married ...but

[Maty]

We know that Republican soldiers sometimes married, (our own dear Vorenus for example) and that Augustan legionaries could not. So, when Augustus decreed that soldiers could not henceforth be married, are we to assume that the prohibition applied only to new recruits? That was my assumption, but someone challenged it recently, and I can't find anything in the sources to support my view - or a contrary one. Can anyone here offer any suggestions either way?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

We know that Republican soldiers sometimes married, (our own dear Vorenus for example) and that Augustan legionaries could not. So, when Augustus decreed that soldiers could not henceforth be married, are we to assume that the prohibition applied only to new recruits? That was my assumption, but someone challenged it recently, and I can't find anything in the sources to support my view - or a contrary one. Can anyone here offer any suggestions either way?

 

Throughout the Principate soldiers were forbidden to be legally married while serving, though of course many had local girlfriends, common-law wives, and children. Upon discharge, a soldier's "marriage" was recognized as legal, and any children he had were recognized as legitimate and Roman citizens. This is not only a nice "perk", since illegitimate children of civilians generally could not become citizens, but it also made a growing recruiting pool for the legions. A steadily increasing number of recruits listed their place of origin as "in castris", "in the camp", meaning their fathers had been soldiers (not necessarily that they had actually been born and raised in a military fortress!).

[Nephele]

I can see, Maty, how sources to support or refute the view that Augustus' decree applied only to new recruits are tough to find.

 

Adolf Berger, in his mammoth compilation of Roman law that he presented to the American Philosophical Society in 1953, apparently agrees. He wrote on matrimonium militis that: "The influence of the husband's enlistment on the existence of the marriage is controversial. The sources do not give a precise answer as to whether the marriage became automatically null or only suspended."

 

Regardless of whether Berger is speaking only of soldiers married before enlistment, or also of enlisted soldiers married at the time of Augustus' decree, I suspect that in either instance sources giving a precise answer will be difficult to find.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

Republican soldiers were married? Thats interesting - I always thought the prohibition on such things dated way back before Augustus. Is this simply a case of Augustus putting old standards back in place?

[WotWotius]

I can see, Maty, how sources to support or refute the view that Augustus' decree applied only to new recruits are tough to find.

 

Adolf Berger, in his mammoth compilation of Roman law that he presented to the American Philosophical Society in 1953, apparently agrees. He wrote on matrimonium militis that: "The influence of the husband's enlistment on the existence of the marriage is controversial. The sources do not give a precise answer as to whether the marriage became automatically null or only suspended."

 

Regardless of whether Berger is speaking only of soldiers married before enlistment, or also of enlisted soldiers married at the time of Augustus' decree, I suspect that in either instance sources giving a precise answer will be difficult to find.

 

-- Nephele

 

According to Goldsworthy, all marriages contracted prior to enlistment were declared illegitimate - the evidence for this is not mentioned.

 

He also notes that centurion were within their rights to marry - again the evidence for this is not mentioned.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Why don't you try This book, it's a bit pricey but if you really need an answer to your question then this may go a long way in helping you out.

 

HERE'S a good review of the book from Bryn Mawr Classical Reviews.

[Nephele]

Why don't you try This book, it's a bit pricey but if you really need an answer to your question then this may go a long way in helping you out.

 

HERE'S a good review of the book from Bryn Mawr Classical Reviews.

 

The author, Sarah Elise Phang, has an impressive curriculum vitae. Do you know her, Maty? Even though her book, The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C.-A.D. 235), is a bit pricey, I'm inclined to buy it for my public library. I see she has another book available from Amazon as well: Roman Military Service.

 

Thanks for that find, GPM!

 

-- Nephele

[Melvadius]

I don't know Phang's work but a couple of years ago I read a fair bit around the subject including an article by Hoffmann B. (1995) 'The Quarters of Legionary Centurions off the Principate', Britannia, Vol 26 which is possibly relevant. In the article she stated the view that centurions' family arrangements are more difficult to assess [than ordinary soldiers], for whilst the relevant legal texts refer exclusively to milites being banned from marriage they did not specifically mention centurions or other more senior ranks .

 

In my view by implication this legal phraseology indicates that centurions in some units may have been allowed to marry, or at the very least establish a

[Maty]

Didn't know of Phang at all, but then, I've only recently had to take a detailed look at military affairs for a recent project. Pity I can't borrow the book from your library Nephele. However, since I have a budget for this, it looks as though Amazon are going to benefit.

 

Thanks for the reference CPM!

[P.Clodius]

Republican soldiers were married? Thats interesting - I always thought the prohibition on such things dated way back before Augustus. Is this simply a case of Augustus putting old standards back in place?

You have to remember the recruits for early-mid Republican legions were comprised of mainly citizen farmers, why wouldn't or couldn't a farmer marry?

[Gaius Octavius]

I think that there are many more nuances to this subject, depending on when, where, what kind of unit, and the rank of the soldier, according to: "The Roman Soldier"; G.R. Watson; Cornell Univ. Press, 1993; starting on page 133. Too much for me to type. Maybe someone can get it on the web. I've lost all of my bookmarks. I don't think that the book is very expensive.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Nephele]

It looks like Amazon is temporarily out of stock of Phang's book, The Marriage of Roman Soldiers, and a private bookseller listed at Amazon is selling the book for nearly double the price -- $219.79. Yikes. I did find a bookseller at AbeBooks who is selling a used copy in "very good" condition for $95.

 

I had the opportunity to have a look at the book at the New York Public Library yesterday. It's a reference book, so they'll be holding it for me next Saturday as well, when I'm back again. While I didn't have much time to sit in the library and read the book yesterday, I did photocopy Chapter Five, which concentrates on the form and scope of the marriage ban for soldiers and Augustus' laws.

 

Phang appears to be of the belief that the marriage of soldiers prior to the Augustan laws was somewhat permitted, or at least tolerated. She states that, in the Republic, Roman soldiers left behind their wives at home.

 

However, she doesn't appear to address specifically your question, Maty, as to what happened to those soldiers who were already married at the time that Augustus passed his decree. At least, from what I've been able to read thus far in the book. (Wish I could've brought this book home with me!)

 

Phang does state that the marriage ban was not so much a law as it was a mandata that had to be renewed by each successive emperor (presumably Augustus through Severus), and that its enforcement was up to the governors.

 

One point that Phang brings up is her certainty that Augustus' marriage ban for soldiers didn't apply to those of the equestrian and senatorial ranks. Because, if it had, then the members of those ranks would have used enlistment into military service as a loophole for getting around Augustus' legislation promoting marriage of the upper orders.

 

Anyway, thought you might like to know a bit of what's in the book before you receive it (if you've already ordered it).

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

Did not the legions (at some point), have 'Burial Societies', for which the quaestor would deduct an amount from the legionaries' salaries to pay for their burial, and to provide something for their wives and families?

Edited April 27, 2008 by Gaius Octavius