Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Importance of the Citizenship


caldrail

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I suspect the rural poor were recruited more often, simply because most legions traditional recruiting grounds were in the provinces.

 

Why were they recruiting in the provinces instead of in Italy or even Rome itself? Because they were closer to the frontiers, had a higher success rate, or both? Was there any attempt to recruit in urban areas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why were they recruiting in the provinces instead of in Italy or even Rome itself? Because they were closer to the frontiers, had a higher success rate, or both? Was there any attempt to recruit in urban areas?

 

I don't really know Cato, but if the 10th Legion for example was recruited originally in Spain, and then enlistments for it took place there from then on. Even when the Legion was stationed in Judea I understand the new recruits had to march/sail from Spain to Judea to meet up with the veterans. I will have a look at some of the other legions and see if I can find some other detail regarding urban recruitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Furius it is. I must say some of his claims did seem far fetched like the "only every 16 years" you mention, but it's not the only place I've read of recruitments taking place in the same locale, and recruits then being posted to join the Legion wherever that may be. Would this have been due to ex-legionaries being given land in the province of origin on discharge, and subsequently providing a ready pool in that area ? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think later on that was true. But in 65, when the 'Spanish Legions' were raised I doubt very much it was the case. Look at the fuss there was when Caesar recruited 'the Larks' from non citizens in Cisalpinme Gaul. I'm unconvinced that there were suffiucient Roman citizens in Spain in 65BC to recruit 4 new legions. That'd be 20 000 men (24000 if we follow Collins) from a single 'age class'. Even if we assume 25% of the male citizenry were levied, there'd have to be a population of about half a million Roman citizens in Spain. Is there evidence for this?

 

Dando-Collins' book is full of interest and very entertaining, but I'm afraid I'm treating a lot of his claims with extreme caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rural poor were also more likely recruited because they vastly outnumbered the urban poor. If broad estimates of 70 - 90% of the ancient population living in rural areas is true, and we can assume that the rural population had a far higher ratio of poor vs. rich (as the highest concentration of wealth was certainly centered in the cities) it just makes sense for the rural poor to have made up the bulk of the recruits. (Especially when we consider that urban population percentage did not truly increase by great numbers until the 20th century).

 

Urban poor was certainly recruited in the late Republic by men like Marius due to various circumstances, but as more Italians were enfranchised and more rural citizenry was available, there was a corresponding shift to rural recruitment. Urban poor probably continued to be recruited but they probably made up an equivelant percentage of the base population. If 20% of a region was urban (without taking into account the wealth of urban vs. rural citizens) then it might stand to reason that only 20% (and probably less due to the wealth factor) of that regional recruitment was urban.

 

As for Dando-Collins, isn't he essentially considered a novelist? I'm sure he did his research and probably pays considerable attention to historical detail, but scholarly reviews seem to dismiss him as a historian, though I haven't tried any of his books personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the fuss there was when Caesar recruited 'the Larks' from non citizens in Cisalpinme Gaul. I'm unconvinced that there were suffiucient Roman citizens in Spain in 65BC to recruit 4 new legions. That'd be 20 000 men (24000 if we follow Collins) from a single 'age class'. Even if we assume 25% of the male citizenry were levied, there'd have to be a population of about half a million Roman citizens in Spain. Is there evidence for this?

 

Good point, no I don't imagine half a mill as a realistic figure.

As for Dando Collins, his books (I've only read the one) aren't presented as fiction, but then I haven't checked through his bibliography either, and did note at the time of reading an annoying lack of footnotes. He is Australian though, and those people are notoriously reliable - LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's certainly done a lot of research and his style is easy to read. Sadly though I think too many of his assertions can be debunked. The bibliography includes most of the books you'd expect but interestingly not Keppie or Goldsworthy. Neither is Webster's work on the Roman army featured. Rather telling omissions I think.

 

I think it's a great book for those who've read Keppie et al because it makes you reconsider certain points. But it's too flawed and controversial to make a good intro book.

 

Oh, Germaincus, I noticed a small typo in your post. You omitted the 'un' from before 'reliable'...

 

 

Edit: I've been glancing through Caesar's Legion again and he actually claims that Legions III-IX were raised in Spain in 65! I'm also sad to say that in a quick glance over 6 pages I noticed two indisputable errors of fact, one contradiction (possibly a typo but I doubt it) and plenty of unsubstantiated assertion. Which is a real shame because it's a good read.

Edited by Furius Venator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 20% of a region was urban (without taking into account the wealth of urban vs. rural citizens) then it might stand to reason that only 20% (and probably less due to the wealth factor) of that regional recruitment was urban.

 

But this is the question we need to address to know about the effect of expanding citizenship. Was there an inverse correlation between citizens' rights and military service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't think it's disputed that hard on the heels of universal citizenship came a shortage of manpower for the army.

 

However I don't know enough about the period in question to state positively that they were (at least partial) cause and effect.

 

The republic didn't seem to struggle for soldiers until Marius' time.

 

the post-Marian army seemed well able to recruit men for the legions until well into the empire.

 

I suspect the unlikelihood of getting rich through loot (not much conquering being done), coupled with the increasing need to be well connected/have money to 'get on' in the army meant that citizens became reluctant to serve for 20 years under army discipline in the legions.

 

Coupled with that, universal citizenship robbed the auxiliaries of potential recruits.

 

And maybe army life was just seen as too hard and 'boring' with the likelihood of postings to such beauty spots as Wallsend...

 

But hard evidence for much of that I am sadly lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The republic didn't seem to struggle for soldiers until Marius' time.

But was this because supply decreased or because demand increased?

 

In that case both... the destruction of armies at Norica, Tolosa and Aurasio over the span of about 7 years (perhaps with losses of as many as 150,000 men) and the ongoing war against Jugurtha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...