This may be a stupid question. Its not really my area.
But like mr. Garrison from Southpark says, "there are no stupid questions, just stupid people." So if I may...
If we read an inscription or text that says a vexillation was sent somewhere from a legion that we know had auxiliaries as well, can we assume that the vexillation would have taken a portion of the auxiliaries with it? Or should we assume the opposite?
Thanks for your thoughts.
It could be either, depending on what the chap at the receiving end wanted - or was given. If the vexillation was reinforcing someone else's army, it could go by itself or as part of a 'job lot'. If it was sent to deal with something by itself, it would almost certainly take along some auxilia.
I would dispute that.
I am pretty sure that asking whether crabs think people walk sideways, is a stupid question.
No clue for your actual answer though.
Quote from: Dangun on June 30, 2017, 08:49:18 AMIf we read an inscription or text that says a vexillation was sent somewhere from a legion that we know had auxiliaries as well, can we assume that the vexillation would have taken a portion of the auxiliaries with it? Or should we assume the opposite?
Legions don't "have" auxiliaries.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 30, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
Legions don't "have" auxiliaries.
True; I think Nicholas' question was meant to be more along the lines of:
if a legion and some auxilia are stationed in the same locale, and a vexillation is required from the legion, would it be usual for some of the auxilia to go along as well?
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 30, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
Legions don't "have" auxiliaries.
I know what you meant but sometimes we see dedications to a legion and "their" associated auxilia.
If we see a dedication inscription by a vexillation and their associated auxilia would that be normal?
I don't think I have ever seen an inscription associating a legionary vexillation with auxiliaries, so I may well be wrong, but I think it would be very unusual. Auxiliaries might be in separate vexillations:
QuoteAt the same time a vexillatio Antoniniana, of uncertain identity, is attested at Dura (AE 1934:2 75,278 = Saxer 1967,n o. 286). I would presume that this unit was a composite auxiliary detachment.
(Brian Cowan's thesis
Aspects of the Severan Field Army (http://theses.gla.ac.uk/779/), Chapter 5, "Legions and legionary vexillations in Caracalla's Parthian War")
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 01, 2017, 09:04:31 PM
I don't think I have ever seen an inscription associating a legionary vexillation with auxiliaries, so I may well be wrong, but I think it would be very unusual.
One example:
"Castricius Aprons, son of Publius, Prefect of the Port of Farasan and the Sea of Hercules. He dedicates the monument on behalf of the vexillation of the second Legion Traiana Fortis and
its auxiliaries."
I can imagine, as you suggest, that there aren't many examples. But I thought the association was interesting.
Does your source for that inscription quote the Latin, or give a source for it? I'd be interested in particular to see if "its" is explicit.
I think it is this
Transkription: Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Tito Ael(io) Hadr(iano) / Antonino Aug(usto) Pio pont(ifici) / max(imo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) VII co(n)s(uli) III / p(atri) p(atriae) vexill(atio) leg(ionis) II Tr(aianae) fortis / et auxil(ia) eius castrenses/q(ue) sub praef(ecto) Ferresani portus / et pont(i?) Hercul(is) fec(erunt) et d[ed(icaverunt)]
Majuskeln: IMP CAES TITO AEL HADR
ANTONINO AVG PIO PONT
MAX TRIB POT VII COS III
P P VEXILL LEG II TR FORTIS
ET AVXIL EIVS CASTRENSES
Q SVB PRAEF FERRESANI PORTVS
ET PONT HERCVL FEC ET D[ ]
http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD052544
Cool, thanks Swampster.
The context I read the quote in was an article about Roman presence in the region, and did not include the original.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z2bDBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=AE+2004,+1643&source=bl&ots=-Nw1FC9oNz&sig=nReKUug9soVj5Bxc81PO6D4zj3A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikz8nspfDUAhWYOsAKHacnCI0Q6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=AE%202004%2C%201643&f=false has a slightly different interpretation of the Latin plus a translation. It includes the prefect's name.
Perhaps the use of 'eius' is reinforced or complicated by this (also in an Arabian context):
Transkription: Pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caesaris M(arci) Aureli / Antonini Aug(usti) Armeniaci Parth[ic]i Me/dici Germanici Sarmatici maxim v[al]/lum vetustate dilabsum civitas He/grenorum suis impendi[is re]stituit sub / Iulio Firmano leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) instan[tib(us)] / operi Pomponio Victore |(centurione) leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) et N/misio Clemente collegae(!) eius cur[am] / agente operarum Amro Haianis pri/mo civitatis eorum
Majuskeln: PRO SALVTE IMP CAESARIS M AVRELI
ANTONINI AVG ARMENIACI PARTH[ ]I ME
DICI GERMANICI SARMATICI MAXIM[ ] V[ ]
LVM VETVSTATE DILABSVM CIVITAS HE
GRENORVM SVIS IMPENDI[ ]STITVIT SVB
IVLIO FIRMANO LEG AVG PR PR INSTAN[ ]
OPERI POMPONIO VICTORE | LEG III CYR ET N[ ]
MISIO CLEMENTE COLLEGAE EIVS CVR[ ]
AGENTE OPERARVM AMRO HAIANIS PRI
MO CIVITATIS EORVM
Thanks, Peter. My first reaction is that in "vexill(atio) leg(ionis) II Tr(aianae) fortis / et auxil(ia) eius" the auxiliaries, unlike the legion, aren't in the genitive; so it's not "the vexillation of the legion and of the auxiliaries". But then of course all the case endings are reconstructions, so that may not be what's meant. I'd say offhand that "eius" implies that the auxilia "belong" to the vexillation, not to the legion "the vexillation-of-the-legion and its (the vexillation's) auxiliaries". So they need not necessarily be drawn from units that had previously been associated especially closely with the legion.
Just a guess, though, abbreviated inscriptional Latin is not always crystal clear.
Would we be justified in saying that the legion and auxilia may have been associated, albeit we lack proof positive, and/or that the auxilia are somehow associated with either the legion or the vexillation thereof?
In essence, it comes back to Nicholas' original question: when the vexillation left for wherever it was going, would it have been accompanied by some auxilia as opposed to it and some unrelated auxilia meeting up at the intended destination? Or are we still unable to say?
If they were associated, it suggests medium to long-term attachments between on-station legions and auxilia in the same area, which would in turn imply that when we read of such-and-such legion being sent on a mission (or a vexillation from same) it would have brought along some auxilia despite lack of specific mention of same. Hence when considering such events as the loss of Legio IX during the Iceni rebellion, should we be thinking the loss of Legio IX plus a selection of auxiliaries?
Or not?
Two questions occur to me related to this.
First, what evidence do we have of co-located legions and auxilia? Or do we expect associated auxiliaries to be associated on some administrative level over a wider area?
Second, if a call was made for a legionary vexillation plus auxiliaries, do we anticipate a "battlegroup" approach, selecting the right type of auxiliary for the mission?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 05, 2017, 09:04:42 AM
Would we be justified in saying that the legion and auxilia may have been associated, albeit we lack proof positive, and/or that the auxilia are somehow associated with either the legion or the vexillation thereof?
In essence, it comes back to Nicholas' original question: when the vexillation left for wherever it was going, would it have been accompanied by some auxilia as opposed to it and some unrelated auxilia meeting up at the intended destination? Or are we still unable to say?
I think we are still unable to say for certain; but an association is starting to look a bit more likely.
In this case, II Traiana Fortis was based at Alexandria in Egypt, and its vexillation was operating in Arabia. Did the legion take auxiliaries with it from Alex, or did they come separately? Don't know.
However, contrary to what I thought earlier, it does appear that II Traiana shared its fortress base at Nikopolis near Alexandria with at least one auxiliary cavalry unit (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IbvgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=%22ii+traiana+fortis%22+fortress+nicopolis+layout&source=bl&ots=AWscDFsqHE&sig=l4oyEogGIAGQU4A0Hidq6-3wdI4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqmtXFrvLUAhWLWRoKHRTFDf0Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=%22ii%20traiana%20fortis%22%20fortress%20nicopolis%20layout&f=false) (two are named in the reference, but I'm not sure if they were present simultaneously). So it's a bit more likely than I originally thought that auxiliaries might have been included in the vexillation, since they do seem to have been more closely associated than in the case of most legions.
I am finding auxilia quite fascinating.
The body of evidence and the secondary literature for the legions is so intimidatingly vast, I struggle to motivate myself to engage with it. But auxilia are like their shadow, ever-present but less well defined.
In Paul Bidwell's "Roman Forts in Britain" English Heritage, he suggests at round about page 31 that the plan of Hod Hill "suggests that it contained a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliaries". The next couple of pages then goes on to discuss other mixed or combined garrisons.
Also in Graham Webster's "The Roman Invasion of Britain", when talking about the Plautian frontier he says on page 125 "At this earlier stage in Britain it was evidently the practice to detail legionary cohorts for out-post duties, even sharing a fort with auxiliaries."
Given the age of these books (1997 and 1980 respectively) it is probable that history has moved on and some of the findings / conclusions have been overturned, but a conclusion could be that the Romans grouped forces as required and though not strictly belonging to a legion, auxiliaries may have been close companions for a while.