Posts: 118
Threads: 52
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
Ave
I am currently reading Goldsworthy's "Punic Wars" and just came across a puzzling statement of his: He says that one of the stipulations of the treaty between Rome and Carthage after Zama was the return of Roman deserters. When these deserters were returned, the Romans among them were crucified and the Latins were beheaded. I found this rather startling. AFAIK Roman citizens were not supposed to be crucified. I'm not sure if Latins were granted citizenship by this time but it seems like the statement should read the other way round, unless there is something I don't know. Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks in advance.
Cry \'\'\'\'Havoc\'\'\'\', and let slip the dogs of war
Imad
Posts: 30
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
0
I do believe that desertion would be paramount to revoking (I know there is a word for this but I can't remember it) your citizenship. They probably wanted the deserters to make examples of them. Rome, as with all armies, had a problem with traitors. I'm reminded of something from Gods and Generals where General Jackson finds that some of the men from the Stonewall Brigade have deserted, he tells his aid that desertion is not a singular crime, it is a crime against every single soldier in the army, the nation, and against God.
Marcus Marius Agrippa
Will Dial
"Stop quoting laws, we carry weapons." - Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
I think especially with the deserters of the Punic Wars Romes reaction would have been very grim, so i find it totally plausible the Romans were crucified and the Latins were not, since they were members of a supporting "nation"....
and of course you cannot throw too many off the Tarpeic rock.......
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 4,483
Threads: 634
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Ave
I am currently reading Goldsworthy's "Punic Wars" and just came across a puzzling statement of his: ....
Does he quote his source?
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Posts: 43
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
Quote:Gladius Hispaniensis wrote:
Ave
Quote:I am currently reading Goldsworthy's "Punic Wars" and just came across a puzzling statement of his: ....
Does he quote his source?
His statemant is probably based on the Livius's writing from what I remember, but im not sure of this. I will check this out when I reach my house at noon.
Daniel Budacz
Fortuna non penis, in manus non receptus...
Posts: 326
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Livy 30.37 - Roman demands after Zama include the stipulation that deserters should be returned to her. This is a standard demand by Rome in treaty negotiations, regardless of whom she's been fighting.
Livy 30.43 - nominis Latini qui erant securi percussi, Romani in crucem sublati - those of Latin status were to be executed, the Romans crucified. Presumably the understanding is that having deserted, they have rejected their Roman citizenship and therefore can be treated in any way - and as others have said, an example is being set here.
cf. Livy 24.20. During Fabius' campaigns in 214 BC against towns that had defected to Hannibal, his captives included 370 deserters who were taken to Rome, sourced publicly in the forum and then flung from the Tarpeian Rock - the traditional punishment for treason.
Posts: 1,189
Threads: 33
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
This brings up an interesting question: what was the status of citizens who deserted during the civil wars? In other words, if you deserted to a different Roman army, did you lose your citizenship (assuming that the side you deserted from won)? The guys who deserted from Pompey's side to Caesar's, or from Antony's to Octavian's came out all right, but what about the ones who picked the wrong side? Usually, the loser's army was absorbed by the winner's but did that include those who had deserted? Are there any records of what happened then?
Pecunia non olet
Posts: 13,279
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
I seem to recall a few who were punished and one notable one who was for given by Caesar....Brutus to exact, unfortunately. But cannot recite the exact detail of the ones who were punished.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Posts: 326
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
John, some generals made considerable efforts to encourage desertions from the enemy army to their own during times of civil war. Caesar was very welcoming to the legions that went over to him after the Pompeian debacle at Corfinium, and Caesar BC 1.74-77 is quite revealing. This is during the campaign between Caesar and Petreius & Afranius in Spain; there's a period of fraternization between the Caesarian and Pompeian soldiers, of which Afranius is strongly disapproving when he finds out, and executes the Caesarian soldiers he finds in his camp. Caesar, on the other hand, allows the Pompeian troops in his camp to return to their own camp, and claims that several tribunes and centurions remained with him, ie: deserting to him. He appoints them to comparable positions within his army. Eventually the army of Petreius and Afranius essentially melts away, much of it into Caesar's own.
Ok, we're dealing with an extraordinarily biased source here, but I think it's pretty safe to argue that in civil war things were very different, and desertion was viewed very differently. It was just important, for one's own benefit, to ensure one deserted in the right direction!
I am trying to do something on desertion as part of my wider behaviour / discipline study, so eventually something will be published on this.
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
How can you lose citizenship if you change sides from one Roman army to another Roman army? You're still fighting as a Roman, whereas deserting to another nation is another thing altogether I imagine.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
I guess that depended totally to which of the parties the Senates favour would swing in the end........
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 43
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
Kate Gilliver
Good work in finding those fragments 
Those are not the only examples of situations in which Romans slaied or punished their own citizents - ally. Lukullus for example killed most of Roman traitors who aid Mitridates VI (after he gained support from Sertorius). Why? Because they were enemies of the republic, and as ex roman citizens they couldn't be used in thriumphal march.
Also those who lost a battle were not given a warm welcome. 8 000 soliders who were captured by Hannibal after the clash at Cannae were not bought back by Sanate although Cathage general proposed such a movment. Moreover he sent 10 of legioniers to negotiate terms of this pact with patribus conscripti.The answer as I alredy wrote was "no", more of those leginiers were supposed to return to Hannibal, as their sweared to him, but one of them broke the promise, so the other Romans caught him and brought befor Hannibal. (Polibius VIII, 58 ). Far more those who suvived the battle and managed to run away were treated in a very tough way. As Livius wrote ( XXIII, 25.) the Republic formed a special legions and sent them to fight in Sicily. Why patres were so rought? Because all soldiers sweared befor the battle that they would never reatret or surrender. (Livius XXII, 38 )
Durning prinicipate in some cases soldiers who lose a battle also couldn't count on any marcy. For example those who survived the sloughter in Teutoburg Fores could not put their feet on the Italii soil, I don't know which of the ancient annalist told this fact, but I read it in a book about this battle wrote by a Polish writter T. Rochala, does anyone else know something more about this event?
Tarbicus
What about the war against Sertorius? There where two different roman republics each with its own senate. Serving one was to throw away the other.
Daniel Budacz
Fortuna non penis, in manus non receptus...
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:b]Tarbicus[/b]
What about the war against Sertorius? There where two different roman republics each with its own senate. Serving one was to throw away the other.
A grand exception, surely?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 43
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
Tarbicus
Well maybe not an offical sanate, but as Appian wrote (BC I. 108) Sertorius created the councile of 300 Roman nobiles, and called it Senate. I can't be sure what was the situation of soilders from Sertorius army after their were caught - especially if we consider the fact that his army contain moslty of local Spanish people (offcier where Roman citizens) and that he was never truly defeated in comat  But as Godsworthy wrote in his book "In the name of Rome" they where probibly treat as the trators till year 74-72 BC when amnesty was announced. I also know that all officers sent by Sertorius to help Mitridates, where killed after being caught by Republican soldiers.
Perhaps more clues can be found in Plutarch "Live of Sertorius" but I don't have it. 
Daniel Budacz
Fortuna non penis, in manus non receptus...
Posts: 339
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Quote:I do believe that desertion would be paramount to revoking (I know there is a word for this but I can't remember it) your citizenship.
Expatriate?
Marcus Julius Germanus
m.k.a. Brian Biesemeyer
S.P.Q.A.
|
