03-08-2002, 02:48 PM
Salve,<br>
<br>
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 <i> AE</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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, <i> Divus Augustus</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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 (<i> vagi</i> and <i> inopes</i>, vagrants and the destitute) came forward as volunteers for army service, lacking in courage and discipline (Tacitus, <i> Annales</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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 <i> dilectus</i> 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 <i> dilectus</i> also included unwilling recruits (as indicated by the story of St. Maximilian).<br>
<br>
Legionaries armed with other weaponry than the <i> pilum</i> can be found in the late republican and early imperial sources as well, and legionaries fighting with with heavy javelins (<i> pila</i> and <i> spicula</i>) 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.<br>
<br>
Some related reading material:<br>
<br>
Alston, R., <i> Soldier and society in Roman Egypt</i> (London 1995) 263p.<br>
Campbell, B., <i> The emperor and the Roman army 31BC-AD235</i> (Oxford 1984) 468p.<br>
Davies, R., <i> Service in the Roman army</i> (Edinburgh 1989) 336p.<br>
MacMullen, R., 'How big was the Roman Army?' in: <i> Klio</i> 62 (1980), 451- 460.<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>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
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 <i> AE</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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, <i> Divus Augustus</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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 (<i> vagi</i> and <i> inopes</i>, vagrants and the destitute) came forward as volunteers for army service, lacking in courage and discipline (Tacitus, <i> Annales</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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 <i> dilectus</i> 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 <i> dilectus</i> also included unwilling recruits (as indicated by the story of St. Maximilian).<br>
<br>
Legionaries armed with other weaponry than the <i> pilum</i> can be found in the late republican and early imperial sources as well, and legionaries fighting with with heavy javelins (<i> pila</i> and <i> spicula</i>) 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.<br>
<br>
Some related reading material:<br>
<br>
Alston, R., <i> Soldier and society in Roman Egypt</i> (London 1995) 263p.<br>
Campbell, B., <i> The emperor and the Roman army 31BC-AD235</i> (Oxford 1984) 468p.<br>
Davies, R., <i> Service in the Roman army</i> (Edinburgh 1989) 336p.<br>
MacMullen, R., 'How big was the Roman Army?' in: <i> Klio</i> 62 (1980), 451- 460.<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>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
