Why auxiliaries??

[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.

 

I have been corrected.

 

I had no intention of correcting you. I am probably wrong. What I was trying to get at was that an ally in combat need not necessarily be an auxila.

[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.

 

I had no intention of correcting you. I am probably wrong. What I was trying to get at was that an ally in combat need not necessarily be an auxila.

Salve, GO!

 

Every correction, intended or not, is duly welcomed and acknowledged.

 

I think you're right. I'm simply not sure about the defining criteria.

[Gaius Octavius]

To bring myself up to date, the Romans DID hire, or draft, or take, according to treaty, foreigners. They could be used for a crisis and then released, or retained if required.

 

They may have served under their own, or Roman commanders.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

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.

 

It was also a steady job, and for an out-of-work soldier (albeit a foreign one) the prospect of long term military service was attractive to the warrior mentality.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve iterum.

 

This is presumably one of the first documented references to Roman auxilia on the aftermath of the Roman defeat at Trasimene (DXXXVII AUC / 217 BC) (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXII, Ch. XXXVII):

 

"The king (Hiero of Syracuse) is quite aware that Rome does not employ any legionary soldiers or cavalry except Romans and those belonging to the Latin nation, but he has seen foreigners serving as light infantry in the Roman camp. He has, accordingly, sent 1000 archers and slingers, capable of acting against the Balearics and Moors and other tribes who fight with missile weapons

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

They use auxillery troops cause in their empire, they do not have enough people who wants to join and as auxillery troops they use less money to train them and buy armour for them. And they can sacrifice them insted of the Roman Citizen

[M. Porcius Cato]

For example, Massinissa and his Numidians fought both against and for Rome during the II Punic War, and they were defeated only once (at Ilipa on DXLVIII AUC / 206 BC, no less than by Scipio Africanus himself); their contribution to Zama and other Roman victories was probably greater than commonly acknowledged.

 

Moreover, the Numidians under Labienus kicked Caesar's agmen at Ruspina. Indeed, had the day not grown dark while Caesar's men were getting pelted to oblivion, Africa would have been Caesar's final resting place.

[Gaius Octavius]

Moreover, the Numidians under Labienus kicked Caesar's agmen at Ruspina. Indeed, had the day not grown dark while Caesar's men were getting pelted to oblivion, Africa would have been Caesar's final resting place.

 

Verily, I say unto you: If the rabbit didn't stop to defecate....

[caldrail]

They use auxillery troops cause in their empire, they do not have enough people who wants to join and as auxillery troops they use less money to train them and buy armour for them. And they can sacrifice them insted of the Roman Citizen

 

No, not really, although recruitment became a big issue in the late empire. Remember that auxillaries were in use during the civil wars between Octavian and Antony, with something like sixty legions in active service. Thats 300,000 men more or less, close to the maximum the romans ever had at one time. It was the skills of these men that made them so valuable. Cavalry, slingers, archers - the romans weren't too hot at these things but some foreigners were, so it made sense to offer them pay and future citizenship in return for service. In fact, auxillaries were often vital in the generals campaign and whilst as foreigners they may sometimes have been considered less valuable than regular troops, they certainly weren't regarded as universally expendable.

[AqD]

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.

 

So it's a shortcut to get armies of different skills. But this causes a big problem when their original armies become less useful (in later stage of empire) - they have to rely more and more on the auxiliaries, especially cavalries. Wouldn't they wonder where their native heavy infantries can still be found useful? Why not train their people to cavalries and archers instead?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

What really sets off my curiosity is - how the hell did the Romans communicate so effectively with their foreign auxiliaries? Especially on a battlefield where time is at such a premium? I know the British in recent times had officers that spoke Hindustani, Swahili, or whatever in order to handle their Sepoys and other "native" troops. Possibly the Romans had a similar system?

[Melvadius]

What really sets off my curiosity is - how the hell did the Romans communicate so effectively with their foreign auxiliaries? Especially on a battlefield where time is at such a premium? I know the British in recent times had officers that spoke Hindustani, Swahili, or whatever in order to handle their Sepoys and other "native" troops. Possibly the Romans had a similar system?

 

At least initially the Romans appear to have used native leaders as commanders - having first given them citizenship and presumably basic instruction in Latin although I would not be suprised to find that they used a similar proceedure to more modern armies faced with the same problem. Find someone who can communicate with your auxilliaries and if necessary drill them in basic commands.

 

On a personal note having been involved in Roman re-enactment, as a non-Latin speaker, I found that it is suprisingly easy to train raw recruits to follow commands in a foreign language if you have enough time to drill and provide them with a training cadre of experieinced troops to guide their initial steps.

 

We do have evidence from tombstones for men moving between legionary and auxilliary units on promotion. As well as providing evidence of a route for their promotion in my view it could also be evidence for the Romans making use of such training cadre.

 

Melvadius

Edited November 9, 2007 by Melvadius

[Ursus]

What really sets off my curiosity is - how the hell did the Romans communicate so effectively with their foreign auxiliaries? Especially on a battlefield where time is at such a premium? I know the British in recent times had officers that spoke Hindustani, Swahili, or whatever in order to handle their Sepoys and other "native" troops. Possibly the Romans had a similar system?

 

The propertied elite of the allied states were generally granted Roman citizenship, and with it the Roman lifestyle. Furthermore, I believe (I'll have to check my sources but I'm rather positive) Augustus actively encouraged native princes to study in Rome. These highly Romanized elites were then placed as commanders of their own troops to serve as auxillia alongside the legions.

 

After the civil wars Italy experienced an economic boom. Most Italians found ventures in business more profitable than legion service. And with a greatly expanded empire, the borders were now far away from Italy. It is not surprising many Italians decided to ignore legion service. The one exception seems to have been the new Praetorian guard which offered higher pay and status, and which was stationed in and outside Rome.

 

The obvious solution to any manpower problems was to use the natives of allied states, using their highly Romanized elite as go-betweens. In the course of 20 or 25 years of service the soldiers would have become greatly Romanized upon their discharge as citizens, and this had the desired effect of Romanizing large segments of the native population.

 

More than the prized posession of Roman ciitzenship, the natives could generally find better pay and better medical attention in the legions than in their own homelands. One also has to remember that in many of the native states, such as the Gallic tribes, the way of the warrior was still a cultural ideal in itself, and there were simply more opportunities for a warrior in the Empire than anywhere else.

 

It seems to me it was a win-win situation for everybody. Only in the later empire with the massive influx of true barbarians (people who didn't even have the cultural development of the Gauls) did the natives change the Roman army more than the army changed them.

[caldrail]

Just a quick point - given roman arrogance and culture, any foreign officer would be expected to learn enough latin to function in the roman military. Foreign languages will not do, its all bar-bar-bar-bar....