06-11-2001, 09:06 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
In my opinion there is nothing that precludes a person being both a Roman officer and traitor to his superiors and being a tribal leader as well. Arminius was not unique in combining both functions, for another example of an auxiliary officer cum tribal leader one can point to Iulius Civilis. Both could exert authority as part of the Roman military hierarchy and as tribal leaders from important families. The argument of auxiliaries revolting (in part) because of rewards due, but not provided reminds strongly of the Batavian grudges, who wished higher pay and an increase in the number of horsemen for their units for their services rendered.<br>
<br>
Regarding the definition of <i> receptio</i> and <i> deditio</i> etc I would have to look up some literature. Auxiliary units however consisted of a wide range of troop types (regulars and irregulars, allies, mercenaries, POW's short timers and long serving troops) and do not appear to have been as standardised at the start of the principate as they were to become later on. Their use and organisation at this date appears to be a range of <i> ad hoc</i> measures.<br>
<br>
An important difference with the victims Rwanda and of the KZ would be that the Roman army being ambushed consisted mostly of trained and armed troops, though there would certainly be unarmed civilians with the army train. The soldiers had the means to defend themselves.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
In my opinion there is nothing that precludes a person being both a Roman officer and traitor to his superiors and being a tribal leader as well. Arminius was not unique in combining both functions, for another example of an auxiliary officer cum tribal leader one can point to Iulius Civilis. Both could exert authority as part of the Roman military hierarchy and as tribal leaders from important families. The argument of auxiliaries revolting (in part) because of rewards due, but not provided reminds strongly of the Batavian grudges, who wished higher pay and an increase in the number of horsemen for their units for their services rendered.<br>
<br>
Regarding the definition of <i> receptio</i> and <i> deditio</i> etc I would have to look up some literature. Auxiliary units however consisted of a wide range of troop types (regulars and irregulars, allies, mercenaries, POW's short timers and long serving troops) and do not appear to have been as standardised at the start of the principate as they were to become later on. Their use and organisation at this date appears to be a range of <i> ad hoc</i> measures.<br>
<br>
An important difference with the victims Rwanda and of the KZ would be that the Roman army being ambushed consisted mostly of trained and armed troops, though there would certainly be unarmed civilians with the army train. The soldiers had the means to defend themselves.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
