01-26-2001, 12:38 PM
Salve,<br>
<br>
The auxiliaries consisted of a wide variety of different troops, some regular, some irregular (hence the bewildering variety in names used for such troops, as evident in Saddington's writings on the auxiliaries). While the Roman army used in the main professional regiments of long serving troops, some additional troops were regularly recruited for shorter periods of time. Some of these would develop into regular formations, but others were dismissed when no longer required. Mercenaries were one of the solutions for addressing short term demands of extra manpower, in addition to use of allied troops and irregular levies.<br>
<br>
In my view the translator is not correct in his assumption that the Roman army did not use mercenaries and Josephus was wrong. The view is probably derived from a second century laudatory speech in which it is claimed that Romans did not use mercenaries. Their employment was probably part of special emergency measures to meet short term manpower needs and not a regular feature. They would have the advantage of providing extra fighting men at short notice (perhaps even already armed and with some measure of training as well) and would not require the extra expense incurred for discharge benefits for the regular troops (as would happen with recruitment of volunteers and conscripts for the regualr army units).<br>
<br>
A further argument against rejecting the notion of mercenary forces in the first century of the principate is the fact that it would not have stood out as particularly peculiar. It was done both during the republic and in later centuries of the impirial period, so a reference to recruitment of mercenaries in the intervening first century CE should surely not need to be dismissed.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
The auxiliaries consisted of a wide variety of different troops, some regular, some irregular (hence the bewildering variety in names used for such troops, as evident in Saddington's writings on the auxiliaries). While the Roman army used in the main professional regiments of long serving troops, some additional troops were regularly recruited for shorter periods of time. Some of these would develop into regular formations, but others were dismissed when no longer required. Mercenaries were one of the solutions for addressing short term demands of extra manpower, in addition to use of allied troops and irregular levies.<br>
<br>
In my view the translator is not correct in his assumption that the Roman army did not use mercenaries and Josephus was wrong. The view is probably derived from a second century laudatory speech in which it is claimed that Romans did not use mercenaries. Their employment was probably part of special emergency measures to meet short term manpower needs and not a regular feature. They would have the advantage of providing extra fighting men at short notice (perhaps even already armed and with some measure of training as well) and would not require the extra expense incurred for discharge benefits for the regular troops (as would happen with recruitment of volunteers and conscripts for the regualr army units).<br>
<br>
A further argument against rejecting the notion of mercenary forces in the first century of the principate is the fact that it would not have stood out as particularly peculiar. It was done both during the republic and in later centuries of the impirial period, so a reference to recruitment of mercenaries in the intervening first century CE should surely not need to be dismissed.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
