Prisoners in ancient times?

[allmywires]

Bit of a left-field question here - does anyone know what prisoners of war were put to work to do in ancient (I'm thinking Roman Empire) times? All I can glean from wikipedia (reliable source I know...) is that they were enslaved or became gladiators. Any ancient historians out there who could help a gal out?

 

[Gumboot]

Slaves would be the private property of the Consul who commanded the legions (or later Emperor) so they'd either be put to work on public buildings the Emperor/Consul was building to gift to the state, gifted to other important people such as Senators to gain favour and support, or sold off.

 

[Montero]

All fiction I've read has had slaves/gladiators with a few tribal chieftans becoming political prisoners. (And possibly having a romance with a nice young roman depending on the book....) Not sure about the accuracy of that as a source.

Medieval period the nobles were usually ransomed. Some footsoldiers were killed - I seem to remember an archaeological dig turning up a collection of butchered bodies.

17th century it was a mixture of parole and a bit of forced labour. So gentry gave their word not to fight and went home, probably still on their horse.
Foot soldiers promised not to fight and were sent home in their shirts - as in pretty much everything was taken off them. A fair proportion of the foot soldiers, who didn't really care about what they were fighting for but were just doing what their landowner/master had told them to do, would change sides in order to keep their boots, trousers etc and continue to be fed and paid (usually erratically but better than nothing).
Some foot soldiers would have been set to building fortifications - e.g. the earth works around Oxford.

Ah crossed in the post with gumboot.

 

[Abernovo]

Not entirely sure, but it depends, I think. (where's that fence?)

I think it's common sense that you wouldn't want a trained warrior with a grudge working in your kitchens. There were the mines, the galleys (a terrible fate, supposedly, chained to the oar benches), and other dangerous jobs, that the Romans wouldn't risk valuable slaves on. Some prisoners could also be offered positions as auxiliaries, I believe, especially if their leaders started to come round. The Ace might be one to ask about that.

Some might also be useful as bodyguards, with military skills, especially if they were disaffected - and then offered a better life (comparably), even as a slave.

 

[allmywires]

What I'm thinking off is just civilians, perhaps a conquered town, set to work on empire business (to be decided by me at a later point...) or work in a fort/walled administrative town, so hopefully that would be plausible.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Bit of a left-field question here - does anyone know what prisoners of war were put to work to do in ancient (I'm thinking Roman Empire) times? All I can glean from wikipedia (reliable source I know...) is that they were enslaved or became gladiators. Any ancient historians out there who could help a gal out?

Don't know how much it helps, i was at an exhibition about st patrick recently, so we are talking early roman era in britain. He was enslaved and put to work as a shepherd, collared to prevent escape. Apprently after they reached thirty ( read for that, if) they were released as too worn down.

 

[Astner]

Keeping prisoners is expensive. They were either executed or sold as slaves.

 

[Abernovo]

What I'm thinking off is just civilians, perhaps a conquered town, set to work on empire business (to be decided by me at a later point...) or work in a fort/walled administrative town, so hopefully that would be plausible.

A number of options, then. If subjugated, the conqueror might not wish to enslave them all. After all, the businesses in the town could still be profitable, os therefore eligible to be taxed to the empire.

However, those who were enslaved (be that a token amount, or the whole town (which might drive down the overall value of a slave on the market*)) could be utilised as common labourers (in some cases punishment for senior officials, making them do manual work), or in jobs where their talents gave the most efficient service to the empire or the local commander.

For instance scribes and tallymen in Ancient Rome were often slaves. You'd also have domestic servants, gardeners, farmers (there are still urban farms in places, but in the past keeping livestock was much more common and some towns had common grounds for grazing), and specialists such as bakers and blacksmiths. They could even be offered the chance to work their way out of slavery with good service, and if they reach 30, as per springs post.

It does sound plausible, by the way.


*Such comments of people as chattels make me shudder, even though pertinent.

 

[allmywires]

Ta all, good to know.

yes Aber, the chattels give me trouble too. Nasty. I'm trying to reconcile with myself keeping female prisoners for labour purposes rather than the more obvious reasons, but I'm finding it tricky.

 

[SciFrac]

I'm trying to reconcile with myself keeping female prisoners for labour purposes rather than the more obvious reasons, but I'm finding it tricky.

I'm sure women served multiple purposes, no?

 

[James Coote]

Is this for historical fiction? Otherwise you can just fudge it if the Romans or whoever didn't do what is convenient for the plot.

Alternatively, at some military commander's discretion, specially lenient or harsh treatment for your female character and/or her town might have been handed down.

I'd also assume that Roman Empire policy towards POWs probably wasn't uniform throughout the Empire's history.

The reason for invading the town (again I assume) would probably make the biggest difference. Suppressing rebellion probably requires a different post-invasion strategy to expanding the Empire.

Attitudes generally of the invaders towards the country / peoples of the town might also make a difference. A cultured trading partner might get different treatment to a land of uncivilized barbarians

 

[allmywires]

Thanks James, and no, it's not for historical fiction, it's just the kind of society/empire I'm basing my WIP's one on. Fudging it sounds like a good option to me...!

 

[Tirellan]

If they are just the inhabitants of a conquered town, most of them would be kept to doing what they were under the previous administration. It makes no sense to destroy your workforce unless you have ready replacements or you are making a point to other towns likely to resist.

 

[MstrTal]

I am a student Historian, still working on my degree, and I will admit this is far from my area of study or preference. That said it did arouse my interest enough to do a quick scan of my schools archives in regards to Early Roman Slavery.

Sadly there is little digitized in the many scholarly journals under this search heading. In fact just searching for slavery brought up over 50K results all doing with the Antebellum South. So a little refinement was needed.

After said refinement I brought the total under 200. Still of those sub 200 only 2 were of any real value. Please keep in mind I only quickly scanned these articles and i am not claiming to be any kind of authority.

What I did find from these documents was rather intriguing though and I will have to research more later on perhaps. Anyways the main thing to keep in mind is that Rome of Antiquity was a bit of an oddity according to modern Historians. It's economy while not a "Free Market State" is the closest thing to ever exist prior to the industrial revolution. By this it is understood that individuals could actually be hired out to do jobs and that they had a free standing work force.

Apparently this system was at odds with slavery which is why it did not exist anywhere or time before the Industrial Revolution. the article I read even cited possible guild or union conflicts with slaves over work. Of course it also pointed out that slaves were known to work side by side with hired individuals and be just as skilled.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is not the slavery of the American Antebellum Era.

 

[allmywires]

Thanks Tirellan and MstrTal, that works well with what I'm thinking.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It all depends on the situation at the time. If they had been particularly rebellious (esp if they had risen up in the past) it wouldn't be unusual for the city/town/village to be raised and the inhabitants slaughtered - or at best put into servitude; Carthage is an example of this.

Romans made use of everything and everyone; as well as being succesful militarily they were astute in business also, and everything they did served a purpose. If they thought they could work with their defeated ally, they would, and of course many of these subjugated peoples did rather well living the Roman lifetstyle.

If the Romans felt they couldn't get them onside, then slaughter as an example or slavery were options. The Empire pretty much relied on slavery - as has been said the galleys, the mines, sword-fodder in the arena (or sometimes as gladiators), or household servants were all options. A good, healthy slave was worth their weight in gold. Even then though, the prospects for a faithful slave were good, and any children they had after being freed enjoyed full Roman citizenship.



One interesting aside though was that in order to receive a Triumph (pretty much the highest decoration you could get) during the Roman republic meant that you had to have a major victory over a notable enemy and kill at least 5,000 of the enemy. As the Triumph (which uplifted the commander to almost God-like status) was so sought after, it is unsurprising that Generals would make sure they reached their 5000 tally by massacaring a few extra enemy combatants.