02-23-2015, 01:10 AM
During the republican era, the Roman army was famous for its severe military discipline, with soldiers being beaten and executed for a wide variety of offences. But had this changed by the later empire, and if so, how?
From around the second century or so, soldiers were counted as honestiores, and therefore immune from torture and flogging. This suggests that the only capital offences in the later Roman army were desertion or mutiny, for which a soldier could first be dismissed and then executed. Julian supposedly reintroduced decimation for cowardice, but seems to have misunderstood the concept.
But how were lesser crimes punished? Phang's Roman Military Service (or the bits of it I'm able to read online) seems to suggest pay stoppages or demotion - but could this cover all offences?
The Strategikon orders 'punishment' for disobeying orders etc, but doesn't specify what the punishment might be in non-capital cases. On the other hand, the Military code of Ruffus (probably an officer of Valentinian) is very harsh, with punishments including flogging and mutilation for various offences of disobedience, negligence and theft. Anyone stealing a mule has his hands cut off; rapists are punished by having their noses cut off.
This seems contradictory: was the later army more lenient than its republican ancestor, or much harsher? Is Ruffus's code a kind of Vegetius-type anachronism, based on earlier sources, or is it a genuine representation of the late 4th century army?
Any suggestions much appreciated!
From around the second century or so, soldiers were counted as honestiores, and therefore immune from torture and flogging. This suggests that the only capital offences in the later Roman army were desertion or mutiny, for which a soldier could first be dismissed and then executed. Julian supposedly reintroduced decimation for cowardice, but seems to have misunderstood the concept.
But how were lesser crimes punished? Phang's Roman Military Service (or the bits of it I'm able to read online) seems to suggest pay stoppages or demotion - but could this cover all offences?
The Strategikon orders 'punishment' for disobeying orders etc, but doesn't specify what the punishment might be in non-capital cases. On the other hand, the Military code of Ruffus (probably an officer of Valentinian) is very harsh, with punishments including flogging and mutilation for various offences of disobedience, negligence and theft. Anyone stealing a mule has his hands cut off; rapists are punished by having their noses cut off.
This seems contradictory: was the later army more lenient than its republican ancestor, or much harsher? Is Ruffus's code a kind of Vegetius-type anachronism, based on earlier sources, or is it a genuine representation of the late 4th century army?
Any suggestions much appreciated!
Nathan Ross
