Roman Auxiliaries' Equipment

[Dangun]

Can anyone recommend an article or chapter that discusses the strength of the argument for Auxiliaries' Equipment, particularly the oval shield?

I am trying to get back to the original logic of why I can just say the standard, "oh the guys with round shields are auxiliaries."
Because I stare at Trajan's column and there are at least two occasions where there is an image of two near identical "legionaries" standing next to each other - but one with a classic legionary's scutum and one with a classic auxilia's oval shield.

I have had a look at a couple of general books - the old Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army (Cheeseman) and the Republican Roman Army (Sage), but they don't survey the data.
They seemingly do one of two things.
They might identify sculptures with certain "auxilia" equipment, but don't explain why the soldier portrayed is identified as auxiliary to begin with - and so you risk circular logic.
Or they identify grave markers which may have the advantage of firmly identifying the image as describing an auxiliary, but have the disadvantage of being harder to generalize from.

Or alternatively is the whole case for uniformity overstated?

(I have a similar question about sculptures of Roman cavalry.)

[Dangun]

Not much luck there... 

I'll try again.
When we see a Roman soldier on Trajan's column wearing the lorica segmentata and carrying an oval shield, do we think its an auxiliary wearing heavier armour, or a legionary carrying something other than a scutum?

[Duncan Head]

Sorry, I missed this thread somehow.

Anyone with a lorica seg and an oval shield is probably a legionary, and the oval shield is probably still a scutum.

Michael Bishop's Handbook on lorica seg is available from https://www.academia.edu/513011/Lorica_Segmentata_Volume_I_A_Handbook_of_Articulated_Roman_Plate_Armour and on p.91 he alludes to the arguments for non-legionary use, and gives a few references in note 3.

[Dangun]

Anyone with a lorica seg and an oval shield is probably a legionary, and the oval shield is probably still a scutum.

OK that's interesting.
So would you suggest that the most useful heuristic is: if we can see lorica-seg, assume its a legionary (in the absense of other evidence)?

Just a quick follow up... if we cannot see any lorica-seg but can see a classic rectangular scutum or an oval shield, can we make any generalizations about whether a figure is auxiliary or legionary?

An example might be distracting, but on Trajan's column there are a lot of soldiers with mail-shirt, kerchief and round shields. But if anyone knows a reading that discusses whether or not auxilia infantry were armed similarly or differently to legionaries - that would be great!

[Duncan Head]

So would you suggest that the most useful heuristic is: if we can see lorica-seg, assume its a legionary (in the absense of other evidence)?

That would be my personal conclusion, because I have not (yet) been convinced by the "auxiliary segmentata" arguments. Others might disagree.

Just a quick follow up... if we cannot see any lorica-seg but can see a classic rectangular scutum or an oval shield, can we make any generalizations about whether a figure is auxiliary or legionary?

An example might be distracting, but on Trajan's column there are a lot of soldiers with mail-shirt, kerchief and round shields. But if anyone knows a reading that discusses whether or not auxilia infantry were armed similarly or differently to legionaries - that would be great!

I think that the difference between legionary and auxiliary shields is primarily that legionaries use concave shields and (most?) auxiliaries use flat shields, rather than the outline. For example Annaius Daverzus of Coh. IIII Delmatarum has a narrow, flat, rectangular shield....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roemerhalle_Kreuznach_Soldatengrabstein.jpg

But I am not sure how far that is provable.

There are a couple of infantry on the Column with short auxiliary mail and "legionary"-style curved rectangular scuta. Phil Barker identified them as a cohors scutata, possibly a cohors scutata civium romanorum since they have "legionary-style" shield-blazons that might imply citizen units. I have also seen them dismissed as sculptors' mistakes.

[Dangun]

But I am not sure how far that is provable.

Quite.
I am sure we are dealing with some kind of inference.
Because I haven't come across anything in the literary histories.

But I do wonder where the flat shield = auxilia, curved shield = legionary argument comes from.
Its one of those things you absorb as a teenager, the first time you read about the Roman Army, but I am interested in trying to find out the basis for thinking that auxilia infantry were armed and armored differently to the legionarii?

Just an example... In D'Amato's "Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier" he says: "The column depicts most of the leginary infantryman with armour known under the modern name lorica segmentata, while most of the auxilia are portrayed clad in ring-mail or leather". But what does he use for evidence.... "it was necessary to fix a general principle of (artistic) distinction between the different bodies of the military." WHAT??  That's terrible logic. Completely circular. It may be true, but he has not provided evidence.

He then goes on to say that some of the auxilia on the Adamclisi monument are clearly dressed as auxilia, but must be identified as legionaries due to the insignia. Very confusing.

(PS: The Phil Barker explanation strikes me as overly complicated.)

[Duncan Head]

.... but I am interested in trying to find out the basis for thinking that auxilia infantry were armed and armored differently to the legionarii?

A couple of passages spring to mind.

Then he ordered the armoury to be opened. The soldiers immediately seized arms without regard to military custom or rank, with no desire to distinguish praetorian or legionary by their proper insignia; they were mixed with the helmets and shields of auxiliaries (miscentur auxiliaribus galeis scutisque); there was no tribune or centurion to direct them; each guided and spurred himself on; and the chief incentive of the rascals was the grief of loyal men.

Yet even there, both light and heavy-armed soldiers (ferentarius gravisque miles) rushed to the attack; the first harassed the foe with missiles (telis), while the latter closed with them, and the opposing ranks of the Britons were broken, destitute as they were of the defence of breast-plates or helmets. When they faced the auxiliaries, they were felled by the swords and javelins of our legionaries (gladiis ac pilis legionariorum); if they wheeled round, they were again met by the blades and spears of the auxiliaries (spathis et hastis auxiliarium).

Tacitus a number of times (eg Annals I.51, II.52) seems to equate auxiliary infantry (or at least, non-legionary cohorts) with lights troops, leves cohortes.

[Dangun]

Tacitus a number of times (eg Annals I.51, II.52) seems to equate auxiliary infantry (or at least, non-legionary cohorts) with lights troops, leves cohortes.

I've read some commentary on those lines from Tacitus.

For example D'Amato: "Tacitus... emphasis the character of the leves cohortes (light cohorts), but it is not clear whether he is referring to auxilia."

And we could find other examples of where auxiliary infantry are put in the front line and the author doesn't note a significant difference in equipment or performance.

I remain a little confused on what seems to be a fundamental point.

[Duncan Head]

And we could find other examples of where auxiliary infantry are put in the front line and the author doesn't note a significant difference in equipment or performance.

Mostly later ones than these references, though. One possibility percolating through my mind is that most auxiliaries were noticeably lighter in the Julio-Claudian era but got closer to being heavy infantry from the Flavian period onwards (leading to increased use of tribal numeri as a new source of light troops). Needs further research, of course.

[aligern]

I wonder if that development(into cohorts of heavy infantry), was not driven by the expense of the army. Didn't Augustus cut down the number of legions, the civil war being over, and thus the auxiliaries would be less often supporting legionary battle lines and more usually fighting on their own. Then, when it came to set piece battles the commNders took the opportunity to use whole battle lines of auxiliary sprearmen with the legions in reserve?
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Augustus set the establishment at 28 legions (as against the 50-odd knocking around when he took charge).  The big difference between legionaries and auxilia was of course citizenship, but the general idea seems to have been that the auxilia fulfilled the old role of pre-90 BC Italian allies, covering the legions' van and rear on the march and their flanks on the battlefield - and also generally being first into danger and last out.

This would generally suggest somewhat lighter equipment, and is also consistent with the differences in weaponry (hasta and spatha as opposed to pilum and gladius) noted by Tacitus.

Wikipedia notes:

"At the start of Augustus' sole rule (30 BC), the original core auxiliary units in the West were composed of warlike tribesmen from the Gallic provinces (especially Gallia Belgica, which then included the regions later separated to form the provinces Germania Inferior and Germania Superior), and from the Balkan provinces (Dalmatia and Illyricum). By 19 BC, the Cantabrian and Asturian Wars were concluded, leading to the annexation of northern Hispania and Lusitania. Judging by the names of attested auxiliary regiments, these parts of the Iberian peninsula soon became a major source of recruits. Then the Danubian regions were annexed: Raetia (annexed 15 BC), Noricum (16 BC), Pannonia (9 BC) and Moesia (6 AD), becoming, with Illyricum, the Principate's most important source of auxiliary recruits for its entire duration. In the East, where the Syrians already provided the bulk of the Roman army's archers, Augustus annexed Galatia (25 BC) and Judaea: the former, a region in central Anatolia with a Celtic-speaking people, became an important source of recruits. In N. Africa, Egypt, Cyrene, and Numidia (25 BC) were added to the empire. Numidia (modern day Eastern Algeria) was home to the Numidians/Moors, the ancestors of today's Berber people. Their light cavalry (equites Maurorum) was highly prized and had alternately fought and assisted the Romans for well over two centuries: they now started to be recruited into the regular Auxilia. Even more Mauri units were formed after the annexation of Mauretania (NW Algeria, Morocco), the rest of the Berber homeland, in 44 AD by emperor Claudius (ruled 41–54).

Recruitment was thus heavy throughout the Augustan period, with a steady increase in the number of units formed. By AD 23, the Roman historian Tacitus records that there were roughly the same numbers of auxiliaries in service as there were legionaries. Since at this time there were 25 legions of c. 5,000 men each, the Auxilia thus amounted to c. 125,000 men, implying c. 250 auxiliary regiments."

The whole concept of auxilia was probably overhauled following the events of AD 9 ("Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!").  Until then, auxilia seem to have been raised from local peoples and were sometimes commanded by local rulers.  A desire to avoid any repetition of Arminius' treachery (and the Great Illyrian revolt) may have seen the auxilia regularised and placed under Roman officers as part of the Roman army establishment, the grant of citizenship at the conclusion of a fixed term of service being introduced as part of the package.

Once regularised, their local fighting styles would have tended to coalesce along the lines of their training, and their training was good: under Civilis, the Batavians were considered capable of matching legionaries and under Agricola the auxilia won Mons Graupius without the legions intervening.

[Duncan Head]

There are a couple of infantry on the Column with short auxiliary mail and "legionary"-style curved rectangular scuta. Phil Barker identified them as a cohors scutata, possibly a cohors scutata civium romanorum since they have "legionary-style" shield-blazons that might imply citizen units.

OK, there does seem to be good archaeological evidence for at least one auxiliary unit using "legionary-style" rectangular scuta, but it's an unusual unit, in that it's one of the cohortes voluntariorum who were recruited from citizens:

Leather shield covers can tell us a great deal about the original shield shapes and sizes. Even in some cases, which unit were using certain types of shield. ...
One notable example from Roomberg (NL) belonging to a soldier of Cohors XV Voluntariorum cR (pf) is particularly interesting in that it is a cover for a rectangular shield with a board wide enough to have been curved in the manner of the legionary scutum (contrary to Bishop and Coulston 'The study of Roman military equipment II p255).

- from: http://www.romanarmy.net/artshields.htm

[Dangun]

One possibility percolating through my mind is that most auxiliaries were noticeably lighter in the Julio-Claudian era but got closer to being heavy infantry from the Flavian period onwards (leading to increased use of tribal numeri as a new source of light troops).

This feels right. At a minimum, the differences seem to be quickly disintegrating.

Once regularised, their local fighting styles would have tended to coalesce along the lines of their training, and their training was good: under Civilis, the Batavians were considered capable of matching legionaries and under Agricola the auxilia won Mons Graupius without the legions intervening.

Which would seem unlikely if they were less well armed and armoured?

[Patrick Waterson]

Once regularised, their local fighting styles would have tended to coalesce along the lines of their training, and their training was good: under Civilis, the Batavians were considered capable of matching legionaries and under Agricola the auxilia won Mons Graupius without the legions intervening.

Which would seem unlikely if they were less well armed and armoured?

Not necessarily:  their weaponry (and to an extent armour, from what we can judge) were different; in WRG terms auxilia would have been LHI (loose formation heavy infantry) with JLS (javelin/light spear) and shield whereas legionaries were HI (close formation heavy infantry) with HTW (heavy throwing weapon) and shield.  Legionary equipment was optimised for close combat while auxilia equipment would have been suited to a more general soldiering role.  If you needed the enemy flushed out of difficult terrain, you used the auxilia.  If you needed them cut up on the flat, legions and auxilia could do the job, but legions would do it better and perhaps with fewer losses.  That at least is my understanding.

[Andreas Johansson]

If someone thought it worth noting that Civilis' auxiliaries could match legionaries, doesn't that suggest that most auxiliaries couldn't?

I note the revolt was right at the transition from the Julio-Claudian period to the Flavian. Maybe it's a transitional period where some auxiliaries had become proper heavy infantry while other units were still lighter?