3 ms·

Sure, but the end of Roman slavery was just the collapse of the economy. No one bought slaves any more so slaves became serfs - no longer sellable people but pe

Sure, but the end of Roman slavery was just the collapse of the economy. No one bought slaves any more so slaves became serfs - no longer sellable people but people tied to the land and coerced to work. That's hardly a sign of marvelous progress.

legulere 7y ago
While still being a horrible situation serfs had significantly more freedoms than Roman slaves. Serfs were able to hold possessions, work for themselves, and did not have an owner that had complete freedom over them including killing them.
- varjag 7y ago
  I'm unfortunately ignorant on history of serfdom in Western Europe, but serfs in Russia were effectively owned by landowners. Killings, corporal punishment, family separation were routine practices.
- literallycancer 7y ago
  Roman slaves could own property including other slaves. They could be doctors, architects, teachers & other occupations that would be considered middle class today.
ErotemeObelus 7y ago
Serfs had all the human rights except for the right to travel. Slaves had NONE.
profunctor 7y ago
I would be really interested to read about the transition of slaves to serfs after the fall of Rome. Is this your own hypothesis or something that has been written about?
- usrusr 7y ago
  I think it was meant very much in the figurative way. In continental Europe, Roman society never really stopped, it just changed a lot. Even Goths and Lombards would try to "become Romans" as much as replace them, happily adopting titles and structures (with varying levels of success). A big hindrance to seeing continuity is that popular knowledge of "romanness" is so focused on the late republican/early imperial era and there is surely not much visibly continuity between early medieval and a snapshot of the Roman state outdated by several hundred years.
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
Serfdom is just a mortgage by anyther name. Unless you own your house you are a serf too.

legulere 7y ago

While still being a horrible situation serfs had significantly more freedoms than Roman slaves. Serfs were able to hold possessions, work for themselves, and did not have an owner that had complete freedom over them including killing them.

varjag 7y ago
I'm unfortunately ignorant on history of serfdom in Western Europe, but serfs in Russia were effectively owned by landowners. Killings, corporal punishment, family separation were routine practices.
literallycancer 7y ago
Roman slaves could own property including other slaves. They could be doctors, architects, teachers & other occupations that would be considered middle class today.

ErotemeObelus 7y ago

Serfs had all the human rights except for the right to travel. Slaves had NONE.

profunctor 7y ago

I would be really interested to read about the transition of slaves to serfs after the fall of Rome. Is this your own hypothesis or something that has been written about?

usrusr 7y ago
I think it was meant very much in the figurative way. In continental Europe, Roman society never really stopped, it just changed a lot. Even Goths and Lombards would try to "become Romans" as much as replace them, happily adopting titles and structures (with varying levels of success). A big hindrance to seeing continuity is that popular knowledge of "romanness" is so focused on the late republican/early imperial era and there is surely not much visibly continuity between early medieval and a snapshot of the Roman state outdated by several hundred years.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

Serfdom is just a mortgage by anyther name. Unless you own your house you are a serf too.