In my research of Nerva I found that he changed the law regarding torture of slaves. He made it so that there had to be evidence that the slave actually knew something before jumping right to torturing them. Not very humane by our standards but quite a leap for them I think.
The contradiction is in the interviewee's assumptions that a slave must fit our modern image, rather than accept that slavery was a different institution than what we abolished 200 years ago.
You seemed impressed by the fraction of people who were slaves. I am suprised how low it was, compared to areas of the Caribbean and gulf states with 70-90% of population. I've always thought the lack of mechanical entrepreneurship was attributed to the shear number of bodies they controlled. Were amost of these workers in Egypt making grain and Spain growing grapes mostly technically free?
I sent you an email a while ago requesting a video on slaves and was ecstatic to see many of my questions answered in this one! Keep up the great work, you've got some of the most interesting channels on RU-vid.
i suppose as the number of slaves in a household gets really high one would need more slaves who keep up the slaves, not just management, but cooking for them, perhaps making simple clothes for them, etc
Would you consider a question about classical Greece and Rome that I have here to fore be afraid to ask: What about underwear at the time? What did men and women wear under their togas? If you have addresses this question, would you please let me know where. Thank you
I address that question in the very first chapter of "Naked Statues, Fat Gladiators, and War Elephants." You should be able to read it via Google or Amazon preview.
So what's the makeup of slaves to citizens by the 'fall' of the WRE? Did slavery survive in to theodoric's time and if conquests happened less, were there less slaves? how were late Roman villas etc supplied with free labour?
I wish slavery was illegal in every country in the world, but, there're places where (at least De-facto) that is not the case I am afraid... they might use Euphemisms, but, both through gang-rulers, & very official systems of incarceration, de-facto slavery is still a thing in the less fortunate parts of the world
@@sarahsarah2534 not to the extent it is say in China (PRC), Russia or Myanmar... and not to the extent of some semi-official systems in Africa. but to some extent, forced convict labor is used in the US as well (I would say it is less of a system thing, at least not on a federal level... the system is more about causing psychological/physical pain then about turning a profit)... I would say it is more of an exception than the rule & is more pronounced of a thing in the State then federal system.
@@sarahahmed113 in the US, most Federal facilities are run privately as a service to the government... that is, there cash flow is from the government rather than the inmates themselves... forced convict labor meanwhile, in is usually done not involving the operator-firm, but rather, directly by offices of the government/military who have means to enforce thesame... whilst this is a driver of bad conditions in the penal service privatization is not part of the slavery issue (though a part of many other problems)
@@sarahahmed113 whilst how pervasive it is percentage wise it is hard to say, certainly many Chinese prisons also double up as factory-sweatshops which are run as government affiliated firms... These are not private organizations, though, often subject & profitable to connected individuals not directly private however.....
Ha! I have How to Manage Your Slaves (and Release Your Inner Roman) -- such fun books. Not mentioned in this discussion, but pertinent: Slavery was seen as the humane alternative to simply slaughtering a defeated people (so they didn't become future trouble). Rome being so successful at conquest, they wound up with a lot of slaves. I recall reading that one of the Imperial higher-ups begged the field commanders not to bring home any more slaves, because Rome was already overrun with more slaves than anyone could possibly use. One wonders if that wealthy man's collection of 400 slaves, most with little to do, was functionally a form of welfare.
That's true, but only in absolute numbers. By percentages, slavery has virtually vanished from the globe today, whereas perahaps the majority of people in ancient times were held in some type of slavery.
Due to our industrial-technological society, slavery does not exist in most regions. Child labor, sex slaves, extremely low-wage slave labor,etc. still exists. If societies change, large-scale slavery may once again reappear in the future.
@@tomasparriles6440 Slavery is undoubtedly evil and wrong but its also a natural consequence of economics. If we didn't outlaw slavery, it would still be standard practice because the most efficient way to do business is with free labor. Literally the only thing keeping us from slipping back into slavery is our modern sense of morality and one could argue we're not even far that off from it. Frankly I would prefer to be enslaved for a set number of years knowing that I could earn my freedom and make good connections instead of being paid 7.25 an hour indefinitely for the rest of my life in dead-end jobs that should be paying me at least 23 an hour. Business is inherently anti-human because it's concern is with the dynamics of currency, not the betterment of society.
i was watching a streamer who was snacking on raspberries. when he switched to some other finger food i said in chat "you eat like an ancient roman", which he acknowledged but when i followed it with "all you need is a slave to hand feed you" i had that comment deleted by a moderator and scolded that i can't say that kind of thing in chat. i wonder that having a friend in classics in college, and watching channels like this one i'm more out of step with society than i would have thought. has anyone else wandered into such a surprise?
I wouldnt say that youre out of step with society, rather that making jokes about people owning slaves likely isnt seen as being in good taste for someone like a streamer, for whom projecting a friendly brand is of upmost importance
"How dare someone be offended by my joke about slavery? I learned about it in college therefore I have the absolute right to joke about it anywhere, anytime, in front of anyone, because academia."
Legal slavery was widespread in the western world until the 1880's. Brazil bring the last holdout. One has to wonder if the Confederacy had won, how long would slavery have continued in North America. From the attitude of southern politicians it would probably still be in use today in some form.
There were many in the confederacy that intended to end slavery, the dispute was the practicality of it. The south’s economy was largely built off slave labour, if they suddenly ended it, the economy would collapse, so there were plans to shift the economy over 20 years. I highly doubt it would have continued any later than 1900. The civil war started over tariff rates that crippled the south’s economy. The Union government literally signed a document the year before the war started essentially saying all slaves would remain slaves. The north didn’t give a shit about slavery, they only started to use it as a political football half way into the war to get more manpower and to portray themselves as morally superior. However the war never began with the intent to end slavery, the north past legislation that solidified the slavery institution. The war was about economics but the north cunningly use the slave situation half way into the war. Obviously it’s still good that they won, as it did end slavery much more quickly, but I’m simply saying the war wasn’t black and white.
It wouldn't have lasted much longer. It's not an efficient form of labor. Your last comment is absurd but one can expect that from a Yankee. Probably the kind of Yankee who loves public slavery.
@@rhysnichols8608 That intention where it existed did so under pressure from the North, if the South wins the civil war it's entirely possible any such intentions reverse course. Or to use an analogy, just because the slave does what you want when you're there to crack the whip doesn't mean he will when you're not.
I'm sorry, but I have to correct these two on what they say around 43:30 concerning there being no meaningful opposition within (in this case) the imperial Roman institution of slavery. The early followers of Jesus and those in the second century CE we call Christians actually did, by and large reject the institution within their group and clearly opposed it on principle. It is true that as time goes on and traditional forms of inequality and social hierarchy rework their way into various Christian communities (most particularly with the formal co-opting of Christianity as an aspect of the Roman empire itself under Constantine), but the perspective Jerry Toner is taking here stems from those later Christians who clearly lost much of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus from the early centuries. It was not always so. It is also likely that within certain Jewish circles that one would find an opposition to the institution for the similar reasons as the early Christians.
If the average slave was only enslaved for 10-15 years, can we really say we don't use slaves? It's not like we don't have convicts doing labor for periods comparable to that
The difference is that we as a society agreed to separate that person due to their crime(s). Instead of them rotting in a cell 24/7, we’ve agreed that they must contribute to society in a way so that we’re not just paying tax to keep dangerous people well fed and rested. However, your point is valid when looking at prison privatization, such as the current climate in prisons across the US.
People can't imagine what it's like to own slaves not because slavery has been eradicated, but because it is "out of sight, out of mind" in the sense that the cheap goods that Western / 1st world nations enjoy are the direct product of imperialism which ensures an impoverished and compliant 3rd world which serves both literally and essentially as slave labor.
The luxury the west enjoys is a result of centuries of hard work, innovation, creative genius and conquest. Granted imperial capitalism does and has exploited the conquered nations, this is largely de the profit of soulless cooperations and ruling elite. Vast majority of western population don’t benefit.
@@LordLambertius Imperialism is the control of another country such that they defacto do not have sovereignty or it is severely restricted so as to extract value be it as resources or labor from the subjugated country. The reason the US spends so much on its military is to maintain its empire, its global hegemony, so as to funnel resources into the control of its economic elite which control and are the US government. The rest of the West, to varying degrees according to country, participate and benefit from US imperialism as either minor partners or puppets. Every time a country attempts to exercise sovereignty, they get either sanctioned, couped, or invaded by the US or sometimes another Western power such as France. However, due to the national myth of the US as a country of "freedom", it many times attempts to present itself as "not an empire", though there are many who openly admit it as well and speak of it positively (certain neocons). The reason "capitalism works" for the US is because it utilizes the 3rd world as slave labor. Instead of the US government officially administering subjugated nations, it does so through multi-national corporations that own monopolies over industries and natural resources. There is also a cultural imperialist aspect, where the US is the main and forceful exporter of degenerate culture. The so-called "Christian" country is the main exporter of godlessness and the complete disintegration of all human bonds in favor of dehumanized drugged up narcissistic consumers that die either alone or young. All this immense human suffering is sold as "freedom" and retarded Americans, both liberal and conservative, eat it up or check out of society.
The comments about how "alien" we would regard Roman attitudes towards slavery across the distance of time, as opposed to "like us in togas", then as a non-American how would I consider the US South, which had that attitude as recently as 160 years ago, post enlightenment on the verge of the Industrial Revolution?
Your feeling of superiority towards ancient morality is ridiculously anti-historical. There is no "right" morality, only circumstantial morality, but you clearly fail to see it.
I disagree with your philosophical standpoint. There IS objective morality, granted many ethical concerns will widely vary depending on the circumstances, some things are always set in stone. And just because they may become necessary evils in an extreme situation, it doesn’t make them ‘right’ Utilitarianism doesn’t change objective right and wrong. If there is only 2 humans left in the world, and the female hates the male, but the necessary survival of humanity requires the women to be raped, this doesn’t make the act morally good, it’s still evil but a necessary one. Any moral man would still hang his head in shame afterwards
I disagree with your philosophical standpoint. There IS objective morality, granted many ethical concerns will widely vary depending on the circumstances, some things are always set in stone. And just because they may become necessary evils in an extreme situation, it doesn’t make them ‘right’ Utilitarianism doesn’t change objective right and wrong. If there is only 2 humans left in the world, and the female hates the male, but the necessary survival of humanity requires the women to be raped, this doesn’t make the act morally good, it’s still evil but a necessary one. Any moral man would still hang his head in shame afterwards
@@rhysnichols8608 Bollocks. The very concepts of right and wrong are relative. Facts are objective, choices are subjective. We as tribes and as species have common grounds for sure, therefore common choices. But that doesn't make morality objective whatsoever.
@@sarahahmed113 So child molestation isn’t an objectively bad thing? It’s relative to the circumstances? nonsense. This act has breve been seen as good by any civilisation
