Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:43:29.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Singulares and Roman Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

R. W. Davies
R. W. Davies
Affiliation:
Sunderland Polytechnic, Chester Road, Sunderland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Michael Speidel has recently suggested that the abbreviation SC on military inscriptions does not, as is commonly thought, refer to singularis consularis but to summus curator. In some instances his interpretation is without doubt correct. However, his view that the five examples from Britain are not the guards of the provincial governor but chief accounts-clerks needs further consideration. Speidel argues that the post of singularis consularis is usually abbreviated to sing. or singul. cos. This is quite true, but it must be noted that examination of all the different examples of singulares shows that the post could be abbreviated in a large number of ways; even in the same document it may be written and abbreviated in different ways by the same clerk. At Apulum, the provincial capital of Dacia, no less than ten different ways are used on tile-stamps to refer to the governor's guards, while inscriptions there reveal a further three. Among the tile-stamps is the abbreviation SC, here without any doubt meaning singulares consularis; consequently, there is a firm Continental parallel for the traditional interpretation of the British examples, which Speidel would have changed. Presumably the British (and African) troops preferred a particular style of abbreviation, which was not so favoured elsewhere in the Empire. The only soldier in Britain who was without doubt a strator co(n)s(ularis) significantly and deliberately chose to write the first part of his title out in full, although this meant abbreviating and ligaturing his own name; this suggests that he wished to avoid confusion over the meaning of the normal abbreviation SC, which—in Britain at any rate—referred to singularis consularis.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 7 , November 1976 , pp. 134 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © R. W. Davies 1976. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g. by Mommsen, Huebner, Dessau, Collingwood and Wright in CIL, ILS, and RIB. Cf. R. G. Collingwood and I. A. Richmond, The Archaeology of Roman Britain2 ( = 2nd edition, 1969), 214; Breeze, D. J. in Bonner Jahrb. 174 (1974), 278Google Scholar, and in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii (part 1) (1974), 445.Google Scholar

2 ‘Summus Curator: zu Inschriften aus dem österreichischen Oberpannonien und Noricum’, Römisches Österreich i (1973), 53–6.Google Scholar

3 E.g. in his correction of the view of Passerini, A., ‘legio’, Dizionario Epigrafico, vol. 4 (1949)Google Scholar, col. 604, on CIL iii, 1651 + add. and 8244, both legionaries and probably stratores consularis. Cf. JRS lxi (1971), 130, n. 7. There is no ambiguity in the abbreviation s(ummus c(urator) in CIL iii 4471 (Carnuntum) s c eqq sing cos, and in CIL iii 1160 (Apulum) s c eq sing; cf. AE (1940), 216 (Baetocaece).Google Scholar

4 For full details on the singulares see M. Speidel, ‘The Guards of the Roman Provincial Governors: An Essay on their Singulares’ (American Studies in Papyrology (1976)) forthcoming. In his n. 333 he rejects all the British and African examples. I am indebted to Prof. Speidel for seeing his manuscript prior to publication and for friendly discussion.

5 sin (cos), singulares (cos), singi, singu, singul, singula, singulares; also it is regarded as second declension.

6 Robert O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus (1971), Nos. 1 and 2 = P. Dura 100 and 101 contain singul, singl, singul cos, with or without abbreviation stops; No. 4 = P. Dura 105 contains sing and singul. For further discussion cf. R. W. Davies, ‘Singulares and the Dura Rosters’, forthcoming. No. 63 = P. Lond. 2851 has the word written out in full.

7 CIL iii 12633; cf. 1160 and 1195; cf. Stud. Clas. xii (1970), 165; Speidel op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 31–38. The numerus peditum singularium Britannicianorum spelt its titles at least four different ways on tiles (AE 1967, 412) and four on diplomas, to say nothing of inscriptions; see below, notes 93 ff.Google Scholar

8 CIL iii 12633 (g): p(edites) s(ingulares) c(onsularis).

9 Similarly the cult of Discipulina seems to be confined to the armies of Britain and Africa; Arch. Ael.4 xxi (1943), 165–9. S. S. Frere, Britannia (1967), 223, points out that the British army chose to build its forts in a different size from those built by the soldiers in Raetia.Google Scholar

10 RIB 233 (Irchester). For attempts to avoid the ambiguity see also note 3. In the lists of excubitores the only ranks which are ever written out in full are curator and circitor, and this was clearly done to avoid confusion; cf. R. W. Davies, ‘Notes on the Morning Reports at Dura-Europos’, Grazer Beiträge, forthcoming.

11 They are attested in the equites singulares, who were drawn from the provincial auxilia, of the governor (see note 4) and also in the equites singulares augusti at Rome (AE (1935), 156; M. Speidel, Die Equites Singulares Augusti (1965), 53). They are not attested in the legion because the equites legionis were not organised into turmae; cf. Breeze, D. J., JRS lix (1969), 50–5. The function was probably carried out by the quaestor equitumGoogle Scholar; cf. Speidel, M., JRS lx (1970), 142–53, especially 144; AE (1969–70), 583.Google Scholar

12 RIB 1480 (ala II Asturum); CIL viii 2094 = ILS 2518 (ala not stated); in the ala veterana Gallica there was 1 summus curator and at least four curatores (turmae) (note 14). CIL viii 9291 = ILS 2519 (ala I Contariorum); SB 9204 (ala Apliana); CIL iii 4812 = ILS 2524 + add (ala Augusta) with Speidel, op. cit. (note 2).

13 Fink No. 47. i. 7 = P. Dura 82 (cohors XX Palmyrenorum 2 men); Fink No. 78, receipts 4, 34 and 60 (cohors II Ituraeorum?, at least 2 men). P. Wise. 14 (cohors II Thracum); SB 7600 (curator turmae); CIL iii 4812 = ILS 2524 + add. (cohors I Aelia Brittonum) with Speidel, op. cit. (note 2).

14 Fink No. 76 = P. Hamb. 39.

15 The Pselcis ostraca show that the curator kept the receipts in the same way as the librarius; Fink No. 78, receipts 60 and 67; JRS lxii (1972), 191Google Scholar; Britannia ii (1971), 136. There was probably one curator to each turmae; see notes 11–13.Google Scholar

16 The accounts-clerk curator must not be confused with the legionary centurion acting-commander curator of a unit (CIL iii 6025 = ILS 2615), more frequently described as praepositus. In a province without a legion, the post was at times held by a decurion; A. von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres 2 (1967), 63, 108. Cf. also AE (1895), 36 with ILS 2703.

17 CIL xvi 69.Google Scholar

18 Ala I Thracum is attested in the diplomas of 103 and 124, cohors II Pannoniorum eq. in the diplomas of 105 and 124. Cohors I (Aelia) Hispanorum eq. was at Maryport in the Trajanic-Hadrianic period but is never attested in diplomas (M. G. Jarrett and B. Dobson, Britain and Rome (1966), 27–36). Cohors II Tungrorum eq. fought at Mons Graupius in 84 (Agr. 36) and was the new garrison at Birrens in 158 (RIB 2110); although it had a detachment in Raetia in 121–5, 147, and probably 153, the rump cohort and equites (and hence summus curator) probably remained in Britain throughout; cf. my study in Epigr. Studien iv (1967), 108–11Google Scholar. I have suggested that RIB 2135 = ILS 4801 (Cramond) really belongs to this unit and will be dated to c. 140–58 (Arch. Journ. cxxv (1969), 96–7); this unit never appears on British diplomas. Several other units may have left no epigraphic evidence but have had a summus curator (ala Indiana, cohortes Cornoviorum and Usiporum). The cohors I (Aelia) Dacorum peditata was here in Hadrian's reign (RIB 1365 and 991) but does not appear on a diploma before 146.Google Scholar

19 The grand total of auxiliary units, including those whose existence is less than certain, attested throughout the entire Principate in Roman Britain is 71, of which 53 were entitled to a post of summus curator. I owe this information to Prof. Eric Birley's files. For the auxiliary units in Britain see G. L. Cheesman, The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army (1914), 146–9; L. le Roux, L'Armée romaine de Bretagne (1911); B. Dobson and D. Breeze, The Army of Hadrian's Wall (1972), 42–8; Grace Simpson, Britons and the Roman Army (1964), 181–2; Dizionario Epigrafico, vol. i (1895), col. 1035–7.Google Scholar

20 Speidel, op. cit. (note 4). The numerous peditum Britannicianorum appears among auxiliary units on diplomas and so presumably had approximately the same size as a cohors quingenaria; see below, note 96.

21 JRS lvi (1966), 92–107; lvii (1967), 61–4; Frere, op. cit. (note 9), 176–8.Google Scholar

22 Moreover, examination of the only two military papyri which show the details of the singulares personnel indicates that there was a not inconsiderable turnover of men appointed to be singulares; for example, of 12 pedites singulares in 219 only two were certainly in this post in 222. Davies, op. cit. (note 6).

23 RIB 1480; see above, notes 10 and 12.

24 RIB 865.

25 RIB 1713.

26 RIB 594.

27 RIB 1266.

28 RIB 725 = ILS 3929.

29 As is indicated by the lack of praenomina and the abbreviation of nomina and age indicated by years, months, and days. The Ribchester inscription cannot be earlier than 175 (Dio lxxi, 16) and the High Rochester one comes from a building containing a dedication by the commander of the third-century unit (RIB 1268).

30 Dobson, B. and Mann, J. C., Britannia iv (1973), 191–205, especially 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 As presumably happened in the case of Maximus, AE (1926), 74. Valerius Pudens and Pollienus Auspex governed Danubian provinces at the time of Severus's accession and were later transferred to Britain.

32 For the importance of patronage, see E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1961), 122–3, 141–2; Davies, R. W., Bonner Jahrb. 169 (1969), 208–32; G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (1969), 37–8, 87; P. Mich. 485. Influence with a governor to get a soldier appointed singularis at an exceptionally early age is clearly evident in CIL viii 2911 = ILS 2419 (a brother who was a beneficiarius consularis) and CIL viii 21034 (father, who presumably had earlier secured his son a direct commission). Davies, op. cit. (note 6); Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 71, 74.Google Scholar

33 Speidel, M., ‘The Pedites Singulares Pannoniciani in Mauretania’, AJP xciii (1972), 299–305Google Scholar, correcting CIL viii 21453Google Scholar, shows that the singulares were used as a mobile reserve and could stay permanently in a different province. Pannonian troops were sent to Britain for Severus's campaigns; A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor (1971), 251–4, cites legio I and II Adiutrix and part of the Pannonian fleet; cf. E. Birley's views cited on Britannia i (1970), 310–11, No. 20 (Old Kilpatrick), a legionary centurion from Moesia involved with the supervision of a British ala, and on RIB 754 (Watercrook), another centurion from Aquincum or Mursa; cf. R. W. Davies, ‘Roman Cumbria and the African Connection’ (forthcoming) on reinforcements including those from the Danubian provinces.Google Scholar

34 This was the third-century garrison; RIB 1705–6; Notitia Dignitatum, Occ. xl, 49. Cf. RIB 1227 showing that it was equitata.Google Scholar

35 For the wife and family of a singularis living at provincial headquarters see Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 9–10, 16, 24–6, 32, 51–2.

36 Cf. RIB 726 for another bf cos stationed here.

37 RIB 1696.

38 Richmond, I. A., JRS xxxv (1945), 15–29. RIB 583 and 587.Google Scholar

39 For the centurio regionarius in general, Davies, R. W., Ancient Society iv (1973), 199–212, especially 200; in Britain, RIB 152 = ILS 4920 (Bath), perhaps from a regio including Combe Down (RIB 179); perhaps also Hambledon and Boxmoor villas, K. Branigan, Town and Country: Verulamium and the Roman Chilterns (1973), 90–2Google Scholar, and fig. 50. Cf. also Davies, R. W., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii (part 1) (1974), 322.Google Scholar

40 RIB 1225 = ILS 4728, cf. Britannia iii (1972), 363 (C). Contra Huebner, RIB 1226 is not a bf cos: the drawing gives a perfectly acceptable reading of Inventus do(no) (cf. AE (1956), 123). For the statio E. Birley, op. cit. (note 32), 83–5.Google Scholar

41 E.g. Britannia i (1970), 307Google Scholar, No. 12 (York). For staff at provincial headquarters, see Domaszewski, op. cit. (note 16), XI–XIII, 29–37; Davies, op. cit. (note 39), 313. In Britain RIB 17 (cf. Britannia i (1970), 315 (A)) and 19 (London)Google Scholar; Mann, J. C., Antiquity xxxv (1961), 316–20; M. W. C. Hassall, ‘Roman Soldiers in Roman London’, in D. E. Strong (ed.), Archaeological Theory and Practice (1973), 231–7. See below, note 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 45 out of 71 of the inscriptions in Speidel's catalogue (op. cit. note 4) of singulares were found at provincial headquarters.

43 Frere, op. cit. (note 9), 195; Davies, op. cit. (note 39), 326; I. A. Richmond (ed. P. Salway), Roman Archaeology and Art (1969), 30–1, 39, 161; H. von Petrikovits, Das römische Rheinland (1960), 72–6, and fig. 23; Mócsy, A., ‘Das territorium legionis und die canabae in Pannonien’, Acta Arch. Acad. Scient. Hung. iii (1953), 173–200, especially 196 and fig. 3, and id., Pannonia and Upper Moesia (1974), 234 and fig. 39; Géza Alföldy, Noricum (1974), 162–3, 252–3.Google Scholar

44 Domaszewski, A. von, Westdeutsche Zeitschrift xxi (1902), 158–211. Hence the altars set up by British bff cos to foreign mother-goddesses (RIB 88, 1030–1) and Silvanus (RIB 1085, 1696) might also reflect their connections with long-distance communications and isolated posts; cf. also altars to Syria (RIB 726) and Mogons from the Middle Rhine (RIB 1225).Google Scholar

45 E. Birley, op. cit. (note 32), 83.

46 As the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain (1956) clearly shows. There was also a harbour at Maryport; E. Birley, Research on Hadrian's Wall (1961), 216–23. Cf. Davies, op. cit. (note 39), 325–6.

47 Collingwood and Richmond, op. cit. (note 1), 122 (Catterick); Arch. Ael.4 xlviii (1970). 113–23 (Chesterholm).Google Scholar

48 A bf with a staff seems to be attested only on CIL viii 10723 (Vazanis).Google Scholar

49 Fink No. 87 = P. Oxy. 1022.

50 Lydus, 3, 7; Isidore, Orig. 18, 38; unfortunately, it is not clear whether they are referring to singulares of the Principate or the Later Roman Empire. A bf might be chosen to carry a very important message; SHA, Hadrianus, 2.

51 RIB 714.

52 Speidel, op. cit. (note 11).

53 Ibid. 16–21.

54 A. R. Birley, op. cit. (note 33), 273 lists the various theories over the precise date.

55 E. Birley, op. cit. (note 32), 158–9; see note 29.

56 A. R. Birley, op. cit. (note 33), 244–68; Frere, op. cit. (note 9), 171–6.

57 RCHM, Eburacum (1962), xxxvi (I. A. Richmond).

58 E. Birley, op. cit. (note 32), 69–86; id., op. cit. (note 46) passim; Dobson and Mann, op. cit (note 30), 196–7.

59 Dobson and Mann, op. cit. (note 30), 193, 195–7, 201–2.

60 I here follow Dobson and Mann, op. cit. (note 30), 201, n. 50, in rejecting Speidel, op. cit. (note 11), 18 on CIL vi 2992Google Scholarnatio MINOP, on which the editor of CIL rightly comments neque tamen assequor quae natio indicata sit; the only certain examples are CIL vi 3279, 3301 and 32861. In the third century Britain provided only one out of 65 examples, and in the entire Principate only three out of 169 instances.Google Scholar

61 Britannia iv (1973), 202.Google Scholar

62 As numerous examples from the cemeteries of Caerleon, Lincoln, York and Chester show, annorum was frequently used instead of vixit annis on military tombstones.

63 For examples of the age of the singularis at death, Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 14, 19, 24, 32, 34–5, 43, 46–7, 71–2, 78.

64 For possible spellings and abbreviations see above, note 5.

66 It. Ant. 466, 2. In Iter I Malton appears on the route between York and a place called Praetorium; for a discussion see Britannia i (1970), 40–1Google Scholar, where it is identified with Petuaria (Brough-on-Humber): and see now Britannia vi (1975), 84–6.Google Scholar

66 Britannia ii (1971), 291, No. 9.Google Scholar

67 If singulares in Britain normally returned from the provincial capital to their former base, it might explain why neither York nor London has produced any epigraphic evidence.

68 Corner, P. and Kirk, J. L., Antiquity ii (1928), 69–82; they suggest that Praetorium may be on the coast, perhaps in the vicinity of Whitby. Malton was clearly a key site for communications with the Yorkshire coastal signal-stations in the fourth century; cf. also P. Corder, The Defences of the Roman Fort at Malton, 10–11, 64–8.Google Scholar

69 See note 42.

70 CIL viii 9763; Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue No. 78.Google Scholar

71 R. Cagnat, L'Armée romaine d'Afrique et l'occupation militaire de l'Afrique sous les empereurs (second edition, 1913), 653–4. Cf. Mela i, 5, 29.

72 CIL viii 6755.Google Scholar

73 CIL iii 12356; AE (1937), 250; Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 46 and 56.Google Scholar

74 Speidel, op. cit. (note 10), 33–4; Davies, op. cit. (note 39).

75 Sherk, R. K., ‘The “Inermes Provinciae” of Asia Minor’, AJP lxxvi (1955), 400–13, especially 413Google Scholar. Davies, R. W., Latomus xxvi (1967), 67–72, on AE (1955), 266 and Fink No. 91. Cf. Ramsay MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire (1963), passim; Alföldy, op. cit. (note 43) 162–3.Google Scholar

76 IGRR iii 394 = 503; AE (1969–70), 602; (1926), 74; (1937), 250; Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 53–6.

77 However, very few of the governor's staff are attested at either capital; see notes 41 and 67.

78 J. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Britain under the Romans (1964), 189, describing the workman-ship as mediocre.

79 Cf. Alan Sorrell, Roman London (1969), 46–7 (fort); 62–3 (palace). The 5 ha fort is quite large and will have been the base of all the governor's staff.

80 Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), regards them as munifices, Davies, op. cit. (note 6), as immunes.

81 Cf. the high quality of the legionary tombstones cited in note 41 (princeps praetorii (?)), RIB 17 = Toynbee, op. cit. (note 78), 186.

82 Hassall, op. cit. (note 41), 235 suggests that a passage of Xiphilinus's epitome of Dio (see note 85) may refer to singulares and other of the governor's military staff. This is most unlikely.

83 Dio, lxxiii, 8, 2 = Xiphilinus 271, 30.

84 B. R. Hartley in R. M. Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (1971). Birley, A. R., Epigraphische Studien iv (1967), 63–102, especially 76 an d 100–01, No. 33, rightly refutes the view that he was a legionary legate (e.g. RIB 1329 commentary, Frere, op. cit. (note 9), 163). He suggests that M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus (ILS 1151) iuridicus Britanniae vice legati, took over the responsibility for the province after the death of the ignotus and before the arrival of Ulpius Marcellus; Ibid. 75–7, No. 32a. It might also be worth noting that the force of the compound verb epipempein can mean ‘to send another’ as well as ‘to send against’.Google Scholar

85 See note 84. Jarrett, M. G. and Mann, J. C., Bonner Jahrb. 170 (1970), 178–210Google Scholar, especially 192–4, hedge their bets, but point out that RIB 2138 probably shows legionary reinforcements for VI Victrix in the period 175–90. RIB 946 may possibly refer to auxiliary campaigning at this time but the inscription is too fragmentary for certainty. In the mid-180s large numbers of British legionaries were on the Continent (Dio lxxiii, 9, 2, 2–4 = Xiphilinus 272, 28); CIL iii 1919 = ILS 2770 + add. as interpreted in H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (1960–1), 537–7, No. 196. These could be the more readily spared, if the troops killed in 180 were not legionaries.Google Scholar

86 B.J. iii 95–7 and 120; v 47.Google Scholar

87 Ectaxis, passim especially 14 and 22–3.

88 CIL viii 3050Google Scholar, a Moesian eques singularis transferred to Numidia for a campaign; CIL viii 9292; Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue Nos. 44, 79.Google Scholar

89 P. Ross.-Georg. iii, 1; Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), catalogue No. 69; Davies, R. W., Epigraphische Studien viii (1969), 83–99, especially 93–4.Google Scholar

90 SHA, Commodus, 3, 8. This would explain not merely his military incompetence but also the mutinous state of the troops. SHA, Pertinax, 3, 5–10; Commodus, 8, 4; Dio lxxiii, 9, 2a = Petr. Patr. 122; lxxiv, 4, 1 = Xiphilinus 284, 12; see also note 85. SHA, Commodus, 6, 2, suggests that when the ignotus was governor, his legionary legates were not experienced senators but equestrians; his appointment may have been influenced by the personal motives and ambitions of Perennis; Ibid.; cf. Herodian i, 9, 1–10.

91 Speidel, op. cit. (note 33), citing CIL viii 21453.Google Scholar

92 Ibid., citing CIL viii 3050.

93 Ibid.

94 E. Birley, op. cit. (note 32), 20–2, who regards this, probably correctly, as an isolated transfer. Cf. Jarrett and Mann, op. cit. (note 85), 181, and A. R. Birley, op. cit. (note 84), 68, No. 13. The period 93–6 is the most likely and the terminus ante quern is 103–5 (CIL xvi, 54).Google Scholar

95 Suetonius, Domitian, 10, 3.

96 CIL xvi, 54, 57, 107, 163.Google Scholar

97 Speidel, op. cit. (note 4), lists: ala I Flavia singularium cr pf; ala I Flavia praetoria singularium cr; ala I Ulpia singularium; ala II Valeria singularis; coh I Aelia singularium.

98 They are never described as a numerus in the diplomas, although they are in various inscriptions at Germisara, e.g. AE (1967), 410–2. For numerus as the term used to describe the unit of the governor's guards, see CIL iii, 7800; viii, 7800.Google Scholar

99 Diplomas were never issued to the national numeri nor to the numeri of the governor's guards.

100 It was still a numerus in the time of Philip, 150 years after the incident; AE (1967), 411.

101 It will be remembered that the Roman army never again used the numerals XVII, XVIII or XIX associated with the annihilation of the legions numbered thus in A.D. 9.

102 As the Dura records show most clearly; Davies, op. cit. (note 6). They were also equipped in the same way; Josephus, B.J. iii, 95–7; cf. also the plates in Speidel, op. cit. (note 4).

103 The diploma of 157 (CIL xvi 107) is two military generations after the original men were transferred and shows that normal auxiliary recruiting must have taken place.Google Scholar

104 The other troops in the expedition returned to their own provinces but the singulares stayed as a prestige cohort.

105 In the earliest diploma the men are described as pedi(tibus) Britannicianis; this is a special adjective meaning ‘drawn from the army of Britain’, in contrast with the normal words Britannicus or Brittones used to describe the ethnic origin of a unit; cf. CIL iii, 3228 = ILS 546 Britannicin(arum) and CIL iii 1919 = ILS 2770 (Britaniciniarum) and CIL vi, 3279 (above, note 59) (natione Britanicianus); for the suffix AE (1926), 79. Speidel, op. cit. (note 33), 300, n. 3, believes that the numerus always retained this special title; as all the other inscriptions seem to be abbreviated or ambiguous, the matter must remain open. In this diploma, but not in the others, the men are put into the dative case, not the nominative, which shows that their position was still regarded as separate and unusual.

106 They were at times deprived even of the comparative status of numerus and were simply called pedites (always in the diplomas and one example on tiles); they had lost even the honour of the word consularis in their title. Note that they also had a signifer et quaestor and Domaszewski, op. cit. (note 16), s.v., cites no parallel for the latter post (although units did have a quaestura); presumably special arrangements for financial matters had to be made because of their special status; CIL iii, 1396.

107 The two great rosters at Dura seem to show that the pedites singulares of Syria Coele were replaced in disgrace by new men in 219–222, presumably because they had supported the wrong governor; Davies, op. cit. (note 6).