Login

03-07-2002, 02:25 PM

Salve, 
 
Personally I am glad that there is finally some discussion. As KHMPtolemaic wrote the available source material is far from complete and can be interpreted in different manners. By arguing for our different views and providing the source references the insight in these matters might grow. 
 
The Roman army consited of a mix of conscripts and volunteers throughout its existence with the numbers fluctuating according to various circumstances. There are only few references available indicating what their relative numbers were. However the assertion that volunteers predominated after Marius cannot be supported by hard evidence. Sources referring to the draft and to the problems in attracting volunteers argue for a continued importance of levies to fill the ranks. Conscription was not popular, with unwilling potential recruits resorting to selfmutilation (usually more associated with later times, but also attested under Augustus) or providing replacements ( vicarii) when they did not want to serve in person. 
 
Brunt, P.A., 'Conscription and volunteering in the Roman imperial army' in: Roman imperial themes (Oxford 1990), 188-214. 
Wierschowski, L., 'Kriegsdienstverweigerung im rÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Reich' in: Ancient Society 26 (1995), 205-239. 
 
These inscriptions all relate to conscription levies in the first three centuries of the principate. 
 
 CIL 6, 41281. 
 
] Ae[l]io Fir[mo? ---? em(inentissimo)? v(iro)?] | praef(ecto) pra[et(orio) Imp(eratoris) Dec(i)i Aug(usti)?] | praef(ecto) Mesop(otamiae) iu[ridico Alexandreae] | vice praef(ecti) Aeg[ypti proc(uratori) provinc(iae)] | Maced(oniae) proc(uratori) pro[vinc(iae) ---] | ubiq(ue) vic(e) praes(idis) a[genti | praeposito] vexillation(ibus) in di[lect(u) agent(ibus)? item a divo] | Gordiano leg(ioni) I [--- item ab eodem] | vexill(ationi) class(is) pr(aetoriae) [Misen(atis)? proc(uratori) provinc(iae)] | [His]p(aniae) cit(erioris) proc(uratori) pro[vinc(iae) ---] | [proc(uratori)] prov(inciae) I(?)[---] | [---]V I(?)I(?)[---] | [ 
 
'...commander of the detachments active in the levy...' 
 
 CIL 8, 7036. 
 
T(ito) Caesernio [T(iti)] f(ilio) Palat(ina) Statio | Quintio Stat[ia]no Memmio Ma | crino co(n)s(uli) sod[al]i Augustali leg(ato) pr(o) pr(aetore) | provinciae Af[ri]cae leg(ato) leg(ionis) XIIII G(eminae) M(artiae) V(ictricis) | misso ad dilec[tu]m iuniorum a divo | Hadriano in r[ e ]gionem Transpada | nam trib(uno) pl(ebis) quae[st(ori)] candidato divi Hadriani | comiti eiusdem in [Ori]en[t]e X{V}virum(!) stlitib(us) | iu[dican]dis | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) pat[rono IIII c]olon(iae) p(ecunia) p(ublica) 
 
'...sent by the deified Hadrianus to the transpaduan region for a levy of recruits...' 
 
 CIL 8, 14603. 
 
L(ucius) Flaminius D(ecimi) f(ilius) Arn(ensis) | mil(es) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) > Iuli Longi dilecto | lectus[/b] ab M(arco) Silano mil(itavit) | annis XIX in praesidio | ut esset in salto Philomulsiano ab hostem(!) in pugna | occissus(!) vixit pie | annis XL | h(ic) s(itus) e(st) 
 
'...conscripted in the levy...' 
 
 AE 1951, 88. 
 
C(aio) Iulio C(aii) f(ilio) Vo[l(tinia)] | Karo ex provincia Narbo | nensi trib(uno) mil(itum) leg(ionis) III Cy[r(enaicae)] | praef(ecto) coh(ortis) II Astyrum eq(uitatae) | donato bello Brittanico c[or(ona)] | murali corona vallari cor(ona) | aurea hasta pura | [ c ]entyriones et | milites leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) et leg(ionis) | [X]XII missi in provinciam | [C]yrenensium dilectus caussa(!) 
 
'...the centurions and soldiers of legio III Cyrenaica and legio XXII who were dispatched to the province of the Cyrenians because of a levy' 
 
 AE 1975, 806. 
 
C(aio) Fabricio C(aii) f(ilio) | Ani(ensi) Tusco IIviro augur(i) | praef(ecto) cohort(is) Apulae et | operum quae in colonia iussu | Augusti facta sunt trib(uno) mil(itum) leg(ionis) III | Cyr(enaicae) VIII trib(uno) dilectus ingenuorum | quem Romae habuit Augustus et | Ti(berius) Caesar praef(ecto) fabr(um) IIII praef(ecto) equit(um) | alae praet(oriae) IIII hasta pura et corona | aurea donatus est a Germanico | Caesare imp(eratore) bello Germanico | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) 
 
'...the levy of born citizens which Augustus and Tiberius Caesar held at Rome...' 
 
 AE 1983, 325. 
 
] | [procura]tori Imper[atorum] Antonini et Veri | [Augusto]r(um) provinciae Galatiae item procur[atori] | [ad dilect(um)] in Mauretania Caesariensi misso ab | [divo Anto]nino Aug(usto) Pio p(atre) p(atriae) praef(ecto) alae Thracum tribuno | [coh(ortis) (I) mili]ariae Brittonum praef(ecto) coh(ortis) equitatae | [---]norum [---] curatori q(uin)q(uennali) summo magistro | [Septaquis? ---] | [------] | [---]T decurion[es? vi]ritim ae[r]e conlato 
 
'...procurator sent for the levy in Mauretania Caesariensis...' 
 
 AE 1992, 1866. 
 
Ti(berio) Cl(audio) Proculo | Corneliano | praef(ecto) coh(ortis) II Bra(carum) | trib(uno) coh(ortis) mil(iariae) Ael(iae) | Dacor(um) praef(ectus) al(ae) | Sulpiciae proc(uratori) | provinc(iae) Syriae | ad rationes putandas | proc(uratori) metal(li) Pannonic(orum) | et Dalmaticorum proc(uratori) | kalend(arii) Vegetiani Hisp(aniae) | item ad dilectum cum | Iulio Vero per | Italiam tironum | II leg(ionis) Italicae | proc(uratori) regionis | Thevestinae | proc(uratori) IIII p(ublicae) A(fricae) | Inventus | Aug(usti) lib(ertus) tabul(arius) | [[leg(ionis) III]] Aug(ustae) 
 
'...as well as for the levy of recruits in Italy of legio II Italica with Iulius Verus...' 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/7/02 5:08:58 pm

03-08-2002, 12:21 AM

The heated debate is about WWII uniforms, not Romans. There is no debate here. The unanimous opinion being: "we don't know". 
 
The first and second centuries CE legions were obviously an army of professionnals and ancient sources tell us of a very severe selection for the legionaries. This speaks of volunteers, press-ganged people will hardly do for a professional army. 
 
It seems that there was actually no need for the dilectus then, the number of volunteers being enough to fill the ranks. I may have learned this in Goldsworthy's book. The whole roman army did not exceed 500.000 people during that period, compared to a population estimated at about sixty million for the whole empire it was a very small army. 
 
I also strongly suspect that peregrines --most notably the sons of legionaries and peregrine women-- were given citizenship on enrolment in the legion more often than it appears on official records. They did not all go to the auxilia. There is no positive proof of that, just hints and logic, but the Romans being the Romans, the buddy system and payment of bribes was the norm then. Conclusions can be drawn.. 
 
For some it is still the norm now, in fact..-- 
 
After all Caesar himself set the trend by enroling en masse and turning into roman citizens a whole bunch of Gauls who became Legio V "Alaudae". 
 
The centurion who put Paul the Apostle into chains to bring him to the Emperor in Rome grumbled that contrary to the Apostle, born Roman, he had to buy his citizenship.. 
 
There is also the question of the existence of disciplinary regiments. I've always been puzzled for instance by auxiliary cohorts made up of "citizen volunteers" and I wonder if, like in much later times, those "volunteers" were not given the choice between a career in the army or the rest of their lives in the mines... But then again, this is pure speculation. 
 
Things may have changed regarding the dilectus under Marcus Aurelius, due not only to the Marcomannic wars but also to the plague that ravaged all the Empire. At some point slaves were levied. It's obvious that before resorting to such extreme measures, the dilectus must have been used. 
 
The famous massacre of the youth of Alexandria by Caracalla at the beginning of the third century CE had to do with a dilectus. Caracalla --a bad person-- wanted to recruit an "alexandrian phalanx". 
 
From then on, things went from bad to worse, as far as infantry is concerned. A second outbreak of the plague in the 250's didn't help and eventually in the late Principate, press-ganged soldiers had to be branded like cattle and locked up at night in their barracks lest they'd desert en masse. <!-- 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=antoninuslucretius>Antoninus Lucretius</A> at: 3/8/02 1:51:27 am

03-08-2002, 08:28 AM

Salve, 
 
It is worth the trouble checking the footnotes and references for statements in modern books. The idea of the imperial army being a mainly volunteer force rests to a large extent on the entry in the Digestae from Menenius from the early third century CE (49.16.4.10 ...quia plerumque voluntario milite numeri supplentur '...because the units are most commonly filled with the volunteer soldier'). When this statement is compared however to the dozens of available references to conscription levies it seems that the case for assuming the army to have been largely volunteer is a bit dodgy. The army was a professional long service force, but it was not a volunteer army like most professional armies of more recent times were. Conscription systems that have been used in our societies over the past two centuries have largely been universal drafts rather than selected conscription methods and usually only for a limited number of years. However conscription of limited numbers for extended durations is not entirely unknown in more recent times. In 18th century Russia for example those individuals selected for service were in for several decades as well. Press ganged or conscript soldiers do not necessarily make for worse troops (the Dutch and British navies of the 17th and 18th century did quite well for example and the level of new recruits for the all-volunteer professional armies in NATO after the draft was suspended/abolished was regarded as disappointing). 
 
Regarding conscription and source references see also Mommsen, Th., 'Die Conscriptionsordnung der rÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Kaiserzeit' in: Hermes 19 (1884), 1-79; 210-234 and the RE article on dilectus. 
 
Some books state that Roman soldiers were branded, but they were actually tattooed (and that after being accepted as soldiers, recruits being given signacula, a sort of dogtags, instead). Branding was applied in 19th centuury English to tattooing as well as burning, but the word gained a more closely defined meaning since. 
 
C.P. Jones, 'Stigma: tattooing and branding' in: Journal of Roman Studies 77 (1987) 139-155. Earlier thread:The mark 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/8/02 9:55:07 am

03-08-2002, 12:29 PM

Maybe we should focus also on what exactly is a dilectus: a bunch of soldiers press-ganging people into service, like it was practiced in european (and american?) navies, or more simply, like it happened more often than not, the "sergent recruteur" (recruiting seargent) with a fine uniform, a loud voice and some gold goins in his pocket making his rounds in the villages calling for volunteers? (Join the legions, travel to distant, exotic lands, meet distant, exotic people and so on..) 
The second solution seems more likely to me for the first part of the Principate. Given the population and army numbers there was probably no need to forcibly draft people: soldiers' sons, warrior types and adventurers of all kinds were probably enough to fill the ranks. A dilectus then would be more a call to arms ("Lord Kitchener wants YOU") than a press-gang operation. 
At that time (Julio-Claudians and Antonines), a military career had a strong appeal for many. Soldiers were the upper class, at least in the provinces. Most, if not all of them were literate and they had money to spend. 
Naturally, things were totally different in times of crisis and the situation may have definitively changed when Caracalla extended roman citizenship to the whole population of the Empire, thereby destroying the biggest incentive to join the army: the grant of citizenship. 
I don't know why but for some reason I see this period as a pivotal point in both the civilian and military history of the Empire. Isn't it around that time that the pilum and sword fighting legionary was replaced by the pikeman? 
This conversation is certainly more interesting than what I am about to do now since I've got to go to work.. 
I owe, I owe, so off to work I go..

03-08-2002, 02:48 PM

Salve, 
 
Though modern works are quite adamant that the majority of soldiers were volunteers in the early empire, the evidence to back that up is not conclusive. The main support for this dates from the start of the third century and must be seen in the context. This was an age in which soldiering had been made much more attractive through substantial raises in military pay (which soldiers recorded in inscriptions, see AE 1906, 9) and the grant of additional privileges. Service had been made more attractive after a long period in which pay had not matched inflation and privileges had been curtailed (the change in formula on diploma's restricting its grant of citizenship rights in the 130's, the nonpayment of discharge bounties to time served veterans). That such improvements drew volunteers is no surprise, but one should be wary of extending the validity of that statement to the entire preceding period. 
 
The imperial army's need for manpower were limited, estimated at on average some fifteen to twenty thousand men a year when taking into account the appoximate size of the armed forces, the nominal duration of service and the guesstimated chances of survival (set at about 50%, based on legionary and praetorian discharge lists). Compared to the overall population of the empire the number seems relatively modest, but then the various restrictions regarding recruitment would have shrunk the potential recruiting base. Large portions of the empire's population would not normally be eligible for enlistment. Low agricultural surpluses required the vast majority of inhabitants to remain active in agriculture to sustain society anyway while legal considerations and prejudices would further limit the number of men potentially available for duty. 
 
There existed certain advantages to military life, reasonable pay, medical care, discharge benefits and legal priviledges, but there were also disadvantages (for which one can read the complaints that are recorded) which were regarded as serious enough for potential recruits to resort to self mutilation, a practice that was not a late Roman phenomenon, but is recorded for the early imperial period as well (Suetonius, Divus Augustus 24). Draft dodgers could also bribe recruiting officers or escape service by providing others to take their place. Desertion was a problem, and though in theory punishable by death, the need for soldiers was big enough for men who had gone AWOL or deserted for several years to have been welcomed back into the army. Army life may have appealed to some, but certainly not all. 
 
Indeed there served men who could read and write in the army and some soldiers indeed came from better-off backgrounds, but that does not in itself provide proof that these were willing volunteers rather than draftees. Tiberius complained that only the scum of the earth ( vagi and inopes, vagrants and the destitute) came forward as volunteers for army service, lacking in courage and discipline (Tacitus, Annales 4.4). When transfer of selected legionaries began to be the main method of filling the ranks of the praetorian guard, brigandage began to become a greater problem in Italy (Cassius Dio, 75.2). Since undesirables were a likely category to volunteer, prospective soldiers would find it to their advantage to present themselves with letters of recommendation when going career. 
 
The draft remained necessary and was therefore continued to make up the numbers and quality. Conscription does not necessarily equate to press-ganging: most systems will only function when a majority of potential recruits is basically willing to serve, even if they would not sign up on their own. Nor does conscription have to be universal: the evidence for the Roman draft points to its enforcement in selected areas rather than encompassing the entire territority of the empire. The frequency with which it is mentioned in various sources does not make it likely that levies were ad-hoc emergency measures, but a normal part of the recruiting efforts. The dilectus was a conscription levy and did not correspond to a call for volunteers. There may ofcourse have been volunteers coming forwardas well, but men picked for the dilectus also included unwilling recruits (as indicated by the story of St. Maximilian). 
 
Legionaries armed with other weaponry than the pilum can be found in the late republican and early imperial sources as well, and legionaries fighting with with heavy javelins ( pila and spicula) and swords are still recorded after this period. The legionary spearmen supplemented rather than replaced existing fighting methods. The period of the Severan emperors, preceding the third century crisis, constituted a good moment to be enrolled in the army rather than a bad one. 
 
Some related reading material: 
 
Alston, R., Soldier and society in Roman Egypt (London 1995) 263p. 
Campbell, B., The emperor and the Roman army 31BC-AD235 (Oxford 1984) 468p. 
Davies, R., Service in the Roman army (Edinburgh 1989) 336p. 
MacMullen, R., 'How big was the Roman Army?' in: Klio 62 (1980), 451- 460. 
Scheidel, W., 'Rekruten und ÃƒÆ’Ã…â€œberlebende: die demographische Struktur der rÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Legionen in der Prinzipatszeit' in: Klio 77 (1995), 232-254. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

03-09-2002, 12:41 PM

I really enjoy that discussion 
Some thoughts in bulk: 
"Volunteers were not forthcoming, and even if they were sufficiently numerous, they had not the same bravery and discipline, as it is chiefly the needy and the homeless who adopt by their own choice a soldier's life." (This is from Tacitus and refers to Tiberius' reign). Given the description by the same Tacitus of the living conditions in the german legions on the eve of the famous mutiny at the beginning of Tiberius' reign, and given the disastrous results of the whole german venture, it may be understandable that "volunteers were not forthcoming" at that time. 
Also: "the needy and homeless" were very numerous then, although they certainly wouldn't make good soldiers at once. "Volunteers were not forthcoming" could also mean that, normally, they should. 
Of course the situation changed dramatically as time went by. The story of the saint who refused to accept the military mark (it seems it was some sort of dog tag then..) is from a much later period when the only ones to volunteer --sometimes quite vigorously-- were the german tribesmen. 
Actually it's the time frame we use that bothers me: 1st century, second quarter of the third century and so on. I think it would help clarity to divide the period, not in centuries, but according to the reigns of Emperors. 
The situation was also obviously very different between legions which may or may not be established near big population centers like it was often the case for the oriental legions. It was certainly more appealing to sign up for a legion stationed for example in Alexandria, than for a german a danubian or a british one. 
The question of agricultural surpluses and agricultural manpower could start another discussion..E EM 
Recent finds made possible by computer and radar technology have revealed for instance a density of villas in Gaul that is far higher than thought before. It could mean they had surpluses. Conversely it could mean they needed that many villas --and thus that many laborers-- to be able to feed the local population but not generate surpluses... 
Could we conclude that the situation was similar to the US Army of the post-WWII period, e.g. a volunteers army supplemented by a draft system? 
Or a drafted army supplemented by volunteers?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Gaius Marius Early Life & Battle Information	Lewis Moorhead	5	2,215	05-21-2015, 05:30 PM Last Post: Bryan
	Early byzantine army effectiveness and equipment	Vexillation	1	1,587	04-22-2015, 02:40 PM Last Post: Urselius
	Information on Rome\'s early barbarian opponents	Paullus	12	3,527	06-29-2004, 07:03 AM Last Post: Anonymous