Ethnic Composition Of The Roman Army, Did It Ever Have Many Nords/Germanics?

[MagnusAurelius]

I always thought Auxilary Legions consisted of foreign/conquered peoples and the Regular Roman Legions only consisted of Itallic men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxilia

It seems like the Imperial Roman Army only consisted of Italian men and only Italian men could join since full Roman citizenship was only for people in Italy itself up until 212 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army

As all-citizen formations, and symbolic protectors of the dominance of the Italian "master-nation", legions enjoyed greater social prestige than the auxilia for much of the Principate. This was reflected in better pay and benefits. In addition, legionaries were equipped with more expensive and protective armour than auxiliaries, notably the lorica segmentata, or laminated-strip armour. However, in 212, the Emperor Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to nearly all the Empire's freeborn inhabitants. At this point, the distinction between legions and auxilia became moot, the latter becoming all-citizen units also. The change was reflected in the disappearance, during the 3rd century, of legionaries' special equipment, and the progressive break-up of legions into cohort-sized units like the auxilia.

So up until 212AD, it seems like the elite of the Roman army only consisted of Italian men. By 212 all freeborrn people in the Roman Empire qualified for the Latin Right which is full Roman citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

There is information that contradicts this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...my#Recruitment

According to one survey, c. 65% were Italian-born in the early Julio-Claudian period (to AD 41), 49% in the period 42-68, 21% in the Flavian era (69-96) and around 8% under Hadrian. Italians thus represented c. 4% of total army recruits under Hadrian, if one takes into account the auxilia, despite constituting c. 12% of the empire's population, and well over 50% of its citizen-body, in 164.[80] However, it should be borne in mind that many legionary recruits born outside Italy were residents of Roman colonies originally established to settle legionary veterans. As descendants of the latter, such recruits were, at least partially, of Italian blood; e.g. the emperor Hadrian, who was born in the Roman colony of Italica in Spain and both of whose parents were of mixed Italo-Iberian blood. However, the proportion of legionaries of Italian blood dropped still further as the progeny of auxiliary veterans, who were granted citizenship on discharge, became a major source of legionary recruits. It was probably to redress this shortfall that Marcus Aurelius, faced with a major war against the Marcomanni, raised two new legions in 165, II Italica and III Italica, apparently from Italian recruits (and presumably by conscription).[128]

Only 21%1 and 8% from 69-96 and Hadrians 117-138. I don't know if this can even be confirmed because it makes no sense since only Roman citizens could join the main Legions. Low membership from Italians under these periods could be wrong considering the number of Italians in Dacia so the citizen legions most likely only consisted of Italian men up until 212AD.

https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/20...n-the-balkans/ It was 29% Italian in Dacia, probably representing citizen legions and I am pretty sure this is from the 1st Dacian war which the Roman Empire lost from 86-89 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi..._size_and_cost

Overall, in all periods of the Roman Empire up until around 1000 it was 65-80% Southern European origin, in 1000 and beyond they started exclusively using Germanic men for their Heavy infantry, I think this was a bad mistake, the Eastern Roman Empire suffered it's most humiliating defeats when they stopped using so many Southern European men in the army. Germanics are very good individual fighters but when it comes to mass battles and strategy, they were often not effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

[Fantomas]

It seems like the Imperial Roman Army only consisted of Italian men and only Italian men could join since full Roman citizenship was only for people in Italy itself up until 212 AD.



Only 21%1 and 8% from 69-96 and Hadrians 117-138. I don't know if this can even be confirmed because it makes no sense since only Roman citizens could join the main Legions. Low membership from Italians under these periods could be wrong considering the number of Italians in Dacia so the citizen legions most likely only consisted of Italian men up until 212AD.

I depends on region. Legions in western provinces barbarized long before 212AD. Troops of Galba consists of Spaniards in 68AD. Legions of Albinus in 190's were only of Gauls and Britts. Though, i think main imperial forces during early principate period, up to 150-180AD, consist of Italics and another thoroughly romanized people.

[MagnusAurelius]

Not many care about this but the names on that site are all actually from an Auxiliary Legion so not many ethnic Italians. Many Celts changed their names supposedly.

[Cristiano viejo]

I am not expert in Roman topics since this does not interest to me but the famous IX Legio was entirely, or almost, Spanish, is not it?

[Odin]

Germanics were not a collective entity. Actually, the Germanic neighbors of Rome included not only Germanic tribes, but also Celts, Picts, Dacians, and Sarmatians. They existed in small, fragmented groups and had no mechanism for united action, either in their early encounters with Rome or in late antiquity.

[JakeBash]

Germanics were not a collective entity. Actually, the Germanic neighbors of Rome included not only Germanic tribes, but also Celts, Picts, Dacians, and Sarmatians. They existed in small, fragmented groups and had no mechanism for united action, either in their early encounters with Rome or in late antiquity.

Absolute bias nonsense. I think this site has an intense hate for the Wops, we can see many German delusions on here. Should tread carefully, looks like that MENA was banned.

https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/...y/emperors.htm Caligula had brown/amber eyes, was not recorded, could also find several Roman Emperors depicted with non-blue/green eyes if I wanted to look more. Septimus Severus and Justinian I think.

As for the Gods, I don't care for mythology nonsense but in Pompeii (since many Roman gods are recycled Greek Gods), most of them were dark, entire roster showing them .The Greek Heroes were also all dark, Hercules was blonde as a child and brown/dark haired when older. Obviously in the Med climate many of them would have darkened, people spent more time outside back then.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caesaries Dark hair, a mistranslation. Julius Ceasar is confirmed to have black eyes and dark hair, maybe brown, I don't know. This site tries to claim they were not purposely recording those who had blonde features, pretty obvious they were. Only around 10% of Ancient Italy had blonde hair. Most Emperors had hazel, amber/brown eyes. Suppose Green/Blue was rare even though at least 30-40% of the entire population including plebs had green/blue eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbrian_War This war was vast majority Italian vs German men. Germanics united as a cohesive group many times against the Romans, denying it is laughable, they did lose for 670 years.

Just angry short weak wops beat Germans for 670 years with many wars having heavy involvement from them. Doubt they were so weak and short though, average Ancient Italian was 5'6 and average ancient German 5'8 , only seemed like the Germans were so much stronger, bigger and taller was because they only put their strongest, biggest men at the front of their Horde.

[Lousianaboy]

I am roman descendent and I am between germanic and dinarid

[Lazio]

I am roman descendent and I am between germanic and dinarid

What are you talking about?
You told me you were "hungarian/norwegian".

[Lousianaboy]

yes but my father side has italian

[Lazio]

As for the Gods, I don't care for mythology nonsense

Good to see non-nordicists around, but just want to make it clear (since the vast majority nowadays don't have idea about this), Greek-Roman mythology were all allegorical stories, to teach about life and also pass on moral values, they were not meant to be taken in the literal sense by adults.

For instance:

"Metis was the first great spouse of Zeus[...] Zeus tricked her into turning herself into a fly and promptly swallowed her. He was too late: Metis had already conceived a child. In time she began making a helmet and robe for her fetal daughter. The hammering as she made the helmet caused Zeus great pain, and Hephaestus either clove Zeus's head with an axe, or hit it with a hammer at the river Triton, giving rise to Athena's birth. Athena leaped from Zeus's head, fully grown, armed, and armoured"

From that we can learn that wisdom (Athenas) is born of prudence (the word metis meant a quality that combined wisdom and cunning, id est: prudence), although we can have a great pain (Hephaestus, i.e., volcano, explodes her out of us). So that told people that, to gain wisdom, we need to deal with prudence (even if it bring us some pain) and, eventually, wisdom will pop out of our heads fully grown whatever may be in matters of war or common work.
And you can bet that every other myth from ancient Greece had a meaning.
So mythology is full of meaning, if you think something sounds "nonsense" you are not getting it right.