"Rome - Auxiliary Units?" Topic

When did the Romans start to use auxiliary units alongside of the legions? I know they didn't use them during the Punic wars but were they in use during the Gallic wars 57 -55 BC? (after the Marian reforms) Thanks.

Thats a question of definition.

The Italian allies provided their forces from the start, and they fought in the Punic Wars. They were auxiliaries if by that you mean soldiers fighting alongside Romans in a non-legionary way.

Gradually they appear to have got more and more Romanised, so by the time of the Social war they were a straight match in the field – suggesting they were just Legionaries in all but name.

Casear in the Gallic Wars used Auxiliaris in the form of Gallic and later his favourite German Cavalry, when he realised he couldn't trust the Gauls.

Prior to that the forces used in the Mithridatic Wars included large numbers of auxiliaries – and Pompeian forces were very heavily made up of allied cavalry from Asia Minor.

If by Auxiliaries you mean 'Regulars' – non-Romans recruited for long periods with Citizenship as a reward – the guys portrayed in Chain with flat oval shields and spun cheap bronze helmets, that appears to have come in toward the end of the Augustan Principate. The same process that made the Socii into pseudo-Romans worked here too, so soon the auxiliaries were often citizens when they joined up. To get troops whose deaths were NOT a black mark against them the Emperors started recruiting irregular Tribal Peoples again, such as the Foederati and Numeri who appear on Trajans column.

Pat

Latin "Alae" had been legions in all but name since long before the social war – it seems likely they started fighting in Roman style when they were granted citizenship at various times.

Typically a roman army had as many Italian legions as Roman ones – eg a consular army was made up of 2 each Italaian and Roman legions, and AFAIK this was kept up during the Punic wars – including Cannae, etc AFAIK.

the Italian legions had more cavalry than the Roman ones – eitehr 600 or 900 IIRC, vs 300 for the Romans.

Non-Italian allies such as Gauls probably fought in their native style – such as the Gauls at Trebia.

About 100BC – 200AC.
Any light web browsing will provide you with more exact dates.

During this period their meaning evolved and changed, but Auxilia (or socii) are not allies.
In a simple way you can see the Roman army split in two: the restricted access army; the open access army.
The restricted army is composed of Roman citizens only.
The open access army, the auxilia is open to both citizens and non citizens. The main feature of the auxilia is that by serving you could aspire to the citizen status, something though after.
Auxilia was then a part of the Roman army, incluing three main branches: auxiliary cavalry (mostly light); auxiliary archers and close order infantry. From about 40BC auxilia were equipped exactly like the legio and were as effective.
Why would citizens apply to the Auxilia?: the system was more open and a ‘Roman' could benefit from faster promotion, besides other mundane interests that might prevail.

J

"During this period their meaning evolved and changed, but Auxilia (or socii) are not allies."

Ummmm… actually, the Italian socii were allies of the Romans: link
link

Romans of the Republic also applied the term "socii" to non-Italian allies, some of whom were called on to serve in the army as mercenary auxilia, usually in the role of light troops or cavalry, beginning just before 200 BC.

Cheers,
Scott

Jerboa says

From about 40BC auxilia were equipped exactly like the legio and were as effective

Do you have any proof of this? From what I have read and seen there is a marked difference between auxiliary & legionary equipment especially when we get into Augustus' time and later. Legionaries usually wear the Lorica segmentata & rectangular shield and larger helmet while auxiliary usually have a chain shirt & oval shield Auxuliary: picture

Legionaries with shields & auxliary on the right
link

I'd have to say that I agree with Quadratus, there was a marked difference in gear and function between Auxilia and Legionaries until the Middle Empire.

They also tended to have different functions; Auxilia often took the lead in battle, and the Legions in siege.

Simon

Actually, once you get to the time of Trajan, there were certain basic similarities in legionary and auxilia.

Both wore armor. Legionaries are usually depicted wearing the segmentata, but mail was also used, sometimes scale, and sometimes were armed spear and oval shields.

The auxilia of 40 BC was an entirely different animal from what we see under Trajan and certainly after Marcus Aurelius.

Read Josephus' "The Jewish War", and pick up a book on Trajan's column. Also, "The Imperial Roman Army", by Yann Le Bohec is an excellent "one book" source for the organization and transition of the Roman army, and contains drawings from Trajan's column.

- Greg

GRPitts wrote

Actually, once you get to the time of Trajan, there were certain basic similarities in legionary and auxilia.

Both wore armor. Legionaries are usually depicted wearing the segmentata, but mail was also used, sometimes scale, and sometimes were armed spear and oval shields.

Not sure which side of the discussion you are trying to support. I guess you could say both groups are similar because they wore armor, as far as I know they don't share the exact same equipment during any time period (but I'd be happy to be pointed to something with some evidence to prove otherwise!) and throughout the first half of the principate the two groups make use of different equipment and serve in different roles.

Matt

The 2005 book "Soldiers and Ghosts" by J E Lendon, has a very interesting perspective on the similarities and differences between legionaries and auxilia in the periods of Trajan's column and the Jewish revolt; I'd recommend it. One of the most interesting military history books I've ever read.

Simon

Quadratus,

I'm not supporting either side; just stating what I believe to be the fact of the matter. While 40 BC is entirely too early, in my opinion, to say that legionary and auxilia were entirely equipped and trained the same, there are a number of sources that point out similarities within the two during this era, and more similarities as time goes on.

I believe that an arguement can justly be made that by the time of Marcus Aurelius, you can easily find legionary and auxilia equipped and trained in like fashion; perhaps earlier.

Other sources, some mentioned above, state that certain troops were like equipped long before this.

- Greg

GRPitts says

there are a number of sources that point out similarities within the two during this era, and more similarities as time goes on.

I'd like to see your sources. The best one that I know of the disagrees with your statement is the column of Trajan which shows Auxiliaries and Legionaries equipped very differently. Since very few written texts actually give detailed accounts of equipment one of the best sources of evidence is monuments and tombstones which (as many as I have seen) have shown legionaries and auxiliaries wearing different equipment.

stoa.org/trajan/index.html

I would state that auxiliaries were used for close order fighting and made use of swords, spears, javelins, pila, and were in no way less effective units. But they were different. I am basing my opinion on the book "Soldiers and Ghosts" link

which has some interesting views on legionaries & Auxiliaries in the time of the Principate.

Also Tacitus' writings on Agricolas campaigns in Britain.

…not to mention the accounts of the 69AD civil war where the character and roles of legionaries and auxilia are rather different.

And the archaeological evidence for the difference in gear between the pre-Trajans column auxiliary and legionary is very marked; there was an article in Ancient Warfare about it, suggesting that auxilia were unarmoured and customised their helmets by removing the cheek and neck guards, and covering them with Martin fun and feather crests.

Simon

Quadratus,

Take a look at the Aurelian Column.

- Greg

But Greg, isn't Aurelius much later, c160-180 AD?

Simon

I suggest you re-read my initial post:

"I believe that an arguement can justly be made that by the time of Marcus Aurelius, you can easily find legionary and auxilia equipped and trained in like fashion; perhaps earlier".

-Greg

GRPitts says

I suggest you re-read my initial post
"I believe that an arguement can justly be made that by the time of Marcus Aurelius, you can easily find legionary and auxilia equipped and trained in like fashion; perhaps earlier".

I did reread it and I did look at the column of Marcus Aurelius and although I did not find a site that hosted pictures with explanations I did find a site with decent photos of the column.

link

Everyone should feel free to browse the images.

I found examples of units of troops wearing segmentata included throughout the column. I also found troops wearing mail armor.

I would draw the assumption that the legionaries were still wearing the segmentata and that auxillia were still wearing mail (although I noticed examples of squamata on the column as well)

I do not know of anyone who has drawn the conclusion you are making, but am still open to any other arguments you might make

If you have further evidence that shows auxiliaries wearing the segmentata or vice versa please share.

At some point the legionaries give up their armor, anyone care to chime in on that point. My knowledge after the Principate is spotty at best.

Matt

You are entitled to your opinion.

- Greg

GRPitts says

You are entitled to your opinion.

:p Thanks. But I am interested in how you explain different types of soldiers that appear on the column of Aurelius? It was your evidence that legionaries and auxiliaries are "equipped in like fashion" and yet you have provided no evidence to support your statement. In fact the evidence brought forward (the column of Marcus Aurelius) seems to disprove your statement.

My opinion is based on some evidence (column of Trajan and funerary carvings) and I am interested to find other sources that might lead to other ideas. If you have some evidence please share. If you're just going on hunches I guess there's not much left to discuss.

Matt

Matt,

I don't think I need explain anything further. You seem to be basing your opinion on one book, "Soldiers & Ghosts".

Trajan's Column, which you seem to keep going back to, has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and your "in depth" analysis of the Aurelian Column is lacking at best. Then you tell everyone that they should feel free to view your link on said column, as if they need your permission to do so.

I have no issue carryong an intelligent exchange on the topic

feel free to email me directly at epaminondas123@verizon.net.

- Greg

Are there actualy details of hte Aurelian column anywhere on the 'net?

Trajan's column has a superb site at link that gives close up photos of the entire spiral, and outline drawings of some, with general descriptions – it's a great site.

GRPitts quotes

I don't think I need explain anything further. You seem to be basing your opinion on one book, "Soldiers & Ghosts".

It is one source but I have found others and posted them here.

Trajan's Column, which you seem to keep going back to, has nothing to do with the issue at hand,

The issue at hand was the statement that legionaries and auxiliaries are trained and equipped the same. I think Trajan's Column does a pretty fair job of proving that this is not so.

and your "in depth" analysis of the Aurelian Column is lacking at best.

I never claimed my analysis of the column was "in depth" but I do believe the column quite clearly shows two different types of Roman foot soldiers. Ones wearing segmentata and others wearing chain and I also noted them to be hanging out together on the column and not interspersed amongst each other. I have not examined the whole column. I was hoping you might have known something I do not.

Then you tell everyone that they should feel free to view your link on said column, as if they need your permission to do so.

No one needs my permission to do anything. I was inviting people to look for themselves.

I have no issue carryong an intelligent exchange on the topic

Not after an argument, friend, I was looking for some evidence on which you based your opinion. So far none has been forthcoming. . .

Seems to me that you have been the one on the attack. I have simply asked, and will ask again "Where do you have evidence that Auxiliaries and Legionaries were equipped the same?" You have failed to produce any evidence for your statement and when pressed it is YOU who has become argumentative and insulting. I have not cast any insults at you. And I have attempted to provide evidence to back up my opinion and would happily listen to other people's ideas, I was simply asking you to explain what evidence led you to your opinion. . .

feel free to email me directly at epaminondas123@verizon.net.

I have read a great deal of books, by modern and ancient authors, I do not presume to be an expert on anything, I am painfully aware that the data we have to "prove" how things were in the ancient world is thin. This has nothing to do with ego, I have asked you to support your facts which you have not done, and now you have resorted to personal attacks. Perhaps your ego is the one that is damaged.

I am still willing to hear anything you care to share that supports the idea of Auxiliaries and Legionaries being equipped with the same equipment during the principate. Or you can continue to hurl insults. . .

Matt

Aloysius says

Trajan's column has a superb site at link that gives close up photos of the entire spiral, and outline drawings of some, with general descriptions – it's a great site.

Hey! That's my link! :)

I have searched the internet and asked around at some other forums but it seems that there is nothing out there on M.A's column that is as good or detailed as the on on Trajan's column. . .

Here's hoping one comes along.

It would indeed be great to discover a website on Aurelian's column. There are some Crusader R&F minis for this period, coming out very shortly that looked very tempting from the greens…

Simon

Will these photos help? link

Cheers,
Scott