Quote:What DID those tin caned legionairs actualy do?
They built forts and dug latrines Folkert! :wink:
Overall, it appears that in set-piece battles legions and auxiliaries had very different roles. The decisive part of the conflict was at the centre with the heavy infantry while the auxiliaries contributed in a variety of lesser roles around it. The composition and size of an auxiliary unit normally meant it was not well suited to this pitched conflict of the legions but was best in a supporting role although this must not underestimate their importance. Cavalry and light infantry come into their own in smaller conflicts and skirmishes but on occasion, as Tacitus demonstrates at Mons Graupius, the auxiliaries challenge the modern assumption that set-piece battles relied on the legions.
Somewhere in between skirmishing and full-scale battles lay smaller conflicts. A Chattan raid in upper Germany was met by German levies, sent out in two columns. Both parts won victories, one in an open engagement (Annals 12.27-28). Apronius facing a Frisian rebellion used his forces, mainly auxiliaries, in a piecemeal fashion, sending units into fight at intervals but with disastrous results (Annals 4.73). During a Thracian rebellion auxiliaries were used to counter marauding and plundering Thracian rebels (Annals 3.39) and auxiliary
cavalry and infantry were used to defeat the raiding Garamantes (Histories 4.50). Not every campaign had a large-scale confrontation involving the legions, some campaigns, such as
the struggle with the rebel Tacfarinas in Africa, whose tactics may have been influenced by
is experience as an auxiliary soldier.
It is clear that Tacitus, and to a limited extent Josephus, show that certain aspects of warfare were carried out by the auxiliaries with little or no input from the legions. These roles have, perhaps, been underestimated and somewhat neglected in modern scholarship, probably due to the vagueness of the source material about them because of their minimal importance to historical narratives.