Roman Youths Accompanying Army

[Bryan]

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.

[Michael J. Taylor]

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.

[Bryan]

During the republican period, would the Romans' contemporary neighbors have done it? The Greeks? Celts? Germans? etc.

[Michael Kerr]

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

[Bryan]

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.

[Lyceum]

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

There were a few notable coming of age rituals spread throughout the Roman population. The most known one, amongst the urban classes, was the assumption of the toga virilis which seemed to happen around the age of 15/16 to maybe about 18. However we know that in later periods, especially amongst the upper classes, boys were taking it up even earlier at around 13/14 so...yah there's a variety. In most cases though I'd definitely say 17 is a "man" but not in our sense, strictly, because of the markedly different Roman family dynamics.

[T. Flavius]

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.

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.

[john m roberts]

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.