Roman slavery wasn't really bad

>Roman slavery wasn't really bad

Where did this meme come from? And when will it die?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servile_Wars
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Fun fact the first romans was ruled by kings who was slaves. Tarquinius superbus the last slave king of rome was overthrown by the whiteys who ruled rome for a couple of centuries. Until sulla the great slave general overthrew the whiteys and exterminated them in the servile war. Now slaves was running rome again and a whitey wasnt seen in the region again until it was sacked by alaric and the whiteys eventually killed or sent the slave romans to africa. Julius caesar was a slave

Is this Autism?

Yes

It was far, FAR better than chattel slavery.

I'm gonna geuss it came from Hellenic larpers or /pol/ who thought that the Romans only enslaved minorities and advanced only the "white race"

There is probably more to it though

if you were a greek slave with some skill (like being an accountant or a dressmaker) you could have a good life. Latifundium slavery sucked though.

Obviously the *best* life a Roman slave could have was better than the American south but that's painting with a very broad brush as pointed out. There were also skilled laborers in the South. Most of the wrought iron railings you see in French Colonial architecture in places like New Orleans was done by slave labor.

Some slaves in roman mines in Spain literally on giant wooden wheels to pump water out of the mine.

Being an Islamic eunuch slave would be the worst though.

It wasn't that bad on the early republic, it was pretty bad on late republic and first half of the empire.

>All these women and I have no dick.

>i have no dick and i must rape

>Augustus had to pass a law restricting the freeing of slaves to keep the economy from crashing
Yeah I bet the Romans really treated their slaves like shit :^)

>Slaves numbering in the tens of thousands were condemned to work in the mines or quarries, where conditions were notoriously brutal.[55] Damnati in metallum ("those condemned to the mine") were convicts who lost their freedom as citizens (libertas), forfeited their property (bona) to the state, and became servi poenae, slaves as a legal penalty. Their status under the law was different from that of other slaves; they could not buy their freedom, be sold, or be set free. They were expected to live and die in the mines.[58] Imperial slaves and freedmen (the familia Caesaris) worked in mine administration and management.[59]

Yeah sounds great. Idiot, Roman slavery was often chattel slavery, do you even know what chattel slavery means?

No, it's REAL BLACK HISTORY

This. But it depends on what kind of slave you were. Being a household slave for some patrician or a tutor was pretty good, they lived better then most of Roman society. Gladiators also had a pretty good time, they were basically professional athletes with a very low chance of dying and they got a LOT of pussy. If you worked on latifundia, you were basically like a serf, while mines were on the level, or even worse than American plantations.

Well to be fair mine work mostly anywhere was complete shit during the period.

I think the only way to legally get evidence from a slave was through torture

kek great book

One should not compare two totally different things:
- "common slavery" - basically owning your workers instead of hiring them. Such workers still had many rights and lived not worse than free lower-class people.
- forced labor used as criminal punishment. Basically people sentenced to slow death. This was brutal - but such were many other punishments at that time.

Surprises me that 19th century freemen were willing to work in mines that were previously employing slaves because it was so harsh and dangerous. Literal wageslavery.

I'd like to have been a clean shaven fuckboi for some lavishly wealthy matron
or a Gaullic fukslave

problem is I'd probably be castrated and then have my boipucci torn open by the pater familias if he found out

Household slaves were taken care if too. It was a question of prestige for richfags. Having malnourished, beaten up or otherwise bad looking slave serving your guests would be embarassing.

Easy there, lad.

I think it was generally better than the west african slave trade, barbary slave trade and the Arab-African slave trade but it was still terrible.

The difference between Roman slavery and the trades previously mentioned is that Roman slavery was not incited by racial/religious bigotry and hatred. It was just practiced for economic convenience or for entertainment.

For this reason, it was common (you can see a lot of evidence for this in what archaeologists have found in Pompeii and Herculaneum) that if a master was pleased with their slave, after a time they would often free them.

It always depends on the owner though.

Sometimes they would even marry them.

Firstly compared to chattel slavery of western Europe and the Americas, it was not that bad.

Slaves were not enslaved based on race. Slaves were not considered less than human. Only patricians and novus homo had the means to own slaves unlike the ante bellum southern US which anyone could buy a slave.

Slaves also had status respective of their master's. If you are the slave of a well-loved patrician, you would be treated with respect and dignity just like your master.

Finally, you could buy your way to freedom, and some slaves not only became free, but also earned enough during their servitude to start their own business and become wealthy novus homo themselves.

>slavery was a bad thing
Where did this meme come from? And when will it die?

there were chattel slaves in Rome, just fewer

Since there was no religious/racial element to roman slavery, is that why the freed slaves more often that other societies? Because there wasn't an idea that it's their place to be a slave?

Not all slaves were equal user. Latifunda and mine slaves were basically chattel, yeah. But house slaves were treated basically like people treated their free house personnel throughout the centuries, and personal servants were often almost friends. Just look at Cicero's letters to his slave secretary Tiro.
Eh of course you had the occasional sadist among owners who would do unconscionable things, but it wasn't socially acceptable to do so, it was considered barbaric.

>Only patricians and novus homo had the means to own slaves
This is totally false. Pretty much every household not living in abject penury had slaves.
Not to mention that being patricians or homini novi didn't really imply much about one's wealth.

You know where you must go!

>problem is I'd probably be castrated and then have my boipucci torn open by the pater familias if he found out
Or you'd get crucified without the grace of broken legs. That was a common way of killing slaves back then.

An opinion I don't like!

I better tell him to go back to /pol/!

People would quarrel over a slave who was a good cook.

Stop acting like a bitch.

You could've just told him slavery is shit because it's economically obsolete and benefits literally nobody except the richest people since it drives down wages and forces what would be wage laborers into unemployment.

But no, you had to act like a cuck instead.

This is from a highschool Latin textbook. He's a Brit actually, and was sold to the Flavian family. The shitty kid Sextus never liked him. He was a dope slave though-the family relied on him a lot.

>when will it die

when I get muh reparations

He eventually earns his release and returns to the UK

Yo, Can anyone ITT Tell me why there wasn't more "Slave revolutions" in rome?

Life as a slave wasn't that bad

Because only 40% of the peninsular population was enslaved? And of that number only a small fraction had any urge AND opportunity to push for armed revolt?

Got a paper to hand in like 8-9 weeks, I have to choose between either "Life, Rise and fall of Caesar (+causes consequences)" or "Slave conditions in rome Why weren't there more revolutions" I could also pick "Womens in rome"

Compares to chattel slavery of the colonial era it was pretty cozy. The fact some slaves where able to sue their masters for abusing them in an unlawful way for their freedom only proves that, and that rome had Freedom of Womb laws 95% of the time.

How about the meme that serfdom such as in Tsarist Russia was worse than chattel slavery in the US south? I've heard good arguments for it

the spartacus rebellion was quite big and crushed a few legions, also there were big rebellions in sicily and in the north

Because slaves couldn't beat all of Rome and they knew after they lost they would be beaten and crucified.

>It was just practiced for economic convenience

Basically all slavery then. The choice in slave race/ethnicity/creed etc might have been influenced by bigotry or nationalism or a sense of US superiority but the fundamental existence of slavery was the economic convenience.

> if a master was pleased with their slave, after a time they would often free them.

This was not exclusive to Roman ideals or society and in you see this across the world and history of slavery where masters pleased or fond of slaves might free them.

>serfdom isn't chattle slavery
A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

It's from ecce Romani. Having high school ptsd atm

It was perpetuated to justify Veeky Forumstorical erotic fantasies

Well I think you could actually sell off your serfs in Russia.

If decimation (killing one tenth) is common practise for citizens in the army, then imagine what happens when the guy who you don't pay to wipe your ass starts musing half-heartedly about unions 'n' sheeit

>If decimation (killing one tenth) is common practise for citizens in the army

It wasn't

It was in the country on large scale cash crop farms and in mining where conditions were worst for slaves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servile_Wars

Makes sense. OP pic is pretty hot desu.

>Tfw you will never have a qt teenage male concubine to fug and snuggle with.