Legio X, VIII & IX

[Pompieus]

Apparently the idea that Caesar recruited Legio X of his Gallic Army while propraetor in Further Spain in 61BC, and that Pompey recruited Legions VIII & IX in 65BC has acquired the authority of the internet.  Where does this come from?  .

 

Since Pompey was campaigning in the Caucasus against the Iberii and Albani in 65 he couldn't be raising troops in Italy.  In fact he couldn't possibly have been further away!

 

  Plutarch says (Div Iul 12) that Caesar raised 10 cohorts when he arrived in Spain, but these were local levies like the 22 cohorts enlisted in Transalpine Gaul in 52.  All governors were authorized to raise local troops in their provinces.  Calling such troops a "legion" (as was done in the crisis of the civil war) drew comment in the sources.  Besides, where would he have found enough citizens to recruit?  There were probably plenty of Italian businessmen and contractors in Spain, but there were no colonies or settlements with willing young men to enlist.  Nor were the legions of this period permanently organized entities that could be moved about from province to province.  They were reconstituted and re-organized every year and given a new Primus Pilus new tribunes and, probably, a new number. 

 

Add to this the fact that four legions were probably already in Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul from at least 62BC fighting in Illyria under Q Metellus Celer and suppressing a revolt of the Allobroges under C Pomptinus. These units, reconstituted several times, are the four Caesar found there in 58.

 

Does anybody know if there is any evidence for these assertions in the primary sources?

Edited March 3, 2016 by Pompieus

[caldrail]

The word 'Legion' means 'levy' and only acquires any sort of regimental air after the Reforms of Augustus. Before that, legion numbering was a matter of convenience and applied to the order of recruitment rather than any unit designation. You do seem to grasp this point I note. The requirement for citizen status is probably not that big an issue regarding troops raised locally. I wouldn't be surprised if warlords like Caesar simply had everyone swear an oath to satisfy the traditional requirement but then bear in mind slaves were not suitable as soldiers either, yet at times they were recruited, such as Augustus panicking after the Varian Disaster, when he demanded wealthy owners donate slaves to his levy (They ignored him, so he had some punished and took a number of slaves by order. These slaves had to be manumitted before they could serve, and were not equipped, billeted, or served alongside regular soldiers for fear of upsetting the legions)

[Pompieus]

You are totally right that there was no "regimental" quality to the legions prior to Augustus. There were anomalies like the "Valerians/Fimbrians" and it's possible Marius, Pompey, Lucullus et al instilled an "esprit de corps" of sorts in their units during their extended commands-but there is no evidence of this in the sources, and the legions were disbanded when the Imperator's command ended. 

It's also true that recruiting local defense forces or auxiliaries didn't require citizenship, but to call a unit a iusta legio citizenship was vital wasn't it? It's true Caesar was blasé about recruiting men with only latin rights in Cisapine Gaul, but even he didn't call the Alaudae a legion until the civil war, and commented on Pompey's legio vernacula in Spain. And freed slaves were technically citizens, and there was the precedent of similar recruitment of freed slaves in the Second Punic War.

In modern times, repeating something enough tends to make it true, and this weird mythology about legio X is now in Wikipedia et al ....I just wondered where it comes from.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Pompieus

[caldrail]

Wikipedia offers info on Legio_X_Equestris (Sorry, but for some reason I can't cut and paste on this web page. Grrrrr.....)

 

Freedmen were not citizens. They were second class members of the public, whilst classed as human in Roman law, were barred from public office. Claudius opened opportunities for them in governmental roles however, but this was later limited by Hadrian. There is a mention that they wore distinctive clothing  - I don't know anything about that. Nonetheless some became seriously successful and wealthy (albeit sneered at).

 

The problem with the late Republic is the warlords were powerful enough to begin seeing traditional cultural rights and restrictions as a means to an end, or perhaps as a pointless impediment to their plans. They were after all beginning to see the Roman Republic as a state that could be controlled, and indeed, Caesar had every intention of ruling absolutely.