These two items I once read in a book. So you understand why I can’t provide an immediate cite, as such. But if anyone asks for one, I will certainly try to provide one (Wikipedia to the rescue, I’m sure).
Anyways, I once read that Romans justified enslaving people by saying they weren’t as sophisticated as them, perhaps not even entirely human (often the cry of the oppressor, sadly). This was frequently the case with barbarians, who were typically hairy and talked in what the Romans considered to be an unintelligible way. In fact I once saw on the History Channel, Romans even had hair pluckers in their baths, being hairy apparently made you look too much like a barbarian, they thought.
Anyways, without going into too much detail (it’s history, what more can I say), Rome eventually conquered Greece. And (this being my second point) many Greek teachers and philosophers and whatnot now found themselves as slaves.
My question is, How did the Romans justify enslaving the Greeks? If I understand it correctly (again, sorry, no cite:)), Greeks were greatly admired by the Romans. In fact, the Greek language was even preferred over Latin, in Rome no less.
Also, I don’t know this next thing I am about to do is frowned on on these boards. But you know, since I read it in a book, if anyone else has any cites to back up what I just said, feel free to add it.
Thank you all in advance for your kindly replies:).
I don’t know that the Romans did enslave many Greeks; the Greeks already had an extensive slave system when the were incorported into the empire.
Though one of the ways the Romans acquired new slaves was as booty of war; defeated soldiers were frequently enslaved. This wasn’t based on any alleged cultural deficiency other than, perhaps, a deficient military culture. (Why else were they defeated?). So if the Romans acquired any part of Greece by conquest, the might have reduced some free Greeks to slavery in that context.
Slavery, incidentally, wasn’t primarily an ethnic or racial thing for the Romans. There were plently of native-born Roman slaves and, indeed, the last resort of a destitute and starving Roman might be to sell himself into slavery.
I don’t believe this was the case at all. The empire as a whole was justified this way, on occasion (bringing culture and enlightenment to hairy barabarians). But slavery was absolutely just considered just part of life.
That kind of excuse was used much later by the British and others, who having largely abolished chattle slavery domestically suddenly realized the profits to made from it in the new world.
They absolutely did. After the conquest of Greece Greek slaves were common. It was particularly de rigueur to employ them as tutors (due to the respect Greek culture was given in Rome).
The Romans had highly educated slaves and Greek slaves, as has been noted. The question was not how did they justify slavery, more like how did one be a full Roman citizen, which was a privileged social status not available to any old loser (including women, provincials, etc.) There were different rights and classes of citizenship, not only Roman citizen or slave.
Yes, I know. But my point is that the Romans didn’t (for the most part) enslave them. They were already slaves and, incorporation into the Roman empire or not, they would have been slaves under the laws and culture that prevailed in Greece anyway.
I’m no historian, but I don’t think there was a lot of thought put into slavery as a system–it was a fact of life. Slaves were not necessarily abused or looked down on, not in the way we think of slavery in the United States, or in the Spanish American colonies, or in the British West Indies. Roman slaves might indeed be worked to death in fields or mines, but many were servants in a manner not too different from the 19th century glory days of English manors. Some Roman slaves were literate, numerate, and trusted with the affairs of their masters in a way no Southern plantation owner would dream of; and it was, I believe, easier to work or purchase one’s self out of slavery than under the other systems.
For if any one thinks that there is a smaller gain of glory derived from Greek verses than from Latin ones, he is greatly mistaken, because Greek poetry is read among all nations, Latin is confined to its own natural limits, which are narrow enough. Wherefore, if those achievements which we have performed are limited only by the bounds of the whole world, we ought to desire that, wherever our vigour and our arms have penetrated, our glory and our fame should likewise extend. Because, as this is always an ample reward for those people whose achievements are the subject of writings, so especially is it the greatest inducement to encounter labours and dangers to all men who fight for themselves for the sake of glory.
[…]
For this should not be concerned, which cannot possibly be kept in the dark, but it might be avowed openly: we are all influenced by a desire of praise, and the best men are the most especially attracted by glory. Those very philosophers even in the books which they write about despising glory, put their own names on the title-page. In the very act of recording their contempt for renown and notoriety, they desire to have their own names known and talked of.
Slavery was pervasive in all cultures in the ancient world. Even the Gauls, Germans, Britons, and other tribal societies had slaves.
Yes, there was Roman and Greek prejudice against ‘barbarians’, but people weren’t weren’t enslaved because of any supposed inferiority, they were enslaved because they were conquered in war.
The most notable difference between slavery in Rome and elsewhere was that large numbers of slaves were constantly being freed. It was very common for masters to free slaves in their will, or for good service, or to allow them to earn money and buy their freedom.
Freed slaves could not become Roman citizens, but the children of freed slaves could, and usually did. Freed slaves could sometimes become wealthy and successful (and own their own slaves). Often slaves continued to be associated with their former masters in a patron-client relationship, but this was their choice. Legally, a freed slave was 100% free, as free as someone born free, and could not be re-enslaved.
Some of the scholary greek types deployed as slave tutors by the Romans, had in fact sold themselves into slavery as a career move, usually serving as a slave for a number of years with the expectation of beeing freed and granted a Roman citizenship after the end of the agreed upon period. The past was a bit weird
This. Conquered peoples and captured armies were routinely enslaved. There was nothing special about it, nor did they have to justify it on racial or ethnic grounds. That’s just how business was done.
And as others had mentioned, the Greeks happily enslaved other Greeks. While the Romans surely enslaved Greeks in the wake of battles (as was the custom of the day) they could also have just bought Greek slaves from Greek markets. I’m not aware of evidence that Greece under Rome involved mass enslavement any more or less than other regions that came under Roman control.
In Biblical Jewish law, a man who was in debt and unable to pay could voluntarily sell himself as a slave to his creditor. But he had to be released after six years, and couldn’t be released with nothing. “And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing floor, and out of thy wine-press.”
Under Roman Law under the Empire, it was an offense to free a slave who was old or unable to work, and simply throw him out on the street. A master was considered to have some responsibility for his slaves. Slaves had a right to appeal to the judicial authorities if they felt they were cruelly or unjustly treated.
I think you’re operating under modern morals. The ancients saw nothing wrong with slavery. It was part of the order of things. Slavery operated the (old) world over, from Britain to Japan, from the North Cape to the South Cape. Black, white, yellow, your skin colour was irrelevant. It only really changed in the 1700s.
Remember too that people were born into slavery. A slave trader with a long-term view would train a promising slave child to be a tutor or clerk or dancing girl or artist or whatever and then sell them at a profit.
Also, remember that the freeing of slaves (manumission) and slaves buying their freedom were normal things too - how common it was we don’t know.
One final point: if you were a slave, you were inside the social order. Sure you were at the bottom, but you were in, as opposed to the barbarians who were outside. And while you were theoretically at the bottom, your status depended upon your relationship with your owner: the tutor to Caesar’s children might be a slave, but he was still an important man. Slaves also rose high in the Ottoman empire. Of course, if you were a labourer in the mines then your life expectancy was very short and your importance minimal, no matter who your owner was.
The other key point is while (unlike later Europeans during transatlantic slave trade) there was no need for the Romans to come up with convoluted moral excuses for slavery, there was absolutely a need for them to come up with convoluted moral excuses for aggressively invading and conquering huge swathes of the world. Rome always liked think of themselves as only fighting justified wars, and never being the aggressor unless it was warranted. This was clearly not the case for much of their conquests, so they came up with the kind of excuses mentioned in the OP (“The hairy barbarians should be grateful we conquered them and brought them all our culture and enlightenment”)
