Gallic and western archers in the roman army?

[Anonymous]

Hello!<br>
<br>
I'm looking for info's about the units (cohortes or numeri) of western archers among the roman auxiliary forces of the early empire; I found some indications that there were several units of Gallic archers, but there was no mention about their name or organization, if those were cohortes or numeri, and which numeration they had among the Gallic auxiliary troops.<br>
Can you help me?<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Lucianus <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Welcome to the board!<br>
<br>
A quick look through the index of Spaul's Cohors 2 shows no Gallic (or any other) western Cohortes specifically named 'sagittaria'. The westermost one is Cohors I Thracum Sagittaria. The Cohors II Classica Sagittaria was (probably) originally raised as Cohors II Classica in Forum Iulli (southern France) and got its new designation when it moved to Syria. <p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thanks a lot!<br>
<br>
Probably some people with "Gallic archers" could mean the Ruthenian archers in service in Caesar's army, but I found no data on Ruthenian regular troops in the imperial army; it seems that the Rutheni (maybe neither of Celtic origin) remained through the centuries one of the less romanized tribe of Gallia Aquitania, so it's possible that they could provide some numeri to the army, like the less romanized or barbarian tribes (like the Balearic slingers); ...but these are only hypothetical assumptions!<br>
<br>
Salve,<br>
<br>
Lucianus, from Interamna Nahars (today Terni, Umbria, Tacitus' home: like Umbrian I could be recruited for the Cohortes Praetoriae... <p></p><i></i>

[Richomeres]

As far as I know the Gauls, or Celts at all for that matter, were not great archers (as for example the Scythians or later the Huns). Vercingetorix could only muster a small contingent of archers at Alesia and this body was composed of men from all over Gaul.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Helge<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/urichomeres.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Richomeres</A> at: 7/29/02 6:52:10 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Avete!<br>
Reading some inscriptions, I found two "western" units of targeters: one of bowmen, and one other of crossbowmen; note that in other iscriptions the same units haven't any denominations related to their particular weaponry, so I can suppose that a lot of units were armed with long range weapons, also if in the iscription there is no word about that; probably, the writers often used a minimum of words to identificate a unit, only to show the appartenance to a corps rather that to one other: they never had the intention to leave to the posterity a document on the armament or the skill of a particular unit.<br>
<br>
...here the units, both from Spain:<br>
- Cohors III Bracaraugustanorum sagittaria<br>
- Cohors I Fida Vardullorum milliaria ballistarium<br>
<br>
...and the documents:<br>
<br>
Imp(erator) Caesar divi Nervae f(ilius) Nerva [Traianus] / Optim(us) Aug(ustus) Germ(anicus) Dacic(us) Parthi[c(us) pont(ifex) max(imus) / trib(unicia) pot(estate) XX imp(erator) XIII proco(n)s(ul) co(n)s(ul) VI p(ater) p(atriae) / equitibus et peditibus qui militaverunt in alis / quattuor et cohortibus decem et quattuor quae appe[l]lantur I Hispanor(um) Auriana et I Aug[usta] Thrac[um] sag(ittaria) et I / singularium c(ivium) R(omanorum) P(ia) F(idelis) et II millia[ria P(ia) F(idelis) et I Flav[ia] Canathenor(um) |(milliaria) sagittar(ia) et I Breucor(um) c(ivium) R(omanorum) et I et II Raetor(um) / et II Aquitanor(um) c(ivium) R(omanorum) et III Bracar[augustanor(um)] sag(ittaria) et III / Thrac(um) veter(ana) et III Thrac(um) c(ivium) R(omanorum) et III [Britannor(um) equit(ata) et] II<i> / Batavor(um) (milliaria) et IIII Gallor(um) et V Brac[araugustanorum] / et VI Lusitanor(um) et VIIII Batavorum (milliaria) quae sunt / in Raetia sub L(ucio) Cornelio Latiniano quinis et vice/nis pluribusve stipendiis emeritis dimissis / honesta missione quorum nomina subscri/pta sunt ipsis liberis posterisque eorum civ<i> tatem dedit et conubium cum uxoribus quas / tunc habuissent cum est civitas iis data aut / si qui caelibes essent cum iis quas postea duxis/sent dumtaxat singuli singulas a(nte) d(iem) XVII K(alendas) Sept(embres) / L(ucio) C[o]s[o]nio Gallo / [D(ecio Terentio Genti]ano co(n)s(ulibus)<br>
<br>
Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) M(arco) Aur(elio) [Seve]ro Alex[andr]o P(io) F(elici) Aug(usto) matr(i) imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) et cas(trorum) coh(ors) I f(ida) Vard(ullorum) / m(illiaria) S(everiana) A(lexandriana) ballis(tarium) a solo re[sti]t(uit) / sub c(ura) Cl(audi) Apellini le[g(ati)] Augg(ustorum) / instante Aur(elio) Quinto tr(ibuno)<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
</i></i> <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Good job of looking up some sources, but in the second text the <i> ballistarium</i> is an <i> accusativus singularis</i> (fourth case singular) and an object that the cohort has rebuilt. If the <i> Vardulli</i> would have consisted of <i> ballistarii</i>, the term would have been either <i> ballistariorum</i> to correspond with the <i> genetivus pluralis</i> (second case plural) <i> Vardullorum</i> or a <i> nominativus singularis</i> (first case singular) <i> ballistaria</i> to match <i> cohors</i>.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Interesting problem with that first named document, a diploma of August 116 CE (AE 1995, 1185). Apparently there were two units III Bracaraugustanorum, existing in parallel, one in Britain, one in Raetia (this one). Neither of these units is ever called sagittaria except in the above diploma.<br>
But there may be hope (or it's even more difficult), there's another diploma for Raetia with the same date: RMD 155. There the unit is named simply III Br[acaraugstan(orum) et (7) ...] As can be seen, on the original diploma, only III Br is displayed, the rest is restored in its most probably form. And since that first diploma was not available at the time, the restoration could be incorrect. So perhaps III Bracaraugustanorum was an archers' unit for a while (or was officially designated as such for a while). <p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

...I was so happy of finding a unit of crossbowmen, that I made a wrong translation of the document! ...I translated "ballistarium" like the genitivus pluralis of "milites ballistaries(!)" in place of "milites ballistarii" ...sorry!<br>
Thanks again.<br>
<br>
Lucianus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Avete!<br>
About the presence of large numbers of bowmen in Gaul Caesar wrote:<br>
<br>
Caesar, "de Bello Gallico", liber septimus-XXXI<br>
...sagittariosque omnes quorum erat permagnus in Gallia numerus conquiri et ad se mitti iubet.<br>
<br>
...and (Vercingetorix) ordered to collect and send him all the bowmen who were present in great number in Gallia.<br>
<br>
Caesar to explain the quantity of archers use the superlative form "permagnus numerus", not simply "magnus numerus", so we can assume that the Gallic bowmen are considerably numerous.<br>
<br>
In the Notitia Dignitatum we can find the following units of western archers, all from Gaul and Belgian-German tribes along the Rhine:<br>
<br>
Notitia Dignitatum, West<br>
Auxilia Palatina:<br>
-Sagittarii Nervi<br>
-Sagittarii Tungri<br>
-Sagittarii Nervi Gallicani<br>
<br>
Notitia Dignitatum, Est<br>
Auxilia Palatina:<br>
-Sagitarii seniores Gallicani<br>
-Sagittarii iuniores Gallicani<br>
<br>
I read that the "comitatenses" units of the late empire were often raised from previous auxiliary cohortes, so some cohortes of Nervi, Tungri, and Galli of the early empire were probably composed of archers, in spite of the lack of any specification in the name of the units reported in the diplomas.<br>
<br>
In my opinion the Celts/Gauls were numerous and traditionally good archers: I can remember the Welsh longbowmen of the middle ages, probably the last surviving example of the Celtic skill in archery.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Lucianus. <p></p><i></i>