Ethnic makeup of legionaries

[Centurion Crastinus]

Is it possible to know the ethnic compositions of Imperial Legionaries. Could it be possible that some of the legionaries recruited from North Africa were black sub-saharan africans?

[Megas Methuselah]

If those Africans possesed Roman Citizenship, then certainly. A lot of military settlers in the provinces with citizenship intermingled with the local population, so this is indeed possible.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The North Africans weren't exactly black in today's sense were they? I mean, they had dark skin, but so do the people India. Were the North Africans of that time part of the African races, or the Asian/Mediterranean? Right now, North Africa is populated by mostly Arabs, descendants of Muslim conquerors, but in the Antiquity tribes like Berbers inhabited North Africa. Unless I am mistaken, Berbers weren't of the same race as, say, the Tuareg people, which were true Africoids (similar to the outdated term "Negroid).

[Zeibek]

I'm not sure but I think that at least the Tuareg (or Tamasheq) languages were a subdivision of the Berber language group. Berber was, and still is, more of a blanket term for several peoples there. As for their ethnic makeup I've really no proper knowledge besides the assumption that they were a bit more tanned than the Arabs but otherwise very much like the Semites.

[Skandinav]

The anthropologist Hans F. K Günther states in his book The Racial Elements of European History that a negro strain is found all over the Mediterranean area because of slaves and negroes in the Roman army and it sounds likely because most long-established imperial legions based in the provinces drew heavily on the local populations and sometimes beyond the frontier.

[Apgad]

Well, I've seen Gladiator, so I know that at least some of them were black...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I've seen Gladiator, so I know that at least some of them were black...

Those were the gladiators, who came from all over the world, not the legionaries. All of the legionaries in Gladiator were white unless I am mistaken. I don't know if the Romans recruited non-Roman/non-Hellenic people into their legions. I'm sure men of mixed blood were levied into legions, but I don't know if the Romans accepted the natives, which they saw as inferior people and barbarians.

[Mediolanicus]

The North Africans weren't exactly black in today's sense were they? I mean, they had dark skin, but so do the people India. Were the North Africans of that time part of the African races, or the Asian/Mediterranean? Right now, North Africa is populated by mostly Arabs, descendants of Muslim conquerors, but in the Antiquity tribes like Berbers inhabited North Africa. Unless I am mistaken, Berbers weren't of the same race as, say, the Tuareg people, which were true Africoids (similar to the outdated term "Negroid).

Northern Africa is still populated mostly by Berbers, Lybians etc...
The Arab invasion was largly military. So apart from war veterans getting a piece of land, there weren't many real Arabs living there, and still aren't.
The local population just "Arabized" or how do I say this?

[konny]

Could it be possible that some of the legionaries recruited from North Africa were black sub-saharan africans?

Yes, that's possible: a Sub-Sahrian could have come into the Roman Empire as a slave. He or one of his descendants could have been freed, and the same or one of his children could have become a Roman citizen. After that he could have joined the Legions. It would have been much eayser (and more likely) for Sub-Saharians to join the Auxilia without beeing citizens.

[Connacht]

I don't know if the Romans recruited non-Roman/non-Hellenic people into their legions.

Gauls, Iberians Illyrians, and Eastern soldiers, for instance.
And at a certain point of history even Germans (but this happens later IIRC).

So I don't think it's impossible they could recruit a black African.

[Chris1959]

Wasn't one of the "perks" for a Auxilary that when they had completed their 25 years service they received Citizenship. So it would be quite likely that the offspring of a veteran Auxilia would follow their father's footsteps but in the Legions. Also am I right in believing the Romans showed little prejudice based on the colour of a persons skin, more on wether that person was "civilised" or not according to their definition.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Gauls, Iberians Illyrians, and Eastern soldiers, for instance.
And at a certain point of history even Germans (but this happens later IIRC).

So I don't think it's impossible they could recruit a black African.

All of the abovementioned people were recruited in the times of the empire, not during the republic. Were there any Negroid Africans in North Africa. I am not sure if Berbers qualified as true Africans. They weren't truly black either, just dark-skinned. However, as I have already said, I am sure the romans recruited mixed-race people. Why do the historians make such a big deal about Romans recruiting barbarians in their armies during the late republic? Probably because the Romans didn't do it before. Just because a legion was recruited in Gaul, doesn't mean that ethnic Gauls made up the legion. It is more likely that mixed Romano-Gauls and Roman settler/colonists were recruited. Although I do have to admit the Romans heavily recruited auxilia from foreigners. However, the auxiliary soldiers were no "legionaries", and this thread is about the ethnic makeup of legionaries, not auxilia. The Romans would wait until the region was sufficiently Romanized before recruiting the natives.

[Megas Methuselah]

All of the abovementioned people were recruited in the times of the empire, not during the republic. Were there any Negroid Africans in North Africa. I am not sure if Berbers qualified as true Africans. They weren't truly black either, just dark-skinned. However, as I have already said, I am sure the romans recruited mixed-race people. Why do the historians make such a big deal about Romans recruiting barbarians in their armies during the late republic? Probably because the Romans didn't do it before. Just because a legion was recruited in Gaul, doesn't mean that ethnic Gauls made up the legion. It is more likely that mixed Romano-Gauls and Roman settler/colonists were recruited. Although I do have to admit the Romans heavily recruited auxilia from foreigners. However, the auxiliary soldiers were no "legionaries", and this thread is about the ethnic makeup of legionaries, not auxilia. The Romans would wait until the region was sufficiently Romanized before recruiting the natives.

If a "native" was in possesion of Roman citizenship, he could merely go enlist in the Legion as a legionary, not an auxiliary. An enlistee's ethnic background really didn't matter much, as long as he had Roman citizenship, which not only could be attained from serving the full time in the auxiliary, but could also be rewarded(or bought, for that matter).

[Ibrahim]

Northern Africa is still populated mostly by Berbers, Lybians etc...
The Arab invasion was largly military. So apart from war veterans getting a piece of land, there weren't many real Arabs living there, and still aren't.
The local population just "Arabized" or how do I say this?

yep, its Arabized. the locals picked up the language and religion, not much else. I can barely understand them though-they have a thick accent (look up Algerian Arabic in wikipedia-very good source). Morrocans almost speak a different language. explains why I understand Egyptian or Iraqis, but not morrocans

[lobf]

Anyone ever been to Fez? What a crazy place.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I've read about it in National Geographic a couple of times, but haven't actually been their. Egypt is the only North African country I have been to. By crazy do you mean the varied and numerous street traffic and all of the street vendors clogging up already congested roadway? That's what struck me as the craziest thing, although most Third World Countries have similar cities.

[lobf]

I've read about it in National Geographic a couple of times, but haven't actually been their. Egypt is the only North African country I have been to. By crazy do you mean the varied and numerous street traffic and all of the street vendors clogging up already congested roadway? That's what struck me as the craziest thing, although most Third World Countries have similar cities.

Heh, we'd totally derail this pretty interesting topic with the wild and different things about Fez and Egypt. I've tried several ways to summarize but I can't. So perhaps in another topic...

On this subject as I understand it, much of the Mediterranean was honkeys (which is to say lighter skinned), with "black" Africans being being located below the Sahara. So yeah, it's possible that some served like how TA suggested, but it would probably have been a minority.

[Anastasios Helios]

The term "Subsaharan African" is a little bit racist. It was invented by Europeans to suggest that there is some type of invisible barrier that seperates the Saharan peoples from the peoples who lived south of the desert. There isn't really a boundary where people suddenly jump from "Berber" to "Negriod" but it is more of a melange. If you go into desert villages in Tunisia you can often find people who would qualify as "Negroid" and if you see the Touregs of Mali you will find some who have light complexions and "European" features (Of course it becomes more and more rare as you travel south.) The Saharan peoples interacted quite often through trade and naturally this contributed to the mix of ethnicities that you can find in Northern Africa.

I have no doubt that many "black Africans" made their way into the Legions. Read the story of St. Maurice for example. He lived during the time of the late empire and was a black man in command of an entire legion. :)

[Aemilius Paulus]

The term "Subsaharan African" is a little bit racist.

Let me guess, are you from America? Only they can be so politically correct. Subsahran African is probably the most neutral term I have ever heard. Beats the term "Negroid" which many more people find offensive. What's the currently politically correct term for the black race anyway? "African American" only applies to black people from America, but since the term black isn't so politically correct anymore, then what would be the right way to call a black African?

Wasn't the Saharan desert a pretty good barrier though? I mean trade caravans still traversed it, but not much else.

[Anastasios Helios]

I'm definately American. ^^

I prefer to use black American or black African...
"African-American" kinda implies that American blacks are recent immigrants to a country that they've dwelt in for close to 400 years now. No one uses "European-American" for white Americans...

That's one thing about us Americans...if we're not politically correct, we're branded as racist and some type of scandal ensures. *sighs*

[Aemilius Paulus]

Living in the "freest state in the world" with the much-flaunted, so called "freedom of speech" huh?

Man, gotta love the hypocrisy.

You get more freedom of speech in Russia, although just be sure you don't speak ill of Comrade Putin though; things will happen to you...!!! Just kidding. I support him very much, he is still the de facto ruler of Russia. He also has (had) the highest approval rating of any President in a European/American country.

[Anastasios Helios]

But...to return to the topic, the Sahara is hardly more an intimidating target than, let us say, the Alps which the Etruscan Rhaetans managed to cross during their migrations from Italy long ago. And it is common mainstream knowledge that before settling in present day Niger and Mali, the Touraeg people were of Libyan origin. The Sahara isn't as impassible as one may thing. ;)

[Quintus Cunctator]

I'm certainly no expert but I've always thought of the Saharan desert as a pretty good barrier and certainly not on par with the Alps. And a little research backs this up, Wikipedia states that the Saharan desert is approximately the size of the continental United States, which if you're wondering is about 1200 miles from north to south (it depends on where you measure it but 1200 is not using Texas). The width of the Alps by contrast are around 300 miles across. Certainly width alone isn't the defining criteria for difficulty of passage, especially when talking about a mountain range height at least is a concern. And certainly the Alps boasts some tall mountains, the tallest of which, Mont Blanc, is some 15,774 feet. However the Alps is not a contiguous wall of 15,000 foot peaks, it has a number of passes some of which are as low as 436 feet which I imagine are probably relatively easily traversable considering "Roughly one quarter of the land lying between the summits of the Alps is available for cultivation." I very much doubt the same claim can be made for the Sahara.

I don't know about Europeans inventing the term Sub-Saharan African, or, if they did what their intentions for doing so was, but the Saharan desert is not an "invisible barrier" and it is not comparable to the Alps. That there is widespread ethnic mixing today is not surprising to me since we can sail around it, fly over it, or drive through it (though I imagine its hardly a drive to be undertaken lightly). To the ancients though, I imagine it was a major barrier to human interaction and movement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Crossing the Sahara is hard in any season, crossing the Alps is relatively easy in the Spring or Summer, you don't have to go OVER the mountains.

The likelyhood of genuine Black (means the same as Negroid, which is bad Latin) men serving in a Republican Legion is pretty much zero in practical terms. Later in the Empire the figure climbs but to be honest most of the Africans mentioned in Roman hstory are Phonecian, Septimus Severus was from Carthage, for example. To lable them "Black" is historically revisionist. This is support by writers ethnographic descriptions. Arrian, writing during the later Empire, says that the Indians are "pure" black and not like the Etheopians, who are more a muddy brown.

This suggests that the population of Northern Africa was darker than that of Southern Europe, but not "Black". On the other hand when Herodotus describes Etheopians he is clearly describing fairly typical Sub-Saharan features and colouring.

thorny question, made harder by the current political climate and the fact that Classical geography has different classifications and can't be directly related to out modern understanding.

[Anastasios Helios]

Those are very good and interesting responses. I will leave the subject here because it is a short skip and a hop from asking the question: "Who/What exactly is black?" And that....can become a bit heated I fear...

The Sahara is definately one of the most (if not the most) hostile environment in the world. Despite this, i'm sure that there has been a bit of migration over the years between North and South. The people who live in every environment eventually discover ways to survive in their environment. The Shepra(?) people of Nepal are experts of surviving in the Himalyas for example. The ethnic diversity of the Sahara regions is testament enough to prove that it is not so much as a barrier. Therefore to me, it doesn't seem so far fetched to see a few "black" people in the ranks of the legionnaires.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Rome controlled just the northernmost tip of North Africa. The Roman rule was pretty much all along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa but it did not go far inland, as you can see from this map showing the farthest extents of the Roman Empire:


There was no reason to. Beyond the strip was lifeless sands and mountains. The Northern parts of Tunis and Algeria were inhabited somewhat more, with more inland areas under the Roman control, but that was because those lands weren't wastelands. If you go to those areas that were a part of the Roman Empire, you won't really find many true Africans. Those that you do encounter are probably relatively recent immigrants. Mediterranean people, such as Semites, Berbers, Arabs, and descendants of Numidians inhabit those lands. True Africoids, with the distinctive head shape, curly hair, flattened nose and somewhat protruding lips lived below the Saharan Desert.

Therefore chances of finding an "Ethiopian", as Romans called the true blacks, in the legion were probably very low, although there were probably a few black stragglers from the other side of Sahara in the legions. People of mixed races were much more common since the "True Africans" did not migrate to North Africa en masse and usually dissolved in the native population. We need to discard the stereotype that a huge and diverse continent like Africa has only one kind of people living in it. Just because Romans were in Africa doesn't mean that their legions had many blacks in it.

To Anastasios Garamantos (And that....can become a bit heated I fear...): as long as people stop worrying about sounding politically correct all the time, everything will be fine.

[Anastasios Helios]

I'm done here. I've said all that I want to say....

[Centurion Crastinus]

Political correctness is absurd. People just need to have thicker skin.

[Chris1959]

Political Correctness is the foul art of forcing people into categories, fight it by treating all people for what they are, individuals with their own thoughts, feelings and opinions!

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What would interest me more is: were there Romans in the Queen of Nubia's Royal Guard? We know that they had contact and the Romans at least one time tried to subdue Nubia / Kush / Ehtiopia.

And Hellenes in the Bantu kingdoms of the Niger area? They were in Baktria after all, why not in Africa-below-Sahara?