PC:Roman race-based slavery

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.
You don’t seem to understand the roman mindset do you? Romans had many laws that allowed slaves far more freedoms than chattel slavery, including providing wages and allowing marriage between slave and master granting the slave automatic citizenship and being able to sue their master for mistreatment.
Roman masters also freed their slaves to create literal business empires with the former being at the top and the former slaves being vassals
 
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 ?
They would hate the germanic tribes far more than african and eastern peoples(who were regarded as ideal subjects) as they cause the romans the most problems and were directly responsible for repeated invasions into roman Gaul while gallic tribes were the early catalyst into making the roman tribes into a proper city state
 
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.
Honoré d'Autaun was more of a XIIth century man, which does have its importance : it'sto be tied with the Renaissance of the XIIth century and the connection with eastern sources : we're rather in the period where it (slowly, indeed) began to disappear (interestingly, at first on clerical grounds, such as salvetats)
You'll note that Honoriu's division is, as you said, weird : serfs came from Harm, knights from Japhet and the others from Shem. It's probably because the explanation was not racial or quasi-racial as it was with the Curse of Ham narrative (from which I mean not the disivion of the world overall along Noah's descendence, but the specific quasi-racial or racial essentiallisation of a people identified with Ham), but rather spiritual : serves as Ham's people is likely a didactic device, on par with his other works.

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
Certainly : Ham was rather used on a literary and didactic sense : while serves tended to be described as a low form of humanity, especially in England, eastern Germany, and these specific regions (it's still a thing in France or Western Germany but far less essentializing, and overall disappearing when serfdom turned into a semi-free pesantry, or virtually free eventually). And even there, the comparison between model and reality shows a wide gap : social and familial mobility were too great to really have a practical applicability.
The medieval distinction is essentially the good ol' three orders of society, a model which was already crumbling by the time it was written down in the XIth century, and was continuously adapted, ending with the XVIth century idea that everyone should pass trough the three groups in his life.

Initially, Ham as progenitor of blacks was simply an explanation for their skin color (something many Europeans simply weren't used to).
You did have this explanation appearing in the XIIth from Eastern Med, tough : while fairly tied with late medieval slavery in Spain and Italy it, so to speak, preserved a quasi-racial explanation with slavery : I think we agree that, as Caribbean slavery was in direct continuation of late Medieval practices (including the dominance of Europeans on servile trade roads from the XVth onwards, it played an important role into the essentiallisation of the idea. It's no wonder that Spanish ethnical/identitarian vision of society and the "other" included racial basis , would it be about slavery or heresy/Judaism, IMO.

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.
Southern European societies didn't really have a problem with that even in the XVIth century : servile polls went as far as Albania and Greece on this regard, the Duchy of Athens in the XIVth, then Turks being the prime market. Mostly East Europeans such as Albanians, Serbs or Bulgarians (Greek slavery is mentioned but it's more of a XIVth thing than XVth) all of them Christians. And of course, you have Aragonese slave-hunting in Balkanic peninsula.
I widely agree that these captives were generally integrated into southern european societies eventually, as clientelized groups, which is more than what African slaves could expect (even if not unheard of). But what was understood was less that they shouldn't be enslaved, rather that they should be enslaved...kindly.

I don't think we disagree, just that we weren't understanding each other.
Probably, on most grounds.
 
You don’t seem to understand the roman mindset do you?


Maybe

Romans had many laws that allowed slaves far more freedoms than chattel slavery, including providing wages and allowing marriage between slave and master granting the slave automatic citizenship and being able to sue their master for mistreatment.
Roman masters also freed their slaves to create literal business empires with the former being at the top and the former slaves being vassals

We all I think we all know this, it was largely true of Europeans later on too especially if the children of slaves were their children.

Still, none of this is relevant to my argument. The only race that the Romans could import in any numbers were blacks from Africa. To import large quantities of such blacks would require Romans to sail ships to the west coast of Africa. A place the Romans has not explored. It would require setting up trading ports. I am not sure what the Romans could sell the natives as they do not have guns, they have cloth but not cheap factory produced cloth and they have only wine. The natives might be willing to sell slaves for gold, which later Romans did not have much. So this all something that would be very hard for the Romans to do. The fact is that there are no large pools of other races for Romans to make slaves.
 
Maybe



We all I think we all know this, it was largely true of Europeans later on too especially if the children of slaves were their children.

Still, none of this is relevant to my argument. The only race that the Romans could import in any numbers were blacks from Africa. To import large quantities of such blacks would require Romans to sail ships to the west coast of Africa. A place the Romans has not explored. It would require setting up trading ports. I am not sure what the Romans could sell the natives as they do not have guns, they have cloth but not cheap factory produced cloth and they have only wine. The natives might be willing to sell slaves for gold, which later Romans did not have much. So this all something that would be very hard for the Romans to do. The fact is that there are no large pools of other races for Romans to make slaves.
Why would they bother crossing the Sahara desert or northern Ethiopia for black slaves when there northern barbarian tribes in the northern border to get slaves who were literally right next door to where most of the roman legions are stationed?

If they would make slavery a race related thing I suspect that they would be enslaving the germanic tribes more than easterners or africans(whom the romans actually liked) as romans simply hated them far more and were constantly fighting more than anyone else thus having far more tribesman as prisoners and thus slaves other than the persian empires.

Maybe they would if there was any incentive for it but there wasn’t, the germanic tribs were easy pickings for Roman forces while in the eastern part of the empire the Nabateans and Sassanids sold slaves from further east right up to the point where an asian slave would be EXTREMELY high priced so they needn’t have to do it themselves, it simply wasn’t worth the effort on the romans part to seek it out when they coulf get someone else to do it themselves.

Not only that but ethiopians willingly immigrated to Roman egypt to work in places like the library of Alexandria or to sign up with the Auxiliaries(many of whom were deployed along the volatile northern frontier) the most famous of whom was saint maurice(most likely a son or grandson of a retired Auxilia or a freed slave) and his theban legions were raised in egypt
 
Last edited:
Why would they bother crossing the Sahara desert or northern Ethiopia for black slaves when there northern barbarian tribes in the northern border to get slaves who were literally right next door to where most of the roman legions are stationed?

The proposal was for a modern racial, Germans are not a different race.

Not only that but ethiopians willingly immigrated to Roman egypt to work in places like the library of Alexandria or to sign up with the Auxiliaries(many of whom were deployed along the volatile northern frontier) the most famous of whom was saint maurice(most likely a son or grandson of a retired Auxilia or a freed slave) and his theban legions were raised in egypt

Indeed but these are not as slaves. I doubt they would get large numbers of slaves from this source.
 
The proposal was for a modern racial, Germans are not a different race.
To modern society we could tell the difference To romans they were sub human, why else do you think they considered the tribes as animals?

To a roman they would prefer a eastern or African to a tribesman as they were clearly more cultured and many time more skilled thus lending them more appreciation from romans.

Also the romans have far more reason to hate the northern tribes as basically all the times that Rome itself was sacked was by Germanic or Gallic hordes the last time being destroyed by their own Feodorati troops.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
They would hate the germanic tribes far more than african and eastern peoples(who were regarded as ideal subjects) as they cause the romans the most problems and were directly responsible for repeated invasions into roman Gaul while gallic tribes were the early catalyst into making the roman tribes into a proper city state

You are making the mistake of thinking white on black hatred preceded the slave trade. White people's hatred of black people actually came as a justification for holding them as slaves, rather than a cause of it, the ideology of race post-dated the start of the European maritime slave system. The economics came first, then the justification.

Romans didn't think of slavery in racial terms but as a state of degradation which could apply to anybody unlucky enough to be forced into it. Barbarians could be made slaves, that is, become degraded, but when slaves they either ceased to display barbarian behaviour and adopted slave behaviour, or were killed. A barbarian had to construct his barbarian identity through barbarian behaviour, if he did not he could not be a barbarian. It is very difficult to adapt this to an idea of race without a POD in the very early Republic, possibly the creation of linguistically based helotism or something similar in Italy.
 
You are making the mistake of thinking white on black hatred preceded the slave trade. White people's hatred of black people actually came as a justification for holding them as slaves, rather than a cause of it, the ideology of race post-dated the start of the European maritime slave system. The economics came first, then the justification.

Romans didn't think of slavery in racial terms but as a state of degradation which could apply to anybody unlucky enough to be forced into it. Barbarians could be made slaves, that is, become degraded, but when slaves they either ceased to display barbarian behaviour and adopted slave behaviour, or were killed. A barbarian had to construct his barbarian identity through barbarian behaviour, if he did not he could not be a barbarian. It is very difficult to adapt this to an idea of race without a POD in the very early Republic, possibly the creation of linguistically based helotism or something similar in Italy.
The problem with that is I don't see how a roman republic based on racial slavery could have had sufficient manpower to survive, if it had been watching a population of helots how could it have survived the Punic Wars, or the Social War?, or Spartacus, pick your disaster. At the very least its reserves of troops are drastically smaller at worst its war on multiple fronts.
 
The problem with that is I don't see how a roman republic based on racial slavery could have had sufficient manpower to survive, if it had been watching a population of helots how could it have survived the Punic Wars, or the Social War?, or Spartacus, pick your disaster. At the very least its reserves of troops are drastically smaller at worst its war on multiple fronts.
Not only that but most of the first generation slaves are either: former warriors and/or their families taken during the roman conquests, if they know that the legions won’t be there to stop them they will escape
 
The problem with that is I don't see how a roman republic based on racial slavery could have had sufficient manpower to survive, if it had been watching a population of helots how could it have survived the Punic Wars, or the Social War?, or Spartacus, pick your disaster. At the very least its reserves of troops are drastically smaller at worst its war on multiple fronts.

The numbers were so great in favor of Rome in these conflicts that I doubt it would make a difference. Rome had about 5 million vs Carthage about 500,000
 
The numbers were so great in favor of Rome in these conflicts that I doubt it would make a difference. Rome had about 5 million vs Carthage about 500,000
You are assuming that the numbers would not be changed by the POD. They would be, probably dramatically. .
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
The problem with that is I don't see how a roman republic based on racial slavery could have had sufficient manpower to survive, if it had been watching a population of helots how could it have survived the Punic Wars, or the Social War?, or Spartacus, pick your disaster. At the very least its reserves of troops are drastically smaller at worst its war on multiple fronts.

Yes I agree, also the ability to grant citizenship to non-Latins was vital to the empire's success, if we see the development of "racial" (really ethnic) supremacist ideology, then Rome could not have held territory.
 
You are assuming that the numbers would not be changed by the POD. They would be, probably dramatically. .

If you are telling me that Italians are going to be considered a different race to Romans, then clearly we are moving dramatically away from this POD with its racial concepts.
 
Yes I agree, also the ability to grant citizenship to non-Latins was vital to the empire's success, if we see the development of "racial" (really ethnic) supremacist ideology, then Rome could not have held territory.

I would argue that you are talking here of a really strict ethnic, not racial division.
 
I would argue that you are talking here of a really strict ethnic, not racial division.
only if you define race solely by skin colour, otherwise I don't see an actual difference between ethnicity and race in the sense that both ways of perceiving the world are a dramatic departure from Roman and indeed wider classical norms of looking at the world.
 
only if you define race solely by skin colour, otherwise I don't see an actual difference between ethnicity and race in the sense that both ways of perceiving the world are a dramatic departure from Roman and indeed wider classical norms of looking at the world.

Jews in Nazi Germany might be an example of what you are thinking. But we are going beyond the POD which states

Could a race-based slavery similar to the Antebellum South be possible in Roman Republic or Empire
 
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.

But why and how would Romans come about such racial divisions? There's no motivation. The POD would have to be in the early days of the Republic to avoid getting used to the diverse Mediterranean population as well as contact with even more diverse nearby peoples through trade networks. Other than "Caucasoids" and "Negroids" Rome really wouldn't have direct contact with any other grouping. And the OTL contact with "Ehtiopians" was rather benign. The problems increase once you get to the later stages of the Empire with a Christian Ethiopia.

Yes I agree, also the ability to grant citizenship to non-Latins was vital to the empire's success, if we see the development of "racial" (really ethnic) supremacist ideology, then Rome could not have held territory.

And this is what makes an early POD difficult. An Early POD would require a very narrow racial definition of whatever race Romans see themselves, which limits growth. A late POD is problematic for reasons I mentioned above. It'd have to be somewhere late enough that Rome is powerful enough not to incur the wrath of its neighbors for being so anal, but not too late that the notion becomes a ridiculous departure from the norm.

Jews in Nazi Germany might be an example of what you are thinking. But we are going beyond the POD which states

What was considered "white people" over a century ago is different than what is considered "white people" today. For example, Italians weren't necessarily considered "white" and an Italian killing (or being accused of killing) a white person in the American south was liable to get lynched but wasn't the case if a non-Italian "white" person did so. Them being Catholic certainly didn't help. Same thing with Greeks, and even today white skinned Turks and Moroccans aren't always considered "white people" because their faces look different than an Anglo-Saxon's face which was also the case with Slavic peoples. If we go back to the Greeks, that is most ironic considering that they are one of the main foundation stones of Western Civilization which is often seen (accurately or not) as a "white" thing. The ancient western civilizations would have been appalled at being lumped together with northern barbarians.

And at some point, you have to admit that it is rather odd that pale green eyed freckled Gingers are the same race as tan dark haired/eyed Mediterraneans and pinkish blond haired blue eyed north Central Europeans but not the olive skinned dark haired/eyed North Africans. Our modern history post 1500's explains that, but nothing in ancient Rome could.
 
You are making the mistake of thinking white on black hatred preceded the slave trade. White people's hatred of black people actually came as a justification for holding them as slaves, rather than a cause of it, the ideology of race post-dated the start of the European maritime slave system. The economics came first, then the justification.
Im not saying that I’m just saying that the romans would find more easily reasons to classify the barbarian tribes as another race to enslave, as they have a HUGE hate boner for them and would have been far cheaper and less dangerous for Roman slavers than to bother going into such inhospitable regions like the Sahara or the Ethiopian Hinterlands just to enslave a tribe when the Ethiopians were already selling african slaves in Egypt, both these regions are notorious for swallowing armies suicidal enough to march through without enough provisions and guides.

the east and african provinces were mostly(other than Carthage) brought into romes influence peacefully thus they did had far less reason to classify racially these peoples as inferior as they would have liked their culture and organisation
 
Last edited:
thus they did had far less reason to classify racially these peoples as inferior as they would have liked their culture and organisation
Syrian slaves were considered as much lowly than Germans, while for different reasons. Orient as a nest of culturally servile people was a trope of Roman political narrative, and people as Octavius used it widely.

Again, the justification less for slavery than inherent superiority of Romania, was an interesting mix of Aristotelician geographical determinism and ethnic considerations, and political might : these peoples were inferior because of their poor lands/poor culture, and Romans were making them a favour enslaving some of them to rise them above the station they would have reached. Not exactly the same as a Roman, but close enough.

Coming from quasi-lamarckian equivalent to social-darwinism on Barbarians or enslaved cattles, it's not obvious to get such a focus on one people in particular. Any real racial theory in Romania would have to consider all Barbaricum (European, Asian, Africa) and neighbouring peoples as one ensemble. Giving that some Roman ethnography even tended to praise some Barbarians as closer to the "state of nature" (which itself was built on the inherent ethnical inferiority of Germans), that's not going to be an easy task.

the east and african provinces were mostly(other than Carthage) brought into romes influence peacefully
Macedonian Wars, Pontic Wars, Jugurthine Wars, the slow and quite ruthless Roman incrochement in Lagid Egypt, without mentioning the low intensity conflicts.
 
Last edited:
Top