preview

Roman Imperial Social System

Better Essays

The society of the Roman Empire was one in which ones social experience was overwhelmingly decided by their position in the strict and universally agreed upon social hierarchy. This social hierarchy was built upon, and contributed to, the deep social divides between classes which were overwhelmingly prevalent in Roman imperial society. The process of manumission, continued presence and increase of freedmen and vast base of slave population were all factors which contributed to the strength of the exceedingly divided imperial social system which dictated position and social experience for all social classes. While social structure was a strict, established system in imperial Rome, it was also a system in which social mobility was a possibility …show more content…

Slaves act as a kind of foil in slave societies, personifying the the darker face of society, designed to be a direct contrast to the manner in which free men and women define themselves (Andrea 2012, p.15). In the highly charged political and social world which was Imperial Rome, slaves were expressions of status and prestige, essential to those who needed to maintain a competitive social profile as those who were more economically productive than others (Bradley 1998, p.15). Roman Imperial society, both of the early and late empire, exhibits a highly developed system of formal stratification made up of a rigid hierarchy of order, estates, with legal distinctions separating them. It is the interrelationships between these methods of dividing men up, be it through status, official rank, wealth or relation to production, that characterise and define Roman society (Weaver 1967, p.3). There was a strong belief in the legitimacy of hierarchy and general idea that status is inherent and can be inherited. Social mobility, whether upwards or downwards, by its inherent nature, confounds these expectations of inherited status and straddles the formal system of stratification. Social mobility may usefully be seen as a process of social dissonance, the variant product of the structural differentiation of institutions (Hopkins 1965, …show more content…

Manumission rested upon two central pillars of authority; selection and patronal authority. In order to maintain the facade that slaves were inherently inferior to all free, manumission had to appear to be a process which only allowed the slaves of particular worth, temperament and good character to take a place as a freeman alongside free born Romans (Joshel 2010, p.82). Slaves were believed to have the inherent nature of being less-intelligent, courageous and capable than freeborn Romans, with freedmen being the ones who defiantly rose above this generalisation (2010, p.19). Roughly two-thirds of urban slaves and around one-third of rural slaves would have been freed on average (Ramsby 2013, p.92). This estimated percentage, however, cannot be expected to have been the regular, firm pattern of manumission. Though there is evidence that large numbers of slaves were manumitted, this does not mean that all, or even most, slaves could expect freedom. Slaves in urban households (familia urbana) had a considerably better chance than those on rural estates (familia rustica), where direct contact with owners was distinctly limited, even so, only the most productive and diligent slaves could hope for freedom (Gardner 1991,

Get Access