04-06-2005, 08:00 AM
Many thanks, especially regading the information on what century they were officially allowed to marry, however, i can't see Roman legionaries remaining celebate for 30 years?<br>
<br>
Especially on campaign, as crude as it sounds i would imagine, I may be wrong, that even if they were not allowed to marry, many soldiers would have had children out of wed lock with partners who lived in the small villages that seemed to attached themselves to forts. There's plenty of archelogical evidence that the villages existed and families were present there,and since contraception was limited I would have thought chances are quite a majority of them may have had Roman Blood.<br>
<br>
I'm no expert on when rules were passed regarding the behaviour and status of a soldiers ilagitamet offspring or even if he would take any notice of them, however, it is within our very nature to fall in love and propogate ourselves..regardles of what were told to do!! Earliest example involved a wooden horse and a place called Troy, some bird called Helen and a muppet called Paris.<br>
<br>
So my thought is did the soldiers have families here, yes in all probability. Would they have taught their offspring basic hunting skills, I would of thought yes..logical really, sword play..thinking more of wooden swords.. kids emulate what they see, Roman legionaries were constantly training and unless it was a closed shop /practice they would have been able to see it...and kids just love to play fight.<br>
<br>
Basically if you had children, illegitamate or not and you cared for them, would you not as a father try and pass onto them all of the skills they need to survive in a world which was far harsher than what we see now adays.<br>
<br>
The tablets at Vindolander show me one thing, they were not so different from us, may be they word things a little differently, but they mean the same thing.. invites to dinner or parties..letters to old friends..chasing up suppliers...seems that they were more like us than we may think<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Especially on campaign, as crude as it sounds i would imagine, I may be wrong, that even if they were not allowed to marry, many soldiers would have had children out of wed lock with partners who lived in the small villages that seemed to attached themselves to forts. There's plenty of archelogical evidence that the villages existed and families were present there,and since contraception was limited I would have thought chances are quite a majority of them may have had Roman Blood.<br>
<br>
I'm no expert on when rules were passed regarding the behaviour and status of a soldiers ilagitamet offspring or even if he would take any notice of them, however, it is within our very nature to fall in love and propogate ourselves..regardles of what were told to do!! Earliest example involved a wooden horse and a place called Troy, some bird called Helen and a muppet called Paris.<br>
<br>
So my thought is did the soldiers have families here, yes in all probability. Would they have taught their offspring basic hunting skills, I would of thought yes..logical really, sword play..thinking more of wooden swords.. kids emulate what they see, Roman legionaries were constantly training and unless it was a closed shop /practice they would have been able to see it...and kids just love to play fight.<br>
<br>
Basically if you had children, illegitamate or not and you cared for them, would you not as a father try and pass onto them all of the skills they need to survive in a world which was far harsher than what we see now adays.<br>
<br>
The tablets at Vindolander show me one thing, they were not so different from us, may be they word things a little differently, but they mean the same thing.. invites to dinner or parties..letters to old friends..chasing up suppliers...seems that they were more like us than we may think<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
