"Marriage within the Roman army" Topic

I was just wondering if anyone knows any good articles or books on this subject except for Sara Phangs works.

Thanks for your help guys

I don't think legionaries could marry each other, and the officers and legionaries definitely could not marry each other.

I ment perceptions of marriage within the roman army

"…In the antiquity soldiers, free men, could not marry slaves. However, when it has become militia in character, the Roman army permitted legionaries to marry and live with their families so that they could work on the land and support themselves, in the absence of pay."
Only this short, and unclear, passage concerns the Romans in the Military encycloaedia, under Marriage.
We could probably conclude that marriage wasn't allowed initially.
Not helpful. Sorry

G.R.Watson 'The Roman Soldier' ISBN 0-500-27376-6 is still the best work for all this sorta stuff.

In a nutshell;

Republic to early empire – no Marriage allowed. Enlistment broke any marriage Contract, and this was including centurions. However what happened was that soldiers formed unofficial unions with Peregrini females (what Citizen Family would allow their daughter to live in sin with a squaddie?) which would be regularised at the end of the term of service. I would imagine that, much as was the way with soldiers women throughout history, if the partner died before discharge the female would find a mate of his to hang with instead.

The problem these non-marriages caused in law was resolved by Claudius, who granted Soldiers the Privileges normally only extended to the married, thus exempting them from the Ius Iulia De Maritandis Ordinibus.

Hadrian granted the children of these illegitimate Marriages the right to inherit as though they were legitimate, thus avoiding Tax on Inheritances to non-relatives.

Antoninus Pius put things back a bit by making the legitimisation of children through later marriage no longer retrospective – kids born before the retiring soldier got his diploma remained illegitimate. The likely reason for this was to encourage these kids to enlist, which would give them the citizenship.

Severus allowed soldiers to live with their doxies, and this was rapidly followed by the legalistion of the lesser forms of marriage for soldiers, Matrimonium Iustum in other words

Finally Caracalla's grant of citizenship made it all irrelevant – kids by any form of marriage were citizens anyway, so all the complexities of the various forms of union between soldiers and their chick were no more – in effect from this point on any form of Marriage had the same legal value.

That Soldiers serving long-term on fixed frontiers were now marrying early and raising familes must have accelerated the transition from Mobile forces to fixed 'Limitanei' before this was made a formal arrangement is the author's end point.

That's my digest of 5 or 6 pages. Do you?

Pat

So Vorenus really wasn't married to Niobe?

That's what I was thinking too!

The dirty Cow! Illegitimate kids all over the place by different men, and not even married!

Still hot though.

Pat

cheers chaps

The Roman society didn't have formal marriages anyway, well not as we know them. From what I have read, all it took was for a man and a woman to announce they were married and it was legal. The same went for divorce. Thoug the Roman empire changed a lot over the centuries so I am always wary of saying the Romans did this or that, just look at the difference in culture of our own nations in 60 years.

incorrect – the forms of civil union were many and varied, but all were more than just 'common law' – in other words they were recognised under the law, had an effect on your legal status and carried with them various legal advantages and handicaps.

For example a Patrician had to be married by Confarreatio in order to be able to hold most of the priesthoods, and a divorce under confarreatio was appallingly difficult, requiring both religious hurdles and legal ones. Diffareatio was the alternative, easier form of marriage which was easily dissolved at Law, and thus very popular. Both forms gave the wife real property rights, including rights over her dowry in diffareatio and over the spouses property in confarreatio, and both gave the kids of the marriage legal rights of inheritance and name. That's legal marriage in any name.

Pat

excuse the wild spelling – i really cannot be arsed looking up how to spell these, and it's 20 years since I took my A Levels.

(BTW, My oldest kid is doing exams and the teachers told her that old tip – if you can't remember someone's name in the exam, just leave a blank space and mark the bottom of your paper with a note explaining this to the teacher.

I was able to advise her this appears to be absolutely true – in my A level Ancient History Exam I was given a gift of a question about the 'Athenian Democracy being impossible without the Pisistratid Tyranny,' and was three pages in before I realised I couldn't remember 's Name. Alcmeonid Dude – created the tribes, trityes, the whole shebang – the central guy in my whole essay. Total Blank. With a heavy heart I wrote on, whimpering softly and leaving big blank spaces, and at the bottom of the paper explained I had a mental blank and couldn't remember his name. Five minutes after the exam finished i shouted 'CLEISTHENES FOR SAKE' but too late. All my mates were very pitying, but we all thought I was a goner. Passed with a distinction. Best tip a teacher ever gave me. Pass it on, parents!

Pat

So the way I see it Roman soldiers during the eary principate could 'co-habit' with women, but the women had no (or at least very limited) leagl writes with regard to property and dowries etc.
Claudius and Hadrian tried to make it easier and reconise the de-facto union whilst antonius pius tried to limit such actions.
Finally, as an incentive to join the army, Severus allowed the soldiers to marry?

Thanks for your help max

excuse the spelling, heavy night last night.