"Republican Roman animosity" Topic

Human prejudices being what they are (and always have been) I wonder if Regular Roman Legions (being made up of the upper classes) had any animosity towards the penal/slave legions they sometimes raised in an emergency?

Did the generals use them as pilum fodder?

It's a wonder they didn't go all Orc on one another.

The Romans were happy to use any resources available in an emergency, much like any power through history. The legions raised during the panic moments of the second Punic War probably were more readily accepted by the Roman "man on the street" than auxillia legions raised during the later imperial periods due to their Italian if not Roman origin. The slave legions may have had freedom in return for service, but they were never going to be made citizens. Granting citizenship in return for service was more of a political problem for the Romans more than anything else in regards to raising legions.

The only time I am aware of slave/criminal legions being raised was during the Second Punic war. They used them as regular troops, not wasteful. The point of having them was a desperate need for manpower, they weren't going to just throw them away.

I thought there were a couple penal/slave legions raised during the slave rebellion. Spartacus, et al.

Where have you read it? Why would the Romans arm the very people most likely to turn against them in a slave revolt?

Thought I had read that too, though I don't remember specifically. I've been under the impression that those weren't the only times, either. That would be an interesting study – probably look mostly at the times a Dictator was appointed – the nobility hated doing that except in the cases of dire emergency. And there could be a thousand reasons for letting slaves join in emergency – those slaves had no ties to Spartacus and I'd bet that even amongst slaves there was competition, little or no pan-slave feeling; they were to be granted freedom (that's a guess); a chance at new status (rare in the ancient world); and the slaves are probably a speed bump against the enemies until other legions could be raised – better than leaving The City defenseless. All we can do is go with what the sources tell us and make a few educated guesses to boot. Again, I don't remember that situation too specifically.

I've read all the existing primary sources on the Spartacus rebellion. It only amounts to about 4,000 words :)

No mention at all of slave legions or slave recruits in the Roman forces.

Yes, there is very little actual information on the revolt.

The Spartacus rebellion is fascinating in its own right, and Spartacus himself was a remarkably capable leader, arguably on a par with Hannibal as an opponent of the Roman Republic. One thing that is notable is that, although some of the Roman forces sent against him were clearly not of the highest grade, Rome had no difficulty raising army after army to oppose him. So, while Rome could afford to lose several times (and did) the slave revolt could not afford defeats in the field.

Exactly the thing that ultimately defeated the direct threats to Rome – simply manpower. Romans were not so exclusive as other major powers of their time (e.g. Hellenistic powers that might often not directly incorporate the native population into their army because of (probably legitimate) distrust). Even though Romans didn't give most Allies full citizenship often (until 88 BC), they trained and relied upon them as full legionaries. I don't hear of a difference other than the allies typically holding the wings. From what I've read, social and legal exclusion led to manpower shortages in the pike units in Hellenistic armies, whereas the Romans even at the time of Pyrrhus could draw upon an estimated 800,000 men (TJ Cornell, 1995), most of which were allied Italians. Not all at once, obviously.

I think what took so long in Spartacus' case was that the existing armies were so far out doing important jobs and it took time to raise up the armies.

I'd be right interested in how much of the available manpower that Rome could draw on was based upon it's slave-based economy. You had to be pretty low down on the economic ladder to NOT own at least one slave. Everyone depended upon them for labor.

So with that tossed out there, does the availability of slaves to do the bulk of manual (and even some skilled) labour mean that more of the citizens could be called up for service?

Spartacus had many problems to deal with that most generals don't. His position was based entirely on being an accomplished leader and organizer; he had no existing command structure, social prestige, logistical base or much of anything except an increasing number of very mixed field hands and shepherds – town and house slaves weren't very welcome – and vast numbers of women and children. They had no training or weapons except those they made or picked up from beaten Romans. The 70 or so gladiators threw away their arena weapons on about the second day as being purely theatrical props.

Part of his problem was that, given the above, several of his subordinates saw no reason why they shouldn't have their own armies to command. The divisions between the slaves were largely ethnic, the Germans and Gauls splitting off from the mostly eastern Mediterranean majority.

Spartacus was very good indeed. Otherwise the whole revolt would have lasted six weeks instead of two-three years. He won (probably) six battles and lost one.

Kindred,
Offhand, I don't think that slavery had a large effect on the pool of manpower the Romans were able to draw on (I think your question is "did slavery free up ROman citizens to serve?" My understanding is that Roman citizens did not have a choice – it was a draft and compulsory. There were later times (PUnic or Spanish wars, I think, or maybe Samnite) when there was a semi-strike against the levy and some citizens didn't show up. Story goes that the leaders' property was confiscated as per the law and then the rest of the citizens showed up as they were supposed to.

I think that the manpower was probably based on populations of allies and quotas to be filled. Mid-Republican Rome had no other way of using their alliances other than the annual military quotas and going to war (money was not a substitute – earliest Roman coins date from end of 3rd century, around 212 BC – which is astounding for such a big population with ties to Greek commerce and some degree of Hellenization). So if they wanted to utilize their treaties they had to make war annually, and hence the rapid subjugation of Italy between the period of 338 (defeat and dismantling the Latin League) and 265 (last of Italy), whereas before (509 to 360's) Roman expansion had been much more gradual (hundreds of years to get that little core area). Many people have just chalked it up to Romans being more militaristic than others – and some of that may be true, but Cornell strongly states that it was the necessity to utilize alliances that propelled Roman expansion.

Well, that had little to do with Spartacus. My apologies to the thread's genitor.

It's not simply a question of manpower, much of it is on the society, itself. Socially, the Romans had the will to keep fighting even when things were going terribly. It was fairly unusual.

I don't consider Spartacus to be in the same league as Hannibal. Spartacus had no strategy, no goals. Tactically, he beat low quality troops and inexperienced leaders. When a good military commander came around, he was defeated. He could be considered a successful brigand, but I don't think he was an excellent general.

I think that part of his mystique is that so little was actually written about him. Thanks to Hollywood, we are more aware of him and place him in a greater historical role than he would have been otherwise.

The other Servile Wars were also multi-year events that gave the Romans trouble.

Willpower has something to do with their successes, no doubt, but not all Romans were stalwart Cincinnatuses that refused to back down. Look at the Roman response to losing Heraclea…the Senate was on the verge of giving in to Pyrrhus' peace until the old retired Appius Claudius came back into the Senate and chided them back into resistance. Or again when Carthage came to back the Romans. There are other examples where the Romans almost caved but for some other power stepping in to help. It's tempting to look at the historical result and see their success and attribute it to extreme willpower, but that risks ignoring all the human reactions and mistakes they made along the way. Livy is good at forgiving the Romans.

Cohorts of freed slaves were raised at various times of crisis, such as after the Teutoberger Forest disaster. They seem to have been a valued part of the Roman military machine, although one might assume that the normal social stigma applied to ex-slaves applied to them.

Where are you reading this, BigRedBat?

Roman Empire Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD by Michael Lane, available from the Society of Ancients. The units were called Cohors Voluntariorum Civium Romanum, and were recruited from freedmen (ex slaves), and paid on a legionary pay scale, so rather better than auxiliaries. I believe that in times of crisis slaves may have been freed in order to be able to serve in these units, but can't find a reference.

Does the book have a reference?

Also mentioned in Cheesman:

link

Search on voluntariorum.

On these cohortes, the obvious literary attestations are Suetonius' Life of Augustus, chapter 25 and Velleius Paterculus 2.111.

There is fairly abundant (and frankly confusing) epigraphic attestation. The confusion partly stems from lack of precision and consistency in nomenclature (as well as the very incomplete state of the record). I am not at all up to date on these things but there was some important discussion in the seventies by Peter Brunt (eg. in ZPE 1974) and Michael Spiedel (TAPA 1976, and a number of other articles), which at least is more recent than Cheesman (still fundamental as his account is). Kraft's 1951 book Zur Rekrutierung der Alen und Kohorten an Rhein und Donau has some important coverage too. I don't know but I would imagine that John Spaul's 2000 (B.A.R.) Cohors 2 book probably talks about them too.

Blimey! Thanks EvilBen, very interesting.

Suetonius:

"Except as a fire-brigade in Rome, and when there was fear of riots in times of scarcity, he employed freedmen as soldiers only twice: once as a guard for the colonies in the vicinity of Illyricum, and again to defend the bank of the river Rhine; even these he levied, when they were slaves, from men and women of means, and at once gave them freedom; and he kept them under their original standard, not mingling them with the soldiers of free birth or arming them in the same fashion."

The Velleius reference also makes it clear that slaves were freed, given citizenship and conscripted in that order.

Best, Simon

No worries. Now I've actually looked it up, it looks as though Spaul really does cover the citizen cohorts. Someone's got it out of the library I use so I don't know what he says about them, I'm afraid. And I spelled Prof Speidel's name wrong, obviously.

"Not mingling them with the soldiers of free birth". Yeah, when you originally mentioned this I thought it must have rankled the normal legionaries to be put on par with ex-slaves…whoever "he" was, he'd have a real problem on his hands when entire legions rebelled against this.