Enlistment

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
If you had read the earlier thread I referred to in the above post, it should have been clear that there is only evidence for the use of such marks from the fourth century, not before, and that nothing is known about the shape, nature, colour and other details of the tattoo.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Saner,<br>
I see where I was led astray, the Osprey volume indeed. Anyway, branding or tattooing, it makes not that much a difference as to simply issuing dog tags which are not a 'mark', nor can these in any way identify a deserter.<br>
<br>
An answer to the problem of the permanent mark could be that by the 4th c, and later, it did hardly matter if the recruits stood up to scrutiny. Even those who cut off their thumb to avoid service were drawn in, which would hardly speak for the quality of recruits.<br>
<br>
But even if a recruit was not accepted, a permanent mark could IMO serve for a) the recruit as proof that he was called up and therefore did his duty, but also b) for his lord to prove that he sent the man to the army.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Robert<br>
<br>
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum'<br>
www.fectio.org.uk<br>
<p></p><i></i>