In several cases it is stated that slaves are employed in warfare. Leaving out of regard the cattle-breeding agricultural tribes, of which we have already spoken in chapter III, we find the following instances.

Thomson tells us that in New Zealand slaves accompanied their masters on fishing and fighting expeditions; and in another place he states that women and slaves accompanied the warriors to carry burdens. [Thomson, New Zealand, pp. 150, 125.] Polack says: "Slaves are permitted to take part in a war", and Brown, speaking of slaves in New Zealand, remarks: "If any of them show superior talents for war, they are duly appreciated, and many slaves by this means raise themselves to the chieftainship of the tribe". [Polack, II p. 53; Brown, New Zealand, p. 30.]

Dalton, speaking of the slaves kept by the Garos, says: "It is from the possession of a large number of them that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe. Each great chief can go to war with a body-guard of 60 such followers entirely devoted to him". [Dalton, p. 58.]

Among the Lawas too, according to Colquhoun, slaves are employed as warriors. [Colquhoun, p. 54.]

In Nias slaves are often compelled to go to war with their masters, except when war is made upon the native village of the slaves. The slaves fight bravely, and in war bear arms like the freemen, but are never set at liberty for their bravery. [Modigliani, Nias, p. 525.]

Among the Kayans slaves serve as warriors and can even become war-chiefs. [Nieuwenhuis, Quer durch Borneo. I p. 66; II p. 96.]

Among the natives of Central Celebes, slaves who excel in those qualities which are highly valued in freemen, i. e., bravery or oratorical power, are practically no longer regarded as slaves. [See above, p. 197, note 1.]

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, generally freemen and vassals only took part in military [399] operations; but sometimes slaves too, especially in naval wars: the slaves were then employed for rowing the boats. [Blumentritt, Conquista, p. 65.]

The forces sent out by Lunda chiefs on marauding expeditions consist of freemen and slaves. [Pogge, Muata Jamwo, p. 232.]

Among the Angoni the domestic slaves join their masters in the slave-raids. [Kerr, II p. 129.]

Berenger-Feraud tells us that among the Wolofs the slaves of the king are soldiers and form his body-guard; they also Collect taxes for him. [Berenger-Feraud, p. 59.]

Among the Barea and Kunama the spoils taken in war by a native-born slave belong to his master. [Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 484.] Hence it appears that these slaves are employed in warfare.

In the French Soudan the master provides his domestic slaves with arms and takes them with him to the battlefield. [Madrolle, p. 92.]

Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea, one class of warriors is composed of the slaves of the chiefs. At the close of a war they return to their agricultural pursuits; but they are always ready to take arms again. [Arcin, p. 275.]

These are the only instances we have noticed, of purely agricultural tribes among which slaves perform a military function. There may be some more cases. Our informants do not always enter into many details; therefore, when they are silent on the subject, this does not always prove that slaves are not allowed to fight. Yet, considering the small number of instances we have been able to collect, we may safely conclude that among most agricultural tribes slaves do not share in military operations.

This is what we expected. Slaves are not allowed to follow the noble military art, which is the privilege of freemen. [Among the ancient Germans the bearing of arms was a sign of freedom (Amira, p. 129).] A slave is not a warrior for the same reason that he is not a hunter. Moreover, it were too dangerous to trust him with weapons; he might be inclined to rise against his oppressors. And finally, when slaves are procured by capture in war or kidnapping, they would often have to fight against their own [400] tribe, and would be very likely to go over to the enemies of their masters.

It is further remarkable that the tribes we havs enumerated in this paragraph are all in the higher stages of agriculture, as may be seen from chapter I. We have not found a single instance of hunting agriculturists employing their slaves in warfare. There are even hunting agriculturists of the lowest type, of whom it is explicitly stated that they do not allow their slaves to fight. Martius tells us that several wild tribes of Brazil keep slaves. The slaves are differently treated by the different tribes; but it is a general characteristic of slavery, that slaves are not allowed to bear arms. [Martius, p. 71.] And Azara states that in his time the Mbayas subsisted on hunting and fishing, and on the produce of the soil that was tilled to a small extent by their slaves and by a neighbouring tribe, the Guanas. Here too, warfare was the business of the freemen to the exclusion of the slaves. [Azara, II pp. 109, 110.]

This may, at first sight, seem strange. If it is true, as Powell asserts, (and it does not seem to us improbable) that slavery originated from the adoption of captives [Powell, On regimentation, p. CXII.], we should expect to find an intermediate stage, in which the captives, though already enslaved instead of adopted, still shared in military operations, the differentiation of the "regulative part of society" from the "operative part" (to borrow Spencer's words) not yet being complete. The existence of slavery, mainly for military purposes, among the hunting Abipones and some pastoral tribes, seems to indicate such a stage. But among agricultural tribes we find no trace of it. Some agricultural tribes (of which the Iroquois are the classical instance) adopt their captives; then there are many which keep slaves who are not allowed to fight; and, finally, in the higher stages of agriculture, we find a few tribes among which slaves share in military operations.

Yet the cause of this seeming incongruity is not difficult to detect. Pastoral tribes are always stronger, from a military point of view, than primitive agricultural tribes. In chapter III we have seen that the former often keep their agricultural [401] neighbours in a state of subjection. Therefore it is much easier for them to employ their slaves in warfare than for hunting agriculturists; the latter, if they are to keep slaves at all, must take care to disarm them and so prevent them from doing harm.

Among agriculturists in the higher stages it is otherwise. There is often an elaborate division of labour; the governing classes are differentiated from the labouring classes, and the army is regularly constituted. Now it is not at all dangerous to enlist the slaves into the inferior ranks of the army, under the lead of the governing classes. The slaves, generally brought by traders from a far distance, have no longer to fight against their native tribe, but against strangers. And where slavery prevails to a great extent, the owners of numerous slaves, who form the aristocracy, will often be inclined to rely on their slaves for the maintenance of their power over the common freemen; whereas the slaves, who are no longer on the same footing of familiarity with the freemen as in primitive slavery, but despised and hated for being the tools of the aristocracy, regard their master as their natural protector and are willing to stand by him. [Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea the slave warriors are the only force on which the chiefs can rely; for the freemen would not always readily answer to the appeal of their lords. Arcin, p. 275.]

Such was the course of evolution in ancient Rome. In the old times the slaves were not allowed to fight. "For entering the military service or taking on him any state office, a slave was punished with death". [Ingram, p. 44.] But later on a change took place. Speaking of the last days of the republic, Ingram remarks: "In the subsequent civil conflicts the aid of slaves was sought by both parties, even by Marius himself, and afterwards by Catiline, though he finally rejected their services. Clodius and Milo employed bands of gladiators in their city riots, and this action on the part of the latter was approved by Cicero. In the First Civil War they were to be found in both camps, and the murderers of Caesar, those soi-disant vindicators of liberty, were escorted to the Capitol by gladiators. Antony, Octavius, and Sextus Pompeius employed them in the Second Civil War". [Ingram, pp. 51, 52.] But the slaves soon began to take arms against [402] those who had taught them to fight. "It is recorded by Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum that he gave back to their masters for punishment about 30,000 slaves who had absconded and borne arms against the state. Under Tiberius, at the death of Caligula, and in the reign of Nero, there were threatening movements of the slaves. Nor did the danger of servile insurrection disappear in the later stages of the Empire. The armies of the invading Goths were swelled by their countrymen who had been captured or bought by Romans. The slaves of Gaul almost en masse took part in the revolt of the Bagaudae, and forty thousand slaves joined Alaric at the siege of Rome". [Ingram, pp. 52, 53.]

The last passage shows that even in a state where the power of the government and the military art are highly developed it is not safe to employ slaves in warfare. They may actually be the ready tools of the aristocracy; but in the long run they will come to form a dangerous element in the state. Yet, as it may be momentarily convenient to an ambitious statesman to employ them, it will sometimes be done; whereas among hunting agriculturists the danger is so obvious that it is not even attempted.

As it is only among a few agricultural tribes, and these in the higher stages, that slaves perform a military function, we cannot think that this has been an important factor in the rise of slavery; and it has probably been nowhere the only motive for making slaves.

Something analogous to the employment of slaves in warfare is their holding high offices of state. This occurs in some despotically governed African countries. Goldstein remarks that in the Soudan states the numerous court and state offices are generally held by slaves. The king prefers them as public officers to royal princes, who might be inclined to rise against him . [Goldstein, p. 362.] Among the Bayanzi, according to Torday and Joyce, "the great chief usually has a confidential adviser, who, in all cases observed, was a slave; such slaves have great influence, and receive numerous presents from their masters; they often impersonate the chief before strangers, while their master keeps [403] in the background". [Torday and Joyce, Congo Free State, p. 139.] In imperial Rome freedmen were appointed to high offices. [Ingram, pp. 58, 59.]