Why the bachelor requirement for early legionnaires?

[400BC]

I am puzzled by the celibacy requirement the Roman army imposed for military musters. I mention it here, but do not really understand it. Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?

Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."

[Nephele]

Nice blog! You may find this discussion on the subject interesting, that we had last year:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8353

 

-- Nephele

[400BC]

Nice blog! You may find this discussion on the subject interesting, that we had last year:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8353

 

-- Nephele

 

Thanks Nephele, it points me towards strong sources. I does seem to be a rather obscure point of Roman lore.

[Aurelia]

I'm not offering the most conventional of sources here but ... I remember that if you turn on the audio commentary in the first or second episode of the first season of the Rome series, the historical consultant talks about Vorenus getting "special dispensation" to get married to Niobe. In a way, enlisting in the army was like entering priesthood in that total dedication was expected from you. In other words, soldiers were expected to be "married" to the army (although obviously they were not expected to take a chastity vow :-)).

Edited April 20, 2009 by Aurelia

[sylla]

I am puzzled by the celibacy requirement the Roman army imposed for military musters. I mention it here, but do not really understand it. Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?

Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."

The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.

As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.

The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.

Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.

Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.

Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I am puzzled by the celibacy requirement the Roman army imposed for military musters. I mention it here, but do not really understand it. Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?

Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."

The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.

As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.

The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.

Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.

Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.

Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.

Also a reason one must not forget but is very valid from at least augustean period would be to have the soldiers free to move quickly from one place to another : no spouse means no tie to the land and the ability to go from Rhine to Persia without growling ( of course they were malcontants, but the rationale can be understood.

I've not looked for the date of introduction of the rule, that might provide us with elements.

[sylla]

The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.

As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.

The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.

Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.

Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.

Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.

Also a reason one must not forget but is very valid from at least augustean period would be to have the soldiers free to move quickly from one place to another : no spouse means no tie to the land and the ability to go from Rhine to Persia without growling ( of course they were malcontants, but the rationale can be understood.

I've not looked for the date of introduction of the rule, that might provide us with elements.

Roman soldiers actually had women and children on a regular basis, and they were not banned from doing so; it was just that such unions (conubium) were irregular but legal, out of the marriage usual prescriptions. Irregular families were probably as much a tie to the land as the legal ones.

 

The precise legal text for the military marriage ban has not been identified yet; it seems this rule came from the early principate, quite possibly close to the Lex Iulia et Papia (18 BC).

Edited April 20, 2009 by sylla

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I'm well aware of the fact the soldiers did build a life, but i'm not sure it had been the spirit of the law... even if on the other hand there were serious concerns on demography in Augustus' staff. Maybe we should see this as a way for soldiers to procreate and produce sons who'll be attracted by the army without having roman patrimoine go their way through automatic inheritance linked to the marriage ?

Yet as I said I never looked in depth on that subject.

[sylla]

I'm well aware of the fact the soldiers did build a life, but i'm not sure it had been the spirit of the law... even if on the other hand there were serious concerns on demography in Augustus' staff. Maybe we should see this as a way for soldiers to procreate and produce sons who'll be attracted by the army without having roman patrimoine go their way through automatic inheritance linked to the marriage ?

Yet as I said I never looked in depth on that subject.

Some legal prescriptions regarding the irregular families are known; for example, Hadrian decreed the children of soldiers who had died intestate be able to inherit if there were no legitimate children or relatives who took precedence.

 

The problem with the pool theory is that the soldiers' offspring were not Roman citizens, meaning they couldn't be recruited as legionaries; there's no evidence (according to Scheidel) that such individuals would have had any additional advantage or incentive for being recruited as auxiliaries than any other peregrini.

Edited April 20, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?

That was an accepted risk of the time. The Romans never thought about 'societal stress' until the mob was banging on the doors.

 

Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."

Roman soldiers of the Republican period were not allowed to marry. Simple as that. It made for aggressive men willinging to fight.

 

The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.

Depends on the period. During the early Republic, the ruling would have been very strict, and given the limited size of consular armies easier to administer. As time went on, this ruling was relaxed somewhat. Still in place, still a traditional expectation, but conveniently ignored if a soldier could get away with it (which pretty well sums up what sort of men they were overall).

 

As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.

Of course it doesn't. The Romans already understood why.

 

The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.

I can see why the notion arose. Illegitimate sons of serving soldiers were viewed favourably by recruiters.

 

Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.

Nonsense. A legionary swore to serve a legion and it's commander in a special ritual. They were already symbolically seperate.

 

Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.

Nonsense. Roman soldiers never willingly surrendered to civilian law and shielded each other from it. Juvenal wrote a piece in his satires about 'judges in boots'.

 

Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.

No. It had everything to do with preventing distraction of soldiers motives and keeping them angry. Having sex is a known calming factor. Having kids is a known motive tio settle down, thus working against the requirement to be mobile at a moments notice. As for citizens, it's recognised that recruiters thought highly of legionaries sons (a somewhat hypocritical view?) and Augustus wasn't against population increases at all. Far from it. His franchise system required the distribution of populations and the more successful the new town, the more wealth came back to Rome.

[sylla]

Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?

That was an accepted risk of the time. The Romans never thought about 'societal stress' until the mob was banging on the doors.

 

Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."

Roman soldiers of the Republican period were not allowed to marry. Simple as that. It made for aggressive men willinging to fight.

 

The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.

Depends on the period. During the early Republic, the ruling would have been very strict, and given the limited size of consular armies easier to administer. As time went on, this ruling was relaxed somewhat. Still in place, still a traditional expectation, but conveniently ignored if a soldier could get away with it (which pretty well sums up what sort of men they were overall).

 

As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.

Of course it doesn't. The Romans already understood why.

 

The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.

I can see why the notion arose. Illegitimate sons of serving soldiers were viewed favourably by recruiters.

 

Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.

Nonsense. A legionary swore to serve a legion and it's commander in a special ritual. They were already symbolically seperate.

 

Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.

Nonsense. Roman soldiers never willingly surrendered to civilian law and shielded each other from it. Juvenal wrote a piece in his satires about 'judges in boots'.

 

Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.

No. It had everything to do with preventing distraction of soldiers motives and keeping them angry. Having sex is a known calming factor. Having kids is a known motive tio settle down, thus working against the requirement to be mobile at a moments notice. As for citizens, it's recognised that recruiters thought highly of legionaries sons (a somewhat hypocritical view?) and Augustus wasn't against population increases at all. Far from it. His franchise system required the distribution of populations and the more successful the new town, the more wealth came back to Rome.

You know, the extensive papyrological research of Dr Sara Phang is still regarded as the standard text on the study of the Roman military family issues , and Professor Scheidel reviewed virtually all the available literature to comment her; so it would be really helpful if you might quote the sources that allow you to so easily dismiss them.

[caldrail]

You know, the extensive papyrological research of Dr Sara Phang is still regarded as the standard text on the study of the Roman military family issues , and Professor Scheidel reviewed virtually all the available literature to comment her; so it would be really helpful if you might quote the sources that allow you to so easily dismiss them.

 

All due respect to Phang and Scheidel but I've no reason to accept their argument because they apparently reviewed everything. They seem to be searching for deep inner meanings in something straightforward. Sometimes learned people search for clever and subtle connotations in a field of study. That doesn't make them right. The Romans weren't subtle at all, and in dealing with warfare, had very practical mindset. They knew full well young men without partners are more competitive and aggressive - exactly what they wanted for their legions. People back then weren't fundamentally different from today (apart from some customs and lifestyles) and you don't see any of this inner subtlety in men trained to fight and kill. back then, fighting was even more acceptable and a way of life for many. Even with religion involved, I seriously find it hard to accept the Romans were intellectual about warfare.

[sylla]

You know, the extensive papyrological research of Dr Sara Phang is still regarded as the standard text on the study of the Roman military family issues , and Professor Scheidel reviewed virtually all the available literature to comment her; so it would be really helpful if you might quote the sources that allow you to so easily dismiss them.

 

All due respect to Phang and Scheidel but I've no reason to accept their argument because they apparently reviewed everything. They seem to be searching for deep inner meanings in something straightforward. Sometimes learned people search for clever and subtle connotations in a field of study. That doesn't make them right. The Romans weren't subtle at all, and in dealing with warfare, had very practical mindset. They knew full well young men without partners are more competitive and aggressive - exactly what they wanted for their legions. People back then weren't fundamentally different from today (apart from some customs and lifestyles) and you don't see any of this inner subtlety in men trained to fight and kill. back then, fighting was even more acceptable and a way of life for many. Even with religion involved, I seriously find it hard to accept the Romans were intellectual about warfare.

Then, your sources speak for themselves; inferring is indeed easier than reviewing. We don't even have an argument here.

[Eagle]

If you signed up for military duty at 17 you are not going to be married at that age, most men did sign up at this age I believe and between wars they would return to their father's farms and eventully their own with their families etc. Until the state took control of their farms and made slaves work their fields leaving the whole family homeless.

[caldrail]

If you signed up for military duty at 17 you are not going to be married at that age, most men did sign up at this age I believe and between wars they would return to their father's farms and eventully their own with their families etc. Until the state took control of their farms and made slaves work their fields leaving the whole family homeless.

 

Romans were considered adults at 15. Women as young as 7 years of age have been recorded as married (though 12 or 13 was more likely). In the Roman world, you grew up a lot faster. You expect to be a grandfather by the age of 35.