Roman Social Classes

In 600 BCE-600 CE, the early domestication of animals, war, patriarchy, and privately owned property were all contributing factors to the establishment and growth of slavery in civilizations. Imperial Rome and and Han China were socially similar in that they both had inequalities amongst the different classes. In contrast, slavery in Imperial Rome was the basis for society, while in Han China slavery was neither widespread nor was it a major source of labor. Imperial Rome and Han China were socially similar because vast social inequalities led to rebellion. In 73 BCE Rome, a revolt for freedom broke out among gladiators that was named for its leader, Spartacus.

Throughout both empires, slaves were used to make technological advances and keep political control over the people. Slaves were used for such things as mining, housework, and farming. Rome believed in slave labor where slaves would do all of the excruciating work such as mining. This would help Rome to advance ahead with technology and make life easier which allowed political control to remain strong. However, in Han China, they relied on peasants. These peasants would be responsible for housework and fending for themselves; they were also typically lower class people. These peasants would not be used for technological advances as much as bettering agriculture and life for the people living there which would help maintain life and political

There were a number of Roman laws regarding slavery, and these too, changed over time. In the Republican period, slaves had no rights and were always subject to the whims of their owners. They did have some legal standing, however. They were allowed to act as witnesses in trials, and could gain freedom either through their owner's gratitude after loyal service or by buying it through the meager earnings they might collect over a lifetime of service. For example, owners in the Republic had the right to kill or mutilate slaves at a whim, but later imperial laws took this right away, though in practice this law could be largely ignored. This represents how valued slaves were to the Roman people.

In the roman empire the structure of a family was the basis for the structure of government. It was thought that a family was a state within a state. The dominant male or paterfamilias have control over the family just as the paterfamilias of the state (state magistrates): had the power of the state. But while men are at the top of this hierarchy slaves are at the bottom. Slaves could be acquired as prisoners of war or could be traded. The rich owned the most slaves and often the best. Slaves were used for cooks, valets, waiters, cleaners, farmers, assistants or artisans. Because the empire grew out of the traditions of the republic, both social structures of the republic and the empire were based on wealth but you will also notice that in both society's there are few rich compared to the many poor or slaves in which they are similar.

In addition, Germans treated slaves with much more respect than Romans did. In Rome, the upper class were able to purchase numerous slaves to work in their house, and on their land. Slave owners in Rome treated their slaves harshly and with much disrespect, not providing them with necessities needed to survive. Their reason for this was

Description: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Roman_collared_slaves_-_Ashmolean_Museum.jpg/220px-Roman_collared_slaves_-_Ashmolean_Museum.jpgAncient Rome was fundamentally a slave society, built up from the slaves. As the lowest tier of the Roman hierachy they were by defnition without human rights. As Aristotle wrote, slaves were considered; ‘a slave is a live article of propert.y’ (Aristotle, Politics, Section 1253b. 4) Providing usually unpaid labour and considered the property and under complete control of their master, slaves were an integral part of Ancient Rome’s economy and way of life. Slaves had

The owners could do with the slaves what they wished, be it sexual favors or they could beat them at will. Beating a slave though was not usually the best thing that an owner of slaves could do because they didn't want to damage their property. To get a slave to work hard wasn't that difficult most of the time, all the owner had to do was refrain from beating and instead be nice to them. In Rome some slaves were offered freedom if they met certain criteria of the owner. After earning their freedom they were given citizenship in the city. This gave the slaves a reason to work hard, something to look forward to.

Adding onto the point where slaves were put on the market like things, slaves were also discriminated due to their previous nationality. Both of these actions illustrate inhuman behaviour by the Ancient Romans. In addition to buying and selling slaves, there is one more option which tops off these poor choices. In Ancient Rome, one was also able to rent a slave. This is renting a human being. Renting tools or horses was ordinary but renting another person just exemplifies how Romans treated slaves as things, rather than people.

One of the rules from the Roman society was from Table XII: “2. If a slave shall have committed theft or done damage with his master’s knowledge, the action for damages is in the slave's name” (Thatcher 11). This means that the slave has almost no rights or liberty at all. Even if the salve and owner are working together to get more money or power, if they get caught, it will still be the slaves fault. This really degrades the slaves because it makes the master seem like an innocent person all of the time, when, in some cases, it is not true.

When you hear the word slavery, the image of the horrendous deed that was the American enslavement of Africans most likely comes to mind. But, slavery goes much further back than the early 1800’s of agricultural America. The ancient Romans had slaves,but it differed fromAmerican enslavement. It can be a common idea that American slavery and Roman slavery werealmost the exact same, but that is not the case (Fragments). By comparing the two types of slavery,the ideacan bepresentedthat the two may have had similar ideas and goals,butthey were not the same thing.In ancient Rome, slaves were acquired through trade and slave markets and were often prisoners of war and piracy orthe children of men and women who were slaves themselves (Cartwrightand

After they conquered a foreign land, the Romans became responsible for maintaining the area. If the Romans failed to maintain their new territory, they would eventually lose it to foreign invaders. Workers would be needed to secure the area and repair any structural damage that may have resulted from the initial conquest of the area. But, workers are not cheap, and the Romans would want to save their money for future conquests. That’s where slavery comes in. The Romans enslaved all of the people they conquered in order to meet the demand for affordable

The number of slaves in Rome grew at a very rapid rate. In 225 B.C. There were an estimated 600,000 slaves in Roman society and within 200 years the number went up to an estimated two million slaves (Burks 9); the proportion of slaves grew from an estimated 15% to 35% of the population (Ibid.). To provide for Rome 's hunger of slaves, the Roman government relied on an ever-consistent income of available slaves. The government 's reliance on slavery cannot be overstated since the slaves were needed to work a majority of jobs in the empire. All of the Roman soldiers lived civilian lives away from battle but they could be called away at a moment’s notice, which left hundreds of jobs stripped of workers. Since the soldier/citizens could be

As already stated in previous sections, public slaves were responsible for manning libraries, run the daily affairs of some prominent offices and were very loyal. However, there was always the possibility that a slave would get tortured and whatever the public slave owned belonged to the state (Buckland, 1908, p. 66). Our public servants of today do own their properties, are free citizens and do not live in fear of being tortured. Could the lives of the educated slaves of ancient Rome have been made any better? Were they really treated fairly?

As a result, they often did public service. Aristocrats had it much better than the poor and they also received advantaged treatment from the imperial representatives and the courts. There were also local elites, located in other cities of the Empire, which would execute the duties of managing office, sponsoring games, erecting public buildings, and making charitable contributions. Then came the lower classes which included poor citizens, non-citizens, slaves, and former slaves called freedmen. "The working masses who toiled with their hands in the fields and towns represented the largest segment of the population during the empire, but not all of the lower classes were manual laborers ." Doctors, musicians, actors, teachers, and even philosophers fell into the lower classes, and so did craftspeople. Then finally came the lowest class which was made up of slaves. When the Romans conquered the Mediterranean, they enslaved millions of people and brought them to Italy. These slaves labored on the large plantations or in the houses and workplaces of wealthy citizens. Roman law was inconsistent on slavery. Slaves were considered property; they had no rights and they were submitted to the demands of their owners. However, they had legal standing as witnesses in courtroom proceedings, and they could eventually gain freedom and citizenship. Slaves could also save money to purchase their freedom. Frequently, masters would free loyal slaves in appreciation for

Slavery was extremely common in ancient Rome. In fact, 25% of the population was thought to be slaves. Prominent men in society could host up to five hundred slaves. Emperors would have almost twenty thousand slaves at their court. People could become slaves in many ways. The most common way to become a slave was through piracy. But a huge number of slaves became slaves as war captives as well. Other ways to become a slave were by being born into slavery, being sold by one’s father, or by being abandoned by one’s previous family. Slavery at the time had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with captivity, piracy or poverty.