Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman NCO\'s
#1
What exactly were the specific functions of the Legion NCOs? Generally around the Napoleonic period, I've heard, NCOs were responsible for the structure of the formations, making sure everyone was in their place and doing their job almost like the tactical job of a Soviet commissar. Even carried pistols to deal with those who broke ranks. Modern NCOs are basically officers given authority without Congressional rubber stamping in charge of smaller units as well as being in charge of the training of the private soldiers and seeing to some logistical details. Were Roman sergeants and corporals invested with as much authority and responsibility as today's? <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
Roman command structure did not function in the same way that modern Officer/NCO/enlisted function. Don't buy into the books that call such and such a rank a Colonel or General or Major or Sergeant, it just doesn't work like that, from the available records and writings.<br>
<br>
The structures also varied by time period and unit type.<br>
<br>
Basically you had trainees, regular pay soldiers, regular pay soldiers immune from certain details, and various groups of specialists who received more than regular pay. None of these seem to be in the "chain of command" with the possible exception of the "optio" for limited periods. The "optio" is the company first sergeant and company clerk and other duties rolled into one, and could become an "officer". We conjecture other duties for other "positions" some with more certainty than others. We know one highly paid soldier was keeper of the standard, and another was the keeper of the password, and we think we know some of their other duties, but did they command troops? Interesting question, someone else will know more than I do.<br>
<br>
Your "officer" chain of command changed over time! some depends on whether you speak of Republican or Imperial times, obviously.<br>
<br>
At the century level, was the centurion, who is an officer. He was either voted into office, raised from the ranks, or directly given the post through patronage, or as a transfer from another unit. There may be a hierarchy of promotions in the centurionate, at various times, but again, there is little consensus as to the whole of Roman military history. Several good books offer currently accepted theories. They are mentioned in other threads.<br>
<br>
The Senior centurion in a legion was called Prime Pilus, He is almost similar to a colonel, but not exactly, because he is a career professional officer, but he is commanded by political appointees, who may have less experience.<br>
<br>
Tribunes , political, some with little experience, (almost like lieutenants), but able to command large detachments at the whim of the Legate, others with lots of experience, commanding in the absence of the Legate or commanding separate detachments, like the inexperienced ones! We can sometimes identify them by their family connections, later career record, or some terms that identify their "class".<br>
<br>
Legates were commanding legions at some times in Roman history, other times it was a consul or pro-consul! Imperial Legates had a great deal of experience OR good political connections OR lots of money OR married well... some were good commanders with military experience and know how, others didn't seem have much military experience. They were all politicians and the post of legate was a political appointment, you could look at them as senator/generals but maybe they had been put in charge of a combat arms "division" after being a really good administrative type or after being a successful governor. The Legate's camp commander was an ex-prime Pilus, just to add more confusion!<br>
<br>
This is really basic, but you can see it doesn't match the officer/NCO corps structures of today, at least in Europe or North America, or other Europeanized countries.<br>
<br>
The centurion had plenty of authority, he carried a vine staff and used it often. The optio carries a big stick too, but it may not have been for punishment! The rest of the folks may have worked more like the old Soviet military, with the Officers telling people where to be, when and what to do, and the older troops seeing that the newer troops did the work or else. If you were tough you would rise to the top, and join the people who didn't work as hard, sort of a unofficial hierarchy of brutality. The Romans would have seen nothing wrong with this, as long as the job got done, roads were built, latrines were clean and battles were won. <p>"Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, 1987</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ucaiusfabius.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Caius Fabius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROMANISROMANORVM/files/C%20Fabius%201988b.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 9/8/02 4:48:13 am<br></i>
Caius Fabius Maior
Charles Foxtrot
moderator, Roman Army Talk
link to the rules for posting
[url:2zv11pbx]http://romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=22853[/url]
Reply
#3
Salve!<br>
<br>
I didn't really mean for the use of the terms of corporal and sergeant to be as literal as they may sound. From reading other threads on Roman rank structure esp. those dealing with reinactments, I didn't want to try to find more accurate Latin terms that may be in fact inaccurate. I used them more in relation to each other in asking if there was a specific rank structure within the Legions pertaining to the NCOs. It seems as though the heirarchy was a bit more fluid than today (realizing, of course, that the rank structure of the late 20th cent./early 21st cent. of the U.S. Army is not the same as it was 100 yrs ago). Takes longer to live history than to read about it. It just seems like there was no hard and fast doctrine regarding duties of many of the ranks, posts, and positions within the army.<br>
<br>
--Of course, there was no Pentagon to think-tank white papers and establish policies as far as I know!-- <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Salve,<br>
<br>
<br>
In the republican period there was not yet the varied hierarchy that eventually developed in the imperial army. Only a limited number of functions is known, among them those of standardbearer and rearrank officer (<i> optio]/i]/<i> our</i></i>. The centurions at this date received only twice the rate of the rankers and no difference in pay is attested for the standardbearers and rearrank officers. It was only in the long service force instituted by Augustus that gradually a hierarchy developed that comprised catgeories similar to modern non commissioned officers.<br>
<br>
The lowest grade in the imperial army was the recruit, <i> tiro</i>, who was not yet accepted as a soldier and received no pay, presumably living of his <i> viaticum</i>, travelling allowance/enlistment bounty. Next were the common soldiers, called <i> milites gregales</i> or - <i> gregarii</i>, herd animals. Alternatively they could be termed <i> simplares</i>, soldiers on basic pay, or <i> munifices</i>, men liable to fatigues. Distinguished from their comrades not by higher pay, but by the privilege of exemption from fatigue duties were the <i> opera vacantes</i> or <i> immunes</i> (a term similar in origin would be modern German <i> Gefreiter</i>). These comprised specialists of various kinds whose special responsibilities and duties excused them the less desirable duties. Though no extra pay was involved the fact that officers used to be bribed to escape <i> munera</i> an <i> immunis</i> would have enjoyed some financial gain from his position. Above these categories were the <i> sesquiplicarii</i>, men on basic pay and a half, and <i> duplicarii</i>, men on double basic pay. The <i> triplicarius</i>, soldier on three times basic pay, may have existed only for a limited time, though cavalry pay may have been granted to make extra distinctions in pay. These higher paid individuals were eventually termed <i> principales</i>. Though at first the term appears to have included the <i> immunes</i> as well, it seems that the meaning was later on narrowed down. The positions and functions associated with pay grades are disputed as only in a few cases a direct link between function and pay is directly attested. However career inscriptions listing a succession of military posts, presumed to indicate either equal or superior rank, are used to argue for assigning particular functions to certain pay grades. This is not yet an exact science however and remains the subject of debate pending discovery and publication of more enlightening source material.<br>
<br>
Main references of interest:<br>
<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'Paygrades and ranks below the centurionate' in: <i> Journal of Roman Studies[/link] 61 (1971) 130-135.<br>
Breeze, D.J., 'The career structure below the centurionate during the principate' in: <i> Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen </i></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> Bonner Jahrbücher</i> 174 (1974), 245-292.<br>
<br>
Also check the threads on hierarchy in the index.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: