Social origin of Roman Centurions

[Mount Suribachi]

I've always been under the impression that Roman Centurions were men who had been raised from the ranks due to their ability and courage and soldiers, and that this was one of the great strengths of the Roman Army (as Sergeants who have come through the ranks are the backbone of modern western armies).

Furthermore I always thought these guys were "working class", farmers in Republican times, headcount after Gaius Marius. However I read a book recently that claimed centurions were more equivalent of a modern junior officer, and had their social origins in the Roman middle classes, merchants and the like, and an in-between of the Patrician generals, legates and tribunes, and plebian Legionaries.

I'd never heard this theory before, wondered what the fine patrons of the Org thought.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'd say that most Centurions would be born into the position, but since it was prominant, just not too prominant, they would be from the middle class.

[Kralizec]

Apparently, you didn't need to be born in a certain status to become a centurion. For a grunt it was the highest he could achieve, but mostly they were drawn from the ordo equester.

I don't know how they came into existence, sadly. I hope somebody else can elaborate.

[Red Peasant]

Nobody knows how they came into existence, the organisation of the Roman army being shrouded in the mists of time. Polybius talks of the centurions admiringly as men who had proved their worth in battle, were good leaders of men (i.e. leading aggressively by example), and they had to be able to read and write. Hence, they were probably of good Roman citizen stock originally, whether from the city proper or the surrounding countryside. They would have had to be able to afford at least the minimum panoply of legionary arms and armour to qualify as an infantryman in the legion, so this suggests that they could not have risen from the very lowest class. However, with the post-Marian and the Imperial legions the rules change. I would assume that the later centurions would have been a mixture of social types if the army adhered to the ethos of only selecting the best men as described above. Illiteracy would not have been a problem because the later professional army provided a rudimentary education and it is known that very lowly 'peasants' later rose to become generals, so why not centurions.

The Roman army lasted for such a long time that it is difficult to say what the particular conditions were at any one time, or what pertained over much longer periods.

[Atilius]

The centurion would be comparable to a modern officer rather than a sergeant.

I can't add to what RP has said about pre-Marian centurions.

Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army mentions three routes into the centurionate during the early to middle imperial period:

(1) After service in the ranks as a principalis (tesserarius, librarius, signifer, optio) or in a junior staff post. This might take 10-15 years.

(2) After (or in the course of) service in the praetorian guard. Service in the guard required a commitment of 16 years, while for most of the Imperial period legionary service was for 25 years.

(3) Direct commission. Some Equestrians were appointed in this way. The fact that Equestrians would wish to become centurions indicates the position was very prestigious.

It's difficult to determine which of these routes to the post of centurion was most common, but it seems to have been open to almost all social classes.