Talk:Slavery in ancient Rome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slave genes not contaminated by slave owners. Dodged a bullet there.

"The overall impact of slavery on the Italian genetics was insignificant though, because the slaves imported in Italy were native Europeans, and very few if any of them had extra European origin."

This statement only makes sense from a racist point of view. Either they were mixing genes with other people or they weren't. Whether or not "they came from Europe" is complete fucking nonsense, as if there was one Italian-only gene set across all of Europe. Reframed from a "skin color as genetic makeup" point of view, and then the observation makes sense - because, "hey, they had white skin so there's no problem." Italian, Swedish, African - the nation is the only genuine origin of race labels. Otherwise, there'd be no problem with 'racism' in America. Poor grip on the language, the reality of these words, the reality of genetics.

Also: "extra-Europaean", not "extra European".

TL;DR: "European" isn't a race.

Also: Lazy families who snatch families always end up raping / mating with the families they snatched.

The platform itself will make sure this comment doesn't exist - the slaves are coming to do the work, to enforce the views of the masters.

Article Still Needs Total Overhall

The article is getting worse! Full of nonsense and anecdotes that are unverifiable, unsupported and would in any case, if true, document the extremes of slavery. Logic dictates that, even if treated as "goods", most masters would not excessively punnish or injure a slave because it would be counterproductive. Just like most people don't smash up their furniture - because then they can't sit on it? Mu2 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This article seems a little confusing and doesn't truly answer any of the questions a reader may ask, namely "What was life like as a slave in ancient Rome?", "Were they well treated?", etc... All it does is give specific examples which may not reflect the reality of the time. Now I dont know much about this, but I was under the impression that slaves in Ancient Rome could live a very comfortable life, sometimes a better one than the poor freemen. Could someone with a good knowledge of this subject please edit this article in order to provide a better understanding to readers like me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.215.215 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. What a supremely excellent article! I learned that the writer(s) of the article don't like slavery, and the Romans held slaves and were therefore bad. Could we cram any more "weasel words" and subtle (or not so) condemnations of slavery/Rome in here?

Here is a little issue: Treatment and experience third paragraph: ... despite age or sex (though most slaves were males). Prevalence Last paragraph: As far as slave gender goes, it was about 50/50. Males did not largely outnumber the female slaves in ancient Rome.[citation needed] Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.239.254.19 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it varied from century to century. Generally, though, there were far more female slaves than this article alleges - when the Romans vanquished a city, they killed most of the young men, and took the women, children, and elders as slaves - after, of course, a few days of repeated gang rapes of the victims. --NellieBly (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There were far more MALE slaves historically and the ancient Rome is no exception. You are biased, wikipedia becomes more and more filled with feminazi, hating men and ignoring facts, which aren't portraying women as majority victims has become a norm. Gendalv (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Needs Total Overhaul

This article needs a total overhaul. It might even be considered for removal since:

1. Vandal struck the original comment in the #1 place. Obviously a cretin but there it is. I don't know how to revert, if that is even possible. 2. This article breaks just about every Wiki rule possible.

a. This article is about as far from neutral as one can get.

b. General statements of opinion are written as fact without citation.

c. Many of those general statements are factually incorrect. Roman slavery was very different from that pictured by the writer. In ancient Rome, slaves frequently rose to positions of power within the family, the city and the empire as a whole.

d. Statements are made and left without examples. (Example: (All)Slaves were given poor food. No examples of putative slave diets are given.)

e. No differentiation is made between personal slavery and corporate and/or punitive slavery and such differentiation is absolutely necessary to the credibility of the article.

f. Links are "forced" as if placed simply to include links. The links add little to the credibility of the article.

g. The article is incredibly biased. Any discussion of ancient slavery (to reference this article only) should be written within the context of the sociology of the referenced society in order to be neutral. Slavery in ancient times was a part of all civilizations. The concept of individual right to liberty is a modern concept totally unknown in ancient times. Therefore, the negative bias of the author is out of place in this article and should be edited out. Removing the bias would strip the article to stub length so the article should either be re-written without bias or removed.

h. The purpose of a Wiki article is to disseminate information. The information in this article is either false, missing or too obviously biased. This makes the article fail in its purpose as a Wikipedia entry.

--Tredzwater (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What does frequently mean in the context of point c.

I agree. this article should probably get nominated for deletion.Hawkey131 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I added some more material, some of which does substantiate the more negative aspects of Roman slavery, but also info that indicates negative extremes were not universal, as well as the economic factors which help to understand the institution. More on the economic cause and effects of slavery could be added as well. Something to the effect of the above comment, "the concept of individual right to liberty is a modern concept totally[?] unknown in ancient times" could be worked in someplace, perhaps a section called Perspective could be helpful.Daniel1212 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest Claims of NPOV

The claims that the article is NPOV are dishonest. Those who believe (or affect to believe) that the article is NPOV should interpolate the positive aspects of Roman slavery into the article.

I have deleted the reference to Sparta as the helots were serfs rather than chattel slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.237.229 (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is clearly far from neutral. The slave is treated like a hero in this article, and weasel wording is commonplace. Just reading the first article, I can spot several examples of outrageously opinionated language. "less than persons" is a very disputable statement. What makes a "person" is an entirely philosophical question. We also have to remember that Human Rights weren't really around at this time. So they themselves did not consider the slaves as "less than persons", but rather inferior to Roman citizens. That said, the Romans had huge respect for the Greeks, and yet they persisted to take slaves from them.

All articles on Wikipedia should be written in a neutral form, no matter what the topic. We are not here to judge the Romans. There ought to be more information from there point of view. There is not a lot of fact in this article, but the anti-slavery propaganda is certainly in excess. The article is written so that the facts that are shown are presented, implicitly and explicitly, from the side of the slave.

--86.146.215.169 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, no. No, it isn't. The way it is now is like saying we're not being NPOV on the article of torture, because we're focusing too much on the pain on the victim and not the mental state of the torturer.

No, NPOV isn't the problem, just the 20,000 CITATION NEEDED markers I saw halfway down the page.

Less than people or less than citizens, though, would be more appropriate. However, "What makes a person a person?" is entirely redundant as a question here, because to Romans, citizens were the highest you could be as a 'person' in the Empire. What we're talking about is that slaves weren't afforded the rights most citizens, so even though certain slaves were afforded respect due to their skills, they were inferior to Roman citizens. So while I agree with you in the case that "Less than persons" is probably improper wording, saying that this article has an excess of anti-slavery propaganda is like saying the Evolution vs Creationism article has an excess of anti-creationism propaganda. Amatsu-Mikabushi (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article is not neutral, but the statement that slaves were not persons is accurate - they were "talking tools". Whilst the "rights" of women and children vis-a-vis the paterfamilias is problematic, they were NOT property in the same way slaves were. Even Cicero, a fairly liberal commentator, refers in one of his letters to Atticus to "slaves and four-footed beasts" in the same breath. EnglishBriarRose (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Most citizens" is a very misleading thing to say there, as most people in Roman-ruled land WEREN'T Roman citizens. As a famous example, Jesus was given a summary execution, as was St. Peter, where St. Paul, the only apostle to be a Roman citizen if I remember correctly, was given a trial. Roman citizenship was a distinct upper class, so when you say "slaves weren't afforded the rights most citizens" you're using "citizens" to mean "residents" in an anachronistic way and forgetting that in some places slaves were pretty damn close to a majority, and slaves+women+(adult) children under their father's absolute authority WERE a majority.

The perspective that most people were OK and slaves were the particular underclass is anachronistic and flawed. Rome is not the antebellum South; the institutions were extremely different. This article does not give that impression.

I have an objection to the phrase "technically slaves could not own property." What does it mean? It COULD mean:

• Slaves had no recourse from theft of their property by their masters.
• All of slaves' belongings were considered to belong to their masters.
• The property rights of slaves within the household were judged by the head of said household.

Those are very different statements, and any would be much more sensible than "technically they couldn't, but they kind of could," which doesn't really even make that much sense outside of a modern legal system.

Jhartzell42 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Abolition

Is there any record of anyone saying that slavery should be abolished in the Roman Empire, or any of the ancient empires (not including the slaves themselves and the slave revolts) BillMasen (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but for what it's worth there was some opposition to the rise of the Latifundia for completely different reasons, there is no evidence for any abolitionists before the abolitionist movement.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

False. Of course there's record of people saying slavery should be abolished. Saying such a strong "no" to that is a major, major problem. "Slavery is the fruit of covetousness, of extravagance, of insatiable greediness." St. John Chrysostom. Elsewhere calls it an abomination.

Jhartzell42 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

technically there was a transformation under Diocletian (introduction of a proto form of Serfdom) ,ie institution of Colonato. --Ftgdm (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not up to standards, what about Imperial Slaves?

I happen to know the story about Hadrian and his slave's eye for example, it is a short enough story that if mentioned it must be told in an article, and yes it is true he stabbed his slaves eye in a fit of rage, which he was then very sorry for and he went to see the slave and offered him anything he desired. The slave asked for his eye back. I don't aprove of white washing slavery, but all articles on this subject should treat the cultures the same way. Leaving Imperial Slaves out of an article on slavery in the Roman Empire is like leaving the Republic out of a history of Rome from 500-44 BC, the imperial slaves had very high importance. Furthermore since other cultures get something of a white wash on slave conditions does Rome deserve one? The literary evidence does include threat of the whip, but it also includes people who sold themselves into slavery in order to become freed and have their children become citizens.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

=What standards? extraordinary dishonesty and vandalism by critics. why is a citation demanded for the claim that "The proposed agrarian reforms of 133 BC would have broken up the inefficient slave plantations, with which the elite in their conservatism and privilege could not agree" The reforms referred to are those of Tiberius Gracchus and the claim is a matter of established historical fact. Why has this been tagged citation needed. No citation is needed. The fact that it slaves were obliged to have sex when instructed is also a fact (referred to for example in Musonius). The lack of legal personality meant that rape was punishable only if the slave of another free person was injured during the rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.237.229 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's "citation needed" because it needs a citation :-). Historical facts still need citations.

Jhartzell42 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewish slave traders

Article cites the Jewish Encyclopedia as a source for the statement that Jews were the primary slave traders in the Roman Empire. I am a layman on this subject but I've never read anything to that effect, and in any case the Roman empire was far too large and varied (and the Jewish nation too small) for this statement to be literally correct throughout the Roman empire's lifetime. All I can find onlin in "Jewish Encyclopedia" is a mention here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=849&letter=S&search= which relates to Jewish handling of non-Christian slaves in the period of Late Antiquity. As currently stated it's misleading at best. Find a better citation or remove it. Rob Burbidge (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

All groups in the Roman Empire traded in slaves, if the only source for Jews dominating it is Jewish Encyclopedia however I would edit that. Not only is the Jewish Encyclopedia not appearing to support the citation, the army was the chief purveyor of slaves, even in peace time there would have been much fighting. Pirates and individual commercial enterprise also trafficked in slaves, but I don't know of any slave monopolies granted in the Roman Empire. That is just my personal opinion however.ScriptusSecundus (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about slave trading being the main source of income for Roman Jews, as it is unsubstantiated with a citation and (personal opinion) feels vaguely anti-Semitic. I have no doubt that there must have been Jewish slave traders, just as there were Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Gaullish slave traders, but I think any assertion that slave traders were "mainly" Jewish requires some level of proof. Rob Burbidge (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd think there was no sex in the Roman Empire

I suspect that the origin of this article (the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) is behind the lack of detail about sexual slavery in ancient Rome. It's a well-known fact supported by many reliable sources that sexual slavery was an integral part of slavery for house slaves: any male member of the family could take sexual advantage of any slave regardless of sex or age. (Free women who were caught having had sex with a slave, on the other hand, could lose their freedom.) Have frequent contributors to this article considered adding information about this? It seems rather strange that the article is devoid of what was one of the main "uses" of house slaves - as sex objects. --NellieBly (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the Roman Empire lasted several centuries, I think it's fair that some sex was involved (pardon the attempt at humour). It's certainly plausible that masters had sexual relations with slaves. I suggest you provide a reliable source or two and go ahead and add the material (be bold!). I'll take issue that the "main" use of house slaves was as sex objects though. To be blunt, except in the most debauched of circumstances you can only have a certain level of sexual at any one time, and someone still has to clean the atrium. Rob Burbidge (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry, laughing a little at the word 'plausible' not plausible, definite! The sheer number of guys who freed female slaves just to marry them is suggestive enough, but then there are the family epitaphs which show children - some of which suggest one child was born into slavery whilst the other was born after marriage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Manumission or the Act of Freeing a Slave

I am reading an excellent book named 'Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages. Now, the title may throw you off a bit, but the book is actually selected papers by Marc Bloch, a French scholar born in 1886, and was killed by the Nazis serving the French Resistance (sorry - had to put that in - he seemed like such an amazing person).

Back on topic! Bloch discusses the manumission of Roman slaves in the paper, How and Why Ancient Slaver Came to an End. On page 16 he clarifies that manumission or freeing of slaves was very rare and that their offspring were still considered property of the owner that freed them.

I'll quote the text:

It could happen that the master, in making a free man of his slave, discharged him forever from obligation to him. He opened to him, as certain acts put it, the four ways of the world. This case was rare. Neither the Roman nor the Germanic tradition was favorable to it. In Rome, not only did the offspring of the freed man have to wait until two generation had passed before having access to the rights of a citizen; the practice of the slave owners ordinarily kept them dependent on the author of the manumission and his successor, nearly indefinitely.

Here is the full citation: Bloch, Marc (year unknown). How and Why Ancient Slavery Came to an End. (Ed.) Beer, In Beer, William R. (1975). Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages. (pp. 276). The Regents of the University of California. ISBN: 0-520-02767-6 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-123627

The book is out of print, but it is a wealth of knowledge. It gives great detail on how economics and religion brought changed slavery from the Roman Empire to the High Middle Ages. Slavery was by no means gone with the fall of Rome, as we in America would certainly know, yet Bloch documents how slavery gave way to serfdom and the church (any religion; Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, you name it) continued to support slavery while at the same time preaching men should be free. They all found a way to justify within their religious texts the subjugation of others.

I hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.5.85 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I really appreciate your interest. The problem is that one of the main statements is incorrect. The son of a freedman was a citizen. The poet Horace is an example. However, what I find is that it's easy to overestimate how much "freedom" any ordinary person enjoys, compared to the rich and powerful. Although the Wikipedia article is pretty mediocre, Rome was full of various levels of dependency and interdependency among the supposed "free." See Patronage in ancient Rome and Social class in ancient Rome. Neither is an adequate article, but they point to what "dependency" means in a Roman context. Also see paterfamilias; in some sense, even the most well-born man wasn't fully "free" until his father died. (But quite right about justifying subjugation in general.) Thanks for your interest! Cynwolfe (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and other citations. However, I'm confused by your interpretation of Bloch's 'statement' as you put it. Bloch is not stating the exact opposite. The freed slave was NOT a citizen. I suggest reading the article, since I can't quote the entire text. You are absolutely correct, that Rome was full of various levels of dependency. Or perhaps a more accurate term would be 'various levels of inclusion (citizenship is more accurate, but a confusing term given today's connotations). A citizen had full legal rights, and there were various levels of freemen - not included as citizens and without full legal rights or privileges - and of course slaves. This is by no means an exhaustive or complete delineation of class levels of Roman society. I think the article does a fair job of describing some of these levels. In terms of the Roman familial structure context, you are correct that it was far more complex than our modern structure in terms of what members had certain freedoms at specific ages.

The only issue I had, and I think Bloch's citation helps clarify, is the statement this article makes about the children of former slaves. In this article it states:

"The children of former slaves enjoyed the full privileges of Roman citizenship without restrictions."

It is a minor clarification that Bloch's research proves otherwise and I thought you would appreciate knowing this fact and possibly enjoy reading his research.

In general, I am impressed on the articles accuracy regarding freed slaves. It is succinct and well written, easily accessible and imparts a great deal of information on the life of a roman slave. Thanks for your efforts!

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.5.85 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 

Actually, see Gnaeus Flavius (jurist). He was the son of a freedman, and held elected public office. Some forms of Roman citizenship did not grant the right to vote and hold office, but the son of a freedman was not prevented from doing so. And this was in 305 BC—from the time of the Social Wars onward, citizenship becomes increasingly capacious. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

--- If a child was born prior to the parent's manumission they remained a slave, freeing a parent did not obligate you to free the child, even if the child was a small infant. Children born after manumission were instant citizens. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems a good and careful distinction. It would be interesting to know whether it was considered proper (though not an obligation) to free the child as well, since the Romans came to dislike the idea that the children of citizens might be enslaved. In some cases, it seems that if a master freed a male slave who had a union with a slave woman (not legally recognized as marriage), he might free her as well, so they could be married. But again this would depend on the temperament of the master, and whether you were "lucky" enough not to be owned by someone who was arbitrarily cruel. I'm afraid I'm about to go off on a socially relevant tirade about Wal-Mart employees, who frequently complain to me about feeling chained to their checkout stations when I offer sympathies about how tired or patently ill they look, and who are now forced to work on holidays, so I will fall silent. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many grave monuments of various types which make it clear that the deceased were married and freed of the same master. There are also some which show family units, freed of the same master. One in particular, i believe it was an ash chest of the Ince Blundell collection gives an impression that the mother was a freed slave of the father, that the elder son was born a slave, then presumably freed with his mother, but the younger son was born free. Unfortunately as more or less all evidence of such relationships come from funerary art it is nigh impossible to tell if it was considered 'proper' to also free the children, or if it was simply something nice owners did. It was probably dependent entirely on the circumstances surrounding the manumission, (for marriage, for kindness, out of respect, because the slave had earned enough to pay their way out) the age of the child (it seems unlikely full grown adult children would be freed by obligation but is relatively likely that otherwise useless infants would be - but at what point this change occurs is hard to judge) From a clarity of article point of view it's probably best not to go into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.73.75 (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually whilst we're on the subject i think the emancipation section needs some work - it lacks references and i'm pretty sure its got the specifics of Augustus' decree a bit wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.73.75 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

All interesting points. I too find the inscriptions of liberti and libertae (other kinds in addition to epitaphs too) full of human interest. We have a category for that over at Commons that you might want to browse if you haven't already: see Commons:Category:Liberti and libertae in Ancient Roman inscriptions. I'm often touched by the hidden family stories when I come upon these. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

After the empire

There is nothing in this article that details what happened to the slave population after the fall of the empire. --J intela (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The relation of the institution of slavery to the decline of the Empire is an excellent question to raise. It would be interesting to know more about this and to have something in the article. Hope someone has the time and inclination to contribute on this topic, but I'll try to keep the question in mind in case I stumble on something. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is much to learn about the how slavery contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire.Cbowsie (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Identical wording

I noticed that alot of the wording in "Auctions and sales" is the same as http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-life/slave-auction.htm Just F.Y.I. 2602:306:CE93:EA40:86A6:C8FF:FE3C:1243 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cicero

Cicero's relationship with Tiro is portrayed in the most cynical manner possible. The article states that Cicero "admits" he only wrote to Tiro because it was his habit, and he used the show of affection to keep Tiro loyal. The letter in full is:-

"Tullius and his son, Quintus and his son, send warm greetings to Tiro. I write this letter, the third I have written to you the same day, rather in maintenance of my rule, having found some one to whom to give it, than because I have anything to say. The upshot is this: let your attention to yourself be as great as your affection for me. To your innumerable services to me add this, which will be more acceptable to me than them all. When you have taken, as I hope, full account of your health, then see about your voyage also. Send a letter to me by everyone who is going to Italy, and I will not pass over anyone going to Patrae. Take care, good care of yourself, dear Tiro. Since you missed the chance of sailing with me, there is no reason for your being in a hurry or taking thought for anything except getting well. Good-bye ! good-bye !"

English translation on http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&query=Cic.%20Fam.%2016.6&getid=1

Tiro was hardly unique in being his master's confidant as well as secretary, although he is the best known. Public men would scarcely have shared their confidential matters with an untrusted slave, and all Cicero's letters to, and references to, Tiro, exhibit real affection. Of course he gave him orders - that's what masters did! EnglishBriarRose (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

REVIEW OF ARTICLE

The article presents a great deal of facts throughout its entirety but appears to do a good job of citing and referencing appropriate sources. Aside from the 118 footnotes that the article offers it also provides many links to various Wikipedia pages that relate to “Slavery in Rome”. Of these different links, although I didn’t thoroughly check each one of them, most appear to be reliable and trustworthy articles. There is a great deal of topics that are brought up in the Wikipedia page about Slavery in Rome that range from its origins all the way to how it was depicted in society. With such wide ranging topics such as this one, there is a greater need for information that expands across multiple fields. Therefore, everything in this article is relevant in some shape or form but could argue that the section on “Serfdom” is not significant enough to add to a page about slavery. Although, this section does give more insight into the topic and therefore one could be its importance to “Slavery in ancient Rome”. Given the subject matter it is not surprising that the article was able to remain neutral considering the broadness and vastness that was “Slavery in ancient Rome”. So, although there may have been some inherent bias present in the article such as claiming certain events or customs as “the best” or “most important”, there was no clear signs of favoring a certain position. I will admit though with some of the finer points, my inadequate knowledge prohibits me from further investigating. The article does mention that the introduction may be a bit too long. I checked a good amount of the links and all of them worked. When it comes to paraphrasing or plagiarism, I didn’t find any examples but due to how many sources were used it is possible there were examples of this. The article was deemed a good article and given an overall grade of C. It was also rated as High-important but did not get good reviews from the public.

One question I did have after reading this article was why there wasn’t more information on runaways and rebellions? This is a field that is very pertinent to slavery and something that many people would be concerned with.

Donough3 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Pseudolas

It would be interesting to mention some examples of specific comedies that embody the pattern that is described under the header 'In Literature'>'Roman Comedies'. For instance, mentioning the Pseudolas here may give more context to the archetypes that are described.

Sbuch6 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias?

New to this, so this will be brief.

I found a paragraph in the [Treatment and Legal Status] section that includes a quote with some bias. The quote is by Marcel Mauss, who was a French sociologist who did not focus his studies in Roman antiquity. Integrating his quote about how to analyze the Latin phrase "servus non habet personam" seems to be adding his opinion to the article. Perhaps using sources more focused on Roman society can provide a npov.

Kaitlinbreen (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Kaitlinbreen: Brief is good, and the question's interesting. Bias is fine, as long as it's clearly expressed or described, and is balanced by its oppsite, in due proportion. That said, I mistrust any conflation of ancient persona and modern "personality": the first seems to have had precise legal meaning; "personhood" or "belonging to oneself" or being a "entity in law". The second is far more problematic. In modern parlance, "personality" includes proclivities, character and behavioural traits. And Roman sources variously describe slaves as loyal or treacherous or lazy etc; all these are personality or character traits. It would be ridiculous to suggest that slaves had no personality, as far as Romans were concerned. Perhaps another source and commentary could be found for the phrase meaning and translation. But I can't suggest one as yet. Haploidavey (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Haploidavey: You're making a distinction based on North American English. Outside the US/Canada, the word is "legal personality", not personhood. Companies are said to have "legal personality" in the UK, for instance. Even if that weren't the case, French (the language of Marcel Mauss) uses personnalité for the legal concept of personhood, so you could also chalk it up to mistranslation. So, maybe add a [sic personhood] note to the text. Torvalu4 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Demography

We have problems in the demography section. First, the statement "Generally slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians," is not supported by the referenced work, a book about the place of the military in the internal conflicts of Rome, concentrating on the Empire. The citation is to this brief passage about the Spartacus slave revolt of 73-71 BC: Generally it was understood that no Roman citizen or peninsular Italian south of Gallia Cisalpina (northern Italy) should be enslaved. This had not always been so in the past, when many defeated Italians from the central and southern regions had been forced into slavery. This implicitly contradicts our statement for the late Republic and the Empire, and doesn't directly support it for the earlier period.

Secondly, the last paragraph is based on two reports of isotopic studies of bodies from two cemeteries.

1. I don't have access to the full text of the first report, but it clearly refers only to bodies found in one cemetery and deductions about where they grew up, not about their ethnic origins. I see no claim that a significant proportion of the bodies were of slaves. We can't assume an urban cemetery is representative of Rome's population, and most slaves in Italy were outside Rome. We state that half of all slaves worked in the countryside; this report can say nothing about them.
2. The second report does not identify any of the bodies as slaves or attempt to estimate what proportion of the bodies were slaves, indeed it states It is also impossible to answer from the present data whether these individuals were voluntary or compulsory migrants. The status of slave was multifaceted and mutable during the Empire [130], and there is no indication in the archaeological information from Casal Bertone and Castellaccio Europarco that any specific individual was a slave. It does say, of the city's slaves, Many of these slaves were vernae, locally-born offspring of a slave mother, but others would have come to Rome from other areas of Italy or from far-flung regions of the Empire. It also states many migrants arrived at their destination in Italy as slaves. It does not support our statements that "the slaves imported in Italy were native Europeans, and very few if any of them had extra European origin" and "in the rest of the Italian peninsula, the fraction of non European slaves was definitively much lower than that." 79.73.240.200 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The problematic last paragraph of the Demography section is repeated in History of Slavery and Demography of the Roman Empire. (All were added by the same editor on the same day, 25 March 2016.[1][2][3]) 79.73.240.200 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Roman Slaves(more info)

Slavery in ancient Rome played an important role in society and the economy. Besides manual labor, slaves performed many domestic services, and might be employed at highly skilled jobs and professions. Accountants and physicians were often slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6138:5C00:242C:CB76:A8DE:CC4B (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Role of slavery and its dynamic

This is what I read in the article The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South by John E. Moes (Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 68, No. 2 pp. 183-187), with references to Slavery in the Roman Empire (London, 1928), pp. 54, 83, An Economic History of Rome by Tenney and Frank 1927 and A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928).

However, free labor largely replaced slave labor in Rome not only among the skilled occupations but also on the large estates. During the late Republic these "latifundia" were worked by slave gangs, but in imperial times, when the large influx of captive slaves ceased and slave prices rose, they were converted into conglomerations of free tenant holding.

To avoid misunderstanding, it may be pointed out that, while slavery during the prolonged period of peaceful and orderly conditions of the early em- pire became economically insignificant, it never disappeared completely. Later, when the Empire began to crumble and border warfare was resumed on a large scale, it became more important again, and the remnants of this late Roman slavery were carried over into early medieval Europe

The article currently does not discuss the dynamics of the number and significance of the slaves in Rome, and only states that "the overall role of slavery in Roman economy is a discussed issue among scholars." So this seems like an important topic not currently covered. On the other hand the sources are kinda old and most likely we have learned something since then thanks to archeology. Does the quote above still represent the scientific consensus? And if not what is it now? Alaexis_¿question? 19:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Image of Bartlett picture ‘Captives in Rome’

@Ikjbagl: 1. I am aware that Wikipedia is not censored. What is it which you think is being censored?
2. WP:NOTCENSORED says: ‘Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable.’ How is this image of a 19th century painting relevant to the subject?
3. In WP:GRATUITOUS it says: ‘Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.’ How is this article damaged by the omission of this image?
4. If you don’t find the images of the children to be eroticised, what do you imagine is going on here? Why is the small child repulsed by the offer of a pomegranate, traditionally associated with eroticism? Why is the girl child standing in a flirtatious pose, with her hands behind her back, and her genitals exposed to a man? Why is the man leering? And, by the way, what do you think is going on between the male figures in the background?
5. As I said in my edit summary, I realise that the sexual exploitation of slaves is part of the subject of the article. I expect that slave children were sexually abused in ancient Rome. An offer of pomegranates would not have been necessary: the picture is anachronistic as well as disgusting. I don’t think there is any need for a 19th century image about the sexual exploitation of children to be in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: Please do not begin edit wars by repeating your changes after others have reverted them. It's Bold, revert, discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert because I didn't like your revert.

1. What is being censored? The painting you removed, what else would we be talking about?

2. A painting of child slaves in ancient Rome has obvious relevance to the article on slavery in ancient Rome.

3. I don't agree with your premise that this painting is offensive.

4. I find it gross that you think she's in a "flirtatious" pose; what is flirtatious about it? She looks to be hungry and frowning at the ground. The figures in the background appear to be hauling off a captive slave. You are over-eroticizing this.

5. "I realise that the sexual exploitation of slaves is part of the subject of the article. I expect that slave children were sexually abused in ancient Rome" Great then why did you ask question 2?

"the picture is anachronistic as well as disgusting. I don’t think there is any need for a 19th century image about the sexual exploitation of children to be in this article" So you want to censor the image because of your opinion that it is erotic. I disagree with your opinion and I disagree with censorship. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ikjbagl: One revert does not constitute an edit war. You have reverted me twice.

1) I will try to make my question clearer. What information is being suppressed?

2) A 19th century painting has no obvious relevance to an article about ancient Rome.

3) You have not answered my question: How is this article damaged by the omission of this image?

4) We disagree about the nature of the picture. I am surprised. It seems to me that the picture is at about level 4 in the COPINE scale of Child pornography.

5) You say you are opposed to ‘censorship’ but before it gets to the point of arguing about possible censorship, the first consideration is – what justification is there for including this picture in the article?

You should consider:

from Wikipedia is not censored: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link

from [4] However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1]—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the "principle of least astonishment": images should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers; for example, photographs taken in a pornographic context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970

1. You have censored the painting by removing it based on your opinion that it is erotic and therefore objectionable. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." (from WP:NOTCENSORED). I don't that could be any clearer. What are you not understanding?

2. A painting about SLAVES IN ROME is relevant to an article about SLAVERY IN ROME. I don't see how you could fail to understand that unless you are being intentionally obtuse.

3. I don't have to answer your question. You have to explain your censorship of an image that has been on this article for almost a year that is relevant to the subject of the article by depicting it.

4. I don't know what that is, and it isn't relevant here. This is an artistic painting; it is clearly not pornography (at least under US law; see, e.g., Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)).

5. Explained several times already. The painting depicts the subject matter of the article and is de facto relevant.

This painting to the average viewer is an artistic depiction and is not pornography. It directly depicts the subject matter of the article, so your relevance issues are irrelevant. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To all page watchers

Ikjbagl (talk · contribs) and I have a disagreement about the nature of the painting ‘Captives in Rome’ which is at the top of this article. I consider that this image is inappropriate for this article, because it is not about ancient Rome, it is about 19th century paedophilia. Our arguments are in the section above, headed: Image of Bartlett picture ‘Captives in Rome’.
I would be grateful for input on this subject from other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

N.B. The painting that Sweet6970 claims "is not about ancient Rome" is titled "Captives in Rome" and depicts captive slave children in ancient Rome. Sweet6970 claims that the painting "about 19th century paedophilia" presumably because the painting was painted in the 19th century. I assume Sweet6970 must be unaware of what a painting is, or otherwise a normal person would realize that an artist can depict something that happened in the past. This is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I have had to argue on Wikipedia. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

All historical novels are about the present. Similarly, all ‘history’ paintings are about the time in which they are painted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I do not agree with that argument, it further undermines the basis of the "erotica" argument, which is an interpretation of a 19th century painting from a 21st century (culture-specific) point of view. --bonadea contributions talk 15:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor, wandering in after having seen a reference to this discussion elsewhere: I am unable to understand how it is even remotely possible to see this painting as erotic – much less pornographic. That is, it is evidently possible to view it as erotic for some people, but that is a point of view that is based in a particular cultural context – and since pornography is imagery that is sexually explicit and created with the sole purpose of arousing its viewers, that label is not remotely applicable. The image is perhaps a bit anachronistic in the ways the bodies are painted (skin colours, body shapes, etc), but that's a completely different thing and not a reason to remove the image. I see no reason not to have the picture in the article – it does add to it, since the notion of slavery is often associated with adult slaves, so depicting children as slaves adds to the reader's understanding. I think that it is perhaps not the most obvious depiction of slavery in ancient Rome as a whole, so that it could be displayed further down in the article per MOS:LEADIMAGE, but that's not something I feel particularly strongly about. --bonadea contributions talk 14:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems that I cannot get agreement that this image should be deleted from the article. User:Bonadea has suggested that it should be moved further down the article. I would prefer this to its current position at the top. Are there any suggestions as to where it should be moved to? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The editors who have been involved in editing this article should have the final say, but I think it might be merited to switch places between the image with the painting, and the one with the Roman mosaic that is immediately below. This is only for MOS:LEADIMAGE reasons, because I think the mosaic is potentially more representative of the topic as a whole. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, Ikjbagl, Bonadea, I do not think that the painting Captives in Rome by Charles W. Bartlett should be used as the main image for this article. Much of the debate above has centered around the question of whether the painting is "inappropriate" or "pornographic," but I think this is irrelevant to the point. The reason why I don't think this painting should be used as the main image is because we have actual contemporary ancient Roman depictions of slaves that we can use instead.

There is simply no good reason I can think of to use a nineteenth-century English painter's fanciful imagining of what slavery in ancient Rome was like as the main image for the article, especially since the painting clearly represents a deeply inaccurate and romanticized view of Roman slavery. (The Roman soldier is shown smiling and offering fruit to the captives, which gives one the false impression that the Romans were all super nice to their slaves.) If the image is included in the article at all, it should be in a section at the end talking about how ancient Roman slavery has been perceived in the modern world. The second-century AD Roman mosaic from Dougga would make a much better main image. —Katolophyromai (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with switching the images as Bonadea proposed. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would very much prefer what User:Katolophyromai has suggested – that the image should only be included in the article in a section at the end ‘talking about how ancient Roman slavery has been perceived in the modern world’. However, at present there is no such section. Does this mean that Katolophyromai is kindly offering to write such a section? And if not, does that mean that Katolophyromai would prefer the image to be deleted from the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai:I would be grateful for a reply to my post of 18 June. As there is no section on how slavery has been perceived in the modern world, this presumably means that you are in favour of the image being deleted? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that, at the moment, removing the image from the article is probably the best course of action. I don't think the image should be totally "deleted," though; we should keep it on Wikimedia Commons so that we can use it if we do eventually write a section about how ancient Roman slavery has been perceived in modern times. (I think that the inclusion of such a section would greatly improve the article, since scholarly perception of Roman slavery has greatly shifted over the course of the past few centuries. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many classicists kept up the pretense that ancient Roman slavery was gentle and "not as bad" as slavery in the American South. It was only in around the late twentieth century that classicists really started to come to grips with the reality of just how brutal and inhumane Roman slavery really was. Unfortunately, even today, a lot of introductory college textbooks still try to frame Roman slavery as an essentially benign institution.) —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ikjbagl: @Bonadea: Katolophyromai’s comment obviously comes from someone with a serious interest in the subject. Do you now agree that this image should be taken out of this article, for the reasons given by him? 13:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea:I think that my previous ping may not have worked, as I failed to sign properly. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: No, I don't agree with deleting it. This is the same argument you made earlier. I'm okay with starting a new section towards the end (maybe "In popular culture") and moving it there. I will however change the caption on the image to "Captives in Rome, a nineteenth-century painting by Charles W. Bartlett." to help provide some of the context you feel is missing. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ikjbagl:The current situation on the Bartlett image is that you and Bonadea are in favour of keeping the image, and Katolophyromai and I are in favour of deleting it. Bonadea has not replied to any posts on this page since before Katolophyromai gave their view, so we don’t know whether their view might have changed after reading Katolophyromai’s arguments.

You and Bonadea were agreed that the image could be moved below the image from Dougga, which would be an improvement as far as I am concerned. Do you want to do this, or shall I? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have swapped the positions of the images. If you are interested in helping to create a new section about popular culture as we have discussed, it might be a good idea for us to start a new section on this talk page and start collecting references to use in creating that section. If enough good sources can be found, I am happy to make an attempt at writing up the new section. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the image, and for your constructive suggestion. You suggest creating a section on ‘popular culture’. The Bartlett image is from the 19th century, and I think would be influenced by the education in the classics which was normally received by the upper classes at that time. This is a bit different from ‘popular culture’, which I would think of more as the influence of films such as Spartacus, and, more recently, Gladiator. I haven’t seen either of these films, but my guess is that their view of Roman slavery is very different from the view in the 18th and 19th century. What exactly do you have in mind? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The painting itself is the thing that would be referencing Roman slavery in popular culture. "In popular culture" sections typically cover quasi-notable references and depictions throughout history to give context to how the subject has been perceived, see for example pages like: Jezebel#In_popular_culture, Wendigo#In_popular_culture, Chupacabra#In_popular_culture, Al_Capone#In_popular_culture, Flying_saucer#In_popular_culture, and Children's_Crusade#In_the_arts (longer than usual and called "In the arts", but it's the same idea). Right now there are at least two paintings on this page showing depictions of Roman slavery; I'm sure we can find a few more to start a short list of depictions to put in a "In popular culture" section. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Any objection to archiving old discussions?

This talk page is getting really long and some of the discussions haven't been active in over a decade. Does anybody object to me using User:ClueBot III to archive old threads on this page? The archives would be available by a link at the top of this page (for example, see my talk page which has archives). I would set it up with the following parameters:

• age=2160 (only sections with no replies in the last 90 days will be archived)
• maxarchsize=50000 (will create a new archive at about 50000 bytes)
• minarchthreads=4 (requires at least 4 old threads to make a new archive page)
• minkeepthreads=4 (will not archive if there are 4 or fewer threads on the page)
• format= %%i (default archive format)

Thank you for any input. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging users who have commented here recently: @Sweet6970, Bonadea, and Katolophyromai:. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to automatic archiving. 90 days seems a bit short. I have no comment on the other parameters – I don’t understand how these things work, which is why I did not reply earlier. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Longer than 90 days actually sounds good to me, too. Let's say six months? Ikjbagl (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That’s fine with me. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I set up the archive bot. It sometimes takes a couple of days, but once it starts working it should make this page much easier to navigate. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)