Recruitment

[M.ilionario]

I think the closest thing to this topic debated on RAT was the Military Mark.
What I really want to know is if recruitment in the roman legions was as selective as referred here. If it was, where did they manage to gather enough soldiers to defend the vast roman empire of the 4th century?

[Robert Vermaat]

where did they manage to gather enough soldiers to defend the vast roman empire of the 4th century?

Well, in the end they did not manage, in fact.
But before that:
1) draft/compelled service
2) recruitment of individual volunteers
3) recruitment of (sub)tribes

The Late Roman army may never have been really short of men, but the system proved too costly to maintain. When the first border areas were lost, that started a vicious circle - less recruits mean a lower defensive capability. The neverending civil wars did not help either.

[Carlton Bach]

An article you may be interested in is: P.A. Brunt: Conscription and Volunteering in the Roman Imperial Army (Scripta Classica Israelica 1 1974). He collects the most important sources and paintrs a rather nuanced picture, though we do of course, today understand some workings iof the Roman army differently. In shoprt, the answer seems to be 'it depends'. Vegetius definitely paints too rosy a picture of the good old days.

BTW, Does anyone know of a newer treatment, or is he still 'definitive'?

[M.ilionario]

Vegetius definitely paints too rosy a picture of the good old days.

Stuck in the past he was, huh? :lol:

I think it was way too selective - no army is so selective (not even modern special forces) - what is the problem of recruiting a fisherman? If a soldier proves fit for battle then he should be recruited, regardless of his trade or height. Don't you agree?

Once again I must think that the roman system had a lot of problems, most of them because of their conservative minds....

[rkmvca1]

I think all too often we confuse the ideal to strive for (which is documented, ie, by Vegetius), against the actual reality achieved, which is hidden in fragmentary archeaological evidence.

rkmvca/rich klein

[Carlton Bach]

Vegetius definitely paints too rosy a picture of the good old days.

Stuck in the past he was, huh? :lol:

I think it was way too selective - no army is so selective (not even modern special forces) - what is the problem of recruiting a fisherman? If a soldier proves fit for battle then he should be recruited, regardless of his trade or height. Don't you agree?

Once again I must think that the roman system had a lot of problems, most of them because of their conservative minds....

'Conserative' is the active ingredient here, on two counts. First of all, what Vegetius describes is an ideal. It makes sense, from an ancient point of view, not to recruit certain people. Being a soldier is ühysically demanding and you do better having people who are used to this. To this day, country folk tend to make better soldiers than urbanites. THe ban on fishermen is understood best from their social context - to the Roman mind, they were purveyors of luxuries, as such not suitable for harsh military life. But that just as an aside.

Vegetius makes the mistake of assuming that this ideal matched past reality. It is very unlikely the Roman army was ever able to recruit only men of this quality, or even matching his height standards. But as a guideline, Vegetius' criteria make good sense. Even modern recuiters, who need to pay far more attention to brightness, education, and individual intiative look out for much the same, if they can get it.

[M.ilionario]

It is very unlikely the Roman army was ever able to recruit only men of this quality, or even matching his height standards.

Yes, very unlikely.

Weren't the barbarians large to a roman soldier's eyes? Then how could they be large if each leginary was six feet tall? Were the barbarians giants? I don't think so.....

It seems Vegetius really was stuck in an utopia.

[Lothia]

I have a question also concerning recruitment.

I understand that a unit with a name such as Mattiaci iuniores were originally recruited from the Mattiaci near Wiesbaden. But, I have some
questions:

A. what happens when a tribe like the Mattiaci disappears?

1. Does the unit then finally disappear because attrition thins their ranks so much they are no longer a functioning unit?

2. Do they retain their designation but recieve replacements from some
other tribe?

B. If a man in conscripted, does he get assigned to the nearest unit
requiring replacements?

C. Could a volunteer recruit from the Batavi in Belguim request assignment to the Mattiaci Juniors?

D. Because the Mattiaci Juniors were an Auxilia Palatina unit, would they
take green troops or would their replacements only be seasoned?

I had hoped that "Conscription and Volunteering in the Roman Imperial Army" would answer some of these questions however, it is not available to me.

I am not a student nor do I have ready access to any university library. I have looked on Blackwell, Amazon.com and Alibris with no success.

I have read many postings in Roman Army Talk and am really impressed.

Keep up the outstanding work, and thanks.

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Tom,
Roman auxiliary units generally recruited from the area they were stationed in from the Flavian period onwards. Their original tribe might be used to make up new units or to supply new recruits to whatever unit was based in their area.
The Batavi you mentioned may have been an exception for a while, but not in the later Roman period. It is supposed they died out/mixed completely with the local population by the 3rd C, but their unit name was saved. It was simply famous and prestigious enough to be retained.

[Peroni]

The Batavi you mentioned may have been an exception for a while, but not in the later Roman period

Yes Jasper, but even in the early second century we have records of many Pannonian and even a Syrian among the ranks of the Cohors Batavorum so it seems that 'outsiders' were starting to be drafted into the tribally designated units. The Syrian being the famous 'Soranus'.

Soranus' epitaph records that in AD118 he, before the Emperor Hadrian, swam the Danube and performed the following feats..

CIL 03, 03676 (AE 1958, 0151).

Ille ego Pannoniis quondam notissimus oris
inter mille viros fortis primusq(ue) Batavos
Hadriano potui qui iudice vasta profundi
aequora Danuvii cunctis transnare sub armis
emissumq(ue) arcu dum pendet in aere telum
ac redit ex alia fixi fregique sagitta
quem neque Romanus potuit nec barbarus unquam
non iaculo miles non arcu vincere Parthus
hic situs hic memori saxo mea facta sacravi
viderit an ne aliquis post me mea facta sequ[a]tur
exemplo mihi sum primus qui talia gessi

"The man who, once very well known to the ranks in Pannonia, brave and foremost among one thousand Batavians, was able, with Hadrian as judge, to swim the wide waters of the deep Danube in full battle kit. From my bow I fired an arrow, and while it quivered still in the air and was falling back, with a second arrow I hit and broke it. No Roman or foreigner has ever managed to better this feat, no soldier with a javelin, no Parthian with a bow. Here I lie, here I have immortalised my deeds on an ever-mindful stone which will see if anyone after me will rival my deeds. I set a precedent for myself in being the first to achieve such featsâ€

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Adrian,
I was hazy on the exact idea of exceptions with the Batavians, which is why I used 'may'. :wink: