France still bitter about Waterloo

[K. A. Pital]

What, seriously? Dundamaev's statement on slavery in the Achaemenid Empire (he is the researcher in the quoted book);

On the whole, there was only a small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons even in the most developed countries of the Achaemenid empire, and slave labor was in no position to supplant the labor of free workers. The basis of agriculture was the labor of free farmers and tenants and in handicrafts the labor of free artisans, whose occupation was usually inherited within the family, likewise predominated. In these countries of the empire, slavery had already undergone important changes by the time of the emergence of the Persian state. Debt slavery was no longer common. The practice of pledging one’s person for debt, not to mention self-sale, had totally disappeared by the Persian period.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i

So we got little evidence but what little evidence there is suggest slavery was widespread in the Empire.

What, seriously? The author above seems to disagree with what you said. And he's kind of like one of the foremost experts on ancient Persia.

I don't see anything in Napoleon's actions that suggest he was a better ruler and/or administrator than the Prussians or the Dutch, not even the Austrians.

I am not sure how you could compare their laws with the Napoleonic code. I'm also not sure their laws at the start of the Napoleonic wars were anything similar to what they were by the end of these wars, when most nations started modernizing rapidly after suffering one humiliating defeat at the hands of the French Empire after another.

[Channel72]

It looks like Dundamaev is basing a lot of this on some of the few scant sources mentioned - the Behistun inscription and Herodotus, for example. The rest seems to come from various Babylonian contracts.

He also mentions that:

Our information on privately owned slaves in Iran is scanty and haphazard.

I don't know. Reading the entire article, it looks like Dundamaev points out various places across the Empire where slaves were traded or owned, but then mentions that on the whole there were much less slaves than free workers, and that free workers constituted most of the labor. But he doesn't quantify any of these statements, likely because he really can't - there isn't sufficient data.

The situation is probably way more complex when you look into the practices in any one particular city or satrap, especially satraps West of Mesopotamia. I mean, we know that the Jews under Persian rule at least pretty much kept their religious laws and customs - which would indicate this was probably common elsewhere as well. Extensive archaeological excavations throughout Israel have shown that during the Second Temple Period, contractual slavery was very common - but admittedly most of the evidence demonstrating this comes from Hellenistic/Roman times. Also, Nehemiah 7 (don't laugh, it's well known to be very likely an actual contemporary source from the Achaemenid era) mentions thousands of slaves which returned to Jerusalem after Cyrus's decree. In general, it doesn't really seem like Judea saw any kind of abnormal decrease in slavery under Persian rule - even though (as is typical with the Persians) that time period is one of the worst documented periods of Israel's history - probably because it was relatively peaceful under Persian administration.

Also, the Elephantine papyri, a collection of various documents from Egypt which include documents from the Achaemenid era, also mentions the manumission of slaves.

I guess it's really hard to say - and it probably varied greatly depending on the region. But I guess Dundamaev has good reason to believe that on the whole (which I'm assuming means mostly in core places like Persepolis) the Achaemenid period saw a major decline in slavery.

[Thanas]

What, seriously? Dundamaev's statement on slavery in the Achaemenid Empire (he is the researcher in the quoted book);

On the whole, there was only a small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons even in the most developed countries of the Achaemenid empire, and slave labor was in no position to supplant the labor of free workers. The basis of agriculture was the labor of free farmers and tenants and in handicrafts the labor of free artisans, whose occupation was usually inherited within the family, likewise predominated. In these countries of the empire, slavery had already undergone important changes by the time of the emergence of the Persian state. Debt slavery was no longer common. The practice of pledging one’s person for debt, not to mention self-sale, had totally disappeared by the Persian period.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i

So we got little evidence but what little evidence there is suggest slavery was widespread in the Empire.

What, seriously? The author above seems to disagree with what you said. And he's kind of like one of the foremost experts on ancient Persia.

Here is the problem, Stas:
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If societies previously owned slaves but we do not find large sources of slaves during a later period, only some, that does not mean there was a decline in slavery, it just means there was a decline in the evidence for slavery. That is a crucial difference. Given the scarcity of evidence, all it takes is one shovel of ostraka and everything collapses.
2. The situation is so complex that I don't think blanket statements can be made. The article you linked to shows a lot of evidence that there were large number of slaves, that some Persians themselves became slaveowners and that in the strictest sense, everybody was a slave to the king (though obviously not in practice).

I don't know. Reading the entire article, it looks like Dundamaev points out various places across the Empire where slaves were traded or owned, but then mentions that on the whole there were much less slaves than free workers, and that free workers constituted most of the labor. But he doesn't quantify any of these statements, likely because he really can't - there isn't sufficient data.

The situation is probably way more complex when you look into the practices in any one particular city or satrap, especially satraps West of Mesopotamia. I mean, we know that the Jews under Persian rule at least pretty much kept their religious laws and customs - which would indicate this was probably common elsewhere as well. Extensive archaeological excavations throughout Israel have shown that during the Second Temple Period, contractual slavery was very common - but admittedly most of the evidence demonstrating this comes from Hellenistic/Roman times. Also, Nehemiah 7 (don't laugh, it's well known to be very likely an actual contemporary source from the Achaemenid era) mentions thousands of slaves which returned to Jerusalem after Cyrus's decree. In general, it doesn't really seem like Judea saw any kind of abnormal decrease in slavery under Persian rule - even though (as is typical with the Persians) that time period is one of the worst documented periods of Israel's history - probably because it was relatively peaceful under Persian administration.

Also, the Elephantine papyri, a collection of various documents from Egypt which include documents from the Achaemenid era, also mentions the manumission of slaves.

I guess it's really hard to say - and it probably varied greatly depending on the region. But I guess Dundamaev has good reason to believe that on the whole (which I'm assuming means mostly in core places like Persepolis) the Achaemenid period saw a major decline in slavery.

Correct. I am willing to believe him that some Achaemenids in some places had less slaves - not because they were opposed to it per se, but rather because the local conditions did not necessitate it. For example, if you live in a place that is held up by tribute from all around the world, you don't have to have slaves, you can pay them. (We see the same in Roman city centres like Trier where slaves were replaced by persons earning a wage btw).

But the main problem is that the Empire was so vast and so diverse that there was no universal law or universal rule. For example, the societies of the conquered Greek cities in Asia Minor saw no change, they still kept their slaves. In Egypt, the people bonded to the land were not suddenly allowed to pack up and go. Slave markets were still the norm for the Phoenician ciites. The Persians were not interested in telling other societies how to live (nobody really was in antiquity). If they kept slaves, so be it - and the vast estates the Persian nobles got in those territories were after all kept up by slaves. IMO, the only reason why slavery was not as prevalent in the few core cities was because there was no need for it due to the tribute.

I am not sure how you could compare their laws with the Napoleonic code. I'm also not sure their laws at the start of the Napoleonic wars were anything similar to what they were by the end of these wars, when most nations started modernizing rapidly after suffering one humiliating defeat at the hands of the French Empire after another.

Even in those nations who were not affected by the Napoleonic wars (see Britain), laws changed due to the pressures of industrialization. The working class was not to be denied. Same as in Prussia - attempts to reform the laws were already discussed before the Napoleonic wars. Serfdom was already abolished in Schleswig by 1780 long before Napoleon invaded it. Napoleon is to be given credit for being a major impetus, but it is not as if he was necessary for that, as the subsequent revolutions show. So I cannot see him being a positive force here, especially in relation to the millions of dead.

[Simon_Jester]

I endorse this statement. So, Simon Jester, under what circumstances CAN you back out of a contract? Suppose when another party or group of parties to the contract start interfering with parts of the contract or don't live up to it?

The only time one is justified in ignoring a treaty is when the other party is already ignoring it, or has deliberately maneuvered so as to make the treaty irrelevant or exploitative. If all parties have acted in good faith there is no justification for you to stop acting in good faith.

If we're talking about a constitution for a federal government and provincial rights to secede... basically to me it boils down to:

1) Was this constitution imposed involuntarily and without your participation and engagement? If yes, rebellion may be justified?
2) Is the federal government violating the constitution, in a manner serious enough to disrupt the basic functioning of the state or force you into submitting to tyranny? If yes, rebellion may be justified, either to overthrow the tyranny or to secede from it.
3) Is the federal government so systematically ignoring the interests of your province that it can only be explained by willful abusive neglect? If yes, then if all normal peaceful means of securing your interests through politics have been exhausted, rebellion may be justified.

The key is that there's a difference between being 'subjected to tyranny' and 'losing,' which I think is something the southern states never really understood... which is how you get modern Republicans calling Obama a tyrant- because they lost to him and buy into that antebellum southern mindset that any political order which doesn't give you what you want is tyrannical, racist against you, and secretly loves your enemies.

[cmdrjones]

I endorse this statement. So, Simon Jester, under what circumstances CAN you back out of a contract? Suppose when another party or group of parties to the contract start interfering with parts of the contract or don't live up to it?

The only time one is justified in ignoring a treaty is when the other party is already ignoring it, or has deliberately maneuvered so as to make the treaty irrelevant or exploitative. If all parties have acted in good faith there is no justification for you to stop acting in good faith.

If we're talking about a constitution for a federal government and provincial rights to secede... basically to me it boils down to:

1) Was this constitution imposed involuntarily and without your participation and engagement? If yes, rebellion may be justified?
2) Is the federal government violating the constitution, in a manner serious enough to disrupt the basic functioning of the state or force you into submitting to tyranny? If yes, rebellion may be justified, either to overthrow the tyranny or to secede from it.
3) Is the federal government so systematically ignoring the interests of your province that it can only be explained by willful abusive neglect? If yes, then if all normal peaceful means of securing your interests through politics have been exhausted, rebellion may be justified.

The key is that there's a difference between being 'subjected to tyranny' and 'losing,' which I think is something the southern states never really understood... which is how you get modern Republicans calling Obama a tyrant- because they lost to him and buy into that antebellum southern mindset that any political order which doesn't give you what you want is tyrannical, racist against you, and secretly loves your enemies.

These are quite reasonable and I agree. With regards to Obama, it's not so much HIM that people object to (though many do for many reasons) but his (as they see them) wrongheaded and shortsighted policies that lead us down a path to where more than a few reasonable people will conclude that #1, #2 or #3 now apply and the game is on so to speak.
Example: in 2008 if someone had told you that Obama administration would be involved in a conspiracy to run guns to mexico and endanger US lives just to make inroads against the 2nd amendment, or that NONE of the bankers responsible for the myriad crimes during and after the financial crisis would be prosecuted, or that he would continue and expand drone wars in other countries that we are NOT at war with, would you have believed it?
many of these kinds of people fear, not so much Obama, but what one of his successors may do with such powers. For instance, I decided Romney was a total moron when during one of the 2012 debates they asked him what he thought of the Obama administration killing via drone strike anwar al alwaki (and his 16 year old son later on too), his reply was basically: Obama is a good man, he wouldn't kill american citizens with Drones unless they're terrorists that is" and I'm yelling at the TV: "What about the next president you idiot!?!?!"

[Simon_Jester]

I endorse this statement. So, Simon Jester, under what circumstances CAN you back out of a contract? Suppose when another party or group of parties to the contract start interfering with parts of the contract or don't live up to it?

The only time one is justified in ignoring a treaty is when the other party is already ignoring it, or has deliberately maneuvered so as to make the treaty irrelevant or exploitative. If all parties have acted in good faith there is no justification for you to stop acting in good faith.

If we're talking about a constitution for a federal government and provincial rights to secede... basically to me it boils down to:

1) Was this constitution imposed involuntarily and without your participation and engagement? If yes, rebellion may be justified?
2) Is the federal government violating the constitution, in a manner serious enough to disrupt the basic functioning of the state or force you into submitting to tyranny? If yes, rebellion may be justified, either to overthrow the tyranny or to secede from it.
3) Is the federal government so systematically ignoring the interests of your province that it can only be explained by willful abusive neglect? If yes, then if all normal peaceful means of securing your interests through politics have been exhausted, rebellion may be justified.

The key is that there's a difference between being 'subjected to tyranny' and 'losing,' which I think is something the southern states never really understood... which is how you get modern Republicans calling Obama a tyrant- because they lost to him and buy into that antebellum southern mindset that any political order which doesn't give you what you want is tyrannical, racist against you, and secretly loves your enemies.

These are quite reasonable and I agree. With regards to Obama, it's not so much HIM that people object to (though many do for many reasons) but his (as they see them) wrongheaded and shortsighted policies that lead us down a path to where more than a few reasonable people will conclude that #1, #2 or #3 now apply and the game is on so to speak.

Example: in 2008 if someone had told you that Obama administration would be involved in a conspiracy to run guns to mexico and endanger US lives just to make inroads against the 2nd amendment, or that NONE of the bankers responsible for the myriad crimes during and after the financial crisis would be prosecuted, or that he would continue and expand drone wars in other countries that we are NOT at war with, would you have believed it?

many of these kinds of people fear, not so much Obama, but what one of his successors may do with such powers. For instance, I decided Romney was a total moron when during one of the 2012 debates they asked him what he thought of the Obama administration killing via drone strike anwar al alwaki (and his 16 year old son later on too), his reply was basically: Obama is a good man, he wouldn't kill american citizens with Drones unless they're terrorists that is" and I'm yelling at the TV: "What about the next president you idiot!?!?!"

If the same people had advanced the same positions as effectively against Bush (who, aside perhaps from Fast and Furious, did the same objectionable things)... sure.

What I'm getting at here is that if you look at the Tea end of the scale there is a profound inability to tell the difference between "our side is the victim of tyranny" and "our side lost an argument because most voters disagree with us." Obamacare is not the Mark of the Beast, nor is it remotely 'reasonable' to think it may evolve into such.

There have been corresponding stupidities on the left in the US ("if Bush wins I'm moving to Canada!"), but it's been more marked from the right lately. The right has the party where even the leadership can't compromise on, say, ten dollars of spending cuts for one dollar of tax increases.

[K. A. Pital]

Are you so sure serfdom was abolished in Schleswig before the Napoleonic wars, Thanas? I am pretty confident that it was abolished in 1804.

I am not sure why Dandamaev made the general statement I quoted, but my own suggestion is that he explored the construction of Persepolis, Achaemenid irrigation objects and the craftsman contracts, which do point to the prevalence of contract labour versus slave labour.

It is true that the Achaemenid Empire did not seek to immediately end slavery in lands that were taken over, but manumissions occured. One cannot rule out the gradual liberation of slaves, especially as manumission was legal in the Achaemenid Empire, but was IIRC not in Ancient Greece, leading to slaves being unable to change their status.

[Thanas]

Are you so sure serfdom was abolished in Schleswig before the Napoleonic wars, Thanas? I am pretty confident that it was abolished in 1804.

Well, the decision is a bit more complex due to the nature of Schleswig politics. 1804 is the final resolution where the King accepted it and it became law, but in practice it was decided earlier. In 1739 it first was enacted for parts of it, then in 1797 every noble agreed to abolish it. So in practice it was destroyed earlier. Meanwhile, let us look at the other german territories:

Austria: 1781 (not realized in provinces outside of Austria proper due to local noble resistance)
Baden: 1783
Braunschweig: 1433
Bayern: 1783, codified again in the constitution of 1808
Hannover: 1833 (ugh)
Hessen: 1811 declared, 1813 codified
Lippe: 1808
Mecklenburg: In parts of the country in 1750s, for the entire country 1822
Nassau: 1808
Oldenburg: 1814
Prussia: Legal 1794, complete in practice 1811
Sachsen: Law passen in 1770s, complete in practice 1832
Westphalia: 1808
Wied: 1791
Würtemberg: 1817
Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck: Free cities since early medieval ages

So as you can see, the picture is not one of "Napoleon arrives and destroys serfdom", but rather that Napoleon in some cases hindered, in others rapidly accelerated the already existing trend towards abolishing serfdom. Ever since the 1730s labor was becoming more and more precious and the nobles had to make more and more concessions to keep the peasants from just fleeing into the other states (which was kinda difficult to do anyways due to the nature of Germany back then, if all it takes is a few days, or a few hours walking and you are a free man good luck trying to stop you).

I am not sure why Dandamaev made the general statement I quoted, but my own suggestion is that he explored the construction of Persepolis, Achaemenid irrigation objects and the craftsman contracts, which do point to the prevalence of contract labour versus slave labour.

But that is not an argument for a general attitude towards slavery. Heck, Roman contracts for high quality prestige buildings and operations show a high prevalence of craftsmen among the construction of prestige buildings. As do old Egyptian contracts for the Pyramids. Nevertheless both nations were slavers. You cannot just take a few prestige objects and then make the exception the norm.

It is true that the Achaemenid Empire did not seek to immediately end slavery in lands that were taken over, but manumissions occured.

As they did in Greece and Rome. Why? Because this is a great way to destroy the economy of your competitor while painting yourself as liberators.

One cannot rule out the gradual liberation of slaves, especially as manumission was legal in the Achaemenid Empire, but was IIRC not in Ancient Greece, leading to slaves being unable to change their status.

This is wrong. Heck, whole dissertations are being written just on Greek manumission inscriptions. Manumission was definitely legal in Ancient Greece and done by both individuals and states, whoever tells you otherwise has not read ancient sources. Meanwhile, look at the economies of the subject states of the Empire - their economy did not change, suggesting that whatever liberation of slaves happened was very small and likely done for propaganda purposes. There was no gain for the Achaemenids in liberating slaves - but a huge economical danger, so they did not.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm... Manumission in Greece did not allow the person to become a citizen, only a resident with reduced rights, which seem to be (from what I read): owning property and marrying amd carrying all duties before the polis (but no privileges or social support), which is something that in the Achaemenid core satrapies at least was a right even for slaves themselves. So while it existed, from a legal standpoint it seems Greece was behind the Persians in this aspect as well.

You seem to be adamatly arguing against the mainstream historic view. Manumissions in occupied periphery may have occured due to economic reasons (undermine competitors), but the absence of slave labour on works that in other societies required heavy use of slave labour do indicate that Dandamaev's assessment is more trustworthy than yours. I would investigate the matter further, though, as I think there were also agricultural records from core satrapies.

Sorry, but no Eurocentric person could ever gain my trust by simply saying all ancient societies were "equal" with the goal of painting Greece no worse than others. The Western historians have rewritten history to paint everyone but them in a bad light. History is a weapon, and it shall be treated as such by all except the blind and gullible.

[Thanas]

Hmm... Manumission in Greece did not allow the person to become a citizen, only a resident with reduced rights, which seem to be (from what I read): owning property and marrying amd carrying all duties before the polis (but no privileges or social support), which is something that in the Achaemenid core satrapies at least was a right even for slaves themselves. So while it existed, from a legal standpoint it seems Greece was behind the Persians in this aspect as well.

Again you make the mistake of oversimplifying. The above view is true in some states, but not in all. And btw, this applied to the Persian cities of Asia minor as well, as they were Greek cities too.

You seem to be adamatly arguing against the mainstream historic view.

What mainstream historic view? Heck, the guy you cited in support does not even say what you think he does. In fact, all he offers up is an assumption, which he freely admits is not based on evidence. The sections where he does indeed cite evidence does not show absence of slavery.

Manumissions in occupied periphery may have occured due to economic reasons (undermine competitors), but the absence of slave labour on works that in other societies required heavy use of slave labour do indicate that Dandamaev's assessment is more trustworthy than yours. I would investigate the matter further, though, as I think there were also agricultural records from core satrapies.

Not at all, you seem to suggest that because the centre is relatively slave-free then the periphery must be as well. This is of course nonsense. The people who built the Hagia Sophia for example were by all historical accounts artisans yet this does not free the Roman Empire from being a slave state. It simply is impossible in those times to get an agricultural surplus that supports such great cities without slavery or serfdom, that is a historical fact. That you chose to ignore it just reveals your deep unfamiliarity with how ancient economies worked.

Sorry, but no Eurocentric person could ever gain my trust by simply saying all ancient societies were "equal" with the goal of painting Greece no worse than others.

I didn't say that, did I? I said some states were, some states were not. My main point is that you cannot just go by the most extreme examples and then proclaim that all others must be like that. It would be like saying that Communism caused genocide in Russia, therefore genocide must be a factor of communism. Nobody would do that, so I will ask that you do the ancient greeks the same courtesy.

Your statement is doubly funny considering my comments about the 300 series and their smearing of the Persian empire as well.

The Western historians have rewritten history to paint everyone but them in a bad light. History is a weapon, and it shall be treated as such by all except the blind and gullible.

I might as well say that everything you say is a lie in order to further your own goal in causing a revolution. In short, unless you agree that a search for verifiable data must be the basis of all discussion, why should I trust what you say ever again?

[K. A. Pital]

Your argument that it is impossible to get the agricultural surplus without slavery indicates that you do not understand that for many Asian societies, especially where the state had thousands of labourers in its own employ, slavery was not a defining feature of the economy. Indeed, had these societies been so reliant on slavery, it is unlikely they would have been able to conceal this fact in records. The observation that almost any Athenian citizen had a slave speaks volumes about the number of slaves in their economy.

In essence, you are arguing that the "Asiatic mode" when the state extracts surplus from farmers, and has farmers, builders and craftsmen in its employ in large numbers, equals classic slavery.

This is ahistoric nonsense, really. I agree that searching for verifiable data is important, but your view that slavery must have permeated every ancient society and have been the basis of their agriultural production is not based on any facts whatsoever. The very limited number of slaves relative to the general population is well-known esp. for Eastern ancient societies. What you are arguing is simply wrong.

[Thanas]

Your argument that it is impossible to get the agricultural surplus without slavery indicates that you do not understand that for many Asian societies, especially where the state had thousands of labourers in its own employ, slavery was not a defining feature of the economy.

Even Dandamaev says that the Persians had slavery-like conditions for family members/workers. Here is the problem. With the grain available at that time you could at most get a 30% surplus, most likely only a 20% surplus. It is not possible to supply huge cities without taking most, if not all of that surplus to feed the cities. That is why you do not see large cities in societies that had no or little slavery like the Barbarian tribes of the Rhine and why cities there are largely created by the Romans. If you are talking about Societies like China and India that was different because they had access to better grain/rice/agricultural conditions thus creating a larger surplus per se. And if you are talking about nomad tribes then they never built any cities either. But if we are talking about anything West of India the conditions are just not there.

Slavery might not have been a defining feature in the very small core territory, but for every else besides that it was one of the pillars of the economy.

Indeed, had these societies been so reliant on slavery, it is unlikely they would have been able to conceal this fact in records.

Sales contracts for slaves exist even in Persepolis and Susa. So slavery was obviously in existence even there. FFS, I feel like this is going in circles.

The observation that almost any Athenian citizen had a slave speaks volumes about the number of slaves in their economy.

Yes, that is Athens. A republic famous for its wealth, thus the number of slaves was high. Nobody denies that.

But what I am awaiting for is an argument as for why this would ever change under Persian rule. It would not. Because it did not change for the Phoenician cities. Nor for the Greek cities under Persian rule. In all likelihood Athens would have been taxed and that would have been it. Persia would not have been interested in freeing the slaves of Athens, for that would have eroded the economy, thus less tribute.

In essence, you are arguing that the "Asiatic mode" when the state extracts surplus from farmers, and has farmers, builders and craftsmen in its employ in large numbers, equals classic slavery.

No. I am arguing that:
a) This asiatic mode did not apply to anything except the Persian core territory and maybe Mesopotamia (though I shall note that there is a huge debate as to how Marxist scholars misinterpreted the archeological evidence and some scholars claim that Marx' idea is completely incompatible with archaeological evidence)
b) Even in the core territoriy, slavery-like conditions did exist for large sections of the society (see Dandamaev)

For example, see this for Dandamaev:

I. D'iakonov and M. Dandamayev agree that Mesopotamian society was divided into three
classes:
1. The owners of the state wide or "collective" means of production, who were engaged not in working, but in decision-making activities;
2. The owners of limited means of production for their own direct use;
3. The disenfranchised labor force, who owned no part of any means of production.

Obviously, the most important item for the accumulation of capital is here under hierarchic control, i.e. the human being, the master converter of matter into wealth. And this sheds light on the function of internationaltrade, which parallels the centralization of the means of production; the function of the former is to concentrate natural products that are not available in a single place - metals, stones, clay, fibers, shells, oxides, and mineral salts - where there is a greater availability of the only nontransportable
item: "man-goods", human skill and technics. Slavery was no more than a simple quantitative variation on this relationship between production and property.

From: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 83?LI=true

I agree that searching for verifiable data is important, but your view that slavery must have permeated every ancient society and have been the basis of their agriultural production is not based on any facts whatsoever. The very limited number of slaves relative to the general population is well-known esp. for Eastern ancient societies. What you are arguing is simply wrong.

What Eastern Ancient societies are you talking about and what is the data for it?

This leads me back to my original question: What is the difference between Helots and a disenfranchised labour force?

[K. A. Pital]

First, there were large cities in the Han Empire in China, which was not a slave economy (indeed, there are very good reasons why Rome and Greece are separately treated by researchers of the Ancient world as the only two societies to develop such an extensive slavery presence in the economy, it could not be ignored in any way, and thus they are the only societies of the period that could be truly named slave societies, as opposed to just societies in which slavery was present, but not pervasive or even marginalized).

Second, the non-slave Empires often had a pool of landless state-employed labour and temporary conscription for public works.

Finally, few ancient Empires matched the opulence and riches of slave societies, and in that you are right.

[Thanas]

First, there were large cities in the Han Empire in China, which was not a slave economy

Yes, as I cited above this is a result of the local agricultural conditions.

(indeed, there are very good reasons why Rome and Greece are separately treated by researchers of the Ancient world as the only two societies to develop such an extensive slavery presence in the economy

Really now? This will need some citation from current scholars.

it could not be ignored in any way, and thus they are the only societies of the period that could be truly named slave societies, as opposed to just societies in which slavery was present, but not pervasive or even marginalized).

Slavery was just as important to many parts of the Achaemenid empire as it was to Greece.

I also love how you don't answer the questions raised in my post and ignore the main point. This takes some serious skill.

[K. A. Pital]

Really now? This will need some citation from current scholars.

Come on, you fancy yourself a scholar of Rome and Greece and you don't know the difference between slave society and society with slaves?
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37086

But what I am awaiting for is an argument as for why this would ever change under Persian rule. It would not. Because it did not change for the Phoenician cities. Nor for the Greek cities under Persian rule. In all likelihood Athens would have been taxed and that would have been it. Persia would not have been interested in freeing the slaves of Athens, for that would have eroded the economy, thus less tribute.

Good point. Not sure if they would have reformed the far-flung provinces (though likely, as evidenced by other Asian empires - if something remained long enough inside the Empire, it eventually was subjected to the same social order). But if during the war the slave society would've been devastated, that's no big concern for me either.

Yes, as I cited above this is a result of the local agricultural conditions.

Are you so sure agricultural conditions in ANE were so much worse than in China? I'd like to see some evidence for that.

I also love how you don't answer the questions raised in my post and ignore the main point.

You confuse existence of slavery in Persepolis with slavery being a key feature of the economy - if that's your main point, I am truly not sure what to make of it.

[Thanas]

Really now? This will need some citation from current scholars.

Come on, you fancy yourself a scholar of Rome and Greece and you don't know the difference between slave society and society with slaves?

No, what I would like is some data that shows that Rome and Greece were that different from the other contemporary civilizations, namely the Carthagineans (who were the largest slave traders of Africa and Hispania), Latins, Syrakusans and Greece proper.

Curiously your link says that a slave society should be defined as 30%. Since the commonly accepted figure under the Empire is something between 10-15%, this would disqualify Rome.

Good point. Not sure if they would have reformed the far-flung provinces (though likely, as evidenced by other Asian empires - if something remained long enough inside the Empire , it eventually was subjected to the same social order).

Other Asian empires =/= Persian empire. The Persian empire never reformed any of their provinces, which is why Alexander could so easily take them over by just replacing the elites.

But if during the war the slave society would've been devastated, that's no big concern for me either.

Yeah except for the dead slaves as they would be the first and last to suffer.

Are you so sure agricultural conditions in ANE were so much worse than in China? I'd like to see some evidence for that.

Dude, this is the hallmark of the Asian mode of production and the basis of Marx theory, namely that the hydrological conditions in China and India were much better so that societies evolved from large families due to large surplus. If the same conditions were present in the west, it would have resulted in the same development (otherwise the Asian mode of production would make no sense). Instead we see Cities forming in the east earlier and much more often than in the west.

Anyway, a quick summary - Emmer, Einkorn and Spelt Wheat are the primary cops during the ancient age, and only in the Roman period is irrigation performed. And only in the Roman period a kind of intensive agriculture develops. For the ancient wheat yields see this. It is only in late medieval ages that we see more efficient crops being able to be cultivated. OTOH, Oryza sativa (modern rice) has been cultivated for thousands of years, possibly as early as 8000 years in China. So these are completely different yields that can be produced.

You confuse existence of slavery in Persepolis with slavery being a key feature of the economy - if that's your main point, I am truly not sure what to make of it.

The point is that slavery existed everywhere in the empire, and the larger point is that the artisans in Persepolis etc. could only be paid by the tribute from other regions - tribute that was enacted from the fruits of labour of slaves. Also, I am not sure that the serfdom and slavery-by-any-other-name conditions in Persia proper are that much different. This brings me back to my earlier point - different societies, different terms. The serfs would be deemed to be slaves in Greece and termed such, but not in Persia. So you got that problem.