Roman slavery

Besides its administration, art, architecture, army and religion, The Greko-roman civilization is also
known for an institution like slavery. Greece and Roman have been considered as “slave society”
in limited sense. The term slave society has been used to describe a community where slaves
constitute the chief labour force and majority of the population (as in Sparta). The proportion of
slaves in a any society to qualify as a slave society' has been arbitrarily fixed between 20 and 35 per
cent of the total population. Slavery in Greece and Rome was developed as a systematic mode of
production and an institution that had a profound impact on economy of state.

Perry Anderson in 1974 said that 'full potential of slave mode of production was first time unfolded
by Romans’ . With a population of approximately 35 per cent (estimated figure of Roman Italy
during the reign of Augustus), the slaves performed a central role in the agricultural production of
Rome even if we concede that it was not the only labour or perhaps was not even in majority in
some areas. They played a vital role in the accumulation of surplus that sustained the lifestyle of the
elite Romans. Perry Anderson has also remarked that Growth of slavery as a mode of production in
both Greece and Rome was an outcome of similar and specific socio-economic circumstances.
But even then, the Roman difference lies in the fact that social and economic conditions prevailing
here provided more compelling reasons for slavery to prosper as a full-fledged institution. Due to
the harsh policy of landed aristocracy large number of small farmer(assidui) declined and converted
into The landless (proletarii), In order to prevent law and order from breaking down due to the presence
of such a large property-less population in the city, the government decided to distribute free ration.
According to P. A. Brunt's (1971) estimate by 50 BCE there were about 320.000 citizens who were
receiving free grains. Anderson says that public grain distribution was a cheap substitute for land
distribution which never happened in Rome because of hegemony of landed aristocracy in senate.
After getting free ration, the proletariat class lost all will to go back to the villages and work on the
landed estates of the aristocracy, creating a severe shortage of labour in these estates. shortage
of labour was accentuated by the fact that Roman success in the Gallic, Punic and the
Macedonian wars had brought under the control of the Roman landed aristocracy, vast
agricultural land. The aristocracy needed labour to work on these big landed estates (called
latifundia). The internal supply of labour in Rome had shrunk first due to abolition of nexum that
prevented enslavement of free Roman citizens and then the free public distribution of grain due to
which the landless lost the will to work on the farmlands. Thus, conditions were suitable for the growth
of slave mode of production in Rome during the Republican period. The landed aristocracy
responded to the labour crisis by employing large number of slaves brought from outside to work
on their estates, leading to introduction of large-scale slave latifundium in several parts of the
Roman Empire, particularly in Italy, Spain, Gaul and North Africa. The major source of the supply of
slave labour was numerous military campaigns that poured into Rome a large number of war
captives to be employed in the landed estates. Keith Bradley suggested that the high potentiality
of slave labour with respect to roman economy was not merely confined to agriculture but
extended to urbanization, trade as well as administration. Condition of slave depend to large extent
on the kind of work and in the manner their status was defined in the roman laws . slaves were to
perform variety of jobs for their masters, ranging from agricultural labour, urban labour, domestic
work craft production, mining to personal work of master, business, education, administration and
estate manager. In principle, there was no task for which slave cannot be called upon. Slaves were
denied any legal right and therefore had no position in the society. Scholars argue that utter
degradation of slaves through laws and legal institutions was necessary to control such an
extraordinarily large population of slaves. Since most of the slaves were war captives, they had no
kinship or family ties (an important component of slavery). Their only relationship was with their
master and that too of complete subjugation.
We all know that both Greece and Rome have been considered as slave societies, the potential
and scope of the growth of slavery in Rome much exceeded that of Greece. A brief comparison
would bring this out more clearly. While large numbers of slaves were employed on agricultural land
in Greece, the farm sizes remained modest, averaging between 30 to 60 acres. Moreover, the
coastal character of the Greek civilization limited the growth of large landed states. In contrast,
Rome was primarily an agrarian society and the Roman aristocracy had accumulated vast tract of
fertile land, virtually wiping out the small peasantry. Roman expansion in the Italian Peninsula,
Western Mediterranean and Eastern Mediterranean brought under their control huge tract of land,
many of which were turned into big latifundia. One of the estimates suggests that while the average
size of land- holding in Greece ranged between 75 and 100 acres, that of Roman latifundia were
ordinarily 3,000 acre or more require large number of work force. Moreover, unlike
Greece, where political thinkers, such as, Aristotle, had to justify the existence of an inhuman
institution such as slavery, it was institutionalized in Rome. Status of slaves was clearly defined by the
Roman law. They were called SERVUS and were recognised as a form of 'absolute property’ that
could be bought and sold in the market. Recognition given to the concept of absolute ownership
of property gave owners complete control over their slaves.

Slavery as an institution was so engrained in the social fabric of Rome that any serious questioning
of this institution was unthinkable. But the overall pitiable condition of the slaves and specific
treatment meted out to them did provoke reactions from the slaves in the form of revolts.

:- HIMANSHU KUMAR(457)