+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Rights of the Roman soldier (/showthread.php?tid=12378)
Rights of the Roman soldier - marcii ulpi messala - 04-16-2008
When a Roman soldier was amputated in the battlefield, once treated? A) he continue belonging to the army until the end of his contract? B) was it licensed by salary until the end of his contract? C) ¿ or was it licensed without right to salary or remuneration?
¿Cuando un soldado romano era amputado en el campo de batalla, una vez curado? a) ¿SeguÃa perteneciendo al ejército hasta el final de su contrato? b) ¿era licenciado con sueldo hasta el final de su contrato? c) ¿o era licenciado sin derecho a sueldo o recompensa?
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Carlton Bach - 04-16-2008
An invalided soldier would receive a missio causaria, basically a premature honourable discharge. I'm not sure whether we have any decent evidence for this, but it is usually assumed that he would receive a discharge premium (land or money) and take his savings along. I don't thionk the Roman state ever paid pensions.
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Tiberius Clodius Corvinus - 04-16-2008
On your question I found this in Rowan's Osprey Warrior No. 71:
Quote:"White haired men, many who have lost a limb from wounds, are in their thirtieth and fortieth year of service. Even after discharge their soldiering does not end, but remaining under the standards [i.e. vexilla veteranorum] they continue to endure the old hardships under a different name."(Tacitus, Ann., 1.17)
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - D B Campbell - 04-16-2008
Quote:An invalided soldier would receive a missio causaria, basically a premature honourable discharge. I'm not sure whether we have any decent evidence for this ...Indeed we do!
The diploma CIL XVI, 10 (= AE 1932, 211) says that causari(i) qui militaverunt in leg(ione) II Adiutrice Pia Fidele qui bello inutiles facti ante emerita stipendia exauctorati sunt et dimissi honesta missione ("invalids who served in the Second Loyal & Faithful Legion Adiutrix who were made ineffective in war before completing their service (stipendia) are released and dismissed with honourable discharge").
Roman military law (as recorded in the Digest, XLIX.16.13) laid down that missionum generales causae sunt tres: honesta causaria ignominiosa ("in general there are three kinds of discharge: honourable, for invalids, and dishonourable".)
But it seems that all men who were invalided out were given honourable discharge, because Digest XLIX.16.13 also states that anyone qui causaria missus est ("who is discharged for cause", i.e. as an invalid) was still eligible for the praemia (reward) of a veteran.
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Carlton Bach - 04-16-2008
Quote:On your question I found this in Rowan's Osprey Warrior No. 71:
Quote:"White haired men, many who have lost a limb from wounds, are in their thirtieth and fortieth year of service. Even after discharge their soldiering does not end, but remaining under the standards [i.e. vexilla veteranorum] they continue to endure the old hardships under a different name."(Tacitus, Ann., 1.17)
I'd be careful extrapolating from that. The Romans must have had different standards of what constituted being an invalid from, us, but Tacitus' account of the mutinies refers to a time of recruitment shortage, not standard practice throughout.
@ Duncan: Thanks!
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Tiberius Clodius Corvinus - 04-17-2008
Quote:I'd be careful extrapolating from that. The Romans must have had different standards of what constituted being an invalid from, us, but Tacitus' account of the mutinies refers to a time of recruitment shortage, not standard practice throughout.
pretty right. But happened to and fro. I wonder how useful a soldier without leg, hand, or whatever could be back then? :o
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Tiberius Clodius Corvinus - 04-17-2008
May be this helps on your question:
Ross Cowan in Osprey Warrior No. 71 cites Scheidel:
Quote:In times of relative peace a legion of 5,000 men probably suffered a decremental mortality rate of about 40 per cent over a 25-year service period (indicative of the endemic diseases in the Roman world), and a further 15 per cent through soldiers invalided out of service. Consequently the legion would require 280 recruits annually to maintain optimum strength.You have to calculate further yourself ... 8)
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Decius - 04-17-2008
I just noticed that I own the book myself :roll:
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Carlton Bach - 04-17-2008
Quote:Carlton Bach:35so9fvj Wrote:I'd be careful extrapolating from that. The Romans must have had different standards of what constituted being an invalid from, us, but Tacitus' account of the mutinies refers to a time of recruitment shortage, not standard practice throughout.
pretty right. But happened to and fro. I wonder how useful a soldier without leg, hand, or whatever could be back then? :o
Missing entire limbs would have been pretty crippling back then (despite the stereotype, early modern navies and even pirate crews usually mustered out such people or kept them in noncombat roles). But there are lots of injuries that would handicap a man, but not enough to disqualify him as a fighter. A badly healed fracture, stiff joint, missing finger, eye, teeth . . . I doubt the legions would have readily granted a missio causaria on such grounds, especially not in times of manpower shortage.
As a professor of mine used to say: in premodern society, 'sick' means unable to work. Otherwise, you're healthy.
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Magnus - 04-18-2008
Makes you wonder though...depending on what limb was gone, there were always some administrative duties that could be performed? Why lose all that good training by discharge?
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Carlton Bach - 04-18-2008
Quote:Makes you wonder though...depending on what limb was gone, there were always some administrative duties that could be performed? Why lose all that good training by discharge?
Well, if that soldier had administrative training, commanders would likely have considered keeping him. But the legions technically didn't have a noncombat element, and it is likely the majority of their soldiers never received training in anything but combat. Again, I'm not sure whether we can document any such cases. Speculatively, I'd say a groundpounder could be out for an injury that would not necessarily disqualify a tabularius or blacksmith. I don't quite envision anyone wanting to retrain a soldier out of hospital, though.
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Magnus - 04-18-2008
True, his rank and duty would play a large part in it.
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - D B Campbell - 04-18-2008
Quote:But there are lots of injuries that would handicap a man, but not enough to disqualify him as a fighter. A badly healed fracture, stiff joint, missing finger, eye, teeth . . . I doubt the legions would have readily granted a missio causaria on such grounds, especially not in times of manpower shortage.It's interesting that the diploma (quoted above) specifies that the men who were invalided out had been "made useless/ineffective in war". I wonder what their definition of "useless" was?
(I imagine it would be folks who could no longer bear arms, rather than those who were just feeling a little unwell. :wink: )
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Tiberius Clodius Corvinus - 04-18-2008
Quote: I doubt the legions would have readily granted a missio causaria on such grounds, especially not in times of manpower shortage.It may also, that the Romans didn't muster their disabled vets out, because it was cheaper to let them in service, even though incapable of fighting, than to pay them their leave money. I read they used every trick to spare money.
In that respect, I remember - by all problems with modern comparisons - that my uncle, who's personnel manager of a fire department in Germany, told me how he had to reshuffle firemen which could not fighting fires anymore for physical reasons within the fire brigades to give them jobs they were still able to do (e.g. maintencance or else). Of course no amputees.
Another point could be that disabled legionaries were never intended to fight in the front ranks, but as long as they were able to throw javelins from the rear. Just a thought.
Quote:'sick' means unable to work. Otherwise, you're healthy.sometimes got the impression, these times come back :roll:
Re: Rights of the Roman soldier - Cornelius A - 09-02-2011
This topic has been more than 3 years ago, I hope someone will still read this.
Does someone know a good study about crippled Roman soldiers/veterans and about the so called "missio causaria"?
It would be of great help.
Thanks!