Pre-modern attacks on slavery

[hongi]

No Roman or Greek writer I know of ever criticised the institution of slavery, let alone called for its abolition. And as far as I know, slavery started to be criticised at the intellectual level only in the 17th and 18th centuries, which is...astonishing to say the least.

Although, Seneca did have this to say:

Vis tu cogitare istum quem servum tuum vocas ex isdem seminibus ortum eodem frui caelo, aeque spirare, aeque vivere, aeque mori! tam tu illum videre ingenuum potes quam ille te servum.

Are you willing to consider that the person whom you call your slave arose from the same seed to enjoy the same sky, to breathe equally, to live equally, to die equally! You can see in him a free-born man as much as he can see in you a slave. -Seneca Epist. 47.10

Any other examples you can think of? Any particular reason why so many people didn't consider owning people as property wrong?

[Sea Skimmer]

Until the end of feudal governments, pretty much everyone was a slave already. You couldn’t own land, couldn’t leave the land you rented, had to obey the lords every command ect… The Greek and Roman ‘democracies’ which offered voting rights to a tiny fraction of the population were not much better. Under those kind of conditions people have little reason to care about such things as other peoples formal enslavement.

[Stargate Nerd]

Wasn't slavery in the Ancient world a bit different from "Modern" slavery?
For instance Modern slavery was based on racist "guidelines" (African slaves for physical strength) and inescapable for the offspring of slaves, ancient slaves were war prisoners, criminals or people with debt which no particular culture or race targeted as a source for slaves. Also the children of slaves were free persons.

[Imperial Overlord]

Until the end of feudal governments, pretty much everyone was a slave already. You couldn’t own land, couldn’t leave the land you rented, had to obey the lords every command ect…

Actually, conditions could vary tremendously. European feudalism didn't necessarily preclude land ownership and while it did impose a number of obligations these tended to be dispensed with in favor of cash payments during the High and Late medieval period. There was, of course, a power imbalance that favored the feudal lord, but it wasn't entirely one sided. It wasn't a system you wanted to live under, but it wasn't slavery.

[Thanas]

Until the end of feudal governments, pretty much everyone was a slave already. You couldn’t own land, couldn’t leave the land you rented, had to obey the lords every command ect…

That is incorrect. Conditions varied greatly according to regions and tribes.

The Greek and Roman ‘democracies’ which offered voting rights to a tiny fraction of the population were not much better.

Why?

Under those kind of conditions people have little reason to care about such things as other peoples formal enslavement.

The real problem here is defining slavery. For example, under Roman law, slaves could own property, inherit and marry. They also had a right to buy their freedom. Of course, this varies a lot (mine slaves, for example, were real slaves by every definition).

Wasn't slavery in the Ancient world a bit different from "Modern" slavery?

Yes.

ancient slaves were war prisoners, criminals or people with debt which no particular culture or race targeted as a source for slaves.

That is wrong - germans for examples were targeted as sources, as were several sub-sahara kingdoms.

Also the children of slaves were free persons.

Your source?


If anyone wants to read a story of arguing against slavery, one only needs to look towards the renaissance and the following century.

- Antonio de Montesinos
- Francisco de Vitoria
- Bartolomé de las Casas
- Francisco Suárez

Are just a few names. Granted, you have to define modern as only pertaining to the 17th century and onwards, but the people mentioned above are all worth reading.

[Darth Wong]

The Greek and Roman ‘democracies’ which offered voting rights to a tiny fraction of the population were not much better.

Why?

Is it not obvious that the idea of "democracy" means very little if >90% of the population is barred from participation in it?

[Thanas]

The Greek and Roman ‘democracies’ which offered voting rights to a tiny fraction of the population were not much better.

Why?

Is it not obvious that the idea of "democracy" means very little if >90% of the population is barred from participation in it?

It is obvious, but that was not the point he was making. He was making the specific allegation that the greek and roman republics/democracies were not much better than the society in the middle ages and I was asking him to back that one up.

[Darth Wong]

Is it not obvious that the idea of "democracy" means very little if >90% of the population is barred from participation in it?

It is obvious, but that was not the point he was making. He was making the specific allegation that the greek and roman republics/democracies were not much better than the society in the middle ages and I was asking him to back that one up.

I think he was making that comment with respect to the rights allotted to the disadvantaged portion of society, which seem rather minimal in both cases.

[Thanas]

I think he was making that comment with respect to the rights allotted to the disadvantaged portion of society, which seem rather minimal in both cases.

The rights were rather minimal, but the ancient laws were far more tolerant. For example, every roman slave had the right to buy/earn his freedom. I am unaware that any medieval law said "If your tenant pays this sum, you have to set him free" or that medieval societies even enforced laws that prohibited cruel treatment of the tenants. It is also extremely hard to find reliable data on the treatment of slaves and I am unaware of any data that says the majority of slaves were treated harshly.

I'm also a bit curious which society the >90% figure quoted by you is supposed to represent.

[Darth Wong]

The rights were rather minimal, but the ancient laws were far more tolerant. For example, every roman slave had the right to buy/earn his freedom. I am unaware that any medieval law said "If your tenant pays this sum, you have to set him free" or that medieval societies even enforced laws that prohibited cruel treatment of the tenants. It is also extremely hard to find reliable data on the treatment of slaves and I am unaware of any data that says the majority of slaves were treated harshly.

Even black slaves in 18th century America could buy their freedom, although it rarely happened. Were there actual laws in ancient Greece and Rome prohibiting mistreatment? You wouldn't know anything about the wording of those laws, would you?

I'm also a bit curious which society the >90% figure quoted by you is supposed to represent.

I had seen on a BBC documentary that the population of ancient Athens was roughly 250,000 but they only had about 30,000 fully enfranchised male citizens. Admittedly that's not precisely 90%, but I wasn't expecting to get into a debate about exact numbers. Of course, if those numbers are inaccurate, feel free to correct me. I'm not a historian, after all. And Athens was said to be the most democratic Greek city-state, so the others would presumably be worse.

[Akhlut]

John Ball, a priest during England's Peasant Revolt of 1381 said the following as a sermon during the revolt: When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman ? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may ( if ye will ) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.


So, yeah, this sort of thought has been around for a while, it just hasn't been expressed all that often until the Enlightenment.

[Stargate Nerd]

That is wrong - germans for examples were targeted as sources, as were several sub-sahara kingdoms.

I suppose you're talking about the Romans. I don't know if it counts as a proper source but this says different:

In the ancient world, slaves were taken simply based upon need or want. There was no ethnic or territorial preference for the taking of slaves. As the vast majority was captured as the result of Roman wars, wherever there were Roman victories, there would be new slaves. There is no evidence to suggest that the Romans placed any preference for slavery, or exceptions, based on race or country of origin. The only thing the Romans held in deference was whether or not someone was a Roman.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-slavery.php

Your source?

It's something that I picked up reading over time. Maybe I misremembered. Anyway I concede.

[Thanas]

Even black slaves in 18th century America could buy their freedom, although it rarely happened. Were there actual laws in ancient Greece and Rome prohibiting mistreatment? You wouldn't know anything about the wording of those laws, would you?

The laws are somewhere, but not on the internet iirc and I don't fancy a trip to my university library at this time.

A Constitution of Claudius enacted that if a man exposed his slaves, who were infirm, they should become free; and the Constitution also declared that if they were put to death, the act should be murder (Suet. Claud. 25). It was also enacted (Cod. 3 tit. 38 s11) that in sales or division of property, slaves, such as husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, should not be separated.

Dio Chrysostom gave a speech in the Forum of Rome around AD100 in which he explicitly condemned slavery as unjust.By the second century slaves suing their masters for cruel treatment was well established law.

He forbade masters to kill their slaves, and ordered that any who deserved it should be sentenced by the courts. He forbade anyone to sell a slave or a maid-servant to a procurer or trainer of gladiators without giving a reason therefor. He ordered that those who had wasted their property, if legally responsible, should be flogged in the amphitheatre and then let go. Houses of hard labour for slaves and free he abolished. He provided separate baths for the sexes. He issued an order that, if a slave-owner were murdered in his house, no slaves should be examined save those who were near enough to have had a knowledge of the murder.

He is also known of having banished at least one wealthy lady for mistreating her servants. Banishment at those times was one of the harshest penalties available, second only to death and service in the mines.

Antoninus Pius issued an imperial decree which said that every slave running from a cruel master who embraced the statue of the emperor is to be given his freedom. (The christians later coopted this legal principle as church sanctuary).

Stoic philosophers were the most rabid opponents of slavery iirc.

I had seen on a BBC documentary that the population of ancient Athens was roughly 250,000 but they only had about 30,000 fully enfranchised male citizens. Admittedly that's not precisely 90%, but I wasn't expecting to get into a debate about exact numbers. Of course, if those numbers are inaccurate, feel free to correct me.

No, those are pretty accurate ones for classical Athens. Still, 3/25 is a better ratio and 30.000 are way more than the numbers of male nobility in any medieval country.

[Thanas]

That is wrong - germans for examples were targeted as sources, as were several sub-sahara kingdoms.

I suppose you're talking about the Romans. I don't know if it counts as a proper source

It doesn't, really. But I'll try and answer it anyway, although without the sources it is based on I can't really do so.

but this says different:

In the ancient world, slaves were taken simply based upon need or want.

Correct - but from where did the vast majority of those come from?

There was no ethnic or territorial preference for the taking of slaves.

Slave trading was very common along the german border. Also, iirc Tacitus mentions that german slaves were very prices, presumably due to their looks. Germanic slaves do seem to make up the majority of slaves.

As the vast majority was captured as the result of Roman wars,

Doubtful.

Of course, it is quite possible that germans were taken simply because they were in much larger supply, but after all, the romans always had a knack for all things germanic.

[Samuel]

No, those are pretty accurate ones for classical Athens. Still, 3/25 is a better ratio and 30.000 are way more than the numbers of male nobility in any medieval country.

Didn't the Athenians use the same franchise as the US until 1863? You just needed to be a male free citizen to vote. The reason the amount was so low was due to the large numbers of foreigners and slaves in the city.

[frogcurry]

When the first Spanish colonisation efforts in the New World started, Isabella and Ferdinand blocked several sales of slaves sent back by Columbus - the natives being seen as subjects of the monarchs and people ready to be enlightened by the Christian ideals, hence under the Crown of Castiles protection. They were sent back on subsequent expeditions (not necessarily to their benefit though - the death rate from being captured, enslaved and sent across and then back again being pretty bad). The exception were those seen as "bad" natives - i.e .the caribs, or anyone who could be portrayed as a carib or dangerous native by those who enslaved them. Separately there was a small degree of opposition from some in the religous establishment in Spain - including some of those close to Isabella - who opposed what they saw as non-righteous slavery. However none of this opposition seems to have been outright opposition to the concept of slavery, only that of the Hispaniola/ Caribbean natives.

I've not familiar with what happens post-Isabella/ Columbus but I assume the growing use of native slaves that he encouraged (since he himself never found the vast quantities of gold he promised Castile) in the New World plus less concern from the rulers of Spain probably acted to normalise the mass use of non-white slaves in the new world.

Any particular reason why so many people didn't consider owning people as property wrong?

In Europe, I'd expect a significant factor in encouraging the acceptance of slavery would be the religous Christian/ Islamic wars, with millions enslaved over hundreds of years of war from both sides (on occasion in the 1500's the coasts of Spain and Italy were de-populated in areas by fear of slave-takers from North Africa). It'd be a significant normaliser for both sides to accept the idea of slavery. Once it becomes acceptable in principle, its easy enough to use it for criminals, heretics etc as well.

Also there is the need in the Meditterreanean region to have slaves for galley-rowing, which was basically a prelonged death sentence.

[Elfdart]

Slave trading was very common along the german border. Also, iirc Tacitus mentions that german slaves were very prices, presumably due to their looks. Germanic slaves do seem to make up the majority of slaves.

Wouldn't that part of Europe be a likely source anyway -because of the constant fighting among the various German tribes (meaning more people abducted to be sold into slavery) and the convenient location (Germans being just across a river from Roman territory)?

[Thanas]

Yes, like I said, "resources" had a lot to do with it. However, constant fighting is somewhat of a misnomer - there are very few wars between german tribes we know of in detail.

[hongi]

In Europe, I'd expect a significant factor in encouraging the acceptance of slavery would be the religous Christian/ Islamic wars, with millions enslaved over hundreds of years of war from both sides

Off-topic I know, but when the Byzantines took Muslim slaves and vice versa, did the owners allow them to practice their religion?

[Samuel]

In Europe, I'd expect a significant factor in encouraging the acceptance of slavery would be the religous Christian/ Islamic wars, with millions enslaved over hundreds of years of war from both sides

Off-topic I know, but when the Byzantines took Muslim slaves and vice versa, did the owners allow them to practice their religion?

Well, I remember there was a prohibition against Muslims fighting each other, so when they took Marmalukes, they probably let them continue their previous religion. Otherwise I think they tried to convert their slaves to save their immortal souls.

[hongi]

Well, I remember there was a prohibition against Muslims fighting each other, so when they took Marmalukes, they probably let them continue their previous religion. Otherwise I think they tried to convert their slaves to save their immortal souls.

Does that mean the Byzantines allowed the construction of mosques within the empire? Even...Constantinople?

[Samuel]

Well, I remember there was a prohibition against Muslims fighting each other, so when they took Marmalukes, they probably let them continue their previous religion. Otherwise I think they tried to convert their slaves to save their immortal souls.

Does that mean the Byzantines allowed the construction of mosques within the empire? Even...Constantinople?

Marmalukes were a Muslim practice. And you don't build temples for slaves, especially if you are trying to convert them.

[Thanas]

Well, I remember there was a prohibition against Muslims fighting each other, so when they took Marmalukes, they probably let them continue their previous religion. Otherwise I think they tried to convert their slaves to save their immortal souls.

Does that mean the Byzantines allowed the construction of mosques within the empire? Even...Constantinople?

No, they did not.

That said, they employed a fair number of non-christians as soldiers, who were free to worship as they liked.

[hongi]

For instance Modern slavery was based on racist "guidelines" (African slaves for physical strength) and inescapable for the offspring of slaves, ancient slaves were war prisoners, criminals or people with debt which no particular culture or race targeted as a source for slaves. Also the children of slaves were free persons.

Depends. If you read the Bible, you'll see that Hebrew slaves were to be freed every seventh year and it was somewhat like an indentured servitude. Foreign slaves, such as those captured as prisoners of war, were permanent slaves and their children were permanent slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46). I don't know about racism, but certainly slaves had different rights depending on their ethnicity. You could draw a comparison to the Greeks, who thought it fine to enslave barbarians, but were hesitant about enslaving fellow Greeks.

Was it just culture? A lot of us hate slavery because we grew up in a society that tells us to. And when asked about why we hate slavery, we cite physical or emotional abuse, chains and scarred backs. But I think a lot of us would find it more difficult to explain why slavery is wrong if the conditions were good, in fact better than before that person was enslaved. As a society, we hardly ever think about the reasons why. Perhaps that was the same for the ancients, they just accepted it without thinking too deeply about it.

[Stargate Nerd]

Depends. If you read the Bible, you'll see that Hebrew slaves were to be freed every seventh year and it was somewhat like an indentured servitude. Foreign slaves, such as those captured as prisoners of war, were permanent slaves and their children were permanent slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46). I don't know about racism, but certainly slaves had different rights depending on their ethnicity. You could draw a comparison to the Greeks, who thought it fine to enslave barbarians, but were hesitant about enslaving fellow Greeks.

Yeah I think I misremembered the part about the children being born free. Maybe that was just one particular culture that did it, but I really can't remember.

Was it just culture? A lot of us hate slavery because we grew up in a society that tells us to. And when asked about why we hate slavery, we cite physical or emotional abuse, chains and scarred backs. But I think a lot of us would find it more difficult to explain why slavery is wrong if the conditions were good, in fact better than before that person was enslaved. As a society, we hardly ever think about the reasons why. Perhaps that was the same for the ancients, they just accepted it without thinking too deeply about it.

TBH I can't imagine a situation where the conditions would ever be what I consider good. But good is relative, so someone might describe it that way.

The fact that nowadays the term slavery is universally accepted as being bad even if some argue that the concept still exists in other forms, shows, imo, how far we have come.