Login

04-04-2001, 11:01 PM

Is there any evidence of Britons, and even Caladonians ever being in the ranks (any ranks) of the mighty Roman army?

04-05-2001, 05:05 AM

Salve, 
 
There were some units recruited from Britons (best known are the irregular units of Brittones stationed at the southern German limes) as well as men recruited individually into other units. There was a preference for local recruitment and many of the ethnic titles of units would no longer reflect the actual origins of its men once it had been posted away from its original area of recruitment. Though many works state that eastern archery units continued recruitment from their homelands, the evidence for that is in fact not existant. 
 
Evidence for explicitly recruitment of troops from present Scotland that I know of is fourth century CE in date, a number of units of Attecotti are listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, a late Roman source including an army list. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

04-09-2001, 08:36 PM

you could try an short article 
"The Roman Army in Britain and The Britons in the Roman Army" B Dobson 1973

04-10-2001, 03:28 AM

Hmm...At the risk of over-simplifying, couldn't it be argued that, at least as early as the close of the 1st C. B.C.E., most of the Roman army was made-up of foreigners? Also, by the term "foreigners", what are we talking about, non citizens or recruits from outside Rome (or Italy)? Foreign-born sons of time expired auxiliaries who joined the legions? Again, not to over simplify but, as citizenship was required to join a legion, then there were no "foreigners" in the army (legions). We have to establish what the Romans considered foreign to properly answer the question, at least in terms of army recruitment. ...or not.Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=thecaesariansection>The Caesarian Section</A> at: 4/10/01 5:29:35 am

JRSCline · 04-10-2001, 04:30 AM

That's a very good point Section. Well-taken. We'll have to have a look at one or another of the authors who've done studies on recruitment for the numbers, but you're surely right, the army of the empire was certainly less ethnically Italian than that of the preceding centuries -- dramatically so. Now that is not so much the case for the Rome cohorts, which being in Rome with less rigorous living conditions, a shorter enlistment period, better pay, and better promotion prospects, were a more attractive service option for urban Romans.

04-10-2001, 06:10 AM

Salve, 
 
A problem with defining Roman vs foreigner is indeed a difficult subject. The definition of Roman is one that shifts with time towards a legal or political definition (someone possessing citizenship) rather than ethnic. A Roman would have considered the Italic socii foreign at the start of the first century BCE, whereas an imperial guardsman from the third century could consider the citizen troops of the provincial armies as belonging to a barbarica legio. In this respect it is also notable that the troops of the Rhine armies, according to what available evidence there is still containing recruits from northern Italy (or is it simply so that only those recruits would leave written testimony?), were considered a foreign band by the Italic population in AD 69 (read Tacitus's Historiae). Even their commander was wearing trousers and a multicoloured (probably Celtic style cheques and stripes) cloak. 
 
Names are often given a prominent role in distinguishing Roman from provincial and foereigners (ie from across the frontiers). It is little help that troops were apparently given a Roman name on entry in service in the first centuries of the principate. A soldier with the tria nomina need not have been Romanised, it might be that army clerks just had too much difficulty writing his original name down. Ethnic names are becoming more common in the third century CE in inscription even for recruits from territories long within the imperial borders (eg Thracians with names like (Aurelius) Mucapor, Diza and Mucatra) which appears to indicate a shift in administrative practice, perhaps just a sign of enough clerks of Thracian extraction that could finally get the names right. There is also the problem that recruits from the provincials could come eiher from indigenous origin or descend from settled veterans from Italy. To some extent this can be traced back by comparison of names (eg Italic nomen gentilicium or specific cognomen, but in early inscriptions often just praenomen and nomen are used and part of northern Italy ( Gallia Cisalpina) received citizenship only very late, so there is a problem with eg a simple C. Iulius. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

04-11-2001, 08:12 AM

Salve, 
 
Given the distinct preference for local recruitment discernable for the forces stationed in the provinces, enlistment of Italic recruits into the cohortes praetoriae would be exactly what is to be expected. Even apart from the better service conditions such as the higher pay and shorter term of service, Italians should reasonably have dominated the ranks. Does anyone know what the origins of the Italic guardsmen were, were they predominantly from Rome itself or from the Italic countryside? 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst 
 
PS 
 
While reading in Alston's Soldier and society in Roman Egypt (table 3.4 on page 45) on my way to work I noticed that the mortality rate for Rome and Italy reduced survival rates compared to the provinces. That appears to indicate that service with the cohortes praetoriae may have been a mixed blessing. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 4/18/01 7:43:59 am

JRSCline · 04-18-2001, 03:46 PM

We agree, Sander, but for different reasons. I follow the view that the Praetorians quite deliberately recruited their membership in Rome from Romans who were anything but provincial. Provincials were in the urban Romans' view uncouth and savage, barely regarded as Roman and certainly not respectable in the main. Given this prejudice, why indeed would the Praetorians recruit from beyond the pomerium, let alone beyond the Po and Padus? These were cultured, urbane men of the sword who probably spent very little time actually in military kit, when one stops to consider how much time even legionaries and auxiliaries spent away from the colors on various missions and leave. 
 
Legionary pay was certainly respectable, and given that Praetorians' pay was several times that of the legionaries' we should expect that they'd be able to afford the best of everything available to the soldier class, indeed the most privileged class below the knights and nobility. Pampered Praetorians surely would have enjoyed better access to medical care and of a higher standard perhaps than otherwise available to common civilians, as well as better food, and considerably softer living and training conditions than those of the frontier. 
 
Alston's table is constructed from a non-military specific data group, judging from his cited source. I suspect the numbers for urban Rome are skewed lower than surrounding Italy by higher infant mortality and a generally poor standard of living in crowded conditions, where communicable diseases must have been devastating particularly for the young and old, thus dragging down life expectancy. There is no reason to extrapolate a corresponding decrease in Praetorian life expectancy on this basis, as the Lambaesis data set in Alston's table is the only one that he notes as deriving solely from military evidence. (Cf Speidel, Riding for Caesar, pg 88-89.) 
 
Evidence for the urban Romans' disdain for provincial soldiers can be readily seen at their negative reaction to Severus' replacing the old Praetorian Guardsmen with his own rugged legionaries, fresh from the frontier and let loose on the city, surely the first time most (except some of the centurions perhaps) had ever seen Rome. Reaction: riotous excess on the soldiers' part, shock and digust on the civilians'. 
 
The funny thing is that nothing has changed. Every time a unit of U.S. Army soldiers comes back into garrison after an extended training period in the field, the younger members of the unit invariably go out and make messes in the town surrounding the fort. 
 
It's a bit different when the community depends on the fort for economic survival -- as true of Killeen, Texas -- where more than 150,000 Fort Hood soldiers and their families live -- as of any Roman vicus. In that case, the community learns to live with soldierly excess, and channels it into a "strip" of bars, topless clubs, liquor stores, and other sordid storefronts designed to separate soldiers from their paychecks. 
 
But imagine a battalion of field-weary, bored soldiers let loose on posh Beverly Hills, say. Think of the sort of trouble they would get into, with their unrefined habits, outlandish accents, and strutting braggadacio. Now imagine Severus' cocky new Praetorians, new to Rome after years of understimulation on the frontier... Some things just don't change! 
 
I think it's reasonable to assume that Beverly Hills would prefer to recruit its military garrison, if it had one, from a bit closer to home than the alien redneck world of typical military enclaves in the American South. Why would Rome have been much different? 
 
E EM Posts like these are the reason I rarely post -- I run off at the mouth! 
 
Cheers, 
 
Jenny

04-19-2001, 06:19 AM

Salve, 
 
There is certainly no objection to long posts from my side. The more discussion, the better. 
 
The evidence available certainly points to a prejudice for men of Italic origin or descent (provincials from colonies of decent Italic stock in Spain and Macedonia) prior to the reign of Septimius Severus. Yet transfer of legionaries occurred even before the Severans (eg in the year of the four emperors) which must have added a provincial element to the guard. 
 
The praetorian guard was envied by the provincial troops, as expressed in the description of the grudges of legionary mutineers in Tacitus, though I am inclined to think that their service record is underrated by some modern publications. They regularly took to the field in major campaigns even before the third century, participating in expeditions involving imperial relatives (such as Germanicus), emperors (eg the invasion of Britain with Claudius, reign of trajanus and Marcus Aurelius), or praetorian prefects (the disastrous defeat against the Dacians under Domitianus) as well as operating against rebellious army units (year of the four emperors) or banditry in Italy. At least parts of the cohortes praetoriae would see active service from time to time. While they may have been spared the dull duty of patrolling the frontiers, they were used in high intensity warfare. In this respect they are clearly an elite unit which even today are spared from more mundane duties and primarily used for the more dangerous missions: to use a modern parallel, the 82nd Airborne has seen action in every major action over the last few decades spearheading assaults (Grenada, Panama, Gulf, aborted drop Haiti), but regular infantry like the 10th Mountain do the extended peacekeeping tours of duty (Somalia, Haiti). An elite strategic reserve is still recalled at the earliest opportunity to be in readiness for the next major operation. Using troops only for the tasks which are valued more highly (combat vs patrolling) preserves their elite status and their high morale. 
 
The survival rate for praetorians seems to have been higher than the average in urban Rome, but below that of Lambaesis (50 to 60%). City life was probably still unhealthier than in the provinces. Tacitus for instance remarks on Vitellian troops from Germany and Gaul falling sick and alcohol is described as a problem of the City troops. 
 
One of the things I have been wondering about is the extent to which deductions from the praetorian pay would have reflected the higher costs of living in Rome (from what is known about price levels for food in Italy and Egypt the average costs of living were higher (transport costs/greater demand)). Troops in general were priviledged by having to pay less than market rates for horses and the praetorians enjoyed the added benefits of equipment provided free of cost for the duration of service and, at least for a time, a free monthly grain allowance. Yet other costs were deducted from military pay against what seem non-standard rates which appear to point to actual costs rather than subsidized amounts being used. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

05-07-2001, 09:20 PM

Very interesting, does anyone know then which unit was the best, Im talking results not reputation, although I can see that in history reputation counts for alot and bias would effect historical record. but surely there must be records that say this unit won so many battles etc, and which front line leader was the best? 
Thanks. 
Peter

05-14-2001, 09:32 AM

Salve, 
 
It is difficult to establish a different criterion than reputation for measuring a unit's effectiveness. Is for instance a unit that kills more hostiles more effective than one that will have the enemy avoiding combat altogether ? Also it would be difficult to say a particular unit was best when taking a long period of time into account such as the history of the Roman army. Circumstances differed and it would be exceedingly problematic to rate units from different periods against each other. Thus it is difficult to rate republican units versus early imperial units and late Roman formations. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me