Wouldn't the slaves work as well?
I know a lot of them were "status possession" and a lot were personal servants but surely, a lot of them must have had some production based job?
In the city of Rome you can expect a lot of house-slaves in the senatorial and equestrian households. Of course there have been other slaves as well, like the 20.000 jews, who buildt Vespasians amphitheatre. Actually the prefects of Rome, like the Praefectus Operum Publicorum or the Praefectus Annonae had a lot jobs.
I often hear the argument, that the romans had slaves, and therefore they did not need industrialization. At least the part about slaves is wrong. Already in the late 1st century, the number of slaves was decreasing. Especially in the main sector: agriculture. Tenancy was much more effective and way more casual for the landowner. But also in the production sector tenancy became very popular.
Compare Plinius or Columella writing in the 1st/2nd century AD with Cato writing during the republic and you see the dramatic change in agriculture.
Latest for the 4th century, historians can safely say, that slavery became the rare exception and tenancy (serfdom) the rule.
Last edited: