91–100 of 133 posts
Romans created their empire through genocide and slavery. It was so bad that multiple rebellions happened that were joined by hundreds of thousands of slaves, and those rebels preferred to kill themselves or starve to death than return to "nice" Roman slavery.
A thing we still need to work on when we tell history: We need to further distinguish Roman slavery from American Chattel slavery. Roman slavery is more like a permanent version of "Indentured Servitude" that we learned here in the states, aka how poor white kids could make it in e.g. Revolutionary times. And not much at all like the "Slavery" that looms bigger in our heads, primarily race-driven and -- this is perha…
Not entirely true. If you were one of the unfortunate slaves to be sent to work in the mines, it was basically a death sentence. Also, the Romans had 3 different large scale slave rebellions (called the Servile wars of which Spartacus was among them) I'm imagining that there was a very small minority of the slave population could earn enough money to purchase their freedom.
Slavery and "slaveowners" are such a loaded terms that it is almost impossible to have rational discussions about them. Many instantly equate "slave" to recent versions of slavery in US history. But the definitions used throughout history are remarkably varied. A Roman household slave was not the same as an African slave in a US cottonfield. One very interesting line of thought is whether modern soldiers are enslaved…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. The prospect of manumission was a huge incentive for the slave to work harder and smarter. Some freedmen became very rich. The slaveowners could theoretically renege on their promise, but rarely did so, because they…
> Household slaves could buy their freedom from their masters. Then they became freedmen, still allied and somewhat subordinated to their former masters, but their children were already full Roman citizens. And that may not have been the perk it's sometimes made out to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome > However, the master could arrange that slaves would only have enough money to buy their fr…
Agricultural slaves, much more numerous than household slaves, had back-breaking work, but at least somewhat survivable.
Slaves sent to the mines or to the galleys (rowing ships) rarely survived for more than three years. It was basically a delayed death sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, in your opinion, was it the right thing for US to do? Say you are Truman. You are responsible for US and how it fares on the world stage. What would be the right thing to do? Show trials in Nuremberg will satisfy the public. Useful heads and knowledge at the very least would be prevented from going to Russia, where who knows what they would work on. If Braun was truly apolitical, history timeline could have easi…
Utilitarian arguments and ethics rarely go together well, hence 'realpolitik'. What my opinion is on the matter is irrelevant, history has run its course and here we are. We're well into 'old man lost his horse' territory now, of course you never know what the utility of a particular event is in the longer term. The doctor that saves the baby's life may well have caused a mass murderer to live a long and productive l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true that there were only a few slave owners. https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.1...
> So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery. This is probably quibbling over numbers, but I'd point out that we are talking about 30% of the white people in states that had slavery. Not 30% of the population at large. The states with slavery were underpopulated. The…
In 1860 only two states had more slaves than free citizens, South Carolina & Mississippi, and by a slim margin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slaves who worked in Roman households were effectively a highly-skilled and educated minority, who could indeed hope to earn enough to buy out their freedom. It goes without saying that this was not a meaningful possibility for the vast majority of slaves, who were forced to work under far more strenuous conditions.
Yep, they were basically the tech/finance/etc... workers of the time, in that they had the opportunity to buy their financial freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US (and Russian, by the way) appropriation of German scientists and Nazi party members post WWII is certainly controversial and there are plenty of people who strongly believe that they should have stood trial in Nuremberg instead of being given a new job with plenty of perks. As Tom Lehrer wrote: "Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical. "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they co…
In contrast to the satirical lyric by Tom Lehrer, here's an actual quote attributed to von Braun: “The rocket worked perfectly, except for landing on the wrong planet.“ — Wernher von Braun remark to a colleague after the first V-2 rocket hit London (September 1944), as quoted in Apollo in Perspective: Spaceflight Then and Now (1999) by Jonathan Allday, p. 85
So even if Tom Lehrer took some artistic license I think he's on the money.
I'm also getting a real sarcastic vibe from the tone of the writing, so I can't tell if it's maybe meant to be satirical? Like what's up with this ending quote: Everyone knew where they stood then – even if, sometimes, that was in the line for crucifixion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is "product of their time" in any way softening it? If your life is short and brutal, odds are you will have niceness kicked out of you early on. And Roman life could be very brutish. One of the things we inherited from them was the word decimation, which came from a punishment of picking every tenth person to be put to death ( usually used for soldiers or uncooperative city ). It does not soften it. It just expl…
> How is "product of their time" in any way softening it? If your life is short and brutal, odds are you will have niceness kicked out of you early on. I don't know enough Roman history to really say if "product of their time" works that way. But I do know enough about US history and figures where "product of their time" is meant solely to excuse horrendous behaviors. That was more my point. You do have to be careful…
I am just interested in history of Rome. If a Roman expert could chime in, it would probably be best since it is just a speculation on my end. In other words, I am no expert.
That said, while I am willing to believe that propaganda effect alone was probably worth the trouble ( not to mention the unpractical nature of killing your own troops ), it is difficult for me to believe that the concept would have survived this long without..uhh.. reinforcing it.
I did find some interesting sources, but I think this conversation[1] covers it well from several angles including ones you suggested.
In other words, I think it is possible.
[1]https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/26019/how-common...