Punishment in the late Roman Army

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nick,

Thanks very much for the source info.
More specifically, would you think it likely that the Limitanei units on say, Hadrians Wall, within their last 70 years of service would have 'enjoyed' a more relaxed military regime ? Paul Elliott contends (The Last Legionary, p74) that many of these soldiers were able to take up 'jobs on the side', learn an alternative trade and to acquire 'a network of customers'. On the same page he describes the troops as resembling 'part-time militia' but nevertheless quite able to respond to serious military requirements on an as and when basis. I can't imagine the full weight of military discipline applying in these conditions.

Define those 'last 70 years' please. Are you referring to c. 410 as the end of that period?
Paul is right about the 'jobs on the side, but i would be careful with interpretations in words like 'part-time' militia. As Paul rightly writes, these forces could be counted on as regular forces. It's too often said that the 'jobs on the side' would have rendered the Limitanei next to useless as frontline troops, but their usefulness is clearly attested by the possibility of incorporating them in the field armies when the need arose. We see the same in later Roman times, when the 'part-timers' of the Byzantine themes owned their own lands (and tilled them) but at the same time proved to be very effective defending them.

Hi Claire,

We have to remember that the later period sees much of the time of the Limitanei taken up with craft skills to supplement a meagre and rather inadequate income from the army. By AD400, the pay had not increased for over 200 years and as such inflation meant that the soldiers pay and benefits would not support families. For those in areas such as Hadrians wall, border raiding by parties from the north were highly unlikely to have taken up the full time of stationed troops - and as such, enlisted men were given certain flexibilities to become involved in highly lucrative cottage economies.
It makes perfect sense...

I'd careful with overstating that. Sure, pay did not rise much for a long time, but soldiers' incomes are made up by more than pay alone. As Treadgold showed, pay could sometime be cut in half, but augmented by other means, such as donations of food and equipment. Often when the pay was cut, the state provided higher amounts of food. When pay was raised, it also often meant that the troops had to buy their own equipment.
For all we know, the income of Limitanei units may have been meagre in coin, but large enough in other means to be comfortable enough, without forcing them to become farmers.

Treadgold, btw, writes that 'tracing with any accuracy the level of military pay during the continuing bronze inflation of the fourth and fifth centuries and through various changes in donatives and commutions seems not only impossible but pointless'. (Byzantium and its army p. 155.).