Somewhat frustratingly, we really don't know very much about the ancient slave trade. We know that it existed, but pretty much the only time the sources mention it is when the slaves are prominent or special in some way (eg, courtesans, dancers, etc). We don't really hear much about the international trade in slaves that were simply destined to be menial laborers. This has led to something of a debate about where the Roman slaves came from: were they largely produced within the borders--ie criminals, natural reproduction, and foundlings--or was the slave population maintained through importation?

That being said, there was certainly a slave trade, and we know of slaves being transported across many of the borders, such as in North Africa, Germany and Britain.

Anyway, the major difference between Roman slavery (moreso than Greek slavery) and colonial American is that Rome had an "open" slave system, that is, it was possible for a slave to become free and, once free, to behave in much the same way as someone who was born free. In fact, while freedmen were barred from citizenship, the children of the freedmen of citizens were automatically citizens. In fact, freedmen and freedmen families were very prominent socially in Rome and the provinces, and could rise to high political office. In contrast, the colonial slave system was "closed", and justified through race. Hence why the descendants of America's freedmen are disproportionately poor and socially disadvantaged.

However, what Greene seems to be talking about to me is not slavery per se but rather debt bondage. Debt bondage varies a great deal across time and space, but in general it is indistinguishable from serfdom--and, indeed, serfdom may very well have begun as a debt bondage system. I would define the difference as (chattel) slavery being a system where human beings are property to another, while debt bondage is a system in which the produce of labor belongs to another without negotiation.

EDIT: After watching the video, I should say that I rather disagree with Graeber's argument as presented through Greene. Monetization is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, and if there is one thing (and probably only one thing) that economic historians of all eras are in agreement with it is that the presence of money does not demand, or even imply, a monetized economy. It is also, as far as I can tell, wrong: from the documents I have seen the Persian Empire paid its soldiers in plunder and produce. The paid, standing, professional army was really an innovation of the Roman Empire.

I can comment a bit on the treatment of slaves in Ancient Rome, as I took a course specifically on slavery and its effects on the Roman Empire.

I am using our main textbook, Slavery in the Roman World by Sandra R Joshel as my main source. Ancient slavery was in fact a "slave society", a world built by slaves. If using the term to describe a society in which at least 20% of the population is comprised of slaves, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome (Italy), fall into this category, as well as the US, Brazil, and the Caribbean.

Now chattel slavery is slavery defined as the slaves being considered to be property. This very much was the case in Ancient Rome. Slaves were considered res, defined as "a thing, property, an object". Most slaves were brought in from other regions, usually as prisoners of war. Some slaves were also born into slavery. All these slaves were usually sold, or traded, any sort of financial transaction. No slaves were considered Roman citizens, even if Roman by ethnic origin, slavery made one an outsider.

Ethnicity is what makes Roman slavery a bit distinct. There was no set "color" or race for slaves as there was for the Atlantic slave trade. Any race could be a slave, even Romans themselves. This created a society not really based on ethnicity. Though there was a distinction with slaves coming from a different nation. Slaves coming from some region natio, were considered "better quality" than those from others, so country of origin would play a role in slave price.

Social position is something that is a bit harder to define. Many slaves could be freed, called libertini, freedmen, but they do not have the full rights as ingenui, freeborn men. Slaves were very much considered property and their only real rights were those granted by their master. Saying that, there were many different positions a slave could hold. Slaves could work in the fields, but they also held positions as cooks/chefs, and importantly, teachers for Roman children. Gladiators and chariot racers were also mostly slaves. These guys were considered to be entertainers, and many even held celebrity-like positions in Roman society.

In terms of social perception of slaves, they were once again, considered to not be real citizens until they were free. One important playwright to look at is Plautus, who wrote comedies such as "The Pot of Gold", which features strong, intelligent, slave characters. These plays were written for both a free and slave audience.

While I know much less about slaves in Ancient Greece, I do want to bring up a few interesting points. Aesop, of Aesop's fables, was a very clever Greek slave who had a knack for storytelling. It is said that his cleverness had earned him much respect and he was highly regarded in the society. Though how much of his life is fictional is quite difficult to distinct. Also the word pedagogy (refering to the science of teaching) is derived from the Greek term paidogogeo, referring to the practice of having slaves teach one's children. The pedagogue was extremely important in shaping and educating a child.

One very important distinction between ancient slavery and colonial era slavery is that prior to the Atlantic Slave trade, Slavery wasn't a race dependent phenomenon. From the Babylonians to the Romans to the Arabs, slaves were a distinct social class that could be derived from any race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It wasn't until European colonial Slavery that 'blacks' were designated as a 'Slave race' and that slave status was ascribed and associated exclusively with a specific 'peoples'.

Although I'm not a historian, I did take a class covering this so I'll try to relay the opinion of my professor and textbooks as best I can. Most of the material we dealt with compared new world slavery to more traditional slavery in Africa and the Middle East rather than ancient slavery, but hopefully it's informative nonetheless.

While many people are trying to break it down into specific rules of the two systems, one of the problems with this is that old world slavery was wildly varied. It was certainly possible to have a particular brutal experience as a slave in Africa if you found yourself with a nasty owner or tribe. However, on average there were a few mitigating factors to really brutal treatment. For one, there was not a permanent class distinction. Your slave owner could very easily become a slave if he was captured in battle; taking slaves went both ways between warring tribes or nations. Compared to the new world, where a slave owner could never find himself a slave, it's easy to see how slave owners could consider themselves inherently better than slaves. Additionally most slaves were relatively close to home. They likely spoke a similar language, would blend in and had some knowledge of the land. All this made escape vastly more feasible than the new world and poor treatment would likely lead to your slaves escaping. Finally, a tribe with widespread mistreatment of slaves might find little mercy from their neighbhors when their own people were captured. This provides some incentive for a more humane system. Generally (again, there was enormous variance) an African slave would be treated more as part of family. Certainly they were not equal, and would suffer a lower position the rest of their lives, but they might live a moderately comfortable life. Freedom was certainly possible and children would typically not be enslaved. The system was informal, and was a much more personal relationship where the slave was seen as human.

In contrast, new world slavery was a much more uniform experience. Unfortunately, it was also a much more brutal one. The main difference was the commoditization and dehumanization of the slaves. While a slave in the old world might be highly valued, and eventually integrated into society there was no such opportunities in the new world. Salves were a completely different class of people, often treated as sub-human and their children would remain slaves. While most people probably think of America in connection to slavery, only a fraction of slaves actually went to America and many were used as domestic help rather than field labour. The majority of slaves ended up in the sugar plantations to the south, particularly in Brazil, and this is where chattel slavery was found at it's worst. Conditions were brutal and life expectancy shockingly short (7 years was an estimate I was told). Slaves were quite literally worked to death and replaced. This was a purely economic calculation, involving the amount of sugar a slave could produce, their cost and so forth. There was no regard for humanity in this business. It's also significant that they were producing sugar. While a slave in the old world would generally be involved in supporting the current society, the old world was a markedly difference sort of economy. Rather they were producing sugar for export to Europe; a globalized system where labour was provided by Africa to produce sugar in America which was consumed in Europe. This remarkable situation is one of the reasons why slavery became so brutal and embedded. In fact, when new world slaves gained control of Haiti, they proceeded to continue importing slaves and exporting sugar, with equal brutality. To me, this suggests the conditions were dictated by the unique economics more than race and illustrates why new world slavery was a unique historical phenomenon.

It's also interesting to note African's own compliance in the system. Nearly all slaves were actually captured through endemic warfare in Africa and sold on the coast, so the Europeans were actually taking advantage of an already existing slave trade. However, the growth of the Atlantic slave trade certainly bolstered the African trade, especially since slaves were often traded for weapons. Hopefully that illustrates the differences between the two systems, although it's difficult to characterize old-world slavery with a single brush.

Most of this is from lectures and discussion with my prof, I'll try to find the textbook and some of the primary sources. Any corrections would be very welcome however.

I've heard this comment before, and I don't think I buy it. It involves a fair amount of quibbling over details, while ignoring the fundamental fact that ancient slavery was, in fact, a chattel system. A Roman slave was the personal property of his or her owner, and had no rights of their own.

True, slaves were, for the most part, acquired through war, rather than being declared slaves because of their race. Though, again, I'm not sure this is a huge distinction. Our concept of race is perhaps unlike the ancients', so is it really so different to make someone a slave because they're from Gaul and Caesar just conquered you, than to make them a slave because they were hunted down and imprisoned in West Africa? (Caesar sold the entire population of the Veneti into slavery during the Gallic Wars, for instance. Gallic War 3.16)

As for what slaves did: lots of stuff. Some slaves were used as things like teachers and secretaries, and they probably had it pretty good. Vast numbers toiled away on the latifundia, the huge plantations, however, and, again, I'm not sure I see a big difference between these and and the New World plantations. The fact that Roman slaves didn't reproduce themselves, that their population had to be continually replenished via wars of conquest, is telling. If their lives were satisfying, don't you think they would have gone ahead and gotten married and had babies? And let's not forget, Roman masters were free to sexually exploit their slaves as they wished, just like more recent slave owners.

Slavery began to change some after the wars of conquest died down, and the supply of new slaves dwindled. Indeed, it had begun to change before then: the process of a Roman citizen selling himself (or his son) into slavery as collateral on a loan, called nexum, was abolished in the early Republican time. By the later Roman empire, plantation slaves had begun to acquire some rights, and free people had begun to decline in status. By the time of Diocletian, for instance, peasants were tied to the land as coloni. Technically they were free, but they couldn't leave the estates on which they were born and if they tried they were supposed to be brought back in chains. Much like what we would later call serfs.

There was a practical difference between Roman slavery and New World slavery, in that a Roman slave didn't necessarily look all that different from the other people around him or her, so if he or she were to be freed, their descendants wouldn't necessarily be clearly of slave origin. But, again, is this a serious difference, or another quibble?

The fundamental fact is that Roman slaves were property, stripped of their person-hood, and able to be used and abused in any way their masters thought fit.

Sources: Antiquity by Norman Cantor and A History of the Ancient World by Chester G. Starr provide basic overviews of Roman slavery and latifundia. Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves by Sarah B. Pomeroy (an excellent book, by the way) talks about sexual exploitation This site has a brief history of the decline of slavery and the rise of what would become serfdom.

Does Anglo-Saxon count as 'ancient'? Slaves in Anglo-Saxon England could earn money and possibly buy their freedom back. Some sold themselves into slavery to pay debts. http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2051%20anglo%20saxons%20ii.htm

I have a few answers, but they're all in a Roman context:

How were ancient slaves acquired?

They were often acquired in battle, or as booty resulting from battle. During the Gallic wars, Julius Caesar sold tens of thousands of Gauls into slavery. Other sources existed. Some slaves were purchased by Romans as the result of conflicts that didn't involve Rome. Most slaves were probably born into slavery.

Did they have a different legal status or social position [than slaves in the Americas]?

Yes and no. Roman slaves were sometimes quite educated and valuable. Others died in the bottom of a damp mine. The Romans did have a different outlook than later Europeans and that colored their relationships with their slaves. For example, it was perfectly acceptable for Roman men to have sex with their slaves, both male and female (so long as they adhered to the sexual norms, which is a whole different rabbit hole). While in the modern sense we would probably call this rape (especially since pederasty was also acceptable), in a Roman context these relationships sometimes created close, public, personal bonds between master and slave. A similar situation in the American South would have been, at least superficially, shameful for both parties.

Sexual or not, Roman citizens had many working relationships with slaves (in shops, at work, in the home) that were not as decidedly servile as the relationships of American slaves to their masters.

What tasks were assigned to ancient slaves?

They were herdsmen, laborers, clerks, prostitutes, consorts, gladiators. The economy was quite dependent on slave labor.

Did race or ethnicity play a role?

Not really, though there's no definite consensus (see endnotes). Romans had slaves from Africa and from Gaul. It largely depended on the slave's society and that society's current relationship with Rome.

How were ancient slaves transported?

Boat, road and horseback. Sometimes by liter. The point being, there were slaves involved with all levels of Roman society and they came from all over Europe, Africa and Asia.

Could ancient slaves be freed?

Yes. Slaves in Rome could become free men/women and once they did, they nominally enjoyed the rights of citizens. They could vote, hold property, etc. But most of the same could be said about black slaves in the American South (minus the voting part: see endnotes):

How did ancient slavery gradually evolve into the Atlantic slave trade.

I don't know if it did, directly. The European powers that created the triangle trade didn't have slaves through most of the middle ages. But I'm not certain on this point. If there's more to it, I'd like to know.

Racism in the Ancient world: http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Isaac.pdf

Free slaves in the South. http://www.amazon.com/dp/1565840283/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=root04c-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=1565840283&adid=0ADYR57WR38GNEPJRR5Y

Edit: wow did I screw up the formatting