Roman Slaves: What happened to them?

So all the various threads about Slavery and how long it could have lasted got me thinking about another Empire that had widespread use of slavery: Rome. I remember reading somewhere that at one point 10 percent of the Empire's population were enslaved, maybe even higher. With a population of 60 million plus this would amount to,guesstimating 8 million slaves. So what happened to them all? Was slavery gradually fazed out? Did the slaves die out because of various barbarian invasions? Or was there another reason that I haven't thought of? And what about in the East? Did slavery last longer or shorter there?
 
Gradually transitioned into being de jure free but de facto still slaves peasants.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Gradual shift. We know slavery still existed in the post- Roman kingdoms, but seemed to be declining. Another thing that is important is the end to influx of new slaves except in huge trade ports or at the religious frontier once the church was able to enforce the ban on Christians enslaving Christians.
 
In general slaves had a lower birth rate than non-slaves, so unless new slaves are constantly acquired through conquest or trade from outside the Empire, their numbers as a proportion of the total population will steadily decline. After the Empire stopped expanding, and the wealth of the Empire had declined, the influx of new slaves slowed to a trickle, with the expected impact on the size of the slave population.
 

ingemann

Banned
Most Roman slaves wasn't born slaves, and most if they wasn't worked to death bought themselves free. So when the supply of slaves stopped the number of slaves slowly fell, also after the adoption of Christianity slavery was strongly discouraged, so when the barbarian invasions happened slaves were very rare.
 
In general slaves had a lower birth rate than non-slaves, so unless new slaves are constantly acquired through conquest or trade from outside the Empire, their numbers as a proportion of the total population will steadily decline. After the Empire stopped expanding, and the wealth of the Empire had declined, the influx of new slaves slowed to a trickle, with the expected impact on the size of the slave population.

A bit simplistic that.

More in depth analysis here

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/050704.pdf
 
Part of it was that slavery was viewed as somewhat un-Christian at the time (this would be rationalized away later in the 16th-19th centuries), especially when the slaves were fellow Christians. Freeing your slaves (or at least converting them to serfs) was seen as a good deed, and as paganism was stamped out in Europe, the local supply of new non-Christians to enslave dried up at the same time that the collapse of long-distance commerce cut off the supply of new slaves from further afield.

More of it was that slavery was becoming unprofitable relative to serfdom: the aforementioned birth rate issues meant slaves needed to be replaced but serfs could replace themselves, serfs worked harder without harsh (and expensive) oversight, and serfs were responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves. Slavery is generally more profitable than serfdom or free labor only when there's a shortage of free labor, plenty of available slaves or potential slaves, and strong legal and cultural institutions that make it easy to keep slaves enslaved. All of these were the case in Roman times, but none were the case in the High Middle Ages.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Part of it was that slavery was viewed as somewhat un-Christian at the time (this would be rationalized away later in the 16th-19th centuries), especially when the slaves were fellow Christians. Freeing your slaves (or at least converting them to serfs) was seen as a good deed, and as paganism was stamped out in Europe, the local supply of new non-Christians to enslave dried up at the same time that the collapse of long-distance commerce cut off the supply of new slaves from further afield.

More of it was that slavery was becoming unprofitable relative to serfdom: the aforementioned birth rate issues meant slaves needed to be replaced but serfs could replace themselves, serfs worked harder without harsh (and expensive) oversight, and serfs were responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves. Slavery is generally more profitable than serfdom or free labor only when there's a shortage of free labor, plenty of available slaves or potential slaves, and strong legal and cultural institutions that make it easy to keep slaves enslaved. All of these were the case in Roman times, but none were the case in the High Middle Ages.
As you said it was okay to enslave non- Christians. So in the Middle Ages the places you find slaves in Christian Europe are large trade ports like the Italian City States, or the religious frontier, like Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and Iberia.
 
Most Roman slaves wasn't born slaves, and most if they wasn't worked to death bought themselves free. So when the supply of slaves stopped the number of slaves slowly fell, also after the adoption of Christianity slavery was strongly discouraged, so when the barbarian invasions happened slaves were very rare.

The adoption of Christianity had no impact on slavery. Slavery continued much as it had done for centuries in the eastern Roman Empire, as well as the post-Roman states in western Europe. Only that in western Europe, slavery would be overshadowed in some regions with the rise of serfdom.

By the 11th century, Christian kingdoms in Europe would stop the trade of Christians as slaves, particularly with Pagan Norse or Muslims. Enslavement of Muslims from Spain and North Africa and Pagans from northern and eastern Europe, though, was regarded as justifiable. Even Greek Orthodox Christians, considered 'heretics' by Catholics from western Europe, were often made into slaves. Many Italian cities such as Rome and Venice operated slave-markets right into the Medieval period.
 
Serfdom did not directly follow on from slavery or replace it. Serfdom arose centuries after slavery was already rare, and agricultural slavery almost non-existent.

Slavery simply became pointless with the decline of the commercial economy of antiquity and the rise of local, usually cashless or cash strapped economies. Slaves were replaced by free tenants, not by serfs. Only later on, after the Banal revolution, did serfdom really start to gain traction.
 
Are you sure? My understanding is that serfdom has its roots in Dominate-period tax enforcement laws tying tenant farmers to their lands (late third century) and really took off during the Carolingian period, while slavery was still going strong in the Carolingian period and didn't fully die out in Europe until the 11th or 12th century.
 
Are you sure? My understanding is that serfdom has its roots in Dominate-period tax enforcement laws tying tenant farmers to their lands (late third century) and really took off during the Carolingian period, while slavery was still going strong in the Carolingian period and didn't fully die out in Europe until the 11th or 12th century.

The foundations of Medieval serfdom have very little to do with Diocletian's coloni in terms of direct ancestry. While they certainly look like each other, it's more a matter of resemblance than family relation.

Slavery did indeed persist up until the rise of serfdom in the 10th and 11th centuries, but not in anywhere near the numbers it had had in antiquity and most serfs did not count slaves as anything but very distant ancestors, if they had any at all. Serfdom was a reaction to the final, total demonetization of the European economy, when non-subsistence economic activity virtually disappeared, combined with the increasing insecurity of the fragmenting Carolingian Empire. During the height of the Carolingians, the social structure of the middle ages hadn't really formed yet, most lordships were still appointed, and people were generally still nominally free, although usually not landowners of any sort.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The adoption of Christianity had no impact on slavery. Slavery continued much as it had done for centuries in the eastern Roman Empire, as well as the post-Roman states in western Europe. Only that in western Europe, slavery would be overshadowed in some regions with the rise of serfdom.

By the 11th century, Christian kingdoms in Europe would stop the trade of Christians as slaves, particularly with Pagan Norse or Muslims. Enslavement of Muslims from Spain and North Africa and Pagans from northern and eastern Europe, though, was regarded as justifiable. Even Greek Orthodox Christians, considered 'heretics' by Catholics from western Europe, were often made into slaves. Many Italian cities such as Rome and Venice operated slave-markets right into the Medieval period.

Well, I wouldn't say Christianity had no effect, just that it took a long time for Christianity to have an effect. For a long time the Church lacked the authority to demand an end to enslaving other Christians.

The Church didn't outlaw slavery, just enslaving other Christians (meaning you could have a Christian slave, if that slave wasn't a Christian when he was enslaved). Greek slaves was a controversial issue in Italy. While Bogumil Heretics from Bosnia (and Catholic and Orthodox Bosnians too, because the Slavers could always claim they were Bogumils, and in the eyes of the Italian buyers, all Bosnians were Bogumils) were okay to be enslaved, the Church was actually in some disagreement over if Orthodox Greeks were heretic enough to be considered non- Christians. Another important point is that the offspring of a slave (typically the offspring of a free man and a female slave) was considered Christian by birth, and thus most often not a slave (although this ruled wasn't always followed).
 
Well, I wouldn't say Christianity had no effect, just that it took a long time for Christianity to have an effect. For a long time the Church lacked the authority to demand an end to enslaving other Christians.

The Church had plenty of authority. After they gained converts among the rulers of the kings of post-Roman Europe, they became their secretaries, and even had a place revising the law-codes. The Church even held slaves on the properties they owned. It took centuries for slavery to be out-phased in throughout most of Christian Europe, and even then, slavery was still permitted in the colonies beyond Europe. So saying that Christianity simply "took a long time" to have an effect, is a weak defense. Officials in the Christian churches, over the centuries, were happy to get involved in, and promoted, slavery when it suited them.
 
Top