Login

08-26-2002, 06:45 PM

Ave! 
 
I was reading a passage the other day about the battle of Cannae, and I found it interesting that this author related some details about bringing water to the battlefield for the legionaires....my question is that given the Roman army's propensity for naming every position that soldiers had in the army, was there a specific name for this? Or were these water bearers simply 'normal' soldiers who were not only told to carry water that day, but also protect the camp, assist the medics (medicos?), etc etc etc. 
 
Just curious if this was one of those positions that everyone was expected to pitch in and help with, or if the army specifically assigned people who were faster/stronger than others to do the job. 
 
Thanks! 
 
Britannicus

**richsc** · 08-26-2002, 06:46 PM

gungus dinnus? 
 
(sorry....could not resist) Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/ Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=richsc>RichSC</A> at: 8/26/02 8:50:02 pm

08-26-2002, 06:54 PM

Lol...Kipling would be proud.

08-26-2002, 07:03 PM

Maybe it was some kid like Adam Sandler in "The Water Boy", who wasn't the sharpest sword in the sheath, but was fast and dependable. 
 
"Now that's some quality H20" "Only Trajan could go to Dacia." 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Optio 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"

**richsc** · 08-26-2002, 07:37 PM

Seriously, if the person were a slave (and did every contubernium have one? or every century?) would they have been named? Gunga Din was essentially a non-entity to the British, and with no particular skills either, so entirely replaceable. 
 
You see medics on Trajan's column, but not water bearers. Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/ Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=richsc>RichSC</A> at: 8/26/02 9:37:47 pm

08-26-2002, 08:10 PM

Interesting ... but I don't know as I would want to trust my life to someone I have imprisoned as a slave. In the heat (literally) of battle, receiving water in a timely fashion can mean life or death to a soldier (damn my poor memory of names, but the author who discussed the battle of Cannae I refered to, had mentioned that the water issue was one of the reasons why one of the generals sharing command of the legion did not want to pursue combat against Hannibal at the time...because the heat and water supply problems would lead to complications on the battlefield) As a commander would you really trust any vital function to slaves? Its not like you're going to break off your attack/defense and chase them down if you see them running away during the fighting, and if they did run, you'd then have to pull troops off the line to start drawing water, losing time and valueable man power that you had already budgeted elsewhere. 
 
I find it hard to believe the army would entrust so vital a role to their vanquished and imprisoned foes, especially since the navy wouldn't trust slaves to row their galleys... Plus, I would rather have soldiers performing the function I guess, just in case I needed to relay a command back to the camp, or needed an extra sword to help out in a pinch. 
 
Britannicus

08-26-2002, 08:21 PM

Salve, 
 
There were armed, armoured and organised military servants in the Roman army. They were entrusted with guarding the baggage and the camp. Most military servants were personal property, though it appears that at times public slaves were also used. The number of servants varied and in armies kept under discipline only a limited number were brought along. At other times ther could be as many servants along as soldiers (eg army of Vitellius, Tacitus Historiae 2.87 ...sexaginta milia armatorum sequebantur, licentia corrupta; calonum numerus amplior ... '... Sixty thousand armed men followed, corrupted by licentiousness; the number of servants was greater... '). 
 
On slaves and servants in the army. 
 
Speidel, M.P., 'The soldiers' servants' in: Ancient Society 20 (1989), 239-248. 
Welwei, K.W., Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst. 3.Teil: Rom (Stuttgart 1988). 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 8/29/02 4:43:38 pm

08-27-2002, 09:58 AM

A boy was kiled at Marathon, while bringing water to the warriors. 
A boy's skeleton was found in one of the mass graves dug up on the site. It could be that boy..

Caius Fabius · 08-28-2002, 12:11 AM

Slavery in the post AD 1700 was (is) different from slavery in other times. During some periods of Roman history, slavery was a step up for the poor non-citizens, and many people sold themselves into slavery, for better living conditions. Slaves could own property, and even buy their freedom under Roman law. Don't confuse the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" slavery with that of all Roman slaves. 
There were different forms of servitude, which are all translated as "slave" in most current texts. The prisoners condemned to live working for the state in the mines, and the Imperial Greek tutor are both "lumped" under this one title. "Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, 1987

08-28-2002, 03:37 AM

I agree with Caius. I think that we moderns are overly jaded in dealing with ancient slavery, associating it with forms of slavery practiced in much more modern times. As Caius said, there were house slaves who were treated pretty much as family members and then there were the poor wretches in the silver mines. Regardless, the Romans had in there concept of slavery a quality which didn't commonly exist in modern slave states-- manumission. The Romans routinely freed their slaves. If a slave was hard working and loyal, they would probably be freed in time, after their owners death if not sooner. 
 
For a good study of Roman slave practices I'd recommend "Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire, a Study in Social Control" by K. R. Bradley.

08-28-2002, 03:19 PM

Salve, 
 
Some references: 
 
Josephus BJ 3.69-70 
 
 hoos tÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨n pasan dynamin synexarithmoumenoon toon basilikoon hippeas te kai pezous eis hex athroizesthai myriadas dicha therapontoon,, hoi pamplÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨theis men heiponto, dia de synaskÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨sin polemikÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨n ouk an apotassointo tou machimou, kata men eirÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨nÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨n en tais meletais toon despotoon aei strephomenoi, synkindyneuontes d' en polemois, hoos mÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨t' empeiriai mÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨t' alkÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨i tinos plÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨n toon despotoon elattousthai. Kan toutooi men oun thaumasai tis an Rhoomaioon to promÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨thes kataskeuazomenoon heautois to oiketikon ou monon eis tas tou biou diakonias alla kai pros tous polemous chrÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨simon. 
 
'In this way the entire force counting in the royal troops, horsemen and foot soldiers amounted to sixty thousand men apart from the servants, which in great numbers came along, on account of their military training not to be distinguished from the fighting force, in peace always being at the disposal of their masters, in wars sharing their danger, in such manner that they were in experience and strength no one's inferior except their masters. Who now can not admire the foresight of the Romans providing themselves with an staff not only for the ordinary tasks in life, but also useful for the purposes of war.' 
 
Vegetius, Epitoma 3.6 
 
 ... Denique ex ipsis calonibus, quos galiarios vocant, idoneos ac peritos usu legebant, quos non amplius quam ducentis sagmariis puerisque praeficerent. Hisque vexilla dabant, ut scirent, ad quae signa deberent inpedimenta colligere. ... 
 
'... Finally they used to pick from the same servant, that they call helmetbearers, those fit and skilled through experience, whom they placed at the head of no more than two hundred of the baggage animals and servants. They used to give flags to these, so that they knew, at which sign they had to concentrate the baggage. 
 
It may be that the term galearius or galiarius, helmetbearer, is derived from the fact that these carried helmets for the soldiers that they served. However on cavalry tombstones calones are regularly depicted wearing helmets and holding a bunch of javelins, which may be an indication that galearii were thus named for the fact that they themselves wore helmets. 
 
Tombstone of M. Aemilius Durises ( CIL 13, 8311) 
 
That soldiers would invest in helmets and even body armour for their slaves in life might be thought as a mere protection of a costly investment. Some soldiers however cared enough about their servants to erect memorials after their death. 
 
Speidel, M.P., 'From the North and Black Sea Shores: two new gravestones for boys of the Equites Singulares Augusti' in: Roman army studies II (Stuttgart 1992), 353-360. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

08-28-2002, 07:15 PM

Ave! 
 
I love this discussion group. One topic, and a wealth of new information/sources to read from! 
 
Gratis tibi ago! 
 
Britannicus

08-29-2002, 02:01 PM

Salve, 
 
Note that though slaves served as military servants, it was a capital offence for them to try enlist as soldiers. 
 
 Digestae 49.16.11 
 
Marcianus 2 reg. 
 
 Ab omni militia servi prohibentur: alioquin capite puniuntur. 
 
'Slaves are forbidden any military service: otherwise they are to punished with the death sentence' 
 
Plinius the Younger in one of his letters ( Epistulae 10.29-30) asked the emperor Trajan for advice regarding punishment to be meted out in a case of illegal enlistment of slaves. It was answered that this depended on the circumstances: if they had volunteered they themselves were at fault, if they were conscripts the draft enquiry was to blame while if they had been provided as substitutes those supplying them were to be punished. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 8/29/02 4:38:32 pm

**richsc** · 08-29-2002, 03:20 PM

Sander, I thought I read in Goldsworthy's book that slaves were enlisted after Cannae? Two legions worth, so were there special circumstances or was that a one time event? Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/

08-29-2002, 03:59 PM

Basically then, these slaves had the same privelages and duties as medieval squires, without the benefit of becoming full fledged soldiers? "Only Trajan could go to Dacia." 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Optio 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Romans tricks during battle field	SAJID	10	2,807	11-24-2014, 04:36 PM Last Post: Sextus Saturninus
	How effective was Roman artillery in Field battle?	Mrbsct	7	4,277	05-13-2013, 10:57 PM Last Post: Valerian Pertinax
	Beware Greeks bearing Gladii !!!!	Ghostmojo	5	1,783	01-31-2011, 07:33 PM Last Post: Ghostmojo