Why Ancient Rome’s Citizens Were Not Enslaved After Sacks?
Historically, ancient Rome faced multiple sacks, but the inhabitants were not typically enslaved, a stark contrast to the norms observed in other sacked ancient cities. Despite the miseries and destruction that occurred during these invasions, the capture of citizens did not often lead to their enslavement. This phenomenon is a significant departure from the practices observed in earlier invasions, such as the Gauls' sack of Rome in 386 BC and subsequent invasions by the Visigoths and Vandals.
The Sack of Rome: A Different Chapter
The sack of Rome in 386 BC, while indeed a significant event, lacks concrete evidence to support the widespread enslavement of its citizens. This earlier event is often shadowed by the more well-documented sacks that followed in the late antique period, particularly the sack by Alaric's Visigoths in 410 AD and the Vandal sack in 455 AD.
The Visigoth Sack: A Relatively Gentle Assault
Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 AD was relatively mild compared to other sackings. Upon breaching the city walls, the Visigoths primarily targeted the city center and the wealthy residential districts. Although some areas, including sections of the Forum and Aventine Hill, experienced destructive fires, the Visigoths did not generally cause significant damage to buildings. Notably, they exhibited a less savage treatment towards the affluent citizens whose wealth they coveted. According to St. Jerome's description, a Visigoth soldier who broke into the home of a holy woman named Marcella found her withstanding their demands with composure. Despite her apparent poverty, the invaders' faith in Christ led them to spare her and her companion from enslavement.
“Meantime as was natural in a scene of such confusion one of the bloodstained victors found his way into Marcellas house… When the soldiers entered she is said to have received them without any look of alarm and when they asked her for gold she pointed to her coarse dress to show them that she had no buried treasure. However they would not believe in her self-chosen poverty but scourged her and beat her with cudgels…”
Surprisingly, the barbarians continued to respect Marcella's dignity and eventually escorted her to a nearby church. They also listened to her pleas and did not enslave her younger companion. This incident underscores the value of highly valuable captives such as aristocrats, who could be ransomed for substantial sums. The fact that the Visigoths took a significant number of elite captives, such as the emperor's sister Galla Placidia, attests to their significant wealth and status.
The Vandal Sack: A Thorough and Ruthless Affair
The Vandal sack of Rome in 455 AD was more extensive and devastating. Unlike the Visigoth invasion, the Vandals were able to bring a large fleet of ships up the Tiber River, allowing them to carry away both vast amounts of loot and captives. One account mentions that crowds of young men and women were forcibly loaded onto the Vandal ships and taken to slavery in Africa. Among the captives were the widow and daughter of the recently deceased emperor. This comprehensive plundering was not without its commendable acts of mercy; however, the primary motivation for allowing the wealthy to escape was to protect their potential value in ransom.
The general practice of not enslaving citizens during these sackings was due to the relative insignificance of the economic value derived from ordinary individuals. Ransoming or enslaving an ordinary citizen was not typically seen as cost-effective, except in cases where they possessed immense wealth or exceptional beauty, which could fetch a high price on the slave market. Thus, the lack of widespread enslavement was more about prioritizing the capture of those who had the potential to bring in substantial ransom or market value.
Conclusion
The sparing of the majority of Rome's citizens during these sackings stands as a unique historical phenomenon. While the Visigoth and Vandal sackings did bring about significant devastation and the capture of many, the decision to enslave Roman citizens was not standard practice. The primary reason for this was the limited financial gain to be had from slave labor when compared to the potential for ransom or the premium that could be achieved in the slave trade for select individuals.