Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I need some help with roman mercenaries
#1
Hi,
I´m a PhD candidate working on regulation of private security contractors and I look at overall regulation of mercenaries through history. I have difficulties finding sources about contracts between Roman empire and mercenaries (how was oversight on the ground) and how they were punished for disobedience. Is there anybody who can direct me on right literature?
Thanks!
Reply
#2
Do you mean the Roman use of "Auxilia?" Not quite mercenaries in the traditional sense.

Have you looked at the Greeks? They used mercenaries extensively and there are some good books available.
Joe Balmos
Reply
#3
Yes, I was thinking on auxilia. I found a bit about in a Beckman book (2003), but very limited. As for Greek I found much more materials, but the part I cannot find relates to the accountability part (for example what we would call nowadays judicial accountability). Any thoughts? I look the period all through 20th century, so also Gealic Condottieri, and such.
Reply
#4
I don't remember the source, but supposedly Roman citizen soldiers considered it an insult to be beaten by rods (rudis) instead of the vitis, the vine staff. While on campaign, the rods were used to beat non-citizens, meaning Socii or auxiliary.

I also believe there are many accounts of poor performing auxiliary units being broken up or dismissed in disgrace, though I can't remember off the top of my head which ones. A Roman pro-magistrate holding imperium had the right to beat or behead everyone, including Roman citizens or foreigners, so I'm sure that they administered some form of military discipline, though it might not have been as severe as it was for those of actual Roman or Italian citizenship, who would have been more used to it and accepting of such discipline. Try to beat a Gaul for falling asleep on guard or disobeying an order, and he was liable to just pack up and go home, along with many others, as many barbarian people where much more free spirited than the Romans.
Reply
#5
In Caesar's civil war, around the time of the battle of Dyrrachium, there is an interesting bit about 2 Gallic cavalry (not quite mercenary, not quite regular auxiliary just yet) commanders that were pocketing money from "ghosts" soldiers they'd keep on the role. At some point, they got afraid enough of getting caught to switch sides and provide valuable intel to Pompey.

There might be better examples in Carthage's military history because of their (apparent ?) bigger reliance on mercenaries. Afterall they had to quell a pretty big mercenary revolt at one point.
Timothee.
Reply
#6
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/06/29...-the-ages/

Commanders had the power of life and death over their soldiers and summary executions were well within a general’s authority. Men could be punished for all manner of offences: insubordination, cowardice, as well as something vaguely referred to as “unmanly acts”. For theft or desertion, the condemned would be sentenced to fustuarium, a punishment that involved the victim being stoned or beaten to death with clubs before the entire company. In the rare instance that the accused survived such an ordeal, he would be banished from the army. For lesser offenses, soldiers could be fined, put on half rations or forced to eat raw barley, which was known to painfully rip through the digestive tract. Other punishments were even more creative. For example a soldier accused of treason might be sewn into a sack containing live snakes and then thrown into a river. On at least one occasion, a Roman soldier who stood accused of raping a citizen’s wife found himself tied hand and foot to the limbs of two trees trunks that had been pulled tight and lashed together. When the trunks were released, the condemned was ripped in two.
Of course, the Roman army’s most famous form of punishment was Decimation — or the random execution of every tenth man in a unit. Inflicted on a century or cohort for such things as mutiny or cowardice in the face of the enemy, the condemned were typically put to death by fustuarium. The fatal blows were administered by the unlucky soldiers’ own comrades.

Look in Wiki too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mili...unishments

I remember about other things as well. I think that depending on the gravity of the fact or the disposition of the commander, or the strategic situation different punishments were applied.
Sometimes only humiliation, like staying in the front of the tent of the commander without belt (military belt was a status symbol that a soldier wore when in civil clothes too) and holding grass in his hand. A whole unit can be punished too, not only by decimation but e.g. to feed on barley for a certain period or to sleep outside camp.
-----------------
Gelu I.
www.terradacica.ro
www.porolissumsalaj.ro
Reply
#7
In the later Empire and Early Byzantine periods there were two types of troops that might fit the 'mercenary' label. These were firstly the foederati, who were, at least initially, barbarian warbands under their own leaders who were employed by the Roman state under a treaty. Secondly, the buccelarii, these were the personal military followers of Romano-Byzantine generals. They took a formal oath of allegiance to the emperor, but their primary loyalty was to the general they served. For a really prominent general, such as Belisarius, the buccelarii might number in the thousands. They were considered elite troops, because pay and conditions were often better than those offered by the state the best quality soldiers sought employment in these units.

If you search JSTOR etc. with the terms foederati and buccelarii you should find plenty of literature. After all you need to have command of the relevant literature in order to be able to write a PhD thesis/dissertation.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#8
It might be difficult to tie the Roman military into a PhD dissertation on the history of regulation of private military contractors/companies. Very few of the arrangements by which Rome fielded her armies would fit into a category that could be related in any real sense to our conception of "mercenary."

In the sense that auxilia and foederati were not citizens and yet were paid to fight for Rome they might be considered mercenary, but that is a stretch. Auxilia were drawn from peoples who were subject to Rome, and the auxilia did admit citizens. The United States Army has soldiers in it who are not US citizens; those people are not considered mercenaries. Auxilia were in the Roman army but were not Roman citizens. However, unlike a non-citizen in the US Army, soldiers in the Roman auxilia were almost universally Roman subjects, inhabitants of protectorates or provinces governed by Rome. Because of this, I would very much hesitate to try and make any sort of point about historical private military contractors by using or referring to the auxilia.

Foederati I know less about; there are several people on this forum (some of whom have already chimed in here) who can talk far more intelligently about the applicability of foederati to the historical regulation of PMCs.

Other arrangements, such as buying off the Numidians during Scipio's African campaign against Carthage is perhaps mercenary behavior on the part of Masinissa, but arrangements like this have little to contribute to a discussion of mercenary regulation, because it was more about politics/bribing a new ally/funding one side of a civil war.

To be honest, the only clear-cut mercenary units I can think of that the Romans hired would be Cretan archers, Balearic slingers, or possibly some other specialists. And I don't think there is a great deal of information out there about how Rome regulated these units.

I think you would get information more applicable to your topic if you focus on Carthage's armies (the Mercenary War should furnish a good deal of info) and the Greeks, such as Pyrrhus.
Nate Hanawalt

"Bonum commune communitatis"
Reply
#9
Quote:In the later Empire and Early Byzantine periods there were two types of troops that might fit the 'mercenary' label. These were firstly the foederati, who were, at least initially, barbarian warbands under their own leaders who were employed by the Roman state under a treaty. Secondly, the buccelarii, these were the personal military followers of Romano-Byzantine generals. They took a formal oath of allegiance to the emperor, but their primary loyalty was to the general they served. For a really prominent general, such as Belisarius, the buccelarii might number in the thousands. They were considered elite troops, because pay and conditions were often better than those offered by the state the best quality soldiers sought employment in these units.

If you search JSTOR etc. with the terms foederati and buccelarii you should find plenty of literature. After all you need to have command of the relevant literature in order to be able to write a PhD thesis/dissertation.

The term "Foederati" has many definitions but they can be best equated with either standard recruitment practices early one, and beginning in the late 4th century they were basically the same as the Italic "Socii" in terms of military service. Allies serving under their own commanders. Later on it became a type of standardized regiment.

Lucas McMahon just wrote his dissertation on them in fact:

https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10...thesis.pdf

What we need to look at here are the Bucellarii (Greek: Boukellarioi), who basically fit the textbook definition of mercenaries. They were groups of usually foreign troops hired by Generals, Politicians, etc. for personal defense, and as personal armies. Information about them can be gleaned from Procopius, and there are laws regarding them in the Theodosian and Justinianic Codes.
Reply
#10
Thank you so much! Yes, my problem are sourcesSmile I will look at those two terms, never crossed with them before! Do you have any other suggestions for me to look up until 19th century?
Reply
#11
I think one of your biggest challenges will be creating a definition of "mercenary" that works over multiple time periods and military systems. For example the fact of foreignness of origins is often irrelevant, as is payment. In the later Roman army the soldiers in the same unit, even the same tent, could be of varied origins. One soldier might have been born in a Roman province of two citizen parents, his neighbour around the camp fire might have been born outside the Empire's boundaries of two non-citizen parents. To label one a mercenary and the other not is irrelevant in context, as both would have been viewed by contemporaries as professional Roman soldiers paid by the Roman state.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#12
I agree on all above. However, for me it is important to establish what kind of oversight (supervision) and punishment for misconduct was in place and if it was different from the one that applied from the State soldiers. I don´t look too deep in it just to kind of make state of the art if you wish, of what existed through history. VERY briefSmile
Reply
#13
The Late Roman army did employ what we would class as 'mercenaries', not classes as auxiliaries. This happened during the reign of Constantine the Great in his civil wars against Maxentius and Licinius where both Constantine and his opponents hired Goth's, Frank's and Alamanni mercenaries. During Constantius II's civil war with Magnentius Constantine hired Goth's and Magnentius hired Frank's & Burgundians. Procopius hired Goth's when he tried to usurp Valens, Valentinian had a Alamannic King and his tribe assist him as well as Burgundians. Valens was hiring Goth's before Adrianople. I'm not sure how punishments would have been meted out as those troops were under the command of tribal leaders.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#14
Quote:both Constantine and his opponents hired Goth's, Frank's and Alamanni mercenaries.

Your mention of Constantine hiring Goths and other Germans reminded me of another situation that may be relevant to mercenaries: didn't Marius hire gladiators for his army during Sulla's first civil war? I know there's a point that could be made that the Marian forces were ad-hoc legions (and therefore state forces, not mercenaries), but could you instead make the point that they were mercenaries? As in apparently not enough Romans were invested in the Marian faction's cause, and therefore Marius and Cinna and the rest had to hire troops because they could not raise legions. I believe Marius' forces behaved quite badly and Sertorius had to send his troops into Rome to bring them to heel.

This might be a thin argument to make, now that I've written it out like this. I suppose it would depend greatly on what definition you're using for "mercenary," as several others have already mentioned.
Nate Hanawalt

"Bonum commune communitatis"
Reply
#15
Quote:I agree on all above. However, for me it is important to establish what kind of oversight (supervision) and punishment for misconduct was in place and if it was different from the one that applied from the State soldiers. I don´t look too deep in it just to kind of make state of the art if you wish, of what existed through history. VERY briefSmile

What are you comparing and contrasting the Roman mercenaries to? Because the method of employment between them and other more modern mercenary units, which most often operate independent, not one detachment of a larger field army, but on their own, with little host nation oversight or interference. In that regards, is apples and oranges.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman use of mercenaries Q Rutilius 7 2,878 01-17-2007, 04:08 PM
Last Post: Gaius_Calvus

Forum Jump: