Sometimes I get asked how I got interested in Greek and Roman slavery. The answer is that I was initially more interested in the philosophy and theory of Greek and Roman literature, particularly political theory. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on justice and war in Greek thought and when I was done I realized that I needed to understand Greek and Roman slavery before I understand why these people were willing to go to war. Unfortunately, I still don’t understand Greek and Roman slavery.
I bring this up because scholars will sometimes get flashbacks to previous work when conducting research. Today I was reading the historian Polybius, a Greek historian who tries to explain the rise of the Romans from 220-167 BCE. One of the important people that he examines during this period is the Macedonian king Philip V. Polybius thinks that Philip V started off alright but then began behaving badly, at least in comparison to his Macedonian ancestors. Polybius gets quite upset at Philip V for desecrating the holy site of Dodona during the Social War. To show us how Philip V’s ancestors were capable of restraining themselves, Polybius cites a number of examples, including this description of Alexander the Great and the Greek city of Thebes:
“He was so furious with the Thebans that he sold the inhabitants into slavery and razed the cit to the ground, yet in capturing the city he never forgot the respect and reverence due to the gods.” (5.10)
This comment is particularly interesting as Polybius then goes on a digression about “rules and rights of war” (5.11). Just to be clear, Polybius doesn’t really have any conception of human rights, but he does feel very strongly that there is a right way to fight a war and a wrong way. For his justification on the right way to fight a war, he has this argument:
“After all, a good man does not make war on wrongdoers to destroy and annihilate them, but to improve them and correct the error of their ways.” (5.11)
I haven’t done any research into the philosophical influences on Polybius, but this smacks of Platonism to me, in particular Republic 1 and Plato’s Apology.
What does this have to do with slavery? Well apparently for Polybius while it’s pointlessly evil to desecrate a sanctuary, enslaving a whole city is justifiable if you think that is what will make those people better.
I bring this up because scholars will sometimes get flashbacks to previous work when conducting research. Today I was reading the historian Polybius, a Greek historian who tries to explain the rise of the Romans from 220-167 BCE. One of the important people that he examines during this period is the Macedonian king Philip V. Polybius thinks that Philip V started off alright but then began behaving badly, at least in comparison to his Macedonian ancestors. Polybius gets quite upset at Philip V for desecrating the holy site of Dodona during the Social War. To show us how Philip V’s ancestors were capable of restraining themselves, Polybius cites a number of examples, including this description of Alexander the Great and the Greek city of Thebes:
“He was so furious with the Thebans that he sold the inhabitants into slavery and razed the cit to the ground, yet in capturing the city he never forgot the respect and reverence due to the gods.” (5.10)
This comment is particularly interesting as Polybius then goes on a digression about “rules and rights of war” (5.11). Just to be clear, Polybius doesn’t really have any conception of human rights, but he does feel very strongly that there is a right way to fight a war and a wrong way. For his justification on the right way to fight a war, he has this argument:
“After all, a good man does not make war on wrongdoers to destroy and annihilate them, but to improve them and correct the error of their ways.” (5.11)
I haven’t done any research into the philosophical influences on Polybius, but this smacks of Platonism to me, in particular Republic 1 and Plato’s Apology.
What does this have to do with slavery? Well apparently for Polybius while it’s pointlessly evil to desecrate a sanctuary, enslaving a whole city is justifiable if you think that is what will make those people better.