The Romani Princeps

[CirdanDharix]

Not always the eldest. Scipio Africanus was Princeps Senatus when he was still quite young. To put into modern terms, it was the speaker, or president of the Senate; the Princeps gets to speak first and to lord it during Senatorial debates, but he still only gets one vote when push comes to shove. How much power he wields depends solely upon himself and how influential he is; the office only gives him a slight bump in prestige.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What has been said above is more or less correct but "Princeps" was not an office during the Republic. The elected magistrates would usually preside in debate, not the Princeps. You weren't granted the title, you kept it as long as you could hold onto it. Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Pompey, Ceasar and Cicero could all have been deemed Princeps at one time or another.

Their official power at the time, particually Cicero's, was zero.

[cmacq]

Right, I said 'acted as the presiding officer,' not an office. I also said, 'traditionally was applied to the oldest member,' not always applied. But I get your point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nuance is a bitch, being a writer and a historian I have a lot of practice.

Often though, the nuances of Tacitus and Cicero are damned irritating.

[cmacq]

Not a fan of Cicero, but I looked up the word 'nuance' the other day and found this:




Sorry, that's a bad joke.
This was what I found:

[stupac]

I don't want to shift the subject too much, but what about the depiction of the republican system in RTW? Clearly you wouldn't be able to do much fighting if only consuls could lead armies, but weren't there situations (albeit few and far between probably) when other men could lead armies? E.g. I don't think Scipio Africanus was a consul when he took command of the Iberian theatre. So how would roleplaying the Romani work in EB?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'm fairly sure certain Praetors were given the right to lead armies in times of crisis, or when two leaders were not enough.

Certainly Sulla led an army into Cappadocia will the governor propraetore of Cilicia, but that was considered an emergency and no actual fighting took place. While on this expedition however he crossed the Euphrates implying that he had a free rein (no previous Roman Army had ever done so). Around the same time, before the social war, Q. Bruttius Sura (governer propraetore of Macedonia) was also fighting a long and brutal war against the Scordisci tribes in what is now the Balkans when Mithridates the Great invaded Greece. This seems to support my theory that Praetors at least were able to take command.

Also proconsuls, or men who had been consul and were then governing provinces had command of a certain number of legions, ostensibly to keep the peace, but could embark on a 'defensive' war for the good of Rome if authorised by the Senate. They were still below the Consul of the though. This caused a problem in 106bc when the proconsul Q. Servilius Caepio refused to hand over command of his army to the consul Gn. Mallius Maximus (novus homo) due to his 'poor' social status. The two armies never combined and were annihilated at Arausio by the Germani.

So in answer to your question, consuls, proconsuls, praetors and propraetors command armies. I'm also fairly certain that in times of need Consulars (ie. those who had already been consul) could command armies.


PS:I think in certain situations Aediles (and possibly Quaestors) could be authorised by a superior to detach a force to operate, but I'm not sure.