Ownership of Imperial era Weapons and Armor?

[Gaius Colletti]

A few questions actually, I am a bit confused by how this worked exactly. I remember that a legionary had equipment costs docked from his pay, either when he first joined or when they were damaged in combat. But then someone recently posted in the "Dear madam, your son got pwned by a scorpion" thread that the state sent a legionary's family the bill for his equipment, though I am unaware if they kept the equipment or not.

Was a legionary allowed to keep his equipment after his service was completed, did he gave to give it back/sell it to the state? We have several original military artifacts that had several names on them, so someone, either the state or the legionary passed on the equipment

Another question, in the apparently well known letter from a Roman Marine requesting his father, a legionary, to send him the necessary equipment to join the legions. Why wouldn't he be allowed to join the legions and then have his equipment cost deducted from his yearly pay?

One who hasn't looked too much into this, would just assume that with the Marian reforms, the state provided and owned the equipment.

[kazeryu]

If the soldier was killed shortly after joining, he might not have paid off the full bill for the equipment/burial.

[Crispvs]

I think you must have misunderstood Matt. The soldier's mother was being PAID the cost of her deceased son's equipment, not being billed for it.

Regarding the effect of the Marian reforms, bear in mind that by the time of the letter in question, the Marian reforms had happened two hundred and fifty years before, and the Augustan reorganisation of the army was one hundred and fifty years before. Given that 99.9% of everything written down during the intervening period has simply disappeared off the face of the Earth since that time, who knows what might have changed or stayed the same during that same period?

Crispvs

[Q Rutilius]

If the government paid the man's mother for his weapons, I wonder if this means that: a) Soldiers bought their weapons, and b) At the end of their service the government bought them back? At first I thought this was a laughable idea, but given the Roman view of property rights, perhaps it is not so far fetched. And if sword or helmet is well maintained, how many generations of soldiers can use them?

[Quintius Clavus]

The most common items of multiple owership are helmets. But, I believe there is also a shield boss with more than one man's name on it.

As Crispus wrote above, the letter cited where the soldier is writing to his father for equipment, belongs to a period after AD 140. Something changed in 140 because from about that date, the soldiers appear to have become fully responsible for purchasing their own equipment, as pay stoppages cease. (Sarah Elise Phang, Roman Military Service is one book which mentions it). The Emperor Hadrian is credited with the change or early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, his successor; corruption in the supply system thought to be a reason (by the author) - not necessarily the only one.

The Roman army like any institution changed over time and look at the years we are discussing 250 or so. Marius is credited with reforms; we are on better ground with the reorganization and reforms of Augustus; Claudius for more; Vespasian for others and Hadrian, etc... For none of them do we have the actual regulations or however the reforms were handled. Again, as Crispus wrote, because 99... % of it is gone!

[Robert Vermaat]

It depends on the age I think. Often the state would pay higher wages and tell the soldiers to buy their own weapons, or when pay was in short supply, supply the weapons instead.

I know of some occasions during the 4th century where soldiers took their equipment (including the belt) home upon discharge, but the evidence is not 100% clear. Of course, a soldier could be issued with a standard helmet and replace that one later when he looted or bought one, which would be his personal property of course.

[Caratacus]

On the basis of 'convergent evolution', here is something to ponder on. I once knew a chap (who was 104 when he died) who had served in the Royal Navy throughout the First WW. His mind was pin sharp, though. He told me that, on his first commission in the South Atlantic, a sailor was drowned (fell out of a boat). His kit was sold off by auction (with some items being sold up to three times) and the proceeds were sent to his widowed mother.

I wonder if something like this was not going on (hence my convergent evolution comment) with this chap in the Roman army? I've seen a translation of the papyrus in question. It seems to be a document whereby the chap's mother is being asked to confirm that she has no further claim on the Roman state for her son's gear - which strongly suggests that the soldier owned his own stuff.

As far as having money docked from pay for gear is concerned, there is a number of papyri that strongly suggest this. Possibly the most famous (infamous?) is that from a soldier in legio X Fretensis at Masada, where you can see that he is being charged for a 'white tunic' as well as a linen one. He is also being docked for leather straps/laces. There are other examples from Vindolanda writing tablets of soldiers paying for their gear.

I think I also remember reading somewhere that a recruit was advanced money by the army to purchase his gear when he joined up and that this would then be paid back over time from his wages.

[Crispvs]

OT I know but your mention of the auction of the sailor's effects reminded me of this thread on the Victorian Wars forum:
http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.p...376#p19376
If you were to look at that discussion with no prior knowledge it would only be my post which would suggest that anything else ever happened.

Crispvs (posting as Pgeddes on VWF)