How to Sack a City....Roman Style

[Paullus Scipio]

Just to show how ruthlessly efficient the Romans were, at this, as in so many things, here is my namesake "doing the business" to New Carthage in Spain in 210 B.C. , during Hannibal's war...... (with thanks to the Lacus Curtius site and University of Oregon for saving my typing) I hope RAT readers persevere with my long post...it is most instructive
Polybius X.15
When Scipio thought that a sufficient number of troops had entered he sent most of them, as is the Roman custom, against the inhabitants of the city with orders to kill all they encountered, sparing none, and not to start pillaging until the signal was given. They do this, I think, to inspire terror, so that when towns are taken by the Romans one may often see not only the corpses of human beings, but dogs cut in half, and the dismembered limbs of other animals, and on this occasion such scenes were very many owing to the numbers of those in the place. hock: Scipio himself, with about a thousand men, proceeded to the citadel. On his approach Mago at first attempted to resist, but afterwards, when he saw that the city had undoubtedly been captured, he sent a message begging for his life and surrendered the citadel. After this, upon the signal being given, the massacre ceased and they began pillaging. At nightfall such of the Romans as had received orders to that effect, remained in the camp, while Scipio with his thousand men bivouacked in the citadel, and recalling the rest from the houses ordered them, through the tribunes, to collect the booty in the market, each maniple separately, and sleep there, keeping guard over it. Summoning also the light-armed troops(velites) from the camp he stationed them on the easternmost hill.
Such was the manner in which the Romans gained possession of Spanish Carthage.Next day the booty, both the baggage of the troops in the Carthaginian service and the household stuff of the townsmen and working classes, having been collected in the market, was divided by the tribunes among the legions on the usual system. The Romans after the capture of a city manage matters more or less as follows: according to the size of the town sometimes a certain number of men from each maniple, at other times certain whole maniples are told off to collect booty, but they never thus employ more than half their total force, the rest remaining in their ranks at times outside and at times inside the city, ready for the occasion. As their armies are usually composed of two Roman legions and two legions of allies, the whole four legions being rarely massed, all those who are told off to spoil bring the booty back each man to his own legion, and after it has been sold the tribunes distribute the profits equally among all, including not only those who were left behind in the protecting force, but the men who are guarding the tents, the sick, and those absent on any special service. I have already stated at some length in my chapters on the Roman state how it is that no one appropriates any part of the loot, but that all keep the oath they make when first assembled in camp on setting out for a campaign. So that when half of the army disperse to pillage and the other half keep their ranks and afford them protection, there is never any chance of the Romans suffering disaster owing to individual covetousness. For as all, both the spoilers and those who remain to safeguard them, have equal confidence that they will get their share of the booty, no one leaves the ranks, a thing which usually does injury to other armies. For since most men endure hardship and risk their lives for the sake of gain, it is evident that whenever the chance presents itself it is not likely that those left in the protecting force or in the camp will refrain, since the general rule among us is that any man keeps whatever comes into his hands. And even if any careful king or general orders the booty to be brought in to form a common fund, yet everyone regards as his own whatever he can conceal. So that, as most of the men start pillaging, commanders cannot maintain any control and run the risk of disaster, and indeed many who have been successful in their object have, after capturing the enemy's camp or a town, not only been driven out but have met with complete disaster simply for the above reason. Commanders should therefore exercise the utmost care and foresight about this matter, so that as far as is possible the hope of equal participation in the booty when such a chance presents itself may be common to all.
...some added details from Livy..... a good haul !
Livy XXVI.47
As many as 10,000 freemen were made prisoners. Those who were citizens were set free and Scipio gave them back their city and all the property which the war had left them. There were some 2000 artisans; these Scipio allotted to the public service,(i.e. State-owned slaves for the duration) and held out to them hopes of recovering their liberty if they did their best in the tasks which the war demanded. The rest of the able-bodied population and the sturdiest of the slaves he assigned to the fleet to make up the complement of rowers. He also augmented his fleet by five vessels which he had seized. Besides all this population there were the Spanish hostages; these he treated with as much consideration as though they had been children of the allies of Rome. An enormous amount of munitions of war was also secured; 120 catapults of the largest size and 281 smaller ones, 23 of the heavier ballistae and 52 lighter ones, together with an immense number of scorpions of various calibre, as well as missiles and other arms. 73 military standards were also captured. A vast quantity of gold and silver was brought to the general, including 287 golden bowls, almost all of which were at least a pound in weight, 18,300 pounds of silver plate and coinage, (What would all that bullion be worth at today's values?), and the former comprising a large number of vessels. This was all weighed and counted and then made over to the quaestor C. Flaminius, as were also 10,000 bushels of wheat and 270 pecks of barley.( i.e. The State received all this....) In the harbour 63 transports were captured, some of them with their cargoes of corn and arms, as well as bronze, iron, sails, esparto grass, and other articles required for the fleet. Amidst such an enormous supply of military and naval stores, the actual city itself was regarded as the least important capture of all. hock: hock:

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
Zilkowski wrote an article about Romans sacking cities:

Ziolkowski, A.: Urbs direpta, or how the Romans sacked cities, in: Rich, J. - Shipley, G. (eds.), War and Society in the Roman World, London/New York, 1993, p. 69-91.

Unfortunately I haven't read it

Greetings
Alexandr

[Kate Gilliver]

There's also
Shatzman, “The Roman general’s authority over bootyâ€

[D B Campbell]

Ziolkowski, A.: Urbs direpta, or how the Romans sacked cities, in: Rich, J. - Shipley, G. (eds.), War and Society in the Roman World, London/New York, 1993, p. 69-91.

Ziolkowski's stated aim is to examine the concept of direptio ("sack, plunder, loot"). He studies ancient accounts of sacking cities -- Victumulae, 218 BC (Livy 21.57.13-14); Carthago Nova, 209 BC (Polyb. 10.15.4-16.9); Cremona, AD 69 (Tacitus, Hist. 3.33.1-3) -- in an attempt to discover whether the direptio was a free-for-all or controlled by the general in charge.

He concludes that Polybius' version is atypical, and cannot be corroborated from other incidents. This does not mean that he made it up -- although he was not an eye-witness here --, but on the contrary that Scipio had a particular plan for Carthago Nova.

The fiction of the general's control of his troops being so inveterate, we can forgive Polybius for having mistaken an exception for the rule, the more so as the main reason for his dilating on the Roman way of sacking cities at such length was to illustrate yet again their discipline and prudence in contrast with Greek practice.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ziolkowski argues that from just three examples? Very poor methodology if so !

Of course, each 'city sacking' is going to be unique in many ways, and doubtless not every Roman army was as disciplined as Scipio's, but Polybius tells us what was supposed to happen, and uses New Carthage as an example.
.....And let us not forget that it would be natural for our sources to go into detail only when a 'sack' was exceptional in some way. If it went'by the book', all they had to say was "the city was sacked"..... and readers would know the rest.

I would prefer the statements in the sources, and Ziolkowski and others of that ilk would have to do a lot better than two exceptions to convince me otherwise !! :wink:

[D B Campbell]

Ziolkowski argues that from just three examples? Very poor methodology if so !

These are the main ones -- he mentions others, too!

Of course, each 'city sacking' is going to be unique in many ways ...

In [amazon]Besieged: Siege warfare in the ancient world[/amazon], I take pretty much the same view as you, Paul.

The brutal treatment of Carthago Nova in 209 BC was allegedly typical of Roman armies, with the slaughter of all the inhabitants, even including dogs and other animals, and the looting of the town by designated troops, while others stood guard (Polyb. 10.15.4-9). But different generals clearly managed their siege operations in different ways. At the surrender of Gytheum [cf. p. 112], the undisciplined Roman troops commenced wholesale looting, despite the orders of their general Aemilius Regillus, who believed that towns that surrendered ought not to be plundered; although he failed to exert his authority, he managed to protect any townsfolk who gathered in the forum (Livy 37.32.1-14). It was presumably to retain some measure of control that Marcellus, during the penultimate phase of the siege of Syracuse [cf. p. 103-4], decreed that there should be no bloodshed, only looting (Livy 25.25.5), but in the final sack he was obliged to set guards at any locations he did not want despoiled, such as the royal treasury.