Auxiliary Pay

[arklore70]

While it is currently accepted that the auxiliary were paid less than legionary troops as a general rule, do we know if a Citizen member of a auxiliary unit was paid the same rate or perhaps higher due to their higher social status?

There is some documentation of Citizen Cohorts receiving special donatives, so I got to thinking on this while doing my Cross Fit work out today.

Thanks!

[PhilusEstilius]

As an Auxiliary soldier did not gain citizenship until he had become time served after his 25 years, his pay would have been less than that of a Legionary.
However Citizen Cohorts may well refer to retired soldiers who could be called upon to respond to problems in the areas of the provinces where they had retired to.

[Crispvs]

"his pay would have been less than that of a Legionary."


Actually, the evidence might tend to suggest otherwise.

I would refer you to two articles in JRS 82 (1992) and 84 (1994) respectively.

The first article 'Roman Army Pay Scales,' by M.A. Speidel, looks at all the evidence available for military pay and proposes that auxiliary pay was five sixths of legionary pay.

The second article 'Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian,' by R. Alston, was written in reply to Speidel's article and looks again at all of the available evidence but challenges some of Speidel's assumptions and proposes that auxiliary pay may well have been the same as legionary pay.

Both are very closely argued articles but are essential reading if you are interested in Roman military pay. I am not aware of any new evidence having emerged since these articles were written.


As far as correlations between citizenship and wealth are concerned, we should be mindful of the the character of Tremalcio in Petronius' 'Satiricon'. Tremalcio, as a freedman, is not a citizen but commands great wealth. Obviously, the Satiricon is a satire but it should still cause us to tread carefully in assuming that any correlation between citizenship and wealth existed in the lower levels of society.


Crispvs

[D B Campbell]

The second article 'Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian,' by R. Alston, was written in reply to Speidel's article and looks again at all of the available evidence but challenges some of Speidel's assumptions and proposes that auxiliary pay may well have been the same as legionary pay.

Personally, I much prefer Speidel's theory. Alston's conclusion is a little simplistic for my liking: "There cannot have been any significant difference between the pay rates of auxiliary and legionary infantry or between the rates paid to the cavalry of the alae and legions. This suggests that the great scholarly search for auxiliary pay rates has been in vain" (p. 122).

And yet, he concedes Speidel's point that "there were two rates of pay for cavalrymen in the imperial period: the soldiers of the alae were paid more than those serving in the cohorts" (p. 119).

Where does this leave Alston's two-tier pay system, if there are actually three tiers to be accommodated? :? (On the one hand, he says there should only be an infantry-rate and a cavalry-rate, but on the other hand, he says that there were two cavalry-rates!)

[Crispvs]

Thanks Duncan,

I noticed that apparent contradiction myself when I read it but had since forgotten. Thanks for reminding me.
Mind you, that said, I was never quite sure where Speidel managed to find a 1% deduction in each record, considering the nature of some of the evidence.

Crispvs