slave-master relations in Rome

[Formosus Viriustus]

We better hold our horses for a moment.

It's an unsourced statement from a reenactment group.

Does anyone know a primary source for this?

 

Sources : well, no, but the question has already been sufficiently answered meanwhile, I think.

 

Totally beside the point, but very funny : that site ( legion XXIV ) has a translation module. You can c & p any piece of text from the site into a box, choose your language, and you get a translation. Well, out of curiosity I took their own instructions for using that module, c&p'ed them and asked for a Dutch translation. Well, judging by the result of that, that site is completely unthrustworthy. But it is LOL.

 

F rmosus

 

( OMG, have I really fallen that low ? Have I actually typed LOL ? IMHO, I'd never thought it would come to that. I need to get help ASAP. NS.)

[sylla]

A little digression on the Nazi forced labor system may be in order.

 

The first full year of WWII (1940) when the blitzkrieg crushed France and Germany was still supplied by the neutral USSR, its Gross Domestic Product was 387 billion dollars (adjusted to 1990) and produced 1,788 tank and armored vehicles.

 

Four years later, in the brink of total military defeat and in spite of millions of casualties, immense material losses, absolute economic isolation, the constant advance and territorial gains of the Allies in al the fronts and the heavy permanent bombardment, Germany was still able to increase 13% its GDM and more than eleven times its tank production relative to 1940.

 

Such economic

[Kosmo]

Sylla you say that the Jews at Auschwitz that you mentioned in your first post were only doing forced labor, possibly they lived better then roman slaves and slavery it's a worse crime then exterminating people.

Interesting but dangerous opinions as Holocaust denial it's a crime in some places more bent on political correctness then you. For your courage in defending free speech I give you a roman salute!

[sylla]

Sylla you say that the Jews at Auschwitz that you mentioned in your first post were only doing forced labor, possibly they lived better then roman slaves and slavery it's a worse crime then exterminating people.

Interesting but dangerous opinions as Holocaust denial it's a crime in some places more bent on political correctness then you. For your courage in defending free speech I give you a roman salute!

Thanks for the salute, but you are misquoting me; just check out my post. I said what I said; no less, no more.

 

Lets repeat my first post as clear as possible; the denial of the suffering of the slaves, Roman or otherwise (for example, by you) is as absurd as the denial of the pain of the victims of the Holocaust.

 

("Reductio ad Nazium", said you)

 

Crystal clear now?

Edited May 21, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

On a more serious note :

 

Is there a way we could compare the general living standard of the lowest class of free Romans, the 'capite censi' I believe, with that of slaves living in the same city, say in the household of a senator or an eques around the time of the early Principate ? This making abstraction of their respective legal status.

 

Or better, in how far was the lowest free citizen class actually protected by the laws that were supposed to protect them, compared with slaves. In other words, if you were a 'capito censo' and for some reason a senator had it in for you, in how far would being a free man actually have made any difference ?

On the other hand I am thinking about the fake Agrippa Postumus (there was also a fake Nero, also a slave if I am not mistaken). Clearly that guy was in collusion with some of the mightiest people in Rome. He even got Tiberius scared.

 

Laws and lawbooks don't tell us in how far they actually achieved the goal they were ment to achieve. To know that we should try to find out how everyday life was. Even though the Romans had a rather extensive set of laws, I think it was on many occasions and in particular circumstances still a pretty lawless society. Murders were pretty common, I believe, no doubt many going unsolved, as wel as summary executions.

 

And as an average citizen of the lower classes, or as a slave in the described circumstances, how often would you come into contact with the law or the justice system formally ? Not all that often, I think.

True, there must have been a huge difference in your living quality as a slave depending on the master you had, something that is almost impossible to quantify. And of course, many people will prefer to be a poor free man to being a well off slave.

 

Formosus

 

[Kosmo]

Ok. Let's start again from what you said, crystal clear, above.

Auschwitz was not primarily a labor camp but an extermination one. Romans did not engage in mass killing of slaves.

The victims of the Holocaust could do nothing to defend their lives, a roman slave had value for the owner and was not so eagerly disposed of, so if he did his job he could expect to live and even to gain his freedom. Laws, customs and morality provided the basis for master-slave relations and a brake for abuse.

At Auschwitz innocent people were killed while some of the roman slaves were criminals, others were enemies that have attacked Rome or rebels. For these people slavery was a punishment as today all states imprison criminals and in some states criminals are convicted to force labor.

Other slaves were exposed babies that would have died a terrible death if not taken in slavery.

People sold themselves in slavery to avoid worse things a proof that sometimes being free was not a better option while others refused to be freed.

Most slaves could hope to gain their freedom and not a few became extremely rich and powerful in the process, things that the victims of the Holocaust could not hope for.

The slaves of commoners were part of the family and their status not far below to that of the wife and the children.

The slaves of rich people often lived in large hierarchical group usually led by other slaves or freedman.

Many slaves were running businesses for their master and received a payment for it, had their own property and family. The slave that a merchant from Syria sends on a ship to Rome with goods and returns with the money it's not a desperado but a person who believes he can gain better with his master then fleeing with the money.

On the other hand we can see categories of free man that did not do very well like provincials displaced from their land by roman colonies or the poor peasants that by the Late Empire were tied to the land, paid large taxes in money, goods and work to the state and landlords, suffered abuses from officials and the army and were targeted by barbarian raids.

Did slaves suffer? Sure.

But, some did more, others less. Some their entire life some for sometime. Some even had a chance to a better life after slavery.

Where the slave the only ones to suffer?

Life was always very hard for most people. The bored elite that was eating exotic fish in Baiae had just a few people. For most of the others life was harder. And sometimes everybody suffered like in the period between 400 and 650 AD when the once prosperous regions of a great Empire were now reduced one by one to ruin and depopulation.

[sylla]

Auschwitz was not primarily a labor camp but an extermination one. Romans did not engage in mass killing of slaves.

The victims of the Holocaust could do nothing to defend their lives, a roman slave had value for the owner and was not so eagerly disposed of, so if he did his job he could expect to live and even to gain his freedom. Laws, customs and morality provided the basis for master-slave relations and a brake for abuse.

At Auschwitz innocent people were killed while some of the roman slaves were criminals, others were enemies that have attacked Rome or rebels. For these people slavery was a punishment as today all states imprison criminals and in some states criminals are convicted to force labor.

As Holocaust denial seems to be banned in Romania, maybe we should continue this conversation by PM, if you like.

[sylla]

On a more serious note :

 

Is there a way we could compare the general living standard of the lowest class of free Romans, the 'capite censi' I believe, with that of slaves living in the same city, say in the household of a senator or an eques around the time of the early Principate ? This making abstraction of their respective legal status.

 

Or better, in how far was the lowest free citizen class actually protected by the laws that were supposed to protect them, compared with slaves. In other words, if you were a 'capito censo' and for some reason a senator had it in for you, in how far would being a free man actually have made any difference ?

On the other hand I am thinking about the fake Agrippa Postumus (there was also a fake Nero, also a slave if I am not mistaken). Clearly that guy was in collusion with some of the mightiest people in Rome. He even got Tiberius scared.

 

Laws and lawbooks don't tell us in how far they actually achieved the goal they were ment to achieve. To know that we should try to find out how everyday life was. Even though the Romans had a rather extensive set of laws, I think it was on many occasions and in particular circumstances still a pretty lawless society. Murders were pretty common, I believe, no doubt many going unsolved, as wel as summary executions.

 

And as an average citizen of the lower classes, or as a slave in the described circumstances, how often would you come into contact with the law or the justice system formally ? Not all that often, I think.

True, there must have been a huge difference in your living quality as a slave depending on the master you had, something that is almost impossible to quantify. And of course, many people will prefer to be a poor free man to being a well off slave.

 

Formosus

A far more serious note indeed; it deserves a most serious treatment.It might take some time.

 

IMHO The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity by WL Westermann is the obligatory reference text for us here, not only for its extensive research, unimpeachable reasoning and easy explanation, but also because it currently has OPEN FULL ACCESS.

 

Slavery is an incredible complex issue that embraces an immense range of seemingly divergent social structures, even within the same geographical and chronological context, the same in Rome as in Greece, and even in the XVIII century.

 

Its mere operative definition has been the object of much research; we don't have anything remotely similar nowadays. When you read about "modern slavery", it's mostly a metaphorical term for some kinds of human rights abuse, entirely different from the Classical concept.

 

As Slavery unavoidably implies the double condition of being simultaneously human and object to some extent, it deeply affected any imaginable social and legal aspect of the Roman life.

 

In a nutshell, Classical society, culture and economy cannot be understood without thoroughly dealing with this topic.

 

And, as you may have perceived by now, this topic fascinates me, even if I ignore so much about it.

Edited May 21, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Nephele posted this link in the 'Emperor's Entourage' thread (Rom Hum).

 

Roman Antiquities: Or an Account of Manners and Customs of the Romans

 

Besides an exhaustive list of all the jobs done by slaves - from table wiper to chamber pot attendant, and their respective titles - it also has some interesting information on master / slave relations, marriages of and with slaves, etc. ( p 23 - 34 )

 

Formosus

[Nephele]

Nephele posted this link in the 'Emperor's Entourage' thread (Rom Hum).

 

Roman Antiquities: Or an Account of Manners and Customs of the Romans

 

Besides an exhaustive list of all the jobs done by slaves - from table wiper to chamber pot attendant, and their respective titles - it also has some interesting information on master / slave relations, marriages of and with slaves, etc. ( p 23 - 34 )

 

Formosus

 

Indeed, that book is handy in addressing one of the original questions posed by Ludovicus at the start of this thread:

 

Are there are records of Roman masters fathering offspring with slave women? In such a litigious society I would think that there'd be legal language on such relationships.

 

From a footnote on page 28:

 

"On the death of a master who had maintained his slave-girl as a concubine, she and her children got free, by law, in spite of any thing to the contrary, contained in the will of the deceased. A female slave, marrying a free person, with consent of her master, who gave her a dowry, was forthwith deemed a freedwoman."

 

-- Nephele

P.S. For anyone who wants to see (and participate in) a practical application of slave titles from the cited book, Roman Antiquities, clicky here. I can always use more slaves.

[Ludovicus]

Nephele posted this link in the 'Emperor's Entourage' thread (Rom Hum).

 

Roman Antiquities: Or an Account of Manners and Customs of the Romans

 

Besides an exhaustive list of all the jobs done by slaves - from table wiper to chamber pot attendant, and their respective titles - it also has some interesting information on master / slave relations, marriages of and with slaves, etc. ( p 23 - 34 )

 

Formosus

 

Indeed, that book is handy in addressing one of the original questions posed by Ludovicus at the start of this thread:

 

Are there are records of Roman masters fathering offspring with slave women? In such a litigious society I would think that there'd be legal language on such relationships.

 

From a footnote on page 28:

 

"On the death of a master who had maintained his slave-girl as a concubine, she and her children got free, by law, in spite of any thing to the contrary, contained in the will of the deceased. A female slave, marrying a free person, with consent of her master, who gave her a dowry, was forthwith deemed a freedwoman."

 

-- Nephele

P.S. For anyone who wants to see (and participate in) a practical application of slave titles from the cited book, Roman Antiquities, clicky here. I can always use more slaves.

 

 

Yes, the resource answers my question, and what a great resource it is. Thanks for the link!

I'm just discovering what a treasure trove is just a click away on Google Books.

[caldrail]

Slavery is an incredible complex issue that embraces an immense range of seemingly divergent social structures, even within the same geographical and chronological context, the same in Rome as in Greece, and even in the XVIII century.

 

Nothing complex about slavery at all. Its the ownership of one person by another. It really is that simple. However, if you want to consider the ramifications of it, then the subject becomes more detailed, but 'immense range of seemingly divergent social structures'?

 

The Romans were very clear about what a slave was. A slave, in their eyes, was beneath social class. Property, sometimes described as 'Talking Tools', used for menial tasks as the owner dictated. Wealthy families employed them as domestic servants, industry owners employed them as labourers, individuals employed them for specific skills, entrepeneurs and trainers employed them as violent athletes. Have I missed anything out?

[sylla]

Nephele posted this link in the 'Emperor's Entourage' thread (Rom Hum).

 

Roman Antiquities: Or an Account of Manners and Customs of the Romans

 

Besides an exhaustive list of all the jobs done by slaves - from table wiper to chamber pot attendant, and their respective titles - it also has some interesting information on master / slave relations, marriages of and with slaves, etc. ( p 23 - 34 )

 

Formosus

 

Indeed, that book is handy in addressing one of the original questions posed by Ludovicus at the start of this thread:

 

Are there are records of Roman masters fathering offspring with slave women? In such a litigious society I would think that there'd be legal language on such relationships.

 

From a footnote on page 28:

 

"On the death of a master who had maintained his slave-girl as a concubine, she and her children got free, by law, in spite of any thing to the contrary, contained in the will of the deceased. A female slave, marrying a free person, with consent of her master, who gave her a dowry, was forthwith deemed a freedwoman."

 

-- Nephele

P.S. For anyone who wants to see (and participate in) a practical application of slave titles from the cited book, Roman Antiquities, clicky here. I can always use more slaves.

 

 

Yes, the resource answers my question, and what a great resource it is. Thanks for the link!

I'm just discovering what a treasure trove is just a click away on Google Books.

Adam's Roman Antiquities is indeed an excellent book, quite congruent with Smith

Edited June 8, 2009 by sylla

[Nephele]

Hence, I would be grateful if any UNRV member may be able to:

- Point me the chapter and section where this footnote can be found;

- Refer the primary source(s) from where this data originally came.

 

[sylla]

The footnote appears as #11 on a page in the section titled "Slaves." While it doesn't appear to be in any easily identifiable chapter, it appears on the page that begins: "SERVUS MEUS LIBER ESTO, such freedmen were called..." This is page 28 in the 1842 edition.

 

-- Nephele

Thanks! I have finally found it; it's the note that comments the following statement: "there were many other methods of freeing slaves, but these did not confer complete freedom".

 

It was an especial form of testamentary manumission, because both the concubine and the children

Edited June 8, 2009 by sylla