Roman Auxiliaries' Equipment

[Duncan Head]

On the use of segmentata by (Batavian) auxiliaries, see also http://www.cohibat.co.uk/page14.php

[Dangun]

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.

This is definitely the caricature.

But I don't see a huge amount of evidence for it, especially if we focus only on auxiliary infantry versus legionary infantry i.e exclude auxilia cav or archers.
The idea that "their weaponry (and to an extent armour, from what we can judge) were different" is common, its certainly the impression I got from the first picture book I read about the Roman army. But there are not many compelling literary quotes on the topic and when we look at a sculpture or a frieze we see a disconcerting variety even before we address the problem of not knowing exactly what we are looking at.

Which sort of inspired the thread - when we see a flat round shield, why do we see auxilia? And what do we see when we see a mail shirt and helmet?

Uncertainty is fine. I don't don't know this stuff very well and was just wondering whether there was a solid argument somewhere that I could read.

[Erpingham]

Which sort of inspired the thread - when we see a flat round shield, why do we see auxilia? And what do we see when we see a mail shirt and helmet?

Well, the auxilia/legionary split seems well ingrained in Roman Army books.  I've thought of it as a question of martial traditions.  Our legionaries represent the Italian Way of War - heavy body shield, special type of heavy throwing weapon, handy sword.  Our auxiliaries represent the non-Italian way - spears, javelins, flat oval/clipped oval shields, big swords.  But, as you say, why do we think this way?

If we start with what we know - that Roman art clearly shows troops with different types of armour - what are the other explanations for the differences?  We could then see if they offer a more plausible explanation than the traditional one.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well, the auxilia/legionary split seems well ingrained in Roman Army books.  I've thought of it as a question of martial traditions.  Our legionaries represent the Italian Way of War - heavy body shield, special type of heavy throwing weapon, handy sword.  Our auxiliaries represent the non-Italian way - spears, javelins, flat oval/clipped oval shields, big swords.  But, as you say, why do we think this way?

Mainly, it seems, because our literary sources do.  Vitellius' (or rather Caecina's) assault on Placentia, AD 69:

"Almost before dawn of day the walls were crowded with combatants, and the plains glittered with masses of armed men. The close array of the legions, and the skirmishing parties of auxiliaries assailed with showers of arrows and stones the loftier parts of the walls, attacking them at close quarters, where they were undefended, or old and decayed. The Othonianists, who could take a more deliberate and certain aim, poured down their javelins on the German cohorts as they recklessly advanced to the attack with fierce war-cries, brandishing their shields above their shoulders after the manner of their country, and leaving their bodies unprotected. The soldiers of the legions, working under cover of mantlets and hurdles, undermined the walls, threw up earth-works, and endeavoured to burst open the gates." - Tacitus, Histories II.22

[Duncan Head]

The close array of the legions, and the skirmishing parties of auxiliaries ...

"densum legionum agmen, sparsa auxiliorum manu". Nice - shame it's only at a siege 

[Patrick Waterson]

"densum legionum agmen, sparsa auxiliorum manu". Nice - shame it's only at a siege 

Indeed.

Later on, in Histories IV.20, we have the Batavians behaving rather differently:

"Three thousand legionaries, some raw Belgian cohorts, and with them a mob of rustics and camp-followers, cowardly, but bold of speech before the moment of danger, rushed out of all the gates, thinking to surround the Batavians, who were inferior in number. But the enemy, being veteran troops, formed in columns [cuneos], presenting on every side a dense array, with front, flanks, and rear secure. Thus they were able to break the thin line of our soldiers."

Then again, and to pick up Andreas' point, these Batavians were regarded as exceptional.

"... a body of troops which, to whatever side they might incline, would, whether as allies or enemies, throw a vast weight into the scale ..." - idem I.59

They were also not backward in expressing their own merits:

"They behaved themselves insolently, boasting, as they visited the quarters of the several legions, that they had mastered the men of the 14th, that they had taken Italy from Nero, that the whole destiny of the war lay in their hands." - idem II.27

Auxilia in AD 69 were still a varied lot.  From Vitellius' entry into Rome:

"The eagles of four legions were borne in front, and an equal number of colours from other legions on either side, then came the standards of twelve auxiliary squadrons, and the cavalry behind the ranks of the infantry. Next came thirty-four auxiliary cohorts, distinguished according to the names or various equipments [species armorum] of the nations." - Histories II.89

This was, of course, as of AD 69, a year in which:

"Nor were the men themselves a less frightful spectacle, bristling as they were with the skins of wild beasts, and armed with huge lances [ingentibus telis]" - idem II.88

By the time of Trajan's column, a couple of generations of regularisation would have taken place.  This is not necessarily the same as homogenisation, and the lack of a good military history of the Dacian wars is to be regretted.

[Duncan Head]

Which sort of inspired the thread - when we see a flat round shield, why do we see auxilia? And what do we see when we see a mail shirt and helmet?
Uncertainty is fine. I don't don't know this stuff very well and was just wondering whether there was a solid argument somewhere that I could read.

Historiographically, I think the process may go something like this - subject to correction:

- Scholars have known, probably since the Renaissance at least, that the Roman army contained both citizen legions and non-citizen auxilia. The literary sources make this clear, and also hint that at least some auxiliaries at some dates were regarded as lighter armed than the legions: we have seen them referred to as leves or ferentarii, as sparsely-formed, as using spatha and lancea instead of gladius and pilum, as having different (different how?) shields and helmets.

- Trajan's Column, once studied in detail in the 19th century (the first plaster casts, the Cichorius plates), may have been decisive in establishing an image of the two classes. There are two main types of infantry on the Column: one in segmented armour and curved rectangular shields, one in short mail shirts (identified as leather jerkins until Russell Robinson) and flat oval shields. Yes, there are variants and oddities - one or two "auxiliaries" with "legionary" shields, the guys in the animal-skin headgear, the unarmoured slingers - but those are the overwhelming majority. Now, we can identify the first type as legionaries (and Praetorians) because in some scenes they are associated with legionary eagle-standards and distinctive Praetorian standards; and because most of their shields have variants of the winged-thunderbolt of Jupiter which is seen as characteristically Roman "national" imagery. They are also the guys working the artillery and doing the engineering, which we can see from the written sources as legionary specialties. The infantry with flat oval shields must then be auxiliary, and their shields bear a variety of motifs some of which are less Roman (peltai of Thracian origin, torcs of Celtic origin, etc). In addition, the cavalry, who are known from the texts to have been mostly auxiliaries, are armed and emblazoned in a style much closer to the second, "auxiliary", type of infantry than to the "legionaries".

- This distinction was reinforced by examination of large numbers of grave-stelae of soldiers, especially those from Britain and the Rhine frontiers which were the areas most thoroughly investigated up till the later 20th century. Many of these named the soldier's unit. Not all were in full battle gear, but of those who did wear some or all of it, some legionaries but no auxiliaries used the curved rectangular shield, some auxiliaries had the same short mailshirt as on the Column, etc etc.

- As time went on more finds, both of sculpture and of actual equipment from identifiable contexts (legionary bases or auxiliary forts, etc) modified the picture and suggested that there was quite a lot of variety in both legionary and auxiliary appearance, but didn't undermine the distinction completely. The Adamklissi metopes showed presumed-legionaries, with gladius and curved rectangular shields, wearing mail or scale  armour, for instance (but noticeably longer mailshirts than the Column's "auxiliaries").

- The most radical attempt to undermine the dichotomy in equipment has been the suggestion that segmented armour and artillery were not unique to legionaries, based partly on finds in auxiliary forts. A lot of people are not convinced, since most of these finds can perhaps be explained by mixed occupancy or chance deposition.

[Andreas Johansson]

using spatha and lancea instead of gladius and pilum

This one is a little curious: while a lancea may be lighter than a pilum, you'd think a spatha would be heavier than a gladius. It seems slightly odd for light or medium infantry to carry long(ish) swords, ones longer than those used by the heavy foot.

WP implies that Tacitus' auxiliaries at Mons Graupius might have been cavalry* - certainly, a long sword makes sense for horsemen. Is there any other piece of literary evidence to connect spathae specifically with auxiliary infantry in early Imperial times? Does the monumental evidence show any difference in infantry swords?

* Specifically, it says there's no indication that they were cavalry - presumably, then, there's no indication they were infantry either, or whoever wrote the bit would have mentioned that as it'd be helpful to the argument.

[Erpingham]

It seems slightly odd for light or medium infantry to carry long(ish) swords, ones longer than those used by the heavy foot.

Surely, the issue is how the sword is used, not how heavy the armour of the user is?  If the auxiliary combat style is different to the legionary e.g. its more like a classical Celt, the tools of the trade would be different.

[Duncan Head]

The spatha/gladius opposition in Tac. Annals 12.35 is at the storming of steep hills and ramparts, not a cavalry job; and the auxiliaries using the spatha are also called ferentarii, which usually means light infantry. And it's a series of rhetorical oppositions between the legionaries and the auxiliaries; opposing pedites with equites would have been an obvious choice for inclusion if it had been the case.

(The description of Mons Graupius does not mention the word spatha; but the Batavian and Tungrian auxiliaries who close with the sword (the word mucrones, sword-points, is used) are said to be cohortes, that is, infantry units. And probably not mixed part-mounted cohorts going by http://cohibat.co.uk/page8.php - unless III already was.)

Medium/light infantry might have a greater need for length in the sword blade than heavies, as with lighter protection they have more motivation to keep a bit of distance.

I'd say that the apparent-auxiliaries at Adamklissi have longer swords than the apparent-legionaries.

[Dangun]

Trajan's Column, once studied in detail in the 19th century (the first plaster casts, the Cichorius plates), may have been decisive in establishing an image of the two classes. There are two main types of infantry on the Column: one in segmented armour and curved rectangular shields, one in short mail shirts (identified as leather jerkins until Russell Robinson) and flat oval shields.... Now, we can identify the first type as legionaries (and Praetorians) because in some scenes they are associated with legionary eagle-standards and distinctive Praetorian standards; and because most of their shields have variants of the winged-thunderbolt of Jupiter which is seen as characteristically Roman "national" imagery.

Completely with you, thus far - the identification of legionaries seems completely reasonable because they get associated with symbols and standards.

The infantry with flat oval shields must then be auxiliary.

This seems a bit speculative. And the guys with no shields, well I am not sure what heuristic we use at all.

but no auxiliaries used the curved rectangular shield... (on grave stele)

This would be persuasive if it were true. But quite a big claim - and as you said there is at least one exception on Trajan's column. No idea myself... When D'Amato's book arrives I hope it establishes or refutes this kind of idea.

The most radical attempt to undermine the dichotomy in equipment has been the suggestion that segmented armour and artillery were not unique to legionaries, based partly on finds in auxiliary forts. A lot of people are not convinced, since most of these finds can perhaps be explained by mixed occupancy or chance deposition.

Interesting.
Those not convinced, have a possible objection to the undermining argument.
But it feels VERY MUCH like interpreting data based on prejudice, and the simpler explanation would be to accept that the auxilia used the equipment.

Perhaps adding to the earlier comments that the auxilia distinction may have been more obvious in the first century BC - newly raised auxilia would also naturally be more distinct than an auxilia unit which has been around for a century or more being moved around the empire having turned over their members many times.

[Andreas Johansson]

The spatha/gladius opposition in Tac. Annals 12.35 is at the storming of steep hills and ramparts, not a cavalry job; and the auxiliaries using the spatha are also called ferentarii, which usually means light infantry. And it's a series of rhetorical oppositions between the legionaries and the auxiliaries; opposing pedites with equites would have been an obvious choice for inclusion if it had been the case.

(The description of Mons Graupius does not mention the word spatha; but the Batavian and Tungrian auxiliaries who close with the sword (the word mucrones, sword-points, is used) are said to be cohortes, that is, infantry units. And probably not mixed part-mounted cohorts going by http://cohibat.co.uk/page8.php - unless III already was.)

Medium/light infantry might have a greater need for length in the sword blade than heavies, as with lighter protection they have more motivation to keep a bit of distance.

I'd say that the apparent-auxiliaries at Adamklissi have longer swords than the apparent-legionaries.

Ah, thanks.

[Erpingham]

Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM

    The infantry with flat oval shields must then be auxiliary.


This seems a bit speculative. And the guys with no shields, well I am not sure what heuristic we use at all.

Less speculative than many things said on these pages   However, as Duncan has said, most identifiable auxiliaries on funerary monuments seem to carry oval shields (where they have shields) and most legionaries have rectangular shields.  This makes the identification at least informed speculation.  But I would repeat my earlier question - what alternative identifications are there?  The Trajans Column and Adamklissi monuments have two main groups of armoured men; heavy armour, square shield and shorter mail, oval shield. It is possible that they are two types of legionary soldier, either from different places or having different functions within a legion.  Or perhaps the "auxiliary" types are the forces of an allied power and not Roman at all.  After all, their oval shields are like those of the Dacians and they practice barbaric customs like head-hunting.  Both of these alternative hypotheses should be easily testable.

Do we have evidence of legions from widely separated geographies involved in the campaign?
Do we have evidence in this period of heavier and lighter troops in a legion?
Were there substantial forces of allied troops in the campaign?

[Patrick Waterson]

Good questions.  If only I had the answers ...

Do we have evidence of legions from widely separated geographies involved in the campaign?

We have at least one example: Legio I Minervia was raised by Domitian to serve in Germania Inferior at Bonna (Bonn); under Trajan it, together with Legio VI Victrix from Novaesium (Neuss) and Legio X Gemina from Noviomagus (Nijmegen) - source here.

The Historia Augusta also mentions Hadrian as commanding the I Minervia during Trajan's second Dacian campaign (Hist Aug, Hadrian 3.6).

Do we have evidence in this period of heavier and lighter troops in a legion?

Very good question, but short of drawing a line across time between ferentarii and lanciarii and saying 'there must have been something' I have no real answer.

Were there substantial forces of allied troops in the campaign?

Apparently, though mostly on the Dacian side, Decebalus having sent round to his neighbours for aid.  As far as Trajan is concerned, Cassius Dio notes (LXVIII.11.1):

"As numerous Dacians kept transferring their allegiance to Trajan, and also for certain other reasons, Decebalus again sued for peace."

This had been a two-way traffic, as we can see from Dio's summary of the peace treaty concluding Trajan's first campaign.

"He [Decebalus] reluctantly engaged to surrender his arms, engines and engine-makers, to give back the deserters, to demolish the forts, to withdraw from captured territory, and furthermore to consider the same persons enemies and friends as the Romans did, and neither to give shelter to any of the deserters nor to employ any soldier from their empire; for he had been acquiring the largest and best part of his force by persuading men to come to him from Roman territory." (idem LXVIII.9.5-6)

Among other things Decebalus seems to have had a surplus of armour and/or weaponry, for under Domitian:

"Other events worth recording that took place in the Dacian War are as follows. Julianus, who was appointed by the emperor to conduct the war, made many excellent regulations, one being his order that the soldiers should inscribe their own names as well as those of their centurions upon their shields, in order that those of their number who should perform any particularly good or base deed might be more readily recognized. 2 He encountered the enemy at Tapae, and slew great numbers of them. One of them, Vezinas, who ranked next to Decebalus, finding that he could not get away alive, fell down purposely, as if dead; in this manner he escaped notice and fled during the night. 3 Decebalus, fearing that the Romans, now that they had conquered, would proceed against his royal residence, cut down the trees that were on the site and put armour [hopla = armour and/or weapons; here probably both] on the trunks [stelekhesi = on the stumps still standing], in order that the Romans might take them for soldiers and so be frightened and withdraw; and this actually happened." - idem LXVII.10.1-3

[Dangun]

On the use of segmentata by (Batavian) auxiliaries, see also http://www.cohibat.co.uk/page14.php

I just got around to following up on this link.

But it is very interesting, thank you.

Basically it gives archaeological evidence of two auxiliaries who came home to their respective farms having brought their lorica segmentata with them.