Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire

[Explorer]

we value a human life a bit more than the ancient Romans... each Roman ruin that you see today was built with slave labor. Well, yes, we do have slaves today, too, but they are hidden, not in public, and not as big part of the economy as in the Roman Empire.

We cannot ignore that fact. But it's not just the Romans. Unfortunately, it's human history itself. There were slaves in the civilizations that emerged in Mesopotamia. There were slaves in ancient Egypt and Greece. There were slaves in the Roman Empire, and there were also slaves in China. And the great American civilizations like the Mayas or the Incas were not exempt either. Slavery was legal in many countries until the 19th century, including some first world nations like the United States, France, or the United Kingdom, many years after the Romans built their amphitheaters and aqueducts.

Of course, it's not something to be proud of. But that doesn't hinder us from admiring all the great things those men and women accomplished so long ago.

[Corinnebelle]

@Stasia I'm glad slavery has been eliminated in some areas of our lives, but somehow it seems it still exists but more in the shadows, yet the products they produce are bought by first world countries.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -neck.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apple-goog ... 019-12-17/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Earth.html

Cheap overseas labor is not much better than slavery in many instances.

The world bleeds, it cries.
People struggling to survive.
The monster greed clawing at their life.
Others taking all they can and more.
Giving others ne'er a hope at all.
Treading others in the dust.

[Stasia]

We cannot ignore that fact. But it's not just the Romans. Unfortunately, it's human history itself. There were slaves in the civilizations that emerged in Mesopotamia. There were slaves in ancient Egypt and Greece. There were slaves in the Roman Empire, and there were also slaves in China. And the great American civilizations like the Mayas or the Incas were not exempt either.

So, there is a lot to unpack here. The term 'slavery' can mean different things in different contexts.

Ancient Mesopotamia: one could be sold into slavery for one's debts, or sell own wife or child into slavery. That, however, was a form of indentured servitude, as the slaves were freed after paying off debt (see law # 117 of the Hammurabi's law code; interestingly, in the Biblical version of the same law a daughter could be sold as a slave/concubine basically indefinitely, and freed only if severely mistreated). There were legal safeguards for slaves; I cannot find the source now but I remember reading about some Sumerian tablets with court proceedings, where the slave sued his owner, and won in court.

Things became less peachy in Mesopotamia as the time progressed and social classes solidified - by 500 BC slavery was pretty much an established institution as we know it today (Baker 2001, free pdf download from JSTOR). By then, a lot of slaves would be captured prisoners of war/foreigners (again, the Bible also shows that aspect when it talks about owning foreign slaves).

Ancient Egypt: slavery was not a thing at the beginning. Contrary to popular beliefs, pyramids were NOT built by slaves (don't take my word for it, but take Zahi Hawass' word; I can't find a free copy of his 1997 article "Tombs of the pyramid builders" and I don't remember how I can attach a pdf here, but here is a link to Discover Magazine summary). Early slaves were basically prisoners of war/foreigners. Again, things became less peachy as the time progressed. Egypt's New Kingdom was a militaristic expansionist empire, and with that came a greater emphasis on slavery. This is a good article on how slavery developed over time in Ancient Egypt (the pdf download is free).

The Incas did not have an institution of slavery. On the other hand, it was pretty much a communist regime (state owned everything that its citizens produced) so I suppose you could argue that everyone was a slave.

The Mayans did not have slaves, either. You were either elite or a commoner, with some middle class (who would be legally perceived as commoners but live better because of their craft skills; Sommerville et al. 2013).

The Aztecs had slaves, but very limited numbers, and in the earlier meaning: prisoners of war or people sold for their debts. The status of an Aztec slave was not hereditary (the child of a slave was free); one of many ways out of slavery was marrying one's owner, which automatically made the slave free. From our point of view, the worst thing that could happen to an Aztec slave was getting sacrificed for the Aztec gods, but back then, most sacrificial victims actually believed that was a good thing and went willingly, because religious brainwashing is a real thing (Seus 1969; free pdf download; slavery is discussed on page 739).

I don't know much about ancient Greek slavery, but the Romans created the meaning of slavery as we know it today: no legal safeguards, no agency, complete dehumanization of a human being, and making slaves the foundation of the whole economy.

EDIT:
*** I have just realized that I have a free access to the JSTOR links above because of a library access, but if anyone has trouble accessing the sources and wants them, some of them should be freely findable on scholar.google.com , and I can share pdfs of everything else.

[Explorer]

@Stasia First of all, thank you for bringing up this interesting debate to the forum, although I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss such a deep and complex topic.

The Mayans did not have slaves, either. You were either elite or a commoner.

Maya society was rigidly divided between nobles, commoners, serfs, and slaves. The Maya had a system of serfdom and slavery. There was an active slave trade in the Maya region, and commoners and elites were both permitted to own slaves. Prisoners of war who were not sacrificed would become slaves, and impoverished individuals sometimes sold themselves or family members into slavery.

Source: https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/aztec-an ... -structure

The Incas did not have an institution of slavery. On the other hand, it was pretty much a communist regime (state owned everything that its citizens produced) so I suppose you could argue that everyone was a slave.

So there was some kind of unfree forced labor imposed by the state. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't sound idyllic either.

the Romans created the meaning of slavery as we know it today: no legal safeguards, no agency.

That's not entirely correct. It is true that in the Roman Empire masters had the legal power to punish and kill their slaves under certain circumstances. However, it is important to mention that extreme abuse and unjust death of slaves were not legally accepted, and masters could face consequences if it was considered that they had acted cruelly or unfairly. Additionally, some Roman emperors enacted laws that limited the power of masters over their slaves. Laws like lex Aquilia and lex Petronia established that masters could not kill their slaves without a prior trial. If it was found that the master had acted unfairly, they could be fined or exiled.

Contrary to popular beliefs, the treatment of slaves in the Roman Empire varied greatly depending on the master and the circumstances, and although some slaves could be mistreated and even killed, it was not a universal practice or accepted by Roman society as a whole. Of course, there were abuses, but it also was common for slaves to be regarded as members of the Roman family, to whom lodging, protection and sustenance were provided.

Source: Corpus der römischen Rechtsquellen zur Antiken Sklaverei. Teil III: Die Rechtspositionen am Sklaven.

complete dehumanization of a human being.

In my opinion, all types of slavery are dehumanizing. It doesn't matter the form or the civilization where it exists or has existed.

and making slaves the foundation of the whole economy.

Many great empires have relied on the exploitation of slaves to maintain their overseas domains and expand their economies. This includes the British, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Belgian empires, among others. The difference between the Romans and modern societies, is that the last slave in the Roman Empire died centuries ago, while in the countries I mentioned, slavery was completely normalized and formed part of their respective legal systems until the 19th century.

Further reading:

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/di ... 4-0304.xml
https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/709818

[Stasia]

@Stasia First of all, thank you for bringing up this interesting debate to the forum, although I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss such a deep and complex topic.

We can always split the topic in two.

Maya society was rigidly divided between nobles, commoners, serfs, and slaves. The Maya had a system of serfdom and slavery. There was an active slave trade in the Maya region, and commoners and elites were both permitted to own slaves. Prisoners of war who were not sacrificed would become slaves, and impoverished individuals sometimes sold themselves or family members into slavery.

Source: https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/aztec-an ... -structure

I've seen that source and I would really like to know what are "Foster (2002) and Sharer (1996)" to verify the information. Without knowing these sources, I prefer to rely on the academic sources that I trust, such as the one that I cited above. There is no consensus among Mayanists, but it seems that it was either a bipartite social system (elites vs commoners) or a more complex system with a middle class (basically high status commoners). Mayas were an exceptional society where commoners were healthier than the elites, as the elites consumed mostly maize, while commoners had a more diverse and therefore healthier diet.

So there was some kind of unfree forced labor imposed by the state. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't sound idyllic either.

Most sources call it labor taxation. You would work for the state until you were 50 years old, meanwhile the state would provide you with all you need. After retiring, the state was still taking care of all your needs. It was not ideal but not as bad as most ancient empires. Indigenous communities continue to implement elements of this system (specifically, communal property of land and labor taxation) even now, 500 years after the end of the Inca empire. It's quite fascinating, actually. If you don't provide your labor for the community, you lose your property rights, and your land goes back to the community, even if you have papers proving it's your private property inherited from your parents.

That's not entirely correct. It is true that in the Roman Empire masters had the legal power to punish and kill their slaves under certain circumstances. However, it is important to mention that extreme abuse and unjust death of slaves were not legally accepted, and masters could face consequences if it was considered that they had acted cruelly or unfairly. Additionally, some Roman emperors enacted laws that limited the power of masters over their slaves. Laws like lex Aquilia and lex Petronia established that masters could not kill their slaves without a prior trial. If it was found that the master had acted unfairly, they could be fined or exiled.

That I didn't know, thanks. I need to revise some of my anti-Roman bias.

Many great empires have relied on the exploitation of slaves to maintain their overseas domains and expand their economies. This includes the British, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Belgian empires, among others. The difference between the Romans and modern societies, is that the last slave in the Roman Empire died centuries ago, while in the countries I mentioned, slavery was completely normalized and formed part of their respective legal systems until the 19th century.

Indeed. In Central Europe we formally didn't have slaves, because we had the feudal system, in which peasants/serfs were practically slaves. Not the same, but not too different - a feudal lord selling a village was selling the villagers with it.

[Vlot Vlaams]

Tough times!

is there a way to restore the picture?

---

I wanted to mention Agrippa's map (66 A.D. - see the book mentioned further below).

The (funny) book mentions a large public world map displayed in Rome. Completed shortly after Agrippa’s death (around 12 BCE). Not a mosaîc, but chiselled in stone. Set up for everyone to be seen and admired, in the Porticus Vipsania. People started to imagine travelling to all these exotic places.

It was not a navigation chart, but a state map: political, geographic, and ideological.
Showing the entire known world (orbis terrarum)

• Continents divided into: Europe, Asia, Africa
• Distances between major places
• Rivers, seas, mountain ranges
• Provinces and peoples under Roman rule
  It likely emphasized Roman control and connectivity, especially roads and distances.

By ancient standards, it was impressively accurate.
It incorporated:

• Military surveys
• Road measurements
• Administrative records
  Distances given in Roman miles (milestones found along major heirways)

More on charts here
https://www.cartographyunchained.com/cg ... ,-cgPl2D07

---

Also worthwile, an Elzasser monk named Conrad Peutinger did produced a linearized map of the Roman Empire, known "so far". But not navigational either (no directions). Known as the "Tabula Peutingeriana".

Since Elzass switched being German/French back and forth, one can't be sure how people did pronounce "Peutinger" when he lived. This was mid 1200's

There are books about it too, like this one:
https://www.bol.com/be/nl/p/romische-re ... 0041260015

And the next one gives it a modern twist: from Tony Perrottet "Route 66 A.D."
Describes in a very funny way how Romans may have travelled, using the "Heirbanen" (heir = army) which clearly didn't serve only military purposes.

https://www.bol.com/be/nl/p/route-66-a- ... 4001618208
or
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23272536M/Route_66_A.D.

The original (or current?) book cover aisn't that funny. But on my book it is funnier, with the Roman soldier on the Vespa