On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:29:51 -0500, in sci.archaeology, deowll wrote:
>"Paul Burke" <paul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> deowll wrote:
>>> They weren't supposed to marry but it doesn't seem to have been much of
>>> a secret that many had females off base.
>> You've got to be careful which 'they' you are talking about. With Roman
>> Britain lasting at least 350 years (assuming 43 and 410 are the real
>> termini), there was a lot of change. There is a great deal of evidence for
>> women and children not only in the vici, but in the forts themselves.
>> Paul Burke
>The troops weren't supposed to marry. They were also supposed to save money
>and there was even at some point a fund set up for their dependants among
>other things. Yes I do know that some Emperors where much harder nosed about
>this than others. One Christian saint was killed for performing a wedding
>ceremony for a legioner. The bottom line still is that a lot of guys had
>perminant or semiperminant relationships with females outside the forts as
>various texts atest.
As Paul says, there was a lot of change. At first the troops weren't
allowed to marry, but they did have concubines living outside the forts as
you suggest. But later, in the 3rd century, they were allowed to marry.
"In the third century AD, marriage for soldiers was permitted, and the
vicus, where their concubines had always lived, was rebuilt in stone."
This was at Housesteads.
And of course around this time Roman citizenship had also been extended.
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk