I am interested in a set of battles during which the Romans fought in Italy against the Alemanni at Mediolanum (259), Lake Benacus (268), Placentia (271), Fano, (271) and Pavia (271).
What would have roughly been the ethnic composition of the Roman Army during these battles?
Man, that discussion is such an awkward one you have no idea.
Basically, our modern concepts of race, color, and ethnicity when discussing the Roman Empire have to be thrown out the window and shattered to pieces when it hits the sidewalk.
The Roman Empire was a mix, much like the United States. They were all Romans, but they came from different heritages.
Now, as for the 270's, I believe the Majority of the recruitment was from the Illyrian and Pannonian provinces, so I would expect on top of Illyrian Romans a large number of Suebic (Vandals, Alemanni, Suebes, Marcomanni, etc) recruits, Sarmatian (Iazyges, Taifali, Roxolani) recruits, and likely Goths and Alans as well.
Quote:Basically, our modern concepts of race, color, and ethnicity when discussing the Roman Empire have to be thrown out the window and shattered to pieces when it hits the sidewalk.
I couldn't agree more
I agree with Evan also. At this time, ethnogenesis probably didn't exist as we know it. True, the Romans called a certain tribe "Germans" or "Sarmatians," in this period, but cultural overlaps were amazing. As an example, the Goths included East Germans, Cappadocians, Dacians, Carpi, Sarmatians, (ie also Taifali), Macedonians, Moesians, Thracians, and more. Within such a "gens," the only requirement was to follow the correct leader, pray to the correct gods, and follow the correct customs. You could be black, white, yellow, or green (in case you just ate something tainted). ;-)
Quote:Now, as for the 270's, I believe the Majority of the recruitment was from the Illyrian and Pannonian provinces, so I would expect on top of Illyrian Romans a large number of Suebic (Vandals, Alemanni, Suebes, Marcomanni, etc) recruits, Sarmatian (Iazyges, Taifali, Roxolani) recruits, and likely Goths and Alans as well.
Thank you, just the kind of answer I was looking for. I don't think it's quite awkward at all. By ethnicity I was surely not referring to modern ethnicities, rather the predecessor groups to our modern ethnicities.
And if you are referring to Roman vs barbarian, evn that question would be difficult to answer. Some ancient sources claim that barbarians were recruited en masse to fill the ranks, but we can't establish how reraliistic (vs. political) such comments were. It's very difficult to establish the background of the soldiers but the evidence that we can come up with does not corroborate the notion that the Roman army was full of Germanic soldiers.
The Antonine Constitution of AD212 had granted citizenship to all the inhabitants of the empire, making all of them subject to conscription (amongst other things). There would therefore be a vast pool of potential recruits for the army, and it's perhaps unlikely that they would need to recruit widely among 'barbarians' of various sorts. Many of these newly-enfranchised provincials would, of course, be former 'barbarians' anyway, but whether they would preserve any particular ethnic distinction is probably impossible to judge.
The army that Aurelian used to defeat the Alamannic incursions of the 270s would likely have been made up of detachments from the Danube garrisons; a similar force is described by Zosimus at the battle of Emesa during the Palmyrene campaign. As such, most of the legionary soldiers would have been born and recruited in the Danube provinces - Pannonia, Moesia and Dacia - as was Aurelian himself, of course.
A discharge diploma from Moesia gives an interesting breakdown of legionary recuitment from the previous century - I described it in detail in
this post here. VII Claudia PF would very likely have provided men for Aurelian's force, and it's quite probable that the legions of the 270s would have had a similar background to the men listed here.