slaves

[Anonymous]

One question: after winning a wa <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Question: after winning a war Romans took slaves. Who exactly was to choose and keep them?<br>
The legionaries or slave merchants behind the lines?<br>
Was rape and theft common after a victory? I think yes but I've never read something about this subject. Do you know something about?<br>
During a triumph did Romans parade in chains only the captured warriors and kings or other kind of enemies too?<br>
<br>
What did they do to captured women and children after the triumph? Did they kill everyone?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Germanicus <p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

This is something I've been curious about myself - in most of the descriptions of Roman armies on campaign, there are usually a few notes about 'camp followers', but often little about who these people might have been. My guess is that many of them would have been slaves or slave merchants, and there might have been very great numbers of them.<br>
<br>
Caesar describes slave taking and dealing in his account of the Gallic wars - on one occasion selling the entire nation of the Veneti into slavery, and on another awarding each of his soldiers two slaves from amongst the prisoners of war. I think he enslaved around a million people by the close of the campaign. Obviously, all these slaves could not have trailed the army everywhere - I do remember reading somewhere (!!) that Greek slave dealers from Massilia and the south coast had been active in Gaul for centuries before Caesar, so it seems likely that they would have been in attendance at every victory - the 'two slaves' (or whatever) awarded to each soldier would, I suspect, be converted into cash value almost at once - except perhaps for centurions and other officers who might have been able to feed and house a slave or two for menial duties. Perhaps a contubernium might have kept a slave between them, but otherwise I suspect they were all swiftly sold.<br>
<br>
As for rape and plunder - it was accepted practice until fairly recently that a captured city was at the mercy of its conquerers, so... yes. Caesar describes the fall of Avaricum and the subsequent massacre, and Josephus relates similar episodes during the Jewish wars. Herod had to pay off the Roman troops of G.Sosius after they had captured Jerusalem for him in 37BC from his own pocket - 'otherwise,' he said to Sosius, 'I will be left King of a desert'.<br>
<br>
In triumphs I believe only a representative selection of 'captured peoples' would be paraded, particularly if dressed in picturesque national costumes . These would probably all be sold afterwards - it was only the kings or generals of the conquered army who would would be sent to the Carcer to be garotted after the procession.<br>
<br>
An interesting point - according to Appian, in the triumph after the Social War of the 1st Century BC, one Ventidius Bassus was paraded with the captured Italian prisoners, and was a boy at the time. Apparently he was not enslaved afterwards, however - he later became one of the most effective independent generals in Marc Antony's army, and went on to be awarded the only Triumph ever held for a victory over the Parthians during the republic. Rags to riches indeed. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

It is a strange argument for me too. Too much questions to be solved:<br>
<br>
1) The slave merchants were in a good relationship with both the contendants? What kept the Gaul (or germans or another people) from killing them and take their belongings?<br>
<br>
2) What kept the slaves from escaping and go home? There were thousends of prisoners per time. No guards with rifles, no ID and no barb-wire. How they did?<br>
<br>
3) Third: Vercingetorige remains 6 years in the terrible mamertinus carcer, a hellish jail, then after the triunph Caesar kills him. Cleopatra kills herself too avoid the triumph. Someone i don't remember wrote romans wanted her parading nude and in iron chains. Zenobia, instead, is paraded in golden chains with a marvellous dress. And freed after a little time. The roman fair-play is something i don't understand. There was some kind of rule about triumphs?<br>
<br>
Germanicus <p></p><i></i>

[John Maddox Roberts]

Much depended upon the value of the slaves. Warriors were often killed on the spot as too dangerous for slave service, and warriors were often just a small military elite of a much larger society. Women and children were the usual slave-fodder. Persons with valuable skills would fetch a higher price than those good for nothing except farm work, quarrying, etc. And always remember that many of those taken were slaves already, and for them the Roman triumph merely entailed a change of masters. <p></p><i></i>