Not true for the slaves, who constituted a large part of the population in Rome and Cis-Padania.
Not true for the population who lost their freedom to the Romans, and were forced to pay heavy tolls to their masters.
Maybe true for a handful of Roman Senators
Certainly the people at the top of the pile had things better off, but they always do. The Empire allowed trade though, and it allowed stability, so that people could do much better. Tax rates were much better controlled than they were elsewhere.
You're acting like people outside the Empire were living in some sort of magical wonderland of freedom and joy. The reality is most people in those days were living in someone akin to slavery anyway, under the heel of a petty local war lord, starving to death, likely to be overrun and slaughtered at a moment's notice by the warlord the next valley over.
The fact that the Empire was better isn't so much a reflection of how good the Empire was, but how much worse it was to be outside the Empire.
From my studies in high school, they were more than that.
Then your studies in high school are mistaken.
They had no rights at all.
They could have been mistreated by their masters in any way possible.
This is incorrect. Roman slaves did have rights, and gained more rights as the Empire progressed. They even had the right to redress for wrongs committed against them by their master. Many Romans treated their slaves better than their own children.
When they tried to battle for their rights once, they got be killed in the tens of thousands in a cruel way (learn about Spartacus).
Anyone who tried to rebel against anyone in those day got killed in a cruel way. Bringing up the Third Servile War just highlights your ignorance of slavery - Spartacus and his original followers were Gladiators, and Gladiators consisted of condemned criminals and prisoners of war. They were thought of as slaves, but they were essentially people sentenced to death. Spartacus was a former Roman soldier who had deserted and had been caught and condemned to death (like all deserters).
Spartacus' army came from the lowest slave ranks (and it's not clear how many of them were even slaves) and slaves were treated much more harshly during the Republic than the Empire. Particularly, in those days the wealthy Roman land owners used slaves on the latifundia (farms).
As for the motives of the slavers, it's not entirely known, but Kubrick's interpretation of Spartacus as a freedom fighter is wholly fantasy. The Slaves made not the slightest effort to free other slaves or bring reform - they simply raged across the country side pillaging, and almost certainly killed thousands of slaves themselves.
Most of the slaves that were killed in what was a war were killed in battle, so there was nothing particularly cruel about how they died. They had ample opportunity to leave Italy, and some historians report that the army split and a large body
did cross the Alps. Only about 6,000 were crucified, which was hardly an uncommon punishment to receive from the Romans, slave or not.
What you're ignoring, of course, is what happened in the years
after this. Firstly, the use of slaves for farming stopped - the latifundia started using freemen in sharedcropping agreements. Secondly, slaves gained more and more rights over time - for example if a slave was mistreated by a master, that master could be forced to sell them. If a master killed a slave without justification it was considered murder. Slaves could appeal to a third party if mistreated by their owners. A slave that was abandoned became a freeman. And so on.
Like victims of rape are happy of having being raped
This makes no sense whatsoever in response to my point that Romans would
voluntarily sell themselves in to slavery. How can
choosing to do something be compared in any way whatsoever to rape? I'm merely highlighting that the modern concept of "slave" and the Roman concept of "slave" are simply not the same.
What do you think the sentence "they were very much at the mercy of their owners" mean?
Children were at the mercy of their fathers too. We're at the mercy of our employers. "At the mercy of" does not mean "were mistreated by". Most Roman slaves (of the non condemned variety) were treated pretty well by their owners. An owner who didn't treat their slaves well could face bankruptcy very quickly.
You are trying to say that Stalin was good as he opposed Hitler, who was bad
I'm not saying anything remotely like that.
No, I'm not dreaming. You don't seem to have the slightest understanding of how Roman conquest worked. Examples like Carthage were the exception, not the rule. Monotheistic religions don't need to suppress foreign cultures, particularly not Roman religion which associated Gods with places. Most often they'd come along and go "We call the God of War Mars, what do you call him?" Or they'd say things like "What God lives in that River?" The Roman religion was based on
numen and this by its nature recognised foreign Gods. Foreign Gods would even be followed by Romans - the Cults of Isis and Mithras were two of the most popular amongst Romans by the 4th Century and neither were Roman Gods.
I wish you could live for a day as a slave under a Roman Senator.(*)
edited to add
(*) that is of course a rethorical sentence.
I do NOT wish you could live for a day as a slave under a Roman Senator
I'd find the experience fascinating. I'd rather live as a Senator's slave (during the Empire that is) than as a regular pleb, or god forbid a legionary. Perhaps you'd join me, and we could both learn a thing or two.
