THE PATTERNS OF PROMOTION WITHIN THE ROMAN
ARMY AND ADMINISTRATION – PATRONAGE VERSUS
EXPERIENCE AND SPECIALIZATION
In the end of September 2008 was the 25th anni-
versary of Nobel Peace Prize for Lech Wałęsa. In
this occasion was organized the music concert in
Warsaw and two actors (Krystyna Janda and Jer-
zy Radziwiłłowicz) remind 21 demands of work-
ing class during the strike in Gdańsk in 1980. One
of these demands said about the advance and pro-
motion in the administrative system thanks to the
personal abilities and education instead of party
recommendation. The loudly laughing were heard
because even nowadays, 19 years after collapse
of the communist rule in Poland, this demand is
very important. Most of candidates for high (or
sometimes even not so high) administrative po-
sitions took their posts thanks to parties’ nomi-
nation and recommendation. Perhaps, only one
change in this system can be observed, namely
that nowadays we have the pluralist political sys-
tem in Poland and many political parties, instead
of the one communist party before the elections
of June 4, 1989. Even the establishing in Warsaw
the High School of Public Administration, whose
students afterwards were to gain these high ad-
ministrative positions, did not change anything in
this system. The ruling party recommendation is
the best way to power and high salaries. Certain-
ly, even worse situation was in the Imperium Ro-
manum, because there was not such high school.
Similar “military academics did not exist” (Birley
2003, 5).
The most information on promotions in the ad-
ministrative system of the Roman Empire can be
obtained from inscriptions containing the cur-
sus honorum of the given senator (or members
of the equestrian order or even of municipal ar-
istocracy). Unfortunately, ”a career inscription
by itself can tell us only what posts a man held,
it cannot explain why he held them” (Campbell
1984, 329). Certainly, it is very difficult to deduce
the motives of promotion (or nomination) from
the inscription which presents only the consecu-
tive posts in the Roman army and administration
(in ascending or descending order). And so, some
Tyragetia, s.n., vol. III [XVIII], nr. 1, 2009, 277-283.
Marek Żyromski
theories emerged which try to solve the question
of motives, which stood behind the decision of
nomination. The two most important (and most
common) theories or notions are that of patron-
age and of specialization. And that is so, this ar-
ticle is about.
Already over half a century ago Eric Birley wrote
“I have tried to deduce the principles in which the
army of the Principate was supplied with officers
of the right caliber and of appropriated previous
experience” (Birley 1988, 94). The question of
patronage (both in senatorial and equestrian ca-
reers) was thoroughly investigated later by R.P.
Saller (Saller 1980; Saller 1982). In his opinion
“patronage was indispensable to the system be-
cause no formal bureaucratic mechanisms ex-
isted for bringing candidates to the emperor’s
attention.” (Saller 1982, 111) During the Roman
Empire the highest position in the Roman ad-
ministrative system was taken by the emperor
himself. All the provincial governors and legion-
ary commanders were appointed as his legates,
as their nomenclature suggests (legatus Augusti
pro praetore provinciae, legatus Augusti legio-
nis respectively). And so, “all senatorial magistra-
cies, offices and honors were at the disposal of the
emperor. We possess examples which show that
all were used – either directly by the emperor or
indirectly by those close to him – as beneficia in
patronal exchange relationships. Unfortunately,
these scattered examples cannot by themselves
reveal whether patronage was a normal or ex-
ceptional factor in distribution” (Saller 1982, 45).
Nevertheless, it is very difficult to establish (or
even to make a hypothesis) on which stage of the
senatorial career (cursus honorum) the emperor
chose some persons to receive in the future the
highest posts in the imperial army and adminis-
tration. Firstly, Eric Birley wrote about the role
of vigintivirate in this respect (Birley 1956, 231).
However, the future senators (they formally en-
tered the senatorial order as quaestores) took the
positions within the vigintivirate already in their
277
 II. Materiale şi cercetări

early twenties. It seems that the positions in the
vigintivirate were rather the sign of social position
of the given persons, because the highest post (III
viri monetales) was usually filled by patricians
and/or sons of consulars and the lowest one (III
viri capitales) received almost exclusively the
new men in senate (hominess novi). Certainly,
even in the very brutal Roman world (gladiators),
the supervision of capital punishments was not
especially nice.
The second stage (after the vigintivirate) on which
such the promotion could be obtained by young
future senators i.e. the military service (as tribu-
nus militum legionis laticlavius) seems more rea-
sonable. The young future senator usually served
only once in the Roman legion; but the future
emperor Hadrian served in the three consecutive
legions as the military tribune. Besides “the ‘tri-
bunus laticlavius’ normally served for something
the three years” (Birley 1988, 95) Certainly, “it
would, indeed, have been inefficient if the laticla-
vius generally stayed for one year only. A term of
two or three years is generally to be postulated.
The age at which the laticlavius entered the ser-
vice was doubtless generally 19 or 20” (Birley 1981,
9). The military tribunes usually (or at least quite
often) served under their close relatives, who ful-
filled at the same time more important role of le-
gionary legate or even provincial governor (in the
case of imperial praetorian provinces this was the
same person). And so, “military tribunate offered
the chance of patronage from the consular leg-
ate” (Syme 1988a, 564). But, on the other hand,
governor in nomination of his tribuni militum
laticlavii “had to satisfy the needs of their sons
and other relations, and deal as best they could
with letters from patrons on behalf of candidates”
(Dobson 1993a, 131). In Arthur Birley’s opinion
“for junior appointments such as military tribu-
nates the emperors relied, it must be assumed,
on the judgement of their generals” (Birley 1981,
3). On the other hand some persons, especially
descending from patrician families, did not want
to serve in the army and to travel to distant or
even unhealthy Roman provinces (such as Syria
for instance(Syme 1984). It can be assumed that
“some future senators clearly did not hold tribu-
nates [military] – perhaps as many as 8 out of 20
each year” (Birley 1981, 8). In the result the em-
peror had to promote persons from the equestrian
order or even from the lower strata of the Roman
society. We do not know the criteria of nomina-
tion for military tribunate (Birley 1956, 230). But
in the situation of such great vacancies, perhaps
the emperor simply nominated each volunteer?
“To obtain commanders for the legions and gov-
ernors for the imperial provinces the emperors
had to persuade senators sons to serve as mili-
tary tribunes and spend years away from home as
legionary commanders and governors. The men
persuaded were always a minority, and had to be
supplemented by the adlection of equestrian of-
ficers” (Dobson 1970, 99). Besides, the military
experience, which young military tribune could
get depended mainly on the army, in which he
served. If the legion stationed in some peaceful
and already Romanized provinces, like Spain or
Gaul, he had practically no chance to see any war
at al ! “It is a matter for debate how much benefit
from his experience as tribune still remained with
the legionary commander [….] Commands such
as that of VII Gemina in Spain or VIII Augusta at
Strasbourg could seen less competent men from
serious involvement in command in war” (Dob-
son 1993a, 132). The senatorial military tribune
(tribunus militum legionis laticlavius) was gen-
erally in his early twenties (in H.Devijver’s opin-
ion between 16 and 24), which stood in sharp con-
trast to the equestrian military tribune (tribunus
militum legionis angusticlavius), who was quite
mature men (between 35 and 45) (Devijver 1998,
204).
The second (after the military tribunate) chance
for military service in the senatorial cursus hono-
rum was the post of legionary legate (legatus Au-
gusti legionis), usually taken just after the prae-
torship i.e. in the early thirties (between 30 and
35) (Devijver 1998, 204). Some senators took two
posts only between the praetorship and consulate,
namely the legionary command and the gover-
norship of praetorian imperial province (or cura-
tor aerarium militare/Saturni), who B.Campbell
described as the “viri militares” (Campbell 1975).
In his opinion such the senators were quite young
in consulate and could obtain many consular po-
sitions, especially in the Roman provinces. On
the other hand, taking two praetorian positions
only, they had no much experience in the imperi-
al army and administration. Nevertheless, “most
consular governors had previously commanded
the legion” (Birley 1981, 29). The legionary leg-
ate usually served for three years term. He usu-

278
 M. Żyromski, The patterns of promotion within the roman army and administration
ally commanded the legion in other province (or
at least in other legion), than he previously served
as the tribunus militum. The reason was not only
the need for wide and different experience but
“his dignitas might suffer if there were too many
centurions and other ranks who remembered
him in the junior grade a dozen years or so ear-
lier” (Birley 1981, 108). Besides, in the opinion
of Arthur Birley – “the policy of avoiding narrow
specialization ensured that military practices and
standards could be maintained at a uniform level
throughout the empire” (Birley 1981, 34).
Practically it is impossible to say something cor-
rect on motives which stood behind the impe-
rial nomination for the post of legionary legate.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the gover-
nor had any decisive say in the appointment of
his legionary legates” (Birley 1988, 96). This
nomination depended from the emperor himself.
“Deliberate selection of individuals to command
legions involved in present or planned campaign
is very difficult to demonstrate. It is even harder
to show that such selection was a direct result of
military ability demonstrated as much as 10 years
previously” (Dobson 1993b, 123) (as tribunus
militum legionis laticlavius). “In summary, it can
be postulated that the senatorial career was never
specifically adopted to the task of identifying mili-
tary talent at an early stage” (Dobson 1993a, 133).
And so, in the opinion of some scholars the Ro-
man imperial army was under the command of
high – status amateurs. “Army commanders were
rarely specialist military men, and many senators
and equestrians were not involved in military af-
fairs at all” (Campbell 2002, 152). On the other
hand, quite different opinion presented Arthur
Birley. “Yet enough cases are known of senators
with many years of military service to correct this
impression” (Birley 1981, 33). Besides, the mili-
tary experience was only part of the necessary re-
quirements for taking the positions in Roman im-
perial army and administration. As wrote R.Syme
“although most consuls had commanded a legion,
education and social gifts rather than military
training opened the path to high honours; and a
consular’s experience with the armies had seldom
been continuous and prolonged” (Syme 1988b,
31). Undoubtedly, the more professional and
technically educated (or rather experienced) were
non-commissioned officers in the Roman legion.
„The primus pilus iterum was the technically
most qualified officer; after him came the prae-
fectus castrorum and the primus pilus bis. This
trio of professional military technicians formed a
counterweight to the short-term legatus legionis,
the tribunus laticlavius, and the 5 tribuni angus-
ticlavii, the theorists, the intellectuals, the ideo-
logues of romanitas. But together they formed
the staff of Roman legion” (Devijver 1998, 204).
On the other hand it is difficult to accept the view
that the senatorial legionary legates were only am-
ateurs who had to rely on their subordinate un-
der officers, descending from the equestrian order
(or even below – from the ranks). Perhaps, such
was the situation in rather peaceful regions of the
Roman Empire (as Spain or Gaul), but not in the
military important, border regions, such as Rhine
or Eastern army and especially the Danube army
– where in the second century A.D. stationed at
about half of the whole Roman military forces..
In contrast to the position of tribunus miolitum
laticlavius, which (as it seems) depended mostly
on the patronage – “at intermediate level – such
as legionary legatships and some governorships
– one may infer that some kind of regular system
developed, even if its workings are in doubt. Even
hard-working emperors could not have known
personally all the 600 members of the senate” (Bir-
ley 1981, 3). Perhaps one of the reasons of mighty
position of Imperium Romanum, especially in the
second century A.D. in the so-called “golden era
of Antonines”, was the efficiency of its administra-
tion and armed forces. Especially during the reign
and wars of Marcus Aurelius “inevitably, a corps
of military men with wide experience developed
in the process, men whose specialist knowledge
and experience was very valuable. The careers of
such men were almost exclusively military, involv-
ing only brief experience of civilian government
posts” (Southern 2001, 19). Some of them spent
most of their official career (cursus honorum) in
active service, mostly in distant provinces of the
Roman Empire: P.Helvius Pertinax – 21 years in
active service, Sex.Iulius Severus – 21, M.Statius
Priscus – 15 years (Birley 2000, 111). All three per-
sons took more than one post each in the Lower
Danube “high command”. Publius Helvius Perti-
nax served as legatus legionis I Adiutricis (ca. 171
A.D.) and then governed in succession both Moe-
sian provinces and Dacia (ca. 176-179 A.D.). Sex-
tus Iulius Severus (or rather Cn. Minicius Fausti-
nus Sex. Iulius Severus) served as legatus legionis
279
 II. Materiale şi cercetări
XIIII Geminae (ca. 118-119 A.D.) and received
governorships of Dacia Superior (ca. 120-126
A.D.) and Moesia Inferior (ca. 128-130 A.D.). He
moved from one corner of the Empire to another
as only the military crisis emerged Marcus Statius
Priscus Licinius Italicus served as legatus legio-
nis XIII Geminae, legatus legionis XIIII Geminae
(ca. 155 A.D.) and governed the province of Dacia
(ca. 156-158 A.D.) and Moesia superior (161 A.D.)
(Żyromski 1995 b, 105, 110, 116). Such the difficult
and long service in the Roman provincial admin-
istration was certainly very tired. And so, nothing
strange that already emperor Hadrian created
some posts in the imperial administration, which
were in the capital of Rome and can be treated
as the kind of “paid leave” for such the “military
men” (for instance aerarium Saturni, curator ope-
rum publicorum) (Syme 1985, 265). During their
military service such the “military men” quite of-
ten received the military decorations (dona mili-
taria) – however, rather not for their own bravery
but rather for the bravery of their legions. After-
wards, they could received the highest posts in
the Roman imperial administration (proconsul
provinciae Africae/Asiae, praefectus urbi, consul
iterum) (Żyromski 1996). Besides, it is interesting
that such the persons very intensively employed in
the military and administrative service descended
only exceptional from the old patrician or consul-
ar families On the contrary – “consular legates of
military provinces were more often than not from
relatively new families” (Birley 2000, 117). And
so, the successful and distinguished service in the
important, border regions of the Roman Empire
could be viewed also as the factor of social mobil-
ity (Żyromski 2001). Such was the case of all three
above-mentioned “military men”. “M.Statius
Priscus Licinius Italicus performed two posts (in-
cluded in the quartae militiae equestre) under the
command of Cn. Minicius Faustinus Sex. Iulius
Severus. Besides, he gained the military decora-
tions in Hadrian’s Jewish War” (Żyromski 1995b,
62). And so, the military predispositions were
closely connected with support of the superior of-
ficer or administrator. Arthur Birley presented the
list of “senators who hold more than 2 consular
military commands” – there were 29 such the
“military men” of which 20 belonged to the Lower
Danube “high command” (Birley 2000, 111-113).
Undoubtedly, some persons were very frequently
employed on the important positions, mainly as
280
legionary commanders and provincial governors,
but also as the Task Forces’ (vexillationes) com-
manders in the border, military provinces of the
Roman Empire (especially on Lower Danube).
Thanks to their military abilities they often ob-
tained the military decorations and finished their
cursus honorum on the highest positions in the
Roman imperial administration (though they
were almost exclusively hominess novi). And so,
certainly some kind of specialization in Imperi-
um Romanum existed (Żyromski 1991, Żyromski
1994, Żyromski 1995a). Certainly, there was only
exceptional the specialization within one province
only. As it was said above, the legionary legate
never served in the same legion, in which he pre-
viously performed the office of military tribune.
Undoubtedly, the question of specialization could
be presented rather in terms of whole provincial
complexes, such as Rhine, Eastern or especially
Lower Danube provinces of the Roman Empire.
“Specialization within single province like that
of Agricola in Britain must have been rather rare
during the Principate […] Whereas the normal
technique was military rotation, as now in mod-
ern armies, specialization within larger provincial
areas was always possible” (Sherk 1971, 120). On
the other hand, Robert Sherk who (perhaps as the
first scholar) pointed out the question of special-
ization, wrote that “Because of the organizational
structure of the Principate it was inevitable that
the officers responsible for the efficiency of the
Roman armed forces and the various government
bureaus would rotate from one post to another”
(Sherk 1971, 110). The question of specialization
is especially visible during the many wars in the
second century A.D., because “the growth of spe-
cialization in the army made for a greater pro-
fessionalism” (Southern 2001, 20). On the other
hand some scholars do not see the question of
specialization even in the case of equestrian order
“The careers and promotion of equites do not ad-
mit of patterns or schemes of promotion and tell
against specialization in Roman imperial admin-
istration” (Campbell 1984, 331).
Undoubtedly, the employment of equestrians in
the Roman imperial army and administration
can be also analyzed in terms of patronage and
specialization. “First appointments, whether as
prefect of a cohort or as ‘tribunus angusticlavius’,
were normally due to the patronage” (Birley 1988,
105). Also in the opinion of R.P. Saller “equestri-
 M. Żyromski, The patterns of promotion within the roman army and administration

an militiae were assumed to constitute patronal
resources to be dispensed first to protégés and
then to friends of friends” (Saller 1982, 132). On
the other hand, as it seems, the patronage and
personal relations were important on the initial
stages of the equestrian career, only. Afterwards,
the equestrian officer had to distinguished him-
self to secure future promotion. „If an initial rec-
ommendation secured a first appointment, still
more must a man’s promotion have depended
on the confidential reports by superior officers”
(Birley 1953a, 142). And so, Eric Birley opposed
the hypothesis claiming that the equestrian offi-
cers were amateurs. The equestrian military posts
were combined in the so-called “militiae” (quar-
tae militiae equestres). “The militiae are in fact
grades in the service and not individual appoint-
ments – and that explains why 4 is the highest
number ever specified, even though in some cases
as many as half a dozen successive appointments
are attested” (Birley 1953a, 150) The tres militiae
lasted together at about ten years but starting
with the reign of Hadrian ala milliaria appears as
militia quarta; Nevertheless, only very few people
could count on such the promotion – statistically
speaking only at about 3-4% of persons who start-
ed career on militia prima could get the militia
quarta. In the middle of the 2nd century A.D. the
equestrian military hierarchy was as follows:
at about 300 praefecti cohortis quingenariae/tri-
buni .cohortis voluntariorum;
ca. 190 tribuni angusticlavii legionis/tribuni co-
hortis milliariae;
ca. 90 praefecti alae quingenariae;
ca. 10 praefecti alae milliariae (Devijver 1995,
183; Devijver 1987, 108).
And so, “an equestrian officer automatically re-
verted to civilian status as soon as his successor
arrived to take over from him” (Birley 1988, 110).
Undoubtedly, the military abilities and/or experi-
ence formed only part of the necessary conditions
for obtaining the post within militiae equestres.
“Desirable qualities in an equestrian officer, from
the perspective of an army commander, included
no doubt, trustworthiness and reliability – but
it could be anachronistic to use labels like ‘ama-
teur’. Military academics did not exist. Equestri-
an officers were mostly landowners” – experience
in management, command or law; “Army com-
manders were themselves mostly cultivated men.
Away from Rome, they would appreciate hav-
ing congenial types to entertain them when they
toured their province and at their table at head-
quarters. Hence the emphasis on culture in the
letters of recommendation by Pliny and Fronto”
(Birley 2003, 5).

Bibliography

Birley 1953a: E. Birley, The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Army. In: E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman
Army. Collected Papers (Kendal 1953), 133-153.
Birley 1953b: E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army. Collected Papers (Kendal 1953).
Birley 1956: E. Birley, The Epigraphy of the Roman Army. In: Actes du Deuxieme Congres International
d’Epigraphie Grecque et Latin Paris 1952 (Paris 1956), 226-238.
Birley 1981: A.R. Birley, Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford 1981).
Birley 1988: E. Birley, Promotions and transfers in the Roman Army: senatorial and equestrian officers, 93 – 114
(=Carnuntum Jahrbuch 1957, 3-20). In: E. Birley, The Roman Army Papers 1929-1985, Mavors vol. IV (Am-
sterdam 1988).
Birley 2000: A.R. Birley, Senators as Generals. In: (Hrsg. G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, W. Eck) Kaiser, Heer und Gesell-
schaft in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Gedankschrift für Eric Birley (Stuttgart 2000), 97-119.
Birley 2003: A.R.Birley, The commissioning of equestrian officers. In: (Ed. J.J. Wilkes) Documenting the Roman
Army. Essays in honour of Margaret Roxan (London 2003), 1-18.
Birley 1988: E. Birley, Promotions and transfers in the Roman Army: senatorial and equestrian officers, Car-
nuntum Jahrbuch 1957, pp. 3-20), reprinted in: E. Birley, The Roman Army Papers 1929-1985, Mavors, vol. IV
(Amsterdam 1988), 93-114.
Burton 1990: G. Burton, Government and the provinces. In: (Ed. J.Wacher) The Roman World (London and New
York 1990).
Campbell 1975: B. Campbell, Who were the “viri militares”. JRS 65, 1975, 11-31.
Campbell 1984: J.B. Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 B.C.- A.D. 235 (Oxford 1984).
Campbell 1994: B. Campbell, The Roman Army 31 B.C.- A.D.337. A Sourcebook (London and New York 1994).

281
 II. Materiale şi cercetări

Campbell 2002: B. Campbell, War and Society in Imperial Rome 31B.C.- A.D.284 (London and New York
2002).
Devijver 1987: H. Devijver, La Prosopographia Militarium Equestrium. Contribution a l’histoire sociale et
economique au Principat. In: (Ed. T. Hackens, P. Marchett) Histoire economique de l’Antiquite (Louvain-la-
Neuve 1987), 107-122.
Devijver 1995: H. Devijver, Les milices equestres et la hierarchie militaire. In: (Ed. Y.Le Bohec) La hierarchie
(Rangordnung) de l’Armee romaine sous le Haut – Empire (Paris 1995), 175-191.
Devijver 1998: H. Devijver, Commanders and officers of legio IIII Scythica. In: (Ed. D. Kennedy) The twin towns
of Zeugma on the Euphrates. Rescue works and historical studies, Portsmouth RI 1998 (JRA suppl. series 27),
204-232.
Dobson 1993a: B. Dobson, The ‘Rangordnung’ of the Roman Army. In: D.J. Breeze, B. Dobson, Roman officers
and frontiers. Mavors X (Stuttgart 1993).
Dobson 1993b: B. Dobson, The Roman Army: Wartime or Peacetime Army? In: D.J. Breeze, B. Dobson, Roman
officers and frontiers. Mavors X (Stuttgart 1993).
Dobson 1970: B. Dobson, The centurionate and social mobility during the principate. In: (Ed. C. Nicolet) Recher-
ches sur les structures socials dans l’antiquite classique (Paris 1970), 99-116.
Ferrill 1986: A. Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire. The military explanation (London 1986).
Isaac 1990: B. Isaac, The limits of empire. The Roman Army in the East. (Oxford 1990).
Mattern 1999: S.P. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley 1999).
Saller 1980: R.P. Saller, Promotion and Patronage in Equestrian Careers. JRS 70, 1980, 44-63.
Saller 1982: R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982).
Sherk 1971: R. Sherk, Specialization in the provinces of Germany. Historia 20, 1971, 110-121.
Southern 2001: P. Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine (London 2001).
Syme 1984: R. Syme, Governors dying in Syria. ZPE 41, 1981, 125-144; reprinted in: R. Syme, Roman Papers, vol.
3 (Oxford 1984), 1376-1392.
Syme 1985: R. Syme, Curtailed Tenures of Consular legates. ZPE 59, 1985, 265-279.
Syme 1988a: R. Syme, Praesens the Friend of Hadrian. In: Studia in Honorem Iiro Kajanto, Arctos Suppl. II,
1985, 273-291; reprinted in: (Ed. A.R. Birley) Roman Papers, vol. V (Oxford 1988), 563-578.
Syme 1988b: R. Syme, The career of Arrian = HSCPh 86, 1982, 181-211. In: (Ed. A.R. Birley) R. Syme, Roman
Papers, vol. IV (Oxford 1988), 21-49.
Żyromski 1991: M. Żyromski, Specialization in the Roman provinces of Moesia. Athenaeum (Pavia) 79, 1991,
59-102.
Żyromski 1994: Specialization – the hidden feature of the Roman provincial administration, „Pomoerium” (Bo-
chum) 1, 1994, 63-68.
Żyromski 1995a: The question of specialization in the Roman administrative system – the case of Pannonia. Eos
LXXXIII, 1995, 337-353.
Żyromski 1995b: M. Żyromski, The Elite in the Lower Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire (Mosina 1995).
Żyromski 1996: M. Żyromski, The dona militaria as factor of senatorial career in the Roman Empire during the
Principate. Eos LXXXIV, 1996, 115-136.
Żyromski 2001: M. Żyromski, Some patterns of senatorial vertical social mobility in the Early Roman Empire.
Eos LXXXVIII, 2001, 87-94.

Metode de promovare în cadrul armatei şi administraţiei romane – patronatul faţă de

experienţă şi specializare

Rezumat
În acest articol au fost prezentate metodele de promovare în cadrul armatei şi administraţiei romane, avându-se la
bază relaţia dintre două noţiuni: experienţa şi specializarea pe de o parte şi patronatul pe de alta parte. Cele mai
multe informaţii cu privire la carierele oficialilor şi ofiţerilor romani pot fi obţinute din inscripţiile despre carieră
(cursus honorum). Cu toate acestea, stabilirea motivelor pentru promovare din inscripţii este foarte dificilă, întru-
cât sunt prezentate doar posturile consecutive din armata şi administraţia romana. Totuşi, se pare ca în regiunile
de frontieră ale Imperiului Roman experienţa şi specializarea erau mai importante decât patronatul. Acest lucru
este valabil, în mod special, pentru provinciile de la Dunărea de Jos.

282
 M. Żyromski, The patterns of promotion within the roman army and administration

Методы продвижения в римской армии и администрации – протекционизм

против опытности и специализации

Резюме
В данной статье рассмотрены методы продвижения по службе в римской армии и администрации исходя
из двух основных понятий: с одной стороны это опытность и специализация, а с другой – протекционизм.
Больше всего информаций о карьере римских чиновников и офицеров встречаются в надписях о карьере
(cursus honorum). Но, несмотря на это, установление истинных мотивов продвижения встречает значи-
тельные затруднения, поскольку эти надписи содержат только последовательность должностей в римской
администрации и армии. Исходя из некоторых данных, можно считать, что в приграничных регионах, все
же главенствующею роль играют опытность и умение. Особенно это прослеживается в нижнедунайских
провинциях.

02.12.2008

Dr. Marek Żyromski, Poznań University, Szamarzewskiego 89a, Poznań 60-567, Poland, e-mail: zyromski@interia.pl

283