How \'privileged\' was the average Roman soldier?

[FlorivsVirilis]

Salvete omnes!

Just how privileged was the average (Imperial) Roman soldier?

When a man joined the military he could expect: food, clothing, accommodation, a secure income and, if he was a skilled worker, even the prospect of doing an additional occupation within the military such as a blacksmith, carpenter etc - things that were not necessarily guaranteed to a civilian. He seems to have also had a high standing in law, I think it was Juvenal who said that "it is hard for a civilian to gain redress for the abuses committed by a soldier". He could also make a will even if his father was alive etc.

Indeed, these things seem very appealing, but a soldier was also subject to extremely harsh discipline, could not marry (although soldiers still held long term relationships with some women), had to work hard and train almost every single day, run the risk of getting killed on campaign, and theoretically, serve a whole 25 years in the army - that's a considerable amount of time...

All in all then, was the average Roman soldier that privileged compared to a citizen? Weighing it all up, who do you think would be better off in the ancient world?

- Lorenzo

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Lorenzo, I moved your post to the proper area.

[FlorivsVirilis]

Thanks, sorry I must have been half a sleep haha

[PhilusEstilius]

Robert
I'm not wanting to appear too ignorant but to which area have you moved the post of Lorenzo

[Matthew Amt]

Well, in the civilian world the lower classes ran all the hazards they do today: unemployment, homelessness, starvation, etc. A certain amount of this may have been compensated for by the patronage system, but not enough. There's a Roman writer who tells that on the last night of the month, just before rent was due, the streets were filled with families scurrying to find a new residence, with all their belongings slung over their backs in blankets. They'd move into new apartments for a month, and cut out again just before Rent Day! And do you know what kind of doctor you get if you can't afford a good one? Eek... Any job you get will be basic unskilled labor, with minimal pay and no benefits. (This assumes you don't have enough of any specialized skill to get you out of the lower class!) Sure, there won't be a centurion hovering over you with his stick, and no authorities to care if you get drunk and beat your wife and kids. But you could be robbed or assaulted or murdered in the street, with just as little legal recourse.

The chance of getting killed in action really wasn't all that great. Up into the 20th century, armies always lost far more men to disease and every-day accidents and other problems than to battle wounds. You'd still have all those accidents and diseases in the civilian world, in fact I'd guess a fort would be much more hygienic than most slums! Barracks probably didn't collapse or burn down as often as apartment buildings, either.

So join the army! Not only a roof over your head and guaranteed food, you also have access to medical care, enough pay to help support a family, and a PENSION. Do your job well, and even the threat of beatings decreases dramatically, plus you can actually work your way up in the world. The army was about the only way that one could actually move up in social status from lowest class to the equestrian order (should you be so lucky as to retire as a centurion). And only legal Roman marriage was forbidden--any local "common law" marriage you might enter into would be recognized as legal upon your discharge, with your children gaining citizenship. THAT's a nice benny! Heck, even your burial was covered.

All that, PLUS you get to kill people and take their stuff!! WOO HOOOO!

When Marius opened enlistment to the unlanded classes, even before all these benefits had been worked out, poor men flocked to him in droves. Just having an income was enough. Add all the rest, and you've got the best job in the world.

Vale,

Matthew

[Epictetus]

Soldiers also had another right which hasn’t been mentioned yet: the right of confiscation from the people. I don’t know too much about it and hope some others will help out.

Evidently they had the privilege of exacting hospitality (like winter quarters), provisions, transport and in some cases cash from the civilian population. (This is in addition to the taxes-in-kind for the armies, so don’t confuse the two issues.)

Evidently added to this was illegal (but sometimes accepted) extortion, often called by the euphemism supplementa. Soldiers would approach a community as a press-gang of sorts, but announce that in lieu of recruiting new soldiers they would take cash. (Supplementa was the standard term for newly recruited reinforcements, but in this case it actually refers to the cash extortion. To make matters more confusing, there was a legitimate version of this cash-instead-of-soldiers transaction, known in Greek as synteleia teironon, that was sometimes offered as an option by the emperor. Evidently illegitimate versions undertaken on the initiative of common soldiers were widespread in more troubled times.)

Judging from all the complaints from communities to the emperor which have been enshrined in stone, there must have been some limits to this right. Apparently soldiers were only supposed to take a certain amount from certain communities, normally those located on major military highways. After 204 soldiers were not supposed to loot houses owned by senators according to a senatus consultum, which kind of shows how widespread and endemic (and semi-approved by the imperial apparatus) this had become.

[M. Demetrius]

So it was government-sanctioned and government-directed extortion? Shhh! Don't talk about this. We don't want to give them any ideas, do we?

[PhilusEstilius]

I think it was very much as Matthew has pointed out the chances of a better life and living longer, shelter, money, good food, medical care, and having served about as long as any Roman soldier did I think I can speak from experience. ( it's a great life if you don't weaken )

[Quintius Clavus]

A Roman civilian man, born of a legal marriage, whose father was still alive, was still under his father's power. He could not own his own land or control his own money. But from Augustus' time a legionary soldier, born of a legal marriage and whose father was still alive, was granted control over his property that was related to his military service and the ability to make a "military will". A military will was not subject to all the legal strictures of a normal Roman will. Then, Claudius gave soldiers the "rights of married men". Unmarried men faced legal restrictions, due to Augustus' marriage legislation-which both penalized the single and rewarded the married with many children. Soldiers, of course, could not get married legally, so whatever restrictions they may have faced as single men, were swept aside by Claudius' grant.
Auxiliaries, interestingly enough, had one right that legionaries did not possess from Claudius' time until Hadrian's: Their children born during service were made citizens upon discharge and legally marrying their mother. Legionary soldiers did NOT get that for their children born during service at any point during the marriage ban. It is entirely possible that it was a petition by legionaries that got the privilege taken away from the auxiliaries.
(Source: The Marriage of Roman Soldiers by Sara Elisa Phang, Brill, 2001)

In other areas, if a soldier was accused of a crime by a civilian, he usually had the right of trial in the "camp". Many civilians may not have pursued legal action agains soldiers for that reason.

Quinton Johansen/Marcus Quintius Clavus

[arklore70]

When was the privilege revoked from the auxilia concerning children?
R/