06-19-2005, 07:49 PM
OK, this is not really something I expect to hear a straightforward answer to, but I'd like to sound you out. In your estimation, opinion or educated guesswork, how wealthy (or poor) were Roman soldiers compared to people in their environment?
Some writers assumed they received little more than pocket money. I can't quite square that with the evidence showing that soldiers owned highly decorated equipment, jewelry, and significant sums in cash.
On the other hand, while it was said that troops in the Augustan era were better off than ever, the descriptions of the revolting legionaries do not sound like a wealthy provincial elite.
There is evidence of soldiers owning horses and slaves (it was argued that this was captured loot, but I'm not convinced. Aside from the question of fair distribution - except when the legion nabs 6,000 slaves at once - it strikes me as foolish to keep a domestic slave you captured personally). The law makes provision for soldiers making substantial bequests. Yet surviving documents also show soldiers asking relatives to send them individual items of clothing or inexpensive foodstuffs which surely a well-paid force could afford.
How do you read this? Is the average Roman soldier a poor slob in unwashed woolens begging his relatives for morsels from their table? A well-paid functionary of the Empire? Does this change significantly over time (declining fortunes from Augustus to the Severans)? Or is it more of a case of soldiers being paid in cash in an environment where the economy is only partly monetised, and thus having better access to status goods but limited access to non-monetised exchange items?
Curious
Some writers assumed they received little more than pocket money. I can't quite square that with the evidence showing that soldiers owned highly decorated equipment, jewelry, and significant sums in cash.
On the other hand, while it was said that troops in the Augustan era were better off than ever, the descriptions of the revolting legionaries do not sound like a wealthy provincial elite.
There is evidence of soldiers owning horses and slaves (it was argued that this was captured loot, but I'm not convinced. Aside from the question of fair distribution - except when the legion nabs 6,000 slaves at once - it strikes me as foolish to keep a domestic slave you captured personally). The law makes provision for soldiers making substantial bequests. Yet surviving documents also show soldiers asking relatives to send them individual items of clothing or inexpensive foodstuffs which surely a well-paid force could afford.
How do you read this? Is the average Roman soldier a poor slob in unwashed woolens begging his relatives for morsels from their table? A well-paid functionary of the Empire? Does this change significantly over time (declining fortunes from Augustus to the Severans)? Or is it more of a case of soldiers being paid in cash in an environment where the economy is only partly monetised, and thus having better access to status goods but limited access to non-monetised exchange items?
Curious
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
