In EIR forts manned by auxilia, who would have operated the artillery, if any?

[WuZhuiQiu]

Hi, all. Please see above. Assuming that artillery may have been present in some EI Roman auxilia forts, who would have operated them? Isolated contubernia of legionaries seem unlikely. Might auxilia have operated them?

Cheers!

[emosbur]

I think the answer is auxilia soldiers.

Emilio.

[Prof.Witchheimer]

Like Emilio said, probably auxillia soldiers. There were engineering corps in the Roman army and the corps enigneers were some sort of artillery officers in the legions but they played rather the role of advsors and hard work on the pieces would have been done by soldiers. Therefore I don't see why it couldn't be possible to teach some auxilliaries to operate a ballista.

[WuZhuiQiu]

It does seem logical. Besides, if Dacians could operate them, then why couldn't auxilia?

[former user]

 
this all sounds like auxilia were some sort of dumbshits....
the difference between auxilia and legions is the drill (operated weapons partly) and the fact that they were cheaper and not roman citizens.
they were not "allied barbarians".
simply think Gurkhas or Highlanders

[voltan]

As far as I understand it the artillery was kept in the legions so they always had that advantage over the auxillia if they rebelled.

[WuZhuiQiu]

this all sounds like auxilia were some sort of dumbshits....
the difference between auxilia and legions is the drill (operated weapons partly) and the fact that they were cheaper and not roman citizens.
they were not "allied barbarians".
simply think Gurkhas or Highlanders

Actually, my original question wasn't about their ability, so much as likely doctrine.

I don't recall having seen any models, illustrations, or descriptions of Roman auxilia using artillery, yet there must have been circumstances where it would have made sense for them to do so, e.g. in forts manned by auxilia.

[former user]

I am afraid there is no useful comparison to the modern military to describe auxilia. In any case comparing them with the Indian Army is not helpful.
the best comparison would be the french army of africa, that were identical to regular troops but not citizens and would enlist voluntarily.
the imperial legionaries were of course not conscripts any more, but in theory they represented the roman citizen-soldier of the antiquity, with the right to vote and all the options to ascend in society.
Also, the auxilia until 69 AD were a bit less regulated

[former user]

no, You didn't refer to thier abilities, but others did.
actually, archaeological findings do not relate consistently to the differences we perceive about legions and auxilia. Meaning that all types of weapons are present everywhere. Including artillery.

for instance, the navy cohorts were of course not legions, but used artillery.
so, very much like the renaissance bombardiers, imagine that those who actually operated artillery were specialists. A high degree of functional specialisation is in evidence for the roman army, regardless of the citizen status.

I don't recall having seen any models, illustrations, or descriptions of Roman auxilia using artillery,

let me ask back: how would You recognise (on an authentic illustration) the difference between legion and auxilia? As to reconstruction illustrations, there are as many as there are theories

is that helpful?

[Stecal]

I think it would be a similar situation to Renaissance or Black Powder era fortress garrrisons.  There would be a few trained artillerists,  maybe one bombardier per gun at most, & the rest of the crew would be the fortress garrison.  Garrison troops have a lot of free time for training

[Emir of Askaristan]

The following link may be helpful.
https://www.academia.edu/856702/Auxiliary_Artillery_Revisited

The function of auxiliary cohorts differed from that of legions and so field artillery was not allocated to them. But a fortress garrison is a different beast. At the end of the day, a detachment of legionaries may have been allocated to your chosen fort, perhaps your cohort has soldiers who served in the legion (transfers between leg. and Aux. did take place), and know how to operate a scorpion or ballista. It's your story, tell it your way.

:-)

[former user]

quoting academia is a good idea 
but maybe not Dr. Campbell's 1986 article, but his 2002 PhD thesis, which is available free online

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/776/

(I hope the link works, I'm in the Uni network right now)
but for those who don't want to eat 320 pages, his Osprey Vanguard excerpts on antique artillery cut it down to a edible portion, after all he is the top specialist on that matter.

I don't claim to have totally ingested his argumentation, but I dare to opine that:
the written and pictorial sources may not attest the use of machina by auxiliaries, however enough parts of artillery and projectiles have been found in the context of auxiliary fortifications, but not even aa uncontested evidence containing artillery parts and direct auxilia equipment (what would that be?) could prove that auxiliary soldiers did operate artillery.

I tend to go with the specialist argumentation that the operators were ranking soldiers and therefore citizens. I am not sure if I would count officers as "belonging" to a legion.

But the whole discussion is pointless if we do not have the means to make a difference between legionaires and auxiliaries in reconstruction.
So

It's your story, tell it your way.