How did Roman military treat prisoners/captives?

[VeniVidiVici]

I know that it really depends on who the prisoner is, what faction/army he or she(rarely, haha) belongs to, you know.

 

But let's say the prisoner is a Gaul soldier in somewhat high rank(like centurion), how would Roman military treat this guy?

 

Be merciless, or actually be kinda respectful?

[Kosmo]

They chocked to death their leader. What will they do to a centurion?

Rather merciless people those romans. Dacian captives died by the thousends in the Colliseum.

Mercy was seen as a weekness.

[Ingsoc]

All prisoners were either executed, sold to slavery or put to death during games in the arena.

[Nephele]

Didn't the Romans keep hostages, as well, as a (not always effective) assurance of peace? While Caesar kept numerous European tribal hostages in prison-like conditions, it was my understanding that the Imperial family would raise and educate, along with their own children, the sons of leaders of eastern nations who might otherwise pose problems to Rome. Weren't the sons and, later, the grandson of Herod the Great such hostages?

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

A prisoner was treated according to his utility. As Nephele suggests, an influential leader might be useful as a hostage in some circumstances - there was no guarantee, nor any he would survive if the romans got what they wanted. Some were used as examples, such as Vercingetorix, who was eventually bumped off when his usefulness was over. ordinary people might be slaughtered on the spot, and the taking of prisoners wasn't roman policy, although obviously it happened, and selling them into slavery must have been a nice little earner - which was probably a primary motive for taking prisoners in the first place.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I really wonder whether some of you know that the difference between a Roman and a Gaul goes deeper than the lorica hamata. Leaving aside a few bad apples (like Caesar), the Romans were not indiscriminate butchers, and the notion that "All prisoners were either executed, sold to slavery or put to death during games in the arena" is pure Hollywood.

 

First, the senate placed boundaries on this kind of behavior. Consider the Third Macedonian War, in which P. Crassus and C. Lucretius Gallus assaulted the pro-Macedonian cities of Boeotia, plundered them brutally, and sold their inhabitants into slavery. By the reckoning above, you'd think they would have won a triumph for this kind of behavior. But in fact they were censured in the senate. Moreover, an envoy was immediately dispatched to find those in bondage, and the enslaved Greeks were immediately freed. Indeed, by the treaty of Nabis in 195--a treaty that was entirely dictated by the victorious Romans--it was forbidden to take slaves from the Argives and any Argive slaves--whether publicly or privately held--were to be immediately freed. So much the idea that "Mercy was seen as a weekness [sic]"

 

Second, when the Romans were brutal, it was almost invariably as a form of retribution, not casual bloodlust. On this see the discussion on the destruction of Corinth, which came in response to local demagogues stirring up a war that would have brought conflagration to all Hellas.

 

Third, the practice of enslaving prisoner's wasn't even distinctively Roman, but standard Hellenistic practice. The farms of Greece and Carthage were fairly teeming with Italians and Romans after the Hannibalic War. For some reason, no one ever mentions this fact.

 

The Romans could certainly be merciless to those who betrayed them, but for the most part, the conduct of war was guided by Roman interests, and--unlike the Gauls--the Romans were rational enough to know that brute force is not sufficient to build an empire.

[Ingsoc]

Didn't the Romans keep hostages, as well, as a (not always effective) assurance of peace? While Caesar kept numerous European tribal hostages in prison-like conditions, it was my understanding that the Imperial family would raise and educate, along with their own children, the sons of leaders of eastern nations who might otherwise pose problems to Rome. Weren't the sons and, later, the grandson of Herod the Great such hostages?

 

-- Nephele

 

Yes it's was common to send prisoners to serve as hostages as part of a peace deal (for example Antiochus III send both of his sons to Rome after the Apamea treaty) however they by no mean were captured during war.

 

The main reason for the sons of the vassal rulers to be in Rome was so that they could learn about the might of Rome and serve as an agents of Romanisation when they themself became rulers. No doubt that in a case that their father would rise against his Roman maters they would be used hostages - but this was only a secondry reason for their stay in Rome.

[Gaius Octavius]

Third, the practice of enslaving prisoner's wasn't even distinctively Roman, but standard Hellenistic practice. The farms of Greece and Carthage were fairly teeming with Italians and Romans after the Hannibalic War. For some reason, no one ever mentions this fact.

 

Wasn't it Roman practice not to ransom prisoners taken by the enemy? If the prisoner's family did ransom them, they had to wear a conical hat? A legionary was supposed to die before being taken prisoner?

[Kosmo]

I thought we talked about POW's. The data given by the first poster says "a Gaul soldier in somewhat high rank(like centurion)" That is enemy soldiers captured in battle. Not hostages given in a peace treaty (like Polybius) or civilians.

Probably the gaul NCO we are talking about will end up in the slave market.

[Nephele]

I thought we talked about POW's. The data given by the first poster says "a Gaul soldier in somewhat high rank(like centurion)" That is enemy soldiers captured in battle. Not hostages given in a peace treaty (like Polybius) or civilians.

Probably the gaul NCO we are talking about will end up in the slave market.

 

The initial poster to this thread said nothing at all about "enemy soldiers captured in battle" (although he may have implied that -- or you may have merely inferred that). But what he did ask, was about prisoners -- specifically prisoners of high rank -- and how they might be treated. Hostages are prisoners.

 

However, enemy soldiers (of rank or otherwise) captured in battle could conceivably become hostages, too. M. James Moscovich of the University of Western Ontario wrote an article titled "Obsidibus Traditis: Hostages in Caesar's De Bello Gallico" for The Classical Journal (Dec. 1979/Jan. 1980 issue), in which he appeared to differentiate between "formal hostages" -- those "submitted in connection with a peace agreement or sent voluntarily to the Romans" -- and the numerous hostages submitted in conjunction with battlefield surrenders who were not sent to Rome but who were instead maintained at what sounds very much like our modern-day prisoner-of-war camps -- the Aeduan fortress, Noviodunum, "a central depot where hostages could be sent for extended periods." Moscovich refers to the 19th century historian, Max Eichheim ("one of Caesar's most colorful critics"), stating: "We cannot even approximate the total number of hostages taken by Caesar during the Gallic campaigns. The largest number in any single instance reported is 600."

 

-- Nephele

[Primus Pilus]

I really wonder whether some of you know that the difference between a Roman and a Gaul goes deeper than the lorica hamata. Leaving aside a few bad apples (like Caesar), the Romans were not indiscriminate butchers, and the notion that "All prisoners were either executed, sold to slavery or put to death during games in the arena" is pure Hollywood.

 

First, the senate placed boundaries on this kind of behavior. Consider the Third Macedonian War, in which P. Crassus and C. Lucretius Gallus assaulted the pro-Macedonian cities of Boeotia, plundered them brutally, and sold their inhabitants into slavery. By the reckoning above, you'd think they would have won a triumph for this kind of behavior. But in fact they were censured in the senate. Moreover, an envoy was immediately dispatched to find those in bondage, and the enslaved Greeks were immediately freed. Indeed, by the treaty of Nabis in 195--a treaty that was entirely dictated by the victorious Romans--it was forbidden to take slaves from the Argives and any Argive slaves--whether publicly or privately held--were to be immediately freed. So much the idea that "Mercy was seen as a weekness [sic]"

 

Second, when the Romans were brutal, it was almost invariably as a form of retribution, not casual bloodlust. On this see the discussion on the destruction of Corinth, which came in response to local demagogues stirring up a war that would have brought conflagration to all Hellas.

 

Third, the practice of enslaving prisoner's wasn't even distinctively Roman, but standard Hellenistic practice. The farms of Greece and Carthage were fairly teeming with Italians and Romans after the Hannibalic War. For some reason, no one ever mentions this fact.

 

The Romans could certainly be merciless to those who betrayed them, but for the most part, the conduct of war was guided by Roman interests, and--unlike the Gauls--the Romans were rational enough to know that brute force is not sufficient to build an empire.

 

As a counter though, look at the example of Lucius Aemilius Paulus. After a decisive victory over Macedonia and the butchering of opposition leaders, he sacked and plundered Epirus to excess, in addition to the taking of some 150,000 slaves. When he returned to Rome in 167 the Senate rewarded him with the agnomen Macedonicus and a triumph. Additionally he was named Censor in 164. The major reason for his plundering of Epirus was to appease his legionaries who were angry about their spoils in Macedonia.

[caldrail]

Leaving aside a few bad apples (like Caesar), the Romans were not indiscriminate butchers, and the notion that "All prisoners were either executed, sold to slavery or put to death during games in the arena" is pure Hollywood.

The romans were indiscrimate butchers whenever it suited them. Crassus nailed up six thousand rebels for a reason. Galba slaughtered nine thousand lusitanians and enslaved more than twenty thousand others to seal his victory. It didn't matter what the senate thought, these people did it anyway. Even Galba, dragged in front of the senate for his actions, was let off by the expedient of parading his upset kids in front of them.

 

Second, when the Romans were brutal, it was almost invariably as a form of retribution, not casual bloodlust.

Incorrect. It was a matter of military policy adopted by roman commanders. The romans legionaries were brutal men. They had to be, and there's planty of anecdotal evidence of their use of violence against ordinary citizens.

 

Third, the practice of enslaving prisoner's wasn't even distinctively Roman, but standard Hellenistic practice. The farms of Greece and Carthage were fairly teeming with Italians and Romans after the Hannibalic War. For some reason, no one ever mentions this fact.

Slave taking is common practice in human societies and the romans were no exception. The ancient world accepted slavery as normal activity. I'm not aware of any ancient society that didn't.

 

The Romans could certainly be merciless to those who betrayed them, but for the most part, the conduct of war was guided by Roman interests, and--unlike the Gauls--the Romans were rational enough to know that brute force is not sufficient to build an empire.

No, some romans were rational enough. Others weren't. Of course greed helps, and this is a primary motive for territorial gain, in terms of resources, markets, taxes, and booty (including slaves I notice). In any case, the romans were not building an empire for rational reasons. Many of those involved in its expansion were doing so for selfish reasons or were acting on behalf of those with these motives. Power, glory, wealth - all availble to those who took the risks and won. It isn't suprising there were bad apples in roman society really. After all, brute force was nothing unusual to romans who tolerated such behaviour in daily life and always had.

[Antiochus III]

I think the reason the Romans were so harsh on prisoners was to ensure the people were kept in fear and were loyal to the Romans.

 

Antiochus III

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

As a counter though, look at the example of Lucius Aemilius Paulus. After a decisive victory over Macedonia and the butchering of opposition leaders, he sacked and plundered Epirus to excess, in addition to the taking of some 150,000 slaves. When he returned to Rome in 167 the Senate rewarded him with the agnomen Macedonicus and a triumph. Additionally he was named Censor in 164. The major reason for his plundering of Epirus was to appease his legionaries who were angry about their spoils in Macedonia.

 

Just to mention another great Roman who butchered his enemy at will, Gnaeus Pompeius. He was renowned for his savagery during and after battle against which ever foe he came up against whether they be barbarian or fellow Roman citizens. This is from a man who wasn't even legally entitled to command a Roman army in the first place, did they condemn him though? No, they gave him a triumph and named him Pompeius "Magnus" (The Great).

 

The title which he also acquired was a tad more fitting though, adulescentulus carnifex (teenage butcher).

Edited January 28, 2008 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[G-Manicus]

Would logistical reasons also enter into the decision to execute prisoners? For example, say a Roman General captures 10,000 Gauls after a decisive victory, what are his options if there are not adequate slavers associated with his army? I would imagine it would be quite difficult to feed that many additional mouths, not to mention the security risk involved. I would think that at certain points they would almost have to kill them for their own survival.