Roman army pay scales revisited: responses and answers
p. 53-61
Texte intégral
1Soldiers of the Roman imperial army received their annual pay in three installments (stipendia), due on the first of January, May, and September1. Yet, stipendia had to be earned (merere)2, either, for instance, as stipendia caligata or militaria, equestria, centurionica, curatoria veteranorum or evocativa.3 A centurio in Pannonia even chose to term his installments salaria instead of stipendia, just like the evocati from the praetorian cohorts and contracted specialists (salariarii) in the legions and auxilia often did, and just as was customary to designate the sums the Roman government paid to senators and knights4. Pay mattered. Pay raises and higher pay rates were a distinction and instilled pride. Consequently, in the army, imperial presents of money were measured out to reflect the recipients’ rank5. Yet, neither the individual sums of the stipendia nor their relations to each other are clearly transmitted in our sources. The reconstruction of Roman army pay is a matter of great import for several objects of historical research, including, particularly, economic, political and military issues. Unfortunately however, evidence for Roman army pay is notoriously scarce and difficult to interpret. Very little can be regarded as more or less certain and attempts to reconstruct a comprehensive system of pay scales can only produce models and theories. Thus, since the earliest modern reconstruction of the Roman soldier’s pay by Alfred von Domaszewski in 1899, several such models have been proposed6. It is the common aim of such models to reconstruct ratios or to put figures both to the pay of the common soldier in the different branches of the Roman army and to the various ranks within them, particularly for the first three centuries CE. Stipendia continued to be paid in the fourth century but evidence for the rates there is none. Moreover, substantial supplementary payments were now made in kind and an ever increasing amount of money was given to the soldiers by the emperors as donativa7.
2Reliable figures from the literary sources for the amounts of money paid out as stipendia are available only for the pay of the common legionary soldier of the first century CE: 300 sestertii (= 75 denarii) per stipendium or 900 sestertii (= 225 denarii) per annum8. The reconstruction of second and third century legionary pay is based essentially on information regarding general army pay rises as recorded in the literary sources (not all of which scholars have accepted)9. All other figures survived on papyri (and on one wooden tablet). These documents are of particular importance as they were produced by the administration of the Roman army. However, most of these documents fail to mention both the rank and unit of the soldiers concerned, and none of the figures on record (some of which even include fractions of obols) equal the legionary stipendia as known from the literary sources (nor does there seem, at first sight, to be any simple ratio between them). Hence, scholars made inconsistent use of the documentary evidence, and their efforts to reconstruct the ratio between legionary and auxiliary pay, in particular, has produced a variety of different pay models that define this ratio as 1:3, 2:3, 3:5, and 5:6 respectively10. Pay grades, too, are not very well documented. The well-known terms sesquiplicarius and duplicarius are generally taken to indicate soldiers earning pay-and-a-half and double pay. However, they do not regularly occur in all branches of the army and have recently been interpreted in a fundamentally different way (cf. below)11.
3It is true that our evidence is too incomplete to reliably restore a full system of detailed pay rates for all branches and all ranks of the Roman army throughout the imperial period. Yet there is sufficient evidence to propose comprehensive models and theses. The basis for the reconstruction of any such model or thesis surely ought to be the following passage from Suetonius (Aug., 49.2):
quidquid autem ubique militum esset ad certam stipendiorum praemiorum formulam adstrinxit definitis pro gradu cuiusque et temporibus militiae et commodis missionum
“All soldiers throughout the empire he [sc. Augustus] bound to one fixed model, which regulated years of service and remuneration, defining the time of service and discharge bonuses according to the rank of each”.
4Cassius Dio supplies further details: Augustus introduced this formula certa, or condicio, which included pay rates, length of service and discharge benefits in 13 BCE and added some alterations in 5 and 6 CE12. Rank evidently played a central role. The mutinies that broke out after his death aimed to re-negotiate the conditions of military service sub certis legibus, as, apparently, some elements were no longer being promptly fulfilled and others were deemed unsatisfactory13. In all events, accepting the existence of predefined service conditions, a hierarchical order and a set of fixed basic pay rates throughout the entire Roman army (as explicitly recorded by Suetonius and Cassius Dio) is the foundation upon which we can attempt to reconstruct pay models. Yet any such pay model or thesis needs to fulfil several conditions in order to gain credence. Thus, reconstructed Roman army pay scales should14 :
be coherent,
be based on the denarius (not the aureus) as the original unit of calculating basic army pay rates15,
include all surviving figures, information, and emerging patterns from all types of sources available, and explain discrepancies between the transmitted evidence and the results of theoretical calculations16,
–comply with the hierarchy systems of the army (branches and ranks), as well as with the officers’ careers before and after their military service, and explain promotions and transfers recorded on soldiers’ gravestones without arguing that they resulted from pay cuts, demotions, or changing ratios of pay,
ideally contain only a limited number of simple ratios.
5The discovery of a new pay receipt for a eques cohortis from Vindonissa (Windisch, in Switzerland) provided, for the first time, safe and unambiguous evidence for the pay of an auxiliary soldier (75 denarii per stipendium) of known rank (eques cohortis) at a known date (38 CE)17, and thus led to the publication, in the Journal of Roman Studies in 1992, of a comprehensive model that fulfilled the above requirements18. Its admitted constraints and weaknesses are mainly due to the dearth and the nature of the sources (several pay rates were reached solely on theoretical grounds, and therefore remained in want of documentary confirmation).
6The model was generally well received and accepted by most commentators19. Also, the results of this initial study were further elaborated and developed20. When applied to the epigraphically recorded promotion of an optio cohortis V vigilum to miles cohortis XI urbanae (CIL, X 3880 = ILS, 2171), they not only revealed the pay of the vigiles to have been exactly equal to that of the milites cohortis in the provinces, but also betrayed recurrent and simple ratios of basic pay throughout the Roman army. That, to some extent, can be seen as further support of the pay model as such21. Unfortunately however, no new evidence has come forth since 1992 to provide further pay figures or relevant information that could constitute conclusive confirmation or disproof. The results of this research are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Reconstructed basic annual pay in denarii of Roman soldiers from Augustus to Maximinus.

7A few scholars also voiced opposing opinions. In particular, two fundamentally different views (one directly answering the 1992 model, the other without a single reference to it, but intended as a categorical rebuttal) need to be addressed and are, therefore, the main object of the following short remarks. Only two years after the publication of “Roman Army Pay Scales”, Richard Alston rejected the model altogether in an article he published in the same journal22. In his view, “the evidence for auxiliary pay is not sufficient to allow the calculation of exact pay rates for any period. There are, therefore, no grounds for believing either the five-sixths theory as elaborated by M. Alexander Speidel or, indeed, any of the many other theories that have been proposed”23. Despite Alston’s own assertion that is is impossible to determine pay rates for auxiliaries, he suggested only three sentences later to suggest “that there was, in fact, no difference between the rates of pay of auxiliary and legionary infantry and the cavalry of the legions and alae”. Alston’s model remains the only comprehensive alternative pay model so far published. Yet it also created some confusion, as the rather complicated and, admittedly, somewhat dry matter appears to have discouraged from working through the evidence and the arguments of the two very different models proposed in 1992 and in 1994. Thus, both models are occasionally quoted side by side in the same footnote, often without further comments, just as if they proposed the very same conclusions.
8A crucial prerequisite to Alston’s model is his assumption that the imperial government calculated military pay on the basis of full aurei24. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. Suetonius’ (Dom., 7.3) assertion that Domitian added a quartum stipendium of three aurei is a singular indication and cannot outweigh the entire literary and papyrological evidence that transmits stipendium-figures in denarii (the usual money of account) and, in a small number of cases, in sestertii / drachmae. Alston claims that the evidence for the viaticum, a travel allowance for recruits, supports his hypothesis of aureus-based military pay. Only two documents reveal figures for the viaticum. One of these documents (RMR 70) was drawn up by the army’s administration. It records sums in denarii. The other document (BGU 423 = Sel.Pap. I 112) indeed describes the viaticum as amounting to three aurei, but this was a soldier’s private letter25. Perhaps some took the equivalent of 75 denarii per stipendium (i.e. the sum that the Roman government paid its legionary soldiers three times a year throughout most of the first century CE) to symbolize three aurei, and it may even be that these sums (or parts thereof) were indeed occasionally paid out in gold coins. But our sources strongly suggest that basic stipendia were calculated on the basis of denarii, not aurei. If true, Alston’s theory of equal pay for the infantry on the one hand and for the cavalry on the other in all branches of the Roman army virtually collapses.
9Alston’s treatment of the documentary evidence calls for further remarks, for he claims that “these texts cannot be used to establish pay scales”, as “the methods by which the Roman military accountants arrived at the various figures cannot be reconstructed from these documents”. It is true that all figures transmitted by the documentary evidence require interpretation. We are thus confronted with the choice either to discard the entire documentary evidence as useless to establish exact rates of pay (the solution Alston prefers), or to accept the existence of certain patterns (such as a 1- % deduction from the stipendia before they were credited to the soldiers’ accounts), even if they are not entirely consistent or otherwise on record in our sources. Pay documents were produced by the administrative services of Roman army units. Their contents can therefore be understood to have corresponded both to official and empire wide military administrative policies as well as to the expectations of those serving in the Roman army. In Alston’s opinion, however, even the recurring documentary figures consist of various unknown fractions of the true stipendium, which therefore cannot be reconstructed. He maintains that the entry accepit stipendi x denarii on the pay records supports this view, as the genitive stipendi must be understood as a partitive genitive and translated as “received of the stipendium x denarii”26. However, Robert Marichal offered another, in our view more convincing interpretation of this genitive in his commentary to ChLA X 410 : he understood stipendi to be a genitive of relation. The entry can thus be translated as “received as stipendium X denarii”. Particularly the recurring figures in several different documents appear to support this view.
10Yann Le Bohec, in a recent article on pay in the Roman army, also decided to disregard the entire documentary evidence. In particular, he expressly dismissed the evidence from the Vindonissa pay receipt on the grounds that this pay figure (which he wrongly quotes as 300 sestertii rather than as 75 denarii) was “isolated” and it was “difficile de donner une place précise à ce soldat dans l’organigramme général”. Methodologically, this is a peculiar point of view. The date of the document (38 CE) as well as the soldier’s rank and troop, eques (cohortis) Raetorum, are spelled out in the text (and acknowledged by Le Bohec in the same passage). Yet, the rejection of selected “isolated” figures from official documents in a field where there is no statistically relevant data is capricious. Moreover, it appears to deny the principle that the Roman army applied the same pay rates throughout the empire. Instead, Le Bohec places great weight on the literary evidence and the literal understanding of a passage in Tacitus’ Annales (Tac., Ann., 1.17.7-8) where the Roman historian indicates that legionary pay was less than 365 denarii per year (it was in fact 225 denarii: cf. above) and that pay in the praetorian cohorts equalled 730 denarii (instead of the expected 750). Yet, in this passage Tacitus evidently abstains from giving an accurate report of technicalities in order to increase the rhetorical effect of his narrative : he incorrectly claims that soldiers were paid on a daily basis and received rates of ten asses. Ten asses per day amount to a yearly sum of 912 ½ sestertii (instead of the expected 900), which betrays the historian’s intention to dramatize his report27.
11Finally, Alston continues to reconstruct, on hypothetical grounds, what he calls “minimum figures for auxiliary pay”.28 He argues that soldiers’ pay “was intended to meet any expenses incurred by the soldiers during service, and was, therefore, related to the basic needs of the soldier”.29 The soldiers’ needs and hence their camp expenses, according to Alston, did not significantly differ between the legions and the auxilia30. Therefore, he concludes that “all troops, whatever their status, would be paid on standard infantry and cavalry rates”. This, in his view means parity in pay and that “the great scholarly search for auxiliary pay rates has been in vain”.31 Yet arguing along these lines means to ignore both the great importance the Romans attached to rank and status, as well as emperor Hadrian’s explicit remark, in 128 CE, in a speech he gave to the Roman troops in North Africa, that horsemen in the cohorts earned less than those in the alae32. Hadrian thus confirms that there were no standard cavalry rates. As even Alston acknowledged in his contribution that there was a difference in pay between an eques cohortis and an eques alae33 there is no reason left to believe his theory of parity of pay for all infantry and all cavalry soldiers. If that weren’t enough, one could also point to the legal sources according to which not only demotion (gradus deiectio) but also the transferal (without promotion in rank) to a unit of lower status (mutatio militiae) was considered a punishment34. In the light of Hadrian’s statement (or the passages confirming higher levels of pay in the praetorian cohorts), such demotions almost certainly entailed curtailments of pay.
12Patrick Le Roux has very recently categorically denied the existence of pay scales in the various branches of the Roman army35. Pointing to a passage from the first century BCE in Varro’s De lingua latina (V 90 : duplicarii dicti quibus ob virtutem duplicia cibaria ut darentur institutum) Le Roux argues that the terms sesquiplicarius and duplicarius do not describe pay grades (pay-and-a-half and double pay), as hitherto generally believed. Rather, he claims, these were distinctions for bravery, which consisted of supplementary rations or horses, and over time developed into ranks in the cavalry regiments of the Roman army. Had these terms referred to pay grades, we should, according to Le Roux, find them in use throughout the Roman army. Yet, there is no evidence, Le Roux maintains, that these ranks were connected to a hierarchic system of pay rates, the existence of which Le Roux roundly denies. If true, this would entail far-reaching consequences for our understanding of the Roman army. In Le Roux’s view it is strange that the ranks of sesquiplicarius and duplicarius are not equally on record in all branches of the Roman army, that they should be the only two ranks to refer by their name to pay grades, and that not all principales referred to themselves as duplicarii36. The two titles, he therefore claims, referred not to pay but to other forms of recompense. Le Roux believes that historians have been deterred by modern conceptions from understanding the true Roman realities37. He therefore discards practically the entire scholarly research on hierarchy and pay in the Roman army since the works of Alfred von Domaszewski, and offhandedly dismisses, “le débat, devenu central, sur les soldes des différents types d’unités et d’armes à l’intérieur des unités dont les bases chiffrées, squelettiques et sans contexte satisfaisant, défient toute solution raisonnée, combinant en outre des données chronologiquement très disparates”.
13However, Le Roux has taken his criticism too far. It is true, of course, that the terms sesquiplicarius and duplicarius do not equally occur in all branches of the Roman army. However, Le Roux’s understanding of the term as “un grade de la cavalerie auxiliaire”, unduly plays down the ample attestation of the term in the praetorian fleets, ignores the papyrological evidence which implies that duplicarii were a regular rank also among the foot soldiers in the auxilia38, and leaves the occurrences in other types of units unexplained39. Furthermore, Le Roux’s postulation of total uniformity throughout the Roman military ignores the different traditions in the various branches of the army, and does not allow for the introduction of new ranks at different times. For it may well be significant that both terms, sesquiplicarius and duplicarius, are most commonly found in the auxilia and in the praetorian fleets, i.e. in units of Augustan formation40.
14Ps.-Hygin states that there was one sesquiplicarius and one duplicarius in every turma. He called these ranks principales41. Also, when summarizing the strength of auxiliary units, the military administration listed centurions, duplicarii, and sesquiplicarii (in the case of mixed units also the equites and their decurions, duplicarii, and sesquiplicarii) separately from the milites caligati42. It is evident, therefore, that the principales (i.e. sesquiplicarii and duplicarii) held positions (limited in numbers and connected to specific functions) in a distinctly structured hierarchy, within which they could be promoted or demoted. We must, of course, not be surprised that battlefield bravery could lead to a promotion to higher ranks and increased gratuities. Evidently, the terms sesquiplicarius and duplicarius refer to factors of one-and-a-half and two by which allocations were increased for soldiers of higher rank. It is also true that Ps.-Hyginus states that duplicarii in the alae had two horses (the decurio three), and that Vegetius explains the term duplarius (in the legions) as one who received double annona (quite like Varro centuries earlier)43. Le Roux therefore concludes : “Le nom de duplicarius aurait été associé à un droit à deux chevaux et à une double ration de fourrage, ce qui rendrait compte de sa transformation en grade sans lien avec une solde quelconque”. And : “Il est possible que le rang de duplicarius se soit imposé dans la cavalerie et dans la flotte parce que ces armes utilisant chevaux et matériels autres que le simple armement du soldat nécessitaient des ressources supérieures, comme le laisse entendre Végèce sur l’entretien de deux ou trois montures”.44 Finally, he finds confirmation for this interpretation in the funerary reliefs of the equites singulares Augusti that show a “doublement” of horses for soldiers of higher rank.
15Yet, what value that could be compared to that of a horse might have been doubled in the case of fleet soldiers or of the duplicarii in the infantry? And what might have been given one and a half times to a sesquiplicarius in the cavalry? In all these cases, horses and fodder surely drop out. Surprisingly, perhaps, the answer can be found in the very passage from Ps.-Hyginus (16), which Le Roux quoted to prove his theory. For Ps.-Hyginus states that the sesquiplicarius also had two horses, just like the higher-ranking duplicarius! We can therefore safely exclude that the denomination of the rank sesquiplicarius had to do with the factor that determined the number of horses or the amount of fodder. Consequently, neither the term sesquiplicarius nor the term duplicarius are likely to have referred to the exact level of increased rations or gratuities. Pay levels remains the only likely alternative. Moreover, an award of increased gratuities does not, per se, exclude a simultaneous pay rise! A passage from Caesar’s Bellum civile (3.53, also quoted by Le Roux) which lists awards for battle field bravery bears this out : duplici stipendio, frumento, veste, cibariis militaribusque donis amplissime donavit. This may have only been a temporary measure, but Caesar is also on record for legionibus stipendium in perpetuum duplicavit (Suet., Jul., 26.3)45. Also, Hadrian’s remark that the pay of the equites alae was higher than that of the cohortales equites46, actually spells out the existence of hierarchically structured pay scales. Finally, the above-mentioned promotion of an optio cohortis vigilum to a mere miles cohortis urbanae (as well as other promotions on record) also appears to presuppose pay scales.
16The most obvious parallel for the terms sesquiplicarius and duplicarius is, of course, to be found within the procuratorial career and the equestrian posts of sexagenarius, centenarius, ducenarius, and (since Marcus Aurelius), trecenarius. Le Roux dismisses these parallels as unfounded, because the sums referred to in the procuratorial titles were not, in his understanding, salaries but rather global sums from which a procurator also had to meet expenses during his time in office47. But this would only make the parallel more valid, as the Roman soldier, too, had to meet expenses from the stipendia he was paid. The procuratorial titles (and posts) were clearly set in a hierarchy governed by increasing sums of money. The procurators, however, received far less than the one million sestertii, which the proconsul Asiae was given for his term of office48. Yet contrary to the procurators, none of the senators appointed to this highest provincial office (nor any of the coequal proconsules Africae) ever mentioned pay in their inscriptions. It is therefore evident that although hierarchies and pay scales were closely connected factors in the Roman world, they were not generally and coherently proclaimed in inscriptions. There is no reason, therefore, to deny the existence of such correlations in the Roman army.
17To conclude, it appears that the 1992 pay model and its further developments still stand. Compelling arguments may indeed lead to an improved understanding of Roman army pay. In view of the nature of our sources, however, progress will primarily depend on new and conclusive documentary evidence.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Alston, R. (1994): “Roman Military Pay From Caesar to Diocletian”, JRS, 84, 113-123.
10.2307/300872 :Carrié J.-M. (1993): “Eserciti e strategie”, in : Schiavone, ed. 1993, 107-108.
Domaszewski, A. v (1899): “Der Truppensold der Kaiserzeit”, Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher, 10, 218-241.
Domaszewski, A. (1972): Aufsätze zur römische Heeresgeschichte, Darmstadt, 210-233.
Domaszewski, A. (1967): Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres. 2. durchgesehene Auflage. Einführung, Berichtigungen und Nachträge von Brian Dobson, Köln - Graz.
Fink R. O. (1971): Roman Military Records on Papyrus, Cleveland.
Gilliam, J. F. (1986): Roman Army Papers, Amsterdam.
Haynes, I. (2013): Blood of the Provinces. The Roman Auxilia and the Making of Provincial Society from Augustus to the Severans, Oxford.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199655342.001.0001 :Jahn, J. (1984): “Zur Entwicklung römischer Soldzahlungen von Augustus bis auf Diokletian”, Studien zu den Fundmünzen der Antike, 2, 58 ff.,
Kraay, C.M. (1960): “Two New Sestertii of Domitian”, American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 9, 109-116.
Le Bohec, Y. ed. (2003) : Les discours d’Hadrien à l’armée d’Afrique, Paris.
Le Bohec, Y. (2009): “La solde des soldats de l’armée Romaine sous le principat”, in: A guerra, Revista de História das Ideias, 30, 39-50.
10.14195/0871-1623_30_3 :Le Roux, P. (2012): “Duplicarius, duplarius, sequiplicarius : un réexamen”, in : Wolff, ed. 2012, 523-532.
Passerini, A. (1946): “Gli aumenti del soldo militare da Commodo a Maximino”, Athenaeum, 24, 145-159.
Rathbone, D. (2007): “Warfare and the State”, in : Sabin et al., ed. 2007, 158-197.
10.1017/CHOL9780521782746 :Sabin P., H. Van Wees and M. Whitby, ed. (2007): The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Vol. II, Cambridge.
10.1017/CHOL9780521782746 :Schiavone, A., ed. (1993): Storia di Roma, vol. 3. L’età tardo-antica, 1. Crisi e trasformazioni, Torino.
Speidel, M. A. (1992): “Roman Army Pay Scales”, JRS, 82, 87-106.
10.2307/301286 :Speidel, M. A. (1996): Die römischen Schreibtafeln von Vindonissa, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa XII, Baden-Dättwil.
Speidel, M. A. (2009): Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der Hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, 349-437.
Speidel, M. P. (1992): Roman Army Studies II, Stuttgart.
Wolff C., ed. (2012): Le métier de soldat dans le monde romain, Actes du cinquième congrès de Lyon organisé les 23-25 septembre 2010 par l’Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Lyon.
Notes de bas de page
1 For stipendium meaning pay see Plin., Nat., 33.13.43. 1. January: RMR 72,7. 73 h. ChLA 466, 473, 495. P Panop. 2,37. 58. 201. 292. 1. May: RMR 66 b I 30. 71 a 1. 10 b 5. 1. September: RMR 66 b II 3. ChLA 495. P.Oxy. 1047 P.Oxy. 2561. For the stipendium Domitiani cf. Kraay 1960. Speidel M.A. 1992 ; Speidel M.A. 2009 esp. 349f.
2 Merere: Dig., 24,1,3,1. 42,1,6,pr. Cf. also the ubiquitous formula stipendia emerita and compare HA, Ant. Pius, 7.
3 AE, 1990, 896. CIL, XII, 2606. ILS, 2649 add. Cf. also ILS, 2149. 2152. CIL, VI, 37245a. 37264. CIL, VIII, 2848.
4 Centurio : ILS, 2408. Evocati : CIL, VI, 2495. 3419. ILS, 2124. Salariarii: CIL, III 10501 (hydraularius). CIL, III, 10988. CIL, VI, 37262 (sagittarius ?). AE, 1936, 12 (architectus). AE, 1951, 103 (interprex Dacorum). AE, 1993, 1596. Cf. also ILS, 2664. Senators and knights: e.g. Suet., Nero, 10.1. Infra note 45.
5 Pride: ILS, 2338 (from the epitaph of a legionary soldier) : accepit ab Impe[ratore] / praemia dup[licia]... Cf. also ILS, 7178. AE, 1952, 153. Caes., BC, 3.53. Tac., Ann., 2.4 f. Tac., Hist., 4.19. Jos., BJ, 7.1.3, etc. as well as infra n. 45 for similar expressions of pride in the epigraphic record of senatorial and equestrian careers. Rank: cf. e.g. Suet., Aug., 49.2. HA Marc., 7.9.
6 Domaszewski 1972, 210-233. See also the contributions in Speidel M.A. 1992 et 2009, and the literature quoted ibid., p. 421 n. 92. Furthermore see Rathbone 2007, esp. 158-165. Le Bohec 2009.
7 Stipendia: P.Panop. 2 passim. P.Oxy. 1047. Paneg. Lat. III (XI) 1.4. Cf. Speidel M.A. 2009, 349. 369f. 372.
8 D.C. 67.3.5. Cf. Tac., Ann., 1.17.4 and Suet., Dom., 7.3. Speidel M.A. 2009, 350.
9 Cf. e.g. Passerini 1946. Carrié 1993.
10 For a short summary and the literature see Jahn 1984, esp. nn. 17 and 18.
11 Le Roux 2012.
12 D.C. 54.25.5f. 55,23,1. RgdA 17. Condicio: Tac., Ann., 1.16.4. Dig., 50.6.7. For a full interpretation of these developments see Speidel M.A. 2009, 390 ff. and 408 ff.
13 See esp. Tac., Ann., 1.16-17. For the relation between rank and pay, see Speidel 2009, 381-394.
14 Cf. Speidel M.A. 2009, 422.
15 Cf. infra text to nn. 24ff.
16 This should include taking entries in the pay records such as accepit stipendi verbally. Cf. Speidel M.A. 2009, 361f.
17 Speidel M.A. 1996, Nr. 2.
18 Speidel M.A. 1992 ; 2009.
19 Cf. most recently Haynes 2013, 48.
20 Now conveniently collected in Speidel M.A. 2009. As neither all the relevant sources nor all arguments set fourth in those contributions will be reproduced here, the reader is explicitly referred those pages.
21 Speidel M.A. 2009, 381-394.
22 Alston 1994. As Alston’s contribution “benefitted considerably” from input by Dominic Rathbone (Rathbone 2007, 113*) it is not surprising to find that Rathbone 2007, 158 ff., esp. 160 n. 11 follows the proposals presented by Alston.
23 Alston 1994, 113.
24 Alston 1994, 114.
25 See Speidel M.A. 2009, 222 with n. 41.
26 Alston 1994, 119.
27 Le Bohec 2009. Curiously, Le Bohec does not discuss or even mention the figure of ten asses in his contribution. For the passage in Tacitus see also Domaszewski 1972, 212. Speidel M.A. 2009, 350 and 420.
28 Alston 1994, 120ff.
29 Alston 1994, 122.
30 Alston 1994, 121.
31 Alston 1994, 122.
32 Le Bohec 2003, esp. 116. Speidel M.A. 2006, 14 and 162 ff.
33 Alston1994, 119 with n. 20.
34 Cf. e.g. Dig., 49.16.3.1 (demotion). Dig., 49.16.3.1 and 5.1 (transferal). D.C. 80.3.5. P.Thead. inv. 31 with Speidel M. P. 1992, 306 ff. In general see Speidel M.A. 2009, 389. 411 and 414.
35 Le Roux, op. cit. supra n. 11. Le Roux, however, partly misrepresents (p. 523 ad n. 1: not an insignificant mistake!) and partly ignores earlier research, including, e.g., all contributions in Speidel M.A., op. cit. supra n. 1.
36 Le Roux 2012, 526, ignoring that sesquiplicarii, too, were principales.
37 Le Roux 2012, 524 and 529.
38 Cf. infra n. 42, esp. the duplicarii and sesquiplicarii pedites in RMR no. 63 i 28. ii 2. ii 16. ii 40. ii 43.
39 Cf. also infra n. 42. Le Roux 2012, 525 does, however, acknowledge their existence. Also, his interpretation of the severan and post-severan ranks of duplarius etc in the legions (Le Roux 2012, 524 ff.) as an expression of a new system of rewards is convincing, though not new : von Domaszewski 1967, 70. M. P. Speidel M.A., op. cit. supra n. 34, p. 214.
40 On these points see Speidel M. P. 1992, 382 and 384 ff.
41 Ps.-Hygin 16. See von Domaszewski 1967, 4.
42 Fink 1971, n°47 passim. 49. 50 passim. 63 passim. See also Fink’s comments. Gilliam, Roman 1986, 271 f. Speidel M.A. 2009, 412 n. 27.
43 Ps.-Hyginus 16. Veg. II 7.
44 Le Roux 2012, 530 and 531. The latter argument appears particularly implausible.
45 We might, cautiously, compare an incident from a senatorial career (of the jurist Salvius Julianus, ILS, 8973): … quaestori Imp(eratoris) / Hadriani cui divos (!) Hadrianus soli / salarium quaesturae duplicavit / propter insignem doctrinam … as well as one from an equestrian career (M. Valerius Maximianus, AE, 1976, 359): … honor(e) centenariae dig/nitatis aucto salario…
46 Cf. supra n. 32.
47 Le Roux 2012, 529 with n. 4, however without supplying compelling evidence.
48 D.C. 78.22.5. Cf. also Tac., Agr., 42.2.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Architecture romaine d’Asie Mineure
Les monuments de Xanthos et leur ornementation
Laurence Cavalier
2005
D’Homère à Plutarque. Itinéraires historiques
Recueil d'articles de Claude Mossé
Claude Mossé Patrice Brun (éd.)
2007
Pagus, castellum et civitas
Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire sur le village et la cité en Afrique romaine
Samir Aounallah
2010
Orner la cité
Enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine
Anne-Valérie Pont
2010