At what point in their history did the Romans start equipping auxiliary units with weapons and armor? In Caesar's time it seems that Gallic cavalry, Numidian javelineers, Balearic slingers and Cretan archers came self equipped. Did Augustus start equipping auxliaries at state expense or was it later perhaps?
Thanks,
Jeff
I may have to stand corrected over this but was it not by the time of Claudius there were only about 60% of the Roman army Romans anyway, so I'm sure there must have been great resourses used to kit out all these new kinds of people coming into the army.
By 9 AD should auxiliaries be shown as Roman equipped soldiers or as tribal levies temporarily raised for a campaign (like in Caesar's time)? Given that auxiliaries by 9 AD were referred to as alae and cohorts I'm inclined to believe that they were state equipped but I was wondering if their was proof of this.
Thanks
I was always under the impression that it was around the time of Augustus that the regular auxiliary cohorts began to be formed. I would have thought that they would have used much of the left over gear from the 30 or so legions Augustus disbanded from the civil wars to equip this new force.
I think the answer will be complicated. For example, I don't think its likely that Caesar's Cretans and Gauls had to import their own arrows and horses when they ran out; it would make much more sense that they were provided by the army's logistic system. In the imperial army legionaries had to pay for their equipment, and I suspect that soldiers' sons brought part of what they needed.
I think that during the first century some auxillia kept some native distinctions. Sagitarii the most prime example. Trajan's Moorish cavalry, being another. I think it possible that some northern Spanish auxillia who's tribes traditionally wore black could have retained those cloaks or tunics. I think I remember a refernce to this. Somebody like Graham Sumner will see this, I am sure and correct me if I am wron,g and give better information than I can. Sean is right: it is complicated, and as we learn more, the more complicated it will become.
Ralph
Quote:I may have to stand corrected over this but was it not by the time of Claudius there were only about 60% of the Roman army Romans anyway, so I'm sure there must have been great resourses used to kit out all these new kinds of people coming into the army.
That really depends on what you define as "Roman" by 200 AD, only 30% of the Legions was actually recruited from Italy, I don't recall what the early empire's statistics were, but most legionnaires were from Italy which was considered to be the "Ideal stock"
We really don't know much at all about the equipping of auxiliary units in the early principate, although the figural stelae which became common during the second and third quarters of the first century AD give the impression that auxiliary units stationed on the Rhine at least were equipped by the same sources from which legionaries in the same area were equipped. Tacitus however, writing at the time of Nerva and Trajan, says that the arms and equipment of the auxilia was so diverse that he would not have had space to describe it. Whatever the case equipment, both issued from contracted workshops supplying the army and privately commissioned, would probably have varied across the empire according to the traditions of localised areas for both legionary and auxiliary units.
Added to this, I understand that auxiliaries recruited from the Batavian homelands of the Rhine delta (and probably other places as well) are believed to have served under their own commanders until the Revolt of Civilis in AD 69. This might suggest that they had a more native appearance until this time. They would probably have brought their own native equipment and weapons with them but when they required replacement kit they would probably have been equipped from sources local to where they were stationed. This would gradually give them a more romanised appearance over time.
The Sophia helmet is probably a good example of a piece of equipment which has been made in the shape of a native piece of kit but which has been made by a craftsman far more familiar with mediterranean artistic styles, hence its classical decoration.
I hope this helps a little.
Crispvs
Quote:I understand that auxiliaries recruited from the Batavian homelands of the Rhine delta (and probably other places as well) are believed to have served under their own commanders until the Revolt of Civilis in AD 69.
Later than that, I think - the officers commanding Batavian cohorts mentioned on the Vindolanda tablets (c. AD 90-100) are quite possibly romanised Batavian nobility (mentioned, IIRC, in Bowman's
Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier, and possibly elsewhere).
Quote:The Sophia helmet is probably a good example of a piece of equipment which has been made in the shape of a native piece of kit but which has been made by a craftsman far more familiar with mediterranean artistic styles, hence its classical decoration.
That's a good point - we know from epigraphic evidence that many of the men of 'eastern' cohorts on the Danube (Cohors Hemesenorum / Itureorum) actually came from Syria well into the 2nd century. The appearance of these 'eastern' conical helmets around the same area might suggest they brought their kit with them - but, as you say, these appear to be 'romanised' pieces, so perhaps they were produced 'on site' as a deliberate synthesis. Then again, there was considerable syncretism in eastern religions within the empire anyway - Jupiter-Baal at Baalbek, for example - so they could still just be native items.
- Nathan