Why auxiliaries??

[AqD]

Why does roman empire/republic use auxiliaries instead of training its own people for heavy cavalry and archers? The use of barbarians in army seems to be very illogical - instead of diminishing the barbarians' battle capability, Rome actually helped them by recruiting and training auxiliary troops, which proved to be risky and a source of problems in later empire.

 

Besides, wouldn't it be much safer for romans if they just annihilate every enemies, instead of using their previous enemies (people in non-rome provinces) to fight against other enemies?

[Kosmo]

Some units are hard to train because their skill depends on the habits of the population. A roman peasant had no experience with a bow or riding a horse so training from zero was difficult. A person from a nation or group that used this from childhood was already skilled when he joined the roman army.

So, a cattle raising nomad that lived on horse since childhood was a much better horseman than a italian peasant that did not ever had a horse (oxen were used in agriculture and transport). He knew how to take care of the horse, how to ride it and how to fight mounted. It simply saved time to use someone with a good knowledge than to train someone fro years before it was battle worthy.

A similar problem was faced by US pilots that were trying to train chinese pilots in WW2. It was much harder to train a chinese peasant that had little previous knowledge of modern machinery than an american farmer that had experience with guns and cars.

 

Rome could have never conquer the world without using those who were defeated by her. The ability to turn various people into romans was her strenght. If the failing of this ability caused partly her downfall this happened only after many centuries of glorious rule and it's a debatable assumption.

[Gaius Octavius]

Besides, wouldn't it be much safer for romans if they just annihilate every enemies, instead of using their previous enemies (people in non-rome provinces) to fight against other enemies?

 

In general, what would be the point of conquering a land if the population were annihilated? There would be no one left to exploit its resources. Egyptian farmers supplied wheat to Rome.

 

Looking at the auxiliaries another way, it helped to keep them out of mischief in their own land as they were used abroad. The Romans used the Batavians in Britain, and not in their homeland.

 

I believe that at one point in time, the Romans used 'foreign' troopers to commence a battle, and only committed their legions if necessary. Towards the end of the Empire, most (95%?) were 'foreign' and not Italian.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Pompieus]

There were lots of reasons for using non-Roman troops. It was much cheaper to require an ally to provide troops as part of a treaty than for the state to raise and pay them and ship them to the far reaches of Spain or Syria. And the local peoples knew the enemy and the tactics required to defeat them. Note that all the European colonial nations like Britain and France recruited and used "native" troops in their colonies just like the Romans did - even the US recruited Native Americans to fight other Native Americans in the "Indian" Wars.

 

Some of the auxilia had special "national" capabilities like Numidian light cavalry, slingers from the Belearic Islands, Cretan archers and "amphibious" Batavians - it was obviously quicker and cheaper to get these skills from allies than to train Roman troops in these specialties.

 

Additionally it was traditional that Roman armies include non-Roman troops. At first men from the Latin or Italian allies made up more than half of a Roman army, and this tradition morphed over time to include using Spanish or Gallic auxiliaries or the troops of client kings to supplement the legions. There was also a clear political aspect to this tradition as well, service with or in the worlds greatest military force sometimes instilled a certain "Roman-ness" in these troops. This eventually resulted in individuals or units that had especially distingushed themselves and later all retiring auxiliaries receiving Roman citizenship.

 

Over all the long history of Rome how many ex-auxiia caused problems? Civilis, Arminius, Poppaedius Silo and the other leaders in the Social War - I bet I missed some others - but not so many for over 700 years.

[caldrail]

Just to add my own two sestercii...

 

Why does roman empire/republic use auxiliaries instead of training its own people for heavy cavalry and archers?

Simply for that reason. The roman forces need to be trained in roman methods and so forth - it all takes time and money. On the other hand, there are barbarians across the border with all the skills you need. So pay them, offer them citizenship for loyalty and long service, and hey presto, instant units.

 

The use of barbarians in army seems to be very illogical - instead of diminishing the barbarians' battle capability, Rome actually helped them by recruiting and training auxiliary troops, which proved to be risky and a source of problems in later empire.

It was risky. Arminius, Tacfarinas, Spartacus, for instance, were all trained in roman warfare and used that knowledge to good effect against Rome. But then, roman units were not noted for their loyalty anyway. many rebelled or mutineed. One famous legion, the XII Fulminata, served with Zenobia's army in the Palmyrene Revolt of the third century.

 

Besides, wouldn't it be much safer for romans if they just annihilate every enemies, instead of using their previous enemies (people in non-rome provinces) to fight against other enemies?

Then they have no-one to trade with, no-one to watch their borders for them, no-one to ally with or apply political pressure, and no ready source of extra troops.

[sonic]

I believe that at one point in time, the Romans used 'foreign' troopers to commence a battle, and only committed their legions if necessary. Towards the end of the Empire, most (95%?) were 'foreign' and not Italian.

 

 

Can I ask where you got the figure of 95% from for the 'foreign' recruits in the army??

 

Sonic

[Gaius Octavius]

I believe that at one point in time, the Romans used 'foreign' troopers to commence a battle, and only committed their legions if necessary. Towards the end of the Empire, most (95%?) were 'foreign' and not Italian.

 

 

Can I ask where you got the figure of 95% from for the 'foreign' recruits in the army??

 

Sonic

 

I was using memory. This does not answer your question, but goes a long way to doing so:

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

 

I'll try to find the proper citation.

[CiceroD]

Wasn't the allure of being an auxilliary the prospect of gaining Roman Citizenship at the end of one's Term of Service?

 

So theoretically one would bring that Riding/Archery/Slinging experience into the Empire.

 

Not that it ever really worked like that.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

Much like CiceroD's point, wasn't the bait for joining the army the chance for citizenship or potential land and wealth?

However when armies were levied wouldn't archers be particularly hard to get hold of?

 

vtc

[Ingsoc]

Wasn't the allure of being an auxilliary the prospect of gaining Roman Citizenship at the end of one's Term of Service?

 

Yes, after a service of 25 years the soldiers at the auxiliaries and navy would receive a Roman citizenship, which was highly sought after.

[Gaius Octavius]

I am sure that the potential for loot from being with a victorious army also helped in the recruitment of foreigners.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, amici!

 

One can make an interesting case about the possibility that auxiliaries

[Kosmo]

For sure many roman victories were brought by allies, but can we call the soldiers of allied and client states as auxilia?

[Gaius Octavius]

For sure many roman victories were brought by allies, but can we call the soldiers of allied and client states as auxilia?

 

If they formed a 'Roman' cohort, I would think, yes. But not in a case such as Massinisa's.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[ASCLEPIADES]

For sure many roman victories were brought by allies, but can we call the soldiers of allied and client states as auxilia?

 

If they formed a 'Roman' cohort, I would think, yes. But not in a case such as Massinisa's.

 

I have been corrected.

 

Anyway, I know that the Numidian cavalry was recorded as an auxilia of the Roman legions around the Empire, as early as the II Macedonian War, a couple of years after Zama.

 

And about Zama, here comes Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXX, Chapters XXXIII and XXXV:

 

"Laelius, who had been one of his (Scipio's) staff-officers and was now by special appointment of the senate acting as quaestor, was in command of the Italian cavalry on the left wing, Masinissa and his Numidians being posted on the right."

"Laelius and Masinissa, who had followed up the defeated cavalry a considerable distance, now returned from the pursuit at the right moment and attacked the enemy in the rear. This at last decided the action."

 

I don't know if it can be determined what kind of units did the Numidians form at that battle.

 

Besides, the Numidians (Moors) on the other side were actually called "auxilia" by Livius.

 

(Ibid. Ch. XXX): "To make his line look more menacing Hannibal posted his elephants in front... Behind them were the auxiliaries, Ligurians and Gauls, with an admixture of Balearics and Moors."