FOOTNOTES:
[158] The distinction was not necessarily connected with the position of civitas foederata in the technical sense. Several important civitates foederatae, such as the Aedui and Remi in Gaul, did not, so far as we know, give their name to regiments, and many of the tribes which did were not civitates foederatae.
[159] In Asturia, however, the administrative conventus formed the recruiting districts; hence the regiments of Astures, Bracaraugustani, and Lucenses. Mommsen, Conscriptionsordnung, p. 47.
[160] We find regiments of Batavi, Canninefates, Cugerni, Frisii, Lingones, Menapii, Morini, Nemetes, Nervii, Sunuci, Sugambri, Tungri, Ubii, Usipi, and Vangiones. In the other Gallic provinces the only tribal names which occur are the Bituriges and Aquitani from Aquitania and the Vocontii from Narbonensis.
[161] A Cohors II Augustia Nervia Pacensis Brittonum is mentioned on a Pannonian diploma for 114 (D. xxxix) and the name of Cohors I of the series should probably be restored on the Dacian diploma dated 145-61 (D. lxx). This title is unintelligible; it does not seem possible to connect it with the Emperor Nerva.
[162] For further information as to the evidence on which this table is based see [Appendix II].
[163] Including one ala and four cohorts of Batavians who replace the regiments which mutinied under Civilis.
[164] Including all the alae with titles derived from proper names but no racial title. Inscriptions show that they were mostly recruited in Gaul, but some should perhaps be given to Belgica.
[165] Including all the cohorts which bear the general title Galli.
[166] The Ala Vocontiorum which appears in Britain is to be distinguished from the regiment of the same name in Egypt.
[167] The cohorts of Alpini, Montani, and Ligures, which represent the contingents of all the little Alpine provinces.
[168] Four cohortes miliariae which appear late in the second century and were probably raised at the time of the Marcomannian War.
[169] The regiments of Bosporani. Some of the auxilia of Moesia are perhaps included among the regiments of Thracians.
[170] The Ala Vespasiana Dardanorum and the cohorts I and II Aurelia Dardanorum.
[171] A cohors Macedonum E. (A. E. 1909. 58), and two regiments of Cyrrhestici.
[172] The mysterious Ala VII Phrygum. When this regiment was only known by one inscription (vi. 1838) the number was naturally emended. It has, however, been confirmed by the diploma for 139 and a Greek inscription (A. E. 1899. 177). The explanation is still uncertain. It is incredible that Phrygia really contributed seven alae, six of which have mysteriously vanished.
[173] Three cohorts of Paphlagonians and three of Galatians raised by Trajan.
[174] Including two alae Parthorum.
[175] Including the three ‘cohortes sagittariorum’.
[176] Including the Ituraean regiments.
[177] There is no reason why these regiments should not have been raised between 40 and 70, but they do not appear on inscriptions until much later.
[178] Some of the cohorts of Hispani may of course have come from Baetica.
[179] Conscriptionsordnung, p. 56.
[180] It appears on diplomata of 93 and 103. D. ciii and A. E. 1912. 128.
[181] A cohors IV Cypria is mentioned on the Dacian diploma of 110 (xxxvii), and a cohors Cypria appears in the Crimea.
[182] We find on inscriptions Cohors I Cyrenaica, II Augusta Cyrenaica, III Cyrenaica sagittariorum, and III Augusta Cyrenaica. (See Cichorius in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. cohors). The difficulty is that Cyrenaica is sometimes used as a purely descriptive title to indicate previous residence in the province. It is thus borne by the Cohors II Hispanorum scutata and the Cohors I Lusitanorum. Arrian, however, had Κυρηναῖοι, both cavalry and ὁπλῖται, in the army under his command in Cappadocia in Hadrian’s reign, so that in some cases at any rate Cyrenaica = Cyrenaeorum, just as Gallica is sometimes used for Gallorum. A levy in Cyrenaica is mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 18), but he does not say whether legionaries or auxiliaries were required.
[183] Gardthausen, Augustus, p. 631. Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. dilectus.
[184] The crucial passage is of course Tac. Ann. xvi. 13 ‘eodem anno dilectus per Galliam Narbonensem Africamque et Asiam habiti sunt supplendis Illyrici legionibus’, which appears to come from the acta senatus. But the evidence for imperial control is very strong, and the Senate may merely have been consulted as a matter of courtesy. Tiberius used to bring military questions before the Senate in the same way—‘de legendo vel exauctorando milite ac legionum et auxiliorum descriptione’, Suet. Tib. 30—without giving up his prerogative.
[185] Later, of course, the franchise became as widely spread in Africa as in Spain. In the first half of the first century, however, this was not yet the case, and the example of Tacfarinas (‘natione Numida, in castris Romanis auxiliaria stipendia meritus’, Tac. Ann. ii. 52) shows that auxilia were recruited in this province while it was still completely under senatorial control.
[186] xiii. 6860, 6864. Dio, lxxiv. 2, brackets Italy, Spain, Macedonia, and Noricum together, as the ‘civilized’ provinces from which the Praetorians were recruited before the reforms of Severus.
[187] If the cohortes voluntariorum be excluded from the reckoning.
[188] Strabo, p. 196 κρείττους δ’ ἱππόται ἢ πεζοί, καὶ ἔστι Ῥωμαίοις τῆς ἱππείας ἀρίστη παρὰ τούτων.
[189] Tactica, 33.
[190] See the boastful words of the Gascon Antonius Primus. Tac. Hist. iii. 2 ‘Duae tunc Pannonicae ac Moesicae alae perrupere hostem: nunc sedecim alarum coniuncta signa pulsu sonituque et nube ipsa operient ac superfundent oblitos proeliorum equites equosque’. Cf. also Tac. Ann. xv. 10 ‘alaris Pannonios, robur equitatus’.
[191] Arrian, loc. cit.
[192] The list shows that the majority of the oriental regiments were not raised until after 70.
[193] Two cohorts numbered III and VII bear this title, for which I can find no explanation. To be distinguished from these is the Cohors I Campanorum voluntaria (vi. 3520), which was stationed first in Dalmatia, then in Pannonia. Apparently it really was originally a regiment of Campanians, since a soldier gives Suessa as his birthplace (iii. 14246¹). The statement of Cichorius that the Dalmatian Cohors I Campanorum is identical with the Pannonian Cohors I Campestris is misleading. On no Pannonian inscription does the title occur otherwise than in the abbreviated form ‘Camp.’ On the other hand, the Roman inscription cited above speaks plainly of the coh(ortis) primae voluntariae Campanorum in Pannonia Inferiore.
[194] Tac. Ann. i. 8.
[195] Dio, lv. 31, lvi. 23; Velleius, ii. 111; Suet. Aug. 25. Similar regiments may have been raised at a later date, e.g. the cohorts I and II Italica c. R., which seem to form a fresh series and appear only in the East. Can they represent the remainder of the 4,000 oriental freedmen whom Tiberius enrolled to put down the brigands in Sardinia (Tac. Ann. ii. 85)? If any survived, the Eastern provinces would have been the natural place to send them to.
[196] Cf. the previous passages with Macrobius, Sat. i. 11, 32 ‘Caesar Augustus in Germania et Illyrico cohortes libertinorum complures legit, quas voluntarias appellavit’.
[197] There were at least thirty-two cohortes voluntariorum, among which VI is the highest number borne by a cohors ingenuorum (xiii. 8314, 8315). At about this point the supply of free-born recruits probably gave out, since cohors VIII does not bear this designation.
[198] Seeck suggests that, as the Western legions were recruited mainly in Italy at the beginning of the first century, these cohorts represent the contribution of the enfranchised communities in the provinces. Rheinisches Museum, xlviii. 611. This, however, is not only opposed to the literary evidence, but inscriptions also show us soldiers of Italian origin. Cf. iii. 9782 (Cemenelium) and A. E. 1909. 130 (Placentia).
[199] The original mutineers in Dalmatia seem to have been militia rather than regulars, cf. Dio, lv. 29 καί τινα καὶ σφεῖς δύναμιν πέμψαι κελευσθέντες, συνῆλθόν τε ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν σφῶν ἀνθοῦσαν εἶδον, but the phraseology of Velleius (ii. 110) leaves little doubt that regular auxiliaries were also implicated.
[200] Tac. Ann. ii. 17.
[201] Ib. iii. 42.
[202] Ib. iv. 73.
[203] Ib. xii. 27.
[204] ‘Immissa cohorte Thraecum,’ Tac. Hist. i. 68.
[205] ‘Praemissis Gallorum Lusitanorumque et Britannorum cohortibus,’ Ib. i. 70. The regiments referred to are probably the Cohors III Britannorum and the Cohorts VI and VII Lusitanorum which appear in Raetia at a later date. Cf. D. lxxiii, I. G. R. R. iii. 56.
[206] Early inscriptions mention Cohorts VII and VIII Breucorum (xiii. 7801, 8313, 8693), IV Delmatarum (Ib. 7507, 7508, 7509), I Pannoniorum (Ib. 7510, 7511, 7582), I Ituraeorum (Ib. 7040, 7041, 7042, 7043), I Sagittariorum (Ib. 7512, 7513, 7514), and Silauciensium (Ib. 8593). The last title is unintelligible, and possibly corrupt. The soldier mentioned is a certain Tib. Iulius Sdebdas from Tyre, so the regiment clearly came from the East, and its title should perhaps read Seleuciensium—i.e. from Seleucia.
[207] Tac. Ann. ii. 52.
[208] Josephus, Ant. xx, 6, 1. Bell. Iud. ii. 12, 5. The small garrisons maintained in the provinciae inermes seem also to have been of local origin; cf. the Ligurum cohors, vetus loci auxilium stationed in the Alpes Maritimae, Tac. Hist. ii. 14. See also D. xx and xxvi for the composition of the garrison of Sardinia.
[209] Tac. Ann. iv. 46. See above, [p. 19].
[210] ‘Flavus aucta stipendia, torquem et coronam aliaque militaria dona memorat,’ Tac. Ann. ii. 9.
[211] ‘Non tulit ala Picentiana gaudium insultantis vulgi, spretisque Sancti promissis aut minis Mogontiacum abeunt,’ Tac. Hist. iv. 62. I follow the diplomata in using the form Picentiana—not Picentina, which Tacitus preferred.
[212] D. ii.
[213] iii. 3271.
[214] This supports the statement of Macrobius, already cited, that some of the cohorts voluntariae were stationed in Illyricum.
[215] The list given above probably does not contain all the regiments originally sent to the Rhine. A large proportion of the auxilia stationed in Britain are of Danubian origin, and these troops are more likely to have come from Germany, than, as has been sometimes suggested, with Legio IX Hispana from Pannonia.
[216] It seems that all the eight Batavian cohorts which supported Civilis were dismissed, and that the Cohorts I and II Batavorum, which we meet on second-century inscriptions, were new creations. The Alae Petriana and Sebosiana and two cohorts of Tungrians, which had formed part of the Rhine army in 69, appear later in Britain. But they had left the Rhine to take part in the civil war in Italy, and were not guilty of complicity in the mutiny.
[217] Legio IV Scythica remained permanently in Syria; V Macedonia and XV Apollinaris were in the East from 62 and 63 respectively to 70. Auxiliary regiments probably accompanied these legions, and some in all likelihood remained with the first named.
[218] It is true that although five legions (I Adiutrix, X Gemina, XI Claudia, XIV Gemina, and XXI Rapax) were transferred from the Rhine to the Danube between 70 and 107 the list of auxilia does not alter so much as might be expected. Still the transference of some regiments can be traced, e.g. the Ala Claudia Nova and the Cohors V Hispanorum were sent to Moesia Inferior between 74 and 82 and remained there. Cf. D. xi, xiv, and ciii.
[219] In 1884 Mommsen collected the existing evidence in Eph. Ep. v. pp. 159-249, and stated his conclusions in the Conscriptionsordnung. Later epigraphical discoveries, while clearing up many points of detail, have left his main argument unaffected, and it forms the basis of the following discussion.
[220] e.g. a certain T. Flavius Draccus of the Ala I F(lavia) D(omitiana) Brit(annica) M(iliaria) c(ivium) R(omanorum) describes himself as a civis Sequanus (iii. 15197). Now the title D(omitiana) shows that the inscription must have been erected between 81 and 96, and Draccus, who had served 22 years, was enrolled, therefore, between 60 and 74. But his regiment, which formed part of the Vitellian army in 69 (Tac. Hist. iii. 41), must have been in Germany or Britain before that date. Probably it was sent in 70 to Germania Inferior, won its title, like other regiments of that province, for loyalty at the time of the rebellion of Saturninus in 89, and was transferred to Pannonia shortly afterwards.
[221] The regiment was in Moesia Inferior by 99 (D. xxxi) and remained there. The Pannonian inscriptions therefore probably belong to the pre-Flavian period, as the soldiers had served 30 and 17 years respectively.
[222] This soldier, T. Flavius Bonius, was apparently given the franchise by one of the Flavian emperors, but might then have been serving some time.
[223] Allectus into the Equites Singulares Imperatoris. A date is indicated by his name Ulpius Titius.
[224] The soldier bears the name Aurelius, and the style of the monument suggests a third-century date. See below, [p. 128], n. 4.
[225] Allectus into the Equites Singulares at Rome.
[226] The soldier has the Thracian name of Mucapor.
[227] Probably a corps d’élite formed originally for the Dacian War and placed afterwards on a permanent footing. In the reign of Antoninus Pius it seems to have been given the title of Ala Illyricorum.
[228] The Pannonian to whom D. ii belonged cannot have been enrolled later than 35, and owner of D. ci was probably enrolled earlier still.
[229] iii. 14214.
[230] Unfortunately the name of the cohort to which the men belonged has been lost. The names of some men of the Cohors II Batavorum are preserved, but without their nationalities.
[231] iii. 2016, 4227. The regiment may of course have been sent to Spain and have returned only after a long absence, say with Legio VII Gemina in 69 (Tac. Hist. ii. 11).
[232] viii. 18084. The majority come from the Eastern provinces.
[233] There is evidence for a garrison of at least 25,000 men in the second century, but it probably reached a higher figure. See Appendix I.
[234] xiii. 7024, 7025, 7579, D. xxxv.
[235] viii. 3101. For the recruiting of Legio III Augusta cf. Cagnat, L’Armée romaine d’Afrique, 2nd edition, pp. 287-303.
[236] We find the Ala I Ulpia Dromedariorum, the Cohorts I, III, IV, V and VI Ulpia Petraeorum, II and III Ulpia Paflagonum, I and II Ulpia Galatarum, and I Ulpia Sagittariorum all in Cappadocia, Syria, or Palestine in the second century, and only one of this series of regiments, the Cohors III Ulpia Galatarum, can be traced elsewhere.
[237] iii. 6580. The non-Egyptians all come from the Eastern provinces, except two from Africa.
[238] iii. 14507. 7 come from Dacia, 7 from Pannonia, 5 from Dalmatia, 3 from Thrace, 6 from Macedonia, and 1 from Pergamum.
[239] It is impossible to go into this question here. The soldiers mentioned on vi. 31138, who were discharged in 118, must, if they served their full time, have been enrolled before Trajan’s accession. The corps seems to have replaced the old Germani corporis custodes, disbanded by Galba; Suet. Vit. Gal. 12.
[240] In the hundred cases only five men are actually described as allecti from an ala, but the fact may not always have been mentioned on the tombstones.
[241] I have taken the first hundred inscriptions on which nationality is recorded, beginning with vi. 3173.
[242] The contingents of the two Pannonian and the two Moesian provinces cannot be distinguished, because in a large number of cases the deceased is simply described as Pannonius or Moesus.
[243] Using this term to apply only to the contingents of Lugdunensis. The inhabitants of Belgica still appear.
[244] Between 70 and 107 the garrison of the Danubian provinces was increased to ten legions, chiefly at the expense of the Rhine army, in which the legions were reduced from eight to four.
[245] In 69, when Antonius Primus boasted of the superiority of the Danubian cavalry, there were, according to Tacitus, sixteen alae in Pannonia and Moesia (Tac. Hist. iii. 2). In the second century seventeen regiments can be traced in the two Pannonias and Moesia Inferior, while in Dacia, which covered Moesia Superior, were ten more. These figures, moreover, are probably below the real total. See Appendix I.
[246] It appears in a Pannonian diploma for 98 (D. xxvii) and in the first Dacian diploma for 110 (D. xxxvii).
[247] See Archaelogiai Ertesitö, 1905 and following, and for the inscriptions A. E. 1906 and following.
[248] D. lviii (138-46), iii. 3331.
[249] iii. 10316, 10318. A. E. 1906. 110. Ib. 1909. 150. Ib. 1910. 137.
[250] D. lviii. The name of the town is missing.
[251] A. E. 1910. 141. Cf. 133.
[252] D. xxvii, xxxvii; iii. 4371. Another inscription (iii. 4368) mentions a Batavian, but he is a decurion who may have been transferred on promotion from another corps.
[253] For orientals on the Rhine, cf. xiii. 7512, 7514.
[254] Throughout the Empire the archer regiments seem to have been exclusively Thracians or orientals, but the latter alone preserved their national character in the second century.
[255] iii. 10315, 10316.
[256] The difficulty is to establish clear cases of men who must have entered a regiment after its original formation. The ‘Britto’ of the Dacian diploma for 145-61 (lxx) seems to be one.
[257] ‘Nectovelius natione Brigans’ in the Cohors II Thracum. The inscription comes from Mumrills and probably dates, therefore, from between 142 and 180. Eph. Ep. ix. 623.
[258] The numeri have been discussed by Mommsen in the latter part of the Conscriptionsordnung, a discussion which naturally forms the basis of the following pages.
[259] xiii. 6526, 6542, 6592, 6622, 6629, 6642, 7749. Elantienses—6490. Gurvedenses—7343. Murrenses—6471. Triputienses—6502, 6511, 6514, 6517, 6518, 6599, 6606.
[260] A. E. 1910. 152.
[261] viii. 2486, 2505, 18007, 18008, 18026, &c.
[262] iii. 837, 907, 7999, 14216.
[263] The Palmyrene vexillarius, whose tombstone was found at Corbridge in 1911, is most likely to have belonged to a numerus formed from his countrymen. Eph. Ep. ix. 1153a.
[264] D. lxvii (158).
[265] Eph. Ep. ix. 1191, where all the references are collected.
[266] iii. 8032.
[267] viii. 21015, 21017.
[268] iii. 7493.
[269] If Mommsen’s interpretation of Eph. Ep. vii. 957 as n(umerus) m(ilitum) S(urorum) S(agittariorum) be correct.
[270] Hyginus, 29. Accepting this emendation for the meaningless Getati of the manuscripts.
[271] iii. 12601 a and b, 12605. The inscriptions date from the reign of Hadrian, showing that this usage was an early one.
[272] Hyginus, 30.
[273] Praepositus is more usual, and probably the original title. Later we find the title praefectus, and the inclusion of this post at the bottom of the equestrian census, below the previous three posts, gave rise to the phrase a quattuor militiis. Cf. xiii. 6814 and von Dom. Rangordnung, p. 131.
[274] Von Dom. Rangordnung, pp. 60, 61.
[275] viii. 2505, 2515. The latest inscription is a dedication to Malagbel, the native god of Palmyra, for the safety of Gordian III.
[276] iii. 907, 14216 (Oriental names).
[277] If the Brittones were really, as has been suggested, transported wholesale to Germany, these numeri also would have preserved their national character.
[278] These disappeared during the period, which came in the history of almost every regiment, when it contained drafts from different nationalities.
[279] This is shown by Hyginus, 43, as von Dom. has pointed out, Rangordnung, p. 60.
[280] Dio, lxviii. 8 and 32.
[281] Arrian, Tactica, 44.
[282] The Κελτοὶ ἱππῆς, however, which are mentioned in the Ectaxis, 2, are probably, as Ritterling (Wiener Studien, xxiv. 127-40) suggests, cavalry of the Cohors Germanorum M. E.
[283] The nearest case I know of is xiii. 3177, where we have the order signifer-centurio-tribunus, but this is in one of the Cohortes civium Romanorum, which occupy an exceptional position.
[284] Rangordnung, pp. 112-15, 122-30.
[285] ix. 996, x. 4862.
[286] Rangordnung, pp. 57, 72. He also considers that at this date the centurions and decurions of the auxiliary regiments were drawn from the ranks of the legions, a suggestion which has already been discussed. See above, [p. 38].
[287] See [pp. 16-20].
[288] Tac. Hist. iv. 12 ‘(Batavorum) cohortibus quas vetere instituto nobilissimi popularium regebant’.
[289] Ib. iv. 18. Its praefectus Claudius Labeo, ‘oppidano certamine aemulus Civili,’ was clearly a Batavian.
[290] Ib. iv. 16.
[291] Ib. iii. 35; ii. 14; iv. 55. To the same class of officers belonged ‘Chumstinctius et Avectius tribuni ex civitate Nerviorum’, who played an important part in one of the campaigns of Drusus. Epit. Livy, cxxxxi.
[292] v. 7003 is an example of a career of this kind which dated from the reign of Claudius.
[293] ix. 2564; A. E. 1902. 41.
[294] Cf. iii. 1918 ‘I. O. M. Sulpicius Calvio c(enturio) leg(ionis) I Min(erviae) praepositus coh(ortis) I Belgarum’.
[295] Cf. viii. 18007 ‘… M. Annius Valens leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) praepositus n(umeri) Palmyrenorum’; xiii. 6526 ‘… M. Octavius Severus (centurio) leg(ionis) VIII Aug(ustae) Praeposit(us) Brit(tonum)’. The office of praefectus numeri does, however, occur; iii. 1149. See above, [p. 87].
[296] xi. 5669 ‘C. Camurio C. f. Lem(onia) Clementi … praef(ecto) coh(ortis) VII Raet(orum) equit(atae), trib(uno) mil(itum) coh(ortis) II Ulpiae Petraeor(um) miliar(iae) equit(atae), praef(ecto) alae Petrianae …’.
[297] D. xlvii, li, lix, lx, lxi, lxvi, lxx.
[298] In a list of over two hundred and fifty praefecti whose place of origin is known I have not come across one from either of these provinces. But it is of course impossible to be sure that such a list is even as complete as the existing evidence permits.
[299] For the military qualities of the Gauls in the fourth century cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, xv. 12, xix. 6.
[300] A. E. 1899. 177.
[301] Such men probably stood a better chance than the Greeks. See my article on the Caristanii of Pisidian Antioch in J. R. S. iii.
[302] Possibly curator, the Greek being ἐπιμελητής.
[303] A. E. 1911. 161. A son, or other relative, who erected the inscription was praefectus cohortis II Hispanorum equitatae, C. R., tribunus cohortis III Ulpiae Petraeorum.
[304] It is true that we do not know where the Cohors III Thracum Syriaca was stationed, but the other units in the series of four bearing this title all appear in the East. The Cohors II Hispanorum, in which his son served, is probably that mentioned on an inscription from Ancyra. iii. 6760.
[305] D. xlviii and cviii.
[306] Cf. Tacitus’s remarks in the Annals, xiii. 35, with the account in Dio Cassius, lxxv. 11-13, of the siege of Hatra by Septimius Severus, especially τῶν μὲν Εὐρωπαίων, τῶν δυναμένων τι κατεργάσασθαι and the promise of one of the officers ἐάν γε αὐτῷ δώσῃ πεντακοσίους καὶ πεντήκοντα μόνους τῶν Εὐρωπαίων στρατιωτῶν, ἄνευ τοῦ τῶν ἄλλων κινδύνου τὴν πόλιν ἐξαιρήσειν.
[307] This point has been well made by Dessau in Hermes, 1910. The evidence does, however, suggest that an unusually large proportion of Africans obtained commands during the reign of Septimius Severus.
[308] This is put very strongly on pages 133 and 134 of the Rangordnung, ‘die Italiker und die Weströmer sind von der militia equestris ausgeschlossen.’
[309] The first name is that of the province in which the praefectus was stationed. His place of origin is placed last.
[310] Its best justification is the solidarity of the Empire in the fourth century, which appears so markedly in the pages of Ammianus, and exercised so powerful an influence over the minds of the barbarian invaders.
SECTION III
THE USE OF THE AUXILIA FOR WAR AND FRONTIER DEFENCE
A history of the art of war under the Roman Empire has not yet been written, for the simple reason that we do not possess an account by a good military historian of a single campaign between that of Thapsus (46 B.C.) and that of Argentorate (357). Josephus does indeed give a first-hand account of the Jewish war of 66-70, and took some trouble over military details, but his subject limited him to siege operations and street-fighting. The most valuable section in his work is a general sketch of the Roman army and its organization, and a description of the arrangement of troops on the march.[311] Tacitus, on the other hand, who is forced by his subject to describe several campaigns, and remains in consequence our chief authority, cared nothing for the technical side of warfare, and does nothing more than record, as a rule correctly enough, details which he found in his sources.[312]
With strategy we need not concern ourselves, since the subject lies beyond the scope of this essay; but tactics require more consideration on account of the special position assigned to the auxilia in battle formation. From the scanty information given by our authorities it appears that in any regular engagement fought during the first two centuries the legionary infantry were still considered to be the chief arm and employed to deal the decisive blow.[313] They occupied the centre of the line, and the light troops and cavalry—that is to say, the auxilia—were expected to do little more than protect them from a flank attack. This formation was employed at Idistaviso in 16,[314] against Tacfarinas in 18,[315] against Tiridates in 58,[316] against Boudicca in 61,[317] and at the second battle of Bedriacum in 69.[318] It is also prescribed by Arrian in his ‘Order of Battle against the Alani’.[319] The only considerable exception is the battle of Issos in 193, in which the legions on both sides formed the first line and were supported by the archers, who shot over their heads. Dio, however, expressly states that this formation was adopted because these armies were fighting in a narrow space with the sea on one side and mountains on the other, so that there was no need to detach a force to protect their flanks.[320]
There were, however, cases, particularly in warfare against barbarians, where the enemy would not meet the imperial forces in the open field, but took up a defensive position on ground where legionaries could not be employed with success. In these circumstances the auxilia formed the first line and began the attack, and only if they were driven back and pursued by the enemy did the legions come into action. The battle of Mons Graupius, in 84, was conducted on these lines,[321] and similar tactics seem often to have been employed by Trajan in Dacia.[322] In general, however, the auxilia play a very secondary rôle; we do not hear either of the cavalry being used to strike the decisive blow after the manner of Alexander,[323] or of any such combination of archers and heavy infantry as we find in mediaeval warfare.
The subject, however, is still obscure, and it is more satisfactory to turn to the part played by the auxilia in frontier defence, concerning which the archaeological research of the past twenty years has established more certain conclusions. In the frontier policy of the first two centuries we can trace two opposing tendencies at work, each of which is reflected in the disposition of the troops and the duties required of them. At the death of Augustus the Empire had as yet reached hardly any of its natural boundaries, although by means of the system of client kingdoms and ‘protected’ tribes it was asserting its claims and intentions in much the same fashion as the powers of modern Europe are doing in Africa to-day. The first century therefore witnessed on almost every frontier a period of expansion of greater or less duration, in which the sphere of direct administration was gradually pushed forward until some physical or political obstacle was reached which necessitated either a halt or a forward policy on a much larger scale. Throughout this period military operations were always imminent; in Britain, for example, between 50 and 85, the garrison marched out almost every spring, either for a campaign or a military demonstration. In winter, therefore, or in times of peace, the frontier armies were so disposed as to be able to take the offensive at a few days’ notice. The legions often lay in pairs, while many of the auxiliary regiments, instead of being scattered over a wide area, as was the case later, were concentrated at a few strategic points. The extent to which this system was adopted varied, of course, with local conditions, and a few regiments always occupied more isolated positions, but as a whole the auxilia of a province were far more easily mobilized than later when each regiment had its own castellum. On the Rhine frontier Haltern and Hofheim furnish examples of these large hiberna, dating from the beginning and the middle of the first century respectively,[324] and we find the same system continued for the defence of the Taunus district annexed by Domitian.[325] There is, indeed, here a chain of forts on the frontier, but they are of small size, with an average area of only 1½ acres. The bulk of the auxilia lay some way behind the frontier, in forts which held some two or three regiments apiece.[326] In Britain we have traces of a similar system at the same date. The ‘Agricolan’ fort at Barr Hill is a frontier post which would require some two centuries at most for its defence, while the early fort at Newstead, which was probably occupied from about 80 to 100 or later, could accommodate at least 1500 men.[327] The essentially temporary nature of such hiberna is emphasized by the character of their defences, which usually consist simply of an earth wall or palisade, little more elaborate in construction than the vallum which an army in the field was expected to throw up round its camp after a day’s march.
In provinces whence archaeological evidence is not forthcoming, inscriptions indicate the same system. From Spain, for instance, we have an early inscription referring to an officer who held command over four cohorts,[328] and a similar brigade of three cohorts appears at Syene in Egypt in the reign of Trajan.[329] On the Danube frontier von Domaszewski has concluded from the epigraphical evidence that Aquincum and Arrabona each held two alae in the first century.[330]
This period of expansion may be considered to end with Trajan’s annexation of Dacia and his failure a few years later to execute a similar forward move on the Eastern frontier. With the accession of Hadrian a new policy begins, which advertised by the elaborate character of its defensive measures that the imperial government was firmly determined to renounce all further schemes of aggression, a determination which was adhered to until the power of decision lay no longer in Roman hands. The outward signs of this new spirit were the abandonment of the old hiberna, and the removal of their garrisons to stone forts of a new type, each arranged to hold no more than a single unit, which were placed at more or less regular intervals along the frontier instead of behind it.[331] The auxilia, that is, were transformed from a potential field army into a frontier police.
This policy of passive defence depended, of course, for its success upon the extent to which the frontier could be made defensible. Fortunately by this date it lay for the greater part of its length along positions of great natural strength. The Rhine, Danube, and Euphrates, when guarded by a continuous line of forts and watch-towers,[332] and patrolled by flotillas of guard-boats, formed a serious military obstacle to a raiding force, an obstacle even more dangerous to its retreat than its advance. The desert frontiers of Africa and Arabia were more easily defended, since the routes by which a hostile force could advance were limited in number and the defence could concentrate upon them, and the same of course holds true of the southern frontier of Egypt.
There were, however, districts where such natural obstacles did not exist, as in the case of the trans-Rhenane territory, which was divided between Germania Superior and Raetia, and the northern frontier of Britain, and here Hadrian had recourse to the expedient of erecting artificial barriers, which he hoped would serve the same purpose.[333] In the former case the frontier was defended by a palisade and ditch, which were later supplemented by an earth mound in the German section and replaced by a stone wall in Raetia.[334] On the British frontier, between the Tyne and Solway, the existing remains are those of a stone wall, although there are also traces of a wall of turf, which may have been an earlier work.[335] A turf wall also defended the more advanced line between the Firths of Clyde and Forth, which was occupied between 140 and 180.[336] The southern line in Britain in its most perfect form was guarded by a stone wall seventy-three miles long. This wall was between six and nine feet thick, and probably stood originally about twelve feet high. In front of it, except where the precipitous nature of the ground rendered such an additional defence unnecessary, ran a wide ∨-shaped ditch. At intervals of about every Roman mile stood a stone block-house, and between every block-house two towers. The mile-castles contained barrack accommodation for about fifty men, and reveal abundant traces of continuous occupation.[337] The garrison of about eleven thousand men lay in stone forts of the ‘cohort’ size, the majority of which are actually on the line of the wall, although a few, which probably belonged originally to an earlier system of defence, are a short distance behind it. The average interval between the forts is some six miles, so that it was easily possible for each regiment to man the adjacent towers and mile-castles and retain a considerable force at head-quarters. In addition to the troops actually stationed on the line of the wall, there were other regiments in outpost forts to the north and in the forts which guarded the three roads leading south to the legionary fortresses of Chester and York. The ends of the line were also guarded against flank attacks from the sea by forts at South Shields and on the Cumberland coast. If, then, we include all troops within three days’ march of the wall, the total force available for its defence probably exceeded twenty thousand men. Taking also into our calculations the natural strength of the position, we may safely say that this was the strongest and best guarded of all the frontier barriers.
The trans-Rhenane frontier, which extends for over three hundred miles from Rheinbrohl on the Rhine to Eining on the Danube, was defended by the same methods, although in certain sections the forts were more widely separated and the garrison was proportionately weaker. There were also fewer troops within call immediately behind the frontier line. Here also, between the cohort forts, stone ‘Zwischenkastelle’ and ‘Wachttürme’ furnished additional safeguards.[338]
This whole system of frontier defence has been much criticized, and the limitations and possibilities of these artificial barriers must be carefully determined.[339] To take the negative side first, they could not, of course, be defended against unexpected attack, like the walls of a town, unless the assailants were only a small raiding party numbering some twenty or thirty men. On the other hand, in spite of the parallel of the ‘Customs Hedge’ in India,[340] it seems unlikely that fiscal considerations played any large part in determining the government on their construction. They doubtless acted, when built, as a check on smuggling, but the expense of their maintenance would have been quite out of proportion to the value of the trade done with the German or British tribes.
The first purpose which they served was to furnish a screen behind which patrols could march in comparative safety, both by day and night, and keep the whole line under constant surveillance. Thus the passing of a hostile force could be instantly reported by messenger or signal[341] to the nearest castella, whence detachments could at once start in pursuit. Secondly, whereas the defenders nearly always had a mounted force close at hand drawn either from the alae or the numerous cohortes equitatae, the raiders would probably be unmounted, since their start would be lost if they delayed to fill up the ditch and make a gap in the barrier large enough for their horses.[342] This barrier, too, had to be crossed again in retreat, and presented a very serious obstacle to a force encumbered with booty. Indeed, the defenders might reserve the great part of their forces for this moment, as is recommended by Byzantine military writers describing similar conditions.[343]
This sketch of the methods of defence employed applies more particularly to the German and Raetian frontiers. In Britain, more particularly on the southern line, it is probable that a more serious defence was intended. In the first place, the massive stone wall, on which the defenders could stand, was obviously stronger than anything on the trans-Rhenane section.[344] Secondly, we have noted that the garrison was stronger than in Germany, and could be more easily reinforced. Moreover, even after the final abandonment of Scotland, forts were still held in front of the southern line. Netherby on the Esk, and Habitancium (Risingham) and Bremenium (High Rochester) on Dere Street, were occupied by cohortes miliariae equitatae well into the third century, and at the last two forts we find a numerus exploratorum attached to the regular auxilia.[345] These strong outposts would have been able to check or harass the enemy’s advance and give warning to the garrison of the wall of any impending attack.
All these suppositions, however, both as regards Germany and Britain, are based upon the assumption that a raid would be the sole subject of the attacking force, and that it would not be too numerous to be dealt with by the garrisons of three or four castella. To a more serious invasion the resistance offered was much less effective. The legions, it is true, still remained in reserve, but they formed the only concentrated force at the disposal of the defending general, for the majority of the auxilia, scattered as they were along the entire length of the frontier, could not be quickly concentrated, and a provincial garrison can rarely have taken the field at anything like its full strength. The system also created serious difficulties when it became necessary to send troops from one province to the aid of another. Three regiments, for example, could not easily be sent from Germany to Pannonia, because each of them constituted an essential link in the chain of frontier defence. It became the practice, therefore, to form out of detachments drawn from several regiments a composite vexillatio in which efficiency must have been greatly diminished by lack of esprit de corps. A cavalry vexillatio of this type commanded by a certain Lollianus, probably during the Parthian war of Trajan, was drawn from no less than five alae and fourteen cohortes equitatae.[346]
In defence of the system it would probably have been urged that on every frontier the hostile forces were equally dispersed and far less easily concentrated, and that a combination of the Celtic or Teutonic tribes would be heard of long before it was ready for action. The existence of the league which attacked and for a time broke through the Danube frontier in the reign of Marcus was certainly known to the imperial government, and the local governors succeeded in delaying the crisis until the return of the vexillationes which had been sent to the eastern frontier, with whose aid they hoped to be able to cope with the situation.[347] Their calculations were upset by the havoc wrought in the army by the plague which these troops brought with them. Even so the danger was eventually surmounted, and the frontiers were on the whole successfully maintained for nearly a century more.
But the full consequences of this system cannot be perceived without some consideration of the changes which it brought about in the conditions of military life and their effect upon the general morale and condition of the troops. A very important point to notice is their immobility. Already in the first century there was, except for the officers, no regular system of transfers, and only an important change in the military situation caused troops to be sent from one province to another. In fact such changes were frequent, and considerable transfers took place, particularly during the Flavian period and the wars of Trajan. From the accession of Hadrian onwards, however, such movements cease almost entirely. During the following hundred and twenty years hardly a legion changed its position and the auxiliary regiments remained almost equally stationary.[348] We can trace regiments which remained literally for centuries in the same province and for the greater part of the time were in the same castellum. Of the twenty-one cohorts and alae which are mentioned by the Notitia Dignitatum as forming part of the garrison of Britain, fifteen are shown by the evidence of diplomata to have been in the province long before the end of the reign of Hadrian; and two more, which occur in a diploma of 146, are probably only not mentioned earlier because they were creations of that emperor and had consequently no veterans ready for discharge until after his death.[349] Similarly the Cohors V Lucensium et Callaecorum was in Pannonia at least from 60 to 198, the Cohors I Hemesenorum from 138/46 to 240, and the Ala III Augusta Thracum from 148 to 268/71.[350] The best instance, however, is that of the Cohors II Ituraeorum Felix. This regiment is placed by the Notitia in Egypt, and other evidence shows it to have been in the province in 147, 136, 98, 83, and probably 39.[351] As this section of the Notitia seems to date, at the earliest, from the beginning of the fifth century the regiment was probably quartered in the same province for at least three hundred and twenty years.[352]
Evidence of continued stay in one castellum is naturally more difficult to find, but the way in which the names Ulpius, Aelius, and Aurelius follow one another on a series of inscriptions of the Ala I Ulpia Contariorum from Arrabona in Pannonia Superior suggests that the regiment remained there throughout the second century, and the title Antoniniana shows that it had not moved before the reign of Severus Antoninus.[353] At the fort of Veczel in Dacia the Cohors II Flavia Commagenorum has left inscriptions dating from the reigns of Hadrian, Marcus, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, and Philip, which cover practically the whole period during which the province was in existence.[354] In Britain a remarkable series of dedications from Amboglanna (Birdoswald), which has already been referred to, shows that the Cohors I Aelia Dacorum was stationed there from about 211 to 271.[355]
Had the practice of employing a secondary title derived from the name of the reigning emperor commenced before the third century it would probably be easy to prove stays of much longer duration. The figures given above must certainly be taken as a minimum. A second-century auxiliary could thus make himself at home in his quarters in the practical certainty that, with the exception of a few temporary absences as member of a vexillatio, he would spend the whole of his twenty-five years of service patrolling the frontier on each side of his castellum.
In considering the life which the frontier guards would lead under these conditions we must remember that the character of the auxiliary soldier in the second century had changed considerably since the force was first organized by Augustus. In the early first century enrolment in the Roman service had little effect on the levies of wild tribesmen who composed the greater part of the auxilia at this period. They might be organized in Roman fashion, but the military qualities which they displayed and their whole manner of fighting were inherited from their ancestors. Promptam ad pericula nec minus cantuum et armorum tumultu trucem is Tacitus’s description of a cohort of Sugambri employed in Thrace in the reign of Tiberius, and in like fashion the German cohorts of Caecina’s army shouted their war-songs and rattled their shields beneath the walls of Cremona.[356] In the second century all this was changed: the progress of Romanization had raised the majority of the provincials, even in the frontier districts, to a level of culture which placed them far above their ancestors of three generations back, although they might still seem barbarous to a cultured Greek or Italian.[357] In the conditions of the service there was nothing to prevent the auxilia from participating in this general advance, and the soldiers who spent the best years of their lives in these little frontier stations gathered around them all the amenities of provincial life which would have been found in any country town in the neighbourhood. On the sheltered side of the fort a civil settlement, technically known as the canabae, quickly sprang up, and soon contained as many inhabitants as the fort itself, if not more. It was here that the soldiers placed their wives and children, that retired veterans settled near their old comrades, and traders erected their shops. A bath-house or two and a few small shrines, particularly those dedicated to the popular military cults of Mithras, ‘the Unconquered Comrade,’ and Juppiter Dolichenus satisfied the highest material and spiritual needs.[358]
At the fort of the Saalburg, where such a settlement has been carefully explored, an area of something like seventy-five acres was covered with buildings and gardens. Shrines dedicated to the Mater Deum and to Silvanus and Diana have been found, as well as those of Mithras and Juppiter Dolichenus, and two others remain as yet unidentified. On the outskirts, here as elsewhere, lay the cemetery with its inscribed sepulchral monuments, the chief source of our information on so many points of military life.[359] On the British wall no canabae have been so carefully explored as those on the German limes, which is the more to be regretted since the buildings are usually in a better state of preservation; but it is still possible to see near the fort at Borcovicium (Housesteads) the terraces on which a scanty crop was raised, while the remains of buildings extend down the hill from the fort at the top to a small Mithraeum in the valley.[360] At Cilurnum an elaborate bath-house was erected for the use of the soldiers of the Ala II Asturum on the banks of the Tyne, and further excavation would doubtless show that it did not stand alone. Where excavations have not taken place the existence of these and other buildings is testified to by inscriptions. At a fort on the Lower Rhine we even find the praefectus repairing at his own cost the regimental clock.[361]
The married quarters mentioned above require a few words of explanation. Numerous critics of the Roman army have assumed not only that celibacy is a valuable military ideal, but that it was actually attained until Severus issued his famous edict permitting soldiers to marry while still on active service.[362] Previous to this it is assumed that they had no relations with women but those of the least binding description. Seeck, indeed, has carefully explained that the ‘children of the camp’ could not have been reckoned upon as a valuable source for recruits, because the rate of mortality is notoriously higher among illegitimate than legitimate children.[363] This theory is sufficiently refuted by the fact that, as we have seen, nearly fifty per cent. of the recruits for the Legio III Augusta in Africa were giving castris as their birthplace long before the reign of Severus.[364] A recently discovered edict of Domitian has shown further that such unions were sufficiently permanent to be officially recognized by the government during a soldier’s period of service, although only legalized at his discharge.[365] The effect of Severus’s edict was merely to anticipate this act and give legal sanction to existing and perfectly well understood social conditions. Practically the change was probably of small importance, since it seems fairly clear that married quarters were not allowed inside the fort walls after this edict any more than before it, nor were married men allowed to remain permanently outside. Cagnat has shown that the arrangement of the internal buildings of the legionary fortress at Lambaesis, which are proved by epigraphical evidence to have been still existing in the third century, is entirely opposed to such a supposition, and to the general theory, which has often been advanced, that from the time of Severus onwards such a fortress became merely a club-house and exercise ground for the greater part of the troops.[366] These arguments are concerned only with the legionaries, but they are worth introducing because the erroneous views here discussed have often been made to apply to the army as a whole. In the case of the auxilia, indeed, there was never any justification for their acceptance. The evidence of the diplomata was always sufficient to show that even in the first century the auxiliary soldiers, like the legionaries, formed family ties during their period of service which were officially recognized on their discharge.[367] The same picture is given by early sepulchral inscriptions, of which the following, from the Pannonian fort of Teutoburgium, may serve as an example:
‘Ti(berio) Cl(audio) Britti f(ilio) Valerio, dec(urioni) alae II Aravacorum, domo Hispano, annor(um) L, stip(endiorum) XXX, et Cl(audiae) Ianuariae coniugi eius et Cl(audiae) Hispanillae filiae vivis ex testamento Flaccus dec(urio) frater et Hispanilla filia heredes faciundum curaverunt.’[368]
This tendency towards matrimony was naturally intensified by the more settled life of the second-century auxiliary. The systematic investigation of the cemetery attached to one of these permanent garrisons reveals as orderly a family life as could be found in any country town of the peaceful inland provinces. The following inscriptions, which are drawn from different parts of the Empire, are but few among many which might be advanced to support this contention.
xiii. 6270. From Borbetomagus in Germania Superior:
‘Faustinio Faustino Sennauci Florionis fil(io) mil(iti) coh(ortis) I F(laviae) D(amascenorum), ped(iti) sing(ulari) cos(consularis), Gemellinia Faustina mate(r) et Faustinia Potentina sor(or) her(edes) secundum volumt(atem) testamenti pos(uerunt). Vixit ann(is) [XX]V, decidit in flore iuvent(utis). Faciendum curaverunt.’
iii. 10257. Teutoburgium in Pannonia Inferior:
‘M. Ulp(ius) Super dec(urio) alae Praetoriae c(ivium) R(omanorum), ex s(ingulari) c(onsularis), ann(orum) XXXII, stip(endiorum) XVI h(ic) s(itus) e(st). M. Ulp(ius) Similis sesq(uiplicarius) alae I c(ivium) R(omanorum) frater, et Ulpia Siscia soror, fratri pientissimo iuventutiq(ue) eius,’ &c.
iii. 10609. From Pannonia Inferior: exact provenance unknown:
‘D(is) [M(anibus)] Ael(io) Victorino ann(orum) XXX, stip(endiorum) XIII, dupl(icario) al‹a›e I T(hracum) v(eteranorum), et Ael(io) Liciniano an(norum) XII, filis pient(issimis) Ael(ia) Flaviana infelic(issima) mat(er) et sibi v(iva) p(osuit).’
I. G. R. R. i. 1350. From Talmis in Egypt:
τὸ προσκύνημα Γαίου Ἀ[ννέ]ου ἱπέως χώρτης αʹ Θηβ(αίων) ἱππικῆς τύρμης Ὀππίου, καὶ Οὐαλερᾶτος ἰατροῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ Ἀρρίου υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ Κασσία[ς], καὶ Οὐαλ[ερί]ας, καὶ Ἐπαφρῦτος [καὶ] …ρᾶτος τοῦ ἵππου [αὐτοῦ].[369]
These examples alone show how far from reality are Seeck’s licentious mercenaries and their neglected bastards. In fact the suggestion of many critics that celibacy is a valuable military ideal, which was attained, at any rate partially, until the relaxation of discipline by Septimius Severus, proceeds upon false lines. In a short service army, like those of modern European states, in which the whole time of the men is necessarily occupied in learning their military duties, such an ideal is practical enough. In the Roman Empire the adoption of a professional army with a service of twenty-five years put it beyond the power of any government to enforce such monastic conditions, and the facts of the situation were, as we have seen, never misunderstood by the imperial authorities.
This is, of course, far from saying that the resulting state of things was all that could be desired. The long service system is, on this account, open to serious objections in principle, and these objections are intensified when we consider the lines on which this system developed. The second-century auxiliary, encouraged by the settled conditions of his service to form matrimonial ties, with his wife and children comfortably settled just outside the fort walls, is perhaps a more satisfactory spectacle from the moral than the military point of view. Military service in the same regiment had not yet become actually hereditary, because the enfranchised son of the auxiliary was advanced a step in the social scale and enabled to take service in the legions. When, however, in 212 the Constitutio Antoniniana swept away a distinction which had long ceased to have any real basis in a difference of race or culture, this obstacle was removed.[370] Two sepulchral inscriptions of the Cohors I Hemesenorum, so often referred to, illustrate this change. The first is erected to a veteran of this cohort and to two sons and a grandson who had taken service in the neighbouring legions I and II Adiutrix, while in the second we find the son of a veteran from the latter legion who has taken service in the auxiliary cohort.[371]
It has already been noticed that the system of frontier defence organized by Hadrian made it difficult either to concentrate rapidly the garrison of a province at one point, or to send reinforcements from one province to another. The more settled the auxiliary regiments became, and the more local ties they formed, the more difficult did it become to order any dislocation of troops on a large scale.[372] In fact when Severus Alexander granted to the frontier garrisons any adjoining territory which had been captured from the enemy, insisting at the same time that their heirs could only inherit it on condition of military service, this act was the natural culmination of a long process of development which had transformed what had once been the finest field army in the world into a rural militia.[373] Unfortunately just as this development was completed and the result stamped with the seal of official approval, the emperors of the third century found themselves faced by new military dangers of a type with which the old system was least fitted to cope.