Blacks In The Roman Legion?

[Tribunicus Potestus]

I don't think there were blacks in the Roman legian of any significant number, most of the areas conquered by Rome just didn't have any, except Egypt.

 

How many legionares were pulled from Eygpt?

 

Blacks would have been found in the middle east and all of north africa as well as a few in Spain due to the carthaginian influence. Many who came as slaves would have been manumitted as was the common roman practice. Once having been granted freedom some naturally would have sought citizenship through enlistment with the Legions.

 

I am not suggesting that all or even most blacks in the empire were slaves, just that we know that there were black slaves as well as white.

 

Septimus Severus, at least from his busts and coins does not look black to me, however Caracalla does appear to be of mixed race as does Macrinus.

 

Skin color was not a defining attribute but rather civilized vs. barbarian, patrician vs. pleb, and free vs. slave. Many of the imperial historians would have thought the color of their subjects not worth pointing out.

[Northern Neil]

TB, well done for bumping this long dormant but fascinating thread, which I was ignorant of as it predates even my membership here! I have no direct information on this subject, but hopefully a little bit of circumstantial stuff. It seems that there were two main trade routes from the mediterranean world to Black Africa. The Western route came through the sahara up the River Niger through Timbuktu, both of which were dimly perceived by the Romans. The Eastern route was a sea route, which originated somewhere around Zanzibar and came up through the Red Sea. Direct travel down the Nile from its source was vitually impossible because of an area of near impassable Mangrove swamp just south of the current Sudanese border.

 

The question is, in the absence of any direct evidence, how many black traders, slaves, workers etc. actually travelled the full length of these routes, ending up in imperial provinces? Undoubtedly some did. Maybe there is new DNA stuff that could shed some light on this?

[GhostOfClayton]

The question is, in the absence of any direct evidence, how many black traders, slaves, workers etc. actually travelled the full length of these routes, ending up in imperial provinces? Undoubtedly some did. Maybe there is new DNA stuff that could shed some light on this?

 

. . .and the parallel with the Silk Road must be drawn. The Silk Route was clearly longer than either of the sub-Saharan African trade routes, but the physical (if not political) landscape was comparible, having deserts to cross or oceans to sail, etc. So, almost as relevant would be the question, were there any Orientals in the Roman Empire? The Roman Legion may be pushing it a bit, but if any Orientals settled, you never know. And from the Indian sub-continent . . . ?

[GhostOfClayton]

So, almost as relevant would be the question, were there any Orientals in the Roman Empire? The Roman Legion may be pushing it a bit, but if any Orientals settled, you never know. And from the Indian sub-continent . . . ?

 

answering my own question . . . Mongols . . . but I was thinking of the silk trade.

[caldrail]

There was a recent newspaper report of evidence for moorish troops stationed at Hadrians Wall.

[Maty]

Okaaay ...

 

Let's start by pointing out that the term 'black' has been warped by racial perceptions to the point where it is meaningless for rigorous debate. In the modern US we have 'black' people who can 'pass' for 'white' - a concept which would have dropped a few jaws in ancient Rome.

 

Secondly the assumption that 'African equals black' is even more flawed than the assumption that 'European equals white'. Africa has and has always had a number of races who are not 'black' unless we define 'black' as 'not Asian or Caucasian'.

 

When we look at the peoples of ancient North Africa, be they Moors, Lybians, northern Egyptians or Numidians these might be 'black' (for a given definition of 'black') by they were neither black-skinned nor Negroid. In fact, as far as we know they were pretty much the colour and race of most North African people today. Negroid peoples (to the best of my knowledge - I'm not an ethnologist) expanded out of central Africa in historical times. They only reached the Cape after Europeans did, and going South they did not have the Sahara in the way.

 

Therefore the only black (as in dark-skinned) peoples that Romans regularly encountered would have been from the far south of Egypt and Ethiopia. We know that these people came to Rome, often as slaves. There is an account of Nero making an all-Ethiopian group fight in the arena.

 

Given the Roman approach to freeing slaves it is a fair bet that there were free black people in the Roman empire, and even a lot of black people depending on how we define 'black'. If in good health these people could easily have joined the legions. That the Romans felt no need to comment on the fact reflects better on their racial tolerance than some modern discussions do of ours.

[GhostOfClayton]

There was a recent newspaper report of evidence for moorish troops stationed at Hadrians Wall.

 

Arbeia is thought to mean Place of the Arabs

[Tribunicus Potestus]

The question is, in the absence of any direct evidence, how many black traders, slaves, workers etc. actually travelled the full length of these routes, ending up in imperial provinces? Undoubtedly some did. Maybe there is new DNA stuff that could shed some light on this?

 

. . .and the parallel with the Silk Road must be drawn. The Silk Route was clearly longer than either of the sub-Saharan African trade routes, but the physical (if not political) landscape was comparible, having deserts to cross or oceans to sail, etc. So, almost as relevant would be the question, were there any Orientals in the Roman Empire? The Roman Legion may be pushing it a bit, but if any Orientals settled, you never know. And from the Indian sub-continent . . . ?

 

There were certainly orientals in the empire as there are mentions of ambassadors coming to Rome seeking agreements. If that is your question. Were there orientals in the Legions is another question. Although I haven't found any indication of this it is certainly possible and I would not be shocked if evidence were found. There are some good indications that romans captured at Carrhae ended up in China. With Chinas large population and very clever people it seems likely that some would have come to Rome for one reason or other and of those some fraction joined a legion. The chinese emperors were well aware of the roman empire, it would seem reasonable for them even to have sent some agents to join the legions to send reports back to China. Unfortunately such missions would have been surreptitious any trace would be buried in mountains of ancient imperial scrolls in China.

 

India would be another case altogether. India was virtually next door in that travel along the silk road was continuous and Alexander had actually reached it with his army. Carthaginians would have been more than capable of reaching it by sea. There were tigers in the arena fights, where did they come from? Who kept them alive and cared for them on their journey from the orient? Were they romans dispatched to collect them or were they more likely to have been brought by Indians looking for gold and silver? It would seem extremely difficult to bring them across desert with a caravan alive. But by ship up the Red Sea across a small stretch of land to the Mediterranean would have been much faster.

 

New discoveries are being made daily and hopefully we will have better answers to these questions. To the previous question there is Dna evidence of blacks along Hadrian's wall as well as skeletal evidence, this is not conclusive proof that the Dna arrived with the legions but it seems highly likely. We who are fascinated with questions concerning the ancient world are living in a very exciting time.

 

In case you are not aware a sculptural head was found in Mexico early in the last century that has been identified as Ancient Roman although there was a controversy over how it got there since the experts in those times thought that Romans could not have come to the Americas. However a paper recently published shows a Carthaginian coin with a horse standing above what appears to be a map of the world and an indication of a large land mass on the west side of the Atlantic. When one considers that the Carthaginians were familiar with the Canary Islands and that Columbus used the trade winds starting at the Canaries to reach the Americas. Thor Hayerdahl proved that it was possible reach the Americas from egypt using a papyrus boat copied from the ancient Egyptians also using the Canary islands as a point of reference.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Okaaay ...

 

Let's start by pointing out that the term 'black' has been warped by racial perceptions to the point where it is meaningless for rigorous debate. In the modern US we have 'black' people who can 'pass' for 'white' - a concept which would have dropped a few jaws in ancient Rome.

 

Secondly the assumption that 'African equals black' is even more flawed than the assumption that 'European equals white'. Africa has and has always had a number of races who are not 'black' unless we define 'black' as 'not Asian or Caucasian'.

 

When we look at the peoples of ancient North Africa, be they Moors, Lybians, northern Egyptians or Numidians these might be 'black' (for a given definition of 'black') by they were neither black-skinned nor Negroid. In fact, as far as we know they were pretty much the colour and race of most North African people today. Negroid peoples (to the best of my knowledge - I'm not an ethnologist) expanded out of central Africa in historical times. They only reached the Cape after Europeans did, and going South they did not have the Sahara in the way.

 

Therefore the only black (as in dark-skinned) peoples that Romans regularly encountered would have been from the far south of Egypt and Ethiopia. We know that these people came to Rome, often as slaves. There is an account of Nero making an all-Ethiopian group fight in the arena.

 

Given the Roman approach to freeing slaves it is a fair bet that there were free black people in the Roman empire, and even a lot of black people depending on how we define 'black'. If in good health these people could easily have joined the legions. That the Romans felt no need to comment on the fact reflects better on their racial tolerance than some modern discussions do of ours.

 

I absolutely agree that the terms 'black' and 'white' are a political/social notion that does not hold up to scrutiny. Geneticists can't seem to find African Americans who don't have some degree of 'white' ancestry. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both sired children with their slaves and Jefferson's lover was already of mixed race having been sired by his father in law. While the northern colonies did not have slavery per se they had indentured servitude which also led to a lot of abuse with 'white servants'. It is inevitable that those in a position of absolute power will take advantage of that power and that would certainly have occurred in Rome. If there was a race represented it would have been incorporated into the gene pool. We love the romans partly because we see ourselves in them.

 

I was drawn into this discussion because I saw a movie review on Amazon in which the reviewer stated that the 'black' character (who was actually of mixed 'race') was implausible in the movie "Centurion". As soon as I considered the question I realized that there must have been 'blacks' in the legions. I started looking around the net for evidence of 'blacks' in Rome and after finding a hilarious 'white supremacist' site where a greek mural showing a very dark skinned hoplite was displayed as an example of a Roman Centurion. After I stopped laughing I found this site and decided to throw in my 2 cents.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

TB, well done for bumping this long dormant but fascinating thread, which I was ignorant of as it predates even my membership here! I have no direct information on this subject, but hopefully a little bit of circumstantial stuff. It seems that there were two main trade routes from the mediterranean world to Black Africa. The Western route came through the sahara up the River Niger through Timbuktu, both of which were dimly perceived by the Romans. The Eastern route was a sea route, which originated somewhere around Zanzibar and came up through the Red Sea. Direct travel down the Nile from its source was vitually impossible because of an area of near impassable Mangrove swamp just south of the current Sudanese border.

 

The question is, in the absence of any direct evidence, how many black traders, slaves, workers etc. actually travelled the full length of these routes, ending up in imperial provinces? Undoubtedly some did. Maybe there is new DNA stuff that could shed some light on this?

 

Yes I just this morning I ran across discussion of genetic studies of both sides of Hadrian's wall and residents there have a larger than normal percentage of 'black' genes. There were also roman bones discovered at the wall that some describe as african proportions.

 

The path up the red sea would have been a breeze Ptolemy II started a trench that reached 35 miles in length which was then extended by Nichos, Darius, and Ptolemy of an additional 57 miles. Take into account that the Red Sea appears to have receded since that time. That would leave only about 20 miles of overland travel. Either goods and people could have left their ship in the Red Sea crossed overland and boarded another ship on the Mediterranean (my great-great grandfather did something similar in coming to California from New York during the gold rush, he transferred ships from the atlantic to the pacific having crossed 10 miles overland in Nicaragua.) . The other possibility would be to drag the ships twenty miles on sleds or rollers, again there are many precedents.

[caldrail]

Thor Hayerdahl proved that it was possible reach the Americas from egypt using a papyrus boat copied from the ancient Egyptians also using the Canary islands as a point of reference.

Strictly speaking he didn't. All he proved was that modern sea travellers could take a reproduction of an egyptian papyrus boat across the Atlantic. Bear in mind that the knoweldge of mariners in those times lacked a certain background and sophistication, not to mention modern era overight/rescue, and some idea of where they were going.

 

I'm not disputing the sailors of the ancient world weren't skilled as voyages across the Indian Ocean are known to have been a regular occurence once the silk road was closed due to barbarian interdiction and the failure of the chinese to maintain security in the Tarim Basin during the 3rd century, more or a less a century after the Silk Road was regarded as open for business. However we do have to realise that geograhical information was not so easily had back then.

 

I'm thinking in terms of a phoenician captain who was followed by a Roman ship toward Britain. The phoenicians beached their ship rather than reveal the harbour they were intending to trade with and the captain received a reward for his foresight and courage in denying the Romans the secret of the trading post.

 

The question of superstition also has an impact. Whereas the chritian view held that the world had an edge and if one sailed too far, you went off the surface of the sea, the ancients did not have such a boundary in mind. However, the unknown reaches were very much a consideration. Most vessels did not sail all day and night for fear of accident, and would find a safe anchorage along the coastline to set out again at first light/morning tide. For that reason alone the exploration of the Indian Ocean was a gradual affair but one that gave sailors confidence that they knew where to go. With the Atlantic - there was nothing but water.

 

I'm not discounting the possibility of long distance travel in ancient times. There is persistent urban legend to that effect though no-one has yet convincingly argued that this was achieved, never mind on a regular basis, and even the journey around Africa by ship has been called into question. The use of re-enactment such as Thor Heyedahls journey provides useful practical knowledge about sea travel in those days but in no way does it prove that the Egyptians were capable of crossing the Atlantic.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Thor Hayerdahl proved that it was possible reach the Americas from egypt using a papyrus boat copied from the ancient Egyptians also using the Canary islands as a point of reference.

Strictly speaking he didn't. All he proved was that modern sea travellers could take a reproduction of an egyptian papyrus boat across the Atlantic. Bear in mind that the knoweldge of mariners in those times lacked a certain background and sophistication, not to mention modern era overight/rescue, and some idea of where they were going.

 

I'm not disputing the sailors of the ancient world weren't skilled as voyages across the Indian Ocean are known to have been a regular occurence once the silk road was closed due to barbarian interdiction and the failure of the chinese to maintain security in the Tarim Basin during the 3rd century, more or a less a century after the Silk Road was regarded as open for business. However we do have to realise that geograhical information was not so easily had back then.

 

I'm thinking in terms of a phoenician captain who was followed by a Roman ship toward Britain. The phoenicians beached their ship rather than reveal the harbour they were intending to trade with and the captain received a reward for his foresight and courage in denying the Romans the secret of the trading post.

 

The question of superstition also has an impact. Whereas the chritian view held that the world had an edge and if one sailed too far, you went off the surface of the sea, the ancients did not have such a boundary in mind. However, the unknown reaches were very much a consideration. Most vessels did not sail all day and night for fear of accident, and would find a safe anchorage along the coastline to set out again at first light/morning tide. For that reason alone the exploration of the Indian Ocean was a gradual affair but one that gave sailors confidence that they knew where to go. With the Atlantic - there was nothing but water.

 

I'm not discounting the possibility of long distance travel in ancient times. There is persistent urban legend to that effect though no-one has yet convincingly argued that this was achieved, never mind on a regular basis, and even the journey around Africa by ship has been called into question. The use of re-enactment such as Thor Heyedahls journey provides useful practical knowledge about sea travel in those days but in no way does it prove that the Egyptians were capable of crossing the Atlantic.

 

I am confused. You begin with "strictly speaking he didn't" and then go on to paraphrase my quote repeating the same assertion. I think you read my statement as implying that egyptians made the journey. When I was not even saying that they might have. I was using it as an example of the relative ease with which it could be done by someone familiar with the trade winds. If it could be done with a papyrus fishing boat whether in the ancient past or in modern times it would have been more than possible for seaman like the Carthaginians who were familiar with the Canary Islands. Maybe it is my fault in not having been more clear.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Thor Hayerdahl proved that it was possible reach the Americas from egypt using a papyrus boat copied from the ancient Egyptians also using the Canary islands as a point of reference.

Strictly speaking he didn't. All he proved was that modern sea travellers could take a reproduction of an egyptian papyrus boat across the Atlantic. Bear in mind that the knoweldge of mariners in those times lacked a certain background and sophistication, not to mention modern era overight/rescue, and some idea of where they were going.

 

I'm not disputing the sailors of the ancient world weren't skilled as voyages across the Indian Ocean are known to have been a regular occurence once the silk road was closed due to barbarian interdiction and the failure of the chinese to maintain security in the Tarim Basin during the 3rd century, more or a less a century after the Silk Road was regarded as open for business. However we do have to realise that geograhical information was not so easily had back then.

 

I'm thinking in terms of a phoenician captain who was followed by a Roman ship toward Britain. The phoenicians beached their ship rather than reveal the harbour they were intending to trade with and the captain received a reward for his foresight and courage in denying the Romans the secret of the trading post.

 

The question of superstition also has an impact. Whereas the chritian view held that the world had an edge and if one sailed too far, you went off the surface of the sea, the ancients did not have such a boundary in mind. However, the unknown reaches were very much a consideration. Most vessels did not sail all day and night for fear of accident, and would find a safe anchorage along the coastline to set out again at first light/morning tide. For that reason alone the exploration of the Indian Ocean was a gradual affair but one that gave sailors confidence that they knew where to go. With the Atlantic - there was nothing but water.

 

I'm not discounting the possibility of long distance travel in ancient times. There is persistent urban legend to that effect though no-one has yet convincingly argued that this was achieved, never mind on a regular basis, and even the journey around Africa by ship has been called into question. The use of re-enactment such as Thor Heyedahls journey provides useful practical knowledge about sea travel in those days but in no way does it prove that the Egyptians were capable of crossing the Atlantic.

 

You make some good points, yes not sailing at night was practiced in Mediterranean but I don't think it was for fear of the open sea but rather fear of beaching or striking rocks. During a storm if you can't make harbor you want to be out to sea. Navigating would have been difficult in fog as well, as the stars would have been obscured. Given a chance and or excuse to go ashore would appeal to any mariner since there were towns all along the coast this may have also played into the practice.

 

As for the exploration of the Indian Ocean being a gradual one, keep in mind that the Phoenician/Carthaginian seamen were not in it for the sake of exploration. They were in it for trade so stopping as soon as you found new customers would make sense. Then and only then having secured a trading post you would go looking for the next pigeon... er, customer.

 

I forgot to mention pirates, the med was teaming with them, defending oneself behind a towns walls would have been much easier than being caught out at sea.

 

Not only did the romans not have a superstitious notion of a flat earth, they knew it to be round and knew its size thanks to Erastothenes. When Columbus sought money for his voyage the objections were not that the earth was flat but that it was too big. Members of the court were familiar with the works of Erastothenes. I was delighted when one of the movies a few years ago has this very argument brought up in a sailors bar. Columbus cuts a section from a melon and squeezes it together saying what if it were like this (football shaped)? Most of the audience might not have appreciated the significance of the scene but it did point out the historical arguments. I have seen a roman coin with globes on it, clearly Erastothenes was known throughout the Roman world.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Melvadius]

...

I'm not disputing the sailors of the ancient world weren't skilled as voyages across the Indian Ocean are known to have been a regular occurence once the silk road was closed due to barbarian interdiction and the failure of the chinese to maintain security in the Tarim Basin during the 3rd century, more or a less a century after the Silk Road was regarded as open for business. However we do have to realise that geograhical information was not so easily had back then.

....

 

Actually there is ample evidence that regular trading voyages from Egypt to India were happening long before this:

 

Robera Tomber (2008) Indo-Roman Trade: From Pots to Pepper provides some useful analysis regarding the literary and archaeological evidence for the maritime trade between the Empire and India as well as other ports which could have been visited..

 

Page 157 et seq are particulalrly relevant as Tomber cites evidence of the diversity of amphora finds as indicating regualr trade between Egypt and particulalrly Southern India while Indian residents and large finds of Indian pottery on the Egyptian Red Sea but not fiurther into the Empire support direct trade routes existing.

 

Pliny

[caldrail]

The silk road was only open as a safe and established trading route between east and west between ad112 and the retreat of chinese security sometime in the following century (I don't know extacly when). That doesn't mean that trade didn't travel that way before or after, rather that it was the preferred route for a period. It#s also worth noting that goods were transferred between merchants en route rather than going the whole distance in one shot. However, the sporadic visits of chinese merchants to Roman provinces from the 1st century onward means that traxde continued nonetheless, and there were a number of alternative land routes across the middle east.

 

Sea travel was the most persistent means of getting there. The Romans had already established trading links with Taprobane (Sri Lanka) by 85 and a guide to the peoples of the Indian Ocean appeard some fifteen years afterward. Whilst I agree that sailors venturing eastward had profit in mind rather than exploration as a pure objective, there were no nautical charts back then and sailors either had to find local information, investigate a route themselves, or simply grit their teeth and risk all against the hazards of nature and wrath of the gods for being so foolhardy. It wasn't just 'wind regimes' but tides, ocean currents, shallow waters, and reefs to contend with, and despite a century of Hollywood feature films, I doubt sailors weathered storms in the deep ocean all too easily - the Indoian Ocean is notorious for colossal waves - thus a safe anchorage as the weather begins to look dubious would certainly help.

 

Not only did the romans not have a superstitious notion of a flat earth,

They may not have conveived a definite picture of the edges of the earth, but they were keenly aware that they didn't know everything. Caligula's legions were not happy at the prospect of crossing the english channel and invading Britain, largely out of superstition, thus he made them collect seashells on the beaches as a means of berating them for cowardice, though in fairness I doubt Caligula really understood what a serious foreign campaign involved.

 

Whilst the Romans eagerly recorded what they learned of faraway places, there was still a great deal of mystery. As for superstition, it's widely recognised that the Romans were indeed among the superstitious peoples of the world. They were wary of crossing rivers for fear the local gods would get upset, for instance, and why else did they make sacrifices aboard ships before a battle to determine whether they had the gods favour?

Edited September 25, 2011 by caldrail