/his/ - History

Slavery was pretty much non-existent in India before arrival of Islam, though the earliest form of caste system involved the arya/dasa divide which was somewhat similar to serfdom in medieval Europe. Though it's important to note that caste system itself wasn't very rigid early on, especially in Buddhist and Jain parts where castes were just a lineage thing and didn't make any profession restrictions. So if you count Maurya Empire as an ancient empire, there is one example of an empire that didn't rely on slavery.

(on a sideby note, there are two separate concepts from Indian society called caste, varna and jati, where varna is general social class and jati is more like a tribe)

Slavery wasn't a major thing in either the Chinese or Persian empires.

Slave plantations were more of a Roman thing, too. A slave in ancient Greece was more likely to be a servant of some sort. Agriculture in say, Egypt, was done by peasants.

>>34398

Spartans used their slaves as peasants, they named them Helots and there are theories that young Spartans had to kill a Helot as a rite of passage, so I don't think you can really generalise slavery in Ancient Greece under one category. Perhaps it will be better to say that Athens or Corinth treated their slaves as servants, however they servants (especially the women) were used for sex often.

You could argue that (agricultural) slaves were primarily needed for heavily militaristic states where a considerable number of the peasantry and thus could not till the fields, couldn't you?

>>34411

Definitely, Sparta is a great example for this.

>>34411

*where a considerable number of peasantry served in the army

Damn, I need coffee.

>>34413

I take Assyria would also fall into that group?

>>34407

Right, but Sparta never had a real Empire. Their slave caste required that their warriors be close to home at all times.

>>34411

Possibly, but I'm not quite convinced. As I mentioned, this sort of arrangement limited Sparta to a small area of influence since the helots hated their subjection and would revolt if given the chance.

The Roman Republic might be the only example of this, because it was highly militaristic in an almost unique way. In most societies, only the nobility were militarized (foot troops were drafted as needed), in the Roman Republic, everyone was militarized.

However, as Rome grew, fewer and fewer citizens were actually part of the military, and more and more slaves started to be employed. So there's almost an inverse relationship there, too. In the early days chronicled by Livy, every single citizen of Rome was expected to be ready to serve in the army at times of crisis. This was definitely not the case by the time of Caesar.

Well Rome grew dependent on slaves but I'm not sure if they're necessary because the Egyptians didn't have slaves and they got some monumental shit done.

>>34434

To be fair, the peasants doing the monumental shit typically took decades, only happened during the agricultural season where they didn't have much work to do on the fields anyway, and there was the entire "Pharaoh = God" thing going around.

>>34441

>there was the entire "Pharaoh = God" thing going around.

Good point, perhaps the reason why Empires were strong were because of strong leaders supposedly appointed by Gods and using slaves was not an important factor to running an empire.

>>34407

>young Spartans had to kill a Helot as a rite of passage

Isn't it just a meme, alongside throwing unwanted babbies from a mountain and other bs like this, shitposted into historiography by a bunch of butthurt Athenians?

>>34414

Most of the soldiers were farmers, until Tukulti-Epil-Essara III (Tiglath-Pileser III) took the throne, where he established a proper, professional army, recruiting men as strictly soldiers and used mercenaries instead of the farmer-soldiers to fill in extra ranks

>>34417

>However, as Rome grew, fewer and fewer citizens were actually part of the military, and more and more slaves started to be employed. So there's almost an inverse relationship there, too.

Slaves naturally were also a form of wealth, so that wealthy states (i.e., Rome during its golden age) had more of them the better they fared.

I do however see your point that an excessive reliance on slavery inherently came with the risk of slave revolts. At the same time, however, I would argue that a strong military was necessary to surpress these revolts. The interesting question then is whether or not it would be possible to have a military large enough to a) surpress the slave revolts and b) conquer and pillage abroad.

>>34450

Like I said, it's more of a theory but I'm pretty sure it's not a meme, I've read a bit about it but I'll check up.

>>34450

>alongside throwing unwanted babbies from a mountain and other bs like this

so that was bullshit too? when did that got debunked?