I don't know where this topic belongs, so I put it here. I can see myself slowly being sucked into the various civil and uncivil wars of the later Roman Republic, and one of the things I keep coming across in references to Caesar's battles in particular is the presence of auxiliaries. My question is, who were they?
For example, at Bibracte he stationed a large contingent of them along with his more recently recruited legions on the hilltop behind and above his seasoned legions. Against Ariovistus it would seem that he lined them up outside (?) his smaller camp in order to make that part of his deployment seem more imposing than it really was - and in both cases, none of them seem to have played much part in the fighting itself. Assuming that there were several thousand of them, and that they were armed in their native fashion, were they skirmishers, or closer formation "warbands" for lack of a better term, or perhaps a mixture of the two?
The reason I'm asking is simple: when I get to this period properly, I want to be able to represent at least some of them. I also have a sneaking suspicion that if at least some of them were warriors intended for close-in work, as opposed to skirmishers, then they might well have provided the basis for the Alaudae. I'm thinking of painting these with a mixture of Roman and Celtic equipment - perhaps Roman arms and armour with nice colourful cloaks. That way I can use the same figures for the earlier battles and then, with appropriate command stands, for the Vth Legion itself.
Am I havering, or does this seem reasonable?
The question of Caesar's various auxiliaries is a difficult one, because apart from the German and to a lesser extent Gallic cavalry, he doesn't always say very much about their origins. I did once look into his use of Gallic infantry, though, so the following may help a bit.
That Caesar recruited Gallic provincials into some of his legions is well known: legions XI and XII, which he raised in 58, may have been recruited from non-citizens in Cisalpine Gaul (Goldsworthy Caesar p.212). "One legion he even recruited from the Transalpine Gauls and trained and equipped it in Roman style, and gave it a Gallic name - it was called Alaudae" (Suetonius, Caesar 24); somewhen later, this became V Alaudae (see Keppie Making of the Roman Army pp.140-1).
There were already militia or garrison cohorts found in the Transalpine Gallic province. When Caesar confronted his first emergency, the migration of the Helvetii in 58, he "ordered as many troops as possible to be raised in the Province" (BG I.7); there seems no reason to assume that these were all cavalry. In 52, during the great Gallic rising, the rebels threatened the old Province of Transalpine Gaul; and we hear of a "garrison" (praesidia) of 22 cohorts raised from the Province itself by Lucius Caesar (BG VII.65): though Lucius Caesar is given credit for raising these local infantry it is quite possible, especially given the recruitment of 58, that they were not a new institution. Keppie (pp.140-41) thinks that it was these very cohorts who were the Alaudae, and that Caesar is merely being diplomatic in not referring to them as a "legion" until much later. Even if this widely-held view is correct, there is no way to be sure whether these cohorts were armed and organised (below the level of a cohort commander) as Roman-style regulars as early as 52. But Rome had controlled a Transalpine Province since about 120 BC, so it's hardly likely that they never used local infantry for local defence, and it seems to me likely that they were fairly Romanised already because they were organised into cohorts and under a Roman general.
At the same time that Lucius Caesar commanded his 22 cohorts, the provincial tribes of the Helvii and the Allobroges mounted a robust defence against the rebels. The Helvii were defeated, their chief magistrate Gaius Valerius Domnotaurus being killed; the Allobroges kept their frontiers secure. In these cases the tribes seem to be using their own manpower only, and whether you do best counting them as "Roman" or as "Gallic" troops is not clear, except in so far as they do confirm that the tribes of the Province still had their own military resources commanded by local nobles with half-Roman names rather than a "true" Roman like Lucius.
There is also one clear example of Caesar using allied troops from a Gallic tribe, the Aedui in 52. Although long-standing allies of Rome, the Aedui were tribe of "long-haired" Gaul, not the Province. They undertook to provide Caesar with all their cavalry and 10,000 infantry to protect his supply lines (BG VII.34); after an interruption in which the Aedui were led by a disaffected nobleman into almost joining the rebels, they fought alongside the Romans at Gergovia, causing a panic when they were mistaken for the enemy despite sporting the recognition sign for Gallic allies, the baring of the right shoulder (BG VII, 50).
So: the Aedui at least provided "Gallic warbands"; the Helvii and other tribes already in the existing Roman province provided troops who may have been "Gallic warbands", or may already have been more or less "Romanised"; Lucius Caesar's "cohorts", who may be (or may include) the men who later became the Alaudae, were probably at least partly "Romanised" from the start, but it's hard to be sure.
Duncan's post covers the subject quite nicely, so I content myself with quoting the relevant part of Caesar's account of the assault on Gergovia.
While the fight was going on most vigorously, hand to hand, and the enemy depended on their position and numbers, our men on their bravery, the Aedui suddenly appeared on our exposed flank, as Caesar had sent them by another ascent on the right, for the sake of creating a diversion. These, from the similarity of their arms, greatly terrified our men; and although they were discovered to have their right shoulders bare, which was usually the sign of those reduced to peace, yet the soldiers suspected that this very thing was done by the enemy to deceive them. - Caesar, Gallic War VII.50
We may note from this that the Aedui were not wearing/using Roman equipment/materials, or if they were, then to no greater extent than Vercingetorix's followers, as the sign for friendly troops was a bared right shoulder. This in turn may suggest that tunics were not being worn but cloaks were, it being easy to bare a shoulder by pinning back a cloak but not so easy (or acceptable) thus to tailor a tunic at short notice.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 12, 2013, 07:00:49 PM... the sign for friendly troops was a bared right shoulder. This in turn may suggest that tunics were not being worn but cloaks were, it being easy to bare a shoulder by pinning back a cloak but not so easy (or acceptable) thus to tailor a tunic at short notice.
Funny, I'd have thought the opposite. If the standard dress for Gauls was still cloak but no tunic, "baring the right shoulder" doesn't really distinguish between allied Aedui and the equally bare-chested enemy: the cloak has to be pushed back to a certain extent to free the right arm enough to carry a weapon, so the difference doesn't seem enough to be a safe recognition signal. If a tunic is worn, though, undoing a seam so you can wear it "exomis style" is easy enough, and if tunics are by now standard battlefield wear, it really would be distinctive.
Paul
There is also a school of thought that Auxiliaries may have fought in a manner identical to the equivalent Roman formations (just that being - largely - non-citizens the Roman historians record them as being less effective). Not saying I agree but people who know a lot more than me about subject hold various shades of view in that matter.
Quote from: Tim on November 12, 2013, 08:50:17 PMThere is also a school of thought that Auxiliaries may have fought in a manner identical to the equivalent Roman formations (just that being - largely - non-citizens the Roman historians record them as being less effective).
That applies largely to the regular
Imperial auxiliary units. I suppose Lucius Caesar's 22 non-citizen cohorts would be a close equivalent - "auxiliaries" who were probably equipped like lower-status legionaries - but in the Late Republic, I think just about everyone accepts that Caesar's Cretan archers, say, or his Numidians or his Aedui allies, were fighting in their own native styles.
Hi everyone, thanks for the replies so far. Duncan's points pretty much fit what I had thought, although he has expressed them much more clearly than I did. It would seem that my idea of using sort of Romanised Gauls in relatively close formation might have some merit, then. The reason I'm thinking about it is that I would like to paint some of the figures rather differently - this is going to be a big project. Basically, I'm thinking about something like ten to twelve legions of 80 figures, plus supporting cast, using the Companion Miniatures Romans I've managed to source locally (25mm, of course!). I can see painting that many Romans becoming a bit of a chore, so some differentiation will help me get through them!
Paul
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 12, 2013, 07:36:27 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 12, 2013, 07:00:49 PM... the sign for friendly troops was a bared right shoulder. This in turn may suggest that tunics were not being worn but cloaks were, it being easy to bare a shoulder by pinning back a cloak but not so easy (or acceptable) thus to tailor a tunic at short notice.
Funny, I'd have thought the opposite. If the standard dress for Gauls was still cloak but no tunic, "baring the right shoulder" doesn't really distinguish between allied Aedui and the equally bare-chested enemy: the cloak has to be pushed back to a certain extent to free the right arm enough to carry a weapon, so the difference doesn't seem enough to be a safe recognition signal. If a tunic is worn, though, undoing a seam so you can wear it "exomis style" is easy enough, and if tunics are by now standard battlefield wear, it really would be distinctive.
That makes good enough sense, for me at least.
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 12, 2013, 07:36:27 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 12, 2013, 07:00:49 PM... the sign for friendly troops was a bared right shoulder. This in turn may suggest that tunics were not being worn but cloaks were, it being easy to bare a shoulder by pinning back a cloak but not so easy (or acceptable) thus to tailor a tunic at short notice.
Funny, I'd have thought the opposite. If the standard dress for Gauls was still cloak but no tunic, "baring the right shoulder" doesn't really distinguish between allied Aedui and the equally bare-chested enemy: the cloak has to be pushed back to a certain extent to free the right arm enough to carry a weapon, so the difference doesn't seem enough to be a safe recognition signal. If a tunic is worn, though, undoing a seam so you can wear it "exomis style" is easy enough, and if tunics are by now standard battlefield wear, it really would be distinctive.
Hardly 'evidence' but interesting in context. Unfastening a sewn seam and fastening it again might be a faff, but if the seam was 'laced' then it would be easier. There is this which discusses a laced tunic
http://www.redrampant.com/2009/06/celtic-and-german-clothing.html
It would need digging about amongst the original archaeological evidence
Jim
PS edited to add this discussion http://www.kelticos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=884
Quote from: Paul Innes on November 13, 2013, 08:55:45 AMIt would seem that my idea of using sort of Romanised Gauls in relatively close formation might have some merit, then. The reason I'm thinking about it is that I would like to paint some of the figures rather differently...
I think so. The key point may be that at this stage you don't have a rigid distinction between "Romans" and "Gauls", because you have the Transalpine province which has been Roman for two or three generations by Caesar's day, and Cisalpine Gaul which has been Roman for even longer.
Plus, there have been a lot of suggestions in recent years about Caesar's legions being re-equipped in Gaul with Gallic clothing and even with Gallic helmets - iron Port or Agen styles. I am not
completely sure about the direct evidence for any of this, though it does make sense that some use of local resources must have gone on. So it
might be the case that Caesar's legions marched into Gaul in 58 wearing bronze Montefortino helmets and short Italian tunics, and a few years later half of his Italians were in Gallic coats and iron Port-Agen helmets - let alone what the locally-sourced troops looked like!
Though see link (http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/view/25/26) (in French) for the apparent Roman issue of Italian bronze helmets to Gallic troops....
I must admit I think we underestimate the effects of 'local resupply' on troops who have been stationed 'abroad' for long periods. Especially when men would be responsible for replacing their own clothes. Even where clothing was 'issued' the soldier was often charged for it, so at least if he bought his own he'd got more say in the quality of the garment
Jim
Good point Jim. We have a framework for thinking about soldiering that is very influenced by the late nineteenth century where regiments have standard clothing and standard issue arms. The Romans can be fitted rather easily fitted in as bavrrack dwelling redcoats fighting colonial wars. Of course, when the gradient between locally manufactured equipment and your original kit is not that great it is much more likely that you will adopt local items. Even in 1885 cavalry on the Suakin expedition equipped themselves with Dervish spears to enable them to reach fuzzies who threw themselves flatwhen charged.
Roy
Soldiers also equipped themselves with local women as well, and these would tend to know local clothing styles and materials.
Muttering that your woman cannot make you a tunic like mother used to make was probably common enough down the baths :-)
Jim
Thanks for the comments about local re-supply. The figures I am buying are extremely varied, with a substantial minority of them either wearing cloaks or what the packs say is "winter dress", which looks like rough and ready campaign wear, so far as I can tell at the moment. This means that I will have a ready-made visual differentiation between Caesar's legions and those of his senatorial enemies for civil war scenarios. Or I could combine both sides for a truly monstrous Roman army...
Cheers!
Paul
There's a relatively new book "Blood of the Provinces" by Ian Haynes, pub OUP, which concerns the Auxilia during the Principate. Chapter 2 briskly covers the civil wars (just a few pages), and the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. We're in the period where at the end of the Social Wars the Italian states which used to contribute heavily to the alae are now contributing the legio. The first source of new auxiliaries is probably Iberia, and the chaos of the period means that Iberian forces (and techniques) are rapidly adapted in the "mainstream" Roman army - quotes evidence of an alae decurion's tomb in Apulia which states the decurion in question came from Leonica in Spain; quite apart from the origin it's obviously the case that at this point you can not only fight for Rome but be promoted by Rome. At the same time, Caesar picks up local warlords who command their own troops, and the loyalty of the warlords. So there's immense variety, as befits a period of chaos. I can run through and pull out some of the other evidence when I'm back in proximity with the book this evening.
Thanks, Mark, that does sound promising - some more suggestions for all sorts of mixing and matching.
Where were the Ligurians in all this? They're something of a forgotten people and don't have the exotic glamour of Celts and Spaniards, but were they still contributing auxiliary infantry during this period?
Apparently they were, according to Lucan's Pharsalia (Book 1):
Quote
When Caesar saw his army proane to war ,
And fates so bent, least sloth and long delay
Might crosse him, he withdrew his troupes from France
And in all quarters musters men for Roome
They by Lemannus nooke forsooke their tents;
They whom the Lingones foild with painted speares,
Under the rockes by crooked Vogesus
And many came from shallow Isara
Who running long, fals in a greater floud,
And ere he sees the sea looseth his name;
The yellow Ruthens left their garrisons;
Mild Atax glad it beares not Roman boats;
And frontier Varus that the campe is farre,
Sent aide; so did Alcides port, whose seas
Eate hollow rocks, and where the north-west wind
Nor Zephir rules not, but the north alone,
Turmoiles the coast, and enterance forbids;
And others came from that uncertaine shore,
Which is nor sea, nor land, but oft times both,
And changeth as the Ocean ebbes and flowes:
Whether the sea roul'd alwaies from that point,
Whence the wind blowes stil forced to and fro;
Or that the wandring maine follow the moone;
Or flaming Titan (feeding on the deepe)
Puls them aloft, and makes the surge kisse heaven,
Philosophers looke you, for unto me
Thou cause, what ere thou be whom God assignes
This great effect, art hid. They came that dwell
By Nemes fields, and bankes of Satirus
Where Tarbels winding shoares imbrace the sea,
The Santons that rejoyce in Caesars love,
Those of Bituriges and light Axon pikes;
And they of Rhene and Leuca cunning darters,
And Sequana that well could manage steeds;
The Belgians apt to governe Brittish cars;
Th' Averni too, which bouldly faine themselves
The Romanes brethren, sprung of Ilian race;
The stubborne Nervians staind with Cottas bloud;
And Vangions who like those of Sarmata
Were open slops: and fierce Batavians
Whome trumpets clang incites, and those that dwel
By Cyngas streame, and where swift Rhodanus
Drives Araris to sea; They neere the hils,
Under whose hoary rocks Gebenna hangs;
And Trevier thou being glad that wars are past thee;
And you late shorne Ligurians who were wont
In large spread heire to exceed the rest of France*
And where to Hesus and fell Mercury
They offer humane flesh, and where Jove seemes
Bloudy like Dian whom the Scythians serve;
And you French Bardi whose immortal pens
Renowne the valiant soules slaine in your wars,
Sit safe at home and chaunt sweet Poesie
And Druides you now in peace renew
Your barbarous customes, and sinister rites,
In unfeld woods, and sacred groves you dwell,
And only gods and heavenly powers you know,
Or only know you nothing. For you hold
That soules passe not to silent Erebus
Or Plutoes bloodles kingdom, but else where
Resume a body: so (if truth you sing)
Death brings long life. Doubties these northren men
Whom death the greatest of all feares affright not,
Are blest by such sweet error, this makes them
Run on the swords point and desire to die,
And shame to spare life which being lost is wonne.
You likewise that repulst the Caicke foe,
March towards Roome and you fierce men of Rhene
Leaving your countrey open to the spoile.
*A better (1896) translation has:
"
Ligurian tribes, now shorn, in ancient days
First of the long-haired nations, on whose necks
Once flowed the auburn locks in pride supreme"
That is about the limit of what I have found: it would seem that Caesar's Ligurian auxiliaries were not considered foremost among his forces. That said, Lucan appears to drag the whole of Gaul along with Caesar, and is pretty much alone in so asserting, so given the silence of our other period sources on this point Lucan's evidence is slender.
If I remember correctly, the last Ligurian revolt against Rome took place in and around 125 BCE. That could mean that by Caesar's time they were more or less demilitarised as a people in and of themselves. Presumably they did not receive Roman citizenship after the Social War, not being Italians as such, and also since their territory would have been included in the province of Gallia Cisalpina. They could probably be lumped in with other Cisalpine Gauls, which is probably why they are so seldom mentioned by name by the time of Caesar's wars, and they would be much more Romanised in appearance than in previous generations.
I really fancy building a Ligurian army (25mm, of course, and Gripping Beast does a decent range) for the period up to 125; after that, I'd assume they look pretty much like everybody else.
These are musings, though!
Paul
There are a couple of references to Ligurian auxiliary cohorts in Sallust's Jugurthine War, which is after the revolt of 125: he mentions a cohort of Ligurians and two turmae of Thracians deserting from the Romans to Jugurtha in 110 (BJ 38); Metellus has four cohorts of Ligurians (BJ 77) a little later, and when Marius took over he also had (the same?) Ligurian cohorts (BJ 100). They do seem to be a lot less prominent after that, though. Diodoros says that "some of them, now that they have been incorporated in the Roman state, have changed the type of their weapons, adapting themselves to their rulers" - this is in Augustus' day, and might suggest that by then Ligurians weren't demilitarised but might perhaps be serving in legions or "legionary-style" cohorts rather than in traditional lighter style. Such Romanisation would fit with Lucan's shorn Ligurian locks.
What of Spanish auxiliaries? Given Caesars love of Legio X, I always assumed that at least some of his auxiliaries would have been Spanish too.
In BG 5.26 Caesar mentions some Spanish cavalry in his army; it is the only such reference, I think, in the whole of the Gallic War.
Vestal's Roman Generals and Spanish Peoples (http://www.theaterofpompey.com/pdcs_articles/rg_sp.pdf) is useful for background on Spanish auxiliaries.
I suppose this a form of thread resurrection, but just to say that I followed up this discussion and painted them to suit:
http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/raising-gaul.html
I'm going to painting a lot of Romans, so some variety is welcome!
Cheers all
Paul
And doubtless you were off down to James Robertson in Sauchiehall Street for the patterns:-))
Nice troops and good variety too.
Roy
Good guess, Roy, you're close! I took them from the Scotclans website...
The only problem I cam see is that you've got a lot of figures in there in late Gallic Agen-Port helmets - which were only made in iron, but a lot f yours are painted bronze.
They do look nice, though.
Hi Duncan, I was hoping to get away with some artistic licence, to vary them a bit. Well spotted, though - maybe I should just stick with what we know and paint any others as iron!
Thanks
Paul
At least they don't have bow cases ::)