RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Child Soldier?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Here's an inscription from Mainz (AE 1995, 01168), which seems to suggest that the soldier was 30 when he died and had already served 17 years.

C(aius) Licinius
L(uci) f(ilius)
Pom(ptina)
Der(tona) an(n)o(rum)
XXX st(ipendiorum) XVII
h(ic) s(itus) e(st) h(eres) ex t(estamento)
p(osuit)

Does anyone know more about it?
I haven't come across that one, I don't think - but there's a thread here:

Child Soldiers in the Imperial Legions

that lists a number of other suspiciously young recruits, including one Antonius Hermus, who appears to have enlisted aged 11!
Thanks!

Perhaps it's useful to have a brief look at the photo:
[img size=http://www]http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/epigr/bilder/$OS_AE_1995_01168_1.jpg[/img]
The stone is damaged after XXX; does anyone recognize whether there's a sign over there? It doesn't look like X, V, or I.
maybe they started working in the stables and only a few years later they would become regular soldiers?
Maybe like those 7-year-old Royan Navy midshipmen of the Hornblower days?
Could it be the evidence of urgent levy of 9 AD after Varian disaster?
Quote:Could it be the evidence of urgent levy of 9 AD after Varian disaster?

Of the nine 'underage' inscriptions I listed on the thread linked above, seven start with the formula 'dis manibus', which is usually taken to indicate 2nd century or later I believe.

Caius Licinus has the older style of inscription, and was from Dertona in northern Italy, so could have been part of an Augustan levy. I don't think the inscription by itself could be admitted as evidence without further corroboration, though.

- Nathan
The lack of a cognomen and presence of h(ic) s(itus) e(st) formula also suggest the early I AD date of this inscription.
The use of an(n)o(rum) rather than annis is also generally indicative of an early date. However, early 1st century doesn't get us too far!
Concerning the lack of a cognomen. I read that it is considered that inscriptions without cognomina are usually dated pre-42 AD. I always wondered why exactly this year?
Quote:Concerning the lack of a cognomen. I read that it is considered that inscriptions without cognomina are usually dated pre-42 AD. I always wondered why exactly this year?
Perhaps there's a link to the Claudian Army Reforms?
It's kind of ammusing to think that adult legionnaires, 40 years of age were marching beside, and depended on children right beside them as they fought, lived, and died.

I'm 23 years old, and I don't like the thought of depending on my 14 year old cousins to hold the line against seasoned barbarians...
Quote:
Marcus Tineius Valens Wrote:Concerning the lack of a cognomen. I read that it is considered that inscriptions without cognomina are usually dated pre-42 AD. I always wondered why exactly this year?

Perhaps there's a link to the Claudian Army Reforms?

I think it's probably just a generalisation. Claudius took office in 41, but his first full year as princeps was 42, so ante AD42 is often used as shorthand for pre-Claudian - in this case, so far as I know, because by the Claudian period most inscriptions give a cognomen.

blue skies

Tom
Quote:I'm 23 years old, and I don't like the thought of depending on my 14 year old cousins to hold the line against seasoned barbarians...
Yes, but to make him able to do so you might want to start to train him right away.
Is it possible this refers to how many years the person in question has been a citizen and eligible for the legions? An ex-auxiliary, perhaps? Or even a freedman?
Pages: 1 2