The Auxilia in Roman Britain and the Two Germanies from Augustus to Caracalla: Family, Religion and âRomanizationâ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the cultural and social relationships cultivated by ethnically diverse auxiliary soldiers in the western Roman empire. These soldiers were enrolled in the Roman auxilia, military units that drew primarily on the non-Roman subjects of the empire for their recruits in numbers that equaled the legionaries. I argue that auxiliary soldiers could and did maintain large families, and demonstrate, from epigraphic data collected and presented in my dissertation, how foreign ethnic and religious identities were variously integrated into Roman military culture by both individual auxiliaries and the Roman state. \nThe history of the auxilia in Germany from the time of Augustus and in Britain from the time of Claudius is discussed, with extensive reference to epigraphic material provided in appendices to this work. Analysis of military diplomas from across the Roman empire demonstrates a significant phenomenon of auxiliary family creation that helps to contextualize the diploma data from Germania and Britannia. Research on further epigraphic evidence from Germania and Britannia demonstrates a marked diversity in religious dedications by auxiliary soldiers and further evidence for auxiliary families. From a discussion of the history of the concept of ‘Romanization’ and other theoretical models that can be applied to the study of the auxilia, the continued usefulness of the evolving concept of ‘Romanization’ to our understanding of auxiliary cultural integration is assessed. Auxiliary service is shown to have provided many non-Roman ethnic groups avenues of cultural and legal inclusion that each soldier, surely in his own way, could exploit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".