Tortures and humiliations on Roman coins

[Numerianus]

I shown to a colleague of mine a Valence coin where the Roman military drags a captive.
I did not expect his reaction:  "This is a torture!" Of course,  he was biased  by  the
recent events.  However,  it  is interesting to trace the evolution  of the reverse and notice that
the scene of humilations became more and more frequent on late Roman coins. 
Indeed, the  heroic presentation of the emperor using various symbols and personifications
was replaced by rather naturalistic scences  of wars agains barbarians who terrorrized in
the 4th century the Christian population of the empire.  On the first coin we see a soldier dragging a  barbarian terrorrist
from his hat.  On the second the is on guard of the captive attending experts on coercive interrogation,  etc. The latter
arrives with a labarum  and starts the job.
So, nothing new...

[LordBest]

That reminds me of an interesting perspective on the Pagan persecutions of Christians and vice versa in the Fourth century (and later). The Pagan persecutions of Christians was the only "inquisition" to torture people to get them to confess to save their lives (IE your confessing to NOT being a traitor/Christian), whereas later on you confess you die horribly, you dont confess, you die horribly.
                                                 LordBest.

[Jochen]

Hi Numerian!

I agree! Especially in the late Roman Empire it is evident on coins. I mentioned too the reverses where the emperor is treading on captives or human-faced snakes. But the scene of your first reverse doesn't belong to this series. It shows a peaceful scene. The Franks were leaded by mutual contracts from their homeland on the right side of the Rhine to Toxandria, today part of Belgium, on the left side of the Rhine and settled there.

To Lordbest:
I know from the 'Hexenhammer', the most famous book for laws how witches should be treated, that it was recommended to throw suspicious wifes tied up into a river. If they died by drowning they were regarded as innocent, if they don't die they were burned as witches!

Best regards

[basemetal]

Interesting post!
This reflects the difference in mindset of ancient romans and ourselves today. No, I do not mean moderns are less bloodthirsty than the ancient peoples, but the written rules, and conventions are different because at least at the official level we do not glorify the violent treatment of conqured people.  In fact most modern goverments do not "conquer" other peoples or nations (officially). They
"liberate" or "give aid" in the form of warfare. 
Imagine today if coins were struck with whatever obverse bust and say, an American soldier drawing down on an Iraqi insurgent, or dragging one off for interrogation on the reverse. 
Or a French coin commerating the French in Indo-China doing the same thing.
The ancients struck coins that in a very literal sense showed the prevailing attitude that
Yes by Jupiter, we kicked those Parthians butts, and dragged the ones we didn't kill  off by the head of their hair."
Today, whatever we ACTUALLY do, we OFFICIALLY abhor violence and that is a basic difference between the ancients and ourselves. 

[wolfgang336]

Fear inspires obedience, that's a basic tenet of human behaviour. Read 1984, it explains all of this nicely. It seems that when the Romans really routed their enemy, humiliated them etc., they didn't tend to rise up again, other than half supported minor rebellions. The first instance of equitable treatment for the defeated that I can recall is Germany after WWI. Clemenceaux would have had them taken apart as a nation, whereas the British and American prevailed with their new ideas of peace (Wilson much more so). All conquered (ie. Vanquished in a war) nations will have feelings of resentment, but the creation of the sovereign Weimar Republic and therefore a national identity provided the circumstances that Hitler used to rise to power (legally, I might add). If the Allied forces had occupied Germany for an indefinite amount of time, I wonder if WWII would have happened?

Evan

[Bill Perry]

I'm pretty sure all the so called "humiliation" coins were not seen anything like that at the time. Most of these even state it on the coins themselves "FEL TEMP REPARATIO" or "LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL". The fear of any roman at practically anytime in their history was the fear of invasion - seeing an invader crushed - and the empires borders secured - was more an indications that everything was OK now - these are the good times! Propoganda for sure - but they were a different people with different ways of expressing things. Reading present day morals into the picture is ridiculous

Think of it this way - who did the Romans conquer and humiliate - yet kept coming back to haunt them?

Gauls sack rome and forever after a major fear until Marius - followed up in later times by Julius Caesar - stopped the threat of raiding and acquired vast sums of loot for the city! Let the good times roll! Yet I'd hardly call the Gallic Roman Empire a minor insurection. Nor Vercengetorix's revolt after Caesar had thoroughly brought them to heel and went after Britain?

Carthage was certainly beaten and humiliated in the first Punic War - yet they fought two more Punic Wars - and Hannibal, the bane of all Romans, beat their armies with a lesser force repeatedly. Even after Carthage was crushed - it was incorporated into the Empire - and Septimius Severus came out of Leptis Magna, North Africa to become emperor of the Roman Empire. Some joked Carthage had finally conquered Rome!

Germans constantly harrass the borders of Rome at almost all periods and become the big bogey man of empirial times. Marcus Arelius almost put the threat to rest except he died and the will to fight was lost in the succeeding generation leaving the germanic tribes untouched in their homelands. In the times of Constantine every major victory - territory or not - was considered security, peace, wealth! Let the good times roll! 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!

I guess the point I"m making - is it does not matter how much you crush or humiliate a people - in the greater span of time - it comes to naught. And the romans had a long history which they were very conscious of - and in their bloody history - seeing the roman armies victorious - and graphically displayed with a roman soldier victorious over the enemy-  represented - security, peace, and wealth - Let the good times roll!

[Numerianus]

Jochen, in your interpretation the first coin  represents "ethnical cleaning". This  type was minted
by all mints of the empire. 

Here is another nice  example from a ``collection assembled by a modern-day soldier"  and now
on consignment. I wonder that it is still  not purchased. 

[Pscipio]

Propoganda for sure - but they were a different people with different ways of expressing things. Reading present day morals into the picture is ridiculous

I agree! We should be careful not to transfer "modern" thinking upon ancient times and not to rush into modern politics - me at least I found Evans statement that the Allies should have tried to take away the german national identity after WWI a bit offending (I myself am not German). In the present days, I think it is dangerous anyway to start talking about torture or even "ethnical cleaning" on ancient coins, since that will lead many of us to modern politics, which is and cannot be the idea of this board.

Lars

[LordBest]

Your right we shouldnt apply modern morals onto ancient societies, but it was standard procedure in ancient times to conduct ethnic cleansing and genocide, especially if a defeated people resisted against the occupier. I dont say this with any moral judgement against the ancients, its just a simple fact of ancient warfare. They did it because it worked, if they didnt do it, someone would probably do it to them.
I dont believe Rome employed torture routinely on defeated people, not in any modern sense of the word. In the case of barbarian tribes most of the men were killed and the women and children sold into slavery, in the case of other "civilised" conflicts the men captured in battle were often either executed or sold as slaves, and the inhabitants of cities were either spared (if they surrendered) or sold into slavery (if they resisted). Generally when a city or region did resist Rome it was depopulated (proportionate to the resistance), then repopulated with Roman citizenry. It was a very sound strategy and resulted in one quarter of the worlds population living in relative prosperity and peace for the best part of two centuries. Which is why Rome is the greatest state ever to exist.

No morals were included in the above statement.

I dont believe we cant have a discussion about torture, ethnic cleansing and genocide without modern politics creeping into it.
I assumed Wolfgang was speaking hypothetically, not actually saying he thought it would have been the correct thing to do. It wouldnt have worked, but thats not a topic for this forum.
                                                    LordBest.

[Pscipio]

Yes, I also assume Evan did not really mean what he said.

We can have a discussion about warfare in ancient times, which definitely includes torture and suppression, but I think we should not talk too moralistic and I have my doubts whether it makes sense to include modern and controversial expressions like "ethnical cleansing" into the discussion. I can't recall single case in roman history were that expression would be appropriate - romans tortured, suppressed, slaughtered, but they did not wipe out people because of their ethnic.

Lars

[LordBest]

Well, the subjugation(s) of Judaea can be viewed as ethnic cleansing, as can later treatment of barbarian tribes. Forcible resettlement of thousands of people is a form of ethnic cleansing. But you are right the term does have (obviously) negative modern connotations and isnt quite accurate for Roman times, and earlier.
                                              LordBest.

[Pscipio]

But the Romans never suppressed the Jews because they were Jews, but because they revolted again and again. This is not at all an excuse, but I don't think we can talk about an ethnical cleansing here.

And the Jews definitely were the most quarreling ethnic group under roman rule...

Lars

[LordBest]

Good point, but although the motive might have been different (lack of ethnicity), the methods and results were the same as any typical ethnic cleansing ("typical ethnic cleansing" how horrid that sounds). If anyone knows a word which means ethnic cleansing without the ethnicity, please speak up.
                                                LordBest.

[Pscipio]

Ethnical cleansing is a horrid word in itself.

The methods and results of roman warfare may have been the same like in modern ethnical cleansings, but it is the cause, the principle, that makes the difference. That's why I think we should not talk about ethnical cleansings, but about opression and brutal warfare. It's not the same, in my eyes.

[Numerianus]

By the way, the captured rulers followed in the emperors  triumphal processions.
It seems that afterwards they were executed (similarly as nowadays, sorry for an allusion,
 - in contrast to medieval times).
However, it seems that Romans sometimes had a respect for the most outstanding. Why the  effigie
of Vercingetorix (presumably) is depicted on the coin of Hostilius Saserna?

[Jochen]

Hi Numerianus!

It is very, very doubtful that this is the portrait of Vercingetorix! I think it is only a nice myth for the collectors!

Best regards

[LordBest]

I had forgotten that actually, that captured leaders were traditionally paraded in front of the masses at Rome during the generals/emperors triumph parade. Cleopatra commited suicide to avoid the humiliation so we can assume that it WAS a great humiliation. Hannibal did much the same thing as well, if I recall, though possibly for more varied reasons. These particular scenes are fairly well attested to on Roman coins, with weeping captives and the like.
                                                  LordBest.

[wolfgang336]

I found Evans statement that the Allies should have tried to take away the german national identity after WWI a bit offending

Apology Lars, that wasn't my intent.  It was pure speculation on my part. I have numerous German relatives, all of whom I respect deeply.

On the other hand, it seems to have sparked an interesting discussion....

Evan

[Pscipio]

Thanks, Evan, for pointing out the whole thing! I sent you a PM back, by the way.

And you are right, an interesting discussion it was.

Yours
Lars

[ecoli]

...Which is why Rome is the greatest state ever to exist.


Interesting discussion.

I will only modify a little of what Lordbest said:

Rome was the greatest state ever to exist, for Romans

The world has not changed all that much

[Rupert]

Imagine today if coins were struck with whatever obverse bust and say, an American soldier drawing down on an Iraqi insurgent, or dragging one off for interrogation on the reverse. 
Or a French coin commerating the French in Indo-China doing the same thing.

What absolutely baffled me some years ago (before the Euro) when I was in Spain, was the fact that they honoured Hernan Cortez and Francisco Pizarro on their 1,000 Pesetas (about $10) banknotes; these were two of the worst killers and looters since Attila the Hun and before Hitler and Stalin!

Rupert

[ecoli]

Reputation and deed are two different issues...

Mao still lies in state in Beijing; and he is one of the biggest butchers of the Chinese people.

[canadian_boy]

To the Romans, did they not look at the world as being full of both barbrians (those with no written languages ie. Gauls) and civilized peoples (those with written languages like the Egyptians)? 

That being said, once you were defeated, the Romans could be very tolerant to those who submitted fully (like the Greeks) and very harsh on those who did not (ultimately like the Judeans).  If you submitted, they allowed you to keep whatever gods and religions you had and in some cases a subjugated nation could even keep its monarch as was the case with King Herod.  Ultimately, the Romans seem to have tired of endless Jewish revolts and they fixed their problem in an extreme way.

So it seems that submission was the key to their world view and woe to those who did not submit fully or willingly.

[Numerianus]

To illustrate the discusssion:

[canadian_boy]

These are beautiful examples indeed and make the case concerning the Roman desire to subjugate. VEry nice!!!