6 ms·

It is hard to apply terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to ancient societies, and I don't get at all how the Roman Empire cold be considered "extremely libe

by olavk 8y ago

It is hard to apply terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to ancient societies, and I don't get at all how the Roman Empire cold be considered "extremely liberal". It was thoroughly militarized dictatorship and patriarchal slave society. The ritual you describe sounds like something from a TV-show, but anyway religious rituals are not "liberal". The emperor was also the high priest and religious rituals was considered necessary to preserve the state. The Roman way of thinking was also fundamentally conservative in that they though everything had been better in the olden times.

candiodari 8y ago
"The olden times" makes me think you read Cicero. "The olden times" Cicero was talking about were the later days of the Roman republic perhaps 50BC or so. Those times were extremely progressive. And many of the social accomplishments, like the right to ignore your parents religion, equality between men and women ... were fought over and achieved in those times (well, before those times, really, but that wasn't how Cicero saw things). I would also like to point out that Roman slavery was not at all the same as Islamic slavery (which is what we think of when saying "slavery", and even then you could rightly argue that "most" islamic slavery was different. Islamic slavery after economic collapse is the model we think of as slavery. Not pleasant). Slaves, in the Roman republic, or the Roman empire, mostly went home in the evening (and all -save slaves of the justice system- had the choice to go home). They enjoyed health care. They lived in apartment blocks (yes, really), which may or may not have had plumbing (granted, plumbing was for the very rich slaves). Incidentally there were very rich slaves, a fact even true in Islamic times. You see, most jobs aside from market trader/"CEO" were slave jobs. Doctor ? Most likely a slave. Architect ? Slave. Factory "manager" ? Slave. Very high government administrators, like the director of the Colliseum ? Slave. Slavery did not mean you were poor, or that you were imprisoned. Not at all. With the exception of "justice" slaves (ie. convicted -rightly or otherwise- criminals). Those were the people working in the mines and on the galleys. And in ancient Rome, as I pointed out, you could pay for more services than you can today. I don't even necessarily mean that in a bad way. Sure, you could pay for sex acts, but equally you could pay to have fine metalwork done (in fact, doctors did that quite often). Women slaves were married, and generally not to their "owners", and had high functions themselves (negotiations for building things, for instance, were often carried out by women).
- olavk 8y ago
  Roman slaves were still slaves in that they could be raped freely by their masters (regardless of age, gender and martial status) and ones spouse and kids could be sold at will by the owner. If this made you angry and you tried to kill your master, then all slaves in the household would be killed as retaliation. Slaves did not have any kind of legal rights. Sure some of them could have high ranking jobs (and some was able to save up to buy their freedom if the owner allowed it), but the vast majority performed hard manual work on farms. I don't know what you mean by "imprisoned", but if slaves tried to run away they would be tortured and probably killed in gruesome ways like with crucifixion. There were multiple slave rebellions because it was not generally pleasant to be a slave. I wouldn't call this "extremely progressive".
  - candiodari 8y ago
    > Roman slaves were still slaves in that they could be raped freely by their masters Nope. Only if so specified in the contract (of course, some slaves were explicitly hired for sexual services, just like today some people are hired for sexual services, from porn production to "hospitality services"). Also I do believe that rape was never covered, although sexual services might indeed be the expected "work" that the slave was contracted for, certainly. Again, this is not really different for today. Would you say a porn actor/actress is "raped" ? Because in some ways you could say that their boss has them raped. How about people hired into brothels (and paid), who don't even know who they agree to have sex with when hired ? > kids could be sold at will by the owner Nope. Although there is some confusion. Kids were generally expected to help with their parents until a certain age, at which age they were free men/women. At that point, they could enter into a slavery contract (paid, was one of the conditions). Generally there were various protections in slave contracts, against, for instance, large differences in job function. If an owner violated those, a slave could have the contract reviewed and gain his/her freedom. It's not that different from the position of employee today. You can be "sold" in the sense that anyone can buy their way into becoming your boss (assuming your current boss agrees on the price, just like back then), and you cannot just immediately leave for just that. > Slaves did not have any kind of legal rights. Yes they did. The fundamental right any slave had was to ask for a review of their status, and whether the contract was upheld. Any and all slaves, even convicted slaves, had that right. There were various other rights that most slaves had, and generally the contracts specified extra rights. And, as I said, most slaves, especially in Rome, were not "fulltime" slaves. On remote farms, it was of customary for slaves to stay on the owner's property, for obvious reasons. > some was able to save up buy their freedom if the owner allowed it Roman slaves were always freed after a given amount of time. Granted, the state kept extending that time, but it was limited even at the very end (I believe to 10y for private owners, 20y for the state). Even state slaves had "side jobs". For instance, most gladiators had a funny side income, and the state actually allowed and helped them with that. They would perform sexual services for any woman willing to pay for those (and apparently they commanded a very high price) on their off days. (note there were female gladiators too, even though not many, and yes they did the same. I believe one of the texts even points out that most of their customers were also female, and yes, any gladiator could refuse to do this, even though that was not a good way to make yourself popular). Gladiator contracts are some of the known contracts, for instance. There were provisions that if you were killed (few non-convicted gladiators were, incidentally) the state would provide for your family or parents. You were allowed to have the above-mentioned side job, and you agreed to allow the Praetorian guard and 2 other military organizations to hire you if they wanted to, but you were allowed to limit your work there to, I believe 2 years or so (again, it is written that this is how they recruited officers, so essentially no-one ever left, though quite a few were killed along with the person they were protecting. BTW quite a few means a few dozen over 3 centuries). > killed in gruesome ways like with crucifixion Nope, although the state famously did that en masse to slaves (and some free men and women) in Spartacus' slave revolt, and on a smaller scale after that. I'm not saying that was OK, but I do hope you see that those were the state exercising punitive legal action on criminals, and not owners just doing that to their slaves for fun (like actually happened in the Ottoman empire, for example, killing/hunting slaves for fun) > I wouldn't call this "extremely progressive". Extremely progressive relates to what personal (non-criminal even) actions would get you banned out of polite society, or worse. In that regard, Rome was extremely progressive. Senators in Rome were famous for just how far they went with this. Apparently in the Senate throwing a birthday party for someone else, and inviting 250+ prostitutes was, aside from the shear number of prostitutes, not a rare occurrence in the last years of the republic. Likewise having male-male, or female-female relationships, even with prostitutes was likely to improve rather than detract from your social status. I understand that that doesn't mean doing this was free. Let's say Trump, or Obama, or Clinton if you like, did the same. Let's say they all get together (spouses and children included), hire every prostitute on the west coast, and make a night of it, including gay and lesbian relations with prostitutes and guests, then brag about it in congress. Do you think society would understand ? Even the French, who seem to tolerate the president having a mistress, would kick out any politician, or anyone else, for that. That's what I mean by progressive.

by olavk 8y ago

candiodari 8y ago

"The olden times" makes me think you read Cicero. "The olden times" Cicero was talking about were the later days of the Roman republic perhaps 50BC or so. Those times were extremely progressive. And many of the social accomplishments, like the right to ignore your parents religion, equality between men and women ... were fought over and achieved in those times (well, before those times, really, but that wasn't how Cicero saw things). I would also like to point out that Roman slavery was not at all the same as Islamic slavery (which is what we think of when saying "slavery", and even then you could rightly argue that "most" islamic slavery was different. Islamic slavery after economic collapse is the model we think of as slavery. Not pleasant). Slaves, in the Roman republic, or the Roman empire, mostly went home in the evening (and all -save slaves of the justice system- had the choice to go home). They enjoyed health care. They lived in apartment blocks (yes, really), which may or may not have had plumbing (granted, plumbing was for the very rich slaves). Incidentally there were very rich slaves, a fact even true in Islamic times. You see, most jobs aside from market trader/"CEO" were slave jobs. Doctor ? Most likely a slave. Architect ? Slave. Factory "manager" ? Slave. Very high government administrators, like the director of the Colliseum ? Slave. Slavery did not mean you were poor, or that you were imprisoned. Not at all. With the exception of "justice" slaves (ie. convicted -rightly or otherwise- criminals). Those were the people working in the mines and on the galleys. And in ancient Rome, as I pointed out, you could pay for more services than you can today. I don't even necessarily mean that in a bad way. Sure, you could pay for sex acts, but equally you could pay to have fine metalwork done (in fact, doctors did that quite often). Women slaves were married, and generally not to their "owners", and had high functions themselves (negotiations for building things, for instance, were often carried out by women).

olavk 8y ago
Roman slaves were still slaves in that they could be raped freely by their masters (regardless of age, gender and martial status) and ones spouse and kids could be sold at will by the owner. If this made you angry and you tried to kill your master, then all slaves in the household would be killed as retaliation. Slaves did not have any kind of legal rights. Sure some of them could have high ranking jobs (and some was able to save up to buy their freedom if the owner allowed it), but the vast majority performed hard manual work on farms. I don't know what you mean by "imprisoned", but if slaves tried to run away they would be tortured and probably killed in gruesome ways like with crucifixion. There were multiple slave rebellions because it was not generally pleasant to be a slave. I wouldn't call this "extremely progressive".
- candiodari 8y ago
  > Roman slaves were still slaves in that they could be raped freely by their masters Nope. Only if so specified in the contract (of course, some slaves were explicitly hired for sexual services, just like today some people are hired for sexual services, from porn production to "hospitality services"). Also I do believe that rape was never covered, although sexual services might indeed be the expected "work" that the slave was contracted for, certainly. Again, this is not really different for today. Would you say a porn actor/actress is "raped" ? Because in some ways you could say that their boss has them raped. How about people hired into brothels (and paid), who don't even know who they agree to have sex with when hired ? > kids could be sold at will by the owner Nope. Although there is some confusion. Kids were generally expected to help with their parents until a certain age, at which age they were free men/women. At that point, they could enter into a slavery contract (paid, was one of the conditions). Generally there were various protections in slave contracts, against, for instance, large differences in job function. If an owner violated those, a slave could have the contract reviewed and gain his/her freedom. It's not that different from the position of employee today. You can be "sold" in the sense that anyone can buy their way into becoming your boss (assuming your current boss agrees on the price, just like back then), and you cannot just immediately leave for just that. > Slaves did not have any kind of legal rights. Yes they did. The fundamental right any slave had was to ask for a review of their status, and whether the contract was upheld. Any and all slaves, even convicted slaves, had that right. There were various other rights that most slaves had, and generally the contracts specified extra rights. And, as I said, most slaves, especially in Rome, were not "fulltime" slaves. On remote farms, it was of customary for slaves to stay on the owner's property, for obvious reasons. > some was able to save up buy their freedom if the owner allowed it Roman slaves were always freed after a given amount of time. Granted, the state kept extending that time, but it was limited even at the very end (I believe to 10y for private owners, 20y for the state). Even state slaves had "side jobs". For instance, most gladiators had a funny side income, and the state actually allowed and helped them with that. They would perform sexual services for any woman willing to pay for those (and apparently they commanded a very high price) on their off days. (note there were female gladiators too, even though not many, and yes they did the same. I believe one of the texts even points out that most of their customers were also female, and yes, any gladiator could refuse to do this, even though that was not a good way to make yourself popular). Gladiator contracts are some of the known contracts, for instance. There were provisions that if you were killed (few non-convicted gladiators were, incidentally) the state would provide for your family or parents. You were allowed to have the above-mentioned side job, and you agreed to allow the Praetorian guard and 2 other military organizations to hire you if they wanted to, but you were allowed to limit your work there to, I believe 2 years or so (again, it is written that this is how they recruited officers, so essentially no-one ever left, though quite a few were killed along with the person they were protecting. BTW quite a few means a few dozen over 3 centuries). > killed in gruesome ways like with crucifixion Nope, although the state famously did that en masse to slaves (and some free men and women) in Spartacus' slave revolt, and on a smaller scale after that. I'm not saying that was OK, but I do hope you see that those were the state exercising punitive legal action on criminals, and not owners just doing that to their slaves for fun (like actually happened in the Ottoman empire, for example, killing/hunting slaves for fun) > I wouldn't call this "extremely progressive". Extremely progressive relates to what personal (non-criminal even) actions would get you banned out of polite society, or worse. In that regard, Rome was extremely progressive. Senators in Rome were famous for just how far they went with this. Apparently in the Senate throwing a birthday party for someone else, and inviting 250+ prostitutes was, aside from the shear number of prostitutes, not a rare occurrence in the last years of the republic. Likewise having male-male, or female-female relationships, even with prostitutes was likely to improve rather than detract from your social status. I understand that that doesn't mean doing this was free. Let's say Trump, or Obama, or Clinton if you like, did the same. Let's say they all get together (spouses and children included), hire every prostitute on the west coast, and make a night of it, including gay and lesbian relations with prostitutes and guests, then brag about it in congress. Do you think society would understand ? Even the French, who seem to tolerate the president having a mistress, would kick out any politician, or anyone else, for that. That's what I mean by progressive.