

I am thinking more in terms of the 'undress' uniform if you like rather than 'battle dress'. .

Was there an undress uniform? Or was it just take off the armour, subarmalis and weapons? How many could afford more than one or two "uniform" tunics?

The idea that naval personnel or legions raised from the fleet might have worn blue focale was raised by Nick Fuentes many years ago. Unfortunately we have very little evidence on scarf colour and we do not appear to see them when armour is not worn, although they may be worn under the paenula cloak.. .

If there is no evidence for blue then one assumes it is a supposition because either a) our navies wear blue (except for hotter countries like Japan, and then the British navy has tropical dress too) b) they are on the sea so they wear blue, although green would perhaps be better. The main supposition here is that changing the colour of the tunic makes a definition of role.

So for example how could you tell the difference between a hydraularius a horrearius and a horologiariius!!! :unsure: It might not be important in the strategic sense but it might have been important perhaps to those guys. Or based on personal experience do you (or anyone else) think it need not be important to be able to tell the difference? .

There is an assumption that they want to be noticed, and I think, like you, that the military brain would want to be recognised for their experience/specialism. For example, in the British Army, a qualified radio operator wears (wore?!) a small badge of crossed flags with his rank on the left arm. When he became an Advanced signaller (which brought no more pay), the badge moved to the left wrist. It was only noticeable when jumpers were worn, but on seeing it, one knew exactly what that person could and could not do as the standard of Basic and Advanced signaller was known to everyone. (Verbal as well as technical skills). Perhaps stripes were used. We know it is a recognition sign due to the broad and narrow stripes worn by different classes. I think it is a safe assumption that it was transferred to the military but perhaps not around the hem, but why not the sleeve? Perhaps the navy wore wavy stripes on their sleeves :razz:?

The belt fittings I mentioned above would certainly fit into your category 5, although once more there are very few examples we have to work with and again even in that instance there were different grades of beneficarii .

Well, now we get into one of my wild ideas. I view the military belt as similar to the medal ribbons on a modern soldier’s parade uniform (No1 or No2 depending on your Service). The latter gives an instant statement of the combat experience of the wearer and, in most cases within the British Army, brings with it a level of respect. Special valour awards – VC and GC etc – take precedence over all other operational medals and they are also instantly recognisable. In the same way, I believe the soldier’s belt is a testament to their combat experience in so far as they have earned enough from their campaigns to afford silvered, niello etc belt plates. It is just as much a statement to the observer as a row of medal ribbons. This refers to the rank and file, of course (including Centurions) and not those of a class who could afford to buy the decoration as a matter of course. Their expression of wealth, I believe, comes in the quality of their clothing.

Equally what happens when new people arrive or are transferred etc... :errr: Does everyone just have to learn very quickly as you mention? Graham.

I think you learn very quickly particularly if they are transferred. That means they are either VERY good and have been brought in on promotion, or to sort a problem out, or they are very BAD or have a problem which could not be sorted in the previous unit; either way you’d want to keep an eye on them.

[PhilusEstilius]

I have to say from my military experience before becoming an NCO if one walks around all day with a piece of paper in the hand no one eppears to challenge you ( ie a chit or chitty )
Then when one becomes an NCO and is accused of being late by a higher rank the answer has to be that an NCO is never late but has simply become delayed, it is only the urks that are late but always do have a chit handy at all times.

[Vindex]

Bryan - I assume you also said you were geographically embarassed as opposed to lost?;-)

[Renatus]

I am thinking more in terms of the 'undress' uniform if you like rather than 'battle dress'. .

Was there an undress uniform? Or was it just take off the armour, subarmalis and weapons? How many could afford more than one or two "uniform" tunics?

I think that this may be what Graham was thinking of when he mentioned 'undress' uniform:

[attachment=10213]CamomileStreetSoldier.jpg[/attachment]

[PhilusEstilius]

This garment could be undress uniform but then again it could also be the garment that I believe most Roman soldiers would have had to keep the rain off their armour in wet weather.
As we can see he is wearing his sword and has his apron belt so we might well assume that he could also be wearing armour under this garment.

[Renatus]

As we can see he is wearing his sword and has his apron belt so we might well assume that he could also be wearing armour under this garment.

The garment (paenula) is hitched up on the right well above waist level. If he were wearing armour, it would be visible.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

There are plenty of other depiction's which just show soldiers in cloaks and tunics but no armour or helmets. They do have sword, dagger and belts and sometimes carry a shield or a spear. Others have the wax tablets.

There are also documents and letters which indicate soldiers had camp dress or tunics for dining and specially whitened clothing for parades, even possibly red clothing for battle. The Vindolanda tablets also mention cloaks, undercloaks and overcloaks. The terms 'dress', 'undress' and 'battle dress' are probably too modern but they are convenient and it does indicate that Roman soldiers had more items of clothing than what the modern re-enactor probably would have.

However this is straying a bit from the original theme.

I really wanted to know, if a large number of men in a century had different ranks and tasks from the ordinary soldier would it be important that this was indicated in some visual way, as it would be in modern armies? More so in camp and other duties away from the battlefield.

In the example above, the sculptor or his client, clearly felt it was important to show off one apron strap at least, as well as the sword and wax tablets. It is also possible that originally when the monument was painted as this soldier was clearly a bit above the ordinary, the clothing colour too might have reflected his slightly elevated status. So he might have had a coloured cloak and scarf and his tunic could well have been white.

Thanks for all the comments so far.

Graham.

[Walhaz]

I'm not sure how much credence I would lend to the idea that immunes had a sort of visual rank insignia or other identification that picked them out from the regular miles. I mean, I can certainly agree that it might be something that the Roman army did (such identifiers are very useful), but we have a great many representations of Roman soldiers, many of them who proudly referred to their immunis status on their tombstones, but despite this visual evidence we still don't see ranks/identifiers for even optios, really, much less insignia identifying immunes from miles.

As for how easy it would be to bluff your way through a legion camp pretending to be an immunis, I think you would be soon found out. For one-legion camps, that's around 4-5000 troops, possibly more. True, the soldiers of Cohort II might not know the clerk for Cohort X by sight, but it's a good bet that the centurions of each cohort would know who the clerks and other immunes were from the other cohorts, and certainly the immunes would know one another. So if you were pretending to be an immunis trying to go somewhere or do something not normally allowed for regular miles, you would certainly be accosted by someone (centurion/optio/immunis) who would know that you were not what you claimed.

After all, 5000 is not really a huge number of people, considering how much time they all spent in the same camp. It is similar in number to a modern US army brigade. An NCO in a modern battalion might not know all the other NCOs in the same brigade, but there are a lot more NCOs in a modern brigade than centurions/optios in a legion. And while there may have been quite a few immunes and beneficarii in a legion, I just can't see someone bluffing their way through such a (relatively) small and close-knit military group. Ordinary soldiers in a modern brigade don't know every other soldier in the brigade by sight, but they have a rough idea of who is supposed to be where. If they saw someone unfamiliar doing something odd in their brigade area, they would almost invariably report it.

On a large modern post you can get away with quite a bit (especially if you're carrying a clipboard like PhilusEstilius mentioned ) but that's because there are a lot of people on a modern military post from many different units, and NCOs and soldiers get tasked with all kinds of weird things to do; however, the clipboard thing only works if no one has a reason to ask you a question. The ruse rapidly falls apart if you try to go somewhere you're not supposed to go, or try to get information from someone who is marginally competent.

Note: I am in no way attempting to equate centurions or optios with modern NCOs, or immunes/beneficarii with modern NCOs, nor am I trying to equate a Roman legion with a modern brigade. I only mentioned modern military structures in reply to the original post, and to compare (rough) unit sizes as a template by which we might decipher how well individuals would know each other by sight in such a sized unit.

[Timus]

That and the fact that the regular miles would be expected to show up to some work details and if they failed to do so, whoever was in charge of the work detail would probably know about it one way or another and the sanction would probably be quite different and more painful than what we're used to with modern armies.

I don't think the need for badges or the likes was or even is that bad. Some modern armies keep there everyday uniforms fairly clean of "bling" for what's worth.

[Graham Sumner]

Thanks Nate

This is exactly the type of input I am after.

"On a large modern post you can get away with quite a bit (especially if you're carrying a clipboard like PhilusEstilius mentioned "

.......or a wax tablet perhaps!

In the US army of the late nineteenth century obviously a much smaller force than today or even the Roman army it seemed every branch had a different colour badge or range of badges indicating their role. It is a pity we do not have anything similar for the Roman army!

["b]we have a great many representations of Roman soldiers, many of them who proudly referred to their immunis status on their tombstones, but despite this visual evidence we still don't see ranks/identifiers for even optios, really, much less insignia identifying immunes from miles.
"[/b]

However I believe there may indeed be some evidence and I am wondering therefore how vital these badges or visual aids are within the forces.

Thanks again.

Sadly a picture I attached is not loading?

Graham.

[66kbm]

Hi all,
Just a quick idea I have....I know that Armilla were awarded for bravery but.could something along the lines of these been worn, all the time, both in barracks and on the battlefield? Maybe the design on them stated the rank/status/unit, ie artillery, clerks etc etc. It would be very visible worn on the wrist and easy to identify the individuals concerned.
Kevin..

[A_Volpe]

For some time now my thinking/personal theory is that the Romans may not have had any special indications outside of Dona, Armillae and other awards/decorations. For the First century AD, at least.

What I think might be going on is that because these men within a Legion, for the most part, tend to stay cohesive and together
for nearly two decades, in close proximity, regular training and duties/details, etc, that they quickly get to know each other well, and that they can visually recognize each other while being witness to each other's development and [promotion].

We have the Egyptian records that some entire [nomes] villages and areas were recruited into the army (if be it, Auxiliary), as well as having many of those veterans retiring into "veteran villages", so the cohesion and camaraderie stays firm even after military service.

We have the reference that in the Republic, the Optio was chosen by the Centurion, and seems to have been a tradition carried just into the start of the 1st century, but that it also tends to put that Optio on the track of promotion into the 'officer corps' dare I use the term.

Speaking of Optio, we have the reference of the Optio in Leg III Cyrenaica (although the name escapes me at the moment) who's Citizenship is questioned, and IIRC, several fellow soldiers come to his aid and offer their confirmation that he was a citizen.

In contrast, at the onset of the American Revolutionary War, the Massachusetts units were at first shocked and dismayed at the idea of a "foreigner" from Virginia colony, this Washington dude, announces himself as General, removing Ward from the high command. Massachusetts militia companies were noted in many of the 18th and 19th century wars for voting their commander rather than have a commander appointed or commissioned to them, which was a unique phenomenon. (although noted this is [State] militia as opposed to 'Federal' armies)

I seem to remember coming across a reference (although it may be modern and unsupported) that even Centurions tended to be "voted" by their men, and were for the most part, highly regarded and respected. There is of course the infamous "Hand Me Another" Centurion but we all know what happened to him. He may have been a unique example, which is why he may have ended up in the history books and not the boring every-day centurion. I've been told (in a lecture) that an Auxiliary's diploma lists the commanders of his unit, and that the soldier's own son was named after the centurion (I want to say the soldier's name was Papas Killas?)

On a side note, that reference to Aurelian may be a one-time incident that only he did. There certainly doesn't seem to be any indications of that happening before, and (correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't become "standard practice" afterwards either. I'm not aware of multiple-striped tunics in 5th century or later context? They seem to switch to the Applique and large round shoulder emblazons. (sorry I forget the more common term…I tend to focus on the 1st century not later empire)

Fashions tend to be regionally influenced. U.S. soldiers in WW2 Europe, to the best of my knowledge, wore slightly different items and clothing compared to Pacific forces, and both went through changes from '41 vs '45. In comparison we have the references that the Germanic Legions under Vittelius looked "foreign and barbaric" (paraphrased) to Romans in Rome from what they thought "proper" Legionaries ought to look like, and that whole thing didn't go over well anyway. Although that'd edging off topic.

IF that's all true, then it seems to indicate that the soldiers not only recognized and promoted "from within" but that they all knew each other personally and would be able to recognize them visually. (and I can only image rumors spread like wildfire, and secrets can't be held for too long) , they seemed to know each other well enough that they earned reputations and recognition. Caesar of course mentioning Pullo and Verenus competing with each other.

Since the whole unit is in close proximity in camp or garrison for years, it won't take long for soldiers to recognize their commanders even in battle, both from their positions in formation but also from all the "bling" they are authorized to wear and/or are rewarded to them to wear (like a Signifer).

That seems to parallel a very long standing military tradition were officers and command tend to wear different clothing and "bling" as well as being in a specific place in formation (or even on the deck of a ship). Even in formation position alone it's sometimes possible to identify who's who in the line (specifically referencing 19th century fashions). You're always going to have your sergeant over here, they're always going to be within [shouting] distance to the lieutenant over there, who can then relay orders from commend up there, etc etc. But then add on things like helmet crests and Dona, which just adds to visual cues.

We also. as has been mentioned by others, that those who are awarded positions (like Immunis) are sometimes more than happy to brag about it and be proud of it, likely both in and out of camp. (and if it's true for Romans that Legend and Reputation can be everything….)

so, 'in conclusion' I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I don't think it's -just- visual cues (Dona, crests, clothing, shoes, formation positioning, etc), I think the soldiers themselves were able to recognize the individuals because they knew who they were, where they came from, on a personal level. I think that helps support the notion that while the rank structure appears to be totally different and incomparable to our modern notions of rank-and-file, even pay-grades, the Legions were their own social groups and centers with a unique culture and daily procedure; it was not comprised of "faceless" clerks and paper-pushers nor officers vs soldiers.