08-05-2006, 05:23 PM
Caesar doesn't use the term levis armatura very much, but when he's referring to his own troops, it seems to be to describe the allied troops who are fighting with him, most of whom have been raised largely in the broad area in which he is campaigning, though some have come from further afield such as the Numidian troops in BG 2.24. Enemy troops can also be described in that way (BG 7.80).
The Caesarian corpus uses the term more regularly and at B.Afr. 59 mentions more Numidians, armaturas leves Numidasque auxiliares.
Troops fighting for Rome described as levis armatura appear to be non-legionary troops, and the term may have been used as a convenient alternative to auxiliares in the late Republic when there are no permanent auxiliary units anyway. Except when Caesar is referring to the light-armed German infantry who fight in concert with the cavalry, there is little indication of how they were armed or fought (they are usually differentiated from slingers and archers), but it is clear that they were not usually expected to fight as close order infantry in the front line of hand-to-hand combat.
Caesar also employed legionaries from the front ranks (antesignani) for operations requiring swiftly moving soldiers (BC 3.75; 3.84). In Africa, where his troops experienced considerable difficulties against skirmishing tactics of Labienus, he reportedly ordered 300 expediti (unencumbered, swift-moving) soldiers from each legion to be ready to counter Labienus’ attacks (B.Afr. 75. How precisely these soldiers differed in their equipment and armour to their fellow legionaries is unclear, but basically they’re fulfilling the role that would previously have been that of the velites, and they may have been necessary because Caesar lacked trustworthy auxiliary infantry who could have otherwise taken that role.
Livy doesn’t mention levis armatura, Tacitus refers to expeditae cohortes on a few occasions who may or may not have been legionary cohorts being employed in a way similar to Caesar’s above. Basically, historians, regardless of the extent of their military experience, tend to be less specific than we would like in their use of vocabulary to explain different troop types: perhaps they didn’t think it mattered; perhaps we are too used to the specificity of modern military vocabulary and want something similar for the ancient world. And then there’s also translations from the Latin and Greek, and different interpretations of the vocabulary used…
It may be that the translators are using ‘heavy infantry’ to translate legiones? Can’t really tell unless you can provide a reference to a specific example!
Mike - a word-search has revealed no mentions of gravis armatura in Latin literature dating to before c.AD 150.
Apologies if this is slightly garbled - had to break off half way through to go sort out a colleague's chickens!
Kate
The Caesarian corpus uses the term more regularly and at B.Afr. 59 mentions more Numidians, armaturas leves Numidasque auxiliares.
Troops fighting for Rome described as levis armatura appear to be non-legionary troops, and the term may have been used as a convenient alternative to auxiliares in the late Republic when there are no permanent auxiliary units anyway. Except when Caesar is referring to the light-armed German infantry who fight in concert with the cavalry, there is little indication of how they were armed or fought (they are usually differentiated from slingers and archers), but it is clear that they were not usually expected to fight as close order infantry in the front line of hand-to-hand combat.
Caesar also employed legionaries from the front ranks (antesignani) for operations requiring swiftly moving soldiers (BC 3.75; 3.84). In Africa, where his troops experienced considerable difficulties against skirmishing tactics of Labienus, he reportedly ordered 300 expediti (unencumbered, swift-moving) soldiers from each legion to be ready to counter Labienus’ attacks (B.Afr. 75. How precisely these soldiers differed in their equipment and armour to their fellow legionaries is unclear, but basically they’re fulfilling the role that would previously have been that of the velites, and they may have been necessary because Caesar lacked trustworthy auxiliary infantry who could have otherwise taken that role.
Livy doesn’t mention levis armatura, Tacitus refers to expeditae cohortes on a few occasions who may or may not have been legionary cohorts being employed in a way similar to Caesar’s above. Basically, historians, regardless of the extent of their military experience, tend to be less specific than we would like in their use of vocabulary to explain different troop types: perhaps they didn’t think it mattered; perhaps we are too used to the specificity of modern military vocabulary and want something similar for the ancient world. And then there’s also translations from the Latin and Greek, and different interpretations of the vocabulary used…
It may be that the translators are using ‘heavy infantry’ to translate legiones? Can’t really tell unless you can provide a reference to a specific example!
Mike - a word-search has revealed no mentions of gravis armatura in Latin literature dating to before c.AD 150.
Apologies if this is slightly garbled - had to break off half way through to go sort out a colleague's chickens!
Kate
