Legions and Auxiliaries post AD212

[Nathan Ross]

We all know the difference between legions and auxiliary troops under the Principiate: legionaries were Roman citizens, auxiliaries were not. There were possibly differences in equipment and perhaps pay between the two, and (at least initially) auxiliaries were recruited from particular ethnic groups or tribes within the empire.

But after AD212, everyone in the empire was granted citizenship. Around the same time, both legionaries and auxiliaries seem to have used pretty much the same equipment. Both recruited locally from wherever they were based. So what was the continuing difference between them? Why did the Roman army continue to operate a two-tier unit system, if both tiers were effectively the same? Why would a man join an auxiliary cohort rather than a legion, or vice versa?

:???:

[Titus Marius Secundus]

The exact details proably aren't known, but it might be that there was a slight pay difference, and being a legionary would have been harder, need a higer education ( smarts) , tougher discipline? and...maybe a longer service term? I remember something being said in the book " The Eagle" about the main character being denied from the legions but can't remember! :evil: . Also, maybe it was a persons personal choice as to which they preferred. The roles on the battlefield would be different. Legionaries are known to be a higher grade of soldier, harder training, longer training. I guess also Auxiliaries played smaller duties, so anyone wanting a military service but not an on-the-run one would join as an Auxiliary, they would probably station forts for very long periods of time. I really don't know but I wanted to point out that in fine possible details, it's a very complicated and guessing matter.

Sam

[Gaius Colletti]

I am much more familiar with the earlier Empire, but did auxiliaries continue to fill "other jobs" such as spearsmen, archers, and cavalry? The Legionaries were all heavy infantry.

Perhaps it was something like "If you want to be heavy infantry and get down and dirty, and stab barbarians face to face, join the legions, and if you want to be in the cavalry, archers, spearsmen... join the auxiliary"

[Titus Marius Secundus]

Well I can tell you one thing, you have my vote on getting down and dirty. I'd love to be an legionary, but I'd hesitate to stab at the face :-x :-x :-x :-x SICK! Agreed?

[Nathan Ross]

did auxiliaries continue to fill "other jobs" such as spearsmen, archers, and cavalry? The Legionaries were all heavy infantry.

Could be. But Vegetius (probably describing the army of the third century or thereabouts) has legionaries being trained as slingers and archers. And then there were the lanciarii in the legions - specialist light infantry, apparently. So the legions were also taking on the roles traditionally (we assume) given to the auxiliaries...

[Gaius Colletti]

I agree Nathan, I remember Vegetius writing that legionaries in the rear should be firing arrows from the rear ranks, and in general being more versatile. But just as the legionaries specialized in face to face combat, the auxiliaries specialized in their specific areas, slingers, archers, cavalry. This is speculation of course, but really what else could it be?

[Albertomv]

I think that auxiliaries were stational troops, so if you prefer stay in your town in garrison tasks join the auxiliaries.

If you prefer see world and more action join to the legions.

[Quintius Clavus]

The "bright line" that existed between legions and the auxilia probably existed mainly in the 1st Century AD, but became blurry as time progressed. Remember from the letters found in Egypt, that a young man, wanting to join a legion - thus obviously a citizen - was first placed in the Fleet. He complained about the poor quality of his letter of recommendation. Later he did get into a legion (I'm assuming one of the legions based in Egypt).
There were only so many places available for new recruits at any given time. A soldier, who was a citizen and in the auxiliaries, I would assume, could petition to be moved up into the legions, like the young man above. At the same time, soldiers were punished by being transferred to "inferior" branches of the army - thus a legionary might be punished by being "demoted" to an auxiliary unit.
With the Romans one cannot disregard the force of "Tradition" to maintain distinctions among the various types of units, thus any and all could and did have citizens serving in them even before the AD 212 grant of citizenship to "all". There were still a few exceptions to that grant of citizenship.

[Sean Manning]

Could it just be military tradition? Even in our relentlessly efficient age, many militaries have units whose names come from obsolete weapons (Fusiliers, Guards, Horse), and renaming or abolishing a unit is a big deal. It would have been a lot of trouble and danger to reorganize the military from the top down (what if the troops revolted for higher pay and the old names?)

I imagine that family/patronage ties and local traditions of training boys in particular military skills would have continued to play a role.

did auxiliaries continue to fill "other jobs" such as spearsmen, archers, and cavalry? The Legionaries were all heavy infantry.

Could be. But Vegetius (probably describing the army of the third century or thereabouts) has legionaries being trained as slingers and archers. And then there were the lanciarii in the legions - specialist light infantry, apparently. So the legions were also taking on the roles traditionally (we assume) given to the auxiliaries...

I was just reading Vegetius 1; doesn't he cite Cato the Elder as one of his sources for that advice? Surely there were still special units of archers, slingers, javelineers, and cavalry even if some legionaries could shoot, sling, hurl, or ride.

[kazeryu]

I was also wondering if it had something to do with "esprit de corps" and a difference in specializations.

[Nathan Ross]

Some good suggestions there - thanks to all.

It could be that auxiliary cohorts in the later empire became much more static - in the principiate, we have cohorts being moved about almost as much as legions, but I'm not sure of later evidence for this. Legions, on the other hand, were sending wide-ranging vexillations with field armies throughout the period - men from the Danubian XI Claudia turn up in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mauretania at the end of the 3rd century. Perhaps with the diversification of roles withing the legions themselves - archers, lanciarii - these vexillations came to function as miniature armies in their own right, and no longer needed auxiliary support? The auxiliary infantry cohorts would therefore become increasingly tied to their garrison locations and the local population, before blending into the limitanei of the 4th-5th centuries.

Another thought, on the question of legionaries being perhaps better educated - the equestrian Praeses governors of the later provinces also commanded the garrison legions, and presumably would have drawn their administrative staff from the legion ranks, as earlier governors did. It might make sense, therefore, for men of greater education and numeracy to be sent to the legions rather than the auxiliaries, where such skills may not have been so required.

Also, recruiting/conscription officers would perhaps also have come from the legion, and may therefore have been able to select the best of the recruits for the legion itself, sending the rest on to the auxiliary garrisons in the province.

Finally, as Sean says, tradition - even family tradition - cannot be discounted. Legions and cohorts with long pedigrees may have held onto their individual identities, just as they do in armies today. Generations of men may have served in the same unit, if it remained based in the same location.

I'd be grateful of any further suggestions about evidence for these ideas, or particular studies that might help.

Regarding Vegetius - he actually cites Cato on the 'utility of good archers in action', rather than training legionaries as archers in particular. Presumably he's talking about the Republican use of allies (proto-auxiliaries, in effect) as specialist troops. I do wonder how much of Vegetius might be taken from Cato's 'treatise on military discipline' though - his 'ancient army' might be more ancient than we assume...

[Paul Elliott]

Yes, I really think that the legions adopted the tactics and equipment of the auxiliary. Resulting in a simple status difference. Here in Britain on the Wall, it does seem as if the auxiliary units in the 3rd and 4th centuries are static. Preparing for the limitanei shift of the 4thC. The legionary vexillations are more mobile and able to move from flashpoint to flashpoint. It is in the 4th C, or the very late 3rd under Diocletian that these super-mobile legionary vexillations were 'frozen' in place and turned, just like the auxiliary cohorts into the 'mini-legions' of the 4th and 5th centuries.

[ValentinianVictrix]

The real difference between the soldier in the Legion and the soldier in an auxilia unit during the 4th Century AD was the tasks they were expected to perform. For example, auxilia were not expected to build roads, dig fortifications etc. This is why it became increasingly more attractive to join auxilia units rather than recruit into one of the Legions.