In Rome a slave's life wasn't worth a plug nickel, in America slaves were worth something (Depending on the time) and could be expensive to replace.In what way was Roman slavery worse?
In Rome a slave's life wasn't worth a plug nickel, in America slaves were worth something (Depending on the time) and could be expensive to replace.In what way was Roman slavery worse?
Simple, Rome had the technology and man power to build water mills, instead they used slaves. That is until they stopped conquering then they started switching over to water mills.How were the Roman slaves not worth anything? What do you mean by that ?
Wait, are you somehow under the impression that Roman slaves were used exclusively to power treadmills?Simple, Rome had the technology and man power to build water mills, instead they used slaves. That is until they stopped conquering then they started switching over to water mills.
Simple, Rome had the technology and man power to build water mills, instead they used slaves. That is until they stopped conquering then they started switching over to water mills.
Simple, Rome had the technology and man power to build water mills, instead they used slaves. That is until they stopped conquering then they started switching over to water mills.
But nobody here is anti Rome.
In what way was Roman slavery worse?
One way the Roman slave's lot was worse was the owner could kill them legally, for any reason. Rome wasn't a land of compassion.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-367333.html
"Conclusion
The entire Roman state and cultural apparatus was, then, built on the exploitation of one part of the population to provide for the other part. Regarded as no more than a commodity, any good treatment a slave received was largely only to preserve their value as a worker and as an asset in the case of future sale. No doubt, some slave owners were more generous than others and there was, in a few cases, the possibility of earning one's freedom but the harsh day-to-day reality of the vast majority of Roman slaves was certainly an unenviable one."
https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/
Yes they did, but who was calling the tune?Well, except, you know, me. Rome also wrongfully executed the person that Christians consider to be the Messiah, just saying.
What the hell are you talking about? "Generous"? it literally is the same as America, like the exact same in every way. One of the important similarities is of course the persistence of slavery before and after political independence from the UK and the ratification of the Constitution.
If we think the Americas a whole continente. The slavery starts whith Colombus arrival in 1492 and just finish in Brazil (the last one in the continent) in 1888. What give to us 396 years of slavery, close enouth of 400 years to just say. 400 years of slavery.First, I'm not a slave apologist, or a libertarian or ron paul fan or whatever.
That said, a phrase that keeps popping up here in America (especially around black history month) is "America had 400 years of slavery". But how true is this?
America was founded in 1776 and slavery was abolished in 1865. That's less than 100 years - not even close to 400.
"but we mean the colonies in the geographical region that would later become America".
Well, that's not the same as America, but I'll be generous and give it to you. The first African slaves to reach any of the British colonies didn't arrive until the year 1619 in Jamestown, Virginia. That adds up to 246 years - still well short of 400.
In conclusion, "America had 400 years of slavery" is not actually true, but even if I'm generous with what they mean by "America" it still isn't close to true.
I think slavery for even 1 second is wrong, let alone 250 years and I'm no CSA fan or whatever. But why do we spread lies?
edit: I did the math and even if you go all the way back to 1492, when they started making contact with the new world period, (long before African slaves were introduced and none of that geographical area at the time would become the United States regardless) adds up to 373. Still short of 400.
I mean, does it? What ultimately replaced slavery was a system of peonage that ensured the basic continuity of pre- and post-bellum Southern planter economy. It's not as if the South stopped producing tobacco, cotton or rice, after all. The ultimately significance of abolition wasn't liberating Southern blacks from the plantation, but providing the legal basis for their grandchildren to do so, and it's possible to imagine that if the United States had achieved a non-military resolution to the "slave question", it could have transitioned directly to peonage.
The expansion of convict labour after the Civil War mostly served to fill those roles previously occupied by slaves that could not easily be filled by agricultural peons, such as public works and industry. There's enough continuity in how slave labour and convict labour were use that Congress' legal identification of convict labour with slavery seems less like a technicality and more like prescience. I don't know how far that continues down to the present, but it's worth consideration.
Simple, Rome had the technology and man power to build water mills, instead they used slaves. That is until they stopped conquering then they started switching over to water mills.
It's a good point that until the civil rights thing there they had a kind of indentured servitude replacing slavery, with the some ameliorating factor that people could migrate elsewhere (and many did). But I wouldn't say that convict labour replaced slavery, the scale was much different - it couldn't replace it as an economic structure. It was the hiring of former slaves still in poverty and without options that kept a social system mostly in place. And to be fair there was a period when an effort was made to dismantle it. What happened only in the 1960s could have been settled in the 1870s if history had taken some different turns?
Romans did build mills. And had something like a feudal/servant system towards the end of the imperial era. Not that the people were pleased with that - they seemed to be entirely unwilling to defend the empire from barbarian incursions. And did some peasant rebellions of their own on top of those.
Slavery evolved to something else. Big oligarchs of the republic and later the empire found ways to continue ruling over other people and having them sustain their luxuries. Happens a lot...
I think the economic system broke down in the 3rd century. After that running on fumes until things fell apart.