Minimum Age for the Army

[Mrld]

I've seen so many sources that give a minimum aqge for the army. Some say it was 17 and others say it was 21. Does anyone know?

[Mrld]

Saint Martin of Tours joined the Army at 15. What about this example?

[caldrail]

I think there was a standard age during the height of the empire, but for the life of me I can't think of it now. I'll have to look it up. However, entry was probably more concerned with physique, so a well built youth from a desirable background might well be passed for service at his interview with the recruiters. Mind you, when the empire was declining there was an acute shortage of people signing up. Press gangs were roaming around to kidnap unsuspecting citizens for service, and instances of people cutting off their thumbs increased. This was done because it meant you couldn't hold a sword afterward, but one emperor cottoned on and issued a law that two men without thumbs were as good as one man with hands intact. The nshortage was one of the reasons why so many gothic tribes were fighting for the romans wholesale instead of old fashioned legions. Also regarding age is must be said that youths were expected to grow up faster in roman times. At the age of 15 you might be married and in business. It comes as no suprise to me that Saint Martin joined up at an age we would consider too young.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Under the republic the minimal age was 17 as is given by Polybius in book 6 and Appian when, in his book on the civil wars, he speak of the gracchian legislation on the army.

[Primus Pilus]

Vegetius is certainly rather non committal regarding the age of recruits in the later Roman army...

 

If we follow the ancient practice, the proper time for enlisting youth into the army is at their entrance into the age of puberty. At this time instructions of every kind are more quickly imbibed and more lastingly imprinted on the mind. Besides this, the indispensable military exercises of running and leaping must be acquired before the limbs are too much stiffened by age. For it is activity, improved by continual practice, which forms the useful and good soldier. Formerly, says Sallust, the Roman youth, as soon as they were of an age to carry arms, were trained in the Strictest manner in their camps to all the fatigues and exercises of war. For it is certainly better that a soldier, perfectly disciplined, should, through emulation, repine at his not being yet arrived at a proper age for action, than have the mortification of knowing it is past. A sufficient time is also required for his instruction in the different branches of the service. It is no easy matter to train the horse or foot archer, or to form the legionary soldier to every part of the drill, to teach him not to quit his post, to keep ranks, to take a proper aim and throw his missile weapons with force, to dig trenches, to plant palisades, how to manage his shield, glance off the blows of the enemy, and how to parry a stroke with dexterity. A soldier, thus perfect in his business, so far from showing any backwardness to engage, will be eager for an opportunity of signaling himself.

[Nephele]

I think there was a standard age during the height of the empire, but for the life of me I can't think of it now. I'll have to look it up. However, entry was probably more concerned with physique, so a well built youth from a desirable background might well be passed for service at his interview with the recruiters. Mind you, when the empire was declining there was an acute shortage of people signing up. Press gangs were roaming around to kidnap unsuspecting citizens for service, and instances of people cutting off their thumbs increased. This was done because it meant you couldn't hold a sword afterward, but one emperor cottoned on and issued a law that two men without thumbs were as good as one man with hands intact. The nshortage was one of the reasons why so many gothic tribes were fighting for the romans wholesale instead of old fashioned legions. Also regarding age is must be said that youths were expected to grow up faster in roman times. At the age of 15 you might be married and in business. It comes as no suprise to me that Saint Martin joined up at an age we would consider too young.

 

While on the subject of physical requirements for induction into the Roman army (and I apologize for asking if this question has already been answered elsewhere), Caldrail, do you (or anyone else here) know anything about the Roman army rejecting left-handed recruits?

 

I read that the reason for not enlisting left-handed men had to do with army formation. That a right-handed soldier would be holding his shield on his left arm and thus would be half-covering the man on his left, as well as being similarly protected by the man on his right in the line of formation. The problem with a left-handed man would be that he would be using his left hand for his sword and his right hand for his shield, and that would throw off the formation.

 

Has anyone here heard or read of this?

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

While on the subject of physical requirements for induction into the Roman army (and I apologize for asking if this question has already been answered elsewhere), Caldrail, do you (or anyone else here) know anything about the Roman army rejecting left-handed recruits?

 

I read that the reason for not enlisting left-handed men had to do with army formation. That a right-handed soldier would be holding his shield on his left arm and thus would be half-covering the man on his left, as well as being similarly protected by the man on his right in the line of formation. The problem with a left-handed man would be that he would be using his left hand for his sword and his right hand for his shield, and that would throw off the formation.

 

Has anyone here heard or read of this?

 

-- Nephele

 

Right-hand fighting was fundamental to roman warfare because of the tight large-shielded heavy infantry formations. Even if someone was left-handed, they would be taught to fight with the right hand. That was simply commonsense. If the recruit couldn't handle that, then out they go. I suspect, though I haven't seen evidence, that recruits identified as left-handed probably didn't go any further. Notice the parallel with gladiatorial combat, where left -handed fighting was tolerated but rare and unusual, since all trainees were invariably taught right-handed drill.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Does anyone know what the minimum physical requirements would have been to become a legionary? What kind of physical shape were these men in compared to modern soldiers? Also, I've heard that the minimum height to enlist during the classic age of the legionary was 5'7". This doesn't seem like it could possibly be true to me, as this kind of restriction would probably disqualify something like a third of the male population today, when we are considerably taller than the ancient Romans. This wasn't exactly a reputable source though, just something I've heard along the way. Any info is appreciated.

[Primus Pilus]

Does anyone know what the minimum physical requirements would have been to become a legionary? What kind of physical shape were these men in compared to modern soldiers? Also, I've heard that the minimum height to enlist during the classic age of the legionary was 5'7". This doesn't seem like it could possibly be true to me, as this kind of restriction would probably disqualify something like a third of the male population today, when we are considerably taller than the ancient Romans. This wasn't exactly a reputable source though, just something I've heard along the way. Any info is appreciated.

 

Here you go...

How tall was the average Roman legionary?

[Divi Filius]

Under the volunteer army, when at its peak, the average enlistment age was probably between 17-25. I doubt it would have been much younger or older. Scipio Africanus was around that age when he participated at the battle of Trebia; Scipio Africanus the Younger was around that same age at the battle of Pydna. Julius Caesar seems to have joined around the age of 20.

 

Under stressful times younger recruits may be taken. At Cannae the field army probably had a large number of 16 year olds in it.

 

As for an exact age: I think the Roman stress for physicality meant that this was very loose.

Edited June 5, 2007 by Divi Filius

[caldrail]

Does anyone know what the minimum physical requirements would have been to become a legionary? What kind of physical shape were these men in compared to modern soldiers? Also, I've heard that the minimum height to enlist during the classic age of the legionary was 5'7". This doesn't seem like it could possibly be true to me, as this kind of restriction would probably disqualify something like a third of the male population today, when we are considerably taller than the ancient Romans.

Good health, good teeth, evidence of muscular development, and a certain amount of self-assurance. The romans were no different in health to modern soldiers apart from less willingness to recruit softies, who get PT and so on to build them up these days. Romans were expected to be fit from the start, which is why people from sedentary backgrounds had a harder time getting in. 5' 7" refers to roman measurements. Twelve roman inches is equal to eleven and a half imperial inches. Our 5'9" was their 6'.