What are differences between slavery in ancient Rome and slavery in America?

Answer 1

The number one difference between slavery in America and slavery in ancient Rome was its foundation. American slavery was based on race or skin color. Roman slavery was based on birth. The ancients had no sense of racism. (They did have prejudices against foreigners, but this was based on nationality, not race.) In America, few slaves were freed in comparison to their numbers, while in Rome hundreds of slaves were freed annually. The freed slaves in Rome, although owing a limited service to their former masters, were free to climb the social ladder and many of them did, becoming businessmen, craftsmen, or government officials. In America it was much more difficult, as race and lack of education worked against the freed slave. The ancient slaves always had the hope of freedom, either from their owners or by buying their freedom. An American slave did not have this advantage.

Answer 2

There was not much difference between slavery of the last centuries of the Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages. But the histories of slavery of Republican Rome and the Roman Empire and of the Middle Ages as a whole both show a good deal of change.

In the time of the early Roman Republic, everyone in the household was under the control of the pater familias, who had life and death authority over all, slave and free. As time went on, Roman armies were very successful at conquering other lands, and this caused a glut on the slave market. Some shrewd economist figured out that the best return on the investment on a slave happened if a slave was completely used up in seven years and then discarded (ie, dead). Slaves were killed for entertainment, especially in gladiatorial combat. The result was the Servile Wars, which happened in 135 to 132 BC, 104 to 100 BC, and 73 to 71 BC, the last lead by the memorable Sparticus. And, largely as a result of the fear instilled by these, Romans examined their treatment of slaves and passed some laws protecting them from certain excesses, though they did not protect men from being used as gladiators or members of either sex from being used sexually. After Christianity was legalized, slaves were, for the first time, allowed to marry, which protected Roman slaves from sexual exploitation to some degree, as there were laws against adultery.

During the Early Middle Ages, slavery continued as before. In time, however, the Church condemned the exportation of Christian slaves to lands that were not Christian, the sale of Christian slaves to people who were not Christian. Finally, Church councils condemned slavery altogether. So, for example, when William the Conqueror became King of England in 1066, one of his first acts was to prohibit enslavement of Christians. And King Henry I prohibited slave trade altogether in 1102, as a result of condemnations of the Council of London, held by the Church in that same year.

I should make note of the fact that serfdom and slavery are two different things. A slave could be bought and sold, and had very few or no rights. By contrast, though a serf was bound to the soil and could not move away from the manor, he was otherwise free; his lack of a right to move away was balanced by his right to live and work on the manor (he had a right to a job and a place to live, things for which some modern people would be willing to give up some of their rights). He had to pay rent, but the landlord had to protect him from various dangers, including war and famine. Serfdom did not make the serf a possession, but was a system of mutual obligation between the serf and the landlord.