See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330703429

Greek and Roman slavery

Article · January 2019

CITATIONS READS
0 8,771

1 author:

Ricardo Fortuné
University of Leicester
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ricardo Fortuné on 29 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IN WHAT WAYS DID SLAVERY IN
THE GREEK WORLD RESEMBLE
ROMAN SLAVERY, AND IN
WHAT WAYS DID THE TWO
DIFFER?

Ricardo Fortune
AH2553 Greek and Roman slavery
The practice of slavery in antiquity is one that has impacted world history in many ways.
Empires and nations have become great because of it, and its disappearance in the modern
world, has brought about the industrial revolution. It is easy to see the economic importance
this practice might have had in the ancient world. I will discuss in this paper the differences and
similarities between Greek and Roman slavery in antiquity. This convention that was ubiquitous
in the ancient world, was practiced differently depending on the region and culture. Even in the
Greek world itself, there were regional differences. There were all sorts of different
philosophies and ways to justify this practice that is in our day and age widely condemned. The
problem that arises in addressing this topic, is the sources that the ancient historian must work
with. Like every topic in Greco-Roman studies, the literature mainly comes from classical
Athens or late republican and imperial Rome. Furthermore, there is hardly any information that
comes from a slave’s perspective, with perhaps the exception of Lesis’ letter to his family
(Harris,2006, p.271-9, cited in AH2553, p.46). This lack of diversity in the sources tends to give a
one-sided view of the topic that is being studied. The other problem is that ancient authors in
general do not address this issue directly and most references to the topic are only incidental.
Consequently, the ancient historian must collect a lot of his data from statements that were
made in passing, not from any systematic treatment of the topic by ancient authors. Plato,
Aristotle and Seneca are some of the authors who have discussed this topic more fully and will
prove useful in this paper. It seems that slavery was such a common practice in the Greco-
Roman mindset, that no one thought that it needed to be examined in depth. The whole
economic system of Greece and Rome depended heavily on slave labour, therefore it is not
likely that anyone questioning this system would have managed to overthrow it or make any
significant changes to it. Slavery in Greece, though important, never reached the magnitude of
the Roman practice thereof (AH2553, p.21-2), but both had built societies that heavily
depended on slavery and can rightfully be called “slave societies” as defined by Finley (1980,
p.79, cited in AH2553, p.23).
Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade that happened in the American South, the
Caribbean, and South America, slavery in the Greco-Roman context was not based on any
prejudice they had on skin colour. They enslaved barbarians regardless of their racial features,
but they were generally not permitted to enslave their own (Braund, 2011, p.117; Gardener,
2011, p.415), though some exceptions can be found and will be discussed below. In Aristotle’s
thinking, slavery was the natural outcome that the non-Greek deserved since they were by
nature suited for slavery and it was a just and good thing for the own benefit of the slave
(Pol.1254a-1255a). But it is not clear if this understanding of slavery was unanimous amongst
Greeks. By Aristotle’s own admission (1253b) there were people who dissented from his view
that it was legitimate to use human beings as household goods. As for the Romans, the state of
slavery was a legal matter. One became a slave, hence the property of another, as a result of
circumstances that the law regulated. They acknowledged that it was against nature (Digest,
Florentinus, 1.5, cited in Wiedemann, 1994, p.15), therefore not a matter of superiority, but
rather a matter of status. The common denominator of these two views is the ownership
aspect of it. As early as the fifth century BC, slaves are treated as property according to the
Romans Twelve Tables. The Iliad (19.333, cited in Thalman, 1998, p.54) also depicts slaves in
the Greek world as property as early as the eighth century BC, if we can trust Herodotus’
statements on when Homer lived. Slaves lost their human rights and dignity, to become the
property of others. Ste. Croix defined the word “slave” thusly— “The status or condition of a
person over whom all the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised” (1981,
p.135, cited in AH2553, p.22). The rights of ownership described by Ste. Croix are for the most
part the same ones acknowledged by our modern legal systems and which Honoré (1961, cited
in AH2553, p.40) lists as being observed almost universally. They are the following: (1) right to
possess, (2) right to use, (3) right to manage, (4) right to income, (5) right to capital, (6) right to
security, (7) transmissibility, (8) absence of term, (9) prohibition of harmful use, (10) liability to
execution (AH2553, p.40; Harris, 2002, p.416). These rights and responsibilities towards the
slave seem to have been shared by Greeks and Romans alike.
Becoming a slave in antiquity could happen in various ways. The most common way was
during warfare. It was universally agreed upon, according to Xenophon (Cyr. 7.5.73), that the
vanquished and his possessions, belonged to the victor (Harris, 2002, p.425). Both Greek and
Romans acquired an important number of slaves through warfare. Going to war ultimately
meant “who would have the power to enslave whom” (Braund, 2011, p.115). Though they
generally made sure to have legitimate motives for waging war, it is very likely that the
possibility of enslaving their enemies and seize their goods was a major incentive that
prompted the launching of many military expeditions. Aristotle (Pol.1257b) seems to be
comfortable with the idea of waging war for the purpose of acquiring slaves (see Braund’s
comments on this, 2011, p.120), and many important figures in Greco-Roman history became
wealthy because of war booty.
Though they could enslave their enemies, they were under no obligation to do so,
especially when they were fighting their own. This reluctance to enslave their own as
mentioned above, is shown in the historical record of classical Greece, in that there were few
Greek slaves (Garland, 1987, cited in Braund,2011, p.116) even though Greeks frequently
fought each other. Sparta, Crete and few other Greeks poleis might have dissented from this
general rule, but even in the case of Sparta, they showed reluctance in enslaving the Athenians
in 404 (Xenophon, Hellenica,2.2.20), because of the great service Athens earlier rendered to
Greece in defeating the Persians. This, however, could be just a pragmatic gesture of clemency,
rather than being motivated by any moral scruples about enslaving other Greeks. They had
much more to gain in the future by not enslaving the Athenians. Conversely, it was clear in
classical Rome that the citizens could not ever legally become slaves. The Romans took status
very seriously. As Harper (2011, p.394) put it, status was “absolute, objective, and unalterable
by private contract”. There were rare instances of penal servitude, but this was a prerogative
that the state utilised to punish under some circumstances (Gardener,2011, p.415). It was not a
legal means by which the common citizen could legitimately acquire slaves. For the Romans,
slaves were to be those who fraudulently sold themselves into slavery, those captured in war or
purchased from a trader, and those who descended from a female slave (Wiedemann, 1994,
p.106).
It was fraudulent for a free person to sell himself as a slave, since the Roman law
prohibited this. Some still managed to do it, with the deceitful intent to share in the profit of
the transaction. They would, in all probability, get an accomplice to sell them, split the profit,
and then later, claim their freedom. The buyer was powerless and had to let them go. If they
were caught in the process, they were punished with permanent slavery. One could offer
himself as a security to his creditor, until the debt was repaid (Gardener, 2011, p.415). This type
of debt-bondage (nexum) did not remove the freedom of the debtor but afforded a period of
grace where he could find the money or repay his creditor with his labour. If the debtor failed
to repay his debt, he could be sold abroad (Gardener, 2011, p.415; Harris, 2002, p.417). This
practice was condemned by the third century BC because of the abuse of the creditors. In
Greece, Solon’s reforms also put an end to enslavement for debts, but debt-bondage was still a
valid form of servitude, just like in many other Near Eastern societies.
The exposure of infants is a well attested phenomenon in ancient Greece and Rome.
This practice seems to have been deemed a necessary evil since the methods of contraception
and abortion were unreliable and dangerous. This habit might have helped supply both Greek
and Roman societies with slaves. Solon’s reforms made it unlawful for a Greek man to sell his
child into slavery (Patterson, 1985, p.106). People would then get rid of the baby in the first ten
days of life, before the baby had gone through the rituals of purification and formally been
received into the family (Grubbs,2013, p.83; Patterson, 1985, p.106). The surviving infant,
would then be taken by a family that would most likely use the child as a slave. The
inalterability of the freeborn status made it illegal in the Roman empire to use exposed infants
as slaves. Their enslavement was invalid and if they could prove their status, they could be
freed without having to repay any maintenance cost. The society greatly needed slaves and
most individuals who had been exposed as infants probably did not know about it or were not
able to prove it (Harper, 2011, p.397). The fact that the late Roman laws increasingly become
more explicit about birth status and its inalienability, seems to indicate an attempt to address a
social problem that was ongoing (Harper,2011, p.393).
Greeks and Romans could also acquire slaves from traders at market places. The
number of slaves that they needed on a regular basis (250-400,000 according to Scheidel, 2011,
p.293) lets us suppose that they had a way of consistently supplying themselves with slaves that
did not solely rely on the few methods that we have seen thus far. They needed to have enough
labour at the right time to work in the mines or in the fields, and they sometimes also needed
specialised labour. For this, Greeks traded with the barbarians from around the Black Sea area
in periphery of the Greek world. Slaves were captured and then sold to small scale dealers who
took care of distribution (Braund, 2011, p.113). There were some who specialized in this form
of business, but in general everyone could buy and sell slaves. There is little evidence for busy
slave markets before the Roman period (Braund, 2011, p.122). Slaves were traded for the
commodities Barbarians had to offer, but they did not have a lot of things that the Greeks
desired, which certainly helped keep the price down and encourage them to produce more
slaves. They, however, highly coveted Greek wine and as Braund put it, “the wine trade in the
region reflects the trade in slaves” (Braund, 2011, p.115). The Romans also got their slaves from
barbarians and as their empire grew, they had to get them from further places. Slaves came
from as far north as Britain and as far south as Nubia, but the latter case was rather rare.
Amongst the commodities that they traded with them, wine was also included. Diodorus
(5.26.3) claimed that the Gauls were willing to trade a slave for an amphora of wine, which says
a lot about their appreciation of Roman’s wine. Unlike in Greece, we have evidence for an
important slave market in the Roman empire. The Aegean island of Delos was allegedly able to
export 10,000 slaves per day (Strabo 14.5.5). This incredibly high number leads us to believe
that Strabo might have been employing hyperbolic language when making his statement. But it
nonetheless, reflects that by 166 BC, this island was thought to be a major location for slave-
trading, where dealers and pirates could unload the merchandise.
This now leads us to the question of piracy what place occupied in the slave trade?
Traders could wear many hats. They could be merchants, soldiers, and pirates at the same time.
Kidnaping was a big problem, even in Classical Greece. Pirates would raid coastal cities and sell
the booty at market places like Delos. There is no doubt about the contribution of piracy to the
Roman slave supply (Scheidel, 2011, p.297), but it is hard to quantify it and scale its importance.
By the second century BC, the void left by the decline of the Seleucid empire only served to
increase the problem (AH2553,2015, p.127). The Romans did not immediately handle the issue
since they benefited from this practice and it was hard to differentiate a legitimate trader from
a pirate. But when Roman citizens and the grain supplies of Rome started to be threatened, the
state had to take more concrete actions. By 67 BC, Pompey was granted a great amount of
power to eliminate piracy. Though he was very efficient in accomplishing his task, piracy was
never entirely eliminated.
Self-reproduction, was in all likelihood, an essential source of Greco-Roman slaves
(Scheidel, 1997, p.157). This method was recognized by Xenophon for its benefits and he
presents it as a rather customary way one could acquire slaves. He saw in breeding a better way
of insuring better behaved slaves (Braund, 2011, p.125). Seneca seems to have similar feelings:
How vile to hate someone you should praise— and how much more vile to hate
someone for something because of which he deserves to be pitied; namely because as
captive who has suddenly fallen into slavery, he holds on to some remnants of his
former free status and fails to hurry to perform sordid and difficult services; because he
is a bit slow as a result of his previous inactivity and can’t keep up with his owner’s
horse or carriage on foot; because he is exhausted by having to be alert all the time and
falls asleep; because he has been transferred from being a slave in Rome with all its
holidays to the toil of the farm, and can’t put up with this strenuous work or doesn’t
approach with enthusiasm. (5.3.29 cited in Wiedemann, 1994, p.112).
What Seneca is saying here, is that home-born slaves are better slaves because they are better
adapted to the reality of slavery, whereas someone who has been enslaved as an adult has
much more difficulty to accept and adapt to the reality of slavery, therefore we should be more
patient with them. It was believed by ancient authors that home-born slaves were also more
loyal, since they had not known anything else. Self-reproduction also made sense for a slave
owner from an monetary perspective. The price of an adult slave being high enough, even when
considering death in childbirth, cost of rearing and infant mortality, it was still worth it (Braund,
2011, p.125). If the economic aspect wasn’t enough, some might have been attracted by the
prospect of being able to have sex with their female slaves (Braund, 2011, p.125). However, not
every slave owner would have seen this with the same eye. Some might have been more
concerned about the risk of damaging their “property”. Because of the danger incurred by
women who bore children, some slave owner may have been reluctant to let their slave
reproduce. The evidence does not allow us to gauge with accuracy the contribution that self-
reproduction played within the overall supply of slaves. It was believed that the Pax Romana
brought by Augustus caused prisoners of war to cease being an important source of slaves
(Harris.1980, p.63). Many reasons dissuade Harris from believing that self-reproduction alone
could have compensated for that lack. For instance, manumission and sex-ratio of slaves would
have hindered the slave population to reproduce itself. He also believes that acquiring slaves
through child exposure was a big contributing element to the supply of Roman slaves.
Conversely, Scheidel does not shy away from asserting that self-reprodution was a greater
source of slaves than “child exposure, warfare, and the slave trade taken together” (1997,
p.156), but he might have overstated his case when saying that it was “six times as important as
any other single source of slaves” (1997, p.167).
Slaves were brutally treated in both societies. The owners had absolute power over
them and could treat them as they see fit. There are indications that they may have been
marked as a punitive measure (Plutarch, Nicias 29, Pericles 26, cited in Braund, 2011, p.128).
We shouldn’t, however, suppose that it was a common practice (Braund, 2011, p.128). There
might have been cases of castration (Herodotus 8.105), though this practice may have appalled
some Greek writers (Finley,1981, p.167). It is reported by Herodotus that the Scythian blinded
their slaves to prevent them from running away (4.2 cited in Braund, 2011, p.128). The slave
could be beaten, chained and starved (Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.16), the only limit was the
imagination of the owner. More specifically in Rome, the state could punish them by “flogging,
sending to the beasts in the arena, or to work in the mines, or crucifixion.” (Gardener, 2011,
p.431). The sexual use of the slaves was a common practice. It was performed by the owner for
his personal consumption or as a source of income by forcing them to prostitute.
With the harsh treatment described above, only tight control or the prospect of
manumission would have prevented mass rebellion. The Greeks did not manumit their slaves as
often as the Romans did. They expected their slaves to remain in perpetual servitude and to be
passed on to their heirs. Some might have found it beneficial to manumit slaves working under
certain conditions, in order to buy their loyalty. Because the hope of freedom would have
encouraged the slave to work hard and be obedient (Hope, 2009, p.129). Nothing compelled
the owners to free them, it was totally up to the master’s goodwill. When slaves were
manumitted in Greece, they did not automatically become citizens. They were often put under
the guardianship of their former owner with the contractual obligation to perform certain
services, which case often seem to be no different than slavery with greater freedom.
Conversely, when Roman slaves were freed, they became Roman citizens with all its benefits
and became fully integrated to the Roman society (Hope, 2009, p.129).

In summary, I have shown that the definition of slavery was reasonably the same for
both Greeks and Romans. The central aspect of it was the ownership theme that was shared by
both cultures. The rights and obligations of the slave owner were likewise similar, but the way
they justified the practice was different. Greeks saw an inferiority in the nature of the slave,
though we cannot say with certainty that this view was unanimous amongst them. Romans
considered slavery to be a matter of status, hence, it was a legal issue that was not related to
the intrinsic value of the person. They both used the same sources of slaves, namely, war
prisoners, those purchase from traders, foundlings and self-reproduction, which all had their
peculiarities depending on the period and location. We have also seen how harshly slaves could
be treated in both societies and how they differed in the matter of manumission. These
similarities and differences have shown how imbedded slavery was in the Greco-Roman world
and how it was part of their social fabric and contributed to their prosperity.
Bibliography:

Ancient sources:

Aristotle:
Politics Book 1. Section 1254a-1255a
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3A
book=1%3Asection=1254a
Politics Book 1 section 1253b
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3A
book=1%3Asection=1253b
Politics Book 1 section 1257b
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3A
book=1%3Asection=1257b

Diodorus 5.26.3
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/5B*.html

Strabo 14.5.5
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/14E*.html

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.5.73

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-
cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Xen. Cyr. 7.5.73

Xenophon, Hellenica,2.2.20
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0206%3Abook=2
%3Achapter=2%3Asection=20
Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.1.16
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-
cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Xen. Mem. 2.1.16

Contemporary sources:

Bennet, R. et al, (2014), AH2553 Greek and Roman slavery, University of Leicester textbook
BRAUND, D. (2011), The slave supply in classical Greece, in The Cambridge World History of
Slavery, vol.1, p. 112-133, online publication of 2011, URL:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

FINLEY, M.I. (1981), The Slave Trade in Antiquity: The Black Sea and the Danubian Regions,
p.167-175, in Economy and society in Ancient Greece, Chatto & Windus, Shaw,
B. & Saller, R. (eds.)
 GARDENER, J.F. (2011), Slavery and roman law, in The Cambridge World History of Slavery,
vol.1, p.414-437, online publication of 2011, URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

GRUBBS, J. E. (2013), Infant exposure and infanticide, p.83-107, in The Oxford Handbook of
Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Grubbs, J.E. & Parkin, T. (eds.), online edition of
2013, URL: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=1538381

HARPER, K. (2011), Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425, Cambridge University Press,
online edition of 2011, URL:
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=803103

HARRIS, E.M. (2002), Did Solon Abolish Debt-Bondage?, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2
(2002), pp. 415-430, Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association, URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556407
HARRIS, W.V. (ed.) (1980), Towards a study of the roman slave trade, in Rome's Imperial
Economy: Twelve Essays,p.57-87, Oxford University Press, online publication of 2015, URL:
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=746692

(1999), Demography, geography, and the sources of roman slaves, in Rome's Imperial Economy:
Twelve Essays, Oxford University Press, p.88-109, online publication of 2015, URL:
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=746692

HOPE, V. (2009), Status and identity in the Roman world, in Experiencing Rome: culture,
identity, and power in the Roman empire, p. 125-52, Routledge, Huskinson, J. (ed.), third edition

PATTERSON, C. (1985), "Not Worth the Rearing": The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient
Greece, in Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014), Vol. 115 (1985),
p. 103-123, Johns Hopkins University Press, URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/284192?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference - references_tab_contents

THALMAN, W.G. (1998), The view from above: The representation of slaves in the Odyssey,
Cornell University Press

SCHEIDEL, W. (1997), Quantifying the Sources of Slaves in the Early Roman Empire, in The
Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 87, p. 156-169, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies,
URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/301373

(2011), The Roman slave supply, in The Cambridge World History of Slavery, vol.1, p. 287-310,
online publication of 2011, URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

WIEDEMANN, T. (1994), Greek & Roman slavery, Routledge, third print

View publication stats