roman slavery

[wupwup]

hi guys. as i said in my other thread im making a board/card game about gladiators. so i was wondering what the roman slave trade was like. would the slaves be bought back from victorious campaigns? so would there be a shipment of gauls and then none for a while. then when they took carthage a load of carthaginians? or was it a fairly steady stream from all corners of the empire all the time. and what where the common types of slaves? i.e. where where they from. gaul, thrace, greece, numibia? and finaly is there a good place that has lists of gaul / thracian / numidian names? cheers

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Many slaves did indeed come from military conquest. However people could be sold into slavery by their family, taken as a slave by someone they owned money to, or be enslaved as a punishment.

Also you should note that there was almost always a revolt or an attack at some corner of the Empire, so there was a fairly steady source of slaves.

Most would be born into it.

[wupwup]

cheers. what where the most common ethnicitys of slaves?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

cheers. what where the most common ethnicitys of slaves?

Hmmm, as I remember there were many Thracians.. Also Epirots would be common because when Rome captured Epirus they took 150.000-200.000 citizens and sold them as slaves..

[removeduser_4536284751384]

there was none

you could find slaves from Sub-saharan Africa, Britain, China and the Russian Steppe in a mediterrainean slave market.

However as a general rule and ethnicity was present in small numbers before the Romans captured it, extremely common after capture, and then practically impossible to come across after romanisation.

So there were Gallic a few slaves around before Gaul was captured, many around in the years after capture in the 50s BC, and then practically none by the time of the Empire.

[Last Roman]

there was none

you could find slaves from Sub-saharan Africa, Britain, China and the Russian Steppe in a mediterrainean slave market.

However as a general rule and ethnicity was present in small numbers before the Romans captured it, extremely common after capture, and then practically impossible to come across after romanisation.

So there were Gallic a few slaves around before Gaul was captured, many around in the years after capture in the 50s BC, and then practically none by the time of the Empire.

um, China?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

um, China?

yes

they were rare but definitely around. Plenty of east asian people travelled to the roman empire for trade or whatever reason (one once travelled to take part in a sword tourney).

[Gestalt]

yes

they were rare but definitely around. Plenty of east asian people travelled to the roman empire for trade or whatever reason (one once travelled to take part in a sword tourney).

Trade was indirect. No Chinese merchants traveled to the Roman Empire.One Chinese ambassador made it to Parthia,but was told it would take another two years to get to Rome so he left.A couple of Roman ambassadors are alleged to have made it to China starting in 166 A.D.I highly doubt any Chinese were ever made slaves.Other Asians possibly,but Chinese extremely doubtful.The main trade good from China was silk,and Romans traded glassware.Silk was supplied through Parthia.Later it was the Sassanids,though the later Byzantine empire may have had a more direct relationship.

Sino-Roman relations were indirect throughout the existence of both empires. The Roman Empire and Han China progressively inched closer in the course of the Roman expansion into the Ancient Near East and simultaneous Chinese military incursions into Central Asia. However, powerful intermediate empires such as the Parthians and Kushans kept the two Eurasian flanking powers permanently apart and mutual awareness remained low and knowledge fuzzy.
Only a few attempts at direct contact are known from records: In 97 CE, the Chinese general Ban Chao unsuccessfully tried to send an envoy to Rome.[1][2] Several alleged Roman emissaries to China were recorded by ancient Chinese historians. The first one on record, supposedly from either the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius or the later emperor Marcus Aurelius, arrived in 166.




The indirect exchange of goods on the land (the so-called silk road) and sea routes included Chinese silk and Roman glassware and high-quality cloth.



There were no direct trade contacts between Romans and Han Chinese, as the rivalling Parthians and Kushans were each jealously protecting their lucrative role as trade intermediaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations

Another site to reference with wiki http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistor...ol/c05s01.html

[Gestalt]

Another site to reference with wiki http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistor...ol/c05s01.html

I knew that that's why I also gave this link above for you and others to reference Wiki.Did you see that?Wiki, no matter how credible or incredible at least lists notes,references, and sources for its writings.Thats a little more than someone just spouting off the top of their head information without nothing to reference.Nonetheless,that's pretty much common sense why Rome wouldn't be having slaves from China.Silk is a far more valuable commodity than slaves,and its a very well known fact that direct trade was blocked from China by the Parthian empire.There isn't much on the net about Rome,China relations because there was very little contact if any that ever happened.

[Last Roman]

yes

they were rare but definitely around. Plenty of east asian people travelled to the roman empire for trade or whatever reason (one once travelled to take part in a sword tourney).

you have any sources on that? While I'm well aware of Chinese wares making it to Rome via the Silk Road, I've never actually heard of an actual Chinese person going there.

[Ludicus]

you could find slaves from.. China.. in a mediterrainean slave market

Everything is possible, but...I sincerely doubt.

[wupwup]

ah cool. i guess i need to look up some barbarian peoples then

[jbersie]

The whole sold into slavery by your family thing goes directly back to the roman concept of extended family or gens. The eldest male in the family controlled the rights to kill or sellany of the members within the family into slavery.

[Flavius Nevitta]

The whole sold into slavery by your family thing goes directly back to the roman concept of extended family or gens. The eldest male in the family controlled the rights to kill or sellany of the members within the family into slavery.

But there were legal limits. Selling your child was forbidden by law, as well as forcing your daughter into prostitution.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

But there were legal limits. Selling your child was forbidden by law, as well as forcing your daughter into prostitution.

when were those limits introduced?

[Flavius Nevitta]

That's a good question. They are part of Diocletian's laws but afaik were renewals of older laws. Maybe someone here knows more about Roman law and could add some detail?

[wupwup]

I thought quoting wiki was frowned upon? But thanks everyone.

[Trax]

I thought quoting wiki was frowned upon?

Nah it's fine as long as you think critically and don't believe exceptional claims without checking elsewhere.
Also be sure to check the citations, always read the discussion page and check out the same article in other languages
(particularly the case when any kind of numbers are involved).

In the case of this article it doesn't contradict anything that the paper encyclopaedias that I have in home with me say about this subject.

[wupwup]

Ah cool then. Maybe there is hope for it. As for chinease slaves surely a sslave could have been taken by another empire and have made his way down to Rome?

[Trax]

There is one recent case of East Asian skeleton found in Italy.

But that's pretty much all there is.