Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8470578" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the mid-90s I did a year long unit of Roman Law. The two main things I remember are (i) that one of the students turned up to the exam wearing a toga, and (ii) that the exam was just like a regular law exam except the scenario asked me to advise Cassius (? I don't remember the names anymore) as to his liability for his slave knocking over an amphora in the market place, spilling its contents and having its lid roll along and cause more loss to someone else.I did my best to apply the law I'd learned, which included the liability of an owner for loss caused by their slave. I didn't spend any time worrying about the injustice of the Roman law of persons.Around the same time I was GMing a Rolemaster campaign set in Greyhawk. In our game we assumed that Roman-style slavery existed in the Great Kingdom. One of the players had, as backstory for his PC, that he had been born into slavery but had subsequently been able to purchase his freedom. One of that PC's goals was to establish himself, socially, as a prominent member of society. Another was to work towards the abolition of slavery in the Great Kingdom. A different PC was an established member of the upper classes and a former senior military official. My recollection is hazy, but I know that the PC owned an out-of-town villa that was his &quot;base&quot;, and I think we took for granted that he had servants who, presumably, were slaves. Many of the PCs in that game would clash from time to time, but I can't remember if those two PCs ever clashed over the particular issue of owning slaves.For what it's worth, I like Finley's book Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8470578, member: 42582"] In the mid-90s I did a year long unit of Roman Law. The two main things I remember are (i) that one of the students turned up to the exam wearing a toga, and (ii) that the exam was just like a regular law exam except the scenario asked me to advise Cassius (? I don't remember the names anymore) as to his liability for his slave knocking over an amphora in the market place, spilling its contents and having its lid roll along and cause more loss to someone else. I did my best to apply the law I'd learned, which included the liability of an owner for loss caused by their slave. I didn't spend any time worrying about the injustice of the Roman law of persons. Around the same time I was GMing a Rolemaster campaign set in Greyhawk. In our game we assumed that Roman-style slavery existed in the Great Kingdom. One of the players had, as backstory for his PC, that he had been born into slavery but had subsequently been able to purchase his freedom. One of that PC's goals was to establish himself, socially, as a prominent member of society. Another was to work towards the abolition of slavery in the Great Kingdom. A different PC was an established member of the upper classes and a former senior military official. My recollection is hazy, but I know that the PC owned an out-of-town villa that was his "base", and I think we took for granted that he had servants who, presumably, were slaves. Many of the PCs in that game would clash from time to time, but I can't remember if those two PCs ever clashed over the particular issue of owning slaves. For what it's worth, I like Finley's book [i]Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology[/i]. [/QUOTE]

Verification