What if Roman EMPIRE, not Republic, in around its peak bans slavery? Rome decreases slightly in size due to the military power needed to enforce this act. Would this allow them to survive longer or perish faster?
What if the Roman Empire banned slavery?
- Thread starter kichu200211
- Start date
-
- Tags
- empire italy roman empire rome slavery
What do you consider the Roman Empire's peak? Or more precisely, which Roman Empire, the Principate (which would probably be considered as peaking with the Five Good Emperors (96 AD - 180 AD) and specifically with either Trajan or Marcus Aurelius), the Dominate (which probably peaked early, with Diocletian, Constantine, or perhaps Julian), or the ERE after the fall of the WRE (which probably peaked with Justinian I).
The idea appears not to have been even mentioned as a hypothetical by anyone in Graeco-Roman antiquity.
It's the equivalent of them adopting marxist socialism.
It's the equivalent of them adopting marxist socialism.
Funny thing...
TvTropes claims that morality aside, slavery is the most efficient form of labour since the costs are only living expenses of the slaves, and overseeing which is less than paying for unions.
From the employer/slaveowner perspective it is more attractive to pay for the living costs and overseers than what a person would willing accept (if a person was willingly accept less than living costs they aren't working for the money and it must be a hobby).
But from the point of society, slavery is a bad deal even ignoring moral stench. If a person refuses to do a job at $20/hour (I'm taking in 2010 dollars just in case if this becomes dated), then it is a signal that either he has a way to make his time more productive on some other work, or the $20/hour job has some aspect that makes it not worth it... say a 1/3000 chances of dying in a career. Like Ice Road Truckers in Canada. Or maybe sewage workers. With complete information, the market brings workers to their most productive uses and brings unpleasant jobs to those who mind it the least. With slavery, workers are tied to jobs by birth or their owner's whims.
So slavery is morally wrong and economically inferior to pure capitalism (not that anyone would have called this capitalism back then... the legal market of goods supplied by private actors just matches capitalism). If an Emperor had enough wealth to pay the market value of all slaves, emancipated slavery would be good for the Empire in the long run. Except, Rome doesn't last beyond 476, so it's not going to reap the economic rewards anyways...
TvTropes claims that morality aside, slavery is the most efficient form of labour since the costs are only living expenses of the slaves, and overseeing which is less than paying for unions.
From the employer/slaveowner perspective it is more attractive to pay for the living costs and overseers than what a person would willing accept (if a person was willingly accept less than living costs they aren't working for the money and it must be a hobby).
But from the point of society, slavery is a bad deal even ignoring moral stench. If a person refuses to do a job at $20/hour (I'm taking in 2010 dollars just in case if this becomes dated), then it is a signal that either he has a way to make his time more productive on some other work, or the $20/hour job has some aspect that makes it not worth it... say a 1/3000 chances of dying in a career. Like Ice Road Truckers in Canada. Or maybe sewage workers. With complete information, the market brings workers to their most productive uses and brings unpleasant jobs to those who mind it the least. With slavery, workers are tied to jobs by birth or their owner's whims.
So slavery is morally wrong and economically inferior to pure capitalism (not that anyone would have called this capitalism back then... the legal market of goods supplied by private actors just matches capitalism). If an Emperor had enough wealth to pay the market value of all slaves, emancipated slavery would be good for the Empire in the long run. Except, Rome doesn't last beyond 476, so it's not going to reap the economic rewards anyways...
One or two thinkers did ponder it, but yeah.
In any case slavery was effectively phased out into the later Roman empire in favor of proto serfdom.
Who raised it, besides that one Greek who that it might be eventually rendered obsolete by a system where things simply pop into existence beyond demand?
I'm genuinely curious.
Alcidamas of Asia Minor is the only name that came to mind.
Whoever bans it finds himself dead before the end of the month and slavery is reinstated.Basically,most people that mattered owned slaves,you will not want to antagonize them.
I have the impression that at least some antique slaves did receive regular payments, and that they even could save up to buying their freedom. If so, slavery seems more like a social class.
Yes, that salary is called a peculium. And it's common, I think. It's part of tradition. Not legally enforced, but owners are socially expected to play a peculium to their slaves.
And a large proportion of slaves get freed, either outright by being freed during the owner's lifetime, or by will. In fact, Augustus had to pass legislation to limit the number of slaves being freed in a will, because so many slaves are being freed that it was feared that it would 'corrupt' pure Roman blood.
And those freedmen would be Roman citizens, and their children could aspire to be Senators, or even Emperor (like Pertinax, who was a son of a freedman).
No. I'm just saying that Ancient Romans can't see slavery as morally evil, as whatever bad or evil thing about could easily remedied by freeing your slave who deserved to be freed, making him your client, and also a Roman citizen. His children would be without any disabilities concerning the slave father's servitude, and could rise high. Just look at Emperor Pertinax.
Not the slaves worked to death in latifundia or lead mines and similar places.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Yeah put the distinction between an impoverished citizen after the Edict of Carracalla and a slave was pretty small. No influence would mean a "free" worker could be just as exploited as an unfree one.
Also, slavery, while awful since slaves had no human or political rights whatsoever, was not limited to race, or even class (some slaves were teachers or other high-skilled professionals. Others were terribly mistreated), and was widespread all over society. It was a very different situation from the chattel slavery that gave rise to the modern abolitionist movements.
I think an abolitionist movement in Ancient Rome would be more comparable to the conflict between the Plebes and the Patricians. Certainly Christianity or other liberationist religions could play a role. But I'm not expert enough to comment anything else.
I used this idea in my Res Novae Romanae timeline, although one certainly cannot call the Crisis of the Third Century a peak of anything Roman.
The context there were military academies implemented by Hadrian, bringing forth a new type of educated military elite which isn't necessarily linked with the old senatorial or even equestrian elites and which remains, while holding most positions within the legions, relatively removed from the inner circle of political power for an entire century, at the end of which three philosophical doctrines have developed within this group:
a) one which is more akin to OTL's usurpatory mindset
b) one which is able to swing around TTL's Plotinus and which emphasises social cohesion and universal hands-on participation in the "res publica", decrying wealthy aloof elites as well as sectarian hermits
c) and another one which is Christian and starts a militant revolution in North Africa during a wave of persecution.
b) and c) both favour the abolition of slavery for different reasons.
Looking back at it, there are quite a number of plausibility issues. What I still maintain is that economically, it would have perfectly worked, but the change in people's mindsets would have to be quite enormous. Not impossible - Christianity has changed views of slavery anyway IOTL, even if it did not outright abolish it -, but not something that just pops up out of nowhere.
The context there were military academies implemented by Hadrian, bringing forth a new type of educated military elite which isn't necessarily linked with the old senatorial or even equestrian elites and which remains, while holding most positions within the legions, relatively removed from the inner circle of political power for an entire century, at the end of which three philosophical doctrines have developed within this group:
a) one which is more akin to OTL's usurpatory mindset
b) one which is able to swing around TTL's Plotinus and which emphasises social cohesion and universal hands-on participation in the "res publica", decrying wealthy aloof elites as well as sectarian hermits
c) and another one which is Christian and starts a militant revolution in North Africa during a wave of persecution.
b) and c) both favour the abolition of slavery for different reasons.
Looking back at it, there are quite a number of plausibility issues. What I still maintain is that economically, it would have perfectly worked, but the change in people's mindsets would have to be quite enormous. Not impossible - Christianity has changed views of slavery anyway IOTL, even if it did not outright abolish it -, but not something that just pops up out of nowhere.