(Notes) Slavery in Ancient Greece and Rome

A set of notes taken on the practice of slavery in ancient civilizations, in relation to the portrayal of slavery in the Kingdom of Paraphilia.

## Overview

Slavery in ancient times was just a part of the culture, as
much as cashiers and car-wash attendants are now. It was believed that some
people were meant to be kings, and others were meant to serve them. Cities
owned slaves whose work paid for roads and upkeep. Farm-holds owned slaves to
work the fields and make textiles. Craftsmen, accountants, even parts of the
military were comprised entirely of owned people. Some were paid, while others
were not. It was generally accepted that their lot in life was to serve and be
loyal to their master, and receive honor and good treatment in return.

The distinction between slave and servant in this context is
so vague that the difference comes down to rights. Servants had the *right* to choose who they worked for, and
to quit and find another job if they chose. [Vicqt (I)] They were citizens of
their particular city or country, and as such could vote, speak their minds,
and own property. Slaves *were*
property—referred to in Greek as “beasts with the feet of men”…distinct from
cattle in that they could *walk upright*.

How their lives went depended entirely on their usefulness,
their behavior, and the will of their masters. They did not have a choice,
because they were not people in the eyes of the law. Keys unlock doors, horses
pull ploughs, slaves do as they’re told. They were *things,* with a purpose. If they complied with that purpose, they
were well cared-for, even content. [Mercy] Some could gain power, come to own
property, even buy their freedom. The general opinion was that good work earned
good reward, and mischief earned punishment. It was just good business to be a
good slave.

And almost no one questioned it. It was not only considered
normal, but *necessary*, in order for
society to function.

## Becoming a Slave

Slaves could be procured in a number of ways, with the most
common being capture due to war. These slaves were often bought from the
military or taken by traders and transported to cities where they could be sold
at market. Even survivors on the enemy side of a battle could wind up in
chains. [The Subjugated, *AtS*]

Other methods were piracy (kidnapping people to sell to
dealers), *direct* sale (peasants
selling their children, or countries selling their *people*) and indenturing (the poor selling their debt to the rich in
return for work and safety). Out of these, the latter had *some* rights, but not many, because of the prior distinction:
indentured serfs were still citizens, so they were still *people*. Just people without money, in need of a way to keep living.
[Rhys/Cristi, *UNS*]

Oddly, slaves were not generally bred. It was cheaper to buy
a full-grown man with a skill than risk losing a female slave to childbirth and
having to raise and take care of the child. Because slaves were worth only so
much as they were useful, a newborn was worth next to nothing on its own. The
risk to a functional part of the household was *just not worth it*.

That being said, children born to a slave mother by their *master* were not uncommon, as households
were usually populated by kept women and men are notoriously entitled. In Roman
culture, slaves born in the household were considered the responsibility of the
master as their creator, and so usually got better care due to social pressure.
[Jonathan] Because of this, they usually earned a higher level of
responsibility, the connection to their master apparently making them more
trustworthy. They were also freed more often, and taken care of even after.

However, in *Greece*,
children inherited the rank and status of their mother. That means a baby born
to a slave woman was *also* a slave,
especially if the master did not claim it. [Frederick, and possibly Fred] While
this implies the opposite for slave-fathered children [*also* possibly Fred], with a noble-mothered child becoming a
recognized bastard, there are no examples.

This is likely because any noblewoman bearing another man’s child
would pass it off as her husband’s, and nobody would say otherwise.

## Acquisition

Markets are a great place to pick up anything you need, and
slave markets were so much a staple in ancient Rome that specific cities were
notorious for it. While not all slaves were bought at market, those of the
highest value were.

Presentation of a slave was much like any other product. Men
and women stood on platforms completely nude, to be certain the buyer knew what
they were getting, usually hung with or beside a sign that listed their traits.
Relevant information included their origins, levels of education (such as
whether they could read, write or count), notes on general demeanor (such as
being passive or easily startled), and professions if applicable. Pricing
depended entirely on their usefulness. A *smart*
slave was worth more than a pretty slave, but pretty was worth more than *crippled*. Skills cost more by default.
The scale varied depending on what the slaver specialized in, and where the
slaves came from.

Like with any business, professional slavers were expected
to offer a measure of quality in their product. Full disclosure was demanded by
law; disabilities and potential issues were to be presented to the buyer at the
time of purchase. [Dianthe] There was even a Lemon Law built in; if a slave was
sold under false pretenses—such as being falsely marketed as literate—the buyer
had the right to return the slave for a refund within six months. The Roman
government *strictly* enforced this. If
a slave was found to be too much trouble, or inflicted damages to their new
master’s household [Danja, *AtS*], the
slaver was expected to reimburse the buyer for their losses.

Slaves could be sold As-Is, with a no-returns policy
implied, but they were distinguished from the others visibly, in most cases by
the addition of a cap. This told the buyer they got what they got, and the
slaver was not going to be responsible for what happened once money changed hands.
As a result, these slaves were usually cheaper, but came with issues, such as
poor training, health problems or other less-convenient weaknesses.

## Uses

Depending on their age, fitness, gender, and skills, slaves
could have any number of jobs. Roman slaves could be accountants or secretaries
as easily as they could be laborers, while in Greece, most slaves were used for
farming. The need dictated the job. The divide was generally by sex: men did labor
and thinking-work, women did housework.

There is little to no reference to the use of child-slaves
outside of Greece, where interactions with children were culturally *different* just by nature.

Women were kept in the house to be used as wet nurses,
handmaidens and the like, mostly to help keep the household maintained and
running. Some ended up working as craftsmen, making baskets and weaving
blankets, even acting as seamstresses. They were low-maintenance servants to assist the lady of the house—when they weren’t being tapped for *other* uses by the *men* of the house. Note: How much *consent* is involved in this is questionable, because remember,
slaves don’t have rights. (There’s not a lot of reference to women being
adverse, but women did not have opinions by default in most cultures…)

Men had a lot more use, both culturally and physically.
Depending on their status and origins, they could be educated in order to work
accountants or number-keepers for their masters. Some came from their prior
lives with skills, which made them more valuable to those with a trade. [The
Giant, *AtS*] The loyalty that came
with being a slave over a long period of time meant they could be trusted with
more, to the point that many educated slaves in Rome were paid for their work.
Those who were more prone to violence or came from battlefields however usually
found themselves in labor jobs. [Barja; *AtS*]
The most aggressive or disobedient were sold to gladiator schools to be made a
show of, with the promise of potentially buying their freedom…*if* they survived.

Slaves of either gender that were pretty but otherwise
ignorant, useless, or unlikable ended up sold to brothels for sex work. In some
cases, this was equally as bad as being leased to a labor camp.

Because they were property, slaves could be leased or rented
out by the dozens for a number of purposes. Those not useful or loyal to the
house, or those bought in bulk for the purpose of making money, could be loaned
out by the day, with a coin for each head going to their master. Workhouse
owners could lease women to weave blankets and make pots, while those with
mines and quarries could rent a few dozen young men. Clear enough which of
these groups got the short straw.

The intention for those of little personal value or skill was
to get as much money out of them as possible before they were killed, escaped,
or aged out. The latter point was almost nonexistent; most assigned to labor
jobs outside of farming died from the strain.

## Quality of Life

While still owned and expected to perform on command, slaves
who served noble houses were taken care of, as a prize horse might be. Obedient
slaves were provided with good meals and warm clothing, often boarding in the
houses they served, as opposed to the gutters and ghettos where the free were
slowly starving. Those in high city positions or parts of large households
often enjoyed a better quality of life than the farmers who worked their
masters’ land for pay.

Slaves in general did not have rights to themselves or their
things, but those with higher positions or more skills had more flexibility
with *how* their slavery affected them.
Those owned by cities or with high ranks sometimes had more freedoms than
regular peasants, having more resources and better protections due to their
value. While an illiterate laborer was as good as a mule, an educated or
skilled slave could be allowed to work, paying a fee to their masters in return
for the right to ply their trade and make their own money, in the interest of
buying their freedom. This sort of independence was limited to those who showed
great loyalty and owned marketable skills, usually with high-ranking
patrons—such as the Roman Emperor—who were not short of bodies to do their
menial work.

By contrast, slaves of lower rank often had nothing to their
names, with those confined to brothels and mines doomed to a short and
miserable existence in filth and disease. The ability to buy freedom for this
poor lot was nonexistent; their income went to their masters, and they worked
until they were no more use, or perished of the conditions.

Cases of slaves escaping occurred on most all levels, but
the lower the rank and the worse the conditions, the more common escape
attempts became. A brothel slave was more likely to bolt than a house slave,
but a menial with a cruel master might still cut and run. [Aron]

It was generally frowned upon as a practice to keep too many
of the same race of slaves in one place, for fear of them banding together out
of some sense of brotherhood. This, it turns out, was justified. Because of its
habit of taking warriors as slaves, Rome dealt with a *comical* amount of rebellions, to the point of having three separate
wars—the Servile Wars—as a result. Gladiators and captured soldiers rose up and
turned on their masters, encouraging others to do the same. [*Amongst the Stars*] Slaves recaptured
after such things went right into the animal pits in the gladiator arena. If
they survived, odds of repeat attempts were low.

## Treatment and Punishment

Some schools of thought suggested that slaves were cattle,
and should be treated that way. Others insisted on systems of reward and
punishment, to encourage good behavior. Even just explaining the reasoning
behind a command might inspire a slave to cooperate without having to bruise
them up. Regardless, it was accepted that slaves were to obey, and could expect
to be fed and housed as a result. Breaking this contract invited the master’s
wrath. What that wrath entailed varied, depending on laws, ranks and the
circumstances involved.

Some cities regulated just how much punishment could be
doled out, and for what reasons. Others only had the rule that the master’s
word was law, a life forfeit as his convenience. It all depended on the
details. The lower the rank, the more miserable the existence. Brothel workers
and mine slaves suffered tremendously, in terrible conditions, where household
menials might only suffer when disobedient, with lashing or skipped meals being
the worst of it for small infractions. For example, in Rome, a slave
hairdresser could be flogged for messing up a haircut, where a thief could have
his fingers cut off. Those who misbehaved regularly found themselves at the end
of a whip. A particularly disobedient slave might be shipped off to the
gladiator schools, or rented out to a quarry. In Athens in particular, a master
could dispose of a slave at any time, for any reason, where in Rome, there were
eventual laws that could see a master tried for murder if he killed a slave
without “good cause”. Standards were all across the board.

There were certain humanist groups—the Stoics, in Rome,
being the most prominent—that believed all people were people, no matter their
station, and therefore deserving of respect. These people did not push for *freedom* so much as *fair treatment*, and encouraged the emperor to pass laws to protect
the slaves. Loyal slaves, they said, who did as told did not deserve undue
punishment. Despite this insistence, some masters took the knowledge of their
complete ownership as a sign that they could do what they chose to their slaves
[Leigh Prince], even if they knew their place and kept to it. [Mercy]

Because of this, eventual laws were passed to allow slaves
to file complaints in court against abusive masters, which *sometimes* forced better treatment. This was not just for the
slaves’ sakes; it was also to be certain that no man was allowed to act like a
monster without consequence. (Because if you’ll beat a slave to death, what’s
to stop you from doing it to a free man?) Whether this resulted in later, more
subtle punishment is not clear, but masters charged with abuse were often
forced to pay fines to the court.

In spite of this understanding, a number of Greek
philosophers insisted that violence against slaves was required, and deserved
for crimes. The judgment of this was at the master’s discretion.

Punishment was not limited to corporal violence, however.
Other forms of “behavioral correction” included starvation, in the form of
meager or skipped meals, exposure by lack of properly covering clothing, or
longer working hours, leading to exhaustion. None of this was regulated; these
provisions were part of the contract. When the slave disobeyed, they forfeited
the right to their master’s grace, and as such lost privileges like food and
shoes.

## Escaped Slaves

Despite social beliefs that slavery was necessary and natural,
not every person was at peace with wearing chains. Escapes and escape attempts
were common; a house menial might slip out of the house when not under watch,
or a prisoner at a camp might wriggle from his shackles and disappear into the
night. Those who made it that far were at once at risk of recapture. No place
in Rome or Greece was safe for those who slipped their chains.

Having potentially invested large sums of money and time
into the care of their pets, slave owners took great measures to regain their
lost assets. Detailed descriptions were given out not only to law enforcement,
but the general public, highlighting notable features, clothing, scars and
anything else that could identify the escapee. Slave hunters called runaway
catchers often took to the task, with some remaining on the patron’s payroll
indefinitely. These hunters made a business of chasing down escapees and
returning them for a bounty.

Once caught, the offending slave faced harsh punishments,
ranging from lashing and torture to execution, at their master’s discretion.
Those considered too valuable to kill suffered to have their foreheads branded
with FUG, meaning fugitive, so that anyone who looked upon them would know to
be wary of them. These were often disfiguring and a source of great shame.

Countermeasures were used to deter slaves from trying to
escape at all. Those who were often allowed out in public on their own were
often tattooed on the forehead to identify them as someone’s property. This
practice was so common that the temple of the Greek god of healing was found to
have tablets left by escaped slaves, praying that the marks be removed. Slaves
could often be identified by scarfs or headbands worn across the brow to cover
these marks. Others were fitted with riveted collars that listed the name of
their owner and the offer of a reward if they were seen out of bounds. Removing
these things without help would have been impossible, and going to a smith ran
the risk of being turned in.

## As Legal Entities

Slaves were legally unable to own things. Under the law,
because they did not own *themselves*,
everything that came from a slave was their *master’s*
property, including their labor, crafts, even their *children* belonged to him. A family of slaves could be divided any
way the master saw fit and the law did nothing to protect them.

A rare exception to this rule was documented in Rome, where
a master could permit a high-ranking and loyal slave to “own” property. Though
the property in question belonged to the master through the same rules as
above, they could be permitted to keep it with his leave. He simply chose not
to take it from them, or to allow them to live on and gain from it at his will.
Under these same rules, a slave buying his freedom was given the chance to buy
another slave out of bondage, usually a spouse or family member.

Treatment of slaves by others was regulated the same way
property might be; a slight against a slave was to be repaid to the master as a
fine, and abuse of a slave was still a crime, which could be prosecuted. This
included cases where a slave belonging to someone was assaulted, physically or
otherwise. At the master’s word, the offender could be brought to court and
forced to pay the damage. However, damages paid for offenses against slaves
were *much* lower than those of free
people. The exception applied to virgins, as this was a valuing quality that
could not be replaced.

As property, the word of a slave meant nothing in court as
evidence…unless it was gained by *torture*.
It was believed a slave would be too innocently loyal to his or her master to
speak against them unless forced, so their word meant nothing otherwise. Partly
because of this, a master represented his slave in court, speaking on his or
her behalf, placing accusations, or answering accusations placed against them.

## The Deal with Athens

Rome became known for its many restrictions on the treatment
of slaves, but Greece did things differently. Athens in particular was
well-known for how much freedom its slaves had, to the point that the rest of
Greece was genuinely annoyed by it. As many of them were allowed to walk around
freely while on errands, striking a slave was against the law, because slaves
could not be told from normal peasants. The slave you may have smacked might
also have been a merchant, and guess what? That’s assault. Knowing this,
Athenian slaves were known to be more proud and less shy, and many spoke their
minds in the streets, their respect saved for their masters. This *infuriated* people from other cities and
countries, where the restrictions were tighter and obedience more expected.

Despite their apparent freedoms, Athens had a great number
of slaves escape when the chance came up after a particularly ugly battle.
Detractors believed this was likely because they were spoiled (read: not scared
enough to resist fleeing). However, unlike Rome, Athens never had any massive
slave uprisings. This may have had something to do with the somewhat better
treatment, and the fact that Greek slaves were usually farmers if they weren’t
menials.

That Greek slaves were less numerous than Romans also
prevented them from creating armies.

Restrictions did exist for what a slave could and could not
do. They were permitted to take part in religion, to attend mass and ceremonies
and to worship their own gods as they fit. They were not, however, allowed to
take part in the Greek pastime of *being*
gay *with younger men. Male slaves were banned from many of the sporting*
events that were all-male and involved contact, and a male slave making a pass
at a “free boy” could be punished with *fifty*
lashes *for one offense. They were so distrusted that slave guards were*
often hired by fathers to accompany their young sons on the road. This implies a
lot of distrust of the self-assured male slave population of Athens.

Whether this is justified at all is up in the air.

## Freedom

In the end, slavery itself was a numbers game, and it all
comes down to money. A slave able to work for some amount of coin was sometimes
able to save up the cost of his own head, and buy his freedom from his master. Though
some masters purposely bent how much their slaves could make to avoid this
outcome, others still allowed their menials to buy themselves off readily, glad
to be shot of a depreciating asset.

It became so common that the Roman Emperor *banned* the freeing of any slave younger
than 30, as the sudden deluge of freedmen caused a labor imbalance.

An agreement is reached on a price and the terms under which
the deal is set. In most cases, this required the slave to return to their former
master annually to show deference, and restricted them from gathering more
wealth than the household they came from. The price was at least what they were
worth, more if they want to retain favor with an influential master. However,
freedom was not always complete; if the price was too high, a slave could buy *partial* freedom, leaving his master’s
descendants the right to call him back into service if they so choose until he
dies. Contracts varied, depending on the master.

Freedom could also be obtained in a number of other ways.
Particularly loyal slaves could earn their master’s favor enough to be freed
out of kindness or friendship, and retain their former master as a patron, who
would sponsor them with an allowance. It was also common to free slaves fully
or partially in their former owner’s Will after his death.

In all cases, a ceremony of manumission would take place,
symbolizing the master’s cutting his slave’s chains. These events were usually
sponsored by a temple, which would take a cut of the fee in return for guaranteeing
the contract of freedom would be enforced.

A slave who earns manumission becomes a freedman. Once his
or her full freedom was purchased, an emancipated slave was *protected by law* from re-enslavement.
This prevented the former master’s children from claiming rights to them. While
not fully citizens in the eyes of the law, they could not be captured or sold
again into slavery. Any children born from freedmen were considered full free
citizens of Rome.

Freedom, while considered the ultimate goal for slaves, was
not always a gift. For those who were too old, too sick, or too crippled to
work, being free only left them homeless and with no way to provide for
themselves. Some masters might accept the payment for an aging slave’s freedom,
only to buy a new young slave with the coin, leaving the newly-made freedman to
the mercy of being just another unlucky peasant. Without the skills or ability
to provide for themselves, this leaves them in a less advantageous position
than they left, requiring a good relationship with their former master for the
sake of charity.

In the simplest terms, this means a freedman in certain
circumstances may never truly be free.

## Sources

**Wikipedia**

* *Slavery in Ancient Rome*
* *Slavery in Ancient Greece*