Specialized Units.

[Gaius Octavius]

Earlier there was a thread on 'specialized units' in the Roman army. I believe that it was concluded that there were none. Some time later, in another thread there was a reference to specialized 'scouting' units. Here I am thinking of fighting units. Wouldn't artillery be considered specialized? Any thoughts?

Edited January 26, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

Following the reforms of marius, specialisation was reduced to a minimum. All troops might be expected tocross-train in all sorts of military activity, including artillery or mundane duties, and many were taught to ride horses (though this was often out of necessity rather than any training program). There's evidence that regular troops conducted covert operations in Germania in the later empire. There is of course an incident in AD69, at the 2nd Battle of Cremona, where the defenders fielded a unit of gladiators who were ordered to attack across a river by night in order to secure a bridge. The officers, none too impressed at having to command such scum, promptly went AWOL. The gladiators discussed the matter amongst themselves and decided to go ahead, only to discover the enemy had been well briefed about their impending operation.

 

There is a difference between units formed for specialist purposes and units put on special duty. The romans on the whole preferred to utilise troops for anything they saw fit, another reason they were usefully employed as labourers (which conveniently kept them busy in peacetime) and engineers.

Edited January 27, 2008 by caldrail

[Pompieus]

"Specialist" troops (other than cavalry and light infantry recruited temporarily from allies and provincials) came with the empire. There were units of auxilia called sagittariorum (archers), dromedariorum (camelry), contariorum & clibanarii (armored cavalry), as well as units with national names that may have also indicated a special "national" way of fighting. In the later empire there were legions and auxilia regiments called sagitarii, lanciarii, propugnatores and balistarii which may also have indicated special ways of fighting.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Pompieus

[Faustus]

There is a difference between units formed for specialist purposes and units put on special duty. The romans on the whole preferred to utilize troops for anything they saw fit, another reason they were usefully employed as labourers (which conveniently kept them busy in peacetime) and engineers.

Questions:

[units formed for specialist purposes]

After the creation of a permanent Roman NAVY, wouldn

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Wouldn't the Praetorian and Imperial Guards be classed as specialized units?

 

The Roman emperor had several guard units at his disposal. The most important of these were the cohortes praetoriae or praetorian guard. During the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty the Germani custodes corporis or German bodyguard provided additional security. From the accession of Traianus the equites singulares Augusti recruited among the auxiliary cavalry formed the emperor's horse guard. The majority of these men served as guards, i.e. picked troops, rather than bodyguards directly watching over the person of the emperor. These elite forces at the emperor's immediate disposal formed the nucleus of the field armies assembled for imperial military expeditions. Smaller numbers of soldiers were selected among the guard units for personal protection duties.

[Antiochus III]

THe Byzantine Empire certainly made use of specialsit heavy cavalry, which made them much more potent in combat. Having auxiliary clibinarii was essential to keep sassanid cataphracts in check. I believe the Western Empire didn't use heavy cavalry to the same extent as the Byzantines, which may have made them inferior.

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

After the creation of a permanent Roman NAVY, wouldn't there also have been a need for troops specialized in naval warfare?

Strictly speaking yes, but since the roman need for a large navy was to combat Carthage, and since the romans had almost no experience of naval warfare up until that point, they adapted things to allow troops to fight as if on land. Once the mediterranean was effectively a roman lake, the need for such troops all but vanished. Roman ships were primarily concerned with piracy after that and there was less need for naval troops as such. It is interesting that a permanent navy only came into being during the reign of Augustus, as part of his reforms, and that the heyday of the large war galley was fast disappearing. Its noticeable that later vessels, apart from those intended for display, were much smaller and useful for sailing up rivers. The ships that carried the legions of Claudius to Britain however were mostly transport vessels as might be expected, rather than an armada of warships.

Edited January 28, 2008 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

Would sappers have been a special unit?

[Pompieus]

I believe the Western Empire didn't use heavy cavalry to the same extent as the Byzantines, which may have made them inferior.

 

Antiochus III

The "Notitia Dignitatum" shows no less than 12 cavalry units designated catafractii or clibanarii in the Eastern field armies while there are only two (equites sagitarii clibanarii in Africa & equites cataphractarii iuniores in Britain) listed in the Western armies.

[caldrail]

Would sappers have been a special unit?

No, ordinary legionaries could do that sort of manual labour, although there were occaisions when prisoners or slaves were employed instead.