Transcriber’s Notes.
The original spelling, accentuation, hyphenation and punctuation
has been retained.
Bold face text is represented =thus=.
Italic text is represented _thus_.
Letter-spaced text is represented ~thus~.
[Illustration: TOMBSTONE OF C. ROMANIUS OF THE ALA NORICORUM.
(By kind permission of the authorities of the Stadtmuseum, Mainz.)
_Frontispiece_]
THE AUXILIA OF THE ROMAN IMPERIAL ARMY
BY
G. L. CHEESMAN, M.A.
FELLOW AND LECTURER OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1914
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY
HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PREFACE
The following essay is an attempt to deal with an interesting branch
of Roman military history which has not previously been made the
subject of an independent treatise. In a study of this kind, which
relies largely upon epigraphical evidence to which additions are
constantly being made, it is equally necessary that the scattered
material available should at intervals be collected and utilized, and
that the unfortunate collector should realize that his conclusions
will inevitably be revised in the future in the light of fresh
evidence. I hope, accordingly, that I have made some use of all
sources of information available without acquiring or expressing
excessive confidence in the finality of my deductions. Students of
the military system of the Roman Empire may complain that a certain
number of complicated questions are too summarily disposed of in the
following pages, but if discussion of the evidence in detail has been
occasionally omitted with the idea of keeping the size of this book
within reasonable limits, I hope that I have been careful to indicate
where uncertainty lies.
I have in many places been glad to acknowledge my indebtedness to my
predecessors in this field of study, who in one branch of the subject
or another have removed so many difficulties from my path. To two
scholars, however, my debt is too extensive and general to have
received adequate recognition in the footnotes. Mommsen’s article, ‘Die
Conscriptionsordnung der römischen Kaiserzeit,’ was written thirty
years ago; I have, I hope, been diligent in collecting the evidence
which has since accumulated, but I have found little to induce me to
leave the path indicated by the founder of the scientific study of the
Roman Empire. I owe much to Professor A. von Domaszewski’s ingenious
and comprehensive work, _Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres_, and
feel my obligation to its learning and suggestiveness none the less
that I have sometimes been compelled to differ from the conclusions
stated in it. I am also deeply indebted to Professor Haverfield for
constant encouragement and much valuable criticism, and can only wish
that this essay were a more adequate testimony to the value of his
influence upon the study of Roman history at Oxford. I desire also
to express my gratitude to my colleague, Mr. N. Whatley, of Hertford
College, for reading this essay in manuscript, and making many valuable
suggestions.
G. L. CHEESMAN.
NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
THE MILITARY REFORMS OF AUGUSTUS 7
THE AUXILIA DURING THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES A.D.
SECTION I. THE STRENGTH AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE AUXILIARY REGIMENTS 21
SECTION II. RECRUITING AND DISTRIBUTION 57
SECTION III. THE USE OF THE AUXILIA FOR
WAR AND FRONTIER DEFENCE 102
SECTION IV. ARMS AND ARMOUR 124
CONCLUSION
THE BREAK-UP OF THE AUGUSTAN SYSTEM 133
APPENDIX I 145
APPENDIX II 170
INDEX 191
ILLUSTRATION
TOMBSTONE OF C. ROMANIUS OF THE ALA NORICORUM
(by kind permission of the authorities of the
Stadtmuseum, Mainz) _Frontispiece_
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED
The _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_ is referred to simply by the
numbers of the volumes without any prefix.
The military diplomata (D) are referred to by the revised numbering
given in the supplement to the third volume of the _Corpus_.
_Eph. Ep._ = _Ephemeris Epigraphica._
_A. E._ = _L’année épigraphique_, edited by MM. Cagnat and Besnier.
_I. G. R. R._ = _Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes_,
edited by Cagnat.
_B. J. B._ = _Bonner Jahrbücher_, the periodical of the _Verein von
Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande_.
_W. D. Z._ = _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift._
_B. G. U._ = _Ägyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin._
Mommsen _Conscriptionsordnung_ = Mommsen, _Die Conscriptionsordnung
der römischen Kaiserzeit_, published in volume vi of the _Gesammelte
Schriften_.
von Dom. _Rangordnung_ = A. von Domaszewski, _Die Rangordnung des
römischen Heeres_, Bonn, 1907.
von Dom. _Sold_ = A. von Domaszewski, _Der Truppensold der Kaiserzeit_,
in volume x of the _Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher_.
_J. R. S._ = _The Journal of Roman Studies._
INTRODUCTION
THE MILITARY REFORMS OF AUGUSTUS
An essay on the Roman auxilia might seem merely to be one of the many
monographs in which students of the military system of the Roman Empire
are patiently arranging material for some future scholar to utilize
in a more comprehensive work. But while much space must necessarily
be devoted to details of military organization, the subject opens up
social and political questions of wider range. The extent to which
a ruling race can safely use the military resources of its subjects
and the effect on both parties of such a relation, the advantages and
dangers of a defensive or an aggressive frontier policy, these are
questions of universal historical interest, on which even an essay of so
limited a scope as this must necessarily touch in passing.
As a preliminary consideration it must be realized that the use of
troops drawn from the subject races was not an invention of the
imperial government, but goes back to the most flourishing days of
the Republic. The heavy-armed yet mobile infantry which formed the
greater part of the burgess militia of the _cives Romani_ and the
_socii_ constituted an arm which won for Rome the hegemony of Italy,
and triumphed alike over the numbers and courage of Ligurian and Gaul
or the disciplined professional armies of Carthage and the Hellenistic
monarchies. In other branches of the service, however, the republican
armies were less superior. Their cavalry, drawn, as was usual in the
citizen armies of the ancient world, from the wealthier classes, was
not sufficiently numerous and proved no match for its opponents in the
Second Punic War. The light troops came off even worse when engaged
either with mountain tribes fighting on their own ground or with the
skilled archers and slingers of Carthage or Macedon. So early was this
recognized that, in describing an offer made by Hiero of Syracuse to
furnish a thousand archers and slingers in 217 B.C., Livy is able to
make the Syracusans justify the suggestion to Roman pride by asserting
that it was already customary for the Republic to use _externi_ in this
capacity.[1] To make up their notorious deficiency in this respect the
Government could have recourse to three sources of supply. They could,
as in this case, accept or demand contingents from allies outside the
Italian military league, such as Hiero, Masinissa, or the Aetolians;
they could make forced levies among subject tribes, such as the
Ligurians, Gauls, or Spaniards; or, finally, they could imitate their
opponents and raise mercenaries, although they might save their pride
by including such contingents as ‘allies’. In fact all these sources
were freely drawn on during the first half of the second century B.C.,
and all troops of this kind were known as _auxilia_, to distinguish
them from the _socii_ of the old organization. This at any rate seems
to be the distinction recognized by the grammarians, and it agrees
generally with the terminology employed by Livy, who may be supposed
in such a matter to be following his sources.[2] A good example both
of republican methods and of the phraseology employed may be found
in Livy’s elaborate description of the measures taken to make up the
army required for the Macedonian campaign of 171 B.C.: ‘P. Licinio
consuli ad exercitum civilem socialemque petenti addita auxilia Ligurum
duo milia, Cretenses sagittarii—incertus numerus, quantum rogati
auxilia Cretenses misissent, Numidae item equites elephantique.’[3] Of
the troops grouped here under the heading of _auxilia_ the Numidians
represent a contingent sent by an independent ally, Masinissa, the
Ligurians were probably obtained by a forced levy, while the Cretans,
nominally allies, may fairly be described as mercenaries. That their
services were hardly disinterested is shown by the fact that in the
following year the Senate found it necessary to issue a sharp warning
to the Cretan states against their habit of supplying contingents to
both sides.[4] The fact that the Roman star was now definitely in the
ascendant probably reconciled the Cretans to this interference with
their national customs, for from this date onward Cretan regiments
regularly form a part of the republican armies; it will be remembered
that the Senate made use of a body of Cretan archers against the
followers of Caius Gracchus, and a similar corps is found serving under
Caesar in his second Gallic campaign.[5]
The course of the second century saw the auxilia still more firmly
established as an essential part of the republican military system.
Before its close the Roman and Italian cavalry had entirely
disappeared; the changes in the condition of military service, in
particular the tedious and unprofitable Spanish campaigns, made
the members of the upper classes, among whom the cavalry had been
recruited, increasingly reluctant to take their places in the ranks as
private soldiers. After the reforms of Marius the legion had no cavalry
attached to it, and if the Italian contingents still existed they must
likewise have disappeared when, in consequence of the extension of the
franchise in 90 and 89 B.C., the former _socii_ were all enrolled in
the legions. From this moment the Roman generals depended for their
cavalry upon the auxilia alone.[6] In the case of the light-armed
troops the same process took place, although here military rather
than political reasons probably predominated. The last recorded use
of the _velites_, the old national light infantry, is during the war
against Iugurtha, and they were probably abolished by Marius.[7] There
is certainly no instance of any but auxiliaries being employed as
light troops during the following century. From these considerations
it necessarily follows that when, during the last fifty years of the
Republic, a standing army came into existence, a number of auxiliary
regiments formed part of it. When Caesar mentions that he had Cretan
archers, Balearic slingers, and Numidian cavalry under his command so
early as the beginning of his second campaign, we can hardly doubt that
these regiments had formed part of the regular troops which he found in
the province.[8]
Thus before the end of the Republic we have the chief feature of the
military system of the Empire, the division of the army into the
legions of _cives Romani_ and the auxiliary light troops and cavalry
supplied by the unenfranchised provincials, already in existence. Even
the practice of conferring the _civitas_ upon troops of this class as a
reward for military service was resorted to by the Republic, although
probably only under exceptional conditions. We possess a document
recording a grant of this nature to some Spanish auxiliaries, members
of a _turma Salluitana_ which had distinguished itself at the siege of
Asculum in 89 B.C.[9]
There is no evidence, however, that this branch of the service escaped
the effects of the inefficiency in administration which characterized
the last generation of the republican régime. Certainly too few
regiments of this class were kept on a permanent footing, and a
general of the period either had to take the field with far too small
a proportion of cavalry and light infantry, or make up the deficiency
by hasty levies called out in the districts nearest to the scene of
operations. Caesar, for example, started the campaign of 58 B.C. with
a totally insufficient number of regular auxiliaries, and during the
following years was forced to make up his deficiency in cavalry by
demanding contingents, which were often of more than doubtful fidelity,
from the Gallic tribes which successively submitted to his arms. To
supplement these he also raised a corps of German mercenaries and
largely increased it later after the defection of the majority of the
Gallic contingents to Vercingetorix.[10]
The civil wars saw a large increase in the numbers of the auxilia.
Caesar set the example by leading off thousands of his Gallic cavalry,
with the object, doubtless, of using them as hostages for their
compatriots’ fidelity as well as of increasing his army. Pompeius
followed suit and endeavoured to make up for the loss of the Italian
recruiting ground by enrolling auxilia from the Eastern provinces
in large numbers. The Gallic cavalry proved a great success; in the
campaign of Thapsus they showed marked superiority to the African light
horse, previously accounted supreme in cavalry warfare,[11] and the
death of Caesar found them still serving in large numbers in every part
of the Empire. At least those who are found, together with Lusitanians
and Spaniards, in the army of Brutus and Cassius during the Philippi
campaign must have been stationed either in Macedonia or the East
before hostilities began.[12]
We can thus see that when the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. placed the
forces of the Roman world in the hands of Augustus, the main lines
on which the military system of the Empire was based were already
clearly marked, and his great work of reorganization, while importing
everywhere order and principle into existing practice, involved no
breach with the military traditions of the past. To say this is in no
sense to minimize his achievement. It must be remembered that while
individual generals, such as Lucullus, Pompeius, or Caesar, had brought
their armies to a high pitch of efficiency, the general military
administration of the late republic had been chaotic in the extreme.
Here, as elsewhere, the real issues were resolutely evaded, and in case
of need a crisis had to be met by hasty and inefficient improvisation.
Although a standing army had existed in practice for fifty years it
was never accepted in principle, and no attempt was made to assess the
military requirements of the state and see that an efficient force of
the proper strength was maintained. With similar lack of foresight
the Senate refused to admit the principle of granting a donative on
discharge, while repeatedly granting it under pressure, thus weakening
the control of the central government over troops in the field and
increasing the chances of a military _pronunciamento_. In consequence,
the wars of this period almost invariably begin with disasters in the
field, owing to the inadequacy of the standing army both in numbers
and efficiency,[13] and end with a political crisis of greater or
less magnitude over the donative grievance, which naturally gave an
ambitious general an opportunity of using the support of his troops to
further his own ends. The work of Augustus in bringing order out of
this chaos, providing forces adequate to the needs of the state, and
re-establishing over them the control of the central government, is not
the least of his administrative triumphs.
As a preliminary he accepted, as was perhaps inevitable, the principle
of a standing army of professional soldiers. This step has of late been
severely criticized, especially by admirers of the Continental system,
but it is difficult to see how short-service levies could have proved
adequate to the defence of frontiers which were, for all practical
purposes, more distant from Rome than Peshawur is from Aldershot. The
other alternative, to entrust the provincials with the defence of
their own borders, was not in harmony with his general policy, nor, it
may be said, was the time ripe for such a step. The words which the
third-century historian and administrator, Dio Cassius, puts into the
mouth of Maecenas in dealing with this question were written doubtless
with reference to the conditions of his own time, but they may
certainly be applied to the earlier period, and in essence they still
hold good to-day.
‘You will be wise to maintain a permanent force (στρατιώτας ἀθανάτους)
raised from the citizens, the subjects, and the allies distributed
throughout all the provinces in larger or smaller bodies, as necessity
requires. These troops must always remain in arms and be drilled
constantly; at the most suitable points they must prepare themselves
winter quarters, and they must serve for a fixed period calculated to
allow them a little freedom after their discharge before old age comes
on. For we can no longer rely upon forces called out for the occasion,
owing to the distance which separates us from the borders of our Empire
and the enemies which we have upon every side. If we allow all our
subjects who are of military age to possess arms and undergo a military
training, there will be a continual series of riots and civil wars,
while if, on the other hand, we check all military activity on their
part, we shall run the risk of finding nothing but raw and untrained
troops when we need a contingent for our assistance.’[14]
The solution which Augustus found for this problem was then to revise
the military system so that, while using as much as possible of the
available material, he did not disturb the political conditions on
which the equilibrium of the State depended. For it was no part
of his intention materially to alter the structure of the Empire
as an aggregate of states possessed of greater or less powers of
self-government, held together by their subordination to Rome and
withheld by their position from any independent external policy.
Whatever possibilities he may have contemplated for the future he made
himself few attempts to further the process of unification either by
reducing the inhabitants of the privileged states to a lower grade
or by the more generous policy of making wide extensions of the
franchise and creating by this means a new imperial citizenship. This
difference of status among the inhabitants of the Empire was naturally
reflected in the military system. The _cives Romani_—that is to say,
the inhabitants of Italy and of the few enfranchised communities among
the provinces—furnished the new Household Troops, and the greater
part, at any rate, of the recruits for the legions, and paid for their
superior position as the ruling race by contributing much more heavily
in proportion to their numbers than any other class in the population.
The nominally independent monarchs of the client kingdoms were allowed
and encouraged to maintain armies, often of considerable size, under
their own control, and frequently led in person the contingents which
they were called upon to bring to the aid of the regular troops when
hostilities were taking place near their borders. These contingents
were often numerous and capable of rendering valuable service. Thus
Rhoemetalces of Thrace assisted in the suppression of the dangerous
Pannonian revolt of 6-9, and Ptolemaeus of Mauretania was publicly
honoured for his loyal co-operation against the African rebel
Tacfarinas.[15] Along the eastern frontier, kingdoms of this type, the
wreckage of the old Hellenistic system, were more numerous and played
a more important part. Thus Antiochus III of Commagene, Agrippa II,
Sohaemus of Emesa, and Malchus of Damascus contributed 15,000 men to
the army which Vespasian led into Palestine in the spring of 67.[16]
Even the more autonomous city states seem to have retained a militia
which was occasionally made use of. So late as the reign of Hadrian,
in the army which Arrian led against the Alani, we find a contingent
from the ‘free’ city of Trapezus, which is reckoned among the σύμμαχοι
as opposed to the regular imperial troops.[17] A similar freedom from
the direct control of Roman officers was permitted to the chiefs of
some of the border tribes, who were allowed to lead their own clansmen
to battle. To this type of militia belong the _tumultuariae catervae
Germanorum cis Rhenum colentium_, including the Batavians under their
_dux_ Chariovalda, who serve in the campaigns of Germanicus,[18] and
the levies of the Dalmatian clans who started the rebellion of 6.[19]
Last come the permanently embodied regiments raised from the subject
communities, the auxilia properly so called, who form the subject
of this treatise. Here, probably more than in any other department
of the military system of the Empire, we can trace the results of
Augustus’s own activity. Regiments of this kind had, as we have seen,
existed under the Republic, but they had probably been few in number
and the incidence of the levy had been uneven and capricious. Under
Augustus not only was the number of regiments largely increased—we
hear of no less than fourteen alae and seventy cohorts taking part in
the Pannonian War of 6-9[20]—but the inscriptions show us that, with
the exception of Greece, always the spoiled child of Roman sentiment,
every quarter of the Empire contributed its quota. Details respecting
the incidence of this levy on different provinces, and the methods
of organization and recruiting, will be found in later sections. It
will be sufficient to say here that while the subject communities
had probably more reason than any other class to complain of the
military demands of the state, the burden was at least more equitably
distributed than under the Republic and the total contribution
required, in most cases at any rate, not excessive. It is natural to
suppose that the fixing of the quota supplied by each community was
connected with the drawing up of the census, which placed the taxation
of the Empire for the first time on an organized basis, and it seems
probable that more evidence might show a reciprocal variation between
the two forms of contribution required. We know, for instance, that
the Batavians were altogether excused from the payment of tribute on
account of the size and value of their contingent, and this case was
probably not exceptional.[21]
In all this it is easy to see how much Augustus owes to the
institutions of the Republic, and when we come to consider details his
debt becomes even more apparent. A standing army consisting of legions
of _cives Romani_ and smaller units of _peregrini_, supported in the
field by contingents from allied and nominally independent states, was
already in existence. His task was merely to introduce such changes as
might obviate the mistakes and failures of the past, and to establish
principles which should make for permanence and stability. For in
accepting the principle of maintaining a standing army Augustus could
not have been blind to the political dangers which this institution
brought with it. He endeavoured to meet them by fixing the conditions
of service, in particular the sum which a soldier might claim at his
discharge, and by establishing a special treasury from which those
claims might be satisfied, thus accustoming the troops to look to the
central government, not to their generals, for rewards due to them.
Moreover, in this department of the state even Augustus allowed no
respect for constitutional forms to veil or weaken his authority.
When in 69 the legions on the Upper Rhine tore down the _imagines_ of
Galba and swore allegiance to the _oblitterata iam nomina senatus
populique Romani_ it was a manifest sign that after a century of peace
a new period of anarchy had begun.[22]
Since this military system, with its division of the troops into
categories differing from each other in status and prestige, reflected
the general conditions prevalent in the Empire, so it was inevitable
that a change in these conditions should have its effect also upon the
army. How far the political developments of the first century were
foreseen or intended by Augustus it is perhaps impossible to say;
it is certain, at any rate, that his system was capable of adapting
itself to them. One of these developments was a steady increase in the
power of the central government and a disappearance of all forms of
local autonomy which involved a division of authority. By the reign of
Vespasian almost all the great client kingdoms had been more or less
peaceably absorbed into the ordinary provincial system. Cappadocia
was annexed in 17, Mauretania in 39, Thrace in 46, Pontus in 63, and
Commagene in 73. The troops which these kingdoms had maintained were
naturally taken into the Roman service, transformed into auxiliary
regiments, and lost the privilege which attached to their former
condition of serving only in local campaigns. One instance of such a
transference, in the case of a regiment which had been in the service
of the kings of Pontus, is mentioned in Tacitus,[23] and we also meet
with Hemeseni on the Danube,[24] Commageni in Africa and Noricum,[25]
and the successors of one of Herod’s old Samaritan regiments in
Mauretania.[26] The resentment with which the new conditions of
service were sometimes received is an instructive comment on the wisdom
of Augustus’s policy in not enforcing their universal applicability
at an earlier date. The Thracians, for example, rose in open revolt
when they were first summoned to supply a contingent for service at
a distance from their own borders.[27] Somewhat similar was the fate
of the border militia on the Rhine and Danube. On the latter frontier
the revolt of 6-9 showed at an early date the dangers of the system.
After its suppression the clan chiefs seem, in many cases at any rate,
to have been deposed and replaced by Roman officials,[28] regiments
of Pannonians and Dalmatians were raised and transferred to other
provinces, and a garrison was imported from outside to control the
country.[29] On the Rhine the process was a more gradual one. The
Batavi, for example, whom we have noticed serving in the campaigns
of Germanicus as a clan levy under their _dux_ Chariovalda, seem to
have been organized in regular auxiliary regiments by the middle
of the first century,[30] although they still retained, in common
with many other corps of Rhenish auxilia, their clan chiefs as their
_praefecti_.[31] In the year 69 we also find the Helvetii still
responsible for maintaining the garrison of a fort within their
borders, and a militia existing in Raetia capable of supplementing
the garrison of regular auxilia.[32] Some even of the Gallic states,
which were more distant from the frontier, sent contingents to support
Vitellius, which were not, however, regarded as a very sensible
addition to his forces.[33]
Probably these last vestiges of independent organization and control
were swept away at the time of the reorganization of the Rhine army in
70, after the rebellion of Civilis. From this date onward there are at
any rate few traces here or elsewhere of any use of irregulars of this
type by the military authorities. This militia, which might have proved
invaluable in the days to come as a national reserve, fell a victim,
together with the local autonomy on which it was based, to the growing
tendency towards centralization which marks the first and second
centuries. The supersession of local officials by the agents of a
centralized bureaucracy in the civil administration coincides with the
complete transference of the burden of the defence of the state to the
shoulders of a professional army. It is the purpose of the following
chapters to discuss one part of this army, the auxilia, to trace its
organization and the part which it played in frontier defence, and to
illustrate from this study the lines on which the military system of
the Empire developed and the causes of its failure.
Footnotes:
[1] Livy, xxii. 37 ‘Milite atque equite scire nisi Romano Latinique
nominis non uti populum Romanum: levium armorum auxilia etiam externa
vidisse in castris Romanis’. Cf. Polybius, iii. 75.
[2] Cf. Varro, _De Lat. ling._ v. 90 ‘auxilium appellatum ab auctu,
quum accesserant ei qui adiumento essent alienigenae’. Festus, _Epit._
17 ‘auxiliares dicuntur in bello socii Romanorum exterarum nationum’.
[3] Livy, xlii. 35.
[4] Livy, xliii. 7.
[5] Plutarch, _Vit. C. Gracchi_ 16; Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ ii. 7.
[6] The famous occasion when Caesar, distrusting his auxiliaries,
mounted some of the tenth legion, proves conclusively that he had then
no citizen cavalry in his army. Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ i. 42.
[7] Sallust, _Bell. Iug._ 46.
[8] Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ ii. 7.
[9] See Dr. T. Ashby’s article in the _Classical Review_ for August
1909, and _A. E._ 1911, n. 126, for a further fragment of the text.
[10] Cf. Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ vii. 13 ‘Germanos equites circiter CCCC
summittit, quos ab initio habere secum instituerat’, and c. 65 of the
same book.
[11] _Auct. de bell. Afr._ 6 ‘Accidit res incredibilis, ut equites
minus xxx Galli Maurorum equitum duo milia loco pellerent’.
[12] Appian, _Bell. Civ._ iv. 88.
[13] The First Mithridatic War is a very good example.
[14] Dio Cassius, lii. 27.
[15] Velleius, ii. 112; Tac. _Ann._ iv. 24.
[16] Josephus, _Bell. Iud._ iii. 4. 2.
[17] Arrian, _Ect._ 7.
[18] Tac. _Ann._ i. 56; ii. 11.
[19] Dio Cassius, lv. 29.
[20] Velleius, ii. 113.
[21] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 12, _Germ._ 29.
[22] Tac. _Hist._ i. 55.
[23] Tac. _Hist._ iii. 47 ‘Caesa ibi (at Trapezus) cohors, regium
auxilium olim; mox donati civitate Romana signa armaque in nostrum
modum, desidiam licentiamque Graecorum retinebant’.
[24] D. lviii (138-46).
[25] viii. 18042 (Hadrian’s speech) and D. civ (106) for Noricum.
[26] viii. 9358, 9359, 21039.
[27] Tac. _Ann._ iv. 46 ‘Causa motus super hominum ingenium, quod pati
dilectus et validissimum quemque militiae nostrae dare aspernabantur,
ne regibus quidem parere nisi ex libidine soliti, aut si mitterent
auxilia, suos ductores praeficere nec nisi adversum accolas
belligerare’.
[28] The _praefecti civitatium_, usually ex-centurions, who are
mentioned on many inscriptions. Cf. v. 1838, ix. 2564.
[29] The question how far this practice was maintained will be found
discussed in a later section.
[30] They undoubtedly furnished the _octo auxiliarium cohortibus_ sent
to Britain by Nero in 61. Cf. Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 38, and _Hist._ iv. 12.
[31] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 12 ‘cohortibus quas vetere instituto nobilissimi
popularium regebant’.
[32] For the Helvetii see Tac. _Hist._ i. 67 ‘castelli quod olim
Helvetii suis militibus ac stipendiis tuebantur’. The Raetian militia
are mentioned in the following chapter: ‘Raeticae alae cohortesque et
ipsorum Raetorum iuventus, sueta armis et more militiae exercita.’ It
is quite clear that there were in the province (_a_) regular auxiliary
regiments; (_b_) a native militia. I do not understand Professor Reid’s
statement (_The Municipalities of the Roman Empire_, p. 203) that ‘the
troops maintained there were not Roman legions with regular auxiliaries
but contingents of allied forces’.
[33] Tac. _Hist._ ii. 69 ‘reddita civitatibus Gallorum auxilia, ingens
numerus et prima statim defectione inter inania belli adsumptus’.
THE AUXILIA DURING THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES A.D.
SECTION I
THE STRENGTH AND ORGANIZATION OF THE AUXILIARY REGIMENTS
From the death of Augustus to the period when the frontier defences
first began to collapse under the strain of the barbarian invasions,
more than two centuries later, the imperial army presents a picture of
military conservatism unrivalled in history. Not only does the original
distinction between the legions of _cives Romani_ and the auxilia of
_peregrini_ remain throughout the basis of its organization, but even
individual corps show a marvellous power of vitality. Dio Cassius,
writing at the beginning of the third century, notes that, of the
twenty-five legions in existence in 14, eighteen still survived in his
own day, and epigraphical evidence shows that scores even of the more
easily destructible auxiliary regiments could claim as long a record.
In appearance, indeed, the only considerable change introduced into
the organization of the auxilia during this period was the addition of
the _numeri_ in the second century to the _alae_ and _cohortes_ which
had previously been the only units employed. It is true, of course,
that this conservatism was in some respects rather superficial, and
that, while administrative forms and nomenclature remained unaltered,
in more essential matters the army had been deeply affected by the
tendencies of the age. It is still, however, possible, while paying due
attention to these changes, to treat the two centuries which follow
the death of Augustus as a single period in the history of the auxilia;
it is only amid the confusion caused by the barbarian invasions of the
third century and the subsequent attempts at reorganization that we
definitely lose sight of our old landmarks.
Leaving out of account for the moment the _numeri_, which, as late
creations with a special significance, are reserved for future
discussion, let us commence with the _alae_ and _cohortes_, which
remained throughout this period the units of auxiliary cavalry and
infantry respectively.
Both these terms, although their history is widely different, originate
in the military terminology of the Republic. The term _cohors_ had been
originally applied to the infantry contingents of the Italian _socii_,
which were not united in legions after the model of the levies of
_cives Romani_, and it was naturally retained after the disappearance
of the _socii_ to describe the similar tactical units of provincial
auxilia.
The term _ala_ originated as a metaphorical description of the two
divisions into which the contingents of _socii_ were formed, which
were stationed in the normal republican order of battle on either
flank of the legions. After the disappearance of the _socii_ the term
was applied in a more restricted sense to the two flanking divisions
in which the average Roman general massed all his available cavalry.
This use of the word continued down to the last days of the Republic.
When, for instance, the author of the _De bello Africo_ writes, ‘Caesar
_alteram_ alam mittit qui satagentibus celeriter occurreret,’[34]
or Cicero says of his son in the _De Officiis_, ‘Quo tamen in bello
cum te Pompeius _alteri_ alae praefecisset, magnam laudem et a summo
viro, et ab exercitu consequebare equitando, iaculando …’[35]
the word is clearly being used in this sense, and does not refer to
a regiment of any fixed size. In fact the cavalry of the _socii_
never seem to have been organized in larger units than _turmae_, and
the auxiliary levies naturally adopted the same formation. It has
already been noticed that some of the Spanish auxiliaries who served
in the Social War are officially described as belonging to a _turma
Salluitana_. Occasional phrases in Livy, such as the statement that
the Aetolian cavalry contingent, in the campaign of 171 B.C., was
_alae unius instar_, do not seem to prove anything more than that the
historian used the technical terms of his own age to make his narrative
clearer.[36] This usage, however, shows that Livy was familiar with
the restricted meaning of the word—that is to say, the ala must have
been a recognized institution in the reign of Augustus, and we may add
that Velleius states that fourteen alae were employed in the Pannonian
campaigns of 6-9 in which he himself had served.
It is improbable, however, that the ala was a creation of Augustus,
although he may have determined its exact size and organization. In
Caesar’s account of his Gallic campaigns we find frequent mention
of contingents of tribal cavalry serving as independent units under
officers bearing the title of _praefecti equitum_,[37] and these units
must have been much larger than _turmae_. The organization of these
regiments, originally of a purely temporary kind, must have been placed
on a more permanent basis when many of them were taken out of their own
country to serve in the Civil Wars, and it would have been natural that
a new term should be used to describe them.[38]
Evidence in support of this conjecture, which is, as we have seen,
lacking in the writings of Caesar and his continuators, has been
sought for elsewhere. The majority of Caesar’s _praefecti equitum_
seem to have been tribal chiefs; one may cite, for example, the Aeduan
Dumnorix,[39] the heroic veteran Vertiscus,[40] and the two treacherous
Allobroges, Roucillus and Egus, the sons of Adbucillus.[41] On the
other hand, when we meet with an ala Scaevae on an early inscription,
it is difficult to avoid agreeing with Mommsen that it was called
after Caesar’s well-known officer of that name.[42] Many other cavalry
regiments, which are shown by epigraphical evidence to have existed
at an early date and to have been Gallic in composition, bear titles
similarly formed from personal names.[43] It is suggested that
these corps, or at any rate the majority of them, represent tribal
contingents embodied by Caesar at the time of the Civil Wars under the
title of _alae_ and placed under his veteran officers. Thus during
this period the use of the term _ala_ in the restricted sense would
be already known, although only the older and wider use appears in
literature. How slowly the new expression won favour is shown by the
fact that during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius the officers
commanding these regiments were usually described on inscriptions
simply as _praefectus equitum_, and it was not until after this that
the title _praefectus alae_ came to be generally adopted.[44]
Curiously enough, we find very few cohorts with titles which suggest a
similar history.[45] Probably in this case Augustus’s reorganization
was more thorough and the existing regiments had not, like some of
Caesar’s corps of Gallic cavalry, a record of individual achievement
which might exempt them from its scope.
_Size of regiments._ In discussing the size of the auxiliary regiments
we have two questions to settle, the numbers of the establishment and
the actual strength at which the regiments were maintained. As regards
the first question, the evidence of Hyginus[46] and the inscriptions
shows us that both _alae_ and _cohortes_ were known as _miliariae_ or
_quingenariae_—that is to say, they contained, roughly speaking, 500
or 1,000 men each. The smaller unit seems to have been preferred in the
first century, while the larger predominates among the corps raised
by Trajan and his successors. The exact theoretical size, both of
the regiments themselves and of the centuries and _turmae_ into which
they were divided, is more difficult to determine. Hyginus states that
an _ala quingenaria_ was divided into sixteen _turmae_, and an _ala
miliaria_ into twenty-four.[47] He does not state the number of men
in a _turma_ in either case, and it seems impossible to arrive at any
certainty on the basis of figures found elsewhere in his treatise.
Turning to epigraphical evidence we find an inscription from Coptos
which describes the composition of a _vexillatio_ drawn from three alae
and seven cohorts, as: ‘_Alarum III: dec(uriones) V, dupl(icarius)
I, sesquiplic(arii) IIII, equites CCCCXXIIII. Cohortium VII:
centuriones X, eq(uites) LXI, mil(ites) DCCLXXXIIX_’.[48] Von
Domaszewski suggests that the cavalry in this detachment are to be
divided into ten _turmae_ of 42 men, each commanded by a _decurio_, a
_duplicarius_, or a _sesquiplicarius_, and that this figure represents
the theoretical strength of the _turma_ in an _ala miliaria_.[49] In an
_ala quingenaria_, on the other hand, the _turma_ probably contained
only 30 men.
This seems to be as near certainty as we are likely to arrive in the
present state of our evidence, unless indeed we take literally a
statement of Arrian that an _ala_ contained 512 men, a total which
would presumably give 32 men to the _turma_.[50] Arrian is, of course,
the best authority on the imperial army whom we possess, but the
remark in question is a parenthesis inserted into an account of the
ideal establishment of a Hellenistic army, and he may have meant no
more than that the unit under discussion corresponded roughly with a
Roman _ala quingenaria_. More satisfactory and conclusive evidence will
perhaps be found when the barracks of an ala in a frontier fort have
been accurately planned.[51]
The size of the auxiliary cohorts is a matter of even greater
difficulty. Hyginus states, and there seems no reason to doubt his
statement, that a _cohors miliaria_ was divided into ten centuries, a
_cohors quingenaria_ into six.[52] Archaeological evidence supports
this statement and suggests further that the centuries were in each
case of the same size, since the centurial barracks in the fort at
Housesteads, in Northumberland, which was occupied by a _cohors
miliaria_, offer almost precisely the same accommodation as those
in the Scottish fort at Newstead, which are clearly designed to
accommodate two _cohortes quingenariae_. The question to be decided is
whether these centuries contained 80 or 100 men each. In either case,
one of the titles must be a misnomer, since six centuries of 100 would
make a _cohors quingenaria_ consist of 600 men, while ten centuries
of 80 would only give 800 men for a _cohors miliaria_. On the whole,
although Hyginus suggests the higher figure, the lower is probably to
be preferred. Certainly the Coptos inscription cited above, which is
probably the most valuable evidence which we possess, clearly indicates
centuries of 80. The most important evidence on the other side is that
of Josephus, who describes some cohorts which belonged to the Syrian
army in 67 A.D. as containing ἀνὰ χιλίους πεζούς.[53] His succeeding
statement, however, that other cohorts, by which _cohortes equitatae
quingenariae_ are apparently meant, contained 600 infantry and 120
cavalry, suggests that he may be basing his reckoning simply on the
number of centuries. Few would defend his calculation in the second
instance, and he may be equally wrong in the first. On the whole,
therefore, it seems safer to assume establishments of 480 and 800 men
for _cohortes quingenariae_ and _miliariae_ respectively, although it
remains, of course, possible that the size of the cohorts was altered
between the Jewish war of 66-70 and the period of the erection of those
frontier forts upon which we have been relying for our evidence.
The last question to be settled in this connexion is that of the
_cohortes equitatae_, in which a proportion of the men were mounted,
which form a peculiar and interesting feature of the imperial army.
Corps in which infantry and cavalry fought together had of course
always been common,[54] but the idea was probably revived by the Romans
from observing the practice of the German tribes, from whom Julius
obtained a contingent accustomed to fight in this manner.[55] It is
certainly significant that one of the earliest of these regiments
known to us from inscriptions is a _cohors Ubiorum_.[56] There is,
however, no later evidence for the employment of these tactics, and the
continued use of _cohortes equitatae_ is due rather to the necessity
of having detachments of mounted men at as many frontier stations as
possible. The _equites cohortales_ should be reckoned rather as mounted
infantry than cavalry, since we learn from a fragment of Hadrian’s
address to the army in Africa that they were worse mounted than the
_equites alares_, and less skilled in cavalry manœuvres.[57] As
regards the strength of these regiments and the proportion of mounted
to unmounted men, Hyginus states that the _cohors miliaria equitata_
contained 760 infantry and 240 cavalry, while the _cohors quingenaria_
contained six centuries, and in other respects, ‘_in dimidio eandem
rationem continet_’—that is to say, it apparently had 380 infantry and
120 cavalry.[58] The figures for the mounted men are probably correct,
and, since we learn from an inscription that there were four decurions
to a _cohors quingenaria_, we may presume that the _turmae_ were 30
strong.[59] This agrees very well with the Egyptian vexillation cited
above, which included 61 _equites cohortales_—that is to say, 2
_turmae_. On the other hand, there is considerable reason for supposing
that the figures for the infantry are schematic and incorrect. It is
sufficient here to remark that centuries of 76 could not be divided
into _contubernia_ of either 8 or 10, and that the 380 men of Hyginus’s
_cohors quingenaria_ could not even be divided evenly among six
centuries. The question cannot be settled with certainty until forts
occupied by regiments of this class have been planned, but it seems
probable that while the number of the centuries remained unaltered the
complement of each was reduced from 80 to 60, or possibly to 64, if
it was thought desirable to retain the division into _contubernia_ of
8.[60]
Having endeavoured to determine the theoretical establishment of the
auxiliary regiments, it remains to discover how far this corresponded
to the actual strength at which they were maintained, and here our
evidence is scanty, and likely to remain so. Fortunately, the discovery
in Egypt of some of the official papers of the Cohors I Augusta
Praetoria Lusitanorum has thrown some light on the question. On January
1, 156, this regiment had on its books 6 centurions, 3 decurions, 114
mounted infantry, 19 camel-riders (_dromedarii_), and 363 infantry,
making, with the _praefectus_, a total of 506 men. Between January
and May, 18 recruits were enrolled, 15 infantry, an _eques_, a
_dromedarius_, and a decurion.[61] These figures agree fairly well
with the arrangement suggested above, although the _dromedarii_ are an
additional complication, and the regiment appears even to have exceeded
its ‘paper-strength’. This, however, may be easily accounted for if we
imagine that a number of men had served their term and were about to be
discharged. Unfortunately, this document remains isolated, and further
evidence is not likely to be forthcoming.
_Conditions of service._ Questions concerning the method of enlistment
for the auxiliary regiments are reserved, on account of their connexion
with the broader issues raised by the whole recruiting system, for
discussion in a later section. For the present it will be sufficient
to discuss the conditions of service in this branch of the army, as
they are laid down in the so-called _diplomata militaria_.[62] These
documents, of which we possess some 70 or 80 examples dealing with the
auxilia, are small bronze tablets, issued originally to individual
soldiers, recording the privileges granted to them either after their
discharge or after they had completed a term of 25 years. The reason
for this variation seems to be that while the _praemia militiae_
were always conferred after the regulation number of years had been
served, it was often the practice to retain the men with the colours
for some years longer before finally discharging them. This practice,
which we hear of in the early empire as a standing grievance of the
legionaries,[63] seems to have prevailed also among the auxilia during
the first century.[64] After 107, however, we have no instances of the
_praemia_ unpreceded by discharge, a change which is probably due to
the perfection of organization, and can be traced also in the legions.
Previous to the reign of Antoninus Pius, the privileges granted to
the recipient of a diploma include citizenship for himself, the full
legalization of any matrimonial union into which he has entered or
shall enter in the future (_conubium_), and civic rights for his wife,
children, and descendants. If he already possessed a family, the
names of his wife and children follow his own on the diploma, and the
frequency of this occurrence shows the extent to which the military
authorities permitted the soldiers to form family ties while on active
service.[65] The significance of this fact and its effect on the
character of the army will be discussed in a later section.
At the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius, a change takes place
in that part of the formula which concerns the grant of citizenship.
In place of the words _ipsis liberis posterisque eorum civitatem dedit
et conubium cum uxoribus_, &c., we read in all the later examples,
_civitatem Romanam, qui eorum non haberent, dedit et conubium cum
uxoribus_, &c.[66] The first inference to be drawn from this alteration
is that there now existed a numerous group of auxiliary soldiers who
possessed the _civitas_ before their discharge, and we are probably
justified in the further inference that many actually possessed it when
they were enrolled. It has been noted, for example, that on a document
dating from the reign of Trajan, six recruits accepted for the Cohors
III Ituraeorum all have the _tria nomina_.[67] In this change, then,
we have a clear instance of the extent to which the franchise was now
diffused throughout the Empire.
The omission of the phrase _liberis posterisque eorum_, on the other
hand, suggests the opposite tendency. It cannot, of course, mean that
children born after their father’s discharge would not be _cives_, for
their status would be secured by the grant of _conubium_, but it seems
clear that those born before it no longer acquired the citizenship
with him. This is supported not only by the absence of all mention
of children on the later diplomata,[68] but by the phraseology of an
Egyptian document dealing with an ἐπίκρισις of the year 148 which
distinguishes two classes of veterans, ~ἔνειοι~ μὲν ἐπιτυχόντες σὺν
τέκνοις καὶ ἐγγόνοις, ~ἕτεροι~ μόνοι τῆς Ῥωμαίων ποτειτείας (_sic_)
καὶ ἐπιγαμίας πρὸς γυναῖκας ἃς τότε εἶχον, ὅτε τούτοις ἡ πολιτεία
ἐδόθη,[69] &c. Clearly we have here a translation of both types of
formula, and the translator gave to the second the same meaning as
that suggested above. Clearly, too, the change was considered an
important one since the veterans discharged before and after it are
thus divided into two groups. In view of the prevailing policy of the
imperial government with respect to the extension of the _civitas_ this
step has a curiously retrograde appearance, and it is difficult to see
the motives which suggested it. Possibly it was merely desired to get
rid of an anomalous situation by which the auxiliaries had previously
occupied a more privileged position than the Household Troops.[70] In
any case, even after this restriction, there can be little doubt that
the grant of the _civitas_ with the improvement in civil status which
it brought to the recipient, and the increased possibilities which it
offered to his children, must have done much to popularize the service.
We have seen that the idea of such a reward did not originate with the
Empire, but it was probably not until the reorganization of the army
by Augustus that it was regularly conferred and the years of service
required to earn it definitely fixed.[71]
We do not know whether at the time of their discharge the auxiliaries
also received, like the legionaries, a grant of money or land in lieu
of a pension. It seems certain that their status excluded them from
a share in the _donativa_, which the emperors distributed among
the troops at their accession, and on other special occasions, and
that they could only receive the _dona militaria_ after a special
preliminary grant of the civitas.[72] That such grants were made, even
to whole regiments at a time, is shown by the number of cohorts which
commemorate the receipt of this honour by employing the title _civium
Romanorum_.
On the still more important matter of the ordinary pay of the auxiliary
regiments an almost equal uncertainty prevails. Our only two pieces of
evidence on the subject, a passage in Tacitus and a phrase in Hadrian’s
address to the garrison of Africa,[73] tell us nothing more than that
the _equites cohortales_ were paid on a higher scale than the infantry,
but received in their turn less than the _equites alares_, a preference
in favour of the mounted men, which is not so great as appears at first
sight, since it is clear that they were responsible for the upkeep
of their own horses. The chief defect of these passages is that they
do not mention the amount of the pay in any of the three cases. Our
only basis for calculation is the fact that a legionary considered it
promotion to be made _duplicarius alae_; hence the pay of an ordinary
cavalryman must have been more than half that of a legionary. On _a
priori_ considerations it can hardly have been less, if, as Hadrian’s
speech suggests, he paid for his own arms and mount, and if he also,
like the legionaries, had the cost of his rations deducted from his
pay. On the whole, however, it seems best to defer speculation until
further evidence is forthcoming.[74]
_Internal organization._ As is only natural in the case of a
professional army with so long a term of service, the internal
organization of the auxiliary regiments reveals a far more complicated
system of grades and promotions than anything which the ancient world
had yet known. The epigraphical evidence is abundant, and the efforts
of modern scholars, particularly von Domaszewski in his monumental
treatise, _Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres_, have done much to
make the main lines of the system clear. Difficulties in detail still
remain, but we may hope for their ultimate solution.
The commanding officer of an _ala quingenaria_ or _miliaria_, or of
a _cohors quingenaria_ bore the title of _praefectus_. _Cohortes
miliariae_ and the _cohortes civium Romanorum_, which occupied
an exceptional position,[75] were commanded by _tribuni_. Early
inscriptions also mention a _subpraefectus alae_ and a _subpraefectus
cohortis_, but these posts seem later to have been abandoned.[76] In
later times in case of the absence of the _praefectus_, his place seems
to have been filled by an officer placed temporarily in charge with the
title of _praepositus_ or _curator_. Questions concerning the order of
precedence among the _praefecti_ and _tribuni_, and their place in the
military hierarchy generally, are so closely connected with the method
of selection and appointment of these officers at different periods,
that they are best left for future discussion.[77] It is only important
here to note that they usually entered the service with this rank, and
that it is very rare to find the regular commander either of an ala or
cohort drawn from among the lower officers.
The remaining ‘commissioned officers’, as we should call them, are
represented by the troop and company commanders, the decurions who
commanded the _turmae_ of the ala, and the centurions and decurions
of the cohorts. The senior officer in each class was styled _decurio
princeps_ or _centurio princeps_,[78] but apart from this we cannot
trace any regular order of precedence with fixed titles such as is
found among the legionary centurions. As regards the respective
position of infantry and cavalry officers, the _decurio alae_ ranked
highest. This is shown clearly, as von Domaszewski has pointed out, by
the frequent employment of this officer as _praepositus cohortis_.[79]
On the other hand, among the officers of the cohorts the centurions
ranked above the decurions who commanded the mounted men, where such
existed. In one inscription, which seems to have included all the
officers of a _cohors equitata_, the centurions come first on the list,
and in the Coptos inscription, so often cited, the officers of the 61
_equites cohortales_ are not mentioned at all.[80] The difference in
rank cannot, however, have been very great since all these officers
could be promoted to the post of legionary centurion without any
intervening step, although this distinction seems to have been
conferred most freely upon the decurions of the alae. In these cases it
was of course necessary for the auxiliary officer to have acquired the
_civitas_ either by serving his full time or by a special grant before
his promotion.
Throughout the period these posts seem usually to have been filled by
promotion from the lower ranks, although we also find instances of
legionaries being given commissioned rank in the auxiliary regiments,
and it is officers of this class who seem most frequently to have
secured further promotion to the legionary centurionate.[81] Von
Domaszewski wishes to consider that these transfers were especially
characteristic of the early days of the imperial army, and that a
deliberate attempt was then made to provide every auxiliary regiment
with a staff of ex-legionaries. With this suggestion, however, it is
difficult to agree; not only is the epigraphical evidence insufficient
to prove such a wholesale use of imported officers, but the cases known
to us are by no means confined to the first fifty years of the Empire.
Further, as will be shown later, the arrangement does not harmonize
with the general character of the early _auxilia_.
The holders of subordinate posts, who ranked below the centurion or
decurion, may be divided, following the arrangement adopted by von
Domaszewski, into two groups.[82] The members of the first group
practically correspond to our non-commissioned officers, and are able
to command small detachments or to take the place, if necessary, of
the company officers. These alone, and the holders of certain higher
administrative posts, to which the _taktische Chargen_ gave access,[83]
have a legitimate claim to the title of _principales_. The members of
the second group did not, strictly speaking, rank above the privates,
but they were granted freedom from certain routine duties in return
for special services which they discharged, and were distinguished in
consequence by the title of _immunes_.
It is of course often difficult to ascertain whether a particular post
falls into the higher or lower group, and this is especially the case
with the standard-bearers, who occupy a position of peculiar importance
in the military system. In the ala each troop had its own flag
carried by the _signifer turmae_, but there seems also to have been a
regimental standard, the bearer of which was known as the _vexillarius
alae_.[84] A few inscriptions also mention an _imaginifer_, but it
is not clear whether this officer always or at all periods found a
place on the staff.[85] In a cohort, on the other hand, each century
seems to have had its _signifer_, and each turma of mounted men its
_vexillarius_, but it does not appear that there was a regimental
standard, any more than there existed at this date a standard for
each cohort of a legion. This at least is implied by Tacitus in his
description of the entry of the Vitellian army into Rome, when he
mentions the _alarum signa_ by the side of the _legionum aquilae_,
but says nothing of the ensigns of the cohorts.[86] We must suppose,
then, that the _imaginifer cohortis_, who is mentioned on inscriptions,
was not regarded as the regimental standard-bearer any more than the
_imaginifer legionis_.[87]
In consequence of this difference in organization the company and troop
standard-bearers of the cohorts rank among the _principales_, while in
the alae only the regimental standard-bearer is included in the higher
group, and the _signiferi turmae_ sink to the position of _immunes_.
Returning, then, to the ala we may place at the head of the
_principales_ the _vexillarius_, and next to him the _imaginifer_,
when this officer existed. Other members of this class were the
non-commissioned officers of every turma, the _duplicarius_ and
_sesquiplicarius_,[88] who derived their titles from the fact that
they were paid twice and one and a half times the private’s pay
respectively, an institution found in the Hellenistic military
system from which it was probably borrowed.[89] Lastly we should
perhaps add the _optio_, who commanded the escort of the _praefectus_
(_singulares_).[90]
To the lower group, the _immunes_, belong the _signifer_,
_custos armorum_, and _curator_ attached to every turma,[91] the
_cornicularius_,[92] _actarius_,[93] _strator_,[94] _stator_,[95]
_librarius_,[96] and _beneficiarius_,[97] who form the clerical
and administrative staff of the _praefectus_, and his escort, the
_singulares_.[98] In determining the position of the holders of these
posts among the _immunes_ we are supported by the analogy of the
Equites Singulares Imperatoris, a corps modelled upon and to a certain
extent recruited from the auxiliary cavalry. The list of a _turma_ of
this regiment contained on a Roman inscription gives the following
arrangement:[99]
nomina turmae
Iul(ius) Mascel(lus) dec(urio)
Nonius Severus dup(licarius)
Iul(ius) Victorinus sesq(uiplicarius)
Aur(elius) Mucatral
Aur(elius) Lucius
Ael(ius) Crescens sig(nifer)
Aur(elius) Victor arm(orum custos)
Aur(elius) Atero cur(ator)
Ael(ius) Victor bf (beneficiarius)
Cl(audius) Victorinus lib(rarius)
Iul(ius) Vindex bf (beneficiarius)
17 names of equites follow.
The fact that two privates occupy the fourth and fifth places shows
clearly that the holders of all the posts mentioned lower in the list
belong to the _immunes_. Had it not been for this piece of evidence we
might have been tempted to place the _signifer turmae_ in the higher
category. The analogy of the Equites Singulares also suggests that
we may include the _bucinator_ and _tubicen_ among the _immunes_ of
the ala,[100] and we have also to add the _medicus_, whose somewhat
exceptional position is discussed later.[101]
A distinction between the _principales_ and _immunes_ of the cohorts
may be based partly upon the principles already adopted for the ala,
partly upon the analogy of the legion, the organization of which was
clearly followed in several respects. On these grounds we may class as
_principales_ the _imaginifer cohortis_, the _signifer_, _optio_, and
_tesserarius_ of each century, and the _optio_ and _vexillarius_ of
each turma in the _cohortes equitatae_. The case of the _optio_, who
commanded, if necessary, in the place of the centurion or decurion,
may be taken for granted. It may also be noted that both _optio_ and
_vexillarius_ could be promoted to the position of decurion without any
intervening step.[102] The _tesserarius_, whose main duty consisted
in receiving from the centurion the orders and password for the day
and transmitting them to the men, is found in charge of a detachment
on special duty,[103] as is also the _imaginifer cohortis_.[104] The
_signifer_,[105] lastly, can hardly have had a position inferior to
that of the _vexillarius_ or _tesserarius_, and would indeed rank
higher than the latter if the analogy of the legions holds good. As
regards the _immunes_, the officer commanding a cohort possessed a
smaller administrative staff than the _praefectus alae_, including
only the _cornicularius_,[106] _actarius_,[107] _librarius_,[108]
and _beneficiarius_.[109] The musicians possibly include the
_cornicen_[110] as well as the _tubicen_[111] and the _bucinator_[112],
and the post of _mensor_ seems to be confined to the cohorts.[113] At
least no inscription has yet mentioned one among the _immunes_ of the
ala.
Finally, as regards the position of the _medici_, who were attached
to the cohorts as well as to the alae, a few special remarks seem
necessary. On a British inscription one of these army doctors is
described as _medicus ordinarius_[114], which would naturally mean
that he served in the ranks, and a passage in the _Digest_ confirms
this by ranking the _medici_ among the _immunes_.[115] On the other
hand, M. Ulpius Sporus, who is described in an inscription erected by
his freedmen at Ferentinum in Etruria as _medicus alae Indianae et
tertiae Astorum_ (sic)[116], seems to be on rather a higher level,
as also M. Rubrius Zosimus of Ostia, who was doctor to the Cohors IV
Aquitanorum in Germania Superior in the second century.[117] Both
these men are apparently Greeks, and can hardly have reached their
regiments by the ordinary recruiting channels.[118] It has been noticed
also that the _medici_ appear to have a special position in some
inscriptions of the Praetorian cohorts.[119] Probably, then, one may
infer two classes of _medici_, the common soldier who possessed some
elementary qualifications (first aid and blood-letting) and was given
the position of an _immunis_, and the fully-trained professional doctor
who was attached to a regiment but held no actual military rank. It
was probably to distinguish himself from the latter class that the
_medicus_ of the Tungrian cohort added the word _ordinarius_ to his
title.
As regards the rate and method of promotion, and the order of
precedence of the various posts within the two groups of _principales_
and _immunes_, we know practically nothing. There is nothing to show
that it was customary to hold several posts in a regular order,[120]
or to become an _immunis_ before entering the _principales_. It was
doubtless usual for a man not to receive commissioned rank without
first holding some subordinate post, but we do not know that any such
preliminary qualification was essential.[121] Owing to the length of
service promotion was probably not rapid, but on the other hand the
number of posts available was very large. In an _ala quingenaria_,
for example, there were 16 decurions, 34 _principales_, and probably
over 100 _immunes_.[122] Thus every soldier must have felt confident
of obtaining sooner or later a position of greater ease and profit,
and this, together with the fact that the ladder of promotion led to
commissioned rank, and even to the coveted legionary centurionate, must
have increased the attractions of the profession.
_Titles of the regiments._ The titles of the auxiliary regiments were
as various in form as those of the legions, and it is unnecessary to
give a complete list of them. The alae which bear a title derived from
a personal name, presumably that of their original commander, have been
mentioned already. The majority of them were probably raised during
Caesar’s Gallic campaigns or the Civil Wars, and there are few to which
a later date can be assigned with any certainty.[123] The few cohorts
known to have borne such titles are more difficult to explain, but
have perhaps a similar origin.[124] Regiments raised under the Empire,
on the other hand, were usually called by the name of the tribe or
district from which they were raised, and distinguished by a number
from other corps of the same origin.[125] In course of time these
ethnical titles were in many cases supplemented by others, some of
which were granted as marks of distinction and rewards for meritorious
service, while others were purely descriptive. Examples of the former
class are the title _civium Romanorum_, which indicates that on some
occasion all the members of a corps received the franchise before their
discharge,[126] and honorary epithets, such as _pia_, _fidelis_, or
_fida_.[127] The title _Augusta_ seems also to have been granted at
all periods _honoris causa_, although some of the regiments bearing
it may date back to the beginning of the Empire.[128] Titles derived
from the names of later emperors, on the other hand, while they were
doubtless granted occasionally as marks of distinction, seem often
to indicate nothing more than the reign during which a regiment was
raised. Finally, from the time of Severus Antoninus onwards, every
regiment employs a secondary title, derived from the name of the
reigning emperor. A remarkable series of dedicatory inscriptions of the
Cohors I Aelia Dacorum, which was stationed during the third century
at Birdoswald (Amboglanna), on the British frontier, shows us this
regiment successively assuming the titles _Antoniniana_, _Gordiana_,
_Postumiana,_ and _Tetriciana_.[129]
Purely descriptive titles might be derived either from the size
of the regiment (_miliaria_, _quingenaria_), its composition
(_equitata_, _gemina_),[130] its weapons (_scutata_, _contariorum_,
_sagittariorum_), or the name of the province in which it was or had
been stationed (_Syriaca_, _Moesiaca_). A frequent motive for the
assumption and accumulation of such secondary descriptive titles seems
to have been the desire of a regiment to distinguish itself from
another unit bearing the same number and ethnical title, and stationed
in the same province. This was probably the origin of the title
_veterana_ or _veteranorum_, which was borne by five alae and five
cohorts,[131] although its interpretation is much disputed. According
to von Domaszewski, these regiments were so called because they were
originally formed of discharged veterans recalled to active service
in time of war.[132] Cichorius suggests that a regiment assumed this
name when another corps bearing the same number and ethnical title,
but of more recent origin, was stationed in the same province.[133]
This certainly furnishes the best explanation in the case of the
Cohors III Thracum c. R., and the Cohors III Thracum veteranorum,
which appear together in the Raetian diplomata for 107 and 166.[134]
On von Domaszewski’s theory it is difficult to see why a regiment of
recalled veterans should bear the number III, and his explanation that
‘the numbers borne by these corps are connected with the numbering
of the auxilia in the province to which they were attached after
their formation from _missicii_’ does not make matters much clearer.
Cichorius’s suggestion would also account satisfactorily for the Cohors
I Aquitanorum and the Cohors I Aquitanorum veterana, which appear
together in Germania Superior in 74,[135] and the Cohors I Claudia
Sugambrorum and the Cohors I Sugambrorum veterana which were stationed
together in Moesia Inferior.[136] The latter would be identical with
the regiment mentioned by Tacitus as forming part of the garrison
of the province in the reign of Tiberius.[137] In other cases where
similar duplication cannot be proved it must be remembered that our
evidence is very imperfect, and that a regiment after assuming this
title may have continued to use it when the reason for doing so had
disappeared.
These descriptive and honorary epithets, although sometimes borne
alone,[138] were usually employed to supplement the original ethnical
title, with the result that after a hundred years of meritorious
service the ‘full style’ of a second-century regiment might be almost
as long and imposing as that of the emperors whom it served. As an
example, one may cite the Cohors I Breucorum quingenaria Valeria
Victrix bis torquata ob virtutem appellata equitata, which formed part
of the garrison of Raetia.[139]
_Relation of the auxilia to the legions._ It is perhaps relevant to
discuss here a point affecting the auxilia as a whole, namely, their
relation to the legions in the general scheme of military organization.
It is generally supposed that in those frontier armies which included
both classes of troops, a group of auxiliary regiments was definitely
attached to each legion, and such phrases as ‘a legion with its
attendant auxiliaries’ are common in writers on the military system
of the Roman Empire. Evidence as to the exact nature and even the
existence of such a connexion is, however, somewhat difficult to find.
Tacitus does, it is true, refer to the eight Batavian cohorts, who
play such an important part in the events of 69, as _auxilia quartae
decimae legionis_, but no other passage can be quoted in the same
sense, and the connexion in this case was obviously neither close
nor durable.[140] In the comparatively detailed account of the first
campaign of Bedriacum, which rests at any rate upon a good military
source, there is no suggestion that the auxilia marched or manœuvred in
separate groups, each connected with a particular legion. Certainly in
the normal order of battle throughout the first century the available
auxilia were all massed together either as a first line, or in two
flanking divisions to the right and left of the legionaries, and the
auxilia of the army which crossed the Rhine in 73 were not divided
among the legionary _legati_, but had a commander of their own.[141]
Supporters of the legionary connexion also refer to the two diplomata
issued in the same year and on the same day (August 14, 99) to two
different groups of auxiliary regiments stationed in Moesia Inferior,
and suggest that this curious arrangement can best be explained on
the supposition that each diploma refers only to the auxilia of one
legion.[142] A similar explanation suggests itself for the fact that
only one regiment is common to the two British diplomata of 103 and
105.[143] It seems impossible, however, to interpret all the diplomata
in this manner. The British diploma of 124, for example, which was
issued to men from six alae and twenty-one cohorts, can hardly be
supposed to contain the auxilia of only one of the three legions then
stationed in the province.[144] In Pannonia Superior also so many
regiments are common to the five complete second-century diplomata
which we possess that we must, on this theory, refer them all to the
auxilia of one and the same legion.[145] How, then, do we account for
the fact that the inscriptions of the province hardly mention any
regiments but those contained in these diplomata? In other words,
why should all our evidence refer to the auxilia of one legion, and
those attached to the other two, then stationed in the province, have
entirely disappeared?
A stronger argument is perhaps to be found in inscriptions which
contain the phrase _legio … et auxilia eius_.[146] It could be
wished that these texts were more numerous and more precise, but they
support the supposition that some connexion existed between each legion
and a definite group of auxiliary regiments better than any evidence
previously adduced. The connexion, however, must have been very slight
and easily broken. Dr. Hardy has pointed out that although three out
of the four legions stationed in Germania Superior in 70 left the
province for good during the following thirty-five years, there is
abundant evidence that nothing like the same proportion of the auxilia
stationed in the province accompanied them.[147] It is also clear that,
in the second century at any rate, the number of auxilia attached to
any legion was not fixed in accordance with any general principle, but
depended upon the exigencies of the local situation on each frontier. A
reference to the list of provincial garrisons contained in the appendix
will show that whereas there are not likely to have been more than
three thousand auxilia apiece to each of the three legions of Pannonia
Superior, there were probably thirty thousand to be divided among the
three legions of Britain, while in Dacia there was only one legion with
something approaching twenty-five thousand auxilia. Still, with these
reservations, it seems possible enough that the auxilia were always
considered as in some sense dependent on the legions, and that where
several legions were stationed in the same province, an arrangement was
made dividing the auxilia into a corresponding number of groups, each
of which was for certain purposes attached to a particular legion.[148]
_Total number of the auxilia._ This section should naturally conclude
with some statement of the total number of auxilia in the imperial
service. Unfortunately, no clear and direct evidence can be obtained
on this point either from literary or epigraphical sources. Tacitus,
in his survey of the military resources of the Empire in the reign of
Tiberius, after enumerating the legions in detail, contents himself
with a vague sentence suggesting that the auxiliaries were as numerous
as the legionaries and Household Troops.[149] This phrase is perhaps
accurate enough for the period to which he is referring, but it is
obviously not meant to be precise, and must certainly not be taken
to express any principle habitually followed in the composition of
the imperial army. If we endeavour to check the statement from other
sources we have the remark of Velleius that in 6, at the time of the
great Pannonian revolt, the ten legions concentrated under Tiberius’s
command were accompanied by 70 cohorts and 14 alae.[150] If we allow
for a few regiments being _miliariae_, this would represent a little
over 50,000 men, a number about equivalent to that of the legionaries.
If we may assume a similar ratio in other provinces, the total for
the auxilia at this period would amount to 150,000 men.[151] It must
be remembered, however, that at this date and throughout the whole
pre-Flavian period the government relied upon the troops of the client
kingdoms and levies of border militia to supplement the imperial
troops. With the gradual elimination of these secondary forces,
which has already been described, the number of regular units was
proportionately increased. More than twenty regiments were raised in
the old kingdom of Thrace after its annexation in 46, and five alae
and nineteen cohorts are found in 69 garrisoning the two provinces
which had been formed from the kingdom of Mauretania.[152] We need not,
then, be surprised if the figures supplied by Tacitus and Josephus show
that so early as 69 the number of the auxiliaries considerably exceeds
the figure suggested for the end of the reign of Augustus. According
to Josephus, Vespasian entered Judaea in 67 with at least 20,000
auxiliaries, which probably represents two-thirds of the total number
available in the Eastern provinces.[153] In the Danubian provinces in
69 there were, according to Tacitus, sixteen alae.[154] On the basis of
the information given in the diplomata, we can safely reckon that there
would be at least three cohorts to every ala, and that one regiment in
four would be _miliaria_. Some 40,000 auxiliaries, therefore, must have
been stationed in the Danubian provinces at this period. In the same
year Vitellius entered Rome with twelve alae and thirty-four cohorts,
that is to say some 30,000 men, which represented probably two-thirds
of the auxilia in the Rhine armies and Raetia.[155] The garrison of the
two Mauretanias, to which allusion has already been made, would amount
to about 15,000 men. We thus arrive at the following totals for the
auxilia at this period:
The Eastern provinces 30,000 men
The Danubian provinces 40,000 „
Germany and Raetia 45,000 „
The two Mauretanias 15,000 „
-------
130,000 „
-------
To this at least another 50,000 men must be added for the auxilia of
Britain, Spain, Africa, Noricum, and the small garrisons of the inland
provinces, making a grand total of 180,000 men. The next forty years
saw the figure mount even higher. The remaining client kingdoms in the
East, which were still strong enough to furnish 15,000 men for the
Jewish war in 67, were annexed, and the appearance of several new units
with the titles _Flavia_ or _Ulpia_ shows that more than this number of
regular auxilia was raised in their place.[156] Even Hadrian seems to
have made a few additions to the list, since his foreign policy, though
essentially pacific, was based upon a system of frontier defence to
which the auxilia were more than ever essential.[157] In Appendix I,
where the evidence as to the strength and distribution of the auxilia
in the second century is discussed in detail, it is suggested that by
the middle of the second century the force may have amounted to some
220,000 men, and that even this figure was probably exceeded sixty
years later.
Footnotes:
[34] _De Bell. Afr._ 78.
[35] Cicero, _De Off._ ii. 13. 45.
[36] In a note to the French translation of Mommsen and Marquardt
(xi. 105) von Domaszewski declares decidedly against the possibility
that the _equites sociorum_ were organized in _alae_. Writing in
Pauly-Wissowa (s.v. _Auxilia_), he seems to consider that the auxiliary
cavalry had adopted the formation before the close of the Republic,
although the passages to which he refers, those from Cicero and the
author of the _Bell. Afr._ which are given above, seem at least to be
susceptible of a different interpretation.
[37] For _praefecti equitum_ cf. Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ iii. 26; iv. 11.
They are not to be thought of as merely commanding _turmae_, since we
have a decurion mentioned in _Bell. Gall._ i. 23.
[38] This organization cannot have taken place earlier since it is
obvious from Caesar’s narrative that during the Gallic campaigns no
attempt was made to reduce the tribal contingents to units of a fixed
size.
[39] Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ i. 18.
[40] [Caesar,] _Bell. Gall._ viii. 12. He is described as _principe
civitatis, praefecto equitum_.
[41] Caesar, _Bell. Civ._ iii. 59.
[42] See _Eph. Ep._ v. 142, n. 1. The _ala_ is only known from x. 6011.
[43] The alae Flaviana, Petriana, Proculeiana, Tauriana, and Sebosiana
all bear ‘Gallorum’ as a secondary title, and the alae Agrippiana,
Longiniana, Picentiana, Pomponiana, and Rusonis seem to have been
recruited in Gaul in the first century. The Gallic origin of the ala
Atectorigiana is even more obvious. The ala Gallorum Indiana may
possibly have a later origin, cf. Tac. _Ann._ iii. 42. The theory given
above as to the origin of these regiments is unhesitatingly affirmed
by von Domaszewski (_Rangordnung_, pp. 122, 123), but a little more
evidence would certainly be advantageous.
[44] Cf. v. 3366, x. 6309.
[45] See below, p. 46.
[46] Von Domaszewski, in his edition, puts the treatise _De munitione
castrorum_ into the reign of Trajan. It is difficult to regard
the evidence as decisive, but there can be little doubt that the
information contained in the work is in any case applicable to the
period under discussion.
[47] Hyginus, 16. An Egyptian inscription, iii. 6581, also gives
sixteen as the number of decurions in an ala.
[48] iii. 6627.
[49] Von Dom. _Rangordnung_, p. 35, and also p. 52 of the same writer’s
commentary on Hyginus.
[50] Arrian, _Tactica_, 18 αἱ δὲ δύο ταραντιναρχίαι ἱππαρχία, δώδεκα
καὶ πεντακοσίων ἱππέων, ἥντινα Ῥωμαῖοι ἴλην καλοῦσιν. It is perhaps
worth noting that Vegetius (ii. 14) gives 32 as the strength of a
_turma_ of his _equites legionis_.
[51] The question will probably be found to turn on the strength of the
_contubernium_. 30 and 42 suggest _contubernia_ of 6. A small _turma_
of 32 would suggest _contubernia_ of 8 or 4 and a large _turma_ of 40.
[52] Hyginus, 28 ‘Cohors peditata miliaria habet centurias X … item
peditata quingenaria habet centurias VI, reliqua ut supra’. This refers
to the description of the _cohortes equitatae_ in the preceding section
in which it is stated that ‘Cohors equitata quingenaria habet centurias
VI, reliqua pro parte dimidia’.
[53] Josephus, Bell. _Iud._ iii. 67 τῶν δὲ σπειρῶν αἱ δέκα μὲν εἶχον
ἀνὰ χιλίους πεζούς, αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τρισκαίδεκα ἀν’ ἑξακοσίους μὲν πεζούς,
ἱππεῖς δ’ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι. Nissen, who accepts the authenticity of these
figures, assumes that both types of cohort mentioned had 120 cavalry
attached to them, but it seems impossible to get this meaning from
the Greek. See his article on the history of Novaesium in _B. J. B._
cxi-cxii. 41.
[54] Thuc. v. 57.
[55] Caesar, _Bell. Gall._ vii. 65 ‘trans Rhenum in Germaniam mittit
ad eas civitates quas superioribus annis pacaverat equitesque ab
his arcessit et levis armaturae pedites, qui inter eos proeliari
consuerant’.
[56] x. 4862: ‘… praef(ecto) cohort(is) Ubiorum peditum et equitum …’
The inscription dates from the end of the reign of Augustus.
[57] viii. 2532, 18042: ‘Eq(uites) coh(ortis) Commagenorum. Difficile
est cohortales equites etiam per se placere, difficilius post alarem
exercitationem non displicere: alia spatia campi, alius iaculantium
numerus … equorum forma, armorum cultus pro stipendi modo.’
[58] Hyginus, 25-7.
[59] iii. 6760 with Mommsen’s note. Cf. also the roll of the Cohors I
Lusitanorum cited below.
[60] Hyginus, 1, gives this as the size of a legionary _contubernium_,
and the ‘four quaternions’ of Acts xii. 4 suggest that the same system
prevailed among the troops of the client kingdom of Palestine.
[61] For text and discussion see Mommsen in _Eph. Ep._ vii. 456-67.
He considers that the papyrus supports 60 as the normal strength of a
century in these _cohortes equitatae_.
[62] The name is incorrect but convenient. Excluding D. xc, which is of
an exceptional character, the diplomata cover the period from the reign
of Nero (D. ci is the earliest, being apparently issued before 60) to
178 (D. lxxvi).
[63] Tac. _Ann._ i. 17.
[64] For example, the _praemia_ are granted to soldiers who are not yet
discharged in diplomata for 60 (ii), 74 (xi), 83 (xv), 84 (xvi), and 86
(xix). The latest example is dated in 105 (xxxiv).
[65] e.g. a diploma for 114 (xxxix) mentions a wife, two sons, and a
daughter, another for 134 (xlviii) four sons and two daughters.
[66] The first to give the new wording for the auxiliaries is a British
diploma of 146 (lvii), and it is universal after this date.
[67] _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, vii. 1022. Given with commentary by Wilcken
and Mitteis in _Papyruskunde_, no. 453. Cf. also iii. 14632. The two
recruits described on the roll of the Cohors I Lusitanorum as _accepti
ex legione II Traiana_ may have been transferred as a punishment,
the _militiae mutatio_ prescribed in the _Digest_, xlix. 16, as the
appropriate penalty for various military offences.
[68] The last diploma to mention children is dated 138 (cviii).
[69] Wilcken and Mitteis, _Papyruskunde_, no. 459. I have assumed
the correctness of Wilcken’s restorations of the text, which is very
corrupt in places.
[70] The phraseology of the diplomata issued to the Praetorians ‘ut
etiam si peregrini iuris feminas matrimonio suo iunxerint, proinde
liberos tollant ac si ex duobus civibus Romanis natos’—D. xii
(76)—shows that in their case children born before their father’s
discharge had always suffered under the disabilities created for the
auxiliaries in the second century. The position of the legionaries is
still uncertain.
[71] Such regulations would be covered by the general statement of
Suetonius, _Vit. Aug._ 49 ‘Quidquid autem ubique militum esset, ad
certam stipendiorum praemiorumque formulam adstrinxit, definitis pro
gradu cuiusque et temporibus militiae et commodis missionum’. The
number of the diplomata seems to tell decisively against the suggestion
that they were only issued to troops who had distinguished themselves
by exceptional conduct in the field.
[72] Von Dom. _Sold_, p. 226; id. _Rangordnung_, p. 68.
[73] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 19. The Batavian cohorts demand ‘duplex
stipendium, augeri equitum numerum’. Cf. viii. 18042, where the
emperor gives as a reason for the superiority of the cavalry over the
mounted infantry of the cohorts, ‘equorum forma, armorum cultus pro
stipendi modo.’ I do not see how von Domaszewski concludes from the
first passage that the pay of the infantry was one-third that of the
legionaries, i.e. 75 _denarii_ a year. _Sold_, p. 225.
[74] I am assuming that the _duplicarius_ really did receive twice the
pay of the private, as his name implies, which is probable since he
maintained two horses (Hyginus, 16). For the promotion of legionaries
to this post cf. viii. 2354 cited below.
[75] See below, pp. 65-7.
[76] xii. 2231 ‘[D] Decmanio Capro sub praef(ecto) equit(um) alae
Agrippian(ae)’; v. _Suppl._ 185 ‘Ti. Iulio C. f., Fab(ia) Viatori
subpraef(ecto) cohortis III Lusitanorum …’. The origin of this
post may be due to Augustus’s practice of giving auxiliary regiments
two _praefecti_, although this measure was primarily designed in the
interest of officers of senatorial rank. Cf. Suet. _Vit. Aug._ 38
‘binos plerumque laticlavios praeposuit singulis alis’. Von Domaszewski
prefers to connect it with the early system of brigading several
auxiliary regiments together under one commander; _Rangordnung_, p. 119.
[77] See below, pp. 90-101.
[78] At any rate among the cohorts. _A. E._ 1892. 137 ‘C. Cassio
Pal(atina) Blaesiano dec(urioni) coh(ortis) Ligurum principi equitum’.
_I. G. R. R._ ii. 894 κεντυρίων ὁ καὶ πρίνκιψ σπείρας θρακῶν. There is
no certain inscription of a _decurio princeps alae_.
[79] Cf. viii. 10949, 21560; von Dom. _Rangordnung_, p. 63. For the
following section I am deeply indebted to his discussion of the
officers of the _auxilia_ on pp. 53-61 of this work.
[80] iii. 6627, 6760.
[81] iii. 11213 ‘T. Calidius P. (filius) Cam(ilia) Sever(us) eq(ues),
item optio, decur(io) coh(ortis) I Alpin(orum), item (centurio)
leg(ionis) XV Apoll(inaris) annor(um) LVIII stip(endiorum) XXXIIII …’
is a good example of a man who rose from the ranks to the legionary
centurionate.
viii. 2354 ‘… mil(itis) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae), duplic(arii) alae
Pann(oniorum), dec(urionis) al(ae) eiusdem, (centurionis) leg(ionis)
III Aug(ustae)’ gives the career of a promoted legionary. D. xv, xxxii,
xxxiv, xc, were granted to centurions and decurions, who must therefore
have been of the same status as the men if they had not actually risen
from the ranks.
[82] For the line of demarcation between _principales_ and _immunes_
see von Dom. _Rangordnung_, pp. 1-4. It must be admitted that, although
this distinction existed, it is not always recognizable on inscriptions.
[83] These do not concern us here since their rank depended upon that
of the officer to which they were attached, and the commander of an
auxiliary regiment did not stand sufficiently high for his clerks and
orderlies to be ranked among the _principales_.
[84] I accept, although with some hesitation, the view of Lehner in
_B. J. B._ cxvii against that of von Dom. _Rangordnung_, p. 55. It is
accepted also by Max Mayer, _Vexillum und vexillarius_, Strassburg,
1910. For instances of the title _vexillarius alae_ cf. iii. 4834,
11081. The standard of the Ala Longiniana, discussed by Lehner, was
a _vexillum_ bearing as its device a Celtic religious emblem, the
three-horned bull. The _signum_ of a _turma_ of the Ala Petriana shown
on a sepulchral monument was a radiated head in a medallion. See _J. R.
S._ ii (1912), Fig. 8. Another _signum_ on a Mainz tombstone shows four
ivy leaves hanging from a cross-bar. Cf. _B. J. B._ cxiv-cxv, Pl. I, n.
3.
[85] _A. E._ 1906. 119.
[86] Tac. _Hist._ ii. 89 ‘Quattuor legionum aquilae per frontem
totidemque circa e legionibus aliis vexilla, mox duodecim alarum signa
et post peditum ordines eques; dein quattuor et triginta cohortes, ut
nomina gentium aut species armorum forent, discretae’.
[87] On one of the inscriptions which mentions this officer, iii. 3256,
he is ranked among the mounted men of a _cohors equitata_.
[88] For the position of these officers cf. viii. 21567.
[89] Arrian, _Anab._ vii. 23.
[90] iii. 11911.
[91] viii. 2094 ‘… C. Iulius Dexter vet(eranus), mil(itavit) in ala
eq(ues), cur(ator) turmae, armor(um) custos, signifer tur(mae) …’.
[92] iii. 7651.
[93] iii. 3392.
[94] _I. G. R. R._ iii. 1094.
[95] iii. 4369.
[96] iii. 13441.
[97] iii. 11811. There were of course several of these, and also of the
preceding officers.
[98] iii. 12356.
[99] vi. 225. vi. 2408 also shows seven _equites_ preceding the
_signifer turmae_.
[100] vi. 3179, 32797. Both appear also among the _equites cohortales_,
iii. 3352, 10589.
[101] xi. 3007.
[102] iii. 11213, 8762.
[103] ii. 2553; cf. _A. E._ 1910. 4. A detachment of the Cohors I
Celtiberorum in Lusitania is under the charge of a centurion of the
Cohors I Gallica, a _beneficiarius_ of the procurator, an _imaginifer_
of Legio VII Gemina, and a _tesserarius_ of the Cohors I Celtiberorum.
[104] xiii. 7705.
[105] iii. 10315.
[106] iii. 10316.
[107] vii. 458.
[108] iii. 12602.
[109] iii. 1808. We should perhaps add to this group the _capsarius_,
_A. E._ 1906. 110.
[110] xiii. 6572.
[111] iii. 10589.
[112] iii. 8522. In xiii. 6503 the musicians are described collectively
as _aeneatores_.
[113] xiii. 6538.
[114] vii. 690. He served in the Cohors I Tungrorum.
[115] _Dig._ l. 6, 7.
[116] xi. 3007. His cognomen is uncertain.
[117] xiii. 6621. One might add M. Mucius Hegetor medicus of the Cohors
XXXII Voluntariorum in Pannonia, iii. 10854.
[118] Lucian mentions a doctor of an auxiliary cohort who wrote a
history of the Parthian war of Marcus and Verus and must have been a
man of some education. Lucian, _de hist. conscrib._ 24.
[119] Von Dom. _Rangordnung_, p. 26.
[120] The record of the career of C. Iulius Dexter quoted above is
quite exceptional. Usually only one post is mentioned.
[121] iii. 11213 gives the sequence _eques-optio-decurio_, and 8762
that of _eques-vexillarius-decurio_, but such details are rare.
[122] The _principales_ would be the _vexillarius alae_, the _optio
singularium_, and a _duplicarius_ and _sesquiplicarius_ to each
_turma_. Of the _immunes_ each _turma_ has its _signifer_, _custos
armorum_, and _curator_. The total number of the _beneficiarii_,
&c., we do not know, but the inscription of the Equites Singulares
quoted above suggests an average of three to a _turma_. In a _cohors
quingenaria_ with only 6 commissioned officers and 19 _principales_
(the _imaginifer cohortis_ and the _signifer_, _optio_, and
_tesserarius_ of each century) the chances of promotion would be less.
This is another reason for the popularity of the cavalry and the desire
of cohorts to become _equitata_. Cf. Tac. _Hist._ iv. 19.
[123] The Ala Indiana may have been called after the Trevir Iulius
Indus mentioned in Tac. _Ann._ i. 42, the Ala Siliana after C. Silius
the general of Tiberius, and the Ala Pannoniorum Tampiana after Tampius
Flavianus, governor of Pannonia in 69. The last case, however, is
doubted by von Domaszewski, _Rangordnung_, p. 122, n. 6.
[124] The only cases known at present are the cohorts Lepidiana and
Apuleia civium Romanorum, and a Cohors Flaviana only known from a
_cursus honorum_.
[125] The name of the tribe was usually in the genitive plural but
might also be in the nominative singular. Thus we find the same
regiment described as Cohors I Alpinorum and Cohors I Alpina. The
question of duplicate numbering, which is connected with the system of
recruiting and distribution, is discussed in the following section.
[126] The fact that the numerous regiments bearing this title appear
in the diplomata shows that the status of their members was not
permanently raised. One regiment, the Cohors II Tungrorum, bears the
title C(ivium) L(atinorum), _Eph. Ep._ ix. 1228.
[127] Ritterling has shown that all the auxilia of Germania Inferior
received the titles _pia fidelis Domitiana_ in 89 for their loyalty at
the time of the rebellion of Saturninus; _W. D. Z._ 1893. The title
_fida_ was borne by the Cohors I Vardullorum; vii. 1043.
[128] It is borne by regiments of Dacians and Britons who cannot have
acquired it during the reign of Augustus; D. xxxix, iii. 10255.
[129] vii. 818, 819, 820 and 823.
[130] As in the case of the legions this title was probably borne by
regiments which had been formed by a combination of two previously
existing units. The two Alae Flaviae Geminae, for example, which appear
in Germania Superior at the end of the first century, would represent
the salvage of the old Rhine army which went to pieces in 69.
[131] The alae Britannica, Gaetulorum, Gallorum, Parthorum, and I
Thracum, and the Cohorts I Aquitanorum, III Brittonum, I Hispanorum, I
Sugambrorum, and III Thracum.
[132] _Rangordnung_, p. 80.
[133] In Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie_, s.v. _ala_ and _cohors_.
See these articles also for some rarer titles which have not been
mentioned here.
[134] D. xxxv and lxxiii.
[135] D. xi.
[136] D. xxxi (99) and xlviii (134). For proof that two distinct
cohorts are referred to see Cichorius, s.v.
[137] Tac. _Ann._ iv. 47.
[138] In these cases an ethnical title may have been dropped, or
omitted on the only inscriptions known to us.
[139] iii. 11930, 11931 (reign of Pius), 11933 (Commodus).
[140] Tac. _Hist._ i. 59.
[141] For the position of the auxilia in the normal order of battle
see below, p. 103. For Domitius Tullus and Domitius Lucanus, who held
in turn the post of _praefectus auxiliorum omnium adversus Germanos_,
probably in 73 and 74, see Dessau, _Inscr. Lat. Sel._ 990, 991, with
notes.
[142] D. xxx and xxxi.
[143] D. xxxii and xxxiv.
[144] D. xliii.
[145] The diplomata of 133, 138, 148, 149, and 154 (D. xlvii, li,
lx, lxi, and lxv) contain, on an average, ten regiments each. Four
regiments are always present, and five more occur in four diplomata
out of the five. This makes it sufficiently clear that, on the theory
given above, the auxilia of the same legion must always be referred to,
particularly in view of the immobility of the frontier troops in the
second century (see below, pp. 114-16), which forbids the supposition
that the same regiments would appear first attached to one legion,
then, after a few years’ interval, to another.
[146] The earliest I know of is _legio III Augusta et auxilia eius_,
which dates from 158. viii. 2637. Other instances are a dedication
at Bonn by _legio I Minervia pia fidelis Severiana Alexandriana cum
auxilis_ (xiii. 8017), and a Pannonian inscription of the reign of
Gallienus which mentions _vexillationes legionum Germaniciarum et
Brittanniciarum_ (at least this seems to be intended) _cum auxilis
earum_. iii. 3228. The formula is certainly a rare one.
[147] _Studies in Roman History_, Second Series, p. 112.
[148] What exactly this amounted to is difficult to make out. It
would be natural to suppose a system of military districts within
the province. In Britain, for instance, the line between Tyne and
Solway, with the auxilia upon it, might have been divided between
Legio VI Victrix from York and Legio XX Valeria Victrix from Chester.
Unfortunately the epigraphical evidence does not support the idea that
the activity of the two legions was localized in this way. The point is
obscure and would not have been worth such a detailed discussion but
for the unwarrantable facility with which it is usually disposed of.
[149] Tac. _Ann._ iv. 5 ‘At apud idonea provinciarum sociae triremes
alaeque et auxilia cohortium, neque multo secus in iis virium: sed
persequi incertum fuit, cum ex usu temporis huc illuc mearent,
gliscerent numero et aliquando minuerentur’. The _sociae triremes_,
i.e. the Rhine fleet, &c., counterbalance the Italian fleets at Ravenna
and Misenum.
[150] Velleius, ii. 113.
[151] The number of legions existing at this date is not absolutely
certain, but it seems most probable that there were twenty-eight. Cf.
von Domaszewski in the _Römisch-germanisches Korrespondenzblatt_, 1910,
on the date of the creation of legions XXI and XXII.
[152] Tac. _Hist._ ii. 58.
[153] Josephus, _Bell. Iud._ iii. 4. 66. Twenty-three cohorts (of which
ten, an unusually high proportion, were _miliariae_) and six alae, of
unspecified size. That the auxilia had been very largely drawn on is
shown by the fact that Titus in 70, although he had a whole additional
legion and detachments from two others, had only twenty cohorts and
eight alae; Tac. _Hist._ v. i.
[154] Tac. _Hist._ iii. 2. The garrison of Noricum is probably not
included.
[155] This is on the supposition that the auxilia would have been drawn
upon in the same proportion as the legions. Some of the regiments which
remained behind seem to have been very much weakened, others such as
the Ala Picentiana and the Ala Batavorum probably remained fairly
intact. Tac. _Hist._ ii. 89, iv. 15, 18, 62. Vitellius may have had
some of the British auxilia with him (cf. Tac. _Hist._ ii. 100, iii.
41), but these are more than counterbalanced by the eight Batavian
cohorts which had been sent back.
[156] For the provenance of these regiments, particularly the large
levies made by Trajan in the Eastern provinces, see the following
section.
[157] On the other hand, Legio IX Hispana, destroyed in Britain at
the beginning of the reign, and XXII Deiotariana, which was probably
annihilated in Judaea either at the same date or twenty years later,
were not replaced until Marcus raised legions II and III Italica for
the defence of Noricum and Raetia.