RomanArmyTalk

I have looked through the threads and cannot find a discussion on this subject.<br>
I recently read the much maligned book by Colins on the 10th Legion which is very readable when you set aside the "Generals" and "Cruisers".<br>
<br>
However one of his suggestions is that the Late republican and particuarly Imperial Legions did not absorb an annual draft of young men familiar in modern armies but recruited only when their existing men came to the end of their 16/20/25 years. He suggests that those wishing to reenlist went into the first cohort. He says this had a dramatic effect on the performance of a legion and would lead to quite drastic reduction in numbers as the current intake are lost in battle. He also has interesting suggestions on the recruitment areas.<br>
<br>
In the The Roman Army in Egypt the author espouses the annual draft and suggests a Legion would need 150 men a year to keep up to strength drawing on Papyri for his sources.<br>
<br>
A contubernum on one interpretation would have 8 men all of the same age and experience going through their service together or the current mix of age and experience found in a British infantry section. <p></p><i></i>

Hmmm. A replacement rate of 150/year in peacetime sounds very low for any time period or legion size. That's a loss of only 3.5% strength for a 4200 man legion. And it sounds like your author is referring to a later, and probably larger, legion. I've tried to come up with the book to review myself, but it's not readily available here. That figure by itself makes the book suspect in my mind.<br>
<br>
David <p></p><i></i>

One problem (of many) that i have with this author is that he offers opinions without evidence to back them. On the point of all veterans (evocati) being in the First Cohort he is wrong. While he is not the first to propose this the epigraphic evidence shows that though the 1st had more than it's share of veterans retiring the other cohorts had retirements also. The evocati also were placed in a special command outside the normal rank and file of the ten cohorts. On the enlistment method or reason for enlisting recruits, again he offers opinion without substantiating it. Of course his most criticized statement is his view that the Legio X Fretensis had a direct lineage with Caesar's Tenth (again opinion without proof and wrong as well). <p></p><i></i>

Salve,<br>
<br>
Enlistment ages in the imperial army as recorded in inscriptions varied from 14 to 36 with the majority recruited age 18 to 22. For the republican period there are no corresponding sources and only information about minimum ages (apparently regularly ignored) and maximum ages for military duty is attested. It is unsure whether the Roman army ever recruited its men strictly according to age classes rather than picking from those of military age in general.<br>
<br>
Regarding the matter of recruits serving together or being divided among units there is mixed evidence. In the case of newly formed units it seems that apart from experienced cadre that might be attached from other formations the majority of men could consist of green recruits serving together, though not necessarily all being of the same age. Transfers and recruitment of replacements would alter the composition of such a unit- It is however much less obvious what was common practice in units with a continued existence that received new men as replacements or additions.<br>
<br>
There are various epigraphic texts referring to <em>contirones</em>, meaning fellow recruits or in some cases rather men recruited at the same time. These texts generally do not make it clear whether such men served together within the same subdivisions of a unit or divided among its various components, though occasionally such shared service appears to be indicated.<br>
<br>
<em>AE</em> 1978, 703 = <em>CIL</em> 3, 8124.<br>
<br>
]LV[---] | curavit C(aius) Terentius C(aii) f(ilius) | Cl(audia) Catullus vir vet(eranus) leg(ionis) VII Cl(audiae) | p(iae) f(idelis) ex sing(ularium) contir[on]i [optim]o et | contubernali pientissimo | Crispino [et Aeliano co(n)s(ulibus)]<br>
<br>
'... Caius Terentius Catullus, son of Caius, from the Claudian voting district, veteran man of the <em>legio</em> VII <em>Claudia pia fidelis</em> from among the guards has taken care for his best fellow recruit and most loyal squad mate when Crispinus and Aelianus were consuls.'<br>
<br>
It seems that in this case men recruited together may have served together in the same <em>contubernium</em>, but it does not specify when (all the time? only at a particular stage?) they did so. Also <em>contubernalis</em> seems to have been used as a general term for comrades as well as in a more limited sense as member of the same <em>contubernium</em>. Thus it does not greatly advance knowledge about Roman practices.<br>
<br>
Other sources give varying, even if not necessarily conflicting, evidence. Vegetius records in his <em>Epitoma</em> that recruits were concentrated in a particular cohort of the legion (2.6 <em>... Sexta cohors habet pedites DLV, equites LXVI; in ipsa quoque enucleati adscribendi sunt iuniores,...</em> '... The sixth cohort has 555 infantrymen, 66 horsemen: in this unit also are the raw recruits to be enrolled ...'). The <em>Strategikon</em> of Byzantine times on the other hand recommends mixing inexperienced soldiers and veterans within the same squad. It is conceivable though that recruits were placed in mixed squads within a certain subdivision of a unit rather than concentrated in squads of all FNG's. In this as in other cases there are no corroborating other sources that can either decisevely prove or disprove Vegetius for any given period of Roman military history.<br>
<br>
In the legions of the imperial army veteran soldiers at first appear to have been concentrated in a separate <em>vexillum veteranorum</em>, containing those men who had earned the right to lighter duty after 16, later 20 years of service (see this earlier thread as well as this one). Extant evidence for the continued existence of such distinct veteran formations is limited to the early principate and discharge eventually took place from all units, though in certain cases the first cohort seems to have discharged a larger number than the other units. This may be linked to its larger size, it's elite status (with proven men transferred to its ranks rather than green recruits) or perhaps a combination of the two. It cannot be proven that the <em>vexillum veteranorum</em> was incorporated in the first cohort of the legion as speculated in some modern publications.<br>
<br>
Some relevant references:<br>
<br>
Alföldi, G., B. Dobson and W. Eck (eds.), <em>Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit</em> (Stuttgart 2000), 509p.<br>
Scheidel, W., 'Inschriftenstatistik und die Frage des Rekrutierungsalter römischer Soldaten' in: <em>Chiron</em> 22 (1992), 281-297.<br>
Scheidel, W., 'Rekruten und Überlebende: die demographische Struktur der römischen Legionen in der Prinzipatszeit' in: <em>Klio</em> 77 (1995), 232-254.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sandervandorst@romanarmytalk>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 11/13/02 4:25:05 pm<br></i>

Salue,<br>
<br>
Along the same lines as enlistment, does anyone know of a good, english text that may list pictures of the 'dog tags' of these new recruits? I have read about the lead disks in several sources, but have not seen any images of them. I would like to learn more about their use in general. Were they removed after the probatio, or basic training period (is that the right term?)?<br>
<br>
Anyone?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
Britannicus <p></p><i></i>

Salve,<br>
<br>
There is a very basic reason for not having seen any images of such lead tablets: none have been found to this day. For the sole reference to the use of an identification tag, a <em>signaculum</em>, visit this site and take note of the comments.<br>
<br>
In the absence of photographs identification was made in Antiquity according to a description of distinctive scars of persons, both in the military and in civilian life (eg this text or this one). There is a text on recruits being brought to their unit which list the characteristic scars of the men involved, but does not reference ID tags at all. A translation can be found in:<br>
<br>
Campbell, B., <em>The Roman army 31 BC-AD 337: a source book</em> (London 1994) 272p.<br>
<br>
A <em>probatio</em> is an examination, it was not the term for the recruit's basic training period before his official enrolment as a soldier.<br>
<br>
For the enlistment procedure read the relevant chapter in the folowing collection of articles, which attempts to list the various pieces of evidence and integrate them into a coherent picture.<br>
<br>
Davies, R., <em>Service in the Roman army</em> (Edinburgh 1989) 336p.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

Gratis tibi ago, Sander<br>
<br>
As always, you are an amazing resource, and because of it I can only conclude that you are 1) a hermit who has not found your way out of your cave due to the stack of books piled high all around you, but are slowly making your way towards the light, or 2) you are an alien being who has orbited our planet for thousands of years carefully documenting everything that has transpired. I'm leaning toward number 2 myself. You wouldn't happen to know where my lost my car keys are, would you?<br>
<br>
Actually, Davie's work is one that I have many many notes on, being my first solid introduction to the Roman Army over 12 years ago, but like the multi-headed creature of AAAAaaaaaaaaghhh, I didn't want to wait until I got home to look through them for the proper term surrounding enlistment. It was in fact something that I reread from those notes that brought up my question about those dog tags. I was thinking about making a few and thought it would be nice to see some pics....guess not! <br>
<br>
While on the topic, I have not noticed many other resources from Davies that seem so 'in depth' surrounding so many facets of the army, am I missing some? I have seen some of his works on Christian issues around antiquity(unless I have the wrong Davies...), but nothing like his 'Service in the Roman Army'. Just curious if there was more out there that amazon doesn't pop up.<br>
<br>
Thanks again!<br>
<br>
Uale!<br>
<br>
Britannicus <p></p><i></i>

Davies died at an early age, that's why you won't find much more by him. And as to Sander, I've seen him in the flesh, outside of his cave, so he can't be a hermit. E EM <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

<br>
<br>
It is more like option nr 1 than nr 2, but take me to your leader, earthling <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

Sander, I read the Passion source you referred us to, it's certainly evidence for military dog tags in the late 3rd century...otherwise it's just very sad. I side with the Praefectus, if other Christians can serve in the Army, why can't you? I'm almost surprised he didn't quote 'Render Unto Caesar'...and that might even suggest that that saying was a very late interpolation, when Caesar and the Crucified Christ were on the same side in the world. Nowadays that kid would strap an explosive belt to himself and go out and bomb a bus, I suppose. Nothing changes in humanity, or inhumanity :-(<br>
<br>
I despise zealotry in all its forms. I suppose that makes me a Zealot. Up Josephus!<br>
<br>
E<br>
Optio ad spem Legionis Syriacae<br>
bloody XI Claudia<br>
bloody Durostorum <p></p><i></i>

I sthere not another possiblility here, that the recruit was branded instead of receiving dog tags? I have read translations of this text that see it that way.<br>
(1) "Let him be marked."<br>
(2) "Serve and accept the seal." He replied, "I will not accept the seal"<br>
"It is not permitted to me to bear the lead upon my neck "<br>
<br>
Could it not be possible that this seal, with which he is to be marked, was a form of branding? Gruesome, true, but effective when the recruit deserted. Which is why there may be no mention of dog tags (which could be easily disposed of by the deserter) when captured deserters are recognised and returned.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Robert<br>
<br>
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum'<br>
www.fectio.org.uk <p></p><i></i>

Salve,<br>
<br>
The problem with recruits being given a permanent mark is that it was not certain that they would make it through training to become soldiers. Vegetius for instance in his description of the enlistment procedure describes recruits as being marked only after being accepted as full soldiers following an examination. See this earlier thread for the references. It also seems that the idea that Roman soldiers were branded, given a burn mark, comes from a development in meaning of the term branding in English, as tattooing was originally known under that name. The references in sources though indicate that tattoos were used instead of burn marks.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

What kind of tattoo Sander? Would this be unit/Legion specific (not likely eh?), or something to denote their military status, or auxilliary, cavalry, etc. <p><br>
Magnus/Matt<br>
Optio<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" </p><i></i>

I know an earlier thread mentions something about a tear drop or two underneath one of the eyes, as is evidenced, I believe, by one or more cavalry helms with face masks. I think the consensus was that we still don't know enough about the 'markings' to make any definitive answers.<br>
<br>
<br>
Uale!<br>
<br>
Britannicus <p></p><i></i>

Britannicus, am I right that you are talking about this thread? (Pictures included there, thanks to Jasper.) Do you really mean the examples with the three holes grouped in the shape of a triangle under each eye-hole (From Nijmegen, for example)? Or, more likely to me, the famous helmet from Emesa/Homs in Syria? Or are you just influenced by this quite popular movie with Russell Crowe? <br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
<br>
Martin <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=magisternavis>Magister Navis</A> at: 11/22/02 10:12:57 pm<br></i>