Question: Slavery in Ancient Rome

[guy]

Quick question:

 

I've read that 25-40% of the inhabitants in the city of Rome were slaves, and possibly an additional 5% were freedmen.

 

Assuming that the city of Rome had about one million inhabitants in AD 160, this would be between 250,000 to 400,000 slaves in the city of Rome.

 

This number seems high. Any thoughts?

 

guy also known as gaius

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, G aka G

Quick question:

 

I've read that 25-40% of the inhabitants in the city of Rome were slaves, and possibly an additional 5% were freedmen.

 

Assuming that the city of Rome had about one million inhabitants in AD 160, this would be between 250,000 to 400,000 slaves in the city of Rome.

 

This number seems high. Any thoughts?

 

guy also known as gaius

It might become a not so quick answer, as it is a highly disputed point.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

The romans never kept any records of slaves as such, and since they were not regarded as human beings, it was unlikely that they would do so. However, your comment about the high number of slaves, as reinforced above, is disputed.

 

All we're left with is estimates, and whilst its true that after conquest a great many people were carried off into slavery, they didn't always survive long. One way of disposing of large numbers of prisoners-of-war (who were effectively slaves rather than prisoners as we know them because the romans never did like keeping people idle and incarcerated for long periods) was to have them fight in the arena. Josephus records the numbers of people dragged away from Jerusalem for this purpose across the roman provinces to be slaughtered for entertainment.

 

Perhaps the most telling statement by the romans themselves is when one individual suggested to the senate that all slaves should be identified by clothing or marker. His peers weren't keen on that that idea, on the basis that "Then they would realise how many of them there are".

[sullafelix]

Perhaps the most telling statement by the romans themselves is when one individual suggested to the senate that all slaves should be identified by clothing or marker. His peers weren't keen on that that idea, on the basis that "Then they would realise how many of them there are".

 

I love that Caldrail and may need to pinch it, do you know where it came from by any achance?

 

One I love, that also demonstrates the point is a dark joke that used to be said during the Mid-Republic "Sardes venales alius alio nequior" - Sardinians for sale - each more worthless than the next! This referred to when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus conquered Sardinia in 177BC and is said to have captured 80,000 to be sold into slavery.

 

As to the number of slaves, we count a slave society as one that has at least 20% of the population made up of slaves. There are no numbers as you say but certainly by the end of the Republic the quantity of slaves, especially in agriculture and industry was enormous. A Roman citizen did not do manual labour if possible as it was demaning and seen as slave's work. Even the meanest of Roman citizens would have owned at least one domestic slave if they possibly could - how do you think they had time to conquer the world & learn Latin for heavens sake.

 

Varro referred to them as speaking tools

 

Cheers

SF

[Kosmo]

At a time when Athens and Delos were full of slaves in distant Histria there were few or none.

If the sources speak of large numbers of slaves in Rome and around it this might have more to do with the capital being the place where the rich from around the Med spent their time and money. No other place had inhabitants like Lucullus, Trimalchio, Caesar or the emperors. In the provinces there are less signs of a massive slave population except some areas like Sicilly or Carthage area and giving that a large majority of people lived in the provinces I doubt that slaves were up to 20 % of total population.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Of course, we may begin with some nice figures quoted from the respective chapt

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, SF

As to the number of slaves, we count a slave society as one that has at least 20% of the population made up of slaves.

Since the Classical studies of Moses I Finley, the criteria for defining a true slave society (as opposed to a just "slave-owning" society) is more economic than demographic: "the economic and political elite depended primarily on slave labor for basic production" (Slavery in classical antiquity [1968], pg. 310).

 

Finley considered the five primary examples of slave societies were the United States, the Caribbean, Brazil, ancient Greece (especially Athens) and Ancient Rome (especially Italy), the latter basically from the III century BC up to the Diocletian era.

[Klingan]

The term "slave society" have been very much debated lately. It is actually very unclear how much profit they gain in ancient roman times on having slaves instead of free labour. Remember that just as a free man a slave need roof over his head, food and medical care. As this they generate a very small surplus. Also a slave was an investment, very far from any use and throw away commodity.

 

We actually know that it was recommended to use free labour for dangerous tasks from time to time to make sure that your own slaves wouldn't be hurt or immobilized.

[caldrail]

Perhaps the most telling statement by the romans themselves is when one individual suggested to the senate that all slaves should be identified by clothing or marker. His peers weren't keen on that that idea, on the basis that "Then they would realise how many of them there are".

 

I love that Caldrail and may need to pinch it, do you know where it came from by any achance?

I was up all night trying to find that quote. I've seen it twice in different places, once mentioning the individual by name. I'll keep looking, because its an important point.

 

As to the number of slaves, we count a slave society as one that has at least 20% of the population made up of slaves. There are no numbers as you say but certainly by the end of the Republic the quantity of slaves, especially in agriculture and industry was enormous. A Roman citizen did not do manual labour if possible as it was demaning and seen as slave's work. Even the meanest of Roman citizens would have owned at least one domestic slave if they possibly could - how do you think they had time to conquer the world & learn Latin for heavens sake.

Its also true that the majority of slaves were rural labourers (even allowing for Rome's population) and that the numbers of these farm-slaves dwindled during the empire as the fresh slaves from conquest dried up, making the purchase of the available slaves somewhat expensive, and allowing the return of the tenant farmer as an entrepeneurial individiual. Some of the prices I've seen quoted are quite high. A young boy of no particular skill = 500 Denarii. A woman of appreciable comliness = 6000 Denarii. Not cheap, given that the boy costs the equivalent of an entire barrel of fish.

[Kosmo]

Its also true that the majority of slaves were rural labourers (even allowing for Rome's population)

 

This can be true maybe if we include those in mining as rural.

 

and that the numbers of these farm-slaves dwindled during the empire as the fresh slaves from conquest dried up, making the purchase of the available slaves somewhat expensive, and allowing the return of the tenant farmer as an entrepeneurial individiual.

 

This would mean a visible change in rural economy from the I C AD but we don't see that. As in other old economies slaves were present but not a decisive factor. Small land owners, colons and other dependant workers, permanent and temporary helpers would have been the great majority of the rural workforce. Egypt it's a great example of that.

[caldrail]

Its also true that the majority of slaves were rural labourers (even allowing for Rome's population)

 

This can be true maybe if we include those in mining as rural.

 

Its true without the mining. We tend to see the roman world as essentially urbanised, but the majority of people were still living outside of large towns. It might be useful to point out that the most heavily urbanised part of the empire was north africa, not Italy, and that the private estates of wealthy individuals in the countryside might have employed a great many slaves to work the land. The proportion of mines to farms is very small, and most mine operations weren't exactly using slaves in huge numbers. A typical mine of this period is a shaft with no more than a dozen workers.

 

and that the numbers of these farm-slaves dwindled during the empire as the fresh slaves from conquest dried up, making the purchase of the available slaves somewhat expensive, and allowing the return of the tenant farmer as an entrepeneurial individiual.

 

This would mean a visible change in rural economy from the I C AD but we don't see that. As in other old economies slaves were present but not a decisive factor. Small land owners, colons and other dependant workers, permanent and temporary helpers would have been the great majority of the rural workforce. Egypt it's a great example of that.

Not necessarily. Over the course of the empire the supply of slaves was dwindling because foreign people weren't being captured in warfare and enslaved. The populations on estates were maintained to a degree by breeding, as had happened for some time, but this was unlikely to eradicate the need to purchase them too, and since an estate owner can just as easily rent land out to a tenant farmer and profit from it, it was increasingly the case that these tenant farmers were on the rise after the movement toward urban life due to large scale enslavement had run its course. That the economy doesn't seem to materially change is no suprise, since the level produce of the estates being sold was similar. However, its clear that by the late empire estates and communities were opting out of roman government and taxation - something slaves had not been allowed to do since Spartacus - and opting out is not a practical possibility unless a community that can survive independently is present.

[Northern Neil]

I think what makes it difficult to assess the number of slaves in Roman Society is that there does not appear to be a rigid definition. In other slave societies I can think of, a slave is a slave, is a slave - with few rights and no posessions. In Roman society we come across slaves who are paid by their masters, allowed days off work, and in some cases even own their own houses. Would it be correct to regard Roman period slavery as a social class?

Edited September 14, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Klingan]

I think what makes it difficult to assess the number of slaves in Roman Society is that there does not appear to be a rigid definition. In other slave societies I can think of, a slave is a slave, is a slave - with few rights and no posessions. In Roman society we come across slaves who are paid by their masters, allowed days off work, and in some cases even own their own houses. Would it be correct to regard Roman period slavery as a social class?

 

I would say no. In the end a roman slave was a slave and nothing else. They were property.

 

All societies that allow slaves have different ways to handle them. Persian slaves were highly trusted, but we all know that many of them had to become eunuchs to earn that trust. In Athens they had a slave police force.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, SF

Perhaps the most telling statement by the romans themselves is when one individual suggested to the senate that all slaves should be identified by clothing or marker. His peers weren't keen on that that idea, on the basis that "Then they would realise how many of them there are".

 

I love that Caldrail and may need to pinch it, do you know where it came from by any achance?

SF

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

We actually know that it was recommended to use free labour for dangerous tasks from time to time to make sure that your own slaves wouldn't be hurt or immobilized.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES