The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
The Romans did not actually have classes of slaves. A slave was a slave; slavery was a class. However a slave, depending upon his/her education and skills had status. For example a secretary had more status than a litter bearer and a city slave had more status than a rural worker in some cases. Any responsible position held by a slave raised his/her status. The Romans did have names for the jobs that a slave performed, such as "cantrix" for a singer, "agaso" for a groom, but these were job descriptions rather than classes.
upper classes, lower classes , middle classes, and slaves
By their rights... Kings= Top Farmers= Middle Slaves= Bottom
The code deals with every classes of citizen including women and slaves. Hammurabi learned that cruel kings had a short reign and decided to write the code
In the beginning of Ancient Egypt there was only 2 different classes. The nobles and Pharaoh and everyone else, but after a long time a middle class began to appear and 5 different classes formed. The Pharaoh, the nobles, scribes and educated people, the farmers, and the slaves.
They were inferior to men, on the same level as slaves
Church King peasant serf
racial discrimination was practiced and they separate seats in buses and different classes in train.treated as slaves.
Both peasants and slaves worked as servants for the upper classes.
Emperor, Nobility and Priests were the major classes of Aztec society.
All of Europe had four classes of people.Members of the ChurchNobilityPeasantsSerfs/slaves
The four broad social classes were: ruling, nobility, peasants, and slaves.
Nobles, Commoners, and Slaves