,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Rome's economy was absolutely contingent on having quite literally millions of slaves. When they met their eventual limits, no new peoples being enslaved and widespread corruption led to the bottom being torn out from society.
Nah.
Nah.
Up to a third of all those living in the city of Rome during the Imperial period, it has been suggested, were slaves.
By the 4th century, it's thought that the vast majority of those living in Italy - up around 90% - were descended from slaves.
By the 4th century, it's thought that the vast majority of those living in Italy - up around 90% - were descended from slaves.
Slaves had no legal standing. As such, the only cases that could be brought against those who raped, maimed or killed them, were for the damage of property.
The majority of brothels were also filled with slaves, as they did not need to be paid.
The majority of brothels were also filled with slaves, as they did not need to be paid.
The Roman's utter disdain for their slaves, and the peoples they subjugates also played a role in their downfall.
The enslavement of Gothic refugees, who were fleeing the Huns, led to one of the first really serious blows against Rome's military might.
The enslavement of Gothic refugees, who were fleeing the Huns, led to one of the first really serious blows against Rome's military might.
So no, not superior.
At least we can argue we fight against slavery, where it can be found.
At least we can argue we fight against slavery, where it can be found.
