The power of the Roman army, both in terms of the political subjection of an entire province and in the daily life of local communities, was seemingly all-pervasive, and much of provincial administration appeared to have a military aspect. Local people, unless rich and eminent, were protected only by luck or by the government’s ability to enforce rules of proper conduct among its troops. Despite the good intentions of many emperors and governors, there is no doubt that the permanent presence of soldiers near provincial communities or in transit along the roads that linked the military infrastructure greatly contributed to the oppression and brutalization of the local population. This was a feature of life in the empire irrespective of whether wars were actually being fought, because of the nature of the standing army and its dispositions. Thus a senior official offered routine advice to provincial governors:‘Take care that nothing is done by individual soldiers exploiting their position and claiming unjust advantages for themselves, which does not pertain to the communal benefit of the army.’110 Trajan, when informed by Pliny about the problems experienced by the town of Juliopolis in Bithynia because of crowds of people passing though on official business, assumed that soldiers might be the main culprits in demanding facilities from the townspeople.111 Indeed, the evidence suggests that the oppression of ordinary civilians by soldiers both acting on their own responsibility and sometimes on the orders of corrupt officials was commonplace and frequently repeated, despite the attempts by the government to deal with it.112 Soldiers abused procedures that permitted them to demand travel facilities and hospitality when they were on official business. They took animals and sustenance beyond their legal entitlement, often using violence. They robbed and assaulted local people, confident in their membership of the largest and most important state-run organization in the ancient world.
To live close to a main road or army camp could be particularly dangerous. Epictetus, a writer on philosophy of the first century ad, who incidentally tells us much about life in the early empire, offers some striking advice: ‘If a requisition is taking place and a soldier takes your mule, let it go, do not hold on to it and do not complain. For if you do, you will get a beating and lose your mule all the same.’113 Columella, also of the first century and writing about agriculture, advised against the purchase of an estate close to a military road because of the ‘depredations of passing travellers and the endless hospitality required for those who turn aside from it’.114 The villagers of Scaptopara in Thrace would have agreed. Their community not only had hot springs and was close to the site of a famous festival, but was also situated between two military camps. They complained that soldiers had repeatedly ignored the instructions of the governor of Thrace that they were to be left undisturbed, and had left their proper routes to come and demand hospitality for which they paid nothing.115 The government was frequently unable to enforce its will, and there is a note of despair in the edict of Marcus Petronius Mamertinus, prefect of Egypt (ad 133 to 137), about the improper requisition of boats, animals and guides by soldiers travelling through the province. ‘Because of this private persons are subjected to arrogance and abuse and the army has come to be censured for greed and injustice.’116
World History
