PC:Roman race-based slavery

You'd need slaves coming from essentially one source, which would be hard to reach : between Africans, Germanic, Gaelic, Syrians etc. importations and the natural reproduction of the servile poll, slavery was racially as diverse than the overall population.

Not that Roman xenophobia couldn't turn into quasi-racist attitudes, giving whole population definite negative traits regardless of their cultural situation : Benjamin Isaac makes a good argument about how Roman prejudice, if not built on race as we understand it, was really rooted in geo-enironmental determinism from Aristotle, but heavily mixed with political and pragmatic concerns : some sort of social-lamarckism instead of social-darwinism if you will, mixed with an acceptance of slavery as necessary and fair because if they could do it, they did so.
It was as well considered as making these people a favor, bringing them into the service of civilization and its peoples : this is an important departure from Aristotelitian conception of slavery, because Romans did not see "natural slavery" as inherent to people or individuals, but relative to their relations with the Empire, both geographically and politically. As Romans weren't particularly pressed to find a rationalized justification to slavery beyond "we enslave our enemies, because that's cheap manpower, and "they're better off anyway evolving beyond a barbaric station"

So while you could get to some sort of social-lamarckist based-slavery, you'd need an important change in Roman history to go beyond an essentiallisation of Germans, Mauri, etc. as other than peoples without history, living in poor places, and in desperate need of guidance. Not unlike European paternalist justification for colonization of Africa, except Romans couldn't be bothered with conquering these shitty lands.

But race-based slavery? The idea would have been too foreign to Roman concept of the world, too "irredeemable".
The "race" coception in the modern sense is a relatively new construct. It developed in the early modern age and got its heoretic foundation in the age of enlightment ironically. With modern scientific approaces like evolution theory the pseudo scientific divide in "higher" and "lesser" races became common. The Romans had nothing to do with this.
 
Are you saying Christianity specifically makes a culture divide people into races?


Christianity does not divide people by race. However, it does sometimes create divisions in society for example between Christians and no-Christians and between Christians. Some of these divisions have been very bloody and long conflicts.
 
Christianity does not divide people by race. However, it does sometimes create divisions in society for example between Christians and no-Christians and between Christians. Some of these divisions have been very bloody and long conflicts.
And how would that lead the Romans to divide by race when previously their divisions were about culture and social class?
 
And how would that lead the Romans to divide by race when previously their divisions were about culture and social class?

Christianity does not work like that even if it enslaves people, it converts them.

As I stated, it would be very hard for the Romans to get slaves of different races, in fact, I stated that getting enough slaves of any race was very difficult for the later Roman Era as expansion stopped.
 
Christianity does not work like that even if it enslaves people, it converts them.

As I stated, it would be very hard for the Romans to get slaves of different races, in fact, I stated that getting enough slaves of any race was very difficult for the later Roman Era as expansion stopped.
Yes but what's that got to do with changing the Roman conception of race? I.e. that they didn't really have one, it all being about culture, class, and tribe.
 
As I stated, it would be very hard for the Romans to get slaves of different races, in fact, I stated that getting enough slaves of any race was very difficult for the later Roman Era as expansion stopped.
That's wrong : we know slave trade never really stopped at least until the Vth century in Romania (and mostly because raiding and enslavement happened within Romania too). Servile manpower didn't depended only from captives, and Barbaricum represented a virtually illimited suppliment poll on this regard, which really had consequences on immediate Barbaricum demography, such as in Germania and probably in Ireland too.
There's not much pointing to a systematical problem of suppliement of servile taskforce that wouldn't be tied up to the general lack of manpower (free, clientelized or servile) in the Late Empire : it was fueled both by inner reproduction and a maintained trade.

Slavery only diminished as a key economical/productive feature in western Europe with the collapse of the roman state there, and it was really gradual (while it evolved quickly in Gaul, except in southern coasts, Gothic Spain remained a large user), with a general confusion between clientelized peasantry, colons and slaves in the period.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012-01-38.html
 
Last edited:
Yes but what's that got to do with changing the Roman conception of race? I.e. that they didn't really have one, it all being about culture, class, and tribe.
Rather an ethnic definition of inferior people, meaning a matter of territory, language and culture with quasi-lamarckian given attirbutes.
 
Well, you're not wrong, but that's essentially true for archaic or early classical Roman Republic : it was abolished in the IVth century BCE, and gradually disappeared from there, especially as slaves obtained trough imperial conquests provided an alternative. Nexum was eventually quickly replaced by clientelism. By the time trade became a main supply of slaves, Nexum's abolition was more a narrative justifying a posteriori enslavement of foreigners rather than their own kind, and it might not be this causal IMO.

It may not be this causal, but it does give an explanation why Rome gave citizenship to freed slaves automatically, and why their children were full Roman citizens indistinguishable from the rest. And that fact would prevent racial slavery in the modern sense from forming.

Racial slavery can never arise, since that meant that slavery is based not based on culture, religion, barbarism, being defeated in war, etc. but the fact that you are part of a race that is destined for slavery, and your descendants would always be fit for slavery. Racial slavery means that the descendants of slaves could never be equal and would always be inferior to the "superior" race and they can never be part of it, no matter how much they become culturally part of the superior race.

Slavery based on culture, barbarism, etc would always mean the possibility of uplifting the status by becoming culturally Roman. In Rome, the mere fact that you are freed by your Roman master indicates that you are worthy to be a voting citizen, and that your descendants have the same political rights as other Romans, and could even rise to the Senate and even become Emperor.

In Racial slavery, that is not possible. It's basis is biological, not cultural, hence being freed cannot make a former slave part of the master race.
 
Not really. Slavery existed even during the times of the Kings, and from sources such as debt slavery. You have former Roman citizens sold as slaves, and from raids to neighboring states in Latium.

That was why freed slaves as freemen are automatically Roman citizens, and their children full Roman citizens without any legal disability, and why they can be even Emperor, like Pertinax, or king, like the Romans believed in Servius Tullius.


Racial slavery is incompatible with the rule that freedmen are citizens, and their descendants equal to freeborn Romans. Or that Romans, under certain conditions, could becomes slaves themselves.


Not to mention that going for a racial based slavery would undermine National Security, as it would mitigate against social safety valves such as referenced above and make rebellion more likely, as well as mitigating against using slaves as skilled labour, because racial based slavery inherently is based on the concept of racial inferiority, which would have significant economic did-benefits to leading social and economic interests. It would handicap the Imperial bureaucracy as it would undermine an important source of personnel in terms of freedmen and their descendants. If introduced early enough and widely enough Rome might not survive as the social basis for military recruitment would be significantly narrower. Alternatively Rome could end up like Sparta with most of its troops too busy watching "helots" to achieve victory in any significant conflict. It was Rome's relative inclusivity and ability to extend the definition of Roman that saw it through some pretty rough patches and gave it a wide pool of talent.
 
Racial slavery can never arise, since that meant that slavery is based not based on culture, religion, barbarism, being defeated in war, etc. but the fact that you are part of a race that is destined for slavery, and your descendants would always be fit for slavery. Racial slavery means that the descendants of slaves could never be equal and would always be inferior to the "superior" race and they can never be part of it, no matter how much they become culturally part of the superior race.
.

This was not true of European later with slaves either. Many Blacks were freed and became US, Brazilian, etc citizens. What it did mean in the Americas was is that the pool from which slaves could be extracted was reduced as only Blacks and some American Indians could be slaves. This would be a problem for the Romans as they could not get enough slaves without this restriction.

That's wrong : we know slave trade never really stopped at least until the Vth century in Romania l

On the borders between Islam and Christianity every year large armies regularly went out to capture slaves. In Russia long walls, in parts rivalling the Great Wall of China were built as a result.
 
This was not true of European later with slaves either. Many Blacks were freed and became US, Brazilian, etc citizens. What it did mean in the Americas was is that the pool from which slaves could be extracted was reduced as only Blacks and some American Indians could be slaves. This would be a problem for the Romans as they could not get enough slaves without this restriction.

What I meant was that Blacks freed and their descendants were not considered equals of whites as long as slavery existed. It took the 14th amendment, after the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, to make blacks citizens equal to whites. Before that, they were not U.S. citizens, even after they were freed, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott vs Sanford in 1857. That more than anything would indicate the attitudes and legal status of freed slaves and freedmen before the abolition of slavery. The more apt comparison for modern racial slavery is the Helots in Sparta or the Metics in Athens, which were based on ancestry, and generally could not become part of the polis

In the Roman sense, freed slaves are citizens, period, and their children are equal to Roman citizens in suffrage.

And as long as Roman citizens could be slaves, like when Roman citizens voluntarily selling themselves to slavery or to be gladiators, which never stopped even during the height of the empire, or when slave traders from different parts of the world bring slaves to the empire, you can never have a single race to be a pool of slaves. And of course, you have babies abandoned, children sold by their parents, etc which never stopped during the Empire.

Racial slavery was only possible in the modern era because there was a period when slavery in Europe ceased to exist. Therefore, when slavery was reinstated, there was need for justification why some slavery was being brought back. So the notion of racial superiority was invented to justify slavery.

In Rome, slavery never really ended or stopped, so what justification do you need to continue something that was taken for granted as an everyday occurrence? Why would some Roman Emperor suddenly ban the slavery of some races in favor of some other races?
 
What I meant was that Blacks freed and their descendants were not considered equals of whites as long as slavery existed.

In the US this seems to be ad hoc, in some places in the US yes and others no. This pattern appears similar in other areas that Europeans had slaves.

In the Roman sense, freed slaves are citizens, period, and their children are equal to Roman citizens in suffrage.

This was true only after the Romans expanded their citizen base significantly. In most of Roman history just because you were free did not make you a citizen.


And as long as Roman citizens could be slaves, like when Roman citizens voluntarily selling themselves to slavery or to be gladiators, which never stopped even during the height of the empire, or when slave traders from different parts of the world bring slaves to the empire, you can never have a single race to be a pool of slaves. And of course, you have babies abandoned, children sold by their parents, etc which never stopped during the Empire.

This is the other problem that affected pre-modern societies before mass social security came. Slavery or bondage was required to look after these people. From memory 1000 years ago, about 10% of the population would be slaves as such because of this.


Racial slavery was only possible in the modern era because there was a period when slavery in Europe ceased to exist. Therefore, when slavery was reinstated, there was need for justification why some slavery was being brought back. So the notion of racial superiority was invented to justify slavery.

Agreed plus there was a source for slavery in Africa.

In Rome, slavery never really ended or stopped, so what justification do you need to continue something that was taken for granted as an everyday occurrence? Why would some Roman Emperor suddenly ban the slavery of some races in favor of some other races?

The first problem, if he tried, is that many people would have to be freed from slavery as they are of a different race.
 
On the borders between Islam and Christianity every year large armies regularly went out to capture slaves.
This was especially the case for Russia and Eastern Europe in late medieval and early modern eras, but not that spottable for most of Middle-Ages, except in the immediate (and not all) bordering regions in some occurences (such as Almanzor's expeditions).
We know that most of the servile supply in al-Andalus was carried by Carolingian slave-hunting in slavic regions, for example, or by Vikings later on. Roman slave suppliment followed similar lines, altough dominating the trade by weaponizing and motivating Barbarians against other peoples. While you had expeditions, servile captivity was much more a by-product than a motivation.
 
The main issue is that the Roman conception of race differs radically from the European ideas of race that made Atlantic chattel slavery possible. The real revolution in race conception in Europe happened after Christianity was adopted across the continent. This brought with it the ideas of the three lineages of Noah and the proselytizing missions that were later used to justify racial slavery. So it's possible for racial slavery to become instituted in Rome, but it would have to come after the empire became predominantly Christian, and the government would have to adopt the same mindset towards some hypothetical foreign group, probably either the Persians or Africans. However, by this time IOTL, the Empire didn't have the capability to project power and take the massive numbers of slaves that this policy would entail, since after Diocletian, the Roman army took on a largely defensive stance (even more so than under Augustus or Hadrian).

In medieval Europe the descendents of Ham were considered to be the serfs, as in a justification for serfdom. This interpretation existence coincided with serfdom. Point is interpretations of Ham, while of religious insignificance, varied greatly. Romans didn't really have much contact with black people, beyond maybe Nubia. Ethiopians were, however known about. The thing is, Christianity spread around the time of the Roman Empire into Ethiopia. Roman prejudice wasn't based on skin color for the sake of skin color, ever. Skin color could help identify those oddly pale barbarians north of Hadrian's wall versus those blond weirdos that frequently raided Gaul. The sons of ham rhetoric was a justification after the fact and our modern sense of race with its corresponding form of racism developed in the 1500's. It was because of the need of a steady stream of slaves for cash crop production in the Americas that Europeans began considering black people as especially convenient slaves, the the justifications came about.

That's fair, I may have unreasonably extrapolated the racial slavery dynamic in the USA to the rest of the world. But even assuming my original claim is wrong, I think the Roman cultural conception of barbarianism and citizenship probably precludes the same sort of all-encompassing racial prejudices that defined Atlantic chattel slavery

Yeah...given that chattel slavery alone in other parts of the world went through different dynamics as far as justification goes.

Anyway, you'd have to change Roman world view to demand chattel slavery in the first place. There'd have to be a good reason for it. The justification comes after the fact. Chattel Slavery like that in the modern western world came first, the racist interpretations came second. The question is, why would Rome need that form of slavery? Any POD would have to answer that question before anything else.
 
In medieval Europe the descendents of Ham were considered to be the serfs, as in a justification for serfdom.
Ham was used as an explanation of serfdom, but not really as a blood or racial related curse, but rather as "hey, servitude is in the Bible, so it's totally legit" : you do have some quasi-racial takes, but they're essentially tied to regions where a cultural differenciation between a reduced landowning elite and the overall population : Normand England, eastern Germany, Baltics, etc.

Most of the time (to not say virtually all the time), serfdom wasn't justified but by natural orders of things. It doesn't help that serdom essentially disappeared from Western Europe by the XIVth century, sometimes before the first accounts of the curse of Ham narrative : it first appeared in western Eurpe XIIth century in Western Europe in the Iberian peninsula (trough Talmudic influence), and connected with black slavery; then slowly appearing in western Europe (XVth/XVIth centuries).

This interpretation existence coincided with serfdom.
It doesn't, at all : serfdom roughly begins to appear in the late IXth century/Xth century (trough a mix of previous social-legal strata), and Curse of Ham accounts appears in western Europe around the XIIth, first in regions with less serfdom, and in regions where serfdom disappeared eventually.

Anyway, you'd have to change Roman world view to demand chattel slavery in the first place.
Chattel slavery did existed in Rome : it was more or less tied to some regions than others, but wasthe norm of Roman slavery up to and including (for Mediterranean regions) the Early medieval era. What remained of it in western Europe slowly began to merge with clientelized peasantry in the VIIIth century onward.
Household slavery (while fairly common before Roman conquest in western regions) was really limited.
 
Last edited:
Ham was used as an explanation of serfdom, but not really as a blood or racial related curse, but rather as "hey, servitude is in the Bible, so it's totally legit" : you do have some quasi-racial takes, but they're essentially tied to regions where a cultural differenciation between a reduced landowning elite and the overall population : Normand England, eastern Germany, Baltics, etc.
As I said, justification after the fact.

Most of the time (to not say virtually all the time), serfdom wasn't justified but by natural orders of things. It doesn't help that serdom essentially disappeared from Western Europe by the XIVth century, sometimes before the first accounts of the curse of Ham narrative : it first appeared in western Eurpe XIIth century in Western Europe in the Iberian peninsula (trough Talmudic influence), and connected with black slavery; then slowly appearing in western Europe (XVth/XVIth centuries).

Ham for serfdom in Europe is a reinterpretation. the Curse of Ham was originally African, not European. So this fits rather well with what I posted.

It doesn't, at all : serfdom roughly begins to appear in the late IXth century/Xth century (trough a mix of previous social-legal strata), and Curse of Ham accounts appears in western Europe around the XIIth, first in regions with less serfdom, and in regions where serfdom disappeared eventually.
As I said, coincided.

Chattel slavery did existed in Rome : it was more or less tied to some regions than others, but wasthe norm of Roman slavery up to and including (for Mediterranean regions) the Early medieval era. What remained of it in western Europe slowly began to merge with clientelized peasantry in the VIIIth century onward.
Household slavery (while fairly common before Roman conquest in western regions) was really limited.
I wouldn't necessarily compare Roman slavery with American or Caribbean slavery which I believe is what the OP meant when they said "race based" slavery. As in the chattel slavery of the western hemisphere in the modern era. Chattel, sure, but not race based chattel where the main source of slaves wasn't was debt nor war, but a trade exclusive to one type of slave. I may not have been clear on that area.

The question is, what POD can bring about a need to have a perpetual class of slaves based on one clearly and easily defined group chosen to be nothing more than slaves until the end of time (or until an Alternate timeline ancient abolitionist movement comes along)?
 
As I said, justification after the fact.
You said it was a justification that connected with serfdom : it began to appear when it disappeared. Considering it justified serfdom is anachronic. You had quasi-racial explanation, but essentially tied to specific regions.

As I said, coincided.
Curse of Ham appears in Western Europe around the late XIVth/XVth century, when serfdom was disappearing or disappeared. It did not coincided, while it did fit medieval slavery in Mediterranean basin, I entierly agree there.

I wouldn't necessarily compare Roman slavery with American or Caribbean slavery
I think nobody really does : but Roman slavery does fit the definition of chattel slavery as in large productive class without social rights and considered essentially as property. Domestic and household slavery did existed as well, but was fairly limited.

Chattel, sure, but not race based chattel where the main source of slaves wasn't was debt nor war, but a trade exclusive to one type of slave. I may not have been clear on that area.
The important thing is that it's clear now. That said, while not racial, there was a quasi-lamarckian and essentialist (we could say ethnic) justification of slavery of Barbarians or some non-Barbarian populations (I mentioned it a bit in my first post)
 
You said it was a justification that connected with serfdom : it began to appear when it disappeared. Considering it justified serfdom is anachronic. You had quasi-racial explanation, but essentially tied to specific regions.

Curse of Ham appears in Western Europe around the late XIVth/XVth century, when serfdom was disappearing or disappeared. It did not coincided, while it did fit medieval slavery in Mediterranean basin, I entierly agree there.

I don't think you are understanding me. The Curse of Ham is a biblical account. When Noah et al got off the Ark, Ham "discovered" Noah's "shame" and for his actions which brought about a curse by God while his two brothers were blessed for covering up Noah's "Shame". After that the Bible names the different children of Noah's three sons. Ham, however wasn't cursed by God. Canaan, his son, was. As in, the people who ended up living in what is today Israel/Palestine.

The "Curse of Ham" has been interpreted and reinterpreted since, and often ignoring who was the one that was actually cursed and what people descended from the one who was actually cursed. Originally he was seen as a progenitor of fools, not servants (And more so correctly given that Ham himself his other children were not cursed). On the rise of serfdom in the 9th and 10th centuries. Honorius Augustodunensis (Who was born in the 11th Century) made an allegorical argument pointing out how medieval Europe was divided into three classes, one of them being "Servi" or the serfs of serfdom and linked them to Ham and the so called "Curse of Ham"...which was odd because once again, that was Canaan. By the 1300's this idea became popular...a rather theologically uneducated idea but an idea nonetheless.

It was then used to show that slavery in general was not prohibited in the Bible by the 15th century, and the "Curse of Ham" was pointed out because the curse did include servitude of Canaan to one of Ham's brothers. It was just one example used by those who argued against what one might call "Proto-Abolitionists", people who held extreme reservations about slavery due to their perception of Christian teachings to the contrary. It wasn't used to justify race based slavery until even later than that.

My response to Atamolos was pointing out that he was wrong in asserting that Christianity used the Curse of Ham to initiate the modern notion of race and racism when it wasn't such interpretation didn't come about when Catholicism spread through most of Europe (By the 10th-12th Centuries would be a good time. It happened a few centuries after and those interpretations of Ham being the progenitor of Blacks thus their skin color and station of servitude wasn't popularized until the 17th Century. Initially, Ham as progenitor of blacks was simply an explanation for their skin color (something many Europeans simply weren't used to). Once abolitionists started questioning slavery, that interpretation was a refuge to prove that black people should be slaves. The reason why they needed to add on to the Curse of Ham was because by the 1500's it was understood that Christians ought not to enslave Christians. By the 1600's and more so later one, Blacks were converting to Christianity...thus the need to justify enslaving and buying but not freeing Christian blacks.

The practice came first, the justification followed.

The important thing is that it's clear now. That said, while not racial, there was a quasi-lamarckian and essentialist (we could say ethnic) justification of slavery of Barbarians or some non-Barbarian populations (I mentioned it a bit in my first post)
I don't think we disagree, just that we weren't understanding each other.
 
Doing a search on the internet, I came up with this division of mankind into race.

  • Caucasoid (White) race.
  • Negroid (Black) race.
  • Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) race.
  • Mongoloid (Oriental/ Amerindian) race.
  • Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) race

I think for the sake of the argument if the Romans are to use modern racial concepts, as we want here, this will do as a first level approximation.

  • Caucasoid (White) - race are out because that is what Romans are
  • Negroid (Black) race - Rome did not have enough contact with these people to import large numbers and if Rome wants to go this path it needs ships sailing around Africa to Ivory Coast, it needs something to trade with the locals, guns and firewater are not available to the Romans unlike the later Europeans
  • Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) race - I do not know if there were enough of them and these people based on later European experience made poor slaves, plus they are even further away then Negroids.
  • Mongoloid (Oriental/ Amerindian) race - Very far and very hard to get. Amerindians are impossible to get.
  • Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) race - These people are impossible for the Romans to get.

As such I would suggest getting a racial slavery going in the Roman Empire would require the development of something like the European Slave trade later on and it could only work with Black races.
 
I think for the sake of the argument if the Romans are to use modern racial concepts,
Could they develop something like a Northern or Germanic Race with the Germanic, Celtic ,other European groups outside the Roman empire considered a separate race than the Romans and something similar to for the Persians ?
 
Top