Worst Roman Punishment?

[Pertinax]

I found another reference that was at the back of my mind -Tacitus cites a statute whereby the guilty party must be exiled by a distance of 200 miles from Rome as related in one of the early traeson trials of Tiberius (Annals)

[Pax Orbis Furius]

Hello,

 

The willingness of the troops to participate in the brutal act of decimation is not a question of shame. By the 100's BC the legions were comprised of professional soldiers. Volunteers in large part for the many benefits of service, adequate food, shelter an income far surpassing that of the average rural Roman. And rural these men were, from harsh background, they were more than willing to accept the rigors of legion discipline. Upon acceptance of this discipline in exchange for a far superior life, these soldiers would not have hesitated to follow the order to decimate their peers. It must be remembered that the actual punishment, that is the killing, was not performed by the offending legion. The condemned legionaries were forced to chose those that would be killed via lot, forced to call the name of the condemned man, perhaps even his own name. But there is little evidence to suggest that any legion commanded to carry out the decimation refused the order. The legion to be decimated earned this dubious distinction, by cowardice, insubordination, failure on the field of battle through breach of discipline, failures that would surely have disgusted any cohort worth the name. The vast majority of Roman soldiers were highly motivated. They were trained to and desired to stand there ground, ROMA! The attitude that it was a far better death to die fighting than to survive alone speaks volumes about the loyalty these soldiers felt. Speaks volumes about the commitment they felt to Rome and the lengths they were willing to go to achieve Rome's goals. Typically the soldiers from other units killed every tenth man by stoning, clubbing or beheading, while the assembled condemned cohort looked on. This punishment was rarely used after the time of Augustus, this did not stop the threat of its use from being any effective deterrent to cowardice.

 

I think the most graphic Roman punishment must be the crucifixion of the remaining rebel Spartacus slaves. Upwards of 6,000 slaves crucified along the Appian Way. For months left to hang, as their bodies dessicated and putrefied, slowly each man would have fallen to the ground. Perhaps hanging by a tendon, so like a deer caught in a barbwire fence. A truly horrible trip to Rome it must have been. A punishment of cost no doubt paid more by free citizens than the rebel slaves. The misery of the slaves ended relatively quickly, poor damned souls, but the message to the mob carried for months and years to come. The image of this horror would never have left the minds of any who beheld the awesome will of the Roman Senate. Burned forever the message, we have the will for any measure, any act, the will of Rome will not be denied. Surely the long term physiological impact, the true punishment, reverberated throughout the Mediterranean.

 

The true aim of any punishment was always to instill fear. Strength through intimidation, of ever escalating severity, until the ultimate goals of Rome were achieved. Rome's ultimate goal was to project it's will, a will capable of any action to further it propagation. Fear through harsh punishment or the threat of punishment worked well for many centuries. Balanced with great reward for compliance with and loyalty to Rome, the system worked well indeed. Unfortunately for Rome, the rewards slowly diminished to the point that punishment was all that truly remained. We all know the end result, this system created many enemies as well, for not all people were afraid of Rome's punishments, and its own people unwilling to accept meager reward.

 

Quidam timore mortis mortem orabant.

Some, through fear of death, prayed to die.

Pliny the Younger

 

Pax

[sullafelix]

Hello,

 

The willingness of the troops to participate in the brutal act of decimation is not a question of shame. By the 100's BC the legions were comprised of professional soldiers. Volunteers in large part for the many benefits of service, adequate food, shelter an income far surpassing that of the average rural Roman. And rural these men were, from harsh background, they were more than willing to accept the rigors of legion discipline. Upon acceptance of this discipline in exchange for a far superior life, these soldiers would not have hesitated to follow the order to decimate their peers. It must be remembered that the actual punishment, that is the killing, was not performed by the offending legion. The condemned legionaries were forced to chose those that would be killed via lot, forced to call the name of the condemned man, perhaps even his own name. But there is little evidence to suggest that any legion commanded to carry out the decimation refused the order. The legion to be decimated earned this dubious distinction, by cowardice, insubordination, failure on the field of battle through breach of discipline, failures that would surely have disgusted any cohort worth the name. The vast majority of Roman soldiers were highly motivated. They were trained to and desired to stand there ground, ROMA! The attitude that it was a far better death to die fighting than to survive alone speaks volumes about the loyalty these soldiers felt. Speaks volumes about the commitment they felt to Rome and the lengths they were willing to go to achieve Rome's goals. Typically the soldiers from other units killed every tenth man by stoning, clubbing or beheading, while the assembled condemned cohort looked on. This punishment was rarely used after the time of Augustus, this did not stop the threat of its use from being any effective deterrent to cowardice.

 

I think the most graphic Roman punishment must be the crucifixion of the remaining rebel Spartacus slaves. Upwards of 6,000 slaves crucified along the Appian Way. For months left to hang, as their bodies dessicated and putrefied, slowly each man would have fallen to the ground. Perhaps hanging by a tendon, so like a deer caught in a barbwire fence. A truly horrible trip to Rome it must have been. A punishment of cost no doubt paid more by free citizens than the rebel slaves. The misery of the slaves ended relatively quickly, poor damned souls, but the message to the mob carried for months and years to come. The image of this horror would never have left the minds of any who beheld the awesome will of the Roman Senate. Burned forever the message, we have the will for any measure, any act, the will of Rome will not be denied. Surely the long term physiological impact, the true punishment, reverberated throughout the Mediterranean.

 

The true aim of any punishment was always to instill fear. Strength through intimidation, of ever escalating severity, until the ultimate goals of Rome were achieved. Rome's ultimate goal was to project it's will, a will capable of any action to further it propagation. Fear through harsh punishment or the threat of punishment worked well for many centuries. Balanced with great reward for compliance with and loyalty to Rome, the system worked well indeed. Unfortunately for Rome, the rewards slowly diminished to the point that punishment was all that truly remained. We all know the end result, this system created many enemies as well, for not all people were afraid of Rome's punishments, and its own people unwilling to accept meager reward.

 

Quidam timore mortis mortem orabant.

Some, through fear of death, prayed to die.

Pliny the Younger

 

Pax

 

Well put and we should also remember that a Roman soldier was not neccessarily willing to serve because he would have a better life than he experienced at home. Generally he was willing to serve on the promise of booty, witness the problems that Lucullus had with his troops on the Mithridatic campaign when he denied them that. Fear of punishment and iron hard discipline were what kept Rome's army together, especially in times of peace, there are plenty of instances when the writers talk of the problems of maintaining discipline in peace. Decimation was one of the last resort punishments, most often used for cowardice and for rebellion, and rebellion tended to be a peace time malaise.

 

Later under the empire the army found it increasingly difficult to enlist men because although the godawful punishments were still there but after the boundaries of the empire were fixed the opportunites for booty were far and few between. So remember when dealing with your troops punish them today only if you can reward them tomorrow.

 

Ave atque Vale

Sulla

[Lost_Warrior]

Wow hello that was an excellent first post I hope to see more of them.

 

Some men in had started cutting off their own fingers to avoid military service. Because of this, in later years the legions started accepting men with missing fingers >.>

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Apparently my decimation topic is still alive when I brought it up.

Did the men with no fingers become archers unless they missed their middle finger or they were not handicapped at all?

[Lost_Warrior]

Archers? I doubt it. The archers were specialized. Missing fingers doesn't mean you can't weild a sword (unless, of course, you're missing all of them)

[Germanicus]

quote]It must be remembered that the actual punishment, that is the killing, was not performed by the offending legion.

 

Actually, they were usually clubbed to death by their own tent mates as I understand it. The reason for this was that those escaping the actual death, were still punished by being forced to kill one of the men who had shared all their labours up to that point. Crassus decimated during the slave revolt, and it was the offending legion who drew lots, and beat their own to death.

 

I believe during this and earlier periods, shame was a big motivator. And most legionaries after Marius would have preffered taking chances with the lots, to simply being disbanded, missing out on their accumulated pay, land allotment etc.

[P.Clodius]

"Actually, they were usually clubbed to death by their own tent mates as I understand it"

 

It was called "Fustuarium" I believe.

[Pertinax]

This overlaps with the same punishment for dereliction of sentry duty-the basic principle in that case being a person who has jeopardised the lives of his comrades is struck down by those same persons he has neglected.

[Pax Orbis Furius]

Hello,

 

While it is always tempting to believe the popular fiction, it is never prudent, nor advisable. The misconception that the act of decimation was carried put by the "tent mates", is founded in pure Hollywood exaggeration and Roman propaganda. There is no evidence to support this supposition. Clearly, the Romans themselves would have supported this embellishment. The true power of decimation does not lie with the act itself, but with the threat of the act. Allowed to foster in the imagination of the soldier, the severity of execution of punishment would naturally and inevitably grown. The commanding officers would have done little to quash this, in fact would have encouraged this type of fabrication. The most effective weapon or punishment of all was the forced compliance to rigorous code, through coercion, threats, psychological manipulation. All of which accomplished the penultimate goal of compliance to discipline, all while doing little to harm the valuable assets, IE the soldier, cohort, legion, army.

 

By examining the most reliable source of information we have, Polybius, we can observe:

 

Decimation or fustuarium described by Polybius.

 

"This is inflicted as follows: The tribune takes a cudgel and just touches the condemned man with it, after which all in the camp beat or stone him, in most cases dispatching him in the camp itself. But even those who manage to escape are not saved thereby: impossible! for they are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of the family would dare to receive such a man in his house. So that those who have once fallen into this misfortune are utterly ruined....

 

If the same thing happens to large bodies, and if entire maniples desert their posts when exceedingly hard pressed, the officers refrain from inflicting the bastinado or the death penalty at all, but find a solution of the difficulty that is both salutary and terror-striking. The tribune assembles the legion, and brings up those guilty of leaving the ranks, reproaches them sharply, and finally chooses by lot sometimes five, sometimes eight, sometimes twenty of the offenders, so adjusting the number thus chosen that they form as near as possible the tenth part of those guilty of cowardice. Those on whom the lot falls are bastinadoed [to beat with a stick or whipped] mercilessly in the manner above described; the rest receive rations of barley instead of wheat and are ordered to encamp outside the camp on an unprotected spot. As therefore the danger and dread of drawing the fatal lot affects all equally, as it is uncertain on whom it will fall; and as the public disgrace of receiving barley rations falls on all alike, this practice is that best calculated both the inspire fear and to correct the mischief."

 

The Histories (VI.37.2-4, 38.1-3)

 

 

Thus it is hard put to contradict the action of the camp as a whole. All soldiers were required to participate in the punishment, as by design, the idea was to impress terror upon the entire legion by exemplifying in harsh manner the consequence of cowardice. Further, Polybius is clear in his description of the cursory punishment enjoined upon the 90% survivors. The survivors were forced to, draw lots with no clemency given for trivial matters such as innocence, thereby arbitrarily condemning themselves and their comrades, forced to watch as they entire camp clubbed the condemned, force marched outside the safety of the fortification, made to camp without sentry or guard, forced to eat barley the food of animals and Germans, stripped of all award, all of which were great humiliations. Humiliation, lasting humiliation, could never be erased from the Roman psyche. As Tacitus records, humiliation and threats were often sufficient to quell whatever disciplinary problem which had arisen.

 

I repeat, I have found no evidence to support the supposition that the act of decimation was carried out by members of the offending cohort. I have found much evidence to lay bare this convenient fiction, clever propaganda first established by Rome itself, much to convince me that this rare, brutal punishment was horribly shared by all soldiers of the entire legion.

 

Pax

 

Sources:

 

The Battle that Stopped Rome

By Peter S. Wells

 

Rubicon

By Tom Holland

 

The Complete Roman Army

By Adrian Goldsworthy

 

Polybius

The Histories

 

Tacitus

The Annals

[Germanicus]

Nice post Pax,

 

 

"The tribune takes a cudgel and just touches the condemned man with it, after which all in the camp beat or stone him, in most cases dispatching him in the camp itself"

 

Who's to say which actual members of the camp layed the blows, or threw the stones ? Probably those closest to the condemned.

 

Either way, the quote you've used indicates it certainly was the offending legion performing the punishment.

 

It must be remembered that the actual punishment, that is the killing, was not performed by the offending legion

 

I certainly take your point that no ancient sources directly identify who did the beatings other than members of the camp.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I'm just wondering, they won't be killed by stoning or clubbing right, just a swift beheading or cutting of the nervous system right?

[Pertinax]

Tacitus records in the Annals the savagery of formerly mutinous Legion's turning on those who provoked mutiny, and note that the blame for the mutiny is laid upon "town " slaves drafted into the Legion who are at once both more cunning and lazier than the "rustic" legionnaires.

[Germanicus]

I'm just wondering, they won't be killed by stoning or clubbing right, just a swift beheading or cutting of the nervous system right?

 

Wrong, when people say "Clubbed to death" or "Stoned to death" they literally mean "Clubbed to death" or "Stoned to death". As in beaten, to death.

[Pertinax]

In line with my great love of the Roman table (and the modern one also) I found a terrible vow (rather than a punishment) namely not to lie down and eat until revenged upon an enemy.Id try and slay my enemy before dinner.