"Roman Auxiliaries in the "Marian" era" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Deuce03 | 01 Jun 2016 2:19 p.m. PST |
The "canonical" list of auxiliary units in the service of late republican Rome covers most of the basis, and so dominates most wargaming ranges and collections. But it seems to me there are also some major gaps, and it's hard to find any information, let alone figures, for some of these areas. The "standard" list generally comprises Balearic slingers, Spanish cavalry, scutarii and/or caetrati, Numidian cavalry and skirmishers, Gallic and Germanic cavalry, Cretan archers, Illyrian skirmishers, and various units from Thrace and Macedonia. While it seems fairly extensive, it's also pretty western-centric. There's nothing from Sicily, non-Numidian Africa, Asia Minor, Syria, Cyprus, Phoenicia or Sicily, or mainland Greece "proper". That's about half the empire! Considering that the most persistent enemy of Rome during the late Republic was Mithridates and Pontus, these seem surprising omissions. Is it simply lack of information? Perhaps troops from that part of the world had no particular reputation which merited mention in ancient sources? Is it just that the best-documented wars are in the west (Particularly Caesar's Gallic Wars, of course)? Were troops in the east generally recruited into more legion-like formations? (Certainly there were Galatian and Syrian legions; did that apply more broadly?) Does anyone know any more about this or have any ideas on such units or how they would have been equipped? Since my Romans have an eastern bent it would be nice to include some local units along with western ones. I can make some educated guesses but would prefer to work from accurate information where possible. |
kodiakblair | 01 Jun 2016 4:10 p.m. PST |
I wonder if Emilio Gabba's book Republican Rome:The Army and The Allies or C.L. Cheesman's The Auxilia of The Roman Imperial Army may shed some light on this. Afraid I haven't delved too deeply into either. |
TKindred | 01 Jun 2016 4:44 p.m. PST |
I had always thought that the bulk of the Phoenicians, North Africans (post Cathargo) etc, would have been put into either the Roman navy as crews and/or marines, artillerists, etc, or used in place as garrison troops for Roman governors, etc. In the field armies, it has been my opinion, based upon Tacitus (and others) that auxiliary troops were either trained and equipped as legionary or foughtin their native garb, but that their numbers were equal to those of the Legions they supported. In other words, Auxiliaries of all types equaled or exceed the number of men in the legion they supported. But as to the OP's point, IMHO, it wasn't important to the Roman authors to actually note specific ethnic groups, unless doing so indicated some particular fighting style or point of interest to the reader and/or in support of the author's point of view. |
Deuce03 | 01 Jun 2016 5:14 p.m. PST |
In the field armies, it has been my opinion, based upon Tacitus (and others) that auxiliary troops were either trained and equipped as legionary or foughtin their native garb, but that their numbers were equal to those of the Legions they supported. In other words, Auxiliaries of all types equaled or exceed the number of men in the legion they supported.But as to the OP's point, IMHO, it wasn't important to the Roman authors to actually note specific ethnic groups, unless doing so indicated some particular fighting style or point of interest to the reader and/or in support of the author's point of view. This is pretty much what I'd been assuming. I guess most of the regions I'm talking about were Hellenistic, where "imitation legionaries" were in vogue by this period, and Sicily had been Roman longer than anywhere outside mainland Italy, so it wouldn't be surprising to see them essentially outfitted as legionaries. I was just slightly surprised that none of these regions produced troops of enough apparent interest or specialism to attract the attention of ancient writers – especially since some of them, like Appian and Diodorus, were themselves of eastern origin and you'd have thought they'd take the opportunity to laud the prowess of Sicilian/Hellenistic troops. |
GurKhan | 02 Jun 2016 1:38 a.m. PST |
There is an article at PDF link about Roman Sicily, including a section on Sicilian soldiers in Roman armies. But Sicily mostly provided ships and crews, like the old "socii navales" of Greek Italy. As for Syria, various sources list Syrian and Ituraean archers among Pompey's auxiliaries at Pharsalus, and Caesar used them later on. Have a look at link for the sources on the Pharsalus campaign. |
Deuce03 | 02 Jun 2016 3:06 a.m. PST |
01 Jun 2016 4:10 p.m. PSTI wonder if Emilio Gabba's book Republican Rome:The Army and The Allies or C.L. Cheesman's The Auxilia of The Roman Imperial Army may shed some light on this. > I'm still working my way through the latter, although I think given its focus I've probably already covered most of the relevant areas. The former, unfortunately, seems to focus almost exclusively on the legions and the socii. Anyway, there are a couple of possible clues from Cheesman. Firstly, it seems that much of the east wasn't "provinced" until the Imperial era, being instead a patchwork of client kingdoms and vassals whose troops would presumably be counted as allies or mercenaries rather than as auxiliaries, even if they fill exactly the same role. (That said, presumably the same goes for Numidia?) Cheesman also mentions in passing that Greece was the "spoilt child" of the Roman empire and consequently was not called on to provide levies in the same quantity as most of its other territories. Taken together this cuts down the territories in the east from which true auxiliaries could be drawn – effectively Asia (the province) and Cilicia. As for Syria, various sources list Syrian and Ituraean archers among Pompey's auxiliaries at Pharsalus, and Caesar used them later on. Have a look at link for the sources on the Pharsalus campaign. Thanks for that. From there, Caesar gives a run-down of many of the troops in Pompey's army (other than the legions): "He had archers from Crete and Lacedaemon, from Pontus and Syria and the other states… also two 600-strong cohorts of slingers, and seven thousand horsemen. Of these Deiotarus had brought six hundred Gauls (Galatians – ed), and Ariobarzanes five hundred from Cappadocia; Cotys had provided the same number from Thrace … from Macedonia there were two hundred … The young Pompey had brought … Gauls and Germans, whom A. Gabinius had left [in Alexandria] with King Ptolemy on garrison duty. He had collected eight hundred from his own slaves and from his list of herdsmen… three hundred from Gallograecia (Galatia again – ed)… From Syria two hundred had been sent by Antiochus of Commagene… and among them many mounted archers. To these Pompey had added Dardani and Bessi, partly mercenaries, partly secured by his authority or influence, also Macedonians, Thessalians, and men of other nations and states, and had thus filled up the number stated above."
This goes some way to illustrating the above point that many of them were not strictly speaking "auxiliaries" as we might understand them but rather "allies" even though there is no practical difference. It does also at least give some clues as to what such troops might have been. I'm surprised to see mention of slaves in the tally, given the general Roman thoughts towards arming slaves. But this might of course be Caesarian propaganda, and it's suggested that in fact he means "clients" more generally, which would match established Republican practice more closely. |
Trevsky | 02 Jun 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
Auxiliaries in the late Republic were still very much more foreign or client allies than Roman regulars. Most were raised on an ad hoc or short term basis and disbanded or returned after a campaign. The genesis of the later Augustan regular auxiliaries seems to have come from some long standing units that were retained for extended periods during the Gallic and civil wars and in some cases under Roman officers. These were still very much the exception though and the maxim of 1:1 legions to auxiliaries is probably not valid, in fact it is probably over stressed even in the imperial period. The typical late republican auxiliary unit would be a group of specialists providing a role that the Romans lacked. For example, the enfranchisement of the Socii, the neglect of the Legionary property qualifications and central provision of arms meant virtually all Italians could now serve as Legionaries. This left gaps in the cavalry and light roles that needed to be filled and so auxiliaries were drawn from regions with a reputation for these skills. The most famous of these were the likes of the Cretans, Numidians, Rhodians, Balearics, Spaniards, Thracians etc. but less renowned sources could be used when these were not available. Shepherds were mounted to create cavalry scouts in the civil wars, Gladiators and Gallic mountain tribesmen spring to mind too. At Dyrrachium one of Caesar's cohorts in a fort was bombarded with thousands of arrows. I don't recall the archers being specified but they were presumably Hellenistic or Asiatic. Pompey has a wide variety of Eastern cavalry at Pharsalus and Anthony took many archers and slingers on his eastern campaigns to avoid the fate of Crassus. Syrian archers later served on Hadrian's wall and archers were common in Middle Eastern armies both before and after the late Republic. Mountainous parts of Asia Minor like Lycia might also be sources of mercenary light troops and the Galatians had a long tradition of mercenary service across the east. One Galatian unit, probably cavalry, is recorded serving Cleopatra and possibly later Herod. Capadocean cavalry and Pontic archers are two more examples of likely candidates. Essentially, whatever light troops or cavalry a client or ally had can reasonably be expected to have served as Roman auxiliaries somewhere at one point or another. In the Augustan and later empire many Auxiliaries seem to have served as heavy infantry, supplementing the Romans with numbers rather than specialist skills but this doesn't seem to have usually been the case in the late republic. Their huge citizen base meant the Romans usually had plenty of their own good quality heavy infantry, so rarely needed to raise more as Auxiliaries. Such troops would probably have been inferior in training and used different tactics too, so perhaps they didn't fit well with the Roman way of war. Some examples do exist but typically seem to be troops operating in the Roman style. Caesar raised 22 cohorts of Gallic infantry towards the end of the Gallic War and some of these may well be the men who later became the Alaudae Legion. Syrian, possibly former Seleucid, and Galatian legions have already been mentioned while Numidian and a Spanish 'Vernacular' legion are two more examples. The Hellenistic tradition of heavy infantry had not entirely died in the east though as Mithridates and Pharnaces of Pontus, Tigranes of Armenia and the last remnant successors in Egypt and Syria all raised Phalanxes of some kind in defence of their kingdoms around this time. It is unclear exactly how these were armed though and the extent to which Romanisation had already occurred is highly debated. The typical mercenary at this time was the Thureophoroi, possibly by now a kind of universal soldier that could serve as a light Phalangite with a long spear or as a javelin armed skirmisher. Many thousands of mercenaries seem to have existed and I recall 6000 Carians mentioned surrendering a city to the Romans at one point. Such troops were probably outclassed by legionaries in the field but served well enough as garrison troops or when putting down rebellions. Mithridates does appear to have had genuine Phalangites in his early wars but adopted imitation legions after defeat by the Roman legions. The others may have already abandoned the pike by 100bc but it is possible some former Seleucid colonists still remained and served against the Romans. There is I think one late mention of a Commagene allied Phalanx serving in Judea as late as the 1stC AD but these may well have been guardsmen or spearmen not a true pike formation. One last note on elephants. African elephants had been common in 2ndC BC auxiliary contingents but seem to have gone out of fashion by the civil wars. Large forces of Elephants was used by both Romanised Numidian and Roman armies in Africa but I don't know of examples outside Africa at this time. It's not beyond the realms of possibility for a hypothetical campaign though and elephants were considered in both 1stC AD invasion of Britain and even by Didius Julianus to defend Rome against Severus in the 2ndC AD. Ps see Luke's Marian army list for more ideas and check out his history articles on the Thureophoroi. link |
Swampster | 02 Jun 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
I don't think we know enough about the way non-citizen troops were raised to make much distinction between auxilliaries and allies. Many of the troops you originally listed would have been from allied kingdoms or tribes, including Numidians, Germans and many of the Gauls. Mithridates of Pergamum raised troops in Syria and Cilicia to aid Caesar in Egypt. He was joined en route by Judaean troops. There were Greek troops aiding the Romans in Greece in the 1st MW. Bithynians aided them against Mith Eupator as well. Some troops seem to have been more valued than others, so that we have Gauls and Numidians operating far from home – though their experience may have been a factor. |
|