Hostages

[Geoffrey]

I’m in the process of putting together a late republican uniform for future reenacting activities, and to shed some light on this time period I started to read “The Conquest of Gaulâ€

[Conal]

Hostages, in this context, are likely to have been kept as "guests" of the conquerers to ensure the continued good behaviour of the subdued tribes. They may well have been treated well, educated in Roman ways etc.

In general it was, I believe, in ancient/medieval times scommon for hostages to be exchanged when pacts were made between two peoples to ensure bargains would be kept.

[Ti Cl Nero]

Salve,
Hostageship is quite an interesting and complex issue in whole roman history.
Certainly hostage status and hostageship's aims, as Conal points out, were totallly different from slavery, and - yes - hostage restoring is quite common.
For instance, in the whole Republican history, sources report just a few circumstances in which hostages were killed: Livius (II.16.7) and Dyonisius of Alicarnassus (VI.30) talk about execution of 300 Volsci hostages; Livius (XXV.7.14) again tells about killing of hostages from Tarentum (trying to excape, anyway), and Plutarch (Sert. XXV.4 and X.3 ) tells about Quintus Sertorius killing hostages.
All of these 3 circumstances, though, are for different reasons (reliability, context) quite uncommon, as hostage killing seems to be - even when tribes to which hostages belonged didn't cohoperate as expected.

Anyway, there's a very good reference on the subject available online, which deals with your questions:
Cheryl Walker, Hostages in Republican Rome

Vale

[Geoffrey]

Thanks Conal, and Tiberius the book by Walker was helpful.

[RUBICON]

I have read with much interest too, Caesars Gallic accounts. Ther are many accounts where hostages are handed over of which many were sold to the following slave traders of which I imagine was a thriving business of which I assumed many were sold back into roman life.

I also read it as "a sign of being defeated & weakened' That many tribes were asked to hand over hostages. This would have had a devastating effect on morale where tribes would have to nominate and hand over hostages. Im not sure if compassion is the word to use though we know Caesar interprted his own actions or rather embellished them to suggest it was merciful or compassionate, it was a control ploy. more to teach a lesson, weaken the tribes and to set a standard. I think this was quite clever, maybe more cruel than death.

Imagine having to hand over friends, comrades even family to the enemy?

[RUBICON]

I also agree with Conal, the use of slaves to exchange or even to with-hold a pact, I think had major claim to the role of hostages. Once again a control ploy.... hostages or certain death, allowing the legionaries to plunder.

Quite a tacful move too, with Hostages, tribes were less likely to re -attack. Though we learn later in Roman History, Hermman, after years of watching the Romans plunder Germania and its peoples decided enough was enough at Kalkriese. 9AD