Roman Legion Recruitment Question

[Panzersharkcat]

I was reading Caesar's Legion and skipped to one of the appendixes called "The Reenlistment Factor." It goes into detail on how Roman legions were enlisted en masse and discharged after sixteen years (later twenty) and how legions at the end of their enlistments would be very understrength. Was there a reason it was done this way instead of having constant recruitment replacing a legion's losses as it goes along? I never found one in the book.

[Thanas]

What are his sources for legions not recruiting to make up casualties?

[Panzersharkcat]

I don't see an endnote for it. He only says, for replacements for casualties, that auxiliaries were recruited as required. In the first two paragraphs of that appendix, quoted to make sure I'm not mangling what the author is saying, he writes,

Unlike present-day armies, which have intakes of recruits on an ongoing basis, from republican times the men of the Roman legions were all recruited into their units at the same time, in mass intakes. It was exceptionally rare for replacements to be brought into a legion during the course of its enlistment, unless, as in the case of the 15th Legion in 54 B.C., it was to replace an enlistment that had been completely wiped out in battle. Sometimes, by the end of an enlistment period, particularly if the legion had suffered heavy casualties during its sixteen-or-twenty-year enlistment, a legion could be significantly understrength.
The recruiting of auxiliary units was much more haphazard, as auxiliaries were not Roman citizens and did not have the protection of Roman contract law like legion recruits, who signed a binding contract with the state on enrolling with their legion. New auxiliary units were frequently recruited as and when required, with the new units put at the disposal of the legions, particularly those legions that were understrength, to serve alongside them in particular conflicts as support units.

[Thanas]

That is BS. Non-surprising for Dando-Collins, who cannot even keep his own legion straight - seriously in the book he confuses Legio X Equestris (which later got formed into the Legio X Gemina) with the Legio X Fretensis. He is to be avoided when it comes to serious research. Dando-Collins is not a serious historian.

He probably got this nonsense from the republican times were legions were formed and disbanded on a yearly basis. But this was not the case for the Imperial period.

[Panzersharkcat]

Yeah, I saw his confusion between the two legions when I was reading the part on the first Jewish-Roman war (it's where I am right now) and later looked up Titus online. Just to get this straight, though, how did replacement for casualties in the legions work? The other two books I have on Rome at the moment are just broad histories and don't go into too much detail on the organization of the legions.

[Thanas]

There were two ways in which replacement worked - local recruiting and centralized dispersal. The first one is rather easy - volunteers arrive at the legionary camp and ask for admittance into the rolls of the legion. If fit and if there was a need, they would be taken on. Local recruiting was oftentimes preferred in wartime because the advantages are instantaneous.

The other method was the preferred method of the Imperial bureaucracy. Usually, each city/military camp had a sort of recruitment office. The officer in charge of that would conduct an examination and then if you had the necessary patronage/skillset would place you on a list, said list would then be given to the Governor or the Imperial Office, which would then distribute the recruits according to the strength reports received by the legions. People placed higher than the list would get their enlistment first and waiting for a few years was apparently not that uncommon.

[xthetenth]

People placed higher than the list would get their enlistment first and waiting for a few years was apparently not that uncommon.

That's very interesting. Does it imply the surplus of manpower that I think it does?

[Panzersharkcat]

Ah, thank you. That makes much more sense than stupidly running around for years severely understrength. Would I be correct in assuming new recruits would have the same sixteen (and later twenty) year enlistment so as to keep the legion going?

[Thanas]

People placed higher than the list would get their enlistment first and waiting for a few years was apparently not that uncommon.

That's very interesting. Does it imply the surplus of manpower that I think it does?

Yes. Up until the third century, when legions were understrength, it was by choice to reduce costs. There was also less need for legions to be at strength in areas like, say, Upper Egpyt because there was no real danger there (aside from a few rebelling and starving peasants and the odd expedition to burn some villages/exterminate some tribes to let the Sudanese know to stay clear from Egypt). Not surprisingly, these duty posts were favorites. But even in Late Antiquity, when we have all kinds of things that would usually discourage signing up, we still have waiting lists. Some famous example for the depth of Roman manpower would be the raising of two new full legions despite suffering from a plague epidemic under Marcus Aurelius.

One could also always fix manpower issues by lowering the ridiculously high standards of the army.

Ah, thank you. That makes much more sense than stupidly running around for years severely understrength. Would I be correct in assuming new recruits would have the same sixteen (and later twenty) year enlistment so as to keep the legion going?

Yes. There was a gradual change as young replaced the old etc. BTW, one more argument against "no latecomers" would be the fact that the Romans kept a detailed list of the terms of service of each individual, which was so important that they even inscribed it on the tombstones. If everybody had been recruited at the same time, then such a practice would have been pointless.

[Esquire]

Could you say a bit more about the 'ridiculously high standards'?

[Thanas]

Could you say a bit more about the 'ridiculously high standards'?

Sure. The Romans held their soldiers to very high fitness and body standards. For example, no recruit was allowed in that would not meet the following criteria:

- good eyesight
- at least 1,66m tall
- had to be able to march 40 miles in 12 hours in full kit
- had to be able to run at least one mile in full kit
- no injuries aka not missing more than one finger - and that finger may not be the thumb
- no STDs or other infectious diseases, no body irregularities.

As you can imagine, only 0.5-3% of Roman males passed those tests. BTW, this is also why the myth of "tall hunky barbarians charging wildly at the tinier but more disciplined Romans" is just that - a myth. On average, the Roman soldier was taller and more muscular than the typical barbarian.

[fgalkin]

But clearly not all barbarians? I remember a passage from the Conquest of Gaul where they mocked the Romans for their short stature? Or am I misremembering here?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ray245]

- had to be able to march 40 miles in 12 hours in full kit
- had to be able to run at least one mile in full kit

Was this part of the entry requirement? I can only recall the Romans training their troops to do that. It will be weird for the Romans to expect new recruits to do all those without any form of training.

[Thanas]

- had to be able to march 40 miles in 12 hours in full kit
- had to be able to run at least one mile in full kit

Was this part of the entry requirement? I can only recall the Romans training their troops to do that. It will be weird for the Romans to expect new recruits to do all those without any form of training.

You were not a full member of the legion until you passed basic training. As for the entry requirement, you were required to show athleticism enough to make them believe you could hack it.

But clearly not all barbarians? I remember a passage from the Conquest of Gaul where they mocked the Romans for their short stature? Or am I misremembering here?

It is typical Roman propaganda. Look at us, we are so disciplined we can overcome those huge hairy barbarians because we got honor, courage and discipline on our side while those beasts have nothing but brute force.

Then again, Caesar might not have introduced those standards to his forces - after all, he was in the situation of simply needing every person that can carry a weapon, so he might not have set such high recruiting standards like the later Emperors.

[Zinegata]

Did the auxilia have a different standard of recruitment? Or were non-citizens simply folded into the legions and simply had a longer term of service?

[Thanas]

Depends on the auxilia in question. For example, when it comes to skirmishers, focusing on rather large men would be counterproductive. In General, we do not have enough evidence to prove anything regarding standards of the auxillaries, because the units are not all known and pretty much in flux.

[Sarevok]

Regarding stature of Legionaires, what was the average height of people like during the antiquity ? It is popularly said that people during the dark ages tended to be small and short. But did the average Roman citizen or tribal people of Gaul those days stand as tall as us ?

Edit:

Another question. Did the requirements for joining the legions required at least having basic literacy ?

[Simon_Jester]

- had to be able to march 40 miles in 12 hours in full kit
- had to be able to run at least one mile in full kit

Was this part of the entry requirement? I can only recall the Romans training their troops to do that. It will be weird for the Romans to expect new recruits to do all those without any form of training.

Modern militaries do the same thing. There's a program of basic training in which you train to do a lot of route marching, running, and so on. But to even get into training you have to pass a physical fitness exam- and many sedentary people today would have to do a lot of exercise just to get fit enough to pass that.

In Roman times, I bet the problem would be less a matter of lack of exercise (nearly everyone was a manual laborer) and more a matter of malnutrition and short stature. Someone who lived through two major famines before they were twelve probably isn't going to have the physical strength and stamina to run moderate distances with heavy loads, or march long distances with same.

[Thanas]

Regarding stature of Legionaires, what was the average height of people like during the antiquity ? It is popularly said that people during the dark ages tended to be small and short. But did the average Roman citizen or tribal people of Gaul those days stand as tall as us ?

Evidence suggest that they were within comparable range to early 19th century Europeans. The same holds true for Roman animals. The dark ages created a drastic drop in that - both people and animals were shorter than during Roman times.

Edit:

Another question. Did the requirements for joining the legions required at least having basic literacy ?

No, but it was a requirement for becoming an officer or (logically) joining the clerical ranks of the legion. Though some military manuals stress that soldiers should be tought to read and write after joining, I don't know if that is applicable to the legions as a whole or whether it even holds true during all the areas of the principate. The only manuals I can remember mentioning that are late antiquity anyway.

So I would say that it was not a requirement for joining, remedial training might or might not have happened.

In Roman times, I bet the problem would be less a matter of lack of exercise (nearly everyone was a manual laborer) and more a matter of malnutrition and short stature. Someone who lived through two major famines before they were twelve probably isn't going to have the physical strength and stamina to run moderate distances with heavy loads, or march long distances with same.

The state took care of subsidizing soldier families with grain, or to give grain for free to children (apparently of both sex and to orphans as well). So malnutrition might not play such a large role, especially considering the amount of free food that was given to Romans by the state later on.