From: george knysh
Message: 65098
Date: 2009-09-22
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
The presence of Yazygi in Illyricum is noted and assumable from statements by Eusebius and Lucanus.
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/65077
****GK: On second thought, I may have made an incorrect assumption here about Sarmatian intervention in this war. I don't know Eusebius' text, and Harmatta does not reference it. Perhaps the Sarmatians were not part of the Pannonian army after all and their "subjugation" by Tiberius a mere p.r. note by some Roman historian. They may well have stayed north of the Danube throughout the campaign (or declined to give help). No point in further speculation until one sees the text. As for Lucan it's clear enough from Harmatta that he is merely referring to the Sarmatians' habitat north of the Danube as "close to Pannonia", and not to their presence in Illyria. So nothing at all is "noted and assumable" afawk.*****
> Similarlly, when Appian states that Mithridates hired Sarmatians
> and Scythians for his Roman wars it is unnecessary to keep
> mentioning their names (though he sometimes does). Had their names
> not been mentioned at all (but those of other peoples had) we would
> not have been entitled to postulate their invisible presence in his
> armies. And the Sarmatians are not mentioned (or documented in any
> way) as present in Roman armies before 175 CE. So, except for the
> bare possibility of individual captives in 7 CE
There was at least one.
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/20984
> they just weren't there.
****GK: As mentioned, on second thought, we don't even know that.*****
>
Which individual peoples are documented in the Roman army for that period the way you describe?
****GK: Stop boring people with stupid questions and do your homework. Check the references in the "Roman auxiliaries" reference I gave earlier. Cf. esp.
"
At the start of Augustus' sole rule (30 BC), the original core auxiliary units in the West were composed of warlike tribesmen from the Gallic provinces (especially Gallia Belgica, which then included the regions later separated to form the provinces Germania Inferior and Germania Superior), and from the Illyrian provinces (Dalmatia and Illyricum). By 19 BC, the Cantabrian and Asturian Wars were concluded, leading to the annexation of northern Hispania and Lusitania. Judging by the names of attested auxiliary regiments, these parts of the Iberian peninsula soon became a major source of recruits. Then the Danubian regions were annexed: Raetia (annexed 15 BC), Noricum (16 BC), Pannonia (9 BC) and Moesia (6 AD), becoming, with Illyricum, the Principate's most important source of auxiliary recruits for its entire duration. In the East, where the Syrians already provided the bulk of the Roman army's archers, Augustus annexed Galatia (25 BC) and Judaea: the
former, a region in central Anatolia with a Celtic-speaking people, became an important source of recruits. In N. Africa, Egypt, Cyrene, and Numidia (25 BC) were added to the empire. Numidia (modern day Eastern Algeria) was home to the Mauri, the ancestors of today's Berber people. Their light cavalry (equites Maurorum) was highly prized and had alternately fought and assisted the Romans for well over two centuries: they now started to be recruited into the regular auxilia. Even more Mauri units were formed after the annexation of Mauretania (NW Algeria, Morocco), the rest of the Berber homeland, in 44 AD by emperor Claudius (ruled 41–54).[23][CF. Holder, Paul (1982). The Roman Army in Britain. at pp. 110-113.] And then:
"During the early Julio-Claudian period, many auxiliary regiments raised in frontier provinces were stationed in or near their home provinces, except during periods of major crises such as the Cantabrian Wars, when they were deployed temporarily in theatre. This carried the obvious risk if their own tribe or ethnic group rebelled against Rome (or attacked the Roman frontier from outside the Empire), auxiliary troops could be tempted to make common cause with them. The Romans would then be faced by an enemy that included units fully equipped and trained by themselves, thus losing their usual tactical advantages over tribal foes.[26][Cf. Keppie, Lawrence (1996). "The Army and the Navy" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol X (The Augustan Empire 30BC - 69 AD), p. 396] Etc. etc. etc.
******