slavery in novels is annoying

[Notadate]

In general, the situation and the tech reduced the cost of procuring and transporting the slaves.

I mean in most medieval worlds, they move goods on land which are far harder and slower than on ships.

Yeah, true, but if magic is involved it would make it easier too. But depends on the fantasy too.

 

[TotallyHuman]

How are landlords evil? They own property then let others live in those same properties, admittedly for money...

how are slavers evil? They own their slaves, and even provide for their livelihood, admittedly for unpaid work...

 

[Notadate]

how are slavers evil? They own their slaves, and even provide for their livelihood, admittedly for unpaid work...

It started with indentured servants

 

[Aader]

how are slavers evil? They own their slaves, and even provide for their livelihood, admittedly for unpaid work...

Owning a house and owning a person are 2 different topics. One is admirable and the other is barbaric. Kind of saddened you thought to compare the two.

 

[TotallyHuman]

Owning a house and owning a person are 2 different topics. One is admirable and the other is barbaric. Kind of saddened you thought to compare the two.

I understand where you are coming from, and I know how far away from I have to start to get us talking the same language, so I will just stop this discussion here. You have your opinion and I have mine, and that's okay.

 

[Hanne]

It’s a pretty stupid trope. Those who think they can do whatever they want with the slaves have no fucking idea how slavery in the economy works.

Slaves aren’t fruits on the fucking trees for you to grab and even fruits on the fucking trees are not free or out of no where. It’s very rare to meet a certain fruit tree that is in the season and with fruits that is edible and in suitable condition to eat.

Slaves are the same. You think raiding some villages are easy? You first need to identify the village you want to raid. Then you would have to risk your life to even get some of those slaves. Then you need to find a slave merchant. Most of the times if you don’t take good care of the slave, they fucking die before you even meet the merchant and you and your amputated pals just lost your appendages for nothing.

Slave merchants are no fool. They have to work out the cost of carrying all the slaves to a market that would have demand for his slaves (slave buyers are picky and have good eyes to pick out only the most suitable slaves), then the cost to keep the slaves alive and the cost to keep the slaves in good condition. In a world of wild beasts, bandits, diseases, natural disasters, and low healthcare technology, keeping slaves is a fucking logistic nightmare.

As a result, the slaves are not cheap. They would be sold with all the cost above + the margin for profit. The buyers, therefore, would want the slaves to quickly recover the cost of investment. This means getting them into a productive condition such as quickly training them for whatever task you need them to do.

One thing all the slave raiders, slave merchants, and slave owners know better than any fucking non-slave owners such as the stupid authors of generic tropes is that they must not be unnecessarily rough with the slaves. Seriously, no merchant harms their goods. Those are their life lines. Abusing the slaves too much, not feeding them, not getting their sickness treated are a big fucking NO.

Those people may not be technologically advanced as us but they are no fool especially if they managed to get rich in the first place.

If anything, they treat the slaves far better than whatever those retarded heroes could do for them.

100%. people also still have a faulty preconception about slave because of hollywood movie trope. for example, Roman gladiators are paid handsomely, they have access to baths, sauna, the best medical treatment, and often capable to buy house and land for their family, so he could retire a happy man. and yes, most didn't die, they retired, because there's a referee in Gladiatorial Fight who stopped. Only fights that are too ugly, faking fights, or deemed insulting to the Gods/ Patrons/ Host can be condemned to death, and it's rare.

Yes, injuries does happened, this is not boxing, they're fighting with swords and spears. but it's not a duel to the death. furthermore, even in modern sports there's still accident. Historically, after one wound then the match was over and the fighter will be escorted out to receive his treatment.

Because of this, more and more Roman citizen wanted to become them. I quoted : Because of the worship of the gladiators, more and more Roman free citizens had to will to become gladiators. At first, those volunteers citizens were from the lower classes. This high percentage was surprising because a free citizen entered into some kind of slavery when they entered into school of gladiators.

Read more at: https://www.shorthistory.org/ancient-civilizations/ancient-rome/gladiators/

There's also some requirement to join. If a Roman gladiator is depicted as penniless and stayed in a cell like place, it's either because they're still in School, or they're in debt. Also, fight to the death existed, but only for Gladiator that entered such clause into their contract. It's usually to freed their family from debts, because if they died they get up to 50 times their contract's worth.

The contract only last 3 years, for 3 fights per year. Most re-enlist.

In the Imperial era, volunteers required a magistrate's permission to join a school as auctorati.[149] If this was granted, the school's physician assessed their suitability. Their contract (auctoramentum) stipulated how often they were to perform, their fighting style and earnings. A condemned bankrupt or debtor accepted as novice (novicius) could negotiate with his lanista or editor for the partial or complete payment of his debt. Faced with runaway re-enlistment fees for skilled auctorati, Marcus Aurelius set their upper limit at 12,000 sesterces.[150]

We also got a record that there's a Roman law to forbid their citizen to become Gladiators, because it's becoming a widespread social problems. Taking away their productive class.

Oh, someone going to mention Spartacus. as I said it's becoming a big phenomenon and eventually one badly managed school accidentally created a private army. Spartacus isn't a regular Gladiator, he's a deserter. They're still in school, but decided they want to escape, but got caught and accidentally incited a rebellion. They never want to end slavery like depicted by hollywood, they simply wanted to go home.

After that event, the Roman launched a new wave of regulations and standardization for Gladiator school. That pretty much solved the problem.

 

[owotrucked]

Owning a house and owning a person are 2 different topics. One is admirable and the other is barbaric. Kind of saddened you thought to compare the two.

Trashy doesn't want to elaborate too much on his statement, but I can try to detail what he might have meant.

His initial statement is the following.

An analogy I'd like to make is landlords. Landlords fundamentally are evil. They make a living off of leeching of those who cannot afford their own housing - which makes for arguably one of the most vulnerable layers of society.

What constitutes as evil in his opinion is illustrated by "leeching of those who cannot afford their own housing".

From that, the distilled core concept of evilness is the unfair perception of widening the gap between two impermeable groups: the exploiter and the exploited.
It is perceived as unfair because of the political and economical context is designed to protect that gap. Falling into the exploited category of the population leaves you at the mercy of the exploiter.

Let's decline this idea in several examples, trying to put the commonalities together.

Slavery
Exploited: you work for your master, you get nothing
Exploiter: you reap the fruits of all of your slave's work
Enforcing system: laws, slavery magic, etc
Class mobility: None

Corporate slave
Exploited: you work for your employer, you get a 10$ raise after 10 years of loyal work
Exploiter: you treat yourself with a company-bought lamborghini with your employee's hard sweat because why not
Enforcing system: laws, capitalism, stock market, banking system, money printing and the money lifecycle (you're better off sucking the dick of whoever get the money freshly baked from the printing press than being at the end of the chain like the one who actually produce wealth like food or items)
Class mobility: Start a business with an enormous initial capital, and don't fail.

Landlord
Exploited: you can't afford your own house. You have to rent. Each year, you have no choice but to cough up 1/10th of the value of your rented space. After ten years, you own of course nothing.
Exploiter: you get money for existing. You can buy more real estate and drive the price up to widen the gap if you feel inclined so
Enforcing system: laws, capitalism, banking system
Class mobility: Suck your banker's dick to get a good loan. Pray Blackrock hasn't bought your entire city yet

Colonization
Exploited: grow chocolate, coffee, tea or make bricks. Waste all your potential by being converted into "human capital". Get a few dollar per month (little enough so that you can't invest into your future). If you have kids, send them to school. Once they graduate, send them over to rich countries, so they can become slaves with bigger wages. See your land's natural resources getting sucked dry.
Exploiter: get some tea, don't elaborate and leave
Enforcing system: wars, assassination of local politicians to push the greedy ones who are willing to sell their country to you in exchange for authority
Class mobility: Turn your country into such an apocalyptic shitshow that no value can be extracted

If you live in an unfair system, it's hardly your fault for trying to get in the better side of the world. Once you're fucked, you're fucked.

In conclusion, Trashy's "landlords are evil" is a concise summary of those ideas. But I'd like to expand that landlords themselves aren't inherently evil. I'd say it's more the combination of the concept of landlord in the context of our particular economical system.

As such, if a protagonist decides that slavery is bad and they should destroy that unfair system, it would be as unhinged as someone IRL trying to beat up landlords and tear down capitalism.

You don't see that often.

Freeing a slave, would be like illegal occupation of a vacant house I guess lol

 

[CarburetorThompson]

Ngl brain dead take. Just like anyone a landlord/owner can be good or bad. Sure Blackrock and other companies that buy entire neighborhoods are pretty much evil. But there are plenty of landlords that are good and conduct business professionally and ethically.

 

[owotrucked]

Of course you are right, landlords aren't all good or bad.

It can be observed that the concept of unfettered sucking profiting landlords and lobbying to ensure their advantage is evil. Not one specific individual or another is evil. (Like are you gonna make a scene at McDonald because you don't like capitalism?)

Also, professional and ethical business doesn't bore weight on how you perceive the concept, like people can do slavery professionally and ethically. It won't change the fact that the idea that I fucking don't want end up as a slave. I don't want to be renter either

One of the most needed sector of renting is temporary workers and students. But there are many static household who will spend most of their lives renting while never be able to afford anything

 

[Hanne]

Of course you are right, landlords aren't all good or bad.

It can be observed that the concept of unfettered sucking profiting landlords and lobbying to ensure their advantage is evil. Not one specific individual or another is evil. (Like are you gonna make a scene at McDonald because you don't like capitalism?)

Also, professional and ethical business doesn't bore weight on how you perceive the concept, like people can do slavery professionally and ethically. It won't change the fact that the idea that I fucking don't want end up as a slave. I don't want to be renter either

it's funny that in certain times, the Romans citizen gladly voluntarily and willingly signed the contract to join as Gladiators (slavery). because to join them it's like having a chance to be a star athletes.

not saying that slavery is good, but let's not judge historical issues from a modern man point of view. their issue and their solution is a product of their time, not ours.

forcing our mindset into them is just wrong. ancient slavery and medieval peasantry are usually misunderstood.

 

[owotrucked]

it's funny that in certain times, the Romans citizen gladly voluntarily and willingly signed the contract to join as Gladiators (slavery). because to join them it's like having a chance to be a star athletes.

not saying that slavery is good, but let's not judge historical issues from a modern man point of view. their issue and their solution is a product of their time, not ours.

forcing our mindset into them is just wrong. ancient slavery and medieval peasantry are usually misunderstood.

Sorry I don't want to be gladiator, why are you forcing this on me. If someone wants to become a slave, good for them. If they change their mind, fuck them, they brought it upon themselves kek

Slavery isn't depicted as a free choice in fiction. Be mad at the writers for not glorifying slavery accurately not at the readers who think that predatory reaping of human capital on helpless population sounds kinda bad

 

[LunaSoltaer]

Nah I think I'm gonna blame the "reader" (moviegoer) for this. or more accurately I'm going to blame social media and modern politicking.

Rationale: You try making a fiction in today's Western world depicting these topics historically accurately and see what happens to not only you but also anyone who doesn't blindly demonise you.

Edit: Or you could blame capitalism for forcing this really awkward demand for inaccurate depictions and lolPowerFantasies? It's a bit indirect but like you could do it, and link in the social media bit to it.

 

[Hanne]

Sorry I don't want to be gladiator, why are you forcing this on me. If someone wants to become a slave, good for them. If they change their mind, fuck them, they brought it upon themselves kek

Slavery isn't depicted as a free choice in fiction. Be mad at the writers for not glorifying slavery accurately not at the readers who think that predatory reaping of human capital on helpless population sounds kinda bad

lol, I really think you misunderstood. I'm not forcing anything to anyone. just merely stating the interesting facts from history.

but really, in the height of the Gladiatorial Games, the star gladiator were worshiped like NBA stars. but I don't want to paint the entire Roman slavery from just Gladiator. There's also the miners, the laborers, etc. as I said in the previous page, a lot of jobs in ancient Roman are being assigned to slaves from barber, teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc. it's a form of job contracts, crude but works for Roman era. modern world ofc has a better and humane way to do it, so there's no need for modern slavery. I hope I get my points across.

 

[owotrucked]

lol, I really think you misunderstood. I'm not forcing anything to anyone. just merely stating the interesting facts from history.

but really, in the height of the Gladiatorial Games, the star gladiator were worshiped like NBA stars. but I don't want to paint the entire Roman slavery from just Gladiator. There's also the miners, the laborers, etc. as I said in the previous page, a lot of jobs in ancient Roman are being assigned to slaves from barber, teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc. it's a form of job contracts, crude but works for Roman era. modern world ofc has a better and humane way to do it, so there's no need for modern slavery. I hope I get my points across.

Sorry for misunderstanding your point. You're correct to provide nuances. I agree that there is subtleties in the way things can be implemented.

I only wanted to explain a fraction of the original post (about the flaws of slavery and landlords)

My point was that both slavery and landlord can be seen as less than ideal in unregulated context because of the abusable loopholes of being able to prey on the helpless in a lawless setting. Just like if child labor was allowed: even if it was regulated it'd be hard to differentiate and stop sincere apprenticeship from outright exploitation and guarantee the freedom of the children. Like "I swear these kids I found love going to the coal mines, officer!"

For slavery in particular (in the sense of being a property without any right and freedom) this flaw of being abuseable is unremoveable regardless of regulation (adding rights to slaves means there aren't really slaves but something else like servant). Which is enough for anyone to think "yeah, slavery sucks" and prefer other forms of contract. This is what I wanted to convey and this doesn't change even if there were positive individual cases of slavery.

In conclusion, it's cool that gladiator was a positive case of slavery and that slavery could be good on case by case basis. It doesn't change the fact that slavery globally sucks.

To provide more nuance about societal judgements:
I can point out "good" things that can turn into bad ideas by changing the context. For instance, Crassus' unregulated firefighter slaves would only offer help when the owner of the property sells it to him cheaply. Suddenly, you're in a society where you could potentially get robbed of everything from Crassus if he decides to put your stuff on fire.

Another example is nuclear energy, it's great in a nominal setting to provide lot of energy reliably and cheaply. But in an unregulated context or in corrupted capitalism, it's a gate for catastrophe because you can be sure that there's at least one company that will cut corner and nuke your area. (Examples: Santa Susana Laboratory still isn't cleaned up afaik and Fukushima.) Sure I am glad to have cheap energy, but I'm also REALLY glad there's no reactor near my place. (Other city can go fuck themselves idc)

Now to return to the original post's idea:
The analogy of landlord and slavery was originally only an illustration of hypocrisy of protagonists who never actively sought the betterment of their society but suddenly grows a sense of justice and decides to reshape the isekai world in an individual quixotic quest against unfairness without consulting the local population.

It's possible to make a story where slavery is a better alternative than nothing because there is simply no enforceable alternative that can keep the fictional society going.

In conclusion, while there were positive implementation of slavery in history, this doesn't remove the assessment that slavery is an easy gate to invite unfairness in society AND that's where most authors' reasoning stops.

To be fair, pointing out positives aspects of slavery serves little to social progress and humanity. Like what? Do you want modern society to return to slavery kek? It's like writing a profound story that accurately paint the strengths and weaknesses of floppy disks. It's minor curiosity that won't hold the interest of the average reader.

Litteraly, the only reason for including the 'rescue the slave' trope is just to use it as a 'kick the cat' trope to characterize villain and justify the opportunity for the MC to exert violence and be rewarded (the slave). It's certainly not to paint some elaborate and unique societies that no one honestly care about.

 

[Hanne]

Sorry for misunderstanding your point. You're correct to provide nuances. I agree that there is subtleties in the way things can be implemented.

I only wanted to explain a fraction of the original post (about the flaws of slavery and landlords)

My point was that both slavery and landlord can be seen as less than ideal in unregulated context because of the abusable loopholes of being able to prey on the helpless in a lawless setting. Just like if child labor was allowed: even if it was regulated it'd be hard to differentiate and stop sincere apprenticeship from outright exploitation and guarantee the freedom of the children. Like "I swear these kids I found love going to the coal mines, officer!"

For slavery in particular (in the sense of being a property without any right and freedom) this flaw of being abuseable is unremoveable regardless of regulation (adding rights to slaves means there aren't really slaves but something else like servant). Which is enough for anyone to think "yeah, slavery sucks" and prefer other forms of contract. This is what I wanted to convey and this doesn't change even if there were positive individual cases of slavery.

In conclusion, it's cool that gladiator was a positive case of slavery and that slavery could be good on case by case basis. It doesn't change the fact that slavery globally sucks.

To provide more nuance about societal judgements:
I can point out "good" things that can turn into bad ideas by changing the context. For instance, Crassus' unregulated firefighter slaves would only offer help when the owner of the property sells it to him cheaply. Suddenly, you're in a society where you could potentially get robbed of everything from Crassus if he decides to put your stuff on fire.

Another example is nuclear energy, it's great in a nominal setting to provide lot of energy reliably and cheaply. But in an unregulated context or in corrupted capitalism, it's a gate for catastrophe because you can be sure that there's at least one company that will cut corner and nuke your area. (Examples: Santa Susana Laboratory still isn't cleaned up afaik and Fukushima.) Sure I am glad to have cheap energy, but I'm also REALLY glad there's no reactor near my place. (Other city can go fuck themselves idc)

Now to return to the original post's idea:
The analogy of landlord and slavery was originally only an illustration of hypocrisy of protagonists who never actively sought the betterment of their society but suddenly grows a sense of justice and decides to reshape the isekai world in an individual quixotic quest against unfairness without consulting the local population.

It's possible to make a story where slavery is a better alternative than nothing because there is simply no enforceable alternative that can keep the fictional society going.

In conclusion, while there were positive implementation of slavery in history, this doesn't remove the assessment that slavery is an easy gate to invite unfairness in society AND that's where most authors' reasoning stops.

To be fair, pointing out positives aspects of slavery serves little to social progress and humanity. Like what? Do you want modern society to return to slavery kek? It's like writing a profound story that accurately paint the strengths and weaknesses of floppy disks. It's minor curiosity that won't hold the interest of the average reader.

Litteraly, the only reason for including the 'rescue the slave' trope is just to use it as a 'kick the cat' trope to characterize villain and justify the opportunity for the MC to exert violence and be rewarded (the slave). It's certainly not to paint some elaborate and unique societies that no one honestly care about.

Freeing slaves is always a noble even in Roman society. The patricians strives and even boasted to free their slaves as early as possible as a measure of how awesome they are. On Roman holidays, funeral, victory parade, often a high standing Roman tried to enhance their image by freeing their slaves

With that point clear. In an Isekai story, the hero could always free the slaves. On the conceptual level, nothing is wrong with this.

A small trope is harmless if used sparsely. Problem only occurs when said trope, saving slaves becomes a major plot point. because it's a fallacy.

It's reinforcing people that their world-view is better/ more superior than other. Isn't this how the the US separated the natives from their families and force changed them into what they viewed as modern man? the same like how the Australian enacted policy of forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families?

I say let's add some historical accuracy as remedy. I don't care if it's a smut, let's introduce them to small bits of critical thinking.

 

[owotrucked]

Freeing slaves is always a noble even in Roman society. The patricians strives and even boasted to free their slaves as early as possible as a measure of how awesome they are. On Roman holidays, funeral, victory parade, often a high standing Roman tried to enhance their image by freeing their slaves

With that point clear. In an Isekai story, the hero could always free the slaves. On the conceptual level, nothing is wrong with this.

I'll provide some balance to this positive depiction: No matter how well they publicly treat their slaves, it doesn't erase all the untold misfortune. Besides, the records left in history aren't always completely neutral. (I don't think ancient era were a place of greatest peace and highest morals standards just by the virtue of going around to conquer stuffs) It wouldn't be surprising for the people to paint a better picture than what it actually was. Just because some people did well doesn't mean everyone did. If the slavery system contributed to the well-being of a slice of population in successful cases, it must be weighted against all the suffering it caused to others.

In our current society, people already complain that stupid bosses, corporate world, and bullshit jobs are already annoying and unbearable despite the freedom to quit and find new employers, so do you think all slaves deprived of these minimal freedom used to live in blissful fulfillment? I'll exercise caution and skepticism about any positive narrative supporting brutally inequal power relationships.

As long as hero follows the local laws instead of pushing their ideals with violence, yeah.

It's reinforcing people that their world-view is better/ more superior than other.

I think anyone have the right to form their personal opinion and judgement about the ideal, while being aware that this is a subjective view that fits their own individuality. Thus, this personal world-view is of course better and superior BUT only in the criteria of personal values. When it comes to society and the diverse range of individual values, there's no one-size fits all or real absolute scale to decide what is better. It's only about deciding who get fucked, and who don't.

And here's the deal: our world is shaped to the ideals of the powerful. Why constrain oneself to comply to other's values when you can afford not to? And that leads to the next part:

Isn't this how the the US separated the natives from their families and force changed them into what they viewed as modern man? the same like how the Australian enacted policy of forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families?

They imposed their views because they had the strength. Just like how a master enjoys a crushing dominance over their slaves. If they were treated as equals, they would have respected their culture.

Isn't it vile to use power to prey on the helpless? If you don't like the power dynamics on how US and Australians used their might to impose their standards to others, you have to realize that this could be very well the common occurence in slavery. Moreover, didn't Roman culture impose itself upon the conquered states? My native language got litteraly shaped by it.

In conclusion, you can hold a world-view in highest esteem for your own values and share it through peaceful communication without trying to impose it on others.

I say let's add some historical accuracy as remedy. I don't care if it's a smut, let's introduce them to small bits of critical thinking.

Sure, but don't be too unbalanced between setting, characters and plot. No sane reader wants to read a fictional world encyclopedia.

 

[Hanne]

I'll provide some balance to this positive depiction: No matter how well they publicly treat their slaves, it doesn't erase all the untold misfortune. Besides, the records left in history aren't always completely neutral. (I don't think ancient era were a place of greatest peace and highest morals standards just by the virtue of going around to conquer stuffs) It wouldn't be surprising for the people to paint a better picture than what it actually was. Just because some people did well doesn't mean everyone did. If the slavery system contributed to the well-being of a slice of population in successful cases, it must be weighted against all the suffering it caused to others.

In our current society, people already complain that stupid bosses, corporate world, and bullshit jobs are already annoying and unbearable despite the freedom to quit and find new employers, so do you think all slaves deprived of these minimal freedom used to live in blissful fulfillment? I'll exercise caution and skepticism about any positive narrative supporting brutally inequal power relationships.

As long as hero follows the local laws instead of pushing their ideals with violence, yeah.


I think anyone have the right to form their personal opinion and judgement about the ideal, while being aware that this is a subjective view that fits their own individuality. Thus, this personal world-view is of course better and superior BUT only in the criteria of personal values. When it comes to society and the diverse range of individual values, there's no one-size fits all or real absolute scale to decide what is better. It's only about deciding who get fucked, and who don't.

And here's the deal: our world is shaped to the ideals of the powerful. Why constrain oneself to comply to other's values when you can afford not to? And that leads to the next part:


They imposed their views because they had the strength. Just like how a master enjoys a crushing dominance over their slaves. If they were treated as equals, they would have respected their culture.

Isn't it vile to use power to prey on the helpless? If you don't like the power dynamics on how US and Australians used their might to impose their standards to others, you have to realize that this could be very well the common occurence in slavery. Moreover, didn't Roman culture impose itself upon the conquered states? My native language got litteraly shaped by it.

In conclusion, you can hold a world-view in highest esteem for your own values and share it through peaceful communication without trying to impose it on others.


Sure, but don't be too unbalanced between setting, characters and plot. No sane reader wants to read a fictional world encyclopedia.

yup you're totally right.

Indeed Roman culture is imposing itself on another. Imposing is even a too good word for them. I mean they brutally conquered and enslaved whoever reject their Pax Romana idea.

But I left that part because it's a well known fact that slave is totally 100% bad-bad. slavery in any era is bad for the slave. while a few percentage gained good employment, easy life and fortune, but I'm sure even they hated it many points in their life because there was no freedom. also, giving control of one's life to another man without consent is definitely morally corrupt and wrong.

What I did is not glorifying or giving a positive take on slavery, I'm merely correcting historical inaccuracy. The mainstream media knows slavery based on US Civil War era which is 1000x more brutal than what the Roman imposed. In Roman era, most slaves is expected to free themselves after earning some money, some even regulated by contracts - meanwhile the US Civil War era treated slave like object, mostly without any chance to free themselves, no payment system, not able to hold assets, and said slavery also automatically & legally extended to their offspring and grandchildren, just like animals.

I'm sure anyone will agree that there are vast differences between these 2 model. But, they're refereed similarly as slavery. which is probably the reason why we have this discussion.

and lastly, let's not repeat the wrongdoings of the past. the fact that US and Australia repeated the mistakes simply because they can is already a major telling that : reinforcing people that their world-view is better/ more superior than other, - is still a major problem, 1500 years after the fall of western roman empire.

 

[owotrucked]

In Roman era, most slaves is expected to free themselves after earning some money, some even regulated by contracts - meanwhile the US Civil War era treated slave like object, mostly without any chance to free themselves, no payment system, not able to hold assets, and said slavery also automatically & legally extended to their offspring and grandchildren, just like animals.

Roman slave were also treated like object, mostly without any chance to free themselves, no payment system, not able to hold assets, and said slavery also automatically & legally extended to their offspring and grandchildren, just like animals. They even kept social stigma after freedom.

I don't know where you found that MOST slaves will gain freedom. I don't know about which slavery cases you refer as regulated by contracts but roman master could whip or kill slaves on a whim.

And it appears that even with the opportunity to free themselves, there were still rebellions when slaves were massively used. Seems like they didn't like the right to earn freedom so much if they fought instead of working obediently.

Class mobility is an important motivation and a factor of fairness, but when it comes to slaves everything is left to the goodwill of the master. Slaves can buy their freedom? What a joke, considering the masters both decide what the slave is allowed to earn and the price of their freedom.

You can feature the possibility of slaves earning their freedom in your fiction, but how accurately will it represent the past. Are you sure that the records of masters touting how they freed their slaves wasn't just isolated, punctual power meme? Just to dangle the possibility in front of their slaves? Also sure I could see myself discarding freeing slaves when they suck ass.

Slaves were used because they were needed. And when you need something, why would you get rid of it?

Sure if a master wanna be chill they'll be chill, but there were definitely awful masters that wouldnt allow freedom too.

The subtle differences between roman slavery and us slavery stems from the perceived race difference with black people. Chances are fictional slaves of other species have no right to freedom.

In conclusion, if a fiction features a brutal case of slavery, it is still a valid possibility that it could happen similarly in roman era slavery too, instead of being a token of contempt and disregard of slavery culture. On the other hand, a fiction could very well feature a positive case of slavery that could have happened. The main point is that purely looking at the rules gives you the full range of what could happen. Honestly, even if positive cases of slavery didn't historically happen, authors are free to cook up a fictional good case.

So here's my version of your statement about slavery characteristics, taking out all historical uncertainty.
In Roman era, owners could free their slave - meanwhile the US owners did not.

 

[Hanne]

I don't know where you found that MOST slaves will gain freedom. I don't know about which slavery cases you refer as regulated by contracts but roman master could whip or kill slaves on a whim.

1. Rome differed from Greek city-states in allowing freed slaves to become citizens. After manumission, a male slave who had belonged to a Roman citizen enjoyed not only passive freedom from ownership, but active political freedom (libertas), including the right to vote.[53] A slave who had acquired libertas was thus a libertus ("freed person", feminine liberta) in relation to his former master, who then became his patron (patronus). As a social class, freed slaves were libertini, though later writers used the terms libertus and libertinus interchangeably.[54][55] Libertini were not entitled to hold public office or state priesthoods, nor could they achieve senatorial rank. During the early Empire, however, freedmen held key positions in the government bureaucracy, so much so that Hadrian limited their participation by law.[56] Any future children of a freedman would be born free, with full rights of citizenship.

2. Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.[58] Skilled or educated slaves were allowed to earn their own money, and might hope to save enough to buy their freedom.[59][60] Such slaves were often freed by the terms of their master's will, or for services rendered. A notable example of a high-status slave was Tiro, the secretary of Cicero. Tiro was freed before his master's death, and was successful enough to retire on his own country estate, where he died at the age of 99.[61][62][63] (Keyword is educated, uneducated slaves will easily get drunk)

3. Slaves were freed for a variety of reasons; for a particularly good deed toward the slave's owner, or out of friendship or respect. Sometimes, a slave who had enough money could buy his freedom and the freedom of a fellow slave, frequently a spouse. However, few slaves had enough money to do so, and many slaves were not allowed to hold money. (including the entirety of Pax Romana where labor was required)

4. Slaves were also freed through testamentary manumission, by a provision in an owner's will at his death. In 2 BCE, Augustus restricted the number of slaves that could be freed at once from a single household, depending on the number of slaves belonging to the household; in a household with three to ten slaves, no more than half could be freed; in a household with ten to thirty slaves, no more than a third could be freed; in a household with thirty to one hundred slaves, no more than a quarter could be freed; in a household with over one hundred slaves, no more than one-fifth could be freed, and under no circumstances was it permitted to free more than one hundred slaves at a time. [124] In 4 AD, another law prohibited the manumission of slaves younger than thirty years of age, with some exceptions.[125]

You see, if there's even a law not to release slave too much and too fast, then you know, the majority of Roman freed slaves too often, too easily, and almost regularly.


Oh, in case you bashed Wiki, often happened if someone discussed history. I quoted:

While a slave’s
peculium technically belonged to his or her master, it was
uncouth for a master to appropriate his or her slave’s holdings.
A slave could use his or her money for nearly any purpose; two
uses, however, were most common. The first was the purchase of
a slave of his or her own. It was possible for slaves to
purchase their own slave to either do their work for them or to
do any other various tasks they wished. The second common use
for a peculium was to purchase one’s own freedom. It was not
uncommon for a master to free a slave if the slave could pay the
master for a replacement.

https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3303&context=etd

you can argue that the Roman viewed slave is an object or animal, and you are right, they are legally just that. but the way they were treated pretty much indicated otherwise.

 

[owotrucked]

Doesn't sound all that great but still better than US slaves I agree.

1. Freed high achievers slaves have discriminatory limits about the position they can hold. If too many freed slaves ended up at the top and pushed positive policies for slaves, it'd threaten the very fabric of the society built upon conquest and slavery.

2. Of course skilled slaves hold greater power over their master. Just like how democracy mainly emerge in poor resource countries where the wealth is within the educated human capital. Imagine mistreating your doctor and getting slowly poisoned. Lucky slaves receive education and investment from masters. The outlook still doesnt look good if you were bought to work in the fields.
=> I don't think US slaves were called for their highly technical skills so what if US slavery was only a small subset of the range of slavery of ancient rome where they had more diverse activities? Comparing the two isnt that great.
It would be a fairer comparison to analyze the treatment of the subset of manual worker slaves in rome than its entire society.

3. Great, a slave cant do anything on their own. Hopefully they get a sugar daddy/mommy to free them.

4.Sounds like perfectly a good idea to release at once a hundred jobless unskilled people in nature and leave them unchecked.

5. Damn buying your freedom was just corporate turn over disguised. It all makes sense.
"Uncouth"? "Honor"? If its not regulated by a third party you may as well say nothing. =>3rd point many slaves couldnt hold money

they are legally just that. but the way they were treated pretty much indicated otherwise.

That's an optimistic outlook.

If I bought an italian cook slave, I'll treat them better and hopefully not get poisoned. If I buy an american accountant slave, I'll make sure theyre happy enough to not embezzle my shit. If I bring a scottish slave, you can be certain that they'll plant potatoes in my field until they magically bring me a younger replacement or until their back break and no one will ever know.

"Wow my home got raided and now I'm a slave but at least I'm not completely treated like an object, awesome"

On another note, Ive seen manga where 'combat slaves' were treated more valuably and with more respect compared to other slave roles. So there are fictions that are somewhat accurate to Roman society wide slavery

Anyway I think slavery is the most basic raw manifestation of the unequal power dynamics. The world is naturally unfair, it is just that societies found that they could extract more value from all members when there's a little more fairness. The world outgrew roman society-wide slavery but slavery is still done in modern age for specific tasks and slice of world population such Uyghurs.

If you write a fiction with ethnical minorities doing manual labors being treated like good roman slaves, it is unconvincing. But if you write a society filled with slaves in wide range of position, then it'll be weirder not to put similarities to roman slaves.