Tortures and humiliations on Roman coins

[Bill Perry]

Is anyone actually reading the text on these coins or just centering on the pictures? To the romans this did not represent subjugation - but security, wealth, and peace! Let the good times roll! Restoration of Security! Victory over those invading Germans!

The romans always had a militant culture and considered conquest a glorius thing - no question. But I'm hard pressed to think of one conquest that was not based on way to put buffer zones between a current enemy and roman territory. Did generals and emperors lust for conquest and go after glory? Of course they did. Did the roman population glory and feel like the center of the world when this happened - sure! But did the coinage represent subjugation - torture - humiliation of an enemy? Not one bit. It represented pure and simple "we are safer because they are defeated - see I'm doing my job - love the emperor". Its a simple and repeated message over and over and over again.

Nasty carthage getting in the way of our grain supplies? HAH sick em.

Nasty gauls invading our territory? HAH sick em.

Nasty egyptians supporting different roman factions in civil wars with all their gold? HAH its under control now.

Nasty eastern areas allowing big mean old Persia to close for comfort? Hah buffer zone now.

... the theme is repeated with dacians, etc., etc., etc.

Let the good times roll!

[LordBest]

Personally I think the reverses on these coins illustrated the security and prosperity of the empire THROUGH the humiliation and subjugation of the defeated.
Rome was the first multi ethnic empire, consisting of one quarter of the worlds population, I really cant see how anyone could say it was only good for Romans.
                                                   LordBest.

[basemetal]

Behaviour is rooted in culture and history.  Here is an example some of you-few-I think-may identify with.  I grew up in the rural south.   In my father's day had he or his grandfather gone out on the back porch and seen a ....ahh...buffalo.. his first reaction would have been "Boy...go get my rifle".
Seems barbarous doesn't it?  And yet my Father was not particularly barbarous.  He was a product of his environment and culture.  Why in the world would he shoot a buffalo, especially if one magically appeared in the distance off his back porch? 
Because..it was a hunting society/culture.  Animals are there to hunt and shoot. 
Not to be conserved and or given mercy to.  Only domestic animals are to be conserved.  There is truth and fallicy in this.
To shoot a buffalo that appears off your back porch is to moderns, madness. 
To trap or shoot a hawk that actually would and did decimate a hen's chicks and perhaps the hen herself was just sound thinking back then. Today we admire the hawk in his majesty and flight.

In the case of the ancient romans, I suspect that barbarians that wanted to "conquer" or whatever passed for that were viewed in worse than the buffalo sense.
I still come from a legacy that viewed "injuns" as animals that killed, scalped, and destroyed the "good" things that the early US settlers revered. 
"Hey, I immigrated, and settled  here, built a farm and started rasing livestock and those d....a..n savages kill my cattle and want to kill me too. A coin that commerates their destruction, you say? You bet"
Today we think of "native americians" as a fascinating study and as co-inhabitors of this country.
In settlement times settlers viewed them as animals that wanted to kill them. As did the Romans of their enemies. And don't forget their enemies weren't exactly trying to enjoin them in a common union for the benefit of all.
I say this as the husband of a 1/2 cherokee woman.
I guess in essence what I am saying is we have the luxury of time and distance in which to judge.
Antoninus Pius was considerd a kind, just and generally fair emperor.  He still attened the games, was not adverse to eliminating an enemy by killing him, and no doubt would have had a disrespectful slave killed or beaten. By beaten I mean to within an inch of his/her life.
Times and perceptions change.

[ecoli]

... I really cant see how anyone could say it was only good for Romans.
                       

My actual quote is that Rome was the greatest state ever to exist, for Romans; which is a little different than to say it was only good for Romans.

For instance, to draw a parallel, it is my belief that a certain country is the greatest state(some may call it an Empire) in the world for the past 150 years or so. That particular country's exisitance also helped a lot of other countries, and hurt quite a few.  While I would say it is the greatest, people of other countries, even friendly ones, would not agree; and pending the origin of the future historians, their accessments are also going to be different...

The above is only an example. I will not defend or discuss further of this belief of mine...

[ecoli]

In the case of the ancient romans, I suspect that barbarians that wanted to "conquer" or whatever passed for that were viewed in worse than the buffalo sense.
I still come from a legacy that viewed "injuns" as animals that killed, scalped, and destroyed the "good" things that the early US settlers revered. 
"Hey, I immigrated, and settled  here, built a farm and started rasing livestock and those d....a..n savages kill my cattle and want to kill me too. A coin that commerates their destruction, you say? You bet"

Although I sort of know what you are trying to convey but I really have problems with the above statement.
In a native's eyes, the settlers were selfish savages that fenced off public land.   

I also find the current trend that tends to glorify native culture is somewhat disturbing...after all, do they really think if history reverted back, life would be better for all concerned?  In the cold light of day, what happened in NA as well as elsewhere(such as Tibet, Australia etc) is a clash of culture and the stronger one won.  The methods of winning were(are) almost always cruel; but the weaker cultures were NO BETTER.  Such is the nature of men.    

[LordBest]

Its underdog syndrome, people relate to the people who lost even though for the most part they are generally benefiting from that victory. Bit of a generalisation, but you get the idea.
Everyone is entitled to believe their state is the greatest, of course, the problems come when they try and impose that belief on everyone else. Which of course Rome did, but it mitigated it somewhat by the PaX Roman, giving one quarter of the worlds population an unequalled period of peace and prosperity. Yes I know I keep saying it but I think its necessary to hammer home how much the Romans did for the (old) World, and how its not been equalled by any other state before or since.
                                                         LordBest.

[LordBest]

Modern politics should be avoided, especially in such a topic as this were the main themes we are discussing are employed as a matter of policy by many countries today and we dont want to offend anyone.
Note some of the details of the reverses, the captive in chains doubled over with the victorious Romans foot on their back, not merely a "We won" image but a "we utterly crushes and humiliated them" image, in my opinion atleast.
Does anyone know of any primary source material concerned with torture and any form of secret service? (excluding the informers under Tiberius through Nero, which werent really anofficial secret service) Did the Romans have the equivalent of the CIA, MI5, ASIO etc? I know the miltiary had a few trained torturers in each legion to assist with the interrogation of captives, often wondered whether there was a civilian branch as well.
                                                       LordBest.

[Bill Perry]

The romans had patronage as the driving force in their politics. A client did what their patron asked of them and in return he gave you opportunities and favors for advancement. Every patron usually was a client of someone else and there was a whole network of patronage. The nearest comparisons would be Italy or Sicilian Mafia families - without the aspect of criminality. It was the expected norm - the strongest group prevailed - the one with the most connections ruled. Even when the legions started making the emperors - the commanders they raised had gotten their postings by patronage of someone in power at the time. This was true in repulican and emperial times. So I really don't see how our modern western governments, or their offices, can be realistically compared to ancient Rome's. Did they have "secret service"? As in a govenment division with paperwork and such? No - it was considered dishonorable and not to be publicly sanctioned. What they did have was a bunch of informers who were paid for information as they delivered it - or clients who traded info for favors. There was no "official office" that was passed from emperor to emperor, though there were certainly informal groups and people who fullfilled the same task.  For sure the romans tortured - and for sure there were proffesional torturers - but it was more along the line of patronage that they operated. Or so I'm lead to believe - I'd be interested if anyone has any information that patronage dissapeared at any point in Rome's history.

[Numerianus]

I  had a hope that this  thread will serve to display  coins related with such a sensitive subject. My stance here is  basically pro-empire. I wonder  why some members deny  the role of America to propagate the principles of the democracy throughout the world, sometimes by force,  as an  antiamericanism (do not forget to whom Japan is obliged, even  twice,  for its current prosperity, peace  - no army - and democracy;  another  example is of Germany). I consider  rather
regretful that honest soldiers (now retired generals)  are blamed  a posteriori  for tortures (of course, demanded by politicians) which they used again terrorists during the war in Algeria. In any case,  to avoid distortions, I deleted the post  to concentrate on  the issues related with the ancient numismatics and history.


The question of LordBest is very interesting, important, and not  often discussed. Recently, I read an article on this issue. I shall try to find a reference but I am not sure that it is still available.
In short, Romans had a very powerful intelligence service that provided an information in the ajacent territorries and allowed to anticipate enemies moves. Unfortunately, this practice was abandoned and the intelligence services were dismantled (probably, by financial and political reasons). Of course, it was impossible to get a valuable   information without professionals.
Rome became so powerful (or was claimed to be such)  that it was not interested anymore what is going outside limes. It seems that this happened in the 3rd century. It was a great error which led to terrible disasters. Reactions on barbarians invations were too late... However,  later the corresponding structures were re-established. I would appreciate,
if someone can give a reference to this history.        

In the thread on the Roma fire of 64 nobody  rejected conclusion that Nero was so successful in cracking down  the responsible for this act (identified as Chrstians though this word should be taken with a caution) due to his informers...


 

[*Alex]

You are a moderator of this forum? With the capability to delete postings at will? And, yet, you made the posting that offended me? (the "some members" that you referenced). Hmmm.

Numerianus is not a moderator on this forum. He merely deleted his own previous post. We can all do that.

Alex.

[ecoli]

Numerianus, anytime one has an opion worthy of discussion, someone somewhere will have strong opinion on it or against it; espeacially when it is about ones own country.  So perhaps it's wise not to assume all people will agree certain things are "obvious".

John,  in all honesty, I don't see anything Numerianus said, intended in tone or content to be anti American.

[Robert_Brenchley]

I think we should all be careful what we say on this; I've deliberately avoided posting so far, since we had family caught up in the war in Sierra Leone a few years back, and could claim to be experts on the subject of atrocities! It's all very close to home. Let's keep it to what happened in ancient cultures. I nearly said 'ancient atrocities', but that would be an anachronism; back then, nobody questioned the idea that it was only the other side that was out of order. To a 4th Century Roman, everything they did to the barbarians would have been fully justified, and fit to glory in.

[Numerianus]

This thread is about ancient numismatics. I  prepared another arrangement, with captives. Unfortunately, the grades are
not so good  and I hope that other members can contribute to  this. 
It seems that in Roman period the captives were considered as trophies, a kind of livestock, something important
for economics, like  oil nowadays.  So, this was just announcement that cheap slaves are coming.
Could this be a  motivation  to present captives around the true "trophy"?
By the way,  for me it is not clear why the  military gear is called "trophy" (sometimes, it is aquila).
I would say that it is just a symbol "the mission is accomplished" - barbarians arms were not of great value for Romans...   

[Steve Minnoch]

The Romans erected trophies on the field of battle after a victory, as you see on the coins, like scarecrows made from the arms and armour of their enemies.

Steve

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Trophy

[Retrospectator]

But alas this was mostly propaganda at this time as they were not the "good times" for the most part. And of course who eventually takes over the western roman empire? The Goths - yet another germanic tribe!

Agreed.

The Roman army was still a force to be reckoned with in the late fourth century, however I don't believe though that these coins would have been struck had the authorities not perceived the 'barbarians' as a threat to security; an increasing need to make the subjects believe that the army could still cut the mustard. Indeed that is why I find Valens' issues of these coins so ironic: the Goths at Adrianople could claim that it was him being dragged! Perhaps he should have waited for Gratian! I remember reading somewhere, Edward Gibbon I think, that one of the main reasons the Goths took to arms at this time, after they were allowed into the Empire, was that they thought they were being mistreated. Perhaps they objected to the inflammatory images on the coins. 

[Pscipio]

Indeed that is why I find Valens' issues of these coins so ironic: the Goths at Adrianople could claim that it was him being dragged!

Well, how should he have known before? 

Lars

[Retrospectator]

Well, how should he have known before? 

From what I remember of reading Gibbon's Decline & Fall, it appears that Gratian was coming to Adrianople with a force to join Valens. Valens didn't wait, thinking he could do the job alone with his own forces. So if anything, if Gibbon is correct (I'm not sure who his source was: Ammianus?) then Valens must have been overconfident and gambled with what would have been a greater chance of victory.

[Pscipio]

Valens didn't wait, thinking he could do the job alone with his own forces.

Exactly! You said Valens' coins are ironic, because it were the Goths that vanquished him, not the opposite - I was refering to that, when I said: how should he have known before? His coins would only have been ironic if he had survived the battle and had them struck afterwards  You can call the circumstances ironic from our modern point of view, of course, because we know how it ended - he couldn't know.

[Retrospectator]

Exactly! You said Valens' coins are ironic, because it were the Goths that vanquished him, not the opposite - I was refering to that, when I said: how should he have known before? His coins would only have been ironic if he had survived the battle and had them struck afterwards  You can call the circumstances ironic from our modern point of view, of course, because we know how it ended - he couldn't know.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Perhaps I should have written: "... I find Valens' issues of these coins so ironic, in the light of the outcome of the battle of Adrianople ..."

[Joe Sermarini]

For me the single most interesting aspect of history is seeing how the lessons that should have been learned should be applied today.  Certainly Rome was the dominant power of its time.  Certainly the U.S. is the dominant power today.  We had war then.  We have war today.  There are endless similarities.  There are endless contrasts.  There are endless lessons to learn. 

Here we discuss the history and the coins.  How that history applies today is left to the reader.  We don't discuss modern day religion, politics, war, sociology, or anything.  If you are clever enough, perhaps you can lead people to the conclusion you want them to reach by discussing history. 

[Gert]

To return to the post that started this thread. I think this coin of Constantine, a 1/2 follis from Rome, minted after his defeat of Maxentius (313), was the first instance of this type. There are also coins of Maximinus II with the same scene. It shows Mars dragging a captive by the hair. I wonder if there are earlier coins that display this sort of scene (humiliation). All the types I can think of is of emporors killing their enemies and bound captives.
Regards
Gert

[Rupert]

For me the single most interesting aspect of history is seeing how the lessons that should have been learned should be applied today.  Certainly Rome was the dominant power of its time.  Certainly the U.S. is the dominant power today.  We had war then.  We have war today.  There are endless similarities.  There are endless contrasts.  There are endless lessons to learn. 

Here we discuss the history and the coins.  How that history applies today is left to the reader.  We don't discuss modern day religion, politics, war, sociology, or anything.  If you are clever enough, perhaps you can lead people to the conclusion you want them to reach by discussing history. 

Joe is right. History is nothing but a nice pastime if we're not ready to learn from it. And one thing we see all over again, and also topic of this thread, is IMO:

It is incredibly hard to fight against evil efficiently without using evil methods or becoming evil yourself.

Just have a look at Christians in ancient Rome who started prosecuting others so shortly after having escaped prosecution themselves!

Rupert

[Joe Sermarini]

Do we slaughter their army, accept surrender, prohibit them from owning elephants and make them pay redemption; or do we kill the men, enslave the women and children and salt the earth.  For the Romans, perhaps the difference in approach was due to the threat to their own capital and to their very existence, or perhaps they grew tired of fighting the same enemy again.  Roman society generally did not see mercy as a virtue.  They saw it as a weakness to be discouraged.  All acts of war are evil.  I suspect that regardless of professed morals, however, the degree of evil a society is willing to accept is based on the seriousness of the threat against it.  The same method was later used by Christian Romans against the Vandals (in the same city).

[canadian_boy]

I agree with Joe's observation totally - only question I have is whether or not the Romans cut a bit of slack to 'civilized' nations compared to 'barbarian' nations?

[LordBest]

I agree with Joe's observation totally - only question I have is whether or not the Romans cut a bit of slack to 'civilized' nations compared to 'barbarian' nations?

I believe they did. Romans rarely offered terms of surrender to barbarian towns ( i sat rarely not never) but when they were attacking a more civilised nation they would give individual cities the right to surrender, and provided there was no resistance or betrayal, they were treated quite well.
Going back to Valens and Adrianople, it is possible the effect of so much demonising and demeaning propaganda regarding barbarians led Valens to believe they were less than human and caused him to underestimate the threat they posed. Its not like it would have been the first time arrogance led a state to a major defeat. (think Carrhae, Varus etc.)
                                                    LordBest.