roman wargamer Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 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 Tulliuschief 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. early republic when the 17 tribes was organized later after the foundation of the republic, the concilium plebis was reorganized on the same basis of these, sometime later a comitia tributa of the whole people was organized on the same basis. [ibid] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 forum 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. senate / curiata 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 Firstto weaken the patrician influence, he is said to have increased the senate to 300. [ibid] centuriata Servius Tulliuschief 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. tributa early republicwhen the 17 tribes was organized later after the foundation of the republic, the concilium plebis was reorganized on the same basis of these, sometime later a comitia tributa of the whole people was organized on the same basis. [ibid] 241 bc the final 2 tribe was added, making a total of 35. Thereafter new citizens were enrolled in the existing tribe, so that these lost their geographical significance. also during this period the comitia suffered a radical reform. {Ibid] the comitia tributa now have 35 blocks of tribe X10 =350 + 18 equites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 Oh, by all the gods - is this hamfisted lesson in Roman history still going on!! As Calders never answered my post - hey, Calders, I'm not having a go, because I can't blame you for giving up in this thread (I'm sure I'll get your answer at the Meet next month) - I shall have a nice cold vodka and coke with lots of ice and go and watch 22 men making love to a football. Sometimes, life is just too short..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I do apologise A., I missed your post amongst the descriptions of this that and the other. 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. Well now, jumping in with both feet - you say that equating ranks with the modern aids your understanding, yet you also say your understanding of modern organisation is little better, so how can you claim this equation helps you in any way? What we have here is a system that was used two thousand years ago and doesn't resemble the modern one, although the modern one to you has familiar words and meanings even if you don't understand the significance. As I've pointed out, thats not understanding at all, its simply putting a convenient label on roman things. The role of the centurion is disimilar to a RSM. A centurion was a commander of a century (and senior centurions had administrative control of cohorts?) but his role was more visceral than modern commanders. The obedience of modern troops ws not apparent then, so the centurion needed to be a functional leader in every sense of the word. he was more like a formalised tribal leader, a man who would lead his men into battle from the front, who disciplined them, who inspired them. The central role of the centurion in the legions cannot be understated. Further, a centurionate might be given control of territory in occupation duties, so his role far exceeds that of modern ranks in that respect. 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? Thats just a number-juggling. No, his authority was proportionately higher. Centurions were given orders for their units directly by the legionary legate himself. I note, Calders, that you said he was more equivalent to a Captain or Major, because of the numbers of men - i.e. 80 - I did? I hope not, because thats exactly what I'm arguing against. There is no direct equivalence between roman and modern ranks. There are two seperate and disimilar systems of command and control being compared. 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? A commisioned officer under the regimental system receives a commision from the national authority to command a unit. He is given permission by the state. A non-commisioned officer receives his command internally, and the state does not need to be involved. Although its technically possible for an individual to rise through the ranks into officer-hood, the class system still exists in a rudimentary form and its difficult for such a man to be accepted by the officer class. Thats not roman influence as such, its simply a reflection of history since the 16th century and normal human behaviour. Something similar occured with centurions. Although they were influential and important commanders, it was unlikely that they'd progress beyond the centurionate, and thats why the centurions were organised in titles of status. However, a long serving senior centurion toward the end of his career might be given the role of Praefectus Castrorum - 'Camp Prefect' - as a reward and mark of respect. That would make him in the third level of authority of a legion, beneath the tribunes. I'm not aware of any one case of a centurion becoming a general (I would be interested to find one) and if it happened it certainly wasn't common practice. Roman generals were political appointees more often that not rather than career officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Excellent, Calders - thanks a bunch! I am a lot clearer now. And I find I'm yet again hoist with my own petard, because I always insist on the Romans being studied in their own context and time - and yet find myself refusing to do that for the legions. Clearly, our understanding of the chain of command within the legions is not helped at all by comparison with the modern regiment. I lok forward to chatting more about this with you at the Wall - and I'm warning you, my son will have a lot of questions for you. And BTW - check your PMs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.