Military law in ancient Rome

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The military justice system in ancient Rome lacked a codified legal system in the form of a military criminal law in the times of the republic and in the first times of the principate . The legitimation of jurisdiction within the army was initially derived, presumably from the old form of the autocratic power of the father ( patria potestas ) over his household ( familia ) on the general over his subordinates. Like the pater familias , the emperor was entitled on the one hand to unlimited discretion in defining the offense and on the other to arbitrarily determine the assessment of the sentence. This general power of attorney also included life and death decisions.

Contrary to the civil legal system in ancient Rome , which its binding fixation in the Twelve Tables law ( ius civile ) around 450 BC In BC learned, the military jurisdiction was initially based on a freely interpretable, unwritten customary law .

Military jurisprudence underwent a certain kind of amendment as the principate progressed. Competencies and powers in the military area were regulated, which were adapted to the circumstances of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the legal matter was methodically examined by lawyers in order to be able to provide guidelines and instructions to the judges.

The legal norm in Roman military law

Due to the fact that only Romans with civil rights could serve in the legions , the need arose to create legal security for the citizen outside of civil life. The basis for this was initially not based on a legal regulation, but on the fact that starting with Augustus the Prinzeps allowed the same punishment for every crime.

The legitimacy of the sanctions was based solely on the authority of the emperors. Due to this consistency of the uniform sentencing, a guideline emerged only after the end of the republic, which soldiers in the Roman army regarded as a certain legal security.

Only during the Severer epoch (193 to 235) did military law acquire a more independent meaning. This was mainly done in such a way that the lawyers discussed legal issues and legal problems of the military, stipulated various facts and compiled collections of decisions and cases. The acts and their legal consequences were also described and differentiations were made in the individual elements of the offense. For example, a distinction was made between permanent deserters ( desertor ) and those only temporarily absent without permission ( emansor ). In order to answer the individual question of guilt in the case of an individual offense, the circumstances of the offense and the motives were also used. Thus, according to a legal code, the sanctioning of an unauthorized exceeding of vacation leave had to be comparatively mild if the reason for the absence was demonstrably to get hold of an escaped slave. In contrast to this, the soldier was to be punished more severely if the reason for exceeding his vacation was the incorrect assessment of the necessary travel time from vacation to duty station. The sentence was dependent on whether the offense was committed in times of war or in times of peace. This gave the soldier the opportunity to at least begin to assess the intensity of military-law interventions in his person based on his previous behavior.

However, this reform did not have any restrictive effects on the Emperor's freedom of discretion and decision-making, which ultimately still existed in individual cases.

The legal status of the soldier up to the 1st century

The soldier initially remained a citizen under civil law. For capital crimes ( crimina publica ), such as murder or counterfeiting, he was not brought before a military court as a defendant , but instead brought to justice in an ordinary court. In this case, however, the soldier could also appear as a plaintiff or a witness like a civilian.

Similar to a due civil process, the defendant in the military trial had the right to be heard. This did not apply to the prosecution of minor offenses. Within civil jurisdiction, a soldier who was threatened with death by a magistrate because of his executive authority was given the opportunity to claim the right to provocation . In the case of the military procedure, the delinquent did not initially have this option. Towards the end of the republic and during the imperial era, it could only be used under certain conditions. However, the use of the provocation was ruled out when crossing over to the enemy.

The military group was excluded from some forms of punishment. The soldier was not allowed to be deported or subjected to the death penalty in the form that he was accused of the wild animals. This privilege, however, presupposed that the soldier status had been lawfully obtained. Convicted criminals or citizens against whom criminal investigations had been initiated were not allowed to join the Roman army. Withholding these circumstances at the time of hiring was a capital offense and, if they were discovered, usually resulted in death from animal baiting .

As a natural person , the soldier was able to carry out legally binding legal transactions. To this end, he could conclude contracts with his own kind or with civilians. If the soldier sued a civilian, the soldier had the privilege of demanding expedited proceedings by setting the date of the trial himself. The soldier's dual testability should be emphasized. On the one hand, a will based on the ius civile and, on the other hand, a will based on the ius militare could be issued. In addition, the soldier was exempt from all taxes and public obligations ( munera publica ). These privileges continued after service in the army; they also applied to his wife, children, and parents.

The soldiers of the crew and non-commissioned officer ranks, including the centurions, had been banned from marriage since Augustus during their military service. Officers from the senatorial and knighthood were exempt from the marriage ban . A soldier who was taken prisoner lost his wages and benefits during this time. After his return or liberation he could be reinstated in his rights ( ius postliminii ) if a culpable cause for the arrest could be excluded . It was also common for an adjusted financial compensation to be given.

The soldiers who served in the auxiliary troops ( auxilium ) of the Roman legions and in the provincial fleets did not have Roman citizenship. The jurisdiction over this group of people in the civil as well as in the military area was based on the associated domestic law.

Local and factual jurisdiction up to the 1st century

In the event of a military offense and private trials among soldiers, the unit's camp was also the place of jurisdiction. As a plaintiff against a civilian, the soldier had to avail himself of the ordinary courts. Because of his absence from the troops, this required the consent of the commander. In the opposite constellation, the military camp was the place of jurisdiction.

Crimes committed by soldiers that fell under common law were tried according to the crime scene principle ( lex loci delicti ) in the local courts of law. From the competing locations, the crime scene with the most serious offense was selected as the place of jurisdiction. However, if it became known that the soldier was responsible for a more serious military offense, he was transferred to the responsible military authority after the civilian conviction.

The capital crimes (murder, counterfeiting of coins and wills), which did not constitute military crimes, were first tried in the jury and, after the end of the republic, in the imperial courts of justice in Rome. In the imperial provinces ( provinciae caesaris ), the respective governor ( legatus Augusti ) or prefect ( praefectus civitatis ) exercised jurisdiction in the civil and military areas. The senatorial provinces ( provincia publicae ), where usually only weak troops were stationed, were administered by the proconsuls ( proconsul ).

The power of attorney to negotiate as well as to judge a military offense in the rank of the crew and non-commissioned officers ( milites gregales, principales ) was delegated by the governor to the commander ( legatus Legionis ) and to his deputy military tribune ( tribunus laticlavius ) in the stationed legions. Furthermore, the tribune was responsible for the civil jurisdiction of the soldiers of its unit. The governor himself basically exercised capital jurisdiction.

Misconduct and charges of a capital offense, which concerned the governor / prefect or a legionary legate / tribune / centurion himself, had to be answered personally in Rome before the emperor as the highest authority.

The members of the Praetorian fleet were under the sole jurisdiction of the emperor . These were exclusively assigned to the familia of the princeeps, who as pater familias could exercise or delegate jurisdiction at his own discretion ( domestica disciplina ).

Within the auxiliary contingents of the army and the provincial fleet, the respective tribal prince, as the local commander ( principes civitatis and praefectus ), had criminal and disciplinary powers within the framework of a limited judicial autonomy.

Military penal and disciplinary power up to the 1st century

In times of the republic the general in the army, in the provinces the proconsul, had jurisdiction over all members of the army, whereby in principle there was complete discretion in determining the sentence. However, it is assumed that from 108 BC at the latest. BC, under the influence of the lex porcia , the rulers of the empire could no longer have the death penalty carried out arrogantly . The delinquent had to be transferred to Rome, where he was allowed to provoke the people.

In the further course of the principate, the governor, as the emperor's deputy, was given the special authority to pronounce death sentences and to have them carried out. The officers, including the centurions and senators, were excluded from this. These were subject to the emperor's special jurisdiction over swords. The provocation of a simple soldier sentenced to death in the province should have been addressed to the emperor. However, when the governor was officially appointed, the principle could explicitly rule out this legal recourse.

The legionary legate or the military tribune had the power to impose sensitive corporal punishment, fines and imprisonment over the ranks of the crew and non-commissioned officers. The authority to judge the aforementioned group of people sharply, however, could be granted by the governor by transferring the right to sword ( ius gladii ).

The members of the Praetorian fleet were subject to the sword jurisdiction of the emperor. He was able to give the ius gladii to the fleet officers if necessary. The disciplinary authority on the individual ships was carried out by the respective skippers ( Nauarch , Trierarch ).

The centurion had only disciplinary punitive power to maintain regular service operations. The misconduct of a subordinate soldier, which was not yet a criminal offense, could be sanctioned by the centurion on the spot, without the possibility of prior hearing of the soldier.

The disciplinary and punitive power in the auxiliary troops ( auxiliaries ) and provincial fleets emerged from the respective applicable popular law. However, the right to sword was reserved for the Roman higher instance alone.

The legal status of the soldier after the first century

A change in the soldier's legal status resulted from the fact that he now always had to answer before a military court for civil offenses. Ordinary jurisdiction was excluded even when a civil person was involved.

In general, an instance route had found its way into military justice. A soldier sentenced to death was given the opportunity to claim the right to provocation. Depending on the local situation, this form of objection was submitted directly to the emperor or a superordinate consortium for decision. For some crimes, this legal protection was also excluded.

The soldier could now also be punished for particularly serious crimes, for example crossing over to the enemy ( transition ad hostem ), with baiting animals or with crucifixion . This punishment was preceded by the deprivation of civil rights and formal release from the military oath. The former soldier was thus given the position of an enemy without rights.

The local and factual jurisdiction after the first century

The soldier's place of work was also the military and civil jurisdiction responsible for him. All types of crime, including capital crimes, were tried there. In addition to the legionary camps in the provinces, the cohort forts were added as independent institutions, in which the respective camp prefect also exercised jurisdiction over the resident civilian population.

The administrative structure and jurisdiction in the imperial and senatorial provinces did not experience any major changes in their basic structures. The legionary legate had jurisdiction over the knightly officers of its legion as well as over the Roman commanding officers of the auxiliary troops, and also over the provincial fleet assigned to its legion.

Instead of the local princes, the auxiliary troops were assigned Roman officers as commanders ( praefectus cohortis, praefectus alae ), who had to exercise jurisdiction in their units. In addition, the office of prefect, who was previously also to be found as a camp commandant of a legion ( praefectus castrorum ), now also as the superior of a special unit ( raefectus praetorio ) and as the personal adjutant of a commander ( praefectus fabrum ) specialized .

The military tribunes were subordinate to the legate or prefect, who in turn, as court officers in capital crimes, carried out the investigations as a council. The Fleet Prefect, who was recruited from the knighthood, switched to the higher rank of consular procurator and exercised jurisdiction within the Praetorian Fleet Association.

Military criminal and disciplinary power after the first century

The governor now had the power, as before, to pass death sentences on the ranks of the crew, also on the knightly officers and presumably on the legate or prefect himself.

The legionary legionary or the legionary prefect had the power to punish all military members of their units, except for the sword law.

The individual tribune had limited penal power. In the case of minor offenses, simple corporal punishment and fines could be imposed on the team ranks. A limited power of punishment over the centurion resulted from the fact that the tribune had to supervise the centurion and to prosecute misconduct.

The Prefect of the Praetorian Fleet was given complete penal power, including the right to sword. The individual skippers continued to exercise disciplinary power.

The centurion remains essentially limited to the purely disciplinary area of ​​power, which he had to share in part with the camp prefect.

Domestic law was replaced by Roman military law within the auxiliary troops and provincial fleets. With the exception of sword law, the Roman commanding officers had full penal and disciplinary power over all members of their units.

After the second century, every major conviction of an officer, including the centurion, was made dependent on the confirmation of the emperor.

Facts, legal consequences and guilt

While the violations were not verifiably fixed in republican military law and the legal consequences could be freely interpreted, the facts were codified in the later imperial era in the form of an act defined in writing. But here, too, the legal consequence embodied as punishment was not yet conclusively and bindingly standardized. The sentence and, in particular, the manner in which it was carried out could generally continue to be handled as a matter of discretion by the adjudicator.

In the times of the republic, the assessment of punishment and the method of execution were mostly based on the previous examples from the past or on the forms of execution from common law. However, an unprecedented collective punishment or an unusual form of execution could also result from the particular individual case . The soldiers of the Legio Campana are said to have been executed, who had taken possession of the city of Rhegion without authorization. It was also reported that the general Quintus Sertorius had an entire cohort executed because a soldier from the unit had assaulted a woman from the civilian population. The deserters of a Roman unit suffered an unusual form of execution when they were trampled on by elephants. Not only was the behavior of the individual legally recognized and not only the individual case sanctioned. From the misconduct of the individual, the actual, personally arising and to be assessed guilt was also charged to the others.

In the following period of the Principate , on the other hand, the facts, the circumstances and the culpability of the perpetrators were legally investigated and punished accordingly. Far-reaching collective punishments such as the decimation of entire troops have no longer been documented with certainty since Galba .

Types of offenses

The crimes and disciplinary offenses of which the soldier could be guilty were based, on the one hand, on violations of common law and, on the other, on military misconduct or failure. While violations of general law could theoretically also be committed by civilians (fake soldier offense), violations of military norms require the perpetrator to belong to the military (real soldier offense). A refusal to give orders or deserting could only have been committed by soldiers and other crimes, such as counterfeiting coins, could also have been committed by civilians. A real soldier offense, which is likely to have occurred more frequently, was desertion ( cowardice in front of the enemy in battle) and the loss (negligence or intent) of weapons. The distinction was relevant for determining the competent court and for punishment, da in the case of a fraudulent offense, the soldier generally had to expect the same punishment as the civilian.

Disciplinary Offenses

Simple offenses included stubbornness ( contumacia ), indolence or nonchalance, and physical inadequacy in service ( desidia ). As a rule, the soldier was given disciplinary warnings up to three times. In the event of repeated misconduct in the same matter, the military tribunes initiated legal proceedings against the soldier.

Military crimes

The most serious military crimes were desertion , defection to the enemy and mutiny ( seditio militum ).

The theft and false testimony were sanctioned with severe punishment, like offenses on guard duty or enabling prisoners to be released. Failure to prevent the suicide of a prisoner was considered a serious offense, as the state's claim to punishment was thwarted. A self-mutilation and attempted suicide of a soldier was considered shameful escape from military duty and severely punished.

Passive or active rebellion, and in particular assault against a superior, were considered to be one of the grossest offenses that the soldier could be guilty of. The level and type of punishment were based on the rank of the officer attacked. If the general or the governor was the personally addressee of the illegal act, the soldier was invariably punished with death. The type of disobedience, passive or active rebellion, was also no longer relevant.

Punish

The tool of punishment was seen as a legitimate means of the general or the authorized officials, on the one hand to take repressive action against those responsible and on the other hand as a preventive measure, which should protect the discipline of the unit from further damage. In order to restore and maintain discipline, the lawyers had a wide repertoire of individual and collective sentences at their disposal.

Collective punishments

A typical collective punishment was decimation , with every tenth of the unit to be punished being determined by lot. The execution of the death penalty was then carried out at the same time, as a rule, by stoning or killing ( fustuarium ) the lots. This drastic punishment, even if it seldom occurred, was carried out in AD 18 and documented by Tacitus . The decimated unit could also be locked out of the fortified camp ( extra vallum tendere ). It was also common to replace the daily wheat ration with poor quality barley . Another form of punishment consisted of the dishonorable dissolution of unity ( missio ignominiosa ), which went hand in hand with the erasure of memory ( damnatio memoriae ). In addition to losing all financial entitlements, the soldiers also lost their special position and privileges in civil life.

Individual penalties

Lighter duty offenses were punished in the form of additional watch and work assignments ( munerum indicto ), vacation bans or wage cuts ( pecunaria multa ). It is said of Octavian that he punished centurions for such offenses in such a way that he put them in a humiliating pillory in front of the Praetorium for one day . For the lighter offenses, the belt ( cingulum militare ), which defined the soldier as such and the loss of which was viewed as a dishonor, could also be retained. The belt was not returned to the soldier until he was rehabilitated. The dishonorable discharge from military service resulted in the final confiscation of the belt, among other legal consequences. Simple corporal punishments / chastisements ( castigatio ) such as cane blows were carried out by the centurion with his vine and at the same time badge ( vitis ). The vitis was considered to be the symbolized right to be allowed to do physical violence to Roman citizens.

The aforementioned collective punishments could also be imposed on the individual soldier. The demotion ( gradus deictio ) represented a further individual punishment for the person concerned with a considerable loss of money and prestige. The demotion was not common in the times of the pure civil army, since the army was usually dissolved when the campaign was over. In the event of a recall, the former centurion was not automatically entitled to the same rank again. The punishment transfer ( militiae mutatio ) of the soldier to another less respected unit was also part of the repertoire of possible individual punishments . Delicate corporal punishment in the form of mutilation, such as chopping off hands or bloodletting, was common.

The types of death penalty could vary considerably. At the end of the second century, in addition to execution with the sword or the ax ( decollatio ), cremation alive, which is considered a particularly shameful form, was possible. In the second half of the 4th century, the penalty of being burned alive was also imposed by law on people who wanted to evade forced recruitment by self-mutilation.

The onset of humanization and legal reforms in the second and third centuries also had an impact on the military, as death sentences were pronounced and carried out less often than in previous times. Ultimately, however, the judgment was mostly based on the prevailing military and political requirements of the respective situation. For example, around AD 49, at the request of the Jewish population of Judea, a Roman soldier was handed over to the executioner because he had torn up a copy of the holy law ( Torah ) and burned it during a police operation . The governor of the time, Cumanus , gave in to the urging of the prosecutors in order to prevent an uprising and sentenced the soldier to death.

The freedom of discretion of the Roman emperor and that of his deputies did not experience any significant restriction in the traditionally free power of disposal over the soldiers as a result of the legal reforms of the later imperial era. In contrast to republican times, however, the death penalty was more restrictive and, if so, then only in principle against the individual.

literature

General, introductions

Family law and Roman citizenship

Discipline and Criminal Law

  • Sara Elise Phang: Roman Military Service. Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008, ISBN 978-0-521-88269-9 .

Property law

Web links

Remarks

  1. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (ed.): Rise and decline of the Roman world , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 967 f.
  2. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (ed.): Rise and decline of the Roman world , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 964 f.
  3. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman military criminal law. P. 290.
  4. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 977.
  5. ↑ Fergus Millar: Fischer World History , The Roman Empire and its Neighbors , The Mediterranean World in Antiquity IV , Vol. 8, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag 1986, 6. The Army and the Borders , p. 121 f.
  6. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 1008-1012. See Erich Sander: The Roman Military Criminal Law , p. 290.
  7. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 1008.
  8. ^ Wolfgang Kunkel , Martin Schermaier : Roman legal history. First section: The republican magistrates , Münster 2001, p. 21.
  9. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman Military Criminal Law , p. 305.
  10. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 893 f.
  11. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 943-945.
  12. ^ Yann Le Bohec, The Roman Army , Wiesbaden 1993, p. 252; see. Christoph Riedo-Emmenegger: Prophetic-Messianic Provocateurs of the Pax Romana: Excursions , The Roman Army of the Imperial Era: Factors for Promoting Loyalty C.6 Privileges, p. 52 f.
  13. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The marriage law of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 302–346, here: 342–345.
  14. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 923.
  15. ↑ Gabriele Wesch-Klein: Social aspects of the Roman army in the imperial era , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 147–155; see. Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 948-960.
  16. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 1008.
  17. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman Military Criminal Law , p. 295
  18. ↑ Flavius ​​Josephus, History of the Jewish War , Marix Verlag Wiesbaden 2005, pp. 184–187, cf. also Marcus Junkelmann: The legions of Augustus. 6th edition, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1994, p. 128 f.
  19. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (ed.): The rise and fall of the Roman world. Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 971 f .; see. Loretana de Libero : Provocatio. In: The New Pauly (DNP). Volume 10, Metzler, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-476-01480-0 , column 475 f.
  20. ↑ Detlef Liebs: Das ius gladii of the Roman provincial governors in the imperial era , special prints from the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, pp. 2, 3, 5.
  21. ^ Gabriele Wesch-Klein: Social aspects of the Roman army in the imperial era , Stuttgart 1998, p. 168.
  22. ↑ Detlef Liebs: Das ius gladii of the Roman provincial governors in the imperial era , special prints from the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, p. 8.
  23. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 964-968.
  24. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman Military Criminal Law , p. 291
  25. ↑ Gabriele Wesch-Klein: Social aspects of the Roman army in the imperial era , Stuttgart 1998, p. 148.
  26. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman Military Criminal Law , p. 312.
  27. ↑ Gabriele Wesch-Klein: Social aspects of the Roman army in the imperial era , Stuttgart 1998, p. 148.
  28. ^ Jost Heinrich Jung: The legal status of the Roman soldiers . In: Hildegard Temporini (Ed.): Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume II 14, Berlin 1982, pp. 882-1013, here: 991.
  29. ↑ Christoph Riedo-Emmenegger: Prophetic-messianic provocateurs of the Pax Romana: Excursions. The Roman Army of the Imperial Era : Factors in Promoting Loyalty , C.9 Penalties, p. 61 f.
  30. ↑ Tacitus, Annalen 3, 21 (English translation)
  31. ↑ Marcus Junkelmann: Die Legionen des Augustus , 1986 Verlag Philip von Zabern, 6th edition 1994, punishments and awards , p. 128, discipline and fighting morale, p. 135.
  32. ↑ Ross Cowan; Angus McBride: Roman Legionaries: Republic (58 BC - 68 AD) and Empire (161 - 284 AD). German Ed., Siegler, Königswinter 2007, ISBN 978-3-87748-658-0 , pp. 24-26.
  33. ↑ Christoph Riedo-Emmenegger: Prophetic-messianic provocateurs of the Pax Romana: Excursions. The Roman Army of the Imperial Era: Factors That Boost Loyalty. C.9 Penalties, pp. 58–62.
  34. ↑ Christoph Riedo-Emmenegger: Prophetic-messianic provocateurs of the Pax Romana: Excursions. The Roman Army of the Imperial Era : Factors in Promoting Loyalty , C.9 Penalties, p. 61
  35. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman Military Criminal Law , p. 291
  36. ↑ Erich Sander: The Roman military criminal law. P. 291; see. also Christoph Riedo-Emmenegger: Prophetic-messianic provocateurs of the Pax Romana: excursions. The Roman Army of the Imperial Era: Factors That Boost Loyalty. C.9 Penalties, p. 61.
  37. ↑ Codex Theodosianus , 7, 13, 5 (online)
  38. ^ Christian Mann : Military and warfare in antiquity , in Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman antiquity , Vol. 9, Oldenbourg, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-486-59682-3 , p. 54.
  39. ↑ Flavius ​​Josephus: History of the Jewish War. Marix Verlag, Wiesbaden 2005, p. 185.