Talk:Auxilia/Archive 1

pictures

Are these pictures really reenacted auxilliaries or legionary soldiers?11:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit they could be either: but that's precisely my point in the article (section 2.1 (ii)): that there was no significant difference between the equipment of either. Having said that, I do believe both the foot soldier and horseman are supposed to be auxiliaries, as they are wearing chain mail, whereas re-enactors always have legionaries wear the lorica segmentata. Andreas 13/7/07

But the legions did wear chainmail most of the time. The lorica is just for TV. Wandalstouring 16:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wandalstouring. What do you think of the revamped article? Andreas 15/7/07

Hi, Wandalstouring. why are you calling my latest additions to the Illyrian revolt section pseudo-historic? They are closely based on Suetonius Tiberius 16-17: they're his comments, not mine. Please read the relevant chapters in Suetonius and let me know what you think. Best wishes Andreas 26/7/07

You can reinsert your text anytime if you source it. However, I'm still sceptic whether all your statements can be sourced with Sueton. Arminius for example was quite far away from Illyria and that there is no need to comapre Illyria to Yugoslavia. to source your text insert: <ref>source</ref> Greetings Wandalstouring 08:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I agree with you that it is hard to see how Arminius could have joined the Illyrians. But that is what Suetonius says the Romans believed at the time: "nam sub id fere tempus Q. Varus cum tribus legionibus in Germania periit, nemine dubitante quin victores Germani iuncturi se Pannoniis fuerint, nisi debellatum prius Illyricum esset", which translates as (if I can remember my A-level Latin) "for at roughly the same time, Q. Varus perished with 3 legions in Germany, and no one doubted that the victorious Germans would have joined the Pannonians, if Illyricum had not already been defeated"

(Tiberius 17)

Tiberius 16 contains the comment about the Illyrian war being the most difficult since the Punic wars "Illyrici defectione...quod gravissimum omnium bellorum post Punica". Dio Cassius LV.30 states that an invasion of Italy by the rebels was feared.

The purpose of comparing Illyricum to Yugoslavia is to give readers who are not familiar with ancient provinces a clear idea of the geographical area we are talking about.

So, unless you have some other objections, I propose to re-instate my previous text. Since it contains a mix of Dio Cassius and Suetonius, I propose to give the whole section on the Illyrian revolt a single reference with both authors quoted.

Apart from this, since you are listed as a co-ordinator of Roman military affairs, I would appreciate your comments about the whole Roman auxiliaries article, which as you will have seen, I have completely rewritten and expanded. Do you think anything needs to be added? Best wishes Andreas 26/7/07

Yugoslavia gives no clear idea since it is a shrinking state, better use a wikilink [[Illyria]] and you don't have to translate the Latin texts, I understand them. Greetings Wandalstouring 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept the point about Yugoslavia

recent countries

I strongly favour to delete the reference to recent countries, instead you can use sections of rivers to describe in where legions where(for example: Upper Danube region). some of your coding needs a legend to be understandable. Wandalstouring 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to the table of auxiliary regimental names? The reason I give modern country names is the most readers are not knowledgeable as we are about ancient placenames. How many people you meet in the street know where (or even what) Illyria or Thracia are? Using river names may not be precise enough e.g. the Danube is a very long river: the "Upper Danube" could mean anywhere between Augsburg and Belgrade. If you say, on the other hand, S Bavaria or W Hungary, the general reader immediately knows the exact region you mean. I think we should always bear in mind that wiki articles are for the benefit of the general reader and should be as reader-friendly as possible. (2) What do you mean by coding? Happy greetings Andreas 26/7/07

Suggestions for discussion and things to do

1. Should n. 1 perhaps be gutted, with its details moved to a peregrinus (Roman)-stub? semper fictilis 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

#Note 2 needs a more precise reference. (Livy 21-40 must be almost 800 pages). semper fictilis 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) By all means create the stub you suggest. But I think we should go further: we need a full article about peregrini and their legal status in the Roman empire. Perhaps you would care to write it?

::(2) Fair point: I shall endeavour to provide more accurate Livy references Andreas 26/7/07

Actually, I think it might be better to find a second source for this, given that the point (that auxilia were used in almost all Roman campaigns after 200 BC) would not be supportable by a single Livy reference or two. (I'll see if there's something in Cheesman, which I have here somewhere.) semper fictilis 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• How about that table? Perhaps it should be spun off into its own list? semper fictilis 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! In fact I aim to expand it into a full list of all 388 known auxiliary regiments, if I can find a comprehensive source. Go ahead. And well done with the Cheesman reference. Andreas 26/7/07

That'd be great. There's two appendices in the back of Cheesman with lists of known regiments. (Appendix I is regiments known from death of Trajan to accession of M. Aurelius; Appendix II is on recruitment areas.) They will be a bit dated, but they'll be a good place to start. I can scan it for you if you'd find it useful. semper fictilis 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it will add much to the data I already have: Roman Military Diplomas Vols I to V, covering all diplomas published since 1954. However, this does not cover other sources such as military tombstones etc. But Cheesman is simply too out of date. I need a modern (i.e. post 1980) source which includes all the diploma and other evidence. Any suggestions?

By the way, I don't think your changes to the section on the Republic have improved its clarity. By referring to Roman "allies", you risk confusion with the socii (meaning non-citizen Italian allies, also known as Latins) which until 90 BC supplied regular complements to the legions called alae (not to be confused with the later auxiliary alae of the Principate): these units were virtually identical to the contemporary legions (4-5,000 men with the same equipment), but with a larger cavalry element (900 instead of 300) (Goldsworthy Roman Warfare (2000) p52). After the Social War, the socii were granted Roman citizenship, and so their troops were simply integrated into the legions. But what the article is concerned with are the non-Italian troops that were used by the Romans in the Republican period. Apart from the mercenary specialists and native troops raised ad hoc in loco, there were the troops supplied by petty kings awarded by Rome the title of amici(literally "friends", but it was actually a more formal status normally backed by treaty): these amici could mostly be fairly described as client kings of Rome. Since "client kings" is the term used by L. Keppie in Cambridge Ancient History, I suggest we revert to the original wording. Actually I might add a sentence to make clear the distinction with the socii. By your leave? Andreas 27/7/07

• Yes, Cheesman will not have any of the diplomata, but for the stone inscriptions he'll probably be helpful. Yes, a lot has been published since then, but I'd guess that he had 75-80% of the corpus available to him. For more recent bibliography, there's P. A. Holder, Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan (1980) and Y. Le Bohec, Les unités auxiliaires de l'armée romaine en Afrique proconsulaire et Numidie (1989). I'm guessing that it's going to be tough to keep this list completely up do date, as the popularization of metal detectors means there are dozens being discovered every year.
• On "allies" vs. "client kings", might I suggest we use "subjects"? The problem is not just whether we call them clients (David Braund in his study of them opts for "friendly king", pointing out that no source ever calls one a "cliens"; the same point is made by Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford U.P., 2002), but that most of the subject/client-states that provided such troops were not in fact kings, but free cities. semper fictilis 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) If you think it would be useful, please do scan Cheesman's tables.
(2) I understand your point. But the term "subject" is not a good substitute, as it implies that the entities in question were under direct Roman rule, which of course many were not (we are using the same term to define peregrini remember). The reason I like the term "client king" is that it's familiar to most readers and fairly describes the amicus relationship: but I've added "subject provinces" and "protected city-states of the East" to cover your point. As you will see, I've revamped the whole Roman Republic section to bring in a paragraph on the Italian allies and explain the deficiency in legionary cavalry. I think we now have a section that has more precision, clarity and coherence.
(3) What about the demerger of the table? I take it you are going to move it to an article called something like "List of Roman auxiliary regiments"? Regards Andreas 27/7/07

(1) Having a closer look, I think your first instincts about Cheesman were right: it is almost all drawn from diplomata.

(2) Much better, but I've reworded it a bit: "provincial subjects" rather than "subject provinces" since the province was not the unit by which such contributions would be made; "allied cities overseas", since there were some western cities like Massilia and Emporiae that were not in the East; the clients we can leave alone. A more serious flaw I think is "who were often under a treaty obligation to supply a specified number of troops on demand". (a) Treaties were actually fairly rare -- in Sicily in Verres time, Cicero says there were 65 tributary cities, 5 "free" cities, and 2 cities with treaties. (b) The treaties that we have surviving in inscriptions don't have specified troop numbers -- that is something that was part of the formula togatorum, but that was only in Italy. I think we should assume that the vast majority of allied auxilia of the Republic were coming from states without formal treaty.

(3) On the spin-out, we can do that any-time, and since it will be you that eventually expands it, let's leave that until you're ready to begin work. Best, semper fictilis 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(2) I accept your point about the treaty situation, so I have removed that part of the sentence altogether.
In general, I think your input is VERY useful. Keep up the good work. Vale, frater! Andreas 27/7/07 Hey, Semperfictilis (what does that name mean by the way?) I've added some more context on the relationship of the Augustan auxilia with the earlier Latin forces of pre-Social War, and on the growing role of indigenous cavalry in Republican warfare. I think the article hangs together better now, with each paragraph linked to its predecessor and a common thread throughout. Do you have any more comments on the article as a whole? Andreas 28/7/07

Objection towards auxiliaries in Britain

I object the section auxiliaries in Britain since it requires such sections for all Roman provinces, making the article completely unreadable. My solution is to branch it out as seperate article. Wandalstouring 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wandalstouring. I understand your point, but I do not agree. The rationale for inserting the section on Britain is that it was where the Vindolanda Tablets were found, the only testimony on the everyday lives of auxiliaries ever found. This applies to auxilia in other provinces also, such as the duty detachments etc. What about reinstating the section, but calling it "Everyday lives of auxiliaries"? Another point: can you please detach the "List of Auxiliary Regiments" into a separate article? I have now almost completed the tables and commentary and it really needs to be separated, otherwise the article is much too long. Best wishes Andrea 3/11/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.44.73 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK if you revert my edit and explain that it is about the only successful reconstruction (I like your suggested title). I will move the tables in a few days when I have more time and brain to handle things with care. Besides I suggest you to create a login since 90% of anonymous editors are vandals and this makes it easier to check whether an article has been under attack.Wandalstouring 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've followed your advice and logged in: I am now EraNavigator. Best wishes 16/11/07 EraNavigator

What title do you suggest for the article with the tables? Wandalstouring (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not the same title as the section? i.e. List of Roman auxiliary regiments. I've deliberately designed the section as a self-standing article so you can just lift it straight out. Anyway, do what you think is best. Greetings.EraNavigator 18.30 20/11/07 —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)