Captured women and children

[Tib. Gabinius]

Just to get away from details of cruelity:
please remember not all "loosers" and "catched" were slaved.
Caesar e.g. describes after his first adventures in belgica, that he captured a city and all the people had to do was to leave their weapons.
In fact already there would be some more behind it, but it's an example that not all had to go into slavery.
The end of the story was an ambush to the romans after delivering a part of the weapons, after which the roman slaved all.

So, it can be, but it isn't a have to.
Sometimes, it would also not be a good idea. Remember, to stay nearby Caesar, the people who had to leave Alesia.

[M. Demetrius]

You can't tax and exact tribute of grain from corpses.

[Tarbicus]

You can't tax and exact tribute of grain from corpses.

ROFL.

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

Also, weren't the atrocities normally indulged in as a lesson? I've read in several sources that populations were spared when a town or city surrendered before the (battering) ram touched the wall, or when an enemy commander surrendered at an envoy's urging.

[Carlton Bach]

Also, weren't the atrocities normally indulged in as a lesson? I've read in several sources that populations were spared when a town or city surrendered before the (battering) ram touched the wall, or when an enemy commander surrendered at an envoy's urging.

AFAIR the customs of war at the time basically said the conqueror could legally do whatever he wanted. By losing a war, the loser forfeited his and his family's lives, and they were the winner's to spare or take (some etymologists tried to root 'servus', slave, from 'servare', to spare, for that reason) That meant on the one hand that there was no legal reason not to completely exterminate the population of a captured city (though there were, of course, sound moral, aesthetic, financial and politiucal ones not to), but on the other hand the fate of the losers could be a political commodity. If you *could* kill or enslae every last one of them, they may well be ready to make concessions in return for you not doing that. So it was usually possible to negotiate more favourable surrender terms if resistance ceased early enough. Both sides would be happy with this, and informal arrangements of this type prevailed in warfare until modern times.

[Carlton Bach]

I think people treating back in those days are the ways that they learnt through there family history passed on but how did it change??

Was Christianity a major factor ? :?

Probably not. The change in Roman habits began long before significant numbers of people converted, and Christian Europeans were not noted for good treatment of their slaves historically.

I rather have my own theory: a twin economic and social influence. Economically, quite simply, slaves became more valuable. The Roman slave system of the late Republic was probably unique, at least for the ancient world, in the number of people it affected. In many years, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people were enslaved. Thus, buying slaves was cheap and easy. No waiting lists or bidding wars, you could just go and get them as required. Roman historians sometimes record the deflationary effect of major conflict on the slave markets (as do later chroniclers - it's a stock topos), but back then this must have been almost routine. THat meant that treating your slaves well was not in your economic interest. At times, it must have been 'cheaper to buy than to breed' (the expression comes from the 18th century Caribbean, for which we have truly nauseating descriptions of slave living conditions), which means it didn't pay to bring up slave children. The most cost-effective approach would have been to buy a slae and use him up, working him to death while he was in his prime and discarding hi afterwards.
With the end of the wars of conquests after the reign of Augustus (with a few momentary relapses under Claudius and Trajan), the supply of slaves would have diminished. You can track the different approaches to the use of slave labour by comparing the farming manuals of Cato, Varro and Columella. An expensive slave needs to be treated better and used more carefully. Of course, in some high-profit endeavours (like mining), slaves would likely still be used up, but it wasn't the kind of thing you could casually do.

The other effect, I suspect, is a universal social phenomenon. Continued peace breeds humanitarians. People whon largely live without the experience or threat of war tend to have stronger aversions against brutality and mistreatment. You can trace this in almost any time period you care to name, and it certainly played a role in mobilising the Roman sense of humanitarianism toward slaves. That slaves are fellow humans was pretty much conventional wisdom in the ancient world. That they should be treated with a modicum of dignity and respect was not, but this attitude seems to have become more prevalent with the first and second century AD. Unfortunately, our evidence is largely anecdotal, and there was neer anything like a universal law for the prptection of slaves, but the development is fairly clear. The story of Vedius Pollio having careless slaves fed to man-eating lampreys no more fits the mood of the second century AD than the story of Hadrian publicly apologising to a slave he injured in a fit of anger fits the first century BC.

The problem is that all our evidence is anecdotal. WE hae comparatively little to go on in terms of reliable statistics, we can't even really prove there were fewer slaves and more free labourers on latifundia in the fourth century AD than in the first century AD (though that is very likely). But we can see from some few similar anecdotes that the humanitarian impulse of the Principate was largely lost again in more troubled times.

[Nerva]

Unfortunately Memmia, after the way we played against an 'amature' team last night, we might need that chariot to take us home!

[Senovara]

I can't remember where I read it, but weren't there certain Celtic (Gaul) tribes that had their women and children killed as a last resort, rather than be taken as slaves?

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

Also, weren't the atrocities normally indulged in as a lesson? I've read in several sources that populations were spared when a town or city surrendered before the (battering) ram touched the wall, or when an enemy commander surrendered at an envoy's urging.

AFAIR the customs of war at the time basically said the conqueror could legally do whatever he wanted. By losing a war, the loser forfeited his and his family's lives, and they were the winner's to spare or take (some etymologists tried to root 'servus', slave, from 'servare', to spare, for that reason) That meant on the one hand that there was no legal reason not to completely exterminate the population of a captured city (though there were, of course, sound moral, aesthetic, financial and politiucal ones not to), but on the other hand the fate of the losers could be a political commodity. If you *could* kill or enslae every last one of them, they may well be ready to make concessions in return for you not doing that. So it was usually possible to negotiate more favourable surrender terms if resistance ceased early enough. Both sides would be happy with this, and informal arrangements of this type prevailed in warfare until modern times.

Thanks Carlton, this is what I was trying to say except you put it more succintly than I did :oops: Selective terrorism, the phrase would be?

[Carlton Bach]

I can't remember where I read it, but weren't there certain Celtic (Gaul) tribes that had their women and children killed as a last resort, rather than be taken as slaves?

That seems to be something of a standard literary topos about Northern Barbarians - familiar enough to inspire works of art needing no explanation (cf the 'Dying Gaul'). Suicide in the face of enslavement, rape and murder may well have been common, especially in times of war, though I doubt it was any kind of ethnic or tribal tradition.

Roman authors seem to associate that kind of stpory with various Germanic peoples, I recall it about Cimbri/Teutones and Saxons, and I think the 'prefer death to dishonour' is also in Tacitus 'Germania' .

[Tarbicus]

Let's face it, when faced with half a legion of blood soaked armoured strange men approaching the baggage train with you, your kin, and possibly your children gathered there, with 'that look' in their eyes, you just know it's gonna be as bad as it can possibly get. What would you do?

[Senovara]

LEG IT!! :wink:

Roman authors seem to associate that kind of stpory with various Germanic peoples, I recall it about Cimbri/Teutones and Saxons, and I think the 'prefer death to dishonour' is also in Tacitus 'Germania' .

Thanks!

[Sardaukar]

Also, weren't the atrocities normally indulged in as a lesson? I've read in several sources that populations were spared when a town or city surrendered before the (battering) ram touched the wall, or when an enemy commander surrendered at an envoy's urging.

There seemed to be fair amount of such incidents. I think it was customary that when assault on city started (after negotiations broke, "ram has touched the wall" as in Jerusalem), defenders ceased to have much say on their fate. It depended then entirely of enemy's mercy or lack of it.

Anf there were many cases like Cenabum (where they had massacred Roman traders etc.), Cenabum was burnt by Caesar, the men put to the sword and women and children sold as slaves, because they were made an example and/or punished for their past deeds.

It seemed to be very dishonourable to "cheat" in surrender deals as Roman commander (like doing abovementioned if enemy surrendered without resistance). And most Roman noblemen commanding armies were quite particular with their dignitas and general public image.

[M. Demetrius]

Tarbicus: you just know it's gonna be as bad as it can possibly get. What would you do?

Start passing out the mugs and break out the bubbly, grin, and hope for the best? :lol:

[jc02005]

Cpatured Women ansd childs will be treated in a cruel way is that right