During the Roman era slavery was common all over the empire, by the High Middle Ages it's not really a thing anymore. What happened? Was it tied to the spread of Christianity, or the fall of the Roman Empire?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Roman era style of slavery, where anyone could be declared a slave, sold and whose offspring would be borne into slavery was devolved in the near centuries following the fall of the Roman empire. With the establishment and entrenchment of new countries in Europe treaties against the purchase/sale of slave such as those between Vencie and the Carolingian empire in the 9th century were followed by successive council bans on sales of Christian slaves followed in the following centuries up until the 12th century.
Slavery still persisted either in the remnant form of Roman era slavery with the trade of non christian slaves, the enslavement of lesser christians or the devolved forms of slavery such as serfdom. The enslavement of Roma in Romanian lands persisted until the 1860's.
Slavery still persisted either in the remnant form of Roman era slavery with the trade of non christian slaves, the enslavement of lesser christians or the devolved forms of slavery such as serfdom. The enslavement of Roma in Romanian lands persisted until the 1860's.
Similarly the Vikings and English were slavers pretty late, and there'd be people who would turn a profit on selling slaves to the Muslim states across the sea well in the modern era.
In any case, yes, the end of Roman law and order helped; Germanic tribal freedoms helped; Christian brotherhood helped less than you'd expect (as the South was arguing into the late 19th c. the Bible was very clear that slaves should ignore their lot here below and focus on their future rewards for good and honest service); the replacement of Roman slavery with forms of customary feudal bondage helped quite a bit more. You didn't own people per se, but everyone accepted that the guy with the armor and the horse could rough you up if you forgot to plow his fields and pay your rent. As long as the king's law didn't run very far without his approval, the local baron didn't much care that the peasants weren't technically his chattel.
In any case, yes, the end of Roman law and order helped; Germanic tribal freedoms helped; Christian brotherhood helped less than you'd expect (as the South was arguing into the late 19th c. the Bible was very clear that slaves should ignore their lot here below and focus on their future rewards for good and honest service); the replacement of Roman slavery with forms of customary feudal bondage helped quite a bit more. You didn't own people per se, but everyone accepted that the guy with the armor and the horse could rough you up if you forgot to plow his fields and pay your rent. As long as the king's law didn't run very far without his approval, the local baron didn't much care that the peasants weren't technically his chattel.
Last edited:
This History.StackExchange thread on Roman guilt about slave owning has some interesting source material. I disagree with some of it and some conclusions, but it's still interesting to learn about the importance of Stoics in changing Roman law and attitudes about slavery.
The Barbary slave trade refers to slave markets on the Barbary Coast of North Africa between the 16th century and middle of the 19th century. European slaves were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships but also in eastern Mediterranean and European coastal towns from Italy to Netherlands, Ireland, Southwest of Britain, as far as Iceland in the north.
During this period its estimated that 1.5-2.5 million Europeans were enslaved by the Barbary pirates as well 700 Americans were held in captive in North Africa during 1785-1815. The decline of the Barbary slave trades were the two Barbary Wars - mainly fought by the US and Sweden against Tripolitania, Morocco and the Regency of Algiers. The UK, the French and the Dutch also made raids against the Barbary ports immobilizing most of the fleet of the pirates and after losing this period the Barbary states went into decline and eventually disappeared after European occupation of North Africa, like the French invasion of Tunis in 1881.
During this period its estimated that 1.5-2.5 million Europeans were enslaved by the Barbary pirates as well 700 Americans were held in captive in North Africa during 1785-1815. The decline of the Barbary slave trades were the two Barbary Wars - mainly fought by the US and Sweden against Tripolitania, Morocco and the Regency of Algiers. The UK, the French and the Dutch also made raids against the Barbary ports immobilizing most of the fleet of the pirates and after losing this period the Barbary states went into decline and eventually disappeared after European occupation of North Africa, like the French invasion of Tunis in 1881.
There were important variations depending on the territories. In Visigothic Spain, slaves must have been very common, judging by the surviving legislation of the V-VII c. CE: almost half of the laws deal with several aspects of slavery. And judging from the Acts of the numerous church councils (at the level of the whole kingdom or ecclesiatical provinces) even the smallest rural church could be expected to have a minimum of ten slaves. There was also quite a scandal when the bishop and abbot of Dumium, Ricimirus, manumited "illegally" 500 slaves whom the X Council of Toledo considered to be the property of the Church (and judged the abbot/bishop to have exceeded himself in his Christian zeal). There were also public slaves, called "slaves of the Treasury" in Visigothic laws who enjoyed a different status; for example King Chindasvintus ruled that they could testify in a court trial without being tortured, unlike "normal" slaves, whose testimony was only valid if they'd been tortured (the Visigoths followed Roman law verbatim in this respect).
- 1
No, not according to Roman/Visigothic law. But according to Roman law, for that testimony to be valid, the slave had to be tortured. Visigothic law exempted from this ruling the "slaves of the Treasury".
I remember being surprised at an account of 14th century Venetian slave trade from the Crimean.
I remember reading that the Muslim Mediterranean world in general, and Muslim Spain specifically, had pretty low population growth, and needed constant influx of slaves to compensate.
First time I hear of that (in respect to Muslim Spain). Archaeology seems to show that the opposite is true, actually, at least in urban settings. Slaves were imported, but as in the rest of the Muslim world, these slaves were intended for domestic exploitation (including a flourishing "eunuch industry" for the harems of the elite). There are also reports of "Mamluk-like" slave soldiers, but these seem to have been limited to palace guards, small in number.
Historians agree that compared to Visigothic Spain, the absolute and relative number of slaves declined in Al-Andalus. Interestingly, the latest trends in historical studies seem to show that in the Kingdom of Asturias/León (a direct descendant of the old Visigothic state) slaves were still quite abundant until the XII-XIII c.
- 1
- 1