Roman (non-)combatants / insurgents

[Kai]

A small addition to the points above: unfortunately I missed another Cicero-section (Off. 1,37), which is quite important:
negat enim ius esse, qui miles non sit, cum hoste pugnare. ("the man who is not legally a soldier has no right to be fighting the foe.").
Again, consider it a mere addition to the above points.


I have also read Wheeler's paper proposed by Duncan. It was indeed quite interesting. If I understood it correctly, Wheeler is concerned about the conduct of war with respect to the modern legality of it, not so much the legal status of its participants. Note that Wheeler’s main point is to stress the (modern!) legal validity of most of the tricks described by Frontinus, however 'dirty' they may appear at first (pp. 23-24).
However the whole idea of the paper is elaborating criteria which enable us judging Frontinus Strategamata in modern legal terms so that we can include Frontinus in actual modern military history discussions (pp. 8-11) – otherwise one would have to wonder why the MGFA cared about the paper anyway…
I am more concerned with ancient legalities.


I would like to hear your opinion about my last points. Don't worry I can take critic, it's not like you were shy before – which I appreciate greatly. :wink:

regards

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Matt,

Yeah, pretty much. I don't think there was any concept of "legal" and "illegal" enemies, the only real differentiation was between allies and enemies.

Did you not read the latest issue of Ancient warfare? The article on the destruction of Macedon by Rome showed this nice example of the Romans using a pretext of an incident already a few years in the past, as a legal reason to attack king Perseus.

[D B Campbell]

Now closing the circle: Ulpian notes the same regarding the ius postliminii, and he also makes a distinction between hostes, which are in a (legal) state of war with Rome, and the rest called latrones and praedones:

Hostes sunt, quibus bellum publice populus Romanus decrevit vel ipse populo Romano: ceteri latrunculi vel praedones appellantur. Et ideo qui a latronibus captus est, servus latronum non est, nec postliminium illi necessarium est: ab hostibus autem captus, ut puta a Germanis et Parthis, et servus est hostium et postliminio statum pristinum recuperat. (Digesta 49.15.24)

I missed this post, Kai. (RAT stopped telling me when people were replying!) And I thank you for posting an interesting passage from Ulpian. It sheds an intriguing light on the reasoning behind Commodus' Danubian watch towers.

(btw Are you the same Kai who attended the RAT conference in York?)

[Paullus Scipio]

the Romans waged war against communities, not against "armies".

Indeed, Duncan. Whole cities were sometimes put to the sword, all their tangible goods taken away, and the buildings and walls razed to the ground. Sometimes that was just to make an example to the neighbors that this would be the fate of all who opposed Rome. Unless there was some other political motive to bring the Senate to try the general, I don't recall reading much negative being said to them, or accounts of their having been brought to the floor to answer for their conduct. Usually, the conquering general was given honors and rewards, and a Senatorial attaboy.

Quite right, M. Demetrius !! Until 'professional' full time armies came along in Greek and Roman times, all wars were between 'communities', a.k.a "the people in arms" - from which principle the U.S.A's founding fathers established the right of every citizen to bear arms, for good or ill, envisioning, as with those ancient communities, the whole people defending themselves. The armies of early Rome and the Middle Republic were just such armies.

As I remarked in the 'Latinatas questions for his school report' thread, Terrorism/frightfulness was a weapon of policy in ancient cultures, and the Romans among the foremost practitioners - there was no division of 'the enemy' into civilians' and 'soldiers'.

Any enemy not put to the 'fire and sword' were the prize booty ( clay pots and pitiful implements, the vast content of most homes were worth little or nothing, but 'enemy'humans were worth a fortune sold into slavery, and usually formed the most valuable part of any booty).

One aspect of the 'frightfulness' of massacring thousands not readily appreciated is that it demonstrated the Romans were prepared to forego a fortune in valuable slaves, in order to 'teach a lesson' to the enemy, and any potential enemy.

The Romans were sticklers too for observing the proprieties or legalities of war-making, going to lengths to ensure a 'just cause' ( in order to ensure the favour of the Gods in such a life-and-death matter) including the age-old custom of hurling a spear into enemy territory, and as you point out, a failure to make a war 'legal' could, on rare occasions, result in a Commander being prosecuted by his political enemies ( J. Caesar was accused of making illegal war in Gaul, IIRC).....though a successful commander, as you say, could be forgiven much !!