How central was slavery as an institution to the Roman way of life? What functions did they perform? Ancient Rome was strongly dependent on slave labour. This was the case in Roman Italy more than in the rest of the empire and more so than other societies throughout history. It is important to determine who relied on slaves and who wasn�t. It is highly unlikely that a poor free-holding peasant family would have them central to their lives but a rich landowner would rely on them to a great extent. Their functions were varied from performing simple manual labouring tasks to fulfilling skilled management and design roles. The statistics quoted by Hopkins are revealing and surprising. To have a third of the most important country (Roman Italy) in the Mediterranean at this stage populated by slaves is incredible compared to the situation today and indeed throughout the majority of societies throughout history. This is a reflection on Roman society�s structure and the imperialistic tendencies of the ruling classes. The need to import slaves when there was a large quantity of under-employed free men available seems strange to modern eyes. Simple statistics (albeit unreliable) give a clear indication of the centrality of the institution of slavery. They impinged on nearly everybody�s life. The main supply of slaves came from the conquest of foreign nations. In the era of the mid to late republic, Rome was almost constantly at war. The rapid expansion of the empire led to much booty of which slaves were a significant part. The availability of such large numbers of slaves led to their price lowering enough to make their employment a viable possibility for the landed classes. Another indirect consequence of this constant war was that the need for slaves increased because many of the adult males had been sent away to war. Whether or not they died was often irrelevant according to Roman law. Any land left neglected or untended could be taken over by someone else. This meant long-term soldiers returned to find themselves without land. This extra land was normally taken over by the owner of a large estate and as such had to be tended by someone else. The normal solution for this problem in Roman Italy tended to be to employ slaves to farm it. However, the take-over of land was not a temporary situation: it was permanent so the slaves needed to be replaced when they died. This created problems when slave prices rose in periods of relative peace or low Roman success. The veterans who had suffered from lost land often petitioned their generals to try and set up colonies as Marius did in Africa. Thus the need for slaves continued to multiply as Rome continued its conquests. This then led to the institution of slavery becoming ever more prominent in the lives of Romans. Common ideas of slavery evoke images of Africans working cotton plantations in the Caribbean or in the southern states of North America. These are not very relevant to the situation in Rome. One crucial difference was the fact that many slaves were not poor uneducated savages � they came from some of the most cultured societies of antiquity such as Greece and Carthage. As such they were often skilled and educated. This meant that the tasks they could perform were far greater than those expected of more recent examples of the slave trade. Also slaves were not noticeably different from the average Roman in the same way that southern slaves were coloured and �owned� by white masters � they were of the same hue and appearance as their Roman masters. Of course, vast numbers of slaves were still used in menial tasks such as moving rocks and of simple harvesting but this was by no means the exclusive case. Many slaves were involved in complex administrative roles or in supervising chained gangs of other slaves. Psychology also played a crucial role in the slave situation. With an eventually established situation where slaves performed much of the manual work, the free citizens were unwilling to perform the same tasks as they felt themselves superior on a permanent basis. Whilst citizens would perform casual labour for large landowners, it was deemed below a citizen to become tied to a single employer as this was akin to slavery. When this psychology became a permanent feature of the average Roman, the landowners had no choice but to continue to rely on slaves. Rural to urban migration is a central feature of modern human geography but it was also a prominent feature of Roman Italy. Roman upper classes centred on Rome mainly for the crucial role in their lives of politics. This meant that they tended to spend their money in Rome, as it is natural to spend your money where you are. At a time of increasing hardship in rural areas due to the reducing prospect of productivity due to the increasing size of the large estates, people sought their fortune in the big Italian cities though most chose Rome. This was an understandable move that bears close parallels to that seen today in places like Sao Paolo. Slaves were also a prime factor in the movement to cities. With many of the rural �jobs� taken by forced labour, many people were unable to eke out an employment from the land and so many people were forced to migrate. It is unclear exactly how these people managed to earn a living in an urban environment but the most likely postulation is that there existed a sort of bazaar situation where goods and services were traded. This was only possible due to the high concentration of wealth in Rome due to reasons already mentioned. The high urban population in Rome was a major feature of the Roman civilisation and as this was partially caused by slavery this reinforces the centrality of this institution. Advantages of slaves over free citizens are initially difficult to determine. The high capital outlay for slaves and the fact that many died before reaching the age of thirty means that they appeared far more expensive than just paying a wage to a free citizen. Hopkins� statistics show that a slave would have to work twice as hard in order to make up for the extra outlay. Below the surface of the case in point, there are powerful reasons for choosing slaves over citizens. These include the fact that you could have slaves without families. Thus, if you were to employ a free citizen he would need enough money to support a family, this could be expensive. A slave could be forced to have no family and as such you could feed him for much less and his productivity would be greater and there would be a higher proportion of surplus for sale. The surplus is of course the main reason why a large landowner farms unlike subsistence farmers who farm in order to grow food for the family to live on. Forced labourers could also be forced to work harder than a free citizen. Force could be used despite the occasional, almost impossible to enforce laws that attempted to limit this. Productivity would be increased this way though the chances of losing the slave either though him running away or from death by over-exertion. It was a choice worth making. Slaves could also not be called away to war for any length of time like free citizens were compelled to be. This also made the economics of slavery better. Being a slave was in no way a no-win situation for the conquered people�s of the Roman territory. Prospects of freedom for slaves were a powerful incentive for them to work hard. Slaves in Roman society had an important economic role (unlike the Caribbean) where they had the ability to earn money. Once they had managed to obtain enough cash they were able to buy their freedom from their masters. This was such motivation that slaves would often strive harder than any free citizen to achieve this goal. Freedmen were often citizens as well so they were able to function fully in Roman life. Though they sometimes encountered difficulties in being accepted, generally they were a success. Productivity was thus increased. Prospects for promotion within the slave structure were also persuasive reasons for those subjected to forced labour to work hard. To be given supervisory roles or roles involving some aspects of management was naturally superior to the standard menial tasks assigned to slaves. It was also another step on the path to becoming free, as there was more chance of being released and also more opportunity to make money. The Romans tended to free slaves for a variety of reasons not just as they were dying, as Julian would appear to imply. Undoubtedly many slaves were released from slavery close to the point of death but this was not important as they did not go on to perform roles in society. As mentioned above slaves could buy their freedom. This was not just to give them an incentive to work. Important though that was, slaves also had this chance for other reasons. As a slave aged, his/her body deteriorated and as such the productivity decreased. By funding their own freedom, they were in effect also funding their replacement. The master thus experienced the benefits of a new for old system for many of his slaves. It was not an entirely self-replenishing system of course, many slaves would never earn their freedom fully and would die or run away still a slave and so the master would have to fund the replacement himself. Many slaves also held important roles in the households and businesses of the rich people. The most common examples found in the ancient sources are in the period of the empire though they certainly existed in the days of the republic. As already intimated above, the slaves were often already educated and cultured and so easily capable of performing clerical, administrative and managerial roles. These slaves became trusted advisers and confidants to their masters and so these often were freed as a gesture of reward and friendship. This was more common than one might suspect. The ancient sources tend to give the impression that slaves were generally well treated. This is because the sources tend to highlight and glorify individuals and the writers also regard the treatment of slaves as something to be taken for granted. It was common knowledge that gangs of chained slaves were kept on farms and forced to work hard. The individuals written about are often portrayed as great heroes both politically and militarily and as such they also wish to portray a strong altruistic side to their nature. Kind and generous in all that he does. Overall, slavery was an absolutely central feature of Roman life. The entire economic situation relied on it and it was directly related to the almost unique Roman pre-occupation with perpetual war. War provided the slaves, slaves provided the need to plunder more slaves. Though other civilisations in antiquity functioned adequately without such a high number of slaves, once the system became established in Roman life it was very difficult to eradicate. If there had not been such a reliance on slaves, there might not have been such a need for plunder and so the territories of Rome wouldn�t have extended so much and Rome may not have been the powerful state that it was. Slaves were freed for mainly economic reasons though there were some humanitarian motives. Bibliography K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge 1978) 99-132 Dionysus of Halicarnassus 4. 24 Digest (Paulus) 32, 99 Appian, Civil Wars 1.1 & 1. 14 Columella 1. 7 & 1. 8 Varro, De Agricultura 1. 17 & 2. 10 Cato, De Agricultura 5 Frontinus, Aqueducts 2 Plutarch, Life of Crassus 8. 1-4, 10. 1-5, 11. 1-8
