Search the Community

Sorry, but I have to take issue with some comments I found on forums here. Slaves were generally treated well, often playing integral roles in the household, including companionship as well as nursemaid/governess/teacher Whilst it is true that some slaves had respected and professional roles, these were often skilled people offering their trade via slavery, and as volunteers they tended to be better trusted and treated. However, the vast majority of slaves, either former free people or born slaves, were not. 'Talking Tools' is the phrase Cato used. They were to act without unnecessary attention. At a dinner a Roman elite merely held out a goblet. He expected it to be filled, and didn't ask. The slave was not supposed to speak, just fill any goblet held out. There's evidence of poor treatment from various sources, not least the satire of a lady's servant who is bullied and attacked because she has aroused the jealousy of her mistress by attracting the amorous attentions of her husband. Household slaves generally lived in dark cellars, below the family home. A male Roman could have a slave as he chose, male or female. The women were not supposed to use slaves like that, it was scandalous, though such things did go on. Those slaves unfortunate enough to be bought for born into rural industrial labour could expect short hard lives, extreme physical labour and workplace hazards. Some facilities, such as metal foundries, could be downright poisonous. They might expect to be corraled like animals. Animals... That brings me to the essential point about Roman slavery. Under Roman law, a slave has lost or possessed no humanity, equal in status to animals, because they had no say or choice. There's a description from around the time of the Slave Revolts of a Sicilian slave in appalling condition, virtually ignored and starved by his master. It is true of course that beginning in the late Republic but noticeable more from the Principate were laws to restrict what owners could do to their slaves. Abandonment of sick slaves left to die, casual sale or gift to the gladiator schools for unwanted slaves, and other abuses were curbed. Yet a lot of this was for public image - a country villa might have wonderful gardens facing the entrance tended to by willing slaves in good condition - to the rear, out of sight, the manual labourers penned and herded, with overseers from among them just as willing to lash their victims as their approving masters. Roman slaves were often given wages/"spending money" above and beyond room & board, and were oftrn in a position to take on extra work for pay outside the household. That was hardly common. Slaves were indentured servants, not employees. Some were allowed to have monies - Gladiators for instance by law were entitled to receive a portion of the winnings if they won a fight, some were allowed to run businesses on behalf of their master, some were allowed informal families of their own - though any children were slaves of the master automatically - but it would be a foolish master who let his slaves run around doing their own thing. Working for profit isn't a common theme in Roman writing and for good reason. Such slaves might well have had an ulterior reason for being allowed to operate semi-independently, and that would be to observe rivals and inform on them. Slaves were manumitted for a number of reasons, none of which were primarily the welfare of the former slave. Some were freed to create the public image of a generous man. Others as a reward for long service though that would be exceptional. Sometimes saves might be freed for more subtle reasons, and Augustus tried twice in AD 9 to get wealthy owners to donate slaves to be freed and sent to Germania as emergency third class troops. He resorted to legal action and punished some of their owners. Slaves were of course below the horizon socially, and we hear very little about them, but that doesn't mean their lives were happy and ordinary. Most Romans cared more for their dog than a slave in their ownership.