Daniel Hershenzon argues in The Captive Sea that “piracy, captivity, and redemption shaped the western Mediterranean as an integrated region socially, politically, and economically” (Hershenzon 4). Using commerce Hershenzon attempts to show “Mediterranean system” of captive slaves and how it created intertwined networks in the Mediterranean. Analyzing Mediterranean slavery Hershenzon tries to show it was a “forced labour system and a communication system” (Hershenzon 5, 9). The Captive Sea tries to set itself apart as a new look at Mediterranean slavery and how it brought connective unity in the Mediterranean.

Hershenzon’s writing made The Captive Sea a very easy book to read and understand. I always appreciate this aspect in books where there is historical analysis. The writing style and succinct conclusions at the end of every chapter made the book flow well. Being not very familiar with Mediterranean slavery The Captive Sea was a decent introduction to the subject. I did not agree with all Hershenzon’s strong proclamations. He does not clearly bring in the historiography which makes it hard to centre where he is in, because I was not familiar with anything of Mediterranean slavery historiography it was something I strongly desired he put in the text.

The ability for the Mediterranean captive slaves to have the freedom to navigate their world in ways slaves in the Americas would not be able to, was by the far the most fascinating part of The Captive Sea. Obviously, Atlantic slavery and Mediterranean slavery have their differences. However, it was still shocking to see how different it was for me. I had never given it much thought before this class as to how slavery operated in different parts of the world. Hershenzon gives an example of a Christian captive slave, Jeronino de Pasamonte and his experiences as a slave. What struck me the most was the fact that on at least one occasion Pasamonte “himself proposed he be sold” (Hershenzon 18). Slave mobility in the Mediterranean gives great examples of the networks that existed in the Mediterranean.
The idea of public versus private slaves in the Mediterranean was fascinating to me. Hershenzon says “ownership and occupation often changed over time, on a daily basis, or with the season” (Hershenzon 30). I did wonder at the stigma of being a public versus private slave; what did it mean to be public? Was it working for the empire (eg. as a galley slave)? Or did the terminology imply something deeper than that? Hershenzon says only a minority of captives successfully gained their freedom which made me wonder why he doesn’t define his terminology more clearly since most captives were inevitably slaves because their captivity never ended (Hershenzon 68).

Examples abound throughout The Captive Sea. I enjoyed the example of a Aragonian captive Barbara Truiol and how her entire family was captured but only her husband and three-year-old were kept as hostages for ransom. It shows how important monetary gains were over slaves in the Mediterranean. I also marveled at the trust of the corsairs to allow some of the family to leave in order to get their money. Keeping hostages as a form of credit is not new to me but I do wonder at the conditions the hostages are left with, especially since Hershenzon says husbands left their wives as hostages more often than not (Hershenzon 80). The Captive Sea shows “maritime violence in the form of piracy, human trafficking, and plunder” pervaded the Mediterranean and created an interconnected space.