(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.