Couple of questions on recruiting practice

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Hi all,
In my little spare time I work on a novel (30BC - AD 30; Gallic / Germanic theatre mainly) and need some input on the following topics. Under normal circumstances, how would you answer following questions. Any help would be appreciated

1.) when a new recruit enlisted in a legion, which cohort would he likely be placed in? would there have been one cohort responsible for all training as today or would a recruit be placed whereever a need of men was?

2.) would a recruit participate on campaining or stay in camp/ until "battle-ready"?

3.) were legions / aux cohorts replenished at fixed dates, or did this happen day to day, literally spoken?

4.) Does anyone happen to have some new info regarding Romans having dog tags?

5.) Same as 4.) concerning a special legionary / auxilliary tatoo. What do you think would it have looked like? May be SPQR or a number?

6.) How would the annual affirmation of the sacramentum of a frontier legion possibly have looked liked? The whole unit on the campus martius or else?

7.) The more or less legitimate children of the legionaries. a) How and b) where would they have spent their childhood and youth until entering the legions?

8.) Would they (the kids) likely been given latin names even if not recognized by their fathers?

9.) Is there evidence that the Roman military took care of these kids?

10.) Is it possible to estimate from the size of the canabae/vicus the percentage of soldiers who had "families"?

11.) Once again on names: when a not-roman enlisted, was he given a completely new latin name or just his name latinised? Or both?

... looking forward to your replies, so many thanks in advance ...

[Matthew Amt]

Ave, and welcome!

4.) Does anyone happen to have some new info regarding Romans having dog tags?

There have been discussions on this before, and as I recall there just isn't anything solid. Certainly there are not hundreds of surviving dog tags, as there would have to be if they had been standard issue.

5.) Same as 4.) concerning a special legionary / auxilliary tatoo. What do you think would it have looked like? May be SPQR or a number?

The only evidence for any kind of tattoo or brand is rather late, I believe, long after your era. I've seen it interpreted as the letter "M" on the hand, for "miles". There was likely some private tattooing among soldiers, though I just don't remember what kind of evidence there is for that at the time (people tend to mention Ice Man and Scythians, not the hardest of evidence for first century Romans!). NOT "SPQR", which was not a military thing by any means, but used for public monuments and official documents, that sort of thing. (It's safest to assume that everything in "Gladiator" is wrong...) Note that in descriptions of recruits or deserters, there is no mention of an army tattoo or brand, just things like "scar over right eye".

My conclusion is that there was no use of dog tags or permanent markings for soldiers in the first century BC/AD.

7.) The more or less legitimate children of the legionaries. a) How and b) where would they have spent their childhood and youth until entering the legions?

Playing and then working like any other kids at that time, living with their mothers and any other relatives of the household. Farming or doing whatever craft the family did. Probably a lot of the economy around an army fort was geared towards support of the military, either goods or services.

8.) Would they (the kids) likely been given latin names even if not recognized by their fathers?

Oh, I expect most of them were acknowledged by their fathers, it was the Roman government which did not consider them legitimate. Their parents could very well be considered married by local law and custom, it just couldn't be an official Roman marriage. Presumably they would not formally use proper Roman names until after their father's discharge, but I doubt many people cared what anyone called their kids under the circumstances! However, if the father refused to acknowledge his children, my guess is the mother would give them local names and not worry about the Roman custom. Probably safe to assume that Rome would not make them citizens if their father basically labelled them as illegitimate by refusing to accept them.

9.) Is there evidence that the Roman military took care of these kids?

Why should it? The whole point of forbidding soldiers to marry was to remove the problem of dependents. Sure, there might have been kids who grew up as unofficial "mascots", but officially they are not the army's problem.

11.) Once again on names: when a not-roman enlisted, was he given a completely new latin name or just his name latinised? Or both?

Generally he took the praenomen and nomen of the ruling emperor, with his personal name Latinized as a cognomen, as I understand it. Note that for the first part of your era, auxiliary forces were not necessarily regularized permanent units, but hired wholesale and short-term. So they wouldn't take Roman names nor get citizenship for serving. I'm not sure when the auxiliary forces were regularized to the form we generally think of, but I have heard that even serving in a regular permanent auxiliary unit was not necessarily a guarantee of citizenship upon discharge. Don't know when that practice became the rule.

That get you started? Vale,

Matthew

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Ave Matt,
thanks for the helpful response. Laudes.

9.) Is there evidence that the Roman military took care of these kids?

Why should it? The whole point of forbidding soldiers to marry was to remove the problem of dependents. Sure, there might have been kids who grew up as unofficial "mascots", but officially they are not the army's problem.

Maybe you misunderstood me here, I was not so much on something like a kindergarten. I thought the Roman military might have had a keen interest in future loyal recruits and would have special ways to tie the kids to the army very early. :?

[L C Cinna]

Hey Carsten!

These books are pretty good concerning the names:

Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen : (1904) ; mit einer Berichtigungsliste zur Neuausgabe von Olli Salomies
/ Wilhelm Schulze. - Nachdr. [der Ausg.] Berlin, 1904. - Zürich [u.a.] : Weidmann, 1991

Namenpaare : eine Studie zur römischen Namengebung
/ Heikki Solin. - Helsinki : Soc. Scientiarum Fennica, 1990


I read some more but can't remember them right now. If I do I'll post them.


If a marriage between 2 people is not acknowledged by Roman law the child usually gets the name of the mother but this is not a strict rule. could also be a mixture OR first child gets mother's name 2nd father's or other way round.

The child would surely not get the Tria Nomina before the father's discharge (except the mother had citizenship before already).

Another thing to note during your time period:

The 3 names really started to be in during the late republic but increased a lot during the Augustan period. I think it was Solin who states that during the Caesarian time only 17% of the Roman citizens had 3 names. Usually many of the old senatorial families had 3 names but the rest did not. During the Augustan era this changes and the lower classes use 3 names as a sign of citizenship, while senatorial families which had only 2 names before this change often didn't bother to add a 3rd.

[Lothia]

Ave Tiberius,

I too am working on a novel set in Rome during the time of Constantine.

My suggestion is to do exactly as you did, post the questions here. I did and the information I received in return was generous and valuable.

Do your research, read your sources and take plenty of notes.

Remember, you are writing fiction, so even if you are following Caesar's Gallic Wars with surgical accuracy, as soon as you write that he rose in the morning and scratched his butt, it is fiction.

Try to be true to history. But you will find that are times you cannot because what you want to write is just not available for verification.

What that happens, try to be true to what you know, when you must fictionaize, try to do it with as much accuracy as you can as gleaned from your research and questions.

I too faced the probelm of tattooing. My solution was to tattoo only when there was flight risk. So, volunteers need not be tattooed, but conscripted soldiers might.

Hope this helps,

Me.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Ave,

thank you Cinna and Lothia for your advice.

The 3 names really started to be in during the late republic but increased a lot during the Augustan period.

Does this apply to the formal or informal use? I ever had the sensation, that the three-name-thing was much more spread, but more in an inofficial sense (i.e. the third name is not recognized as official part of name but used as kind of nickname, which later turned in the official cognomen? :? )

But you will find that are times you cannot because what you want to write is just not available for verification.

yeah, real pity. Well, I've certain ideas to all my questions, but I'd just like to have a second opinion on the matter, even if it can't be backed by hard evidence, in case I'm totally wrong in my modern thinking.

[Tarbicus]

Worth a read.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=9716
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=21291
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=14547
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=10196
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4867

There are solid accounts of civilians with tattoos, even on their faces, and of specialist tattoo removers. I see no reason why the military wouldn't have the same inkling, especially given their more widespread exposure to foreign cultures.