Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
conscription
#1
Can someone explain under what circumstances conscripts werre sought and did they serve the entire term or were there circumstances where they were releases early and what would be the penalty for desertion. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
I'm not that big on conscription under Rome, though it did take place under the empire, in the Republic it rarely occured if at all, there was a property qualification to serve at all until the reforms of Marius. However if a levy was called all those with enough property to be eligible were required to appear for selection unless they were time expired through previous service. Hopefully sander's got more to say about the Empire<br>
<br>
<p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#3
I read about this subject a while ago and IIRC the subeject is incompletely understood [isn't it all!] but it may account for some of the cohorts raised from citizens.<br>
<br>
no idea about length of service, but I believe that all citizens were liable to be called up if required<br>
<br>
i would have thought that once enrolled the squaddies were subject to the same discipline as volunteers- although the Roman seem to 'their' way of doing things. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Salve,<br>
<br>
There are still references to the use of the <i> dilectus</i> or conscription levy under the empire. This applied to the unemployed and wanderers (<i> otiosi</i> and <i> vagri</i>) in particular, but it could also involve propertied citizens, though these could evade actual service by providing a <i> vicarius</i>, a replacement (as could be done in many European armies in the 19th century until conscription was made truely universal). Both draftees and volunteers served apparently side by side and for the same duration. Such long terms of conscript service (16 to 25 or more years) are not unique in history: in 18th century Czarist Russia conscripts were also drafted for such long periods. It is only at the start of the third century that sources indicate that volunteers may have predominated, but this was after a pay rise and the grant of new priviledges (legalised marriage for serving soldiers), so those circumstances may indicate that this may not have been not usual before that date.<br>
<br>
The actual process used during the principate is not well understood, though there are references to several sorts of officials, <i> dilectatores</i> and <i> conquisitores</i>, who were responsible for organising drafts. The draft could be used to levy both citizen and peregrine soldiers: one of the complaints of the Batavians was that Roman recruiting officers were levying their men where they used to select their own. In the later empire conscription levies were made in particular areas with a reputation for martial prowess, other areas having to pay a tax instead, but it is not known whether this reflected earlier practice as well. In the later empire landowners were taxed, if not owning enough on their own then collectively, to provide army recruits when a recruiting drive was thought necessary. This probably meant that one had to serve in person or provide a willing recruit (comparable to the <i> vicarius</i> of Trajanic times). By the fourth century military service was made compulsory for sons of soldiers and this may have been a common practice before. The change in priviledges granted to auxiliaries and recorded on their discharge certificates indicate that in the first half of the second century citizenship was no longer automatically granted to their children, who had to take up service to receive it on their own account.<br>
<br>
It is not known whether soldiers under the empire were granted early releases. Though some passages in tacitus seem to refer to auxiliary levies being send home, it is not known whether these would be demobilised or kept in readiness or whether such troops were regulars or perhaps a part time militia. Other evidence seems to indicate that soldiers were more likely to be kept in service beyond their term, the twenty five years being regularly exceeded in recorded careers. This may have been related to problems finding the money to pay for discharge bonuses, which may in some cases or at some particular times not have been provided to all veterans (this is at least suggested by Alston for some Egyptian veterans and in the late Roman army one could be discharged after twenty years with limited rewards and after twenty five with full benefits). There are references to <i> honesta missio ex causa</i>, honarable discharge on medical grounds, and <i> missio causaria</i>, discharge on medical grounds, which, if not actually referring to the exact same thing, seems to indicate that soldiers could be invalided out with discharge benefits.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/12/01 3:28:56 pm<br></i>
Reply
#5
Salve,<br>
<br>
Here are some reading suggestions:<br>
<br>
Brunt, P.A., 'Conscription and volunteering in the Roman imperial army' in: <i> Roman imperial themes</i> (Oxford 1990), 188-214.<br>
<br>
Mommsen, Th., 'Die Conscriptionsordnung der römischen Kaiserzeit' in: <i> Hermes</i> 19 (1884), 1-79; 210-234.<br>
<br>
Wierschowski, L., 'Kriegsdienstverweigerung im römischen Reich' in: <i> Ancient Society</i> 26 (1995), 205-239.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#6
Also in English:<br>
<br>
G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier. ISBN 0801493129. Chapter II, "The Recruit," pp 31-53, addresses joining up. Ch III, "The Soldier," discusses basic training, if it can be called that.<br>
<br>
Roy Davies, Service in the Roman Army, is a compilation of his papers, edited by Maxfield and Breeze, ISBN 085224648X. Unfortunately Davies died rather young, which is tragic as he was one of the brightest of his generation of Roman army scholars. The article, "Joining the Roman Army," 3-32, gives great coverage on the subject.<br>
<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#7
Salve,<br>
<br>
The penalty for desertion laid down in military law was the death sentence. This was in force both during the republic and the empire. Though the Roman disciplinary system was in theory very strict and harsh, it was in practice often not always applied with the severity stipulated in the various legal texts. Several rescripts, answers made to requests by soldiers to the emperor for assistance in legal matters, are in fact pointing to a discipline which would be very relaxed by our modern standards. A request has been preserved by soldier who went absent without leave for several years before returning to his unit and claimed the backlog in pay for his time away. He was courteously informed that that his request could not be taken into consideration. Other references also indicate that troops who had deserted or gone AWOL were not treated harshly, though this was probably dictated by circumstances for instances of executions are known. Soldiers were in general too valuable to be wasted and though from time to time deserters would be executed to make a point most would get off more lightly.<br>
<br>
More can be read about the subject of military regulations and discipline in:<br>
<br>
<br>
Brand, C. E. <i> Roman military law</i> (Austin, Texas 1968).<br>
<br>
Campbell, J.B., <i> The emperor and the Roman army: 31BC-AD235</i> (Oxford, 1984).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: