Sander van Dorst.

[roman wargamer]

if the tombstone quoted by Northern Neil dates from the 3rd century onwards, the name of the Syrian in question --

"M. Aurelius Alexander" -- indicates that, far from having been "adopted" into a noble Roman family, he (or an earlier family member) received that Roman name as a result of having been granted citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana, when freeborn subjects throughout the Roman empire adopted the nomen gentilicium of "Aurelius"

out of gratitude to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

 

Again, Roman adoption did not quite work the way you imagine.

-- Nephele

is your stand "as a result of having been granted citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana"

is enough as citizen to become prefecti?

 

how about the Roman cursus honorum tradition?

that dictate the nobiles young sons upward mobility in military and political ladder.

 

to be a 500 men cavalry officer as prefecti, you must be a noble patres or plebes.

 

where did your citizen get his nobiles?, to become prefecti.

[roman wargamer]

Secondly, changes in social status are circumstantial and have absolutely nothing to do with the 'Senate Censor'.

the power of patrician censor

 

census- the listing of Roman citizen for tax and military service purposes

regimen morum- investigating the morals of the members of the class citizen

recognitio- the power to grants new upward class status to men of virtue

 

A Handbook of Universal History, William H. Tillinghast

 

The power to grant new upward class status? But was that an exclusive right? In any case, the censor is only formalising an existing situation. If a man reaches the necessary qualification to be admitted to the senate, then the cenors role makkes sense, as he's confirming this mans achievement and making it clear to the senate that he has become a member of their select club. The only reason this power existed was because the numbers in the senate were limited, in order to maintain status and privilege. I think you'll find the censors power to elevate a man were done as a confirmation, not as an executive decision, and that he would not concern himself with lesser ranks overly. In any case, there were plenty of romans pretending to be something they weren't. Slaves pretended to be free men, free men pretended to be slaves. Certainly if caught these people were hauled in front of a magistrate, but did the censor worry about that? He was there as a senate membership auditor. Further, he had no jurisdiction of the roman military as far as I can see, and military service was one way to advance your status. A man promoted from the ranks to centurion was already operating in a role considered worthy of equites. The censor had no involvement in that.

you are talking out of knowledge!!

the censor take responsibility only on the class citizen, who are qualified for military service.

 

for your information:

the confirmation as you say to appoint or become a senator was called lectio senatus, Caldrail,

not the recognitio., that i mention that grant new upward class status to men of virtue

 

lectio senatus-the power to enroll new senator

 

An Encyclopaedia of World History

William L. Langer, Harvard University

 

A man promoted from the ranks to centurion was already operating in a role considered worthy of equites.

The censor had no involvement in that.

 

further;

 

recognitio equites- the power to grant equites class status to centuriones of virtue

 

An Encyclopaedia of World History

William L. Langer, Harvard University

 

i hope it will help you to become better informed in the future.

[Nephele]

if the tombstone quoted by Northern Neil dates from the 3rd century onwards, the name of the Syrian in question --

"M. Aurelius Alexander" -- indicates that, far from having been "adopted" into a noble Roman family, he (or an earlier family member) received that Roman name as a result of having been granted citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana, when freeborn subjects throughout the Roman empire adopted the nomen gentilicium of "Aurelius"

out of gratitude to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

 

Again, Roman adoption did not quite work the way you imagine.

-- Nephele

is your stand "as a result of having been granted citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana"

is enough as citizen to become prefecti?

 

how about the Roman cursus honorum tradition?

that dictate the nobiles young sons upward mobility in military and political ladder.

 

to be a 500 men cavalry officer as prefecti, you must be a noble patres or plebes.

 

where did your citizen get his nobiles?, to become prefecti.

 

roman wargamer, I was addressing your assertion that the Syrian soldier in question had been "adopted into a noble family." I gave you evidence, based on the soldier's name, that this was most likely not the case. I repeat, Roman adoption did not work the way you imagine. Apparently, quite a few things about the ancient Romans did not quite work the way you imagine.

 

In fact, the vast majority of your postings on this board are either incorrect or downright absurd, as other UNRV members have attempted to point out to you time and again.

 

Regarding what you appear to be expressing here, I believe Northern Neil has already addressed that:

 

Are we to believe that this Syrian was part of an old Roman family, who could provide documentary evidence for the presence of his forebears in the centurionate? I rather think not. Here, we also clear up the query as to how someone became camp prefect. So we have here one respected secondary source, and the tombstone itself a good primary source, I believe.

 

I wonder why you persist, roman wargamer, because you clearly are not impressing anyone here. In addition, every topic into which you have sailed eventually turns into a repetitively tiresome and long-winded headbutting match, which adds little to the forum on the whole.

 

It seems to me that to refrain from responding further to your postings may be a prudent conservation of otherwise wasted energy.

 

Try to have a cool day, roman wargamer.

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

and futher,local assemblies has no lex power compared to comitia centuriata.

 

When are you talking about? The shadowy regal period? Certainly by the second century, the comitia centuriata was not a legislative body. Laws and treaties were decided by the tribal assemblies, not by the antiquated comitia centuriata.

[roman wargamer]

if the tombstone quoted by Northern Neil dates from the 3rd century onwards, the name of the Syrian in question --

"M. Aurelius Alexander" -- indicates that, far from having been "adopted" into a noble Roman family, he (or an earlier family member) received that Roman name as a result of having been granted citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana, when freeborn subjects throughout the Roman empire adopted the nomen gentilicium of "Aurelius"

out of gratitude to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

 

Again, Roman adoption did not quite work the way you imagine.

-- Nephele

is your stand "as a result of having been granted citizenship under the Constitutio Antoniniana"

is enough as citizen to become prefecti?

 

how about the Roman cursus honorum tradition?

that dictate the nobiles young sons upward mobility in military and political ladder.

 

to be a 500 men cavalry officer as prefecti, you must be a noble patres or plebes.

 

where did your citizen get his nobiles?, to become prefecti.

 

roman wargamer, I was addressing your assertion that the Syrian soldier in question had been "adopted into a noble family." I gave you evidence, based on the soldier's name, that this was most likely not the case. I repeat, Roman adoption did not work the way you imagine. Apparently, quite a few things about the ancient Romans did not quite work the way you imagine.

 

Try to have a cool day,

 

-- Nephele

i also hope you have a good night sleep, so you could also have a fresh next day.

it is not my assertion, my answer was a possible way, to repeat a theory reply.

 

are you really certain with your answer is not an opinionated and shall class it as facts.

 

by the way, how is Caldrail, please give my regards. tell him cheer up.

"wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please." Machiavelli

Edited June 5, 2008 by roman wargamer

[roman wargamer]

and futher,local assemblies has no lex power compared to comitia centuriata.

 

When are you talking about? The shadowy regal period? Certainly by the second century, the comitia centuriata was not a legislative body. Laws and treaties were decided by the tribal assemblies, not by the antiquated comitia centuriata.

my period was early republic... and the comitia centuriata.

 

can you kindly point to me any known local tribal assembly? any namesake?

and point to me how a proposal law become a lex? or legally binding to all Roman?

 

i do not know how a local tribe can imposed their law to all the tribe of Rome. any Forum.

[M. Porcius Cato]

can you kindly point to me any known local tribal assembly? any namesake?and point to me how a proposal law become a lex? or legally binding to all Roman?i do not know how a local tribe can imposed their law to all the tribe of Rome. any Forum.

 

No mere local tribe could impose its law on all the tribes of Rome. But the Tribal Assembly (comitia tributa) was no mere local tribe--by the late republic, it had become the chief lawmaking body. You can find a decent explanation of the Assemblies HERE.

[caldrail]

by the way, how is Caldrail, please give my regards. tell him cheer up.

"wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please." Machiavelli

 

Caldrail is fine, happy, and rolling around the floor clutching his ribs. Give up your day job RW, become a comedian. Now if you'll excuse me, other people are discussing roman history

[The Augusta]

Phew! Well, I have only the haziest grasp of the Roman Army. As Calders so eloquently put it in an earlier post on this thread, there is no shame in admitting to being wrong, or to acknowledging ignorance on a topic (a point RW would do well to remember). I am certainly not ashamed to admit that I know very little indeed about the finer points of the Roman Army. Heck, I wouldn't even aspire to novice status! Well, the generals wore nice red cloaks - that's about the summit of my knowledge, guys!

 

But to return to the matter in hand - i.e. the start of the thread about terminology used in the piece cited by GO, I wonder if those early military historians were equating ranks such as NCO=Centurion for exactly the sort of ignorant fool I am. You see, I have this vague idea that Legion=Regiment and that a colonel would be in charge of it (I'd think of him as the Legatus). After that, we have brigadiers and generals and such like who would command combined regiments. (Calders, jump in at any point to correct me here). For instance, I have always equated a Centurion with a RSM - but as Caldrail has pointed out, this is somewhat fallacious, as the Centurion commanded more men than a Regimental Sergeant Major would. However, may I propose that it is the 'essence' of that rank that permeates our understanding here. Numbers and Roman chain of command aside, would you say that today's RSM - or, say, the RSM of the 40s/50s/60s - is an equivalent in authority - i.e. over a proportionately similar division of the regiment, to the centurion in a Roman legion?

 

I note, Calders, that you said he was more equivalent to a Captain or Major, because of the numbers of men - i.e. 80 - but I wonder if the historian who wrote that piece was thinking more of his level of authority within the greater chain of command. You see, I sort of get it when we apply British terms, but if I am way off beam, please tell me.

 

If I've obscured matters even further, please forgive me, but I do want to understand more about the legions from our experts. Please use idiot's language to instruct me - I will not be offended. But please don't let RW do it - I can't understand him

 

ETA: I must just add something else. Although NCOs are non-coms and everything from a 2nd Lieutenant would be a commissioned officer, I am sure I am right in saying that not all commissioned officers (especially in war time) were commisisoned from civilian life. Surely it is possible to rise through the ranks to be a Captain? Or am I off beam again? Or was this very rare? And if so, did the same apply in the legions? Do we know if there was ever a case of a centurion eventually becoming a general?

Edited June 6, 2008 by The Augusta

[Julius Ratus]

Hey all, I have been reading this thread every day, but have kept my mouth shut so far. Here's my $.02

 

Augusta -- First off, you will get a reaming when Caldrail reads this for using modern terms to describe Roman ranks. Just be prepared. I think that you are on the right track, though. For your question on whether any Roman advanced from the ranks to the head of an army, I don't know of any examples off hand. That sounds like something Northern Neal or Caldrail might know, though.

 

Caldrail -- I understand that you prefer to use Roman terminology. They are more accurate and appropriate, but are not terms that modern people often relate to. This is why we use modern terms to describe the Legion. The only forces that have recently fielded the rank Centurion are the 'M' Battallions in the Royal Italian Army in the Second World War. Most armies have something like a Sergeant or a Captain. These are totally different ranks, and neither correspond directly to a Centurion, but both of these modern ranks fulfill some of the responsibilities that a Centurion would have posessed in the ancient world.

 

Many people can better understand the function of ancient ranks better if they can relate them to a modern rank, especially if they have military experience. I study military history in all eras. I have to keep track of the functions of Captains, Hauptsturmfuhrers, Centuii, Kapitani, so on and so forth. All four of those ranks share some common duties. This is because ranks have a common purpose throughout the ages, they tell soldiers who is in charge. Every army has had a rank structure. Always. A Centurion outranks a Miles. A Legatus outranks a Centurion. The Emperor is the top of the foodchain.

 

RW -- Please, man. Take a step back and cool off. I know it must seem like everyone is picking on you, but that is not the case. All that has been asked of you is that you back up your arguments with sources. Some of your more recent posts have been a little better referenced. Good work! Now all you need to do is not be so defensive. When people correct you, it is not a challenge. There are some really knollegable people here on this forum. Listen to what they have to say and learn.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Julius Ratus

[roman wargamer]

RW -- Take a step back and cool off. that you back up your arguments with sources.

There are some really knollegable people here on this forum. Listen to what they have to say and learn.

i will take your friendly advise... hands off and keep only on information and references.

 

on the story of...the assembly? curiata? centuriata? tributa?

 

in the beginning... was the Forum. i think no needs to back it up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Rome emerged into history with an elected king,

a senate of 100 elders [patres] which was advisory,

...and by a popular assembly of the clans [curiae],

 

the comitia curiata conferred on to the new king his imperium and have a slight legislative power.

 

A Handbook of Universal History, William H. Tillinghast

[caldrail]

Caldrail -- I understand that you prefer to use Roman terminology. They are more accurate and appropriate, but are not terms that modern people often relate to. This is why we use modern terms to describe the Legion. The only forces that have recently fielded the rank Centurion are the 'M' Battallions in the Royal Italian Army in the Second World War. Most armies have something like a Sergeant or a Captain. These are totally different ranks, and neither correspond directly to a Centurion, but both of these modern ranks fulfill some of the responsibilities that a Centurion would have posessed in the ancient world.

Yes, I understand your point, but equating roman methods to modern ones isn't really understanding theirs, its painting roman soldiers in cammo gear. They never used firearms, small unit tactics, or had the same obedience we expect today. They were religious in their organisation that even christian influence can't manage amongst modern troops, and had expectations of benfiting from their much longer service in ways that would cause outrage in daily newspapers today. I really do think that to understand roman legions you need to study their structure and methods in isolation of our own, or you get a very distorted picture, coloured by that enduring image of endless ranks of military robots marching implacably across europe. Wasn't quite like that, was it?

[roman wargamer]

on the story of...the assembly? curiata? centuriata? tributa? plebis

 

in the beginning... was the Forum.

where the cases against other member of the tribe were settled by consensus arbitration.

at this period, Rome have only 3 tribe confederation.

 

Rome emerged into history with an elected king,

a senate of 100 elders [patres] which was advisory,

...and by a popular assembly of the clans [curiae],

 

the comitia curiata conferred on to the new king his imperium and have a slight legislative power.

A Handbook of Universal History, William H. Tillinghast

the plebian was enrolled in the senate

 

byTarquin the First

to weaken the patrician influence, he is said to have increased the senate to 300.

[ibid]

 

Servius Tullius

chief contribution to the Roman history

was the substitution for the hereditary clans a new military division into classes

and the centuries, was base on wealth and arms.

Upon this arrangement depended a new assembly, the comitia centuriata

the voting was taken over from comitia curiata.

[ibid]

at this period, Rome have now 4 tribe confederation.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't know if you realize it or not, RW, but you've now switched to discussing the regal period rather than the early republic. The Roman constitution changed dramatically from the regal period to the early republic, changed gradually from the early republic to the late republic, and then changed dramatically again after Actium.

[roman wargamer]

I don't know if you realize it or not, RW, but you've now switched to discussing the regal period rather than the early republic. The Roman constitution changed dramatically from the regal period to the early republic, changed gradually from the early republic to the late republic, and then changed dramatically again after Actium.

i am just pointing out where a name assembly do originally begun.

so novice could track... and made some comparative study of each books or author presentation.

Edited June 10, 2008 by roman wargamer