[watchandwait]

The vast majority of Roman slaves were miserable, illiterate war captives, and generations of their offspring, working large scale farms in Italy. The instability from Roman slavery actually came from the masses of displaced Roman yeoman farmers, who could not compete with the slave agribusinesses. This was a considerable concern in ancient Rome, for cultural reasons and also because these small farmers formed the backbone of the Roman legionary forces during the Republic.

[smhinsey]

Right, and to be clear, I am addressing the scenario from the Roman perspective, not because I approve of it or whatever. Additionally, I am highlighting the notion that in order to mass produce written law and the other things necessary to successfully export a culture on massive scale over large distances, you actually do need a large population of literate slaves, which, if you're going to have slaves, is the last thing you want.

Edit: to clarify, slaves are necessary to export culture because someone has to transcribe all of the books and laws etc.

[watchandwait]

Slavery didn't export or transmit Roman culture as much as Roman citizens and traders settling conquered lands, and mixing with local elites, who adopted Roman traditions, economics, and lifestyles.

My reading of the history is that the literate Roman slaves more-or-less bought in to the system-- indeed, for the literate slave, there were paths to freedom, and some of the most trusted imperial advisers were freedmen. While slave uprisings were always a huge concern in Rome, they played no part in the eventual downfall of Rome, and the most remembered one-- Spartacus-- was of the illiterate war captive type of slave.