Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Picking your brains
#1
Although this has nothing to do with the Roman army, Im interested to know if you have a colleage who is as well versed in Viking history as you are in Roman, Also what was the average entry age of a new Roman recruit? <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
To move to OT or not to move, that's the question. Seeing as you've cunningly (or not) tacked a question on the end I'll leave this thread here for now, but if Thor and Odin start getting noisy in here then it's of the OT with them.<br>
<br>
<br>
Oh Sander, I'll hand th question over to you, but on a speculative basis the averagfe recruitment age of the Imperial legions can't have been that old, say 18 or 19 ?? Considering the period of time you were signed up for any older and it'd have been vintage rather than veteran legionaries.<br>
<p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#3
18 or 19? I myself would have thought that was quite old, I always thought that people would have grown up faster in the distant past as life was harder, I would have thought a trainee might be as young as 15, could you clarify this? is there any evidence? Also while on the subject, was there a standard 'basic training' (I realise the time span which the Roman army covers and how it would have evolved, but was there a standard they had to pass i.e run so far so fast etc or an other test of endurance/power like in modern armed forces).<br>
Thanks. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Sure there were some much younger entrants. Roman boys became adult at 14 if my memory serves me right. I hasten to add 18/19 is just a guess at an average, i might be miles out. But if perhaps 17 is more likely I wouldn't have thought an average age of recruitment went too much below that. Sorry, i have no info here to substantiate any of this though, away from my books at the moment <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#5
Salve,<br>
<br>
The age at which soldiers could enter the army ranges according to available evidence from age 14 to somewhere in their thirties. However the low end of the scale is doubted by many modern authors and is explained by assuming that people did not always know their real age and may have guessed (wildly). During the republic however there was repeated legislation against recruitment below the legal age (17) and according to Tacitus Romans recruited young Batavians prior to their revolt, so a number of boy soldiers may not be entirely unfeasible. Available statistics indicate however that the great majoirty enlisted between 18 and 23 years of age.<br>
<br>
The most relevant articles are in German:<br>
<br>
Clauss, M., 'Probleme der Lebensalterstatistiken aufgrund römischer Grabinschriften' in: <i> Chiron</i> 3 (1973), 395-417.<br>
Scheidel, W., 'Inschriftenstatistik und die Frage des Rekrutierungsalter römischer Soldaten' in: <i> Chiron</i> 22 (1992), 281-297.<br>
Scheidel, W., 'Rekruten und Überlebende: die demographische Struktur der römischen Legionen in der Prinzipatszeit' in: <i> Klio</i> 77 (1995), 232-254.<br>
<br>
There is another study by Scheidel in the <i> JRA</i> supplements whose precise title now eludes me, but perhaps Jenny Cline can supply that title.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#6
Hi,<br>
Well, I'm not Sander, but I hope you don't mind Catiline<br>
According to Watson, The Roman Soldier, p.134, the average age of a Roman recruit was 18 or 19.<br>
Le Bohec, The Roman Imperial Army, p.73, comes up with a slightly more elaborate answer, stating that the average age was between 18 and 21, but in times of crises, this could be extended to 30.<br>
Age is of course one of those things that can easily be deduced from inscriptions, since they usually state that soldier so-and-so served so many years and died at that age. Simple substraction gives the date of entry into the army, that is if we look at soldiers who died during service. Soldiers kept their title of 'miles' after discharge, and that would give recruitment ages of 40 or 50 which can of course never be right.<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<br>
Oh great, it seems we've been answering this at the same time! <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 4/5/01 7:05:39 am<br></i>
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#7
Salve,<br>
<br>
There are many cases of soldiers serving more than the stipulated service period of 25-26 years, some were simply kept in the army beyond their time, while others reenlisted for further service (eg the praetorian <i> evocati</i>, though they had to serve only sixteen years before discharge). While in our modern armies the average age of soldiers tends to be low, especially in the infantry, due to the nature of military service (either conscripts or short term (4 to 8 years) volunteers) with older soldiers going for a full career generally found as NCO's and officers, the ancient world had many soldiers of a more advanced age, though the veteran Macedonian Silvershields (<i> argyraspides</i>) of seventy years are well at the extreme end.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#8
You're right of course, I should have added what you said in the first case. I was just quoting Le Bohec who names this high suggested age of recruitment as a reason why we should be careful with calculations on inscriptions of soldiers who died perhaps in/perhaps after service.<br>
<br>
Greets,<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#9
Salvete,<br>
<br>
Another complicating factor surrounding age of recruitment that I forgot to mention is the conspicious peak around multiples of five in ages mentioned on inscriptions. It seems that these were commonly rounded off (upwards/downwards) to a multiple of five distorting the picture even further.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<br>
Once a time machine is invented somebody should go back and order those Romans to start doing things in a more orderly fashion to make our lives a bit easier! If only they showed a little more consideration. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
E EM<br>
<br>
I'm volunteering once they've tested that machine on someone else<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 4/5/01 11:46:58 am<br></i>
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#11
Rankov states that, based on epigraphic evidence, the spread of recruit ages in the Praetorian Guard was 15-32 years, rather a broader range than the typical legionary recruit who was accepted at 18-23 years.<br>
<br>
Duty in the legions was considerably more strenuous than in the Rome cohorts. Men in the physical prime of life, fully developed and robust, would have been preferred.<br>
<br>
Think how much we have to thank the Romans for -- we have so much to talk about now. We'd have much less fun if there wasn't such a lot of room for interpretation and speculative debate, and plenty of theoretical archaeologists would be out of a job... E EM<br>
<br>
<br>
Jenny<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#12
Salve,<br>
<br>
The fact that there were no more <i> velites</i> may account for the fact that imperial era legionary recruits appear to have been recruited at a slightly higher age than in the republic. Use of heavy infantry equipment and fighting methods from the start of service instead of the presumably lighter skirmishing duties of the republican legionary light infantry may have required soldiers which needed to be stronger and fully grown. The few inscriptions from legionaries from the imperial army that served as light infantrymen (<i> lancearii</i>) all point to older soldiers and may point to the elite nature of these troops (cf modern SF units which generally have an average age several years above line infantry).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#13
<br>
Under the first stage of the roman army created by Servius Tullius under his system the army included all male citizens from 16-60, those under 47 for use in the field, the older men for garrison duty in rome. This stage was rather primative because all Roman men had to serve in 16 campains, a summer campain, in the autum like all armies of thier time they went home.<br>
Respond if you want info on the other three stages. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: