Roman Auxillia question

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please don't try to equate the Roman and modern army, it just flat out doesn't work. As you just proved.

A Legion was fixed, numbered unit. In that sense it is equivelant to a regiment on infantry, a cohort to a battallian and a century to a company.

HOWEVER, that only tracks to the modern army, during the Napolionic Wars the paper strength for a battallian was 1,000, in 10 companies.

[cmacq]

Please don't try to equate the Roman and modern army

Right, in the post-civil war american southwest a troop/cav. company had only 45 men and horse. No mater what the numbers I call it relevance...

as all modern armies are indeed based on the basic roman system. That is as much a fact as ever there was.

[Centurion Crastinus]

That's real interesting. It's amazing what might be lurking underground in one's own back yard.

[Centurion Crastinus]

Were their actually sub-saharan africans serving in the ranks of the Roman Army. Those blogs said that some people had that opinion. I always assumed that anyone recruited from Africa was more likely to be someone with lighter skin. Kind of like the way someone from North Africa would look today.

[CaesarAugustus]

Maybe some mercenaries/auxilia were recruited from Meroe, or from sub-saharan immigrants to the empire. I'm sure at some point in the history of the empire there were at least a few sub-saharan africans in the legions. Maybe indians, too.

[russia almighty]

Maybe some mercenaries/auxilia were recruited from Meroe, or from sub-saharan immigrants to the empire. I'm sure at some point in the history of the empire there were at least a few sub-saharan africans in the legions. Maybe indians, too.

Indians ..... thats kinda weird imagining them in the legions . Iranians on the other hand I could easily see them being one of the bigger minorities in the army .

[cmacq]

Were their actually sub-saharan africans serving in the ranks of the Roman Army. Those blogs said that some people had that opinion. I always assumed that anyone recruited from Africa was more likely to be someone with lighter skin. Kind of like the way someone from North Africa would look today.

Your talking about the headless romans? right?

[L.C.Cinna]

axillia = mercenary/irregular/native/foreign forces; specialized troops organized along native lines. noncitizen, cavalry, archers, light infantry, and heavy assault infantry.

just to clear that: the auxilia are not mercenary or irregular troops. they are organized along roman lines and consist of light and heavy troops equipped mainly in "Roman" fashion, plus all specialized forces were grouped into the auxilia (like archers, cavalry,...). while citizenship was required to join a legion, many people with citizenship served in the auxiliaries as well (especially the cavalry).

[cmacq]

just to clear that: the auxilia are not mercenary or irregular troops. they are organized along roman lines and consist of light and heavy troops equipped mainly in "Roman" fashion, plus all specialized forces were grouped into the auxilia (like archers, cavalry,...). while citizenship was required to join a legion, many people with citizenship served in the auxiliaries as well (especially the cavalry).

point of order and a question?

during the 1st century Gallic War, do you consider the yearly levy of Gallic and later German horse designed to support the Roman army, auxilia or mercs?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right, in the post-civil war american southwest a troop/cav. company had only 45 men and horse. No mater what the numbers I call it relevance...

as all modern armies are indeed based on the basic roman system. That is as much a fact as ever there was.

Not really, the Roman army we are talking about had utterly collapsed and modern armies more closely resemble the much later armies of the Late Empire. The gulf of some 1000 years between the end of the Western Empire and the rise of properly organised armies with regiments means there's no direct connection.

In any case the maniple was not a significant unit in the post Marian legion, the century and the cohort were.

My point remains the same though, the terms don't map so don't try to force them to fit because it doesn't work. Just learn how the system worked and don't try to dumb it down.

[cmacq]

don't try to dumb it down.

wise words, that we should try writing without, hubris?

[konny]

If you really want to compare the Roman Legion to organizations of later armies you'll have to search for it in the 19th Century. Before that formations of mixed arms were only created on the fly, while later warfare did change so drasticly that neither the modern units nor their tactical role can be compared with anything before (there aren't even battles in the classical sense).

For the 19th Century neither regiment nor brigade does fit for a Legion because both were made up of just arm (cavalry or infantry) sometimes, but not always, with supporting artillery. Of the few exceptions, it comes to my mind the Prussian brigades of the late Napleonic Wars that had all three arms combined. But these also had a more temporary nature by attaching and detaching units throughout the campaign.

Divisions were sometimes - but not always - made of all arms (example again the Prussian army, this time in 1866). Most of the times divisions were either infantry or cavalry with supporting artillery. So, the level of organization in the 19th Century that was most like a Roman Legion would be the (Infantry-, or Army-)Corps. It was formed of all arms, had more than a temporary meaning and a (from army to army varing) fixed strength.

Of course, the 19th Century corps was around 20,000 to 30,000 men strong while the Roman Legion numbered just 4,000 to 6,000. But the overall size of armies was at least 2x if not 4x larger than the armies in Ancient times. From the composition as well as from its role (several Legions formed an army - several corps formed an army) the 19th Ct. corps is the formation that comes closest to the Legion.

[cmacq]

as all modern armies are indeed based on the basic roman system.

Sorry, I was seeking to make a simple point without getting to tightly wond around the tire, as to relevance. I belive that many do not understand the parallels between between the 'Roman Maniple-Cohort-Legion' TO&E and the 'company-battalion-brigade/division,' found within modern armies, as it relates to the basic (not indepedent) maneuver and support element concept. This is the basic concept apon which all modern armies are organized. As the above was a general question about recruitment into the Roman Legion and Auxillia, I though a brief outline of the concept was appropriate?

the 19th Ct. corps is the formation that comes closest to the Legion.

thanks konny,

Right, at some point during the Republic the Romans seem to have discovered a number of hard facts concerning the limitations of human communication and leadership (command and control). I belive the US army was initially based on a combination of the late 18th and early 19th centuries French organizational models, British military tradition, mixed with German drill. Right, by the Civil War large US field forces were looking like Roman Legions. However, it wasn't until after WWI til they were fully modernized and began to resemble more closely the Roman organizational model and rediscovered certain facts about C&C, and the maneuver and support element concept.

"basic" and "supportive"

thanks for clarifying,
I was being general and tried to cover all the bases.

you must be German, right?

auf


However, lets just say I'm totally wrong and just move on.

[L.C.Cinna]

you must be German, right?

auf


However, lets just say I'm totally wrong and just move on.

Yes I am lol


why?

[cmacq]

Yes I am lol
why?

It's elementary, my dear Watson.