I'd add a few points: Roman slavery was different from Greek slavery in that it had much higher rates of manumission. For slaves in situations where they could take advantage of it Roman slavery was not a life sentence, but a decade or two of enforced servitude followed by manumission which served as retirement or offered a second career as a freedman, someone who still did work that aligned with his former owner's interests, but as a freed person. All this had important economic consequences. Enslaving people for life creates a static economy with no incentive for any slave to ever show initiative. But allowing slaves to save money and develop relationships and skills they could later make use of as a freed person allows for increased economic growth, and some degree of invention and opportunity. Elite Romans were also quite proud of this system, and thought their society healthy and successful, because it turned slaves first into members of Roman families and then into Romans themselves.
We think of freedom as fundamental human value and from our historical context, especially knowing the history of the Americas, slavery is degeneration of mankind. Is it possible, based on your writing, that people in ancient Rome, including slaves, thought differently? Maybe slavery was more like a social status, maybe not high but not bad either, because regulated and codified with some laws. Maybe it was still better, in the eyes of slaves, than fate of barbaric people outside rhe empire, who were outside the system. Maybe freedom wasn’t that important, because not many people traveled anyways, while local activity of any kind was dictated by social norms. So maybe slavery, from that perspective, appeared much more normal and actually quite humane, not how we perceive it today. But then maybe I am wrong because since there existed documented rebellions of slaves, this would indicate freedom was freedom, universal and valuable just like today. What do you think? Are there sources allowing us to understand what they (slaves) thought about their situation?
About the view on freedom, yes, I think so. We tend to see and analyze slavery from another paradigm, where it is intolerable. In antiquity it was not like that, it was obviously normalized. As for the rebellions, such as that of Spartacus, they are few if compared to all the centuries that the institution of slavery lasted (well into the Middle Ages). In general, slaves did not tend to rebel against their owners, at least not in an armed and organized way.
Unfortunately, we have no direct sources from slaves where they express their views on the matter, so we can only speculate. Epigraphic and archaeological evidence in general is a very good help to approximate the mentality of a slave in ancient Rome.
I suppose (but I can only make a vague guess) that becoming a slave would imply certain stability, food and shelter. To ancient people (illiterate, out for the mercy of elements, often simply hungry, and with narrower perspective than we have) this could be associated with safety or even nobilitating. Out of curiosity, what would happen to slaves when they grew too old or too sick to be useful? Would they be sold or end life in misery on a street, or would the owner provide them with shelter, an equivalent of our retirement - be it by law, or by custom?
Again, I think you are right about the stability that slaves had. As for the old age or illness of slaves, it was up to the owner to decide what to do with them. Cato the Elder advised selling them at a certain age to avoid old age or disease. To be sure, many did that. But there were also more benevolent owners who might grant freedom to a very sick or old slave. Such things happened in ancient Rome.
Of course, it would be remiss to not point out what Crassus did to those captured of Spartacus' failed slave rebellion. They were crucified alongside the Appian Way, thousands of them, to make a point in regards what Rome would do in the event of servile insurrection. When I say thousands - 7,000 is one figure I have seen quoted. So the supposed passivity of Roman slaves should be considered in this context.
Likewise in the US Antebellum. There is a strong correlation between the level of cruelty to maintain control and the ratio of slave to non slave. S. Carolina had the highest percentage of slaves to non slaves and also was regarded as having the most cruel and restrictive conditions.
You must read Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman. Incredible historical detail based on actual ledgers, legal records and diaries. On this book it is important to read the criticisms as well.
Thanks for the suggestion! Without a doubt this is a topic I want to go deeper into and write about again later, so adding new bibliography is very useful for me.
“Another peculiarity of the Roman slave system, despite all the cruelty it could bring to someone enslaved, is that slavery was not seen as a natural condition or one that was prone to certain ethnic, political or religious groups. ”
Is one of the strangest statements I have read for a while. I know of only one slave system that it is not true for.
That sentence is perfectly applicable to eg slavery in Anglo Saxon England or Iceland at settlement.
Why would that be a strange statement? I know more than a few slave systems that saw slavery as the natural conditions of some particular people. The greeks, for start. I’m not sure I get the full sense of the comment.
Notes on slavery relevant to this piece: Manumission in all slave systems was a key element of control that recognized the social element of slavery. If there was a path to freedom, no matter how slim, that served to keep slaves in line. That said, in the USA, the systems of control were so total as to obviate the social need for manumission. Indeed it was almost impossible for a slave in the USA to ever gain their freedom, an aspect of that slave system rarely seen elsewhere in history.
This is in some ways similar to slave culture in the US antebellum. House slaves were considered differently than field hands. Also, there were some skilled craftsmen that ran their own businesses but had to pay a cut of the profit back to the master. The Hollywood version of slavery is monochromatic when the reality was quite varied.
I heard an account by an author when asked why did the Romans have sex with young men. He stated the powerful men had sex with everyone they could with less power. Extreme violence upon another . When I think about Christianity and then the ideas of Liberalism ( restraints on power) and republicanism ( mutual restraints on power) I think about this unrestrained power primacy of the powerful over those with less power.
In ancient times, as in other times, sex was a way of exercising physical and political violence over others. A very interesting topic that is not often discussed in depth.
Super interesting! Thanks
I'd add a few points: Roman slavery was different from Greek slavery in that it had much higher rates of manumission. For slaves in situations where they could take advantage of it Roman slavery was not a life sentence, but a decade or two of enforced servitude followed by manumission which served as retirement or offered a second career as a freedman, someone who still did work that aligned with his former owner's interests, but as a freed person. All this had important economic consequences. Enslaving people for life creates a static economy with no incentive for any slave to ever show initiative. But allowing slaves to save money and develop relationships and skills they could later make use of as a freed person allows for increased economic growth, and some degree of invention and opportunity. Elite Romans were also quite proud of this system, and thought their society healthy and successful, because it turned slaves first into members of Roman families and then into Romans themselves.
We think of freedom as fundamental human value and from our historical context, especially knowing the history of the Americas, slavery is degeneration of mankind. Is it possible, based on your writing, that people in ancient Rome, including slaves, thought differently? Maybe slavery was more like a social status, maybe not high but not bad either, because regulated and codified with some laws. Maybe it was still better, in the eyes of slaves, than fate of barbaric people outside rhe empire, who were outside the system. Maybe freedom wasn’t that important, because not many people traveled anyways, while local activity of any kind was dictated by social norms. So maybe slavery, from that perspective, appeared much more normal and actually quite humane, not how we perceive it today. But then maybe I am wrong because since there existed documented rebellions of slaves, this would indicate freedom was freedom, universal and valuable just like today. What do you think? Are there sources allowing us to understand what they (slaves) thought about their situation?
About the view on freedom, yes, I think so. We tend to see and analyze slavery from another paradigm, where it is intolerable. In antiquity it was not like that, it was obviously normalized. As for the rebellions, such as that of Spartacus, they are few if compared to all the centuries that the institution of slavery lasted (well into the Middle Ages). In general, slaves did not tend to rebel against their owners, at least not in an armed and organized way.
Unfortunately, we have no direct sources from slaves where they express their views on the matter, so we can only speculate. Epigraphic and archaeological evidence in general is a very good help to approximate the mentality of a slave in ancient Rome.
I suppose (but I can only make a vague guess) that becoming a slave would imply certain stability, food and shelter. To ancient people (illiterate, out for the mercy of elements, often simply hungry, and with narrower perspective than we have) this could be associated with safety or even nobilitating. Out of curiosity, what would happen to slaves when they grew too old or too sick to be useful? Would they be sold or end life in misery on a street, or would the owner provide them with shelter, an equivalent of our retirement - be it by law, or by custom?
Again, I think you are right about the stability that slaves had. As for the old age or illness of slaves, it was up to the owner to decide what to do with them. Cato the Elder advised selling them at a certain age to avoid old age or disease. To be sure, many did that. But there were also more benevolent owners who might grant freedom to a very sick or old slave. Such things happened in ancient Rome.
Right… this changes a lot in my naive reasoning. Thank you
Of course, it would be remiss to not point out what Crassus did to those captured of Spartacus' failed slave rebellion. They were crucified alongside the Appian Way, thousands of them, to make a point in regards what Rome would do in the event of servile insurrection. When I say thousands - 7,000 is one figure I have seen quoted. So the supposed passivity of Roman slaves should be considered in this context.
Likewise in the US Antebellum. There is a strong correlation between the level of cruelty to maintain control and the ratio of slave to non slave. S. Carolina had the highest percentage of slaves to non slaves and also was regarded as having the most cruel and restrictive conditions.
An authoritative book on the subject if you want to learn more:
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674986909
Very interesting discussion
Indeed! A topic on which I want to do further research.
You must read Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman. Incredible historical detail based on actual ledgers, legal records and diaries. On this book it is important to read the criticisms as well.
Thanks for the suggestion! Without a doubt this is a topic I want to go deeper into and write about again later, so adding new bibliography is very useful for me.
“Another peculiarity of the Roman slave system, despite all the cruelty it could bring to someone enslaved, is that slavery was not seen as a natural condition or one that was prone to certain ethnic, political or religious groups. ”
Is one of the strangest statements I have read for a while. I know of only one slave system that it is not true for.
That sentence is perfectly applicable to eg slavery in Anglo Saxon England or Iceland at settlement.
Why would that be a strange statement? I know more than a few slave systems that saw slavery as the natural conditions of some particular people. The greeks, for start. I’m not sure I get the full sense of the comment.
Fascinating and insightful
Notes on slavery relevant to this piece: Manumission in all slave systems was a key element of control that recognized the social element of slavery. If there was a path to freedom, no matter how slim, that served to keep slaves in line. That said, in the USA, the systems of control were so total as to obviate the social need for manumission. Indeed it was almost impossible for a slave in the USA to ever gain their freedom, an aspect of that slave system rarely seen elsewhere in history.
This is in some ways similar to slave culture in the US antebellum. House slaves were considered differently than field hands. Also, there were some skilled craftsmen that ran their own businesses but had to pay a cut of the profit back to the master. The Hollywood version of slavery is monochromatic when the reality was quite varied.
I heard an account by an author when asked why did the Romans have sex with young men. He stated the powerful men had sex with everyone they could with less power. Extreme violence upon another . When I think about Christianity and then the ideas of Liberalism ( restraints on power) and republicanism ( mutual restraints on power) I think about this unrestrained power primacy of the powerful over those with less power.
In ancient times, as in other times, sex was a way of exercising physical and political violence over others. A very interesting topic that is not often discussed in depth.