-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Roman Conquests: Were the Leaders of the Tribes They Conquered Crucified?
- Thread starter Xirix7
- Start date
windar
Teller of Tales
I'm no expert in Roman history, but if the question is "ever", ever is a long time. So, I'm sure it happened
However, as a general rule, great empires that last for centuries aren't built by killing everyone or even most of those you conquer. The secret sauce is to co-opt them, then as now.
I know this is CruxForum, but we shouldn't think that crucifixion was the main thing, the raison d'etre, that the Romans did, anymore than the electric chair was the main invention that the United States will be remembered for in history (at least one hopes not).
Xirix7
Executioner
Thank you for this. Also, as a student of some history, yes - I agree with you that the vast majority of smaller empires merely became vassal states of the greater ones, or agreed to give them succor or make with them similar arrangements.
MY issue and fetish interests I suppose is the abuse of the "royal family" or other members of the court.
MY issue and fetish interests I suppose is the abuse of the "royal family" or other members of the court.
Reb
Assistant executioner
-----
I am under the strong impression that some were crucified and some were sold into slavery. Sometimes the leaders' families including wives, progeny, parents, and siblings were executed, and I suppose any other members of the households as might strike an emperor's fancy. Surely we can imagine that Nero and Calligula would have been among the bloodiest in this regard.
I'm also pretty sure some generals in the field also crucified many of the vanquished. Caesar does not mention it as well as I can remember in Gallia est omnes divisa in tres partes. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. My 9th grade Latin class was a long time ago. The generals had to weigh the risk and expense of marching great distances with a large number of angry, dangerous, and hungry hostiles against their possible eventual value as slaves. In this regard younger women and children may have fared better than the enemy combatants and any too old or too infirm to be of great value at the slave market.
Reb
Assistant executioner
I could add that many of the lower ranking soldiers were set free so that they could be productive and therefore taxed.
Constantine recognized the difficulty of managing an empire of conquered peoples, as spread out as it had become, most vassal states had populations that despised Rome because of Rome's exorbitant taxes. He moved his capital to Constantinople and upon his death divided the empire leaving portions and a world of trouble to his three sons.
In the 'Triumphs' allowed to victorious generals, captives of war, especially the enemy leaders (with their wives and children, if they'd been captured too) were routinely paraded in chains in humiliating public display. After the procession had ended, with a sacrifice at one of the great temples, the crowd moved on to games and entertainments in the victor's honour in the Colosseum etc.
It is likely that some prestigious prisoners were executed in the course of such Triumphs, either privately in the Tullianum prison, on the triumphal way, or in public as part of the 'entertainments'. It is likely that some war-captives were made to suffer and die in the 'entertainments' - e.g. thrown to the beasts. And it's possible that the 'prize captives' might have ended up on crosses at the end of the day - but I think they are more likely either to have been beheaded or enslaved, crucifixion was more usually a punishment for slaves and petty criminals.
It is likely that some prestigious prisoners were executed in the course of such Triumphs, either privately in the Tullianum prison, on the triumphal way, or in public as part of the 'entertainments'. It is likely that some war-captives were made to suffer and die in the 'entertainments' - e.g. thrown to the beasts. And it's possible that the 'prize captives' might have ended up on crosses at the end of the day - but I think they are more likely either to have been beheaded or enslaved, crucifixion was more usually a punishment for slaves and petty criminals.
willowfall
Senator
I won't say they never were but based on my reading of Rome's campaigns (I just finished Caesar 's Gaul Campaign) generally after defeating the tribe the Roman's tended to make clients of the tribe's leadership. This was easier than killing off the entire leadership and using direct rule. Especially after Augustus cut the field force down to 25 legions (of which Varius lost 3 in 9 AD).
Crucifixion was a punishment for a slave, non-citizen pr criminal stripped of their citizenship. Generally if an enemy leader was to be executed it was done in an "honorable" way (strangulation, beheading, sword thrust). It isn't that the Roman's were nice but from a practical point of view they tended to convert enemy leadership rather than bump them off.
And crucifixion was considered a fairly humiliating and demeaning death.
Now there were exceptions when the leadership was thought to be too dangerous to trust (some Gauls) or the group in general was a pain in the ass (the Jews).
kisses
willowfall
Crucifixion was a punishment for a slave, non-citizen pr criminal stripped of their citizenship. Generally if an enemy leader was to be executed it was done in an "honorable" way (strangulation, beheading, sword thrust). It isn't that the Roman's were nice but from a practical point of view they tended to convert enemy leadership rather than bump them off.
And crucifixion was considered a fairly humiliating and demeaning death.
Now there were exceptions when the leadership was thought to be too dangerous to trust (some Gauls) or the group in general was a pain in the ass (the Jews).
kisses
willowfall
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Or a rebel slave army (e.g. Spartacus).
Nevertheless, keep in mind that specifcally Julius Caesar has been accused of war crimes, since his way of conduct in Gaul, using excessive violence, was considered exaggerated, even for the standards of the time!
Yes, there was evidently tension and argument then - as there often is now - between the need to defeat a dangerous, troublesome people just across the limites, in such a way as to ensure they wouldn't cause any more trouble - which might mean cruel exemplary punishments, massacres, mass-enslavement, laying waste the land... and the advantages of taking over, or at least having the co-operation of, compliant local warlords and contented, productive populations.
windar
Teller of Tales
willowfall
Senator
I am always very careful when trying to access the actions of people in the past using modern standards. It is at best a trap.
So for example there has been a trend (for about 15 years now) to knock down Alexander the Great because of his treatment of the conquered people.
By today's standards yes it was atrocious but when you look at what his contemporaries were doing he wasn't really outside the norm.
My main fantasies revolve around being a woman prior to the middle ages. If I had been captured during a raid or a war at best I could expected to be repeatedly raped and enslaved. At worst I might have been raped, tortured and then put to death in some horrible manner.
And my fate would have occurred regardless of who the "winner" was. I was at best a prize, a compensation at worst a toy to be used and then broken.
But that was ok, by the morals of the time.
Hell it happens today (just ask the Yazid women) only now it is outside the norm for civilized people instead of back then when it WAS the norm for civilized people.
kisses
willowfall
So for example there has been a trend (for about 15 years now) to knock down Alexander the Great because of his treatment of the conquered people.
By today's standards yes it was atrocious but when you look at what his contemporaries were doing he wasn't really outside the norm.
My main fantasies revolve around being a woman prior to the middle ages. If I had been captured during a raid or a war at best I could expected to be repeatedly raped and enslaved. At worst I might have been raped, tortured and then put to death in some horrible manner.
And my fate would have occurred regardless of who the "winner" was. I was at best a prize, a compensation at worst a toy to be used and then broken.
But that was ok, by the morals of the time.
Hell it happens today (just ask the Yazid women) only now it is outside the norm for civilized people instead of back then when it WAS the norm for civilized people.
kisses
willowfall
Marcius
Tribune
Augustus' Cantabrian Wars appear to have been of the first kind--and Strabo attests that some Cantabri were executed by crucifixion, even if it is only to say that the crucified kept on singing their barbarian songs of victory.
windar
Teller of Tales
Xirix7
Executioner
Yeah. I know that song. I also enjoy Killer Queen. "She's a killer queen . . ."
I saw Queen open for Mott the Hoople in April 1974...
willowfall
Senator
I wasn't even around in 1974! Hard to believe that at one point Queen was the opening act for Mott.
kisses
willowfall
I'm a bit older than you. The imagination is still young. The first concert I went to featured KISS at the KSHE Kite-Fly in Forest Park in St. Louis. It was an outdoor concert and maybe two kites flew... Most of the crowd did. I only did Mad Dog 20-20...
I was being good and I had dad's '64 Ford station wagon... It was used even then...
