Yes they did, after the 9th plague. (The death of the first born son, or the pharaohs son. He finally let them go, but he tried to get all the slaves back into Egypt. He made his soldiers chase after them, and then Moses spread the Red Sea. The slaves walked across and the soldiers all were engulfed in the sea water.
Slaves in the ancient world did not get paid. They received food, clothing and shelter and that was all their owners were obligated to provide for them. However the Romans (and possibly some other cultures as well) gave their slaves opportunities to earn "side money". This came from tips and presents either from the owner or from another free person for a job/service performed. Obviously, the city or domestic slaves fared much better on the financial scale than the rural slaves.
By definition slaves are not paid for their labour. They were given sustenance. As an indication, the state slaves of Athens were given four obols a day (2/3 of a drachma) for their subsistence, doing comparatively well, as that is about all the rowers in the navy got, and a citizen juror got three obols. A warrior on campaign got 1 drachma, plus another drachma for a servant. A drachma was the standard daily rate for a skilled worker. Some slaves were given a sum of money by their owners to carry on small businesses on their behalf. Same in Rome, where it was called a peculum.
No, actually, the play payed people in the audience so they wouldn't go anywhere.
feed their families
There are only 2 ways in which a Roman slave could earn freedom: They could be given their freedom by their owner or they could buy their own freedom; but they would have to pay the equivelent of their purchase price-which was impossible.
yes
Slaves in Ancient Egypt were mostly people who had been captured during the war. According to the law, they were not free, they had no rights and didn't earn any pay. Here's a documentary explaining it more. New Historia-Daily Life in Ancient Egypt
They have to pay a jamillion gold peices to get free from their torture
butt
With the exception of working in mineral extraction Roman slaves probably had it better. A Roman slave could earn his freedom or advance himself which was not the case with plantation slaves in the deep south.
Slaves are not paid. They are people who are bought by other people, so they don't have to pay someone to do the work. They are owned property and have no freedom or earn wages for their labor.
Slaves where set free for good service or if their master gave them permission. Slaves could also buy their freedom but this was a virtually impossible task, as they did not earn money.
The War Between the states was not fought over slavery but instead state rights. This does not mean the South did not use slaves in the war, but the south offered slaves a chance to earn freedom if they served in the war, even though only ten percent of southerners were slaves at the time. So to answer this question more directly, yes slaves were not needed in the war but the use of slavery helped the south fight for what they believed in. Which might not have been right to today's society but back then it was a fair trade for slaves to fight and earn freedom.
The haitian revolution a true revelution, because it was led by the true slaves who were willing to sacrify everything to earn their freedom, and to be free from oppression. And it was the only real slaves revolution in the univers story period.
You dont earn it you have it but you cannot see it.
By definition, slaves aren't paid.
gladiators was the main sport. is was made to entertain the viewers and the empire had total control of who lived and died by giving a thumbs up or a thumbs down. the main role of the sport was for the slaves to die. if the slave was good enough he could earn his freedom. hope this helps.