ave :)


first of all : I just got the 2nd ed. book, and it's great !

now here's my question about slaves : what keeps them from running
away ?

it says in the book that they are prohibited from wearing clothes
that identify them as servi, so they won't realize they outnumber the
other social classes

that kind of makes sense to me, even though i think slaves probably
still can tell they are the most numerous class

but then what keeps a slave from running away unnoticed, and moving
to some other place where he presents himself as a free person ?

especially consodering some slaves have quite considerable wealth


cheers

JC

Hi, JC. and Welcome the Forge!

I'm very glad you're enjoying the game. I've notified Jason Roberts [FVLMINATA's Roman history authority] of your query, but as he's in the middle of an interstate move, it might be a few days before he can get back to you.

From what little I know [I wrote the system, not the setting, so consider the following as speculation only], Rome was built on a patronage system, and wealth was not as mobile as it is today. One simply didn't just move to a new city, one's arrival was arranged beforehand by one's patron.

Also, many slave families were kept together, so why would an individual run away from their own family to a place where they knew no one?

These factors, along with the constant efforts of slave-catchers in retrieving runaways, are, I think, what kept most of the slave population from fleeing servitude.

However, I think a great FVLMINATA character would be just like you described. A man who has put his past behind him, risen in society, and is well respected. And now, 20 years later, a slave hunter has tracked him down. Does his wife know his secret? Do his children? What about his own slaves? Did he leave another family behind? This is the fodder of great stories (like Les Miserables, among others)!

Hi JC,

Good question.

Runaways must have been an issue, because Roman comedies mention them a lot. Also, Spartacus was able to recruit huge numbers of slaves to his revolt, an event that shook Roman society and made them forever intolerant of runaways. I think the answer is running away was discouraged with both carrot and stick.

Slaves got free room and board, and didn't have to worry about making all the big life decisions a free person did. Domestic and personal slaves could have fairly tolerable work conditions, and often got emotionally attached to their Masters. Think Upstairs Downstairs. In this case, I think it's related to the Roman concept of patronage, where each Roman had a patron who helped them and clients who they helped and were supported by in turn. Most cultures of the time (Celtic, Gothic, Persian) had a concept of personal loyalty to another individual. Personal slaves could well fall into a similar relationship.

Also, for domestics, there was the promise of manumission, usually around age forty or so - to become a freedman - and perhaps inheritance later. The freedman became an official client of the former master, and often stayed on as an employee. It was freedmen, not slaves, who often were able to accumulate substantial wealth.

At the other end of the institutiion are labor slaves, like farm and mine workers. These were kept in abject conditions - basically guarded work camps. They wre controlled by social terror and by physical surveillance. When they did escape, they had poor clothing, poor hygene, and a foreign accent - or no Latin at all.

This last is probably key to identifying a runaway. Most slaves were non-Latin and often war captives or descended from war captives. A person with poor clothes and a foreign look or accent would be suspect. Masters had broad rights of pursuit and punishement. Roman law stretched a long way and slaves coud only flee. (Note that, until about the time of Julius Caesar, the head of a family legally had life or death power over even his own children!).

The other part of identifying a runaway was the census. Rome keeps registers every citizen and every freedman. Citizens wear identifying rings, in fact. So if someone couldn't point to some proof of free status, they could easily be dragooned by local authorities or private bodyguards into slavery, just on the assumption they were escaped slaves.

So there was lots of incentives that kept slaves with their masters. I suspect, like any social system, systemic fear and complacency also played a big role. Then, as now, the downtrodden tend to focus on making the best of what they have.

Alan's post nicely sums up why more slaves didn't run - essentially you needed something to run to. Household and clerical slaves were not free, but their lives weren't intolerable. As for the hard labor slaves in the fields and the mines, they were supervised very closely and often kept shackled or imprisoned. A runaway slave without a safe haven (as in the case of Spartacus) would have a tough time functioning in the heart of the empire. Freedom and citizenship were tracked via the census. The Romans were great bureaucrats; slaves talented enough to manipulate the red tape would be the ones most likely to stay pat to await manumission and a possible inheritance.

All that being said, as Michael mentioned, it's a great hook for a story. "Miselli" starring Gaius Valgonus, Iavertus and little Eponina, anyone?

Jason

I think there is a somewhat more general question here. I don't know much about Romans per se, but I often see anachronistic attitudes in historical games.

Modern players tend to think of slavery as something inherently evil and intolerable. And there were people in history opposed to slavery. However, it definitely was not seen as fundamentally different than other social relations, like liege-to-king or child-to-parent. Modern players can sometimes take for granted that modern human rights and private property are available. I suspect a Roman would see slavery as a big step up from barbarism, where the strong take from the weak in an unstructured way. It provides stability and a mechanism for improving one's station.

There is also the question of anonymity. Modern urban society has anonymity and a host of impersonal social structures. But in smaller, less literate societies, everything was based on who you know. You can't just walk into a town with a pile of money and be treated equally -- or at least, it is quite a feat to be accepted as a stranger. You may not have any more rights as a stranger than you did as a slave. Someone might beat you up and take your stuff, and unless you had connections to redress that you had no recourse.