Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rank, function and pay scales
#1
Salve,<br>
<br>
Much of Roman army studies have concentrated on military careers, studying various postings and their relation to each other. Modern studies often assign rank to functions and salary scales to match in a manner reminiscent of modern military practice. To what extent however is a differentiation required between function and rank, reflected in pay scales? For some functions, eg <i> exercitator</i> or cavalry instructor, inscriptions are found with men of the rank of <i> centurio</i>, <i> decurio</i> and <i> optio</i> (in the latter case likely a <i> duplicarius</i>).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
Ave Sander,<br>
<br>
At the risk of adding to the confusion, I'm going to use a modern military paradigm to help illustrate my point. We are dealing with issues of rank, function and pay scale. Let's take a navy lieutanant(LT)...this LT can be a division officer, a department officer, a commanding officer or executive officer of a smaller command, a pilot, a SEAL or merely on the staff of an admiral. This LT's functions, responsibilities, indeed, his/her's accountabilities will change in accordance with any of these duties, as will the pay, but the rank stays the same untill promotion.<br>
In my opinion, an Optio is an Optio no matter where he is sent and what duties he performs. If he is an Optio in the military hospital then his function has changed and, perhaps, his pay as well, and MAY not even know the first thing about treating and dressing a wound, or what to do about "the inflamation of the eyes." He would merely be filling an office. In short, rank is portable, office is not. Pay depends on office or function within that office.<br>
I hope I was clear enough. I was starting to confuse myself! E EM <p>...or not.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=thecaesariansection>The Caesarian Section</A> at: 2/10/01 11:08:52 am<br></i>
Reply
#3
Salve,<br>
<br>
Confusion abounds concerning grades, ranks, pay scales and fuctions and the uncertainty is likely to be greater than acknowledged in some modern publications. One of the problems is that <i> optio</i>, 'chosen man', was apparently not only used to designate the <i> duplicarius</i> functioning as rearrank officer(<i> ouragos</i>), but also given to other soldiers with various functions, some of which are not <i> duplicarii</i>, but rather rankers with a special function. It thus seems not to be a precisely defined rank designation.<br>
<br>
This is comparable to the modern differences between the naval rank of lieutenant and captain and the army/marine corps rank of lieutenant and captain (same differences apply to the Netherlands rank structure and US armed forces). A navy lieutenant is of comparable rank to an army captain and outranks the army lieutenant, and a navy captain is equivalent in rank to an army colonel, outranking an army captain. The same title can thus be applied to soldiers of different rank. <i> Optio</i> similarily does not seem to be equivalent to a specific rank. A chosen man need not necessarily have been a <i> duplicarius</i>, but could also be a <i> simplaris</i>. In the latter case, it might be an <i> immunis</i>, it might be not, it might be an <i> immunis perpetuus</i>, it might be not. This is all very confusing to establish a systematic, logical and coherent table of career and promotion structure.<br>
<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'Paygrades and ranks below the centurionate' in: <i> JRS</i> 61 (1971) 130-135.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The career structure below the centurionate during the principate' in: <i> ANRW</i> II-1 (Berlin-New York 1974), 435-451.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The organisation of the career structure of the immunes and principales of the Roman army' in: <i> BJ</i> 174 (1974), 245-292.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The ownership of weapons' in: <i> Britannia</i> 7 (1976), 93- 95.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'A note on the use of the titles Optio and Magister below the centurionate during the principate' in: <i> Britannia</i> 7 (1976), 127-133.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Yes, very confusing. I think what needs to be clarified first is the distinction between rank, position (both tactically and administratively), title, pay-grade, function and office. What is standard military nomenclature and what is merely military 'slang' or jargon that may be over-emphasized. <p>...or not.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=thecaesariansection>The Caesarian Section</A> at: 2/10/01 2:35:06 pm<br></i>
Reply
#5
Salve,<br>
<br>
The pay structure seems to be thus divided:<br>
<br>
<i> Simplaris</i> - basic pay (divided between <i> munifex</i> and <i> immunis</i>).<br>
<br>
<i> Sesquiplicarius</i> - basic pay and a half.<br>
<br>
<i> Duplicarius</i> - double basic pay.<br>
<br>
Cavalrymen had the same division as the infantry, but their basic pay was at a higher level to start.<br>
<br>
The category of <i> principales</i> appears to have included both <i> sesquiplicarii</i> and <i> duplicarii</i>. It seems to have been comparable to our category of non-commissioned officers (in Dutch the term would be in direct translation under-officers). The pay grades appear to equate to rank, irreverently the right to have other people do what you just have been told to do yourself.<br>
<br>
A few functions or titles if you like appear not to be bound to strictly one corresponding paygrade or rank. This may be an indication that some of the proposed rank or career structures may be based on some potentially faulty assumptions (title/function always equals certain paygrade/rank, thus when one position was held before the other they must be of equal or higher rank). One wonders now whether all <i> beneficiarii</i> for instance were paid on the same level?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#6
Too what extent di cavalry have to pay for their own beasts fodder, I always assumed that this accounted for their higher rate of pay?<br>
<br>
As to the question of <i> beneficarii</i> it woul seem sensible to suggest that there were different pay grades within the group, if nohting esle those attatched to general staff would presumably have been ealing with greater volume and importance of paperwork than those attatched to the centuries, and would also presumably be those men with more talent. All this is of course speculation on what seems sensible. <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#7
It was standard within the Hellenistic (and also Roman) world that troops received pay and provisions (rations). The latter was paid out in cash rather than the provisions themselves.<br>
<br>
IIRC, cavalry usually received 4 times the provisions of the infantry. In addition to this, the basic cavalry used received 2 to 3 times the pay of a basic infantry.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 2/12/01 2:49:51 pm<br></i>
Regards,

Michael A./MicaByte
Reply
#8
Salve,<br>
<br>
Under the republic legionary horsemen received seven <i> medimnoi</i> (give or take 220-230 kg) of barley and two of wheat a month, allied cavalrymen on the other hand got one and a third <i> medimnos</i> of wheat and five <i> medimnoi</i> barley. Allied troops received these rations for free, Roman citiens on the other hand had these deducted from their pay. Legionary cavalry pay was at this time one drachma a day compared to two obols a day for the legionary foot soldier.<br>
<br>
For imperial troops pay records record <i> hordiaria</i>, barley money, as an expense next to <i> sumtuarium</i>, deduction for ration allowance. Others record <i> faenaria</i>, which is interpreted as either bedding or as fodder. Given the fact that the <i> faenaria</i> expenses are found at the same spot where other pay records have <i> hordiaria</i>, the latter interpretation seems most probable. The Geneva pay records have a substantially smaller amount listed as <i> faenaria</i> than the Masada pay records for <i> hordiaria</i>. Presumably the Geneva troops were infantrymen contributing to the animal fodder of their mule and the Masada pay record involved a cavalryman (he did have lower deductions for footwear, perhaps a sign of the lower rate of wear and tear). If the latter interpretation is correct a soldier spent 16 <i> denarii</i> on fodder compared to 20 on his own food.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<br>
PS The republican fodder allowance was probably used to feed one horse and one mule according to the reasoning by Erdkamp. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/13/01 11:55:22 am<br></i>
Reply
#9
one thing that strikes me is that all the calculations attempt to work out the gross pay of the troops, but your post [Sander]showing different rates of deductions makes me wonder how the net pay differed.<br>
<br>
[actually this had occured to me before but your post perhaps gives some evidence ] <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
Salve,<br>
<br>
You raise an interesting point there. The net pay issue is one thing I have wondered about too. During a class for papyrology I read the prices of food attested in Egypt were remarkably lower than in Italy. This then made me think that the higher praetorian pay may have reflected the higher costs of living, but then I realised that there are no praetorian pay records yet available that might show varying or equal deductions for expenses. There is some evidence that cavalry troops had less deducted for their mounts than the market value of a horse, perhaps troops were subsidized in other respects too. Standard deductions seem to have been used for food. The Masada and Geneva pay records show the same amount (when converted) deducted for the soldier's rations, but different amounts for clothing, equipment and shoes.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: