Caesar's Gallic Auxiliaries and the Alaudae

[Paul Innes]

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?

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Duncan Head]

... 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.

[Tim]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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).

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.

[Paul Innes]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

... 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.

[Jim Webster]

... 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

[Duncan Head]

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...

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 (in French) for the apparent Roman issue of Italian bronze helmets to Gallic troops....

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Paul Innes]

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

[Mark]

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.