Posts: 819
Threads: 64
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
9
As the subject says, I'm wondering if there is any evidence of young Roman males, aged 12-16 , having gone on campaign with family members to serve as servants or whatever. I know there are examples of older rich teenagers accompanying armies as contuburnalis of commanders, at age 17, but I'm wondering if say a centurion might bring his maybe 13 year old nephew with him or some other situation, so the boy could learn the trade of soldiering from direct experience while actually not participating as a soldier himself.
Posts: 123
Threads: 12
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
18
The only examples I could think of involve imperial princes, sent out at very early ages to gain at least the pretense of imperial experience (think little Gaius decked out in his "little boots." That being said, off the top of my head I cannot think of any sources that suggest that Roman boys did anything resembling a military appenticeship.
Posts: 819
Threads: 64
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
9
During the republican period, would the Romans' contemporary neighbors have done it? The Greeks? Celts? Germans? etc.
Posts: 712
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
46
Although slightly older than the age group you are inquiring about, didn't Scipio Africanus save his father at age 17 by leading a charge at the battle of Ticinus in 218BC. He may have been serving for a bit before then or were Roman boys considered men at age 17?
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Posts: 819
Threads: 64
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
9
The laws governing levying of troops by Gaius Gracchus had 17 as the lowest age for soldiers and 46 as the oldest, if I remember correctly. Though this law would only have been enacted because too many under 17 or over 46 had been conscripted. I wonder how hard the age limit was followed, though.
Posts: 53
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
The younger Scipio served as a regular soldier, though apparently in his first campaign. To assume the
toga virilis happened around your 17th year in those times.
It's perhaps significant that Rome temporarily lowered the minimum age to serve with the legions to 15 just after the battle of Cannae. So we can assume that 16, and certainly 17, was a regular campaigning age.
Quote:During the republican period, would the Romans' contemporary neighbors have done it? The Greeks? Celts? Germans? etc.
Hannibal comes to mind, taken along to Spain by his father at the age of 9
Although we can't be sure at what age he actually accompanied his father/brother-in-law in the field.
Jenny Dolfen
My illustrated novel project: [URL="http://darknessovercannae.com/"]Darkness over Cannae[/URL]
Posts: 1,189
Threads: 33
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
We should probably not take the instances of generals/kings taking their heirs to war at a very young age as any sort of example. These boys were learning to be high commanders and had to learn the manner and the swagger. They were not expected to perform a soldier's duties. In the age of sail midshipmen went to sea as early as the age of 7, but seamanship and navigation required an education that was virtually like that from grammar school through college. I believe that only in an emergency would Rome have taken males younger than 17.
Pecunia non olet