SoA Forums

As a newcomer to ancients wargaming, I just have a quick question regarding  Caesarian Cavalry.

Was auxiliary cavalry the same in dress and equipment under the late Republican period as it was in the Imperial period?

I have the Warlord 28mm Caesarian Cavalry box, but wanted to know if I need to buy any others if I wanted auxiliary units (manufacturers that supply these in 28mm would be useful too!)

Thanks in advance.

Sadly no it s not the same. In Caesarian armies you would find Gallic, German, Spanish, Greek , Numidian, Syrian and other allied contingents of horsemen. Caesar hires Gauls and Germans in Gaul , There is a list of Pompeian allies at Pharsalus, including some horse archers and in Africa Caesar's enemies use Germans  and Numidians  and inbSpain they use Spaniards, possibly bith light and heavy.

I do wonder if they might have had a greater degree of uniformity than the original tribal cavalry after they had served with Rome for a few years. That is to say I doubt if they would have limed hair and blue woad decorations or fought bare chested and after a while equipment would tend to become uniform, with all similar shaped shields and similar mail shirt and helmet types within a unit.

Roy

Thanks Aligern.

That's what I needed to confirm. I'd heard something along similar lines, and that these units had later become absorbed into the Roman army (which is when their equipment became standardized).

I think I'm going to go for a couple of Gallic units, but with the edition of just some Roman equipment. This should make them slightly more distinct from the enemy units.

Didn't Adrian Goldsworthy do a bit in slingshot a few years ago on a caesarian army for wab?

I recall he used only gallic or German cavalry, for those reasons

The Warlord figures look like they have been designed as if the unit has picked up items from a wide range of sources, especially the helmets. I think they would be best for a unit in the Med or Asia, though perhaps something like Gauls who have been with the Romans for a while, picking up sundry items of headwear, giving up on trousers for comfort and acquiring the Roman habit of shaving.

The early Imperial period saw a formalisation and regularisation of auxiliaries, or in plain English they became regulars in standing units and were paid by Rome whereas previously they had been raised from 'allied' peoples and often maintained by those peoples.  Perhaps not coincidentally, the last independent auxiliaries (i.e. those from a territory not directly ruled by Rome) during the Imperial period were the Batavians, who spearheaded Civilis' revolt in AD 69.  Even though still independent, they seem to have been equipped and paid by Rome like everyone else.

Rome also fielded during this period - notably in the east - contingents supplied by client kings, e.g. the Commagenians during the Jewish Revolt.  These, as with the traditional Republican auxilia, were supplied, equipped and maintained by the power concerned and cooperated under Roman command as opposed to being under Roman control.  The same would probably have occurred if the Romans had seriously tried to conquer Germany post-Tiberius, as they would have enlisted subdued tribes to hep fight those still resisting.  In this connection, the trigger event for changing auxilia from 'free' ethnic contingents to paid Roman-controlled regulars was probably Arminius' revolt of AD 9.  If anything, Civilis' revolt in AD 69 would have confirmed Roman resolution about not letting auxilia be anything other than under direct Roman control, including officering.

The Warrior of Vacheres - http://www.kelticos.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=872 - is sometimes identified as a Gallic auxiliary officer in Roman service. Vacheres is in Provence and would have been Roman from somewhen around the 120s BC. Note the combination of Gallic clothing, torc and sword with Romanised short hair and shaved upper lip, and a mailshirt that could be either.

Somewhere I also have an article that mentions two Italian-made bronze Montefortino helmets from a Gallic burial that are thought to have been Roman issue to auxiliaries.

Yes, apologies if I gave the impression that auxiliaries under the Republic never used Roman issue equipment: quite a bit seems to have been acquired by osmosis and some might even have been issued on occasion.

Hmmm, would never have thought to look for separate "Caesarian Roman" Cavalry, would always just buy Gauls, Germans, Spaniards etc.  I use Gauls and Germans when playing Caesar, and Italians and Greeks when playing Sulla.

Quote from: eques on March 23, 2017, 09:59:36 AM
Hmmm, would never have thought to look for separate "Caesarian Roman" Cavalry, would always just buy Gauls, Germans, Spaniards etc.  I use Gauls and Germans when playing Caesar, and Italians and Greeks when playing Sulla.

I did the same for my Marians - I've got Gauls, Greeks, and Spaniards.

It would nit be wrong to use the tribal cavalry that manufacturers issue as Gauks, Germans or Spaniards, ir late Thracians, ir Macedonians, because unuts were coearly raused for campaigns. However, after a time they would surely homogenise because kit wears out and you likely do not have the tribal shield maker to replace the item, but the guys travelling with the army and selling stuff made in a factory vack in the province. There is also the question of how you tell Roman troops from the enemy. Easy if you are P. Crassus Gauls against the Oarthians, but t not so clear if you are Germans or Gauls fighting in Germania or Gaul. At Gergovia? the Aeduan infantry wera their cloaks off obe shoulder as a field sign. It would make sense if cavalry painted something on their shields to indicate to the Romans that they were allued auxilia. The process described above would likely result in all shields in a unit being oval or hexagonal, the symmachoi (allues) on Trajan's column have the same shield shape, though I tend to think tribes would have the same shape anyway and lijely the same orimary colours. Duncan makes a good point about helmets. I join the Roman auxilia with others from my tribe, we do well, Zi can now afford a helmet, I go down to the travelling suppliers and the choice is likely Montefortino or Montefortino. 

Perhaps the best way of achieving a suitable effect is to buy figures with separate shields and heads and then kit the unit out with homogenous shields and mostly Montefortinos. Go for mail armour a la Vacheres warrior and oerhaps some variety in the soft clothing to indicate that these are well off members of the aristocracy and their retainers.

Quote from: aligern on March 23, 2017, 10:48:05 AM
I can now afford a helmet, I go down to the travelling suppliers and the choice is likely Montefortino or Montefortino. 

And you can have it in any metal, so long as it is bronze. :)

Quote from: Duncan Head on March 22, 2017, 08:59:08 AMSomewhere I also have an article that mentions two Italian-made bronze Montefortino helmets from a Gallic burial that are thought to have been Roman issue to auxiliaries.

I lie - they were Coolus helmets: http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/viewFile/25/26

The early Coolus types are very little different from a Montefortino. Is only later when they develop large flat rear plates and lose the decoration to the rear end of the bowl that the coolus is distinctive at 28mm. Besides,they do co-exist.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 23, 2017, 10:11:56 PM
The early Coolus types are very little different from a Montefortino. Is only later when they develop large flat rear plates and lose the decoration to the rear end of the bowl that the coolus is distinctive at 28mm. Besides,they do co-exist.

Biggest difference - at least in these examples - is no crest-knob.

I've always assumed the lack of Roman home grown cavalry was due to the expansion of the armies during the civil wars. The equities who had been what the cavalry had been were needed as junior officers in the expanded legions. It forced the belligerent too look to foreigners. Actual Roman cavalry would be limited to General's bodyguards.

McCall (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cavalry-Roman-Republic-Jeremiah-Mccall/dp/0415619394/) identifies the last definite documented reference to citizen Roman cavalry as 102 BC, which is a bit too early for civil war expansion. There are occasional later forces, such as Pompey's "flower of Rome and of Italy", but they seem to have been one-off levies rather than part of regular legionary organization.

Quote from: David Kush on December 02, 2017, 09:43:02 PM
I've always assumed the lack of Roman home grown cavalry was due to the expansion of the armies during the civil wars. The equities who had been what the cavalry had been were needed as junior officers in the expanded legions. It forced the belligerent too look to foreigners. Actual Roman cavalry would be limited to General's bodyguards.

That seems very plausible.

The lack of Roman home-grown cavalry may just be a matter of a) the superior prestige of commanding, or being in, legions (cavalry was a bit of a sideline in the cursus honorum) and b) given the availability of plentiful good cavalry in Gallia, Hispania etc. simply not wanting to be in a situation of keeping a dog and barking oneself.

It may be noteworthy that during the early Empire, cavalry was regularised (in that it was formed into cohors equitata paid by the Roman treasury as opposed to being 'subcontracted' from its home regions) but in times of crisis it was infantry, not cavalry, that was levied in Italy.  It seems fair to say that infantry was seen as the battlewinner and cavalry as an inferior status arm provided by other people.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 05, 2017, 08:56:34 AMIt may be noteworthy that during the early Empire, cavalry was regularised (in that it was formed into cohors equitata

Oh, Patrick :-[ You know better than that.

For those who don't know the Roman army, most auxiliary cavalry were formed in alae. The cohors equitata was a mixed unit, mostly infantry with some cavalry of lower status than the alae.

Oops, quite right, Duncan: apologies to all.  Mind wandering. :-[

Relevant units were the ala quingenaria (about 500 chaps on horseback) and ala millaria (a theoretical thousand or so riders).

The cohors equitata attached about 120 cavalry to around 480 infantry.

Early Imperial cavalry were organised in subunits (turmae) of 30-32 men, four making up a 120-man formation and logically sixteen a 480-man ala.

Just to add: 32-man turmae would give us 128 horsemen as the mounted component of a cohors equitata and 512 in an ala quingenaria.

A cohors millaria equitata would similarly have 256 horsemen rather than 240.

We have had the designations cuneus (with respect to cavalry) and numerus popping up without clear indication as to what strengths they represent, although the numerus is generally considered to correspond to the 240/256-man cavalry formation.

I am tempted to suggest that a 120/128-man formation may be the elusive cuneus and the 240/256-man assemblage the numerus, and these may also have been used as subunits of an ala.

Any thoughts?

This is getting a long way from Caesar, so can I suggest that if anyone does want to debate cuneus and numerus strengths, they start a fresh thread?

Yes, sorry.  The question in my mind is how the locally-recruited cavalry of the Caesarian era were organised: would it have been along tribal lines or in a Romanised prototype of the early Imperial organisation?  Or somewhere between the two?

There is some information in Jonathan Prag's article "Troops and commanders: auxilia externa under the Roman Republic" (https://www.unipa.it/dipartimenti/cultureesocieta/riviste/hormos/.content/documenti_Hormos_2/J.PragTroops_and_commandersHormos2_2010_101-113.pdf), though mostly only on higher levels of command; and of course the famous example of Pompeius Strabo's turma salluitana (http://www.theaterofpompey.com/pdcs_articles/rg_sp.pdf) - 30 Spanish cavalry organised as a Roman-style turma, but with no hint that they're any part of a larger ala.

Isn't there some evidence for Celtic cavalry in Roman service having servants? I presumed that these were young nobles who brought servants with them.
Roy

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 07, 2017, 09:12:30 PM
There is some information in Jonathan Prag's article "Troops and commanders: auxilia externa under the Roman Republic" (https://www.unipa.it/dipartimenti/cultureesocieta/riviste/hormos/.content/documenti_Hormos_2/J.PragTroops_and_commandersHormos2_2010_101-113.pdf), though mostly only on higher levels of command; and of course the famous example of Pompeius Strabo's turma salluitana (http://www.theaterofpompey.com/pdcs_articles/rg_sp.pdf) - 30 Spanish cavalry organised as a Roman-style turma, but with no hint that they're any part of a larger ala.

Yes, and they served in Italy during the Social War, which gives them more reason and likelihood to be under Roman organisation than Caesar's 'borrowed' Gauls and Germans.

One key to organisation would be how troops were raised.  "Bring me 512 of your best men and I shall equip them" would point to a regular-style ala, while "Bring me your tribe's cavalry" would imply tribal organisation, command and equipment.

At Gergovia, allied Gallic infantry are distinguished by 'leaving the right shoulder uncovered'; Gallic and Germanic cavalry were rather more intensively cultivated by Caesar and may have received presents of Roman armour and clothing.  My guess would be that any not so clad would be sartorially Romanised during his 50 BC passage through Italy for reasons of image if nothing else.  Organisation is another matter, as Caesar's Gallic and Germanic cavalry are clearly under their own commanders, as witnessed by the defection of two of them to Pompey at Dyrrhachium.

Tentative conclusion: Caesarian cavalry continued to operate under their own leaders, probably using their own organisation and tactical style (although Caesar had some input at Pharsalus, he seems to have borrowed a German concept).  They may increasingly have worn Roman armour and perhaps retained their own weaponry.  These conditions presumably prevailed until AD9 and the loss of Varus' legions to a German revolt spearheaded by the Romans' German auxiliaries (which itself indicates the auxiliaries were not serving under Roman commanders).

Well, the Punic War Roman Cavalry was citizen cavalry, as was the infantry.  As the empire expanded, using citizen cavalry would have become just as inappropriate for the tasks in hand as citizen infantry, if not more so.

So when the Romans moved to a professional army recruited from the poor they would have wanted to keep the Roman fighting style and equipment for the infantry. Cavalry, though, was more generic and its role could be fulfilled as well by foreign mercenaries as Romans. What's more, it was probably cheaper and less hassle to do it that way (no horse breeding programmes etc)

I doubt very.much such cavalry would have been integrated into the Roman system at all.  I think they were just mercenaries.

I'm going to continue using gallic/spanish/greek miniatures for mine.

Quote from: eques on December 10, 2017, 11:38:28 PM
I doubt very much such cavalry would have been integrated into the Roman system at all.  I think they were just mercenaries.

Regarding Caesarian cavalry small unit tactics, this is probably about right, although at a higher level they would have to be integrated into the Roman command structure and understand what the C-in-C was trying to tell them to get on with in their own traditional way.

'Mercenaries' may give a misleading impression: contingents seem to have been financed and supported by their own peoples of origin, at least while operating on their own doorstep.  The cavalry Caesar took to Greece would have to be supported by Caesar himself, as communication with their homelands did not exist.  They appear to have served Caesar for prestige reasons (his as much as theirs) as opposed to just for money, which is why I would quibble about 'mercenaries'.

When the action moves to North Africa for the showdown against Scipio and Labienus, Caesar in a cavalry skirmish orders turmae Hispanorum (Spanish turmae) to drive opponents off a hill (African War XXIX).  On the other side, Labienus had some Gauls and Germans, "some of whom had followed Labienus from Gaul in deference to his authority; others had been induced to join him by rewards and promises; and there were yet others who, having been made prisoners after Curio's defeat and their lives being spared, had been anxious to give proof of their unswerving gratitude by maintaining a correspondingly unswerving loyalty."

This in turn indicates that Curio's cavalry consisted at least in part of Gauls and Germans, so the sourcing of cavalry appears reasonably consistent, i.e. just about anywhere except Italy.  When Scipio draws up his army in African War XLI, he intersperses equestri turmatim (turmae of cavalry) between his elephants, so we begin to get a picture that the turma is the basic unit of low-level organisation irrespective of tribal origin, but whether this indicates a Romanised organisation or just a Roman term superimposed upon whatever organisation existed in a tribal lineup is another question.  The giveaway rank of decurion, suggesting a tie-in with Roman low-level organisation., is used once in Caesar's Gallic War, when Lucius Aemilius, a decurionis equitum Gallorum (decurion of Gallic cavalry), leaks to the Helvetii that Caesar is moving to Bibracte rather than against them.

On balance, Caesar's usage (and that of Hirtius, his pseudo-amanuensis) suggests Roman organisation for non-Roman cavalry in Roman service.

QuoteI'm going to continue using gallic/spanish/greek miniatures for mine.

That should still work well appearance-wise, although a few spare Roman figures could still be added without loss of fidelity.