I think that this is the problem with this suggestion. It also makes 4 Ax very strong against warband.
Joe Collins
They were were they not ? Always in front of the Legions.
Surely an exaggeration.
The auxiliaries did not appear to be in front of the legions when Suetonius defeated Boudica’s Britons.
I’d like to take this opportunity to give my thoughts about the Imperial Auxilia and what their function was.
I’ll be mostly using
Phil Barker’s “Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome” as one of the sources, as this and its sister books were printed in the heyday of the WRG 7th edition rules, almost a decade before DBA came into existence.
Indeed, it could be said that DBA was based on the information contained within these publications.
How were they armed:-All through the imperial period the auxilia were armed and equipped differently from the legionaries.
During the early empire, when the legionaries wore heavy restrictive
lorica segmentata, the auxilia wore a lighter short mail corslet, and had a smaller lighter oval shield, as well as carrying lighter javelins instead of the heavy pilum.
During the later empire, when the legionaries reverted to wearing a long mail or rawhide corslet, the Auxilia Palatina still wore short mail or no armour at all, and still had smaller shields.
It appears that whatever the legionaries wore, the Romans always made sure that the auxilia had lighter equipment.
Presumably this was because the auxilia had a different function on the battlefield, a function that necessitated them being lighter, faster, more agile and more nimble than the slow, heavy, ponderous legionaries.
Combined Arms:-Many ancient armies realised the need for a ‘combined arms approach’ to warfare.
The Greeks relied on their heavy hoplites, but gradually recognised the need for lighter troops that could perform the roles that the hoplites were not equipped for (such as fighting in harsh terrain), so began hiring peltasts.
The Macedonians made ‘combined arms’ an integral part of their army, especially as their pikemen were so specialized and limited to good going, so made sure they had a mix of heavy, medium and light foot and mounted.
Likewise the imperial Romans, knowing that there are some situations where the heavy legionary was not suited, had a need for lighter more mobile troops that could perform the duties that the legionaries were not suited for.
(This is a bit like First World War naval warfare. A fleet consisting entirely of battleships would certainly be formidable in battle, but would be too slow and with limited coal reserves for escorting merchant convoys, or for anti-submarine warfare, or for commerce raiding.
So a fleet needs to be well balanced with torpedo armed destroyers and cruisers to counter the destroyers.)How were they deployed:-Sometimes the auxilia were placed in front of the legionaries, such as at Mons Grapius (although that may have been because the Caledonians were occupying a difficult rocky hill, unsuitable for the legionaries), and for when storming a difficult pass such as during the Dacian Wars (again, terrain unsuitable for the legionaries). At other times they were placed on the wings to protect the vulnerable flanks of the legionaries, or even in the rear as a reserve (especially when fighting the heavy cataphracts of the Parthians).
It all depended upon the situation, and the tactical plan of the Roman commander.
Who were they:-Some people feel that the auxilia were of a lower social standing than the citizens in the legions, a bit like the native sepoys in the British Victorian army, and were used as ‘cannon fodder’ to explain why they were sometimes placed in the front line. This may, or may not, have been true of the early empire…but what about the
Constituto Antoniana instigated by Emperor Caracalla in 212 AD, where all free men in the empire were granted full Roman citizenship?
Where is the social distinction when there are citizens in both the legions and the auxilia?
Their function in DBA:-As we know, DBA treats all medium infantry as Ax, sometimes as untrained barbarian 3Ax, and sometimes as disciplined 4Ax, both with a combat factor of 3 against foot and mounted.
And I think this is about right, with a combat factor equal to Wb but without the same ‘quick kill’ vulnerability of Bd.
The only problem is Ax are far too easily destroyed by heavy foot, when in reality they were not.
Much of this thread has been taken up with ascertaining that ancient Ax (be they Spanish, Ligurians, Umbrians, Samnites, Bruttians, Illyrians, Thracians, Kappadocians, and so on) depended upon ‘peltast tactics’, using javelins to fight at a distance, would risk entering into close combat if this javelin barrage disrupted their opponents, and would try to evade from a heavy infantry charge.
Roman Imperial Axuilia do not seem to have used such ‘peltast tactics’, but appeared more inclined to get stuck-in.
Nonetheless, I still think that they should be treated the same as all other 4Ax type troops.
An ‘evade’ is an attempt to fall back avoiding a charge, and happens
before contact is made.
Imperial Auxilia appear not to have done this, but would instead use their extra agility and nimbleness to ‘break off, fall back, and rally’,
after contact has been made.
‘Evade’ 1 BW, or ‘fall back and rally’ 1 BW…the effect on our wargames table is the same.
(I think it was Mr Spock that said “a difference that makes no difference is no difference”)
So I see no reason why Roman Imperial Auxilia should be treated any different from Hellenist mercenary thureophoroi.
They both sometimes recoil a base depth, sometimes a base width, and sometimes they are destroyed.
Anyway, by the imperial period, about the only time Roman Auxilia will be facing heavy foot will be when they fight their fellow Romans in a civil war, and the Ax are much more agile and nimble than slow, ponderous legionaries.
I could be wrong of course…
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
