[Bosnjak]

In a Iranian Forum I read that the Movie 300 was bad, the Spartiats were slave holders who killed slaves just for fun.

And the Persians had no Slaves all were free man.

Is this true?

If Yes, how could the ancient persian economy survive without slaves?

[Ombrageux]

Stop peeing on my "300 died for Western civilization and freedom against the slavering Asiatic hordes" meme.

[Smilin' Dave]

the Spartiats were slave holders who killed slaves just for fun

They were slave holders, I doubt they killed them for fun. From a practical perspective there were fewer Spartans than helots, and to compound problems the Spartans were more likely to be away from home fighting. So the murder of slaves was a sort of desperation measure.

how could the ancient persian economy survive without slaves?

Can't say I know the answer to this, but I guess it's possible that while the Persian was free, they were still close enough to serfs to be 'useful'.

[Potemkin]

They were slave holders, I doubt they killed them for fun. From a practical perspective there were fewer Spartans than helots, and to compound problems the Spartans were more likely to be away from home fighting. So the murder of slaves was a sort of desperation measure.

The Spartans would formally declare war against the Helots every year. This legalised any acts of violence they might commit against the Helots during the coming year. And the Helots were state-owned slaves - Spartans didn't believe in private property. They therefore had no financial motive not to kill a troublesome Helot.

Can't say I know the answer to this, but I guess it's possible that while the Persian was free, they were still close enough to serfs to be 'useful'.

I believe it was Herodotus who said that there was only one free man in the Persian Empire - the Great King. Everyone else was a slave, in fact if not in name.

[Joona]

Well, as far as I understand it, in ancient Persia all the subjects of the king were called slaves. That doesn't mean that they were literally slaves, in fact - contrary to what the movie implies - the Achaemenid dynasty was probably one of the most tolerant empires ever. They mostly left alone the areas they conquered, as long as they provided taxes and men for war. The founder of the empire, Cyrus The Great, banned slavery and declared religious freedom. While Cyrus opposed slavery, I must say I have failed to find a satisfying answer as to whether the consequent Achaemenid rulers (including Xerxes) continued his practices regarding this matter.

There is however some evidence that at least some of the later pre-Islamic dynasties practiced slavery; For instance, when Crassus tried to conquer Parthia, the historical sources hint that his men were sold into slavery. There are other such references, but to my recollection they always involve captured armies, so it's not very clear as to whether slavery was practised in a similiar scale as in Greece or Rome. The whole "king's subject = slave" -thing complicates things further. Considering the lack of sources on pre-Islamic Persia, it might be that the historians are just as clueless about this as I am.

I must point out that the later Arsacid (Parthia) and Sassanid dynasties were feudal societies, so even though their practices concerning slavery are a bit unclear (at least to me), the wellbeing of their economy would not have required the use of slaves. That doesn't however explain how the Achaemenids would have functioned without slavery, that is, if the institution indeed stayed abolished after Cyrus' death like Iranians claim.

[pugsville]

I pretty sure the Romans were dispatched as frontier guards/settlers/exiles on the far side of the empire, and were on traded with some ending up in china.