Republican military levies

[Calvo]

During the republican era, serving in the military was a duty of every Roman citizen.
However, during most dilectus, only a handful of men were picked to serve, so I often wondered what percentage of eligible Roman citizens had actually performed military service some point in their lives. Did the dilectus take into account that every citizen served his bout in the legions, or was it a minority of candidates who got picked at every levy while others had never spent a day in the army?
Regarding that soldiers were organised into 3 lines according to their age and experience: hastati, principes, tirari; would someone who had never served in his 20s as a "hastati" be called up in his 30s to serve with the "principes"?

Of course, during the Punic Wars of the 3rd and 2nd century B.C., the Social War and civil wars of the 1st century B.C., Rome had managed to mobilize such large forces that they only way it could be achieved was by mass-conscription, but these were exceptions.

What are the similarities and differences between the mass-levied republican Roman legions and the mass-conscripted European armies of the 19th and 20th centuries?

[Michael J. Taylor]

There is every reason to believe that Roman rates of military participation was extremely high. During the 2nd Punic War, there were perhaps 100,000 Romans mobilzed in both the legions and the fleets, some 10% of the total Roman population, and perhaps 90% of males under the age of 35.

During the first part of the 2nd Century, Rome routinely fielded 7-10 legions, upwards of 50,000 Romans, 5% of the total Roman population, which was roughly 1 million. This could only be achieved with very high rates of participation: most men would indeed serve at least 6 years as conscripts (not necessarily consecutively) and some would serve much more.

These rates of military participation are comparable with 18th and 19th century examples, including a number of German principalities (esp. Prussia) the Confederacy during the US Civil War and Paraguay during the War of the Triple Alliance, all of which were able to mobilize 5% or more of their total population (and perhaps 50% of their military aged males) during periods of intense warfare.

[Calvo]

In theory, conscripts served a maximum of 3 years, but some sources suggest that from the mid 2nd century B.C. onwards, many soldiers spent so many years on campaign that they were no longer able to return to civilian society, so they re-enlisted and re-enlisted, often taking the place of reluctant conscripts. These soldiers became "professionals" in all but name, and were only officially recognised in the Marian reforms.

It is said that the recruitment of volunteers from the capite censi in the Marian reforms of 108 B.C. was nothing new, but rather an official recognition of a trend that had been ongoing for decades.

Taking these "permanent" military personnel into account, would it mean that in the mid-late 2nd century B.C., the military participation rate of Roman citizens had actually gone down?

[Mark Hygate]

During the republican era, serving in the military was a duty of every Roman citizen..............

Taking this as true (Early Republic, pre-Marius) - is it not wrong (I certainly think it is) to describe these troops as 'conscripts'?

Is not 'militia' a much better term? I'd use it of all the classical (Greek) City States - of which Rome was the ultimate example.

'Conscription' is much more the forced mobilisation of 'everyone' and almost always where the participants are reluctant.

In the ancient world, I'd far more equate 'conscripts' with the forced levies of the Persian kings, where poorly equipped, badly lead and under fed groups were herded and whipped to battle. Not how I understand Republican Rome at all......

[Calvo]

Well, it all depends on the definition of the word "conscript".
Regarding the extremely high mobilization rates during the Punic Wars and the Social Wars, it'd be rather unrealistic to think that only "volunteers" were picked at the levy. Most probably, every Roman (an allied city state) citizen who was able to bear arms was called up whether he like'd it or not. The situation would be thus similar to the "mass-conscripted" armies that fought in the First and Second World War.

[Bryan]

In the ancient world, I'd far more equate 'conscripts' with the forced levies of the Persian kings, where poorly equipped, badly lead and under fed groups were herded and whipped to battle. Not how I understand Republican Rome at all......

Wow, that actually sounds completely like the Roman Republic. They weren't all that well equipped. They lost as many battles as they won (think 2nd Punic War). Competence was not the sole factor when it came to being elected Consul and given command of an army and Rome had no professional officer corps during the Republican era. During the Dillectus, the Romans would have been herded into maniples (handfuls). Discipline within the Legions was draconian, Centurions and Tribunes had the power to kill a soldier for trivial matters in what other armies fined men for. As far as underfed, sometimes they were sometimes they weren't, probably depending on the campaign/region and competence and talents of the general. Didn't Scipio Aemilianus forbid certain types of meat preparation?

[Mark Hygate]

Well, it all depends on the definition of the word "conscript"............

Yes, indeed.

Early Republic Romans had a duty to serve. They maintained their own arms and equipment. They were told to report and men were selected to be formed into units and sent off to war. To me that's much more a classic City State Militia who take the defence of their homes under the 'state' as a given. It's the fighting further afield and for longer periods (and so away from farms) that lead to the Marian reforms.

'Conscript' I would use as - a decision by an individual/State to round up all the available 'men' and ship them off to serve, effectively, against their will.

Finally you have the difference of a volunteer professional force who are fighting for regular pay (mercenaries can fall into this category, but I'm restricting the thought to those who are theoretically fighting for the State).

Winning or losing isn't a factor - and neither is discipline.