@@paprskomet Correct. Because they're rarely ever talked about, you have to actually dig around for information on them. Yet the legionaries are always talked about, hence most people know little about the Auxilia in comparison.
@@ajstevens1652 Although I do agree that legionaries are definitelly more in popular awarness,you don´t really have to dig to gain informations about Auxiliaries.You can gain such informations as easily as on Legionaries-certainly in books.
It is important to note that roman generals often preferred to use Auxilia units in combat. In this way, it was possible to report that not a "single citizen" died in battle.
seems like a weird reason once the aux units started getting citizens who preferred a more familiar role, one they were raised in, that that of the legion proper.
The Auxiliary Infantryman was one of the highest quality & most successful warriors in history. Like Phillip of Macedon they were/are overshadowed by the proximity to one of the greatest. They were professional soldiers who served for a standard term of 25 years(20 years active and 5 years reserve duty) in the Roman Army. Roman Auxilia were often thrown straight into the meat grinder without a moment’s hesitation and those that survived the experience would have been quite the formidable warrior. If they were honorably discharged(finished the 25 years without committing any serious crime) then they would be granted Roman citizenship. It was one of Rome’s great accomplishments to consistently produce such large numbers of high quality troops from conquered peoples...that became assimilated in the process. It is interesting to think of the difference between the Auxilia and the later Rome foederati. Both were non-Romans enlisted in the army….the Auxilia was a successful institution and the later foderati was ultimately a failure. One was carried out in a methodical fashion and the other wholesale enlistment of non-Roman tribes on a large scale, was definitely less successful. Later Roman leaders did have a much tougher situation to deal with...so perhaps the comparison isn’t quite fair. I suspect that Caracalla’s watering down of the privilege of Roman citizenship, may have diminished a powerful incentive that had proved effective in earlier times. When Roman citizen was no longer special, citizenship could not be used to motivate.
@Turaglas We don't know if the De Re Militari is accurate in that respect, or if it's one of those "good ole days" rose-tinted nostalgia glasses type works. The training of earlier Roman infantry (eg. mid to late Republic for example) was actually ad hoc, inconsistent, and was not really standardized because it was up to each general /commander who raised the army through volunteering or levy (ie. conscripted) to train them.
@Turaglas We don't know if the De Re Militari is accurate in that respect, or if it's one of those "good ole days" rose-tinted nostalgia glasses type works. The training of earlier Roman infantry (eg. mid to late Republic for example) was actually ad hoc, inconsistent, and was not really standardized because it was up to each general /commander who raised the army through volunteering or levy (ie. conscripted) to train them.
@@madhurawat155 The Foederati seems to more resemble the early to mid Republican era "Ala" military troops who were conscripted from the Socii, Roman's Italian military allies. Those Italian allies were in a loose confederated agreement with had a military treaty with Rome, but were quasi-autonomous from Roman rule and their people were not Roman subjects. They rebelled or declared independence from Rome multiple times (including even joining Hannibal in his invasion of the Italian pennisula)...eventually culminating in the Social War where they were finally granted Roman citizenship. For the most part and for most of the Republic, the people of the Socii were not treated like Roman subjects and were not under the rule of the Romans...considered more like Italian foreigners.
The one thing I always notice is the topographical detail in your maps, I've never seen another content creator display them this way. I don'y know enough to know how accurate the actual shown geography is but the aesthetic is appreciated at least!
Good video, very efficient use of time also. It was interesting how once former enemies of Rome on the Italian Peninsula, who after being invested in the Roman system, were quite loyal to Rome when the Second Punic War arrived. Hannibal thrashed Roman army after Roman army. He expected these other cities, after seeing Rome get crushed repeatedly, would back him and get a chance at revenge against the Romans. To Hannibal's big surprise that did not happen to the extent he was hoping for. For most parts they stayed loyal to Rome, which absolutely confounded Hannibal. Also good catch in how the Romans posted men afar from where they were recruited it. As you said it helped make them prefer Rome as an idea and institution they were invested in, when they were in some far away land with different people, culture. It also made it easy for them to put rebellions down in a bloody fashion if needed. They're not killing their friends and neighbors back home. They were people they didn't know.
I read a letter in university of a Roman citizen's letter to his father upon his successful enrollment into the auxilia. During the height of the Empire, the army was so well regarded and provisioned for that they had such strict entry requirements, that some prospective Roman citizens joined up with the auxilia instead. Pretty neat.
Not to mention, the bilateral transfer of soldiers and officers. for example, an optio in a legion who was awaiting for promotion, but there was no slot, as it was a peaceful period or the that the soldier was injured but not to the extent that warranted a discharge, the optio could take a promotion to a centurion in a auxilary unit. Not all soldiers completed their 25 years of service in the same legion.
@@badfoody The Numidians did not use bows on horseback. They used javelins. Numidian cavalry was used by Hannibal to invade Italy, but there isn't any evidence the Romans used them in Germany. Why would you bring cavalry that is unfamiliar with the terrain and is not acclimatized to the conditions when you can hire local cavalry that is?
@@badfoodythe majority of Roman cavalry were from Mauretania-Numidia so that would be at least in part historically accurate (although tmk Germanic mercs were used instead for cavalry for the legions guarding Germania)
@@ultra-papasmurf No, the majority of LIGHT cavalry was Numidian. Almost all Roman cavalry wore armor (except for Numidians) so they were not considered light. In the Republican period, most of the cavalry was citizen (equites) or allied Italian (Campanian, Bruttian, Lucanian etc.) After the Second Punic War, there was an increasing use of non-Italian Auxilia. The composition of these forces varied depending on area and time period. Most of the cavalry in Caesar's campaigns were Gauls and Germans but most of the cavalry used in Africa was Numidian. Eastern armies could include Equites Sagittarii and Clibanarii. No broad generalization can be applied to something as varied as Roman Auxilia.
I was at work when you posted this video. I couldn't wait to get to see it! I can't thank you enough for producing & posting all your content. Kudos!!!
When you see how important the access to citizenship was to spreading Roman culture by use of auxilia, it really hammers home how much the general granting of citizenship near the end really would have damaged the stability of the empire. The emperor mortally wounded a good part of his armies with that action.
Dude I love this channel and its art so much. Especially I love your use of maps and your narration. Everything about this channel is amazing. Every upload is a treat for me.
Very good and enjoyable. I have delved some into the Auxiliary as I have a story idea involving them, and this provides a much broader context to build on
I really liked your video. If I can make a request I would love to see you describing the transition of the late second and early third century legionnaires in terms of tactics and equipment so that they later were hard to distinguish from a Auxiliary trooper. Round sputum, Niederbieber helmet etc…
In the end, the Romans were smart and resourceful society-wise. That is their true fundament. They were able to adapt themselves as well as others to form a unified political entity. Something we today struggle a lot at because we replaced core values with identity politics.
So I am a recent subscriber and have been binge-watching your videos. I especially like the longer format of the Minoan video. You do a great job, keep at it! Do you plan on doing a video on say the Etruscans or maybe evem the Kelts? Kind regards!
An example of these troops were Arminius, a once Roman cavalryman, turned Chief who used his status as a Roman client to betray them at the Teutobourg Forest.
2:11 *The **_Marian Reforms_** did visibly upset the hitherto relaxed Roman citizens* ... domestic politics was about to grow tense... Watching the formidable visualization one could get the idea that the shift in equipment and fighting style is simply a reflection of the auxilia corps, left standing (barbarization, prevalence of spearmen, reminiscent of the early 'hastati' - and mounted units) - while Roman citizenry dodged military service and taxation whenever possible. That's not that evident from historiography or archeological finds that I could remember, but thinking about it, strikingly _plausible_ . Although the shift may also reflect a more skirmish and raid oriented warfare along the Rhine and Euphrates, favoring a combined force with greater numbers of light infantry and massed light cavalry (e.g. Aurelian) with pitched battles, favoring heavy infantry in close combat, being the exception. Despite Romanization by Latin language, Italic customs and Rome's legalism, regional traditionalism prevailed, especially visible in the localized bids for Caesarian rule - with the central power of the Roman Senate rather being the prize than an authority (e.g. Constantine having been declared Caesar by fellow legionaries in Britain). One could argue that the inflationary use of Roman citizenship in order to broaden a military recruitment base inevitably undermined the actual civil rights as the expansion of 'imperium' had lead to gross exploitation of provinces, funding costly political elections by corruption, creating mismanagement and resentment of the political center in Rome - a state of affairs upon which barbarian kingdoms like e.g. the Iberian Visigoths or Roman Ostrogoths could capitalize, later.
Please made a video about the the Barbarian Kingdoms (Ostrogoth and Visigoth Kingdom, Frankish and Vandal Kingdom, Langobard and Burgundian Kingdom, Saxons and Alemanni). Or made a video about the nomadic Iranian peoples (Saka, Massagetae, Scythians, Issedones (the Wusun), Tocharians (Yuezhi Kushan Empire), Hephthalites, Sarmatian, The Alans (Yancai and Kangju), Sogdia and Iranian Chorasmia.
I feel like the real question is "why wasn't almost all Rome's army auxillaries?" As the Persian empire used an army mostly made up of the people's it conquered, as the Hellenistic states eventually did.
@@thatdoppioguy1825 I'm not saying it's bad I'm just saying that it's worth noting that large armies made up mostly of conquered people's were common for the time.
The legionary commander in his legion took amber heard's side, so he said fuck it and transferred to the auxillia to be with the people of his homeland
I think the Romans switching to arming ALL their Legions and military personel like the Auxiliaries was a mistake. The Romans best advantage, aside from having a massive and well founded and established state to produce the highest quality(of the day) Weapons and Armor and food and other logistics for them, pay included of course, as well as their highly acclaimed fortification and entrenchment skills(and building a well defended camp every single night after every single march, and doing it in the span of a few hours because each man in the legion was so used to it), but their best BATTLEFIELD skill by far was the fact that the Legions WERE Heavily armored, heavily armed SWORDSMAN; the Pilum being used as a shock weapon to be discharged right before impact(and not the legionaries main weapon on the battlefield), the Gladius, a fantastic cut and thrust sword(they were taught to mainly thrust ESPECIALLY while in close order formation, but they were also trained to cut; and this is proven by all the severed arms and legs and heads when the Romans fought with the Macedonians after they defeated Hannibal Barca and Carthage in that war, when they went to punish Philip, the first(or second) battle that the Roman Legions had with the Macedonians and their Greek allies left a TON of dead Macedonians and Greeks on the field afterward, and the civilians who wandered the battlefield after the battle(and this was a thing...until actually fairly recently, until modern warfare actually; Civilians would go to battlefields simply for the entertainment value of checking out the carnage and seeing and trying to guess how each man was killed) who saw the severed heads and arms and legs were HORRIFIED; and it was very clear that they had never seen ANYTHING like that before. Since the Macedonians and Greeks sword, the Xiphos that thin thrusting "sword" that was more like a long knife than sword - way moreso than the gladius which was much longer and much heavier - and their outwardly curved sword(I forget that oness name; but the movie 300, that hollyweird movie, the Spartans(and Athenian and greek allies) are all seen using these types of swords) were never more than strict sidearms for the Greek/Macedonian forces. Even the cutting sword they used wasnt used by many when they could use their sarissa pike instead, which needed to be used in formation of course; or with the Greek mercenaries, they had a 1 handed spear same with the more elite macedonian infantry they would put on the flanks to cover openings in the formations, so those guys would ONLY stop using their spear and draw their sword if their spear broke or something, or the enemy was just too close to effectively use their spear on them. But the Romans were ALL swordsman. And the shock of what an ARMY of highly trained super badass Legionary Swordsman could do to an enemy army in terms of what the enemy bodies will look like AFTER the battle was QUITE different from the stab wounds inflicted by spears and pikes formations. Those could also be pretty horrific wounds but they werent lopping peoples arms and heads off. That's what terrified the macedonians and Greeks about the Romans "Gaulish" or "Spanish" Sword as they called it. And, honestly, throwing a Pilum(or even just a regular Javelin) at 30 feet from the enemy THEN drawing the sword and engaging; that hail of javelins would kill some guys outright and wound others and would pierce the shields of most others, sometimes even rendering the shield useless, or not useful IN TIME, because the legions would close in RIGHT after throwing their javelins, not giving them time to extract the Pilum from their shields. The Roman Legions huge Scutum Shields were also amazing and fit the legions role VERY well. It was heavy and sturdy and could take most blows without any significant damage to the shield itself, and anything that got past the shield would likely be deflected off the soldiers armor(GOOD armor being standard issue in the Roman forces, legionary and auxiliary alike, was also a BIG advantage) but it was also heavy enough(and had a brass/iron boss/round ball with one side cut off and hollowed out) that it could be used to smash into someones face or body and throw them off balance(if not knocking them out in one hit if the boss part of the shield struck their head) then the sword used to finish them off. The Romans equipping all their men with spears in the later parts of the Roman Empire, just before its downfall, was a BIG mistake in my opinion. It made the legions FAAAR less aggressive and frankly, no different from the other armies of the day(barbarians included) other than the fact that they were in general better equipped; and in general better trained(but training had also been declining as less and less Romans were caring about those important details). It made it so they didnt have that NEED to close the distance to sword range(where MOST of their enemies would be at a SEVERE disadvantage since MOST of their enemies were spearmen too) and could stand like 4-6 feet away and just poke at someone. When the Romans made the spear their armies main weapon it automatically made them FAR more defensively oriented. This hurt them SOOO bad and I think its safe to say it led to many of their later defeats. The spear is certainly more flexible in terms of the enemies and situations a spearman can deal with, at much greater range; but a spear is MUCH easier to defend against(for a shielded and armored warrior) than a Sword like the Gladius(and later, the Spatha, which would become the basis for all European swords for the next couple thousand years, like the medieval 1 handed arming sword for instance, or Viking swords....those are basically Spatha's but with a limited handguard/hand protection), and the angles a spear can attack from are MUCH more restrictive than the angles a sword can attack from. I think the Romans should have KEPT their legions as primarily Swordsman; and I think they should have only had like a "triarii" equivalent in the Auxiliaries that would be using actual spears, and have the rest use their swords instead, coupled with a Scutum not that much thinner shield the Auxiliaries used; but still kept advancing the quality and quantity of their heavy cavalry their cataphracts, and trained them in the Byzantine way like they later did, where the cataphracts could shoot as good as the Parthians with a bow, as well as being armed and armored enough to actually act as heavy cavalry and engage with the enemy with their lances and swords(if the lance broke; the lance/spear was always the best horseback weapon for many reasons; the momentum of the horse is what provides the piercing and stopping power rather than the arm swing of the soldier using it, he just had to aim and time it well; which was still very hard of course, but not THAT hard fo heavily trained cataphracts). In short: if the Romans had been equipping and training and using their Legions and Auxiliaries, for the infantrymen, the way that Roman Infantry had fought since the hannibalic wars at least but prob MUCH earlier...I dont remember the exact date when the maniples replaced the phalanx other than during one of the samnite wars...but if the Romans had kept their infantry as HEAVILY armored and armed Swordsmen who were trained to throw heavily Javelins right before engaging the enemy with their Swords and Shields but STILL kept evolving their horsemen so that they would be a match for the fantastic Persian cavalrymen, and so they could fight in pretty much ALL ways(even on foot if necessary...I think they carried small bucklers both for that purpose and also for engaging on horseback with their swords like in a melee), I think the Roman state would have steamrolled many of the issues it faced. Justinian might have even taken back Italy, provided he didnt get too jealous of Belisarius. He may even have taken back Gaul and Britannia at some point too. Pompey conquered the ENTIRE EAST and made them all Roman states with his army of swordsman and he was facing mostly armies composed of spearmen in the Macedonian style(Pikes), or the Greek style(Spears), and vast armies of Cavalry both light cavalry and heavy. Pompey is called the Great for a good reason but I think his superior army also played a huge part not just his impressive generalship and operation planning. The Roman Empire started falling apart at a rapidly accelerating rate WHEN the Romans adopted Spears and rounder shields and more defensive minded tactics for their infantrymen. And in the 3rd and 4th centuries its clear that the cavalry arm was more respected and regarded as more dangerous than the Roman Infantry of the day, which would be unthinkable in the earlier empire. Its not like they had never faced spears before. I just dont know why they gave up such a heavy advantage(the shock of having an army of swordsmen unleashed on you after eating a hail of armor and shield piercing javelins) in order to play defense. And moreover only the homegrown Cavalry could truly be trusted; the ones the state spent TONS of money and time training. The Auxiliary cavalry ESPECIALLY people like the Huns and later the Germans(they would traditionally recruited as infantrymen; later on they would also be recruited as cavalry as well), depending on the tribe of course, but they had a tendency to be more susceptible to bribes and similar activities than actual Romans who couldnt just run to the other side of the Rhine or go past the black sea areas and be perfectly fine with no possibility of effective pursuit, with all their moneybags, if they betrayed their commander for money.
"The western half of the Empire suffered a slow, agonizing, painful death. But the East persevered... until 1453 when it suffered a slow, agonizing, painful death." ngl i chuckled
10:18 I think it makes more sense that Romans didn't want to let foreigners into the higher prestige jobs and there was some pressure to prevent that, rather than they preferred being in the worse jobs.
Please also study about the (Sinauli) Gangaic Civilization which is 2500 BCE to 1500 BCE old found in Sinauli (Before the so called Aryan Migration) , Facts about it :- -A Vedic horse Chariot was found in it (In 1949 a British Archeologist Stuart Piggot Published the the design of a Chariot as described in the Vedas). -It has been proved that Chariot was not pulled by Bulls since the angle of the Draft pole was very low to the ground which would not be suitable for Bulls . -Sinauli is one of the 5 districts asked by Krishna from Duryodhan to avoid the War of Maha-Bharat . -It has been recorded to be the largest burial site in Asia of the Chalcolithic period . -The warriors had been burried in accordance with the Vedic Rituals (You might think that we have to burn acc to Vedic rituals but this not the only case acc to Rig Veda in conditions of water crisis ,absence of a certified Brahmin there are several rituals that can be performed by normal people to burry the person with pots containing butter & grains with weapons on its Royal burrial side with specific directions as per the Vasu Shastra which was exactly similar to which was found in Sinauli ). -It was parallel civilization to the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization . -'Yum'(Lord of Karma) portraition were embedded on it appreciating the dead person to choose Mortality over Immortality. -The Rig Veda mentions Sarasvati river but it dried out completely after 3000 BCE. -They had weapons made of bronze and copper such as Antenna swords, recurved bow , pointed head gear (A mentioned in Mahabbharat), Wooden Jigsaw Shields with copper plating ,and vedic pottery. -The weapons were made of copper but the fact is that copper is not found in entire region of U.P. (State of India where Sinauli is located) (Even the Weapons were made in accordance with the Dhanur-Vedam (Book of Vedic warfare)) . -Gold ornaments even more designer than the SSC . -Looking Ahead Buddy .
Great video as always, I was looking through your videos because I wanted to watch a video on the history of Taiwan and I could have swore that I remember you doing a video about Taiwan, am I just miss remembering or did you take the video down, and if so are you going to make another video about the history of Taiwan ?
Great one! All this leads perfectly into the relative decline of the late Roman Army, more Auxilia bc they cost less with the effect of a less professional less well organized army, more mixed cohorts for local anti-warparty defense. A more defensive army in the 4th century on for an empire on the back foot. Perhaps the Roman Legions morphed into Auxilia legions? This also tracks with the less frequent use of lorica segmentata equipped
if everyone's a citizen nobody is the moment everyone is granted citizenship another, likely less achievable factor determines your social status, making everyone a citizen was one of those short term solution long term problems people talk about, because how do you now incentivise service? before you could do it with a low pay, promise of loot and the priviliges of citizenship post service, but now you wil just need to pay more and deal with fewer people being willing to risk life and limb since the benefits are not there
If a citizen son who chose to be in the Auxilia changed his mind and wanted to be a legionary instead could he apply for a transfer and retrained as a legionary?
Interesting question. I would think he would be able to do so. But I would also guess that his years in the Auxilia would not carry over towards the 25 years to get the full Legionary retirement bonus and land grant. Or he would get a smaller bonus and land. So for example if he had 5 years experience as an auxilia, he could join a legion but his year 6 would count as year 1. Or it would count as year six but he would get 76% of the retirement bonus and a piece of land that was a quarter smaller.
Roman Enlistment Centurion: NEXT! Cretan Civilian: Good morning Centurion. Roman Enlistment Centurion: OK. what special skills can your people offer the Roman Legion? Cretan Civilian: Well our men are known for running really fast at bulls and jumping over them. Roman Enlistment Centurion: Hmmm......sounds very entertaining but not very useful in combat. What else have you got? We are only taking men with battle skills. Cretan Civilian: Let's see.....when I was a boy I shot a bow at summer camp. Roman Enlistment Centurion: Great! ( writes on enlistment rolls ) Cretan men are all expert Bowmen. Suggest they be taken into Auxilia Legion. NEXT!
The legions get all the credit, but these guys conquered the empire after the initial gains. Citizenship, land grants, and good pay were great incentives. I would have joined up under those terms. Not being Romans made them less likely to support Roman usurpers. That the legions later took the form of the earlier Auxilia should say something about their effectiveness. I'm also not sure why the Praetorians weren't disbanded sooner, it should have been obvious to every emperor from Claudius onward that they were a huge threat to Rome
I believe so. Additionally, I believe that is one of the reasons why Roman commanders usually deployed them on the flanks, to prevent the legionarys from being flanked by enemy cavalry.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Finally! No one talks about the Roman Auxillary, one of the main driving forces behind a lot of their victories
No one? That's huge exaggeration.
@@paprskomet They are rarely ever talked about except in passing. Always overshadowed by the legionaries.
@@ajstevens1652 That actualy heavilly depends on how limited your sources are.
@@paprskomet Correct. Because they're rarely ever talked about, you have to actually dig around for information on them. Yet the legionaries are always talked about, hence most people know little about the Auxilia in comparison.
@@ajstevens1652 Although I do agree that legionaries are definitelly more in popular awarness,you don´t really have to dig to gain informations about Auxiliaries.You can gain such informations as easily as on Legionaries-certainly in books.
It is important to note that roman generals often preferred to use Auxilia units in combat. In this way, it was possible to report that not a "single citizen" died in battle.
A great example is the battle of Mons Graupius. The legionaries just stayed in reserve while the Auxilia routed the Caledonians by themselves.
Really? Is this the reason)
seems like a weird reason once the aux units started getting citizens who preferred a more familiar role, one they were raised in, that that of the legion proper.
Seems nothing changes that is why countries like to use mercenary companies in modern times
The art of generaling in the modern sense really started with the Romans in this capacity
The Auxiliary Infantryman was one of the highest quality & most successful warriors in history. Like Phillip of Macedon they were/are overshadowed by the proximity to one of the greatest.
They were professional soldiers who served for a standard term of 25 years(20 years active and 5 years reserve duty) in the Roman Army. Roman Auxilia were often thrown straight into the meat grinder without a moment’s hesitation and those that survived the experience would have been quite the formidable warrior. If they were honorably discharged(finished the 25 years without committing any serious crime) then they would be granted Roman citizenship.
It was one of Rome’s great accomplishments to consistently produce such large numbers of high quality troops from conquered peoples...that became assimilated in the process.
It is interesting to think of the difference between the Auxilia and the later Rome foederati. Both were non-Romans enlisted in the army….the Auxilia was a successful institution and the later foderati was ultimately a failure. One was carried out in a methodical fashion and the other wholesale enlistment of non-Roman tribes on a large scale, was definitely less successful. Later Roman leaders did have a much tougher situation to deal with...so perhaps the comparison isn’t quite fair. I suspect that Caracalla’s watering down of the privilege of Roman citizenship, may have diminished a powerful incentive that had proved effective in earlier times. When Roman citizen was no longer special, citizenship could not be used to motivate.
Great summary! I wonder if their engagement in overthrowing Emperors and helping to bring new ones to power is shown in the records.
@Turaglas We don't know if the De Re Militari is accurate in that respect, or if it's one of those "good ole days" rose-tinted nostalgia glasses type works. The training of earlier Roman infantry (eg. mid to late Republic for example) was actually ad hoc, inconsistent, and was not really standardized because it was up to each general /commander who raised the army through volunteering or levy (ie. conscripted) to train them.
@Turaglas We don't know if the De Re Militari is accurate in that respect, or if it's one of those "good ole days" rose-tinted nostalgia glasses type works. The training of earlier Roman infantry (eg. mid to late Republic for example) was actually ad hoc, inconsistent, and was not really standardized because it was up to each general /commander who raised the army through volunteering or levy (ie. conscripted) to train them.
But there's a *huge* difference between Auxilia and Foederati. Former were mostly non-citizen Roman subjects, while latter were completely foreigners.
@@madhurawat155 The Foederati seems to more resemble the early to mid Republican era "Ala" military troops who were conscripted from the Socii, Roman's Italian military allies. Those Italian allies were in a loose confederated agreement with had a military treaty with Rome, but were quasi-autonomous from Roman rule and their people were not Roman subjects. They rebelled or declared independence from Rome multiple times (including even joining Hannibal in his invasion of the Italian pennisula)...eventually culminating in the Social War where they were finally granted Roman citizenship. For the most part and for most of the Republic, the people of the Socii were not treated like Roman subjects and were not under the rule of the Romans...considered more like Italian foreigners.
The one thing I always notice is the topographical detail in your maps, I've never seen another content creator display them this way. I don'y know enough to know how accurate the actual shown geography is but the aesthetic is appreciated at least!
Good video, very efficient use of time also.
It was interesting how once former enemies of Rome on the Italian Peninsula, who after being invested in the Roman system, were quite loyal to Rome when the Second Punic War arrived. Hannibal thrashed Roman army after Roman army. He expected these other cities, after seeing Rome get crushed repeatedly, would back him and get a chance at revenge against the Romans. To Hannibal's big surprise that did not happen to the extent he was hoping for. For most parts they stayed loyal to Rome, which absolutely confounded Hannibal.
Also good catch in how the Romans posted men afar from where they were recruited it. As you said it helped make them prefer Rome as an idea and institution they were invested in, when they were in some far away land with different people, culture. It also made it easy for them to put rebellions down in a bloody fashion if needed. They're not killing their friends and neighbors back home. They were people they didn't know.
I read a letter in university of a Roman citizen's letter to his father upon his successful enrollment into the auxilia. During the height of the Empire, the army was so well regarded and provisioned for that they had such strict entry requirements, that some prospective Roman citizens joined up with the auxilia instead. Pretty neat.
Not to mention, the bilateral transfer of soldiers and officers. for example, an optio in a legion who was awaiting for promotion, but there was no slot, as it was a peaceful period or the that the soldier was injured but not to the extent that warranted a discharge, the optio could take a promotion to a centurion in a auxilary unit.
Not all soldiers completed their 25 years of service in the same legion.
Do you realize how much better you are than years of the history channel and their millions of dollars budgets? Well done.
I really enjoyed your presentation on the unsung auxiliaries of the Roman army, good job!
Thanks colden! Glad you enjoyed
As a Rome II Total War fan I love the auxilary system. It's awesome I can recruit gallic spearmen and African cavalry and Syrian archers.
Nothing like invading Germany with Numidian Horse archers. Piss off the woke monkeys in Netflix ahahha
@@badfoody The Numidians did not use bows on horseback. They used javelins. Numidian cavalry was used by Hannibal to invade Italy, but there isn't any evidence the Romans used them in Germany. Why would you bring cavalry that is unfamiliar with the terrain and is not acclimatized to the conditions when you can hire local cavalry that is?
@@badfoodythe majority of Roman cavalry were from Mauretania-Numidia so that would be at least in part historically accurate (although tmk Germanic mercs were used instead for cavalry for the legions guarding Germania)
@@ultra-papasmurf No, the majority of LIGHT cavalry was Numidian. Almost all Roman cavalry wore armor (except for Numidians) so they were not considered light. In the Republican period, most of the cavalry was citizen (equites) or allied Italian (Campanian, Bruttian, Lucanian etc.) After the Second Punic War, there was an increasing use of non-Italian Auxilia. The composition of these forces varied depending on area and time period. Most of the cavalry in Caesar's campaigns were Gauls and Germans but most of the cavalry used in Africa was Numidian. Eastern armies could include Equites Sagittarii and Clibanarii. No broad generalization can be applied to something as varied as Roman Auxilia.
these auxillarymen need to be focused more on. glad they're being focused
Roman auxiliary forces: when your cohort is literally a cohort.
Its a good day when Epimetheus uploads
I was at work when you posted this video. I couldn't wait to get to see it! I can't thank you enough for producing & posting all your content. Kudos!!!
When you see how important the access to citizenship was to spreading Roman culture by use of auxilia, it really hammers home how much the general granting of citizenship near the end really would have damaged the stability of the empire. The emperor mortally wounded a good part of his armies with that action.
Kind of teaches you a lesson about today doesn't it?
@@dudebro91-fn7rz very true
Dude I love this channel and its art so much. Especially I love your use of maps and your narration. Everything about this channel is amazing. Every upload is a treat for me.
Love this channel. Was binge watching yesterday before sleep and happy to see a new video uploaded today!
Awesome artwork!
Whohoah! A new Epimetheus material! This day is officialy saved!
Magnificent video, my man!
YOOOO finally someone who has time to work on the "lower troops" yet still just as important as roman legionarys
"Cretian Archers!"
"Archers of Crete!"
“Hoplite Mercenaries!”
“Samnites!”
YES YES YESSS. IM BOARDING A PLANE LOVE TO HAVE THIS TO WATCH ON THE AIR. LOVE YOUUUU
Awesome! hope you have a good flight :)
Very good and enjoyable. I have delved some into the Auxiliary as I have a story idea involving them, and this provides a much broader context to build on
I knew the auxiliary forces were important as in cavalry and ranged units but I didn't know they were half of Rome's manpower
It is always a pleasure to learn from you about HISTORY. 👏
Nice use of the Chaos Symbol from Warhammer.
I really liked your video. If I can make a request I would love to see you describing the transition of the late second and early third century legionnaires in terms of tactics and equipment so that they later were hard to distinguish from a Auxiliary trooper. Round sputum, Niederbieber helmet etc…
It was said that no Roman Consul ever triumphed over the Marsi - and that no Roman Consul ever celebrated a Triumph without them.
You're very talented 😊
Thank you! 😊 I try my best and try to have fun doing it :D
Great video. Beautiful artwork
Another excellent video. I like the clear organization and the drawing was superior.
GREAT VIDEO. I appreciate how much research you do for each video, also, great animations!
This channel slaps so hard
You’re the best of the best Epimetheus!!!!!!
Very enlightning. Keep in making videos. Greetings from gothenburg, Sweden.
always a pleasure to watch your vids!
Good intro!
last time I was this early, the Roman empire still existed
Love your videos man. Keep it up
Your videos are brilliant and informative. The graphics on your platform are wonderful and love your content. Must subscribe
Insightful and informative as always. Thanks
Excellent presentation. Thank you!!
Excellent video! Very well explained. Thank you Very Much!
In the end, the Romans were smart and resourceful society-wise. That is their true fundament. They were able to adapt themselves as well as others to form a unified political entity. Something we today struggle a lot at because we replaced core values with identity politics.
Values are far more important than identity.
Or...what you think is more important, than what you are :)
Yes!!! Just what I needed. Although I saved you to my okay list because I can't listen to you at work... Darn them!
I learned from this video. Thank you Epimetheus!
Great video, very interesting and the visuals are amazing !
As an Auxilia myself it's nice to get this level of attention
3:49 BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
YOOOOO MY HOMIE POSTED!!!!
Great video, thanks
Wow. Great video.
Lol man, your music in this one reminds me of the music from the conan the barbarian movie from way back with arnold
very interesting. keep them coming.
I love your videos. Please make more
hello mr algorithm please put more epimetheus in my recommendeds ty
great video
The French Foreign Legionnaires are kinda like modern days Roman Auxiliaries if you think about it. 5 years of service for a French citizenship.
I would say the foreign legion is more elite.
Awesome video
Glad you enjoyed it :)
Me at 5:12: *sobbing
Me at 5:21: *wailing and crying*
How often do you shave your skröppel a year? 🎉
Welcome back. This video was good 💪🏽👍🏽
5:06 I swear he’s saying the ramen empire
Yay epimetheus uploaded a new video about Rome☺️ Wish Marius would have taken Sulla's place tbh
love ur vids
So gooooood video!
So I am a recent subscriber and have been binge-watching your videos. I especially like the longer format of the Minoan video. You do a great job, keep at it! Do you plan on doing a video on say the Etruscans or maybe evem the Kelts?
Kind regards!
An example of these troops were Arminius, a once Roman cavalryman, turned Chief who used his status as a Roman client to betray them at the Teutobourg Forest.
We need more of this quality videos!!!!!! Can you do a video of battle tactics on century or cohort level?
Fascinating
I like your new intro.
2:11
*The **_Marian Reforms_** did visibly upset the hitherto relaxed Roman citizens* ... domestic politics was about to grow tense...
Watching the formidable visualization one could get the idea that the shift in equipment and fighting style is simply a reflection of the auxilia corps, left standing (barbarization, prevalence of spearmen, reminiscent of the early 'hastati' - and mounted units) - while Roman citizenry dodged military service and taxation whenever possible.
That's not that evident from historiography or archeological finds that I could remember, but thinking about it, strikingly _plausible_ . Although the shift may also reflect a more skirmish and raid oriented warfare along the Rhine and Euphrates, favoring a combined force with greater numbers of light infantry and massed light cavalry (e.g. Aurelian) with pitched battles, favoring heavy infantry in close combat, being the exception.
Despite Romanization by Latin language, Italic customs and Rome's legalism, regional traditionalism prevailed, especially visible in the localized bids for Caesarian rule - with the central power of the Roman Senate rather being the prize than an authority (e.g. Constantine having been declared Caesar by fellow legionaries in Britain).
One could argue that the inflationary use of Roman citizenship in order to broaden a military recruitment base inevitably undermined the actual civil rights as the expansion of 'imperium' had lead to gross exploitation of provinces, funding costly political elections by corruption, creating mismanagement and resentment of the political center in Rome - a state of affairs upon which barbarian kingdoms like e.g. the Iberian Visigoths or Roman Ostrogoths could capitalize, later.
The way you talked is a mess. Try organizing them better
One of the forgotten heroes of Rome
Welcome to the Epimetheus cinematic universe
I missed you!!
Please made a video about the the Barbarian Kingdoms (Ostrogoth and Visigoth Kingdom, Frankish and Vandal Kingdom, Langobard and Burgundian Kingdom, Saxons and Alemanni). Or made a video about the nomadic Iranian peoples (Saka, Massagetae, Scythians, Issedones (the Wusun), Tocharians (Yuezhi Kushan Empire), Hephthalites, Sarmatian, The Alans (Yancai and Kangju), Sogdia and Iranian Chorasmia.
I feel like the real question is "why wasn't almost all Rome's army auxillaries?" As the Persian empire used an army mostly made up of the people's it conquered, as the Hellenistic states eventually did.
Which Empire lasted longer.
@@thatdoppioguy1825 I'm not saying it's bad I'm just saying that it's worth noting that large armies made up mostly of conquered people's were common for the time.
It pretty much was after the 2nd century, especially when recruitment was barred in Italy.
Shoutouts to the auxilia in Total War Rome
Is that Johnny Depp as a Roman archer in the thumbnail?
The legionary commander in his legion took amber heard's side, so he said fuck it and transferred to the auxillia to be with the people of his homeland
Great stuff
7:12 now I want a steak, arrggllhelehhargglehhge steak!
I think the Romans switching to arming ALL their Legions and military personel like the Auxiliaries was a mistake. The Romans best advantage, aside from having a massive and well founded and established state to produce the highest quality(of the day) Weapons and Armor and food and other logistics for them, pay included of course, as well as their highly acclaimed fortification and entrenchment skills(and building a well defended camp every single night after every single march, and doing it in the span of a few hours because each man in the legion was so used to it), but their best BATTLEFIELD skill by far was the fact that the Legions WERE Heavily armored, heavily armed SWORDSMAN; the Pilum being used as a shock weapon to be discharged right before impact(and not the legionaries main weapon on the battlefield), the Gladius, a fantastic cut and thrust sword(they were taught to mainly thrust ESPECIALLY while in close order formation, but they were also trained to cut; and this is proven by all the severed arms and legs and heads when the Romans fought with the Macedonians after they defeated Hannibal Barca and Carthage in that war, when they went to punish Philip, the first(or second) battle that the Roman Legions had with the Macedonians and their Greek allies left a TON of dead Macedonians and Greeks on the field afterward, and the civilians who wandered the battlefield after the battle(and this was a thing...until actually fairly recently, until modern warfare actually; Civilians would go to battlefields simply for the entertainment value of checking out the carnage and seeing and trying to guess how each man was killed) who saw the severed heads and arms and legs were HORRIFIED; and it was very clear that they had never seen ANYTHING like that before. Since the Macedonians and Greeks sword, the Xiphos that thin thrusting "sword" that was more like a long knife than sword - way moreso than the gladius which was much longer and much heavier - and their outwardly curved sword(I forget that oness name; but the movie 300, that hollyweird movie, the Spartans(and Athenian and greek allies) are all seen using these types of swords) were never more than strict sidearms for the Greek/Macedonian forces. Even the cutting sword they used wasnt used by many when they could use their sarissa pike instead, which needed to be used in formation of course; or with the Greek mercenaries, they had a 1 handed spear same with the more elite macedonian infantry they would put on the flanks to cover openings in the formations, so those guys would ONLY stop using their spear and draw their sword if their spear broke or something, or the enemy was just too close to effectively use their spear on them.
But the Romans were ALL swordsman. And the shock of what an ARMY of highly trained super badass Legionary Swordsman could do to an enemy army in terms of what the enemy bodies will look like AFTER the battle was QUITE different from the stab wounds inflicted by spears and pikes formations. Those could also be pretty horrific wounds but they werent lopping peoples arms and heads off. That's what terrified the macedonians and Greeks about the Romans "Gaulish" or "Spanish" Sword as they called it. And, honestly, throwing a Pilum(or even just a regular Javelin) at 30 feet from the enemy THEN drawing the sword and engaging; that hail of javelins would kill some guys outright and wound others and would pierce the shields of most others, sometimes even rendering the shield useless, or not useful IN TIME, because the legions would close in RIGHT after throwing their javelins, not giving them time to extract the Pilum from their shields.
The Roman Legions huge Scutum Shields were also amazing and fit the legions role VERY well. It was heavy and sturdy and could take most blows without any significant damage to the shield itself, and anything that got past the shield would likely be deflected off the soldiers armor(GOOD armor being standard issue in the Roman forces, legionary and auxiliary alike, was also a BIG advantage) but it was also heavy enough(and had a brass/iron boss/round ball with one side cut off and hollowed out) that it could be used to smash into someones face or body and throw them off balance(if not knocking them out in one hit if the boss part of the shield struck their head) then the sword used to finish them off.
The Romans equipping all their men with spears in the later parts of the Roman Empire, just before its downfall, was a BIG mistake in my opinion. It made the legions FAAAR less aggressive and frankly, no different from the other armies of the day(barbarians included) other than the fact that they were in general better equipped; and in general better trained(but training had also been declining as less and less Romans were caring about those important details). It made it so they didnt have that NEED to close the distance to sword range(where MOST of their enemies would be at a SEVERE disadvantage since MOST of their enemies were spearmen too) and could stand like 4-6 feet away and just poke at someone. When the Romans made the spear their armies main weapon it automatically made them FAR more defensively oriented. This hurt them SOOO bad and I think its safe to say it led to many of their later defeats. The spear is certainly more flexible in terms of the enemies and situations a spearman can deal with, at much greater range; but a spear is MUCH easier to defend against(for a shielded and armored warrior) than a Sword like the Gladius(and later, the Spatha, which would become the basis for all European swords for the next couple thousand years, like the medieval 1 handed arming sword for instance, or Viking swords....those are basically Spatha's but with a limited handguard/hand protection), and the angles a spear can attack from are MUCH more restrictive than the angles a sword can attack from.
I think the Romans should have KEPT their legions as primarily Swordsman; and I think they should have only had like a "triarii" equivalent in the Auxiliaries that would be using actual spears, and have the rest use their swords instead, coupled with a Scutum not that much thinner shield the Auxiliaries used; but still kept advancing the quality and quantity of their heavy cavalry their cataphracts, and trained them in the Byzantine way like they later did, where the cataphracts could shoot as good as the Parthians with a bow, as well as being armed and armored enough to actually act as heavy cavalry and engage with the enemy with their lances and swords(if the lance broke; the lance/spear was always the best horseback weapon for many reasons; the momentum of the horse is what provides the piercing and stopping power rather than the arm swing of the soldier using it, he just had to aim and time it well; which was still very hard of course, but not THAT hard fo heavily trained cataphracts). In short: if the Romans had been equipping and training and using their Legions and Auxiliaries, for the infantrymen, the way that Roman Infantry had fought since the hannibalic wars at least but prob MUCH earlier...I dont remember the exact date when the maniples replaced the phalanx other than during one of the samnite wars...but if the Romans had kept their infantry as HEAVILY armored and armed Swordsmen who were trained to throw heavily Javelins right before engaging the enemy with their Swords and Shields but STILL kept evolving their horsemen so that they would be a match for the fantastic Persian cavalrymen, and so they could fight in pretty much ALL ways(even on foot if necessary...I think they carried small bucklers both for that purpose and also for engaging on horseback with their swords like in a melee), I think the Roman state would have steamrolled many of the issues it faced. Justinian might have even taken back Italy, provided he didnt get too jealous of Belisarius. He may even have taken back Gaul and Britannia at some point too. Pompey conquered the ENTIRE EAST and made them all Roman states with his army of swordsman and he was facing mostly armies composed of spearmen in the Macedonian style(Pikes), or the Greek style(Spears), and vast armies of Cavalry both light cavalry and heavy. Pompey is called the Great for a good reason but I think his superior army also played a huge part not just his impressive generalship and operation planning.
The Roman Empire started falling apart at a rapidly accelerating rate WHEN the Romans adopted Spears and rounder shields and more defensive minded tactics for their infantrymen. And in the 3rd and 4th centuries its clear that the cavalry arm was more respected and regarded as more dangerous than the Roman Infantry of the day, which would be unthinkable in the earlier empire. Its not like they had never faced spears before. I just dont know why they gave up such a heavy advantage(the shock of having an army of swordsmen unleashed on you after eating a hail of armor and shield piercing javelins) in order to play defense. And moreover only the homegrown Cavalry could truly be trusted; the ones the state spent TONS of money and time training. The Auxiliary cavalry ESPECIALLY people like the Huns and later the Germans(they would traditionally recruited as infantrymen; later on they would also be recruited as cavalry as well), depending on the tribe of course, but they had a tendency to be more susceptible to bribes and similar activities than actual Romans who couldnt just run to the other side of the Rhine or go past the black sea areas and be perfectly fine with no possibility of effective pursuit, with all their moneybags, if they betrayed their commander for money.
Could you also do one about the kingdom of Alashiya?
"The western half of the Empire suffered a slow, agonizing, painful death. But the East persevered... until 1453 when it suffered a slow, agonizing, painful death."
ngl i chuckled
10:18 I think it makes more sense that Romans didn't want to let foreigners into the higher prestige jobs and there was some pressure to prevent that, rather than they preferred being in the worse jobs.
Please also study about the (Sinauli) Gangaic Civilization which is 2500 BCE to 1500 BCE old found in Sinauli (Before the so called Aryan Migration) ,
Facts about it :-
-A Vedic horse Chariot was found in it (In 1949 a British Archeologist Stuart Piggot Published the the design of a Chariot as described in the Vedas).
-It has been proved that Chariot was not pulled by Bulls since the angle of the Draft pole was very low to the ground which would not be suitable for Bulls .
-Sinauli is one of the 5 districts asked by Krishna from Duryodhan to avoid the War of Maha-Bharat .
-It has been recorded to be the largest burial site in Asia of the Chalcolithic period .
-The warriors had been burried in accordance with the Vedic Rituals (You might think that we have to burn acc to Vedic rituals but this not the only case acc to Rig Veda in conditions of water crisis ,absence of a certified Brahmin there are several rituals that can be performed by normal people to burry the person with pots containing butter & grains with weapons on its Royal burrial side with specific directions as per the Vasu Shastra which was exactly similar to which was found in Sinauli ).
-It was parallel civilization to the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization .
-'Yum'(Lord of Karma) portraition were embedded on it appreciating the dead person to choose Mortality over Immortality.
-The Rig Veda mentions Sarasvati river but it dried out completely after 3000 BCE.
-They had weapons made of bronze and copper such as Antenna swords, recurved bow , pointed head gear (A mentioned in Mahabbharat), Wooden Jigsaw Shields with copper plating ,and vedic pottery.
-The weapons were made of copper but the fact is that copper is not found in entire region of U.P. (State of India where Sinauli is located) (Even the Weapons were made in accordance with the Dhanur-Vedam (Book of Vedic warfare)) .
-Gold ornaments even more designer than the SSC .
-Looking Ahead Buddy .
There are modern equivalents to the Auxilie- think of the French Foreign Legion and the Ghurkas. Both are rightfully considered elite formations.
Great video as always, I was looking through your videos because I wanted to watch a video on the history of Taiwan and I could have swore that I remember you doing a video about Taiwan, am I just miss remembering or did you take the video down, and if so are you going to make another video about the history of Taiwan ?
Great one! All this leads perfectly into the relative decline of the late Roman Army, more Auxilia bc they cost less with the effect of a less professional less well organized army, more mixed cohorts for local anti-warparty defense. A more defensive army in the 4th century on for an empire on the back foot. Perhaps the Roman Legions morphed into Auxilia legions? This also tracks with the less frequent use of lorica segmentata equipped
if everyone's a citizen nobody is
the moment everyone is granted citizenship another, likely less achievable factor determines your social status,
making everyone a citizen was one of those short term solution long term problems people talk about, because how do you now incentivise service?
before you could do it with a low pay, promise of loot and the priviliges of citizenship post service,
but now you wil just need to pay more and deal with fewer people being willing to risk life and limb since the benefits are not there
If a citizen son who chose to be in the Auxilia changed his mind and wanted to be a legionary instead could he apply for a transfer and retrained as a legionary?
Interesting question.
I would think he would be able to do so.
But I would also guess that his years in the Auxilia would not carry over towards the 25 years to get the full Legionary retirement bonus and land grant. Or he would get a smaller bonus and land.
So for example if he had 5 years experience as an auxilia, he could join a legion but his year 6 would count as year 1.
Or it would count as year six but he would get 76% of the retirement bonus and a piece of land that was a quarter smaller.
@@EpimetheusHistory Have you ever found an exapmple of an auxilia citizen transfering over to the legionaries?
Yes
Romes Foreign Legions.
Construction complete!
I thought number five would be the Elysium drop troops. Shame on me.
Roman Auxiliary Troops.........also known as Fodderus Maximus.
Before anyone say: Foederati is term for mercenaries in Roman military
Roman Enlistment Centurion: NEXT!
Cretan Civilian: Good morning Centurion.
Roman Enlistment Centurion: OK. what special skills can your people offer the Roman Legion?
Cretan Civilian: Well our men are known for running really fast at bulls and jumping over them.
Roman Enlistment Centurion: Hmmm......sounds very entertaining but not very useful in combat.
What else have you got? We are only taking men with battle skills.
Cretan Civilian: Let's see.....when I was a boy I shot a bow at summer camp.
Roman Enlistment Centurion: Great! ( writes on enlistment rolls ) Cretan men are all expert Bowmen.
Suggest they be taken into Auxilia Legion.
NEXT!
The legions get all the credit, but these guys conquered the empire after the initial gains. Citizenship, land grants, and good pay were great incentives. I would have joined up under those terms. Not being Romans made them less likely to support Roman usurpers. That the legions later took the form of the earlier Auxilia should say something about their effectiveness. I'm also not sure why the Praetorians weren't disbanded sooner, it should have been obvious to every emperor from Claudius onward that they were a huge threat to Rome
Cool intro cusic. Conan would approve!
would the Auxilia infantry have been an effective counter to cavalry thanks to their spears?
I believe so. Additionally, I believe that is one of the reasons why Roman commanders usually deployed them on the flanks, to prevent the legionarys from being flanked by enemy cavalry.