Enlistment Contracts in the Roman Army

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I have questions about enlistment in the Roman Army.


+ people (meeting certain physical and civil status) [slaves could not except under dire conditions] could enlist.
+ some were conscripted forcibly. - that I take to mean "Shanghi ed"
+ there was a bounty for recruits - So there must have been bounty-hunters too.
+ a bronze diploma was issued upon completion of a set number of years (depending upon when) certifying discharge.
+ the diploma cited the priveleges earned upon retirement from the Legions.
+ discharge diplomas can be issued for medical reasons.
+ soldiers have been mustered out for retirement (settlement) enmasse when a legate/emperor deems it convenient
+ soldiers can be kept beyond their required year limit for retirement
+ There were some forged discharge diplomas too.

:?

In the Rank and File:
+ does a soldier enlist for a single hitch (3 years, 5 years)?
+ or a single campaign?
+ or until his legate releases him?
+ or Until he has completed the required years to qualify for retirement?

:?
+ Are the same enlistment restrictions applied. that is,
+ Does a Tribune bind himself for the same time span as a line soldier?
+ Are there service committments that must be made once a soldier reaches a certain rank.
(Once made a Centurion he is comitted to remain until retirement)

Thanks again for your help.

Me.

[Robert Vermaat]

+ some were conscripted forcibly. - that I take to mean "Shanghi ed"
+ there was a bounty for recruits - So there must have been bounty-hunters too.

If you think of folks being plucked off the street as in early 19th c. navies, that's not the case. Recruits were provided by landowners and towns. More recruits meant bounties, but there were no bounty hunters. recruiting officers might be a better picture. Of course, those who were 'provided' might object (leading to self-mutilations and laws against that).

+ does a soldier enlist for a single hitch (3 years, 5 years)?

No.

+ or a single campaign?

Not in the regular army, only if you are a non-Roman and you are hired for a campaign. The Goths were hired on that basis, and Alaric tried his utmost to change that into a regular job.

+ or Until he has completed the required years to qualify for retirement?

Yes. Even then he could be called up as a veteran under dire circumstances. His son had to enlist as a soldier too.

+ Does a Tribune bind himself for the same time span as a line soldier?

Yes and no. There were still officers who served for a short time, as well as men who rose through the ranks, even right to the top job.

+ Are there service committments that must be made once a soldier reaches a certain rank.
(Once made a Centurion he is comitted to remain until retirement)

Not that I know of.

[Lothia]

Ave Valerius,

Thanks again. It helped explain some things that I would have to face soon.

So that is why Alaric was so cantankerous. Not a good way to impress your boss.

Tom.

[Robert Vermaat]

So that is why Alaric was so cantankerous. Not a good way to impress your boss.

I think Alaric saw his strategegy not so much as impressing his boss, but rather making an offer he could not refuse..

Alaric had been a nail in the Roman coffin from day one. We think he had been the leader of Goths eluding Theodosius in the years after Adrianople, when most of the rest had calmed down and even delivered soldiers for the Roman armies. After the huge loss of Gothic life in the battle of the Frigidus (Roman civila war) Alaric may have realised that leading an army was most successful when that army was not hired and fired for single campaigns, but in regular service. Of course the Romans had different plans. After Theodsius died (394) Alaric became a pawn in the battle against Stilicho, and Alaric had the full (if silent) permission to go push his demands in the West - after all that meant the East was rid of him, meaning two birds with one stone.

Alaric was not king of the Gothic nation, he lead a mainly Gothic force that waxed and waned after success and defeat. Only later sources made him sole king of all the Visigoths, which he never was.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

+ or a single campaign?

Not in the regular army, only if you are a non-Roman and you are hired for a campaign. The Goths were hired on that basis, and Alaric tried his utmost to change that into a regular job.

Of course, Burns in "Barbarians Within the Gates" has, IMO, convincingly argued that the Goths used by Theodosius were part of the army and not hired and fired.

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

+ a bronze diploma was issued upon completion of a set number of years (depending upon when) certifying discharge.
+ the diploma cited the priveleges earned upon retirement from the Legions.

a bit more precise: only an auxilia got a diploma. A diploma gave you Roman citizenship. After Caracalla gave Roman citizenship to all people inside the empire, diploma's vanished.
Also, if i'm correct, diploma's were only made in the city of Rome.

There are some threads on RAT which deal with diploma's (including example's)

[Praefectusclassis]

Actually, the imperial constitutiones granted discharge and any attached rights. These were published on a temple in the forum. Soldiers could have an officially witnessed copy made, that is what we call a diploma.
These copies of grants exists for auxiliary units, fleet soldiers and praetorians.

[L C Cinna]

+ or Until he has completed the required years to qualify for retirement?

Yes. Even then he could be called up as a veteran under dire circumstances. His son had to enlist as a soldier too.

question: I know that this was practice in the late Roman army but I don't remember reading that the sons had to become soldiers as well during the principate as the army usually had more volunteers than they needed anyways. I know that any Roman citizen could be called to arms because the republican law was never abolished but the imperial army never really had to use that and that forced recruitments were used during the late empire.


Can anybody tell me when the law was passed which forced the sons to take up the job of their fathers?

[Robert Vermaat]

Can anybody tell me when the law was passed which forced the sons to take up the job of their fathers?

Sure.

There's a rule existing in 313 that probably goes back to Diocletian that decrees that veterans and sons of soldiers are obliged to sign up when they are physically capable.
Conscription was annual, and it was common that a tax was levied that could be used to hire troops or pay bounties to real volunteers.