Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Auxiliary status and remuneration
#1
Salvete omnes,<br>
<br>
The auxilia are used as a term to encompass a wide variety of units of the Roman army. Originally to a large extent recruited from peregrini, freeborn provincials lacking Roman citizenship, the auxiliary units also comprised both individual Roman citizens and units recruited from citizens. Some citizens were directly recruited, others received this priviledge during service and still others were transferred from the legionary formations. To what extent would the differences in social status and legal position of individuals have been reflected in the monetary and other rewards given for military service? In other words, what is the likelyhood of differing peregrine-citizen rather than strictly auxiliary-legionary pay? Though these lines would have overlapped to a considerable extent, they were not exactly identical. There are indications that auxiliaries in units with Roman citizen status were included in the distribution of money from the will of Augustus. In addition the dona militaria seem to have been awarded almost exclusively to auxiliaries with Roman citizenship. He question then arises whether there would also be a difference in level of pay. The main current theories of auxiliary pay would have the auxiliary foot soldier getting either 5/6 parts or equal the amount of the legionary infantryman. Taking the first of these two theories would transferred legionaries be paid on their previous scale? Would troops rewarded with Roman citizenship also have their pay upgraded to legionary level? Would citizens enlisted into auxiliary units be paid the same as legionaries?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
I think the legions would be paid more since they are the main element of the army. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#3
Salve,<br>
<br>
This is indeed what most authorities think, though a recent article pleaded the cause for equality in pay for auxiliary and legionary personel. Then there is also the problem why legionaries are transferring to the <i> auxilia</i> (and get promoted, so not likely to have been a punishment) and Roman citizens are recruited into auxiliary regiments. So this got me thinking whether perhaps auxiliary infantrymen would receive different pay according to their legal and social position, either <i> peregrinus</i> or <i> civis Romanus</i>.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
interesing! <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
Salve,<br>
<br>
It sure is, but I am very interested in what others have to say about it. So keep posting.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/8/01 4:24:45 pm<br></i>
Reply
#6
Sander, I'd love to pull some references out and start debating, but right now I'm making some updates for RomanArmy.com so I'll have to pass.<br>
<br>
Without resorting to evidence I will venture an opinion that basic auxiliary pay would not vary based on citizen status. I could imagine that units awarded the CR cognomen might qualify for some kind of enhanced pay scale but I can't say offhand whether the evidence supports such a hypothesis.<br>
<br>
(At the risk of being off-topic, I'll interject Congratulations to Tenchimuyo for becoming a <i> Signifer</i>!)<br>
<br>
What are your thoughts about the pay issue, Sander?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#7
Salve,<br>
<br>
Currently I am in doubt regarding the auxiliary pay issue. It appears that 5/6th is securely attested, but on the other hand I think the case for equality in pay for both auxiliaries and legionaries has also been well argumented. That caused me to start thinking about reconciliating such conflicting ideas and one of the theories I entertained was to consider auxiliary pay being different at various times (at first less, later perhaps upped to the same level as legionaries), another to postulate differentiation according to legal status within the same units. Though some texts consider <i> militiae mutatio</i> to have been transfer to an inferior branch of the armed forces, it may have referred to a degradation from cavalry to infantry status incurring a loss of pay and status (based on the analoguy with late Roman officer titles: <i> magister equitum, magister peditum, magister utriusque militiae</i>).<br>
<br>
To support the latter cause one can refer to the will of Augustus in which the recently levied <i> cohortes</i> of Roman citizens (at that time probably still exclusively recruited from that source and not yet accepting <i> peregrini</i> as later on) were given a bequest just like the legionaries. On the other hand one can plead the first cause by referring to Hadrian's speach to the army at Lambaesis in which an auxiliary cohort is given a <i> donativum</i>, which in earlier sources appears to have been limited to citizen troops (praetorians and legionaries). A problem also arrises with the fact that use of the <i> tria nomina</i> can no longer be considered a fool proof method of distinguishing citizen from peregrine soldiers, for names of this kind were apparently also used by non citizens. Thus attributing those pay records which have no clues to unit type to particular branches of the army is a hazardous exercise.<br>
<br>
This is just a sideline of what I am interested in finding out about the Roman army, so I haven't given this issue as much time and thought as other subjects. This was posted to find out about other people's ideas and theories on the matter.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: