4 ms·

> "With slaves, however, who were stakeholders in the system," "With slaves, however, who's stakes were forcibly held by others in the system," FTFY

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 5y ago
Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. The prospect of manumission was a huge incentive for the slave to work harder and smarter. Some freedmen became very rich. The slaveowners could theoretically renege on their promise, but rarely did so, because they would lose the profit of their slaves believing them and working harder. Romans were pretty Machiavelistic when it came to incentives. Their methods usually worked, even though they could hardly be described as morally sound.
- libraryatnight 5y ago
  was there a pricing structure for buying one's freedom, or was it up to each master?
  - foobarian 5y ago
    There was an advancement ladder, starting with individual contributor levels from junior to senior, moving on to roles with more responsibility starting with principal to senior principal. The last levels were the director and senior director levels, after which you crossed into the freedom levels with two letter titles. /s
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    Once I saw this great documentary called A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. It does a great job of explaining the system and structure, and with colorful characters at that!
- nerdponx 5y ago
  "Skin in the game" though it might be, these enslaved individuals only became stakeholders by force, and not by choice. I think the analogy to business is still act, but with a bit more of a sinister connotation.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. And that may not have been the perk it's sometimes made out to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome > However, the master could arrange that slaves would only have enough money to buy their freedom when they were too old to work. They could then use the money to buy a new young slave while the old slave, unable to work, would be forced to rely on charity to stay alive.[62]
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Oh yes, slavery sucks regardless of time and place. And we haven't even touched the fate of non-household slaves. Agricultural slaves, much more numerous than household slaves, had back-breaking work, but at least somewhat survivable. Slaves sent to the mines or to the galleys (rowing ships) rarely survived for more than three years. It was basically a delayed death sentence.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  Well it was kind of a social contract, and it was primarily the Greek slaves who achieved manumission, starting from a position of parity in cultural and racial perception (we're speaking purely in terms of their status in the Mediterranean as a people with greatness, with the legacy of a great history which in general is the consequence of being conquerors), and usually an advantage in most intellectual matters. In the intellectual the Roman shone in oratory, law, civil engineering, and others I forget. There are many where the Romans were considered the best. But Greek language was of greater prestige in the highest circles of Rome, for instance the last words of Gauis Julius Caesar were in Greek, tutors had to be Greek, and Greek slaves played, under working conditions enviable even by many Americans in the 21st century, an essential part in the production of the Aeneid, which was the equivalent of the time of a major motion picture, and which involved extensive cryptography. Cryptographic techniques of the time were used to conceal its true message for thousands of years, while ensuring there was enough fidelity in the whole work to ensure the message could be conveyed. What this meant in practice is the Greeks serving Virgil had to count sounds in verses by applying certain rules to the characters, and count with absolute certainty. Coming full circle, for such great undertakings that required such great secrecy to conceal the message from the Emperor the slave's loyalty could really only be bought with the sound promise of freedom.
vorpalhex 5y ago
You aren't the only person making this mistake but don't assume Roman slavery was like American chattel slavery. Roman slavery was still slavery and still had abuses but it was not "slavery till death, for all your generations". Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Slaves often ran businesses, engaged in basically white collar work, and often times were skilled craftsmen who exceeded their masters skill.
- Majromax 5y ago
  > Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission. Yes, exactly. For instance, slaves would be disfigured to prevent escape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome: > As most slaves in the Roman world could easily blend into the population if they escaped, it was normal for the masters to discourage slaves from running away by putting a tattoo reading "Stop me! I am a runaway!" or "tax paid" if the slaves were owned by the Roman state on the foreheads of their slaves.[65] For this reason, slaves usually wore headbands to cover up their disfiguring tattoos and at the Temple of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing, in Ephesus, archeologists have found thousands of tablets from escaped slaves asking Asclepius to make the tattoos on their foreheads disappear.[66]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

inglor_cz 5y ago

Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. The prospect of manumission was a huge incentive for the slave to work harder and smarter. Some freedmen became very rich. The slaveowners could theoretically renege on their promise, but rarely did so, because they would lose the profit of their slaves believing them and working harder. Romans were pretty Machiavelistic when it came to incentives. Their methods usually worked, even though they could hardly be described as morally sound.

libraryatnight 5y ago
was there a pricing structure for buying one's freedom, or was it up to each master?
- foobarian 5y ago
  There was an advancement ladder, starting with individual contributor levels from junior to senior, moving on to roles with more responsibility starting with principal to senior principal. The last levels were the director and senior director levels, after which you crossed into the freedom levels with two letter titles. /s
- nerdponx 5y ago
  Once I saw this great documentary called A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. It does a great job of explaining the system and structure, and with colorful characters at that!
nerdponx 5y ago
"Skin in the game" though it might be, these enslaved individuals only became stakeholders by force, and not by choice. I think the analogy to business is still act, but with a bit more of a sinister connotation.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. And that may not have been the perk it's sometimes made out to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome > However, the master could arrange that slaves would only have enough money to buy their freedom when they were too old to work. They could then use the money to buy a new young slave while the old slave, unable to work, would be forced to rely on charity to stay alive.[62]
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Oh yes, slavery sucks regardless of time and place. And we haven't even touched the fate of non-household slaves. Agricultural slaves, much more numerous than household slaves, had back-breaking work, but at least somewhat survivable. Slaves sent to the mines or to the galleys (rowing ships) rarely survived for more than three years. It was basically a delayed death sentence.
daniel-cussen 5y ago
Well it was kind of a social contract, and it was primarily the Greek slaves who achieved manumission, starting from a position of parity in cultural and racial perception (we're speaking purely in terms of their status in the Mediterranean as a people with greatness, with the legacy of a great history which in general is the consequence of being conquerors), and usually an advantage in most intellectual matters. In the intellectual the Roman shone in oratory, law, civil engineering, and others I forget. There are many where the Romans were considered the best. But Greek language was of greater prestige in the highest circles of Rome, for instance the last words of Gauis Julius Caesar were in Greek, tutors had to be Greek, and Greek slaves played, under working conditions enviable even by many Americans in the 21st century, an essential part in the production of the Aeneid, which was the equivalent of the time of a major motion picture, and which involved extensive cryptography. Cryptographic techniques of the time were used to conceal its true message for thousands of years, while ensuring there was enough fidelity in the whole work to ensure the message could be conveyed. What this meant in practice is the Greeks serving Virgil had to count sounds in verses by applying certain rules to the characters, and count with absolute certainty. Coming full circle, for such great undertakings that required such great secrecy to conceal the message from the Emperor the slave's loyalty could really only be bought with the sound promise of freedom.

vorpalhex 5y ago

You aren't the only person making this mistake but don't assume Roman slavery was like American chattel slavery. Roman slavery was still slavery and still had abuses but it was not "slavery till death, for all your generations". Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Slaves often ran businesses, engaged in basically white collar work, and often times were skilled craftsmen who exceeded their masters skill.

Majromax 5y ago
> Nor were slaves mere physical labor. Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Some slaves were not mere physical labour. However, many famers and miners were still enslaved people, worked in far more brutal conditions without the hope of manumission. Yes, exactly. For instance, slaves would be disfigured to prevent escape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome: > As most slaves in the Roman world could easily blend into the population if they escaped, it was normal for the masters to discourage slaves from running away by putting a tattoo reading "Stop me! I am a runaway!" or "tax paid" if the slaves were owned by the Roman state on the foreheads of their slaves.[65] For this reason, slaves usually wore headbands to cover up their disfiguring tattoos and at the Temple of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing, in Ephesus, archeologists have found thousands of tablets from escaped slaves asking Asclepius to make the tattoos on their foreheads disappear.[66]