Auxillary vs Legionary Equipment

[Caballo]

In the new Bishop & Coulston, there is a very interesting section on Legionary and Auxillary equipment. The key differentiator seems to be that legionaries are depicted with curved shields (oval or rectangular) and pilum, whilst auxilia are shown woth flat shields (oval or rectangular) with hasta.
A lot of debate about whether auxilia wore the lorica segmentata (based on archaeological finds "but no unequivocal evidence to show that they did".
One other passage from Tacitus describing Otho's coup in 69 AD "weapons were promptly carried off without regards for military custom and rank, which distinguished the praetorian from the legionary by their insignia. Helmets and shields meant for auxiliaries added to the confusion". Very difficult to work out what helmets are meant here.
There is also an interesting article on the Legio II Augusta- Imperial Gallic helmets and the Auxilia http://www.legiiavg.org.uk/articles/art ... lmets.html arguing persuasively that Imperial Gallic helmets were also worn by auxilia.
Most units , though, still tend to have auxilia in simple brass coolus or the Robinson auxiliary helmet.
Based on the new B&C book though , can we assume that all other articles of kit apart from pilum and curved shield would be an authentic article to wear as an auxiliary? Certainly, belts and pugiones seem just as ornate on the sculpture. Why not swords, helmets and other kit?

Regards

Caballo

[arklore70]

Caballo,

You make a good argument. There is a article here from the Ermine Street Guard that also points out the traditional legionary equipment was found at Auxiliary garrisoned outposts.
http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/Gentlemen.htm

In recent years there seems to be a few articles, to include the one you are citing that the Auxiliary units would/could have had near identical equipment as the Legions.

There is a great deal that we don't know, nor may we ever know how Auxiliary formations were equipped..just along the same lines as there seems to be no evidence that Centurions wore Lorica Segmentata armor.

I would not be surprised that at some point, the only real difference that might be between a Legionary Cohort and a Auxilia Cohort may only be matter of citizenship, nationality of the troopers, and functionality/mission/role of the unit.

I can also see the counter argument that the Roman government might have always feared a Auxiliary rebellion/mutiny, and reserved specified gear (segmentata, pilum, scutum) in order to insure that the legions had a tactical edge over the auxiliary unit.

Professional soldiers , especially volunteers take pride in their profession of arms, so I think Auxiliary troopers eventually possessing quality arms, armor, and kit is well within reason, especially when you consider that the enlistment contract was for 25 years.

I don't think there is a complete definite answer out there, but fortunately, we at least know some of the gear that they did use as well as historical evidence that they did receive less pay than a legionary.

Cheers!!
Mike

[Peroni]

Tacitus, having described the legions, then goes on to say that he will not describe the auxilia because the auxilia present such complexity and variety that he cannot afford to devote the necessary space to the subject. He does however say that the auxilia retain their native arms.

Most 'provincial' soldiers were very much accustomed to fighting with a thrusting spear and/or a slashing sword be they infantry or mounted. It may have just been personal preference as well as being better suited equipment for light skirmishing tactics. As you have previously discussed with the Dacian falxmen Caballo!

As for helmets and armour, we know very little. The depictions on Trajan's Column of auxiliary soldiers all wearing the same mail shirts to differentiate them from the 'citizen' legionaries is probably an artistic touch that doesn't reflect the reality of the time. I also personally think that Robinson's classification of auxiliary infantry helmets was far too sweeping. As the evidence given in Tim Edwards' article shows, gallic style helmets do appear to have been worn, (certainly in the Augustan period) by provincial auxiliaries, and why not? the 'Gallic' helmet and its later developments are all based on the Gallic Celt Port bei Nidau helmet after all!

Caballo's point regarding the tombstones is very valid. The auxiliaries are very hard to differentiate from the legionary soldiers in some cases. This is especially true of the Mainz tombstones. In their finery they look no different. Cavalry soldiers' tombstones vary from the charging rider slaying an opponent in full kit to a later fashion of a reclining 'Roman'-style dining scene which was a particular favourite with the Equites Singulari Augusti. The auxiliaries certainly wanted to appear more Roman.

As for clothing.. Certainly in the Augustan/Claudian period more provincial clothing would have prevailed, as most auxiliary units were commanded by native chieftains. This may have changed after the end of the Civilisan revolt of 69 by the training and commanding officers being citizen soldiers/Centuriones including drilll instructors (Campidoctores) drawn from the Legions. The cavalrymen Longinus Sdapeze and Titus Flavius Bassus both have long sleeved tunics typical of Germanic men.

Certainly until the reign of Galba, 68-69 AD, the Batavi horseguard kept their Germanic appearance. In the writings of Marcus Valerius Martialis (epigrammaton liber XIV CLXXVI 'Persona Germana') written onto the back of a terracotta mask (British museum - Blaccus collection) of a German with a Suebian knot we find...
"Sum figuli lusus russi persona Batavi.Quae tu derides, haec timet ora puer."
"I am a potters jest, the mask of a red faced Batavian. Though you make fun of it, a boy fears this face."

It could betray the feelings of the ‘city-Romans’ and how they looked at the emperors ‘foreign’ horsemen. It is interesting to see whether the Germans kept their ‘outlandish’ looks, or softened them for the city. Certainly the well-groomed looks of the emperor's horseguard from sculpture later in the second century points to the latter. However, in 99AD, the new emperor Trajan brought the equites singulari Augusti to Rome. He saw to it that they looked as ‘Roman’ as possible. Like frontier troops of the line, they wore sleeveless or short-sleeved tunics and knee-length breeches. (Femenalia). This suggests that when the troops were on campaign or in the field that they wore un-Roman clothing, namely long sleeves and long trousers.

[Vlad the Impala]

the rashly advancing cohorts of Gemans who, with wild battle-songs and bodies bared in traditional fashion

Tacitus The Histories
description of Vitellian forces

[Peroni]

"Bodies bared in the traditional fashion" for Germanic was bare-chested, NOT butt nekkid as was the fashion for the Gauls and Britons!!

The Gauls and Britons used waod dye on their skin. This was not only a symbolic 'armour' but also assisted in the healing of wounds too.

To my knowledge, the Germanic peoples didn't wear woad.