So...
Where, how and by whom is slavery practiced in the Flanaess?
Recently there was a pretty extensive discussion of this topic over on Greytalk; to check it out, see the Greytalk Archive at http://www.greycitadel.com/greycitadel/greytalk.nsf and begin reading at 8/21/2003 date entries, or search for "slave and triange" using keywords. That should give the discussion some starting points, in any event.
FWIW, I just re-read A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity, which is a fabulous module, and starts off the whole Slave Lords series....
About the only places that should still practice it should be those that are overtly Evil (the Scarlet Brotherhood and Iuz), Humanoid (the Pomarj and Bone March), culturally divergent with a prediliction for such (the Baklunish Lands and the Thillronian Peninsula), or specifically established places (the Hold of the Sea Princes prior to the Scarlet Brotherhood takeover and the Great Kingdom and its successor states).
As for how it it practiced, in general, unpleasantly. Slavery is slavery, and no matter how valued they are, they are still property to those that own them. So even where they have a specific status, they are still going to prefer to be free.
An entire module specifically designed around slavery through-out the Flanaess.
Primarily Pomarj based for the most part w/ roots in the Earth Dragon Cult and somewhat Scarlet Brotherhood funded I guess one would say.
The Scarlet Brotherhood uses slaves (mostly Olman) from the Amedio and Hepmonoland for their breeding programs. You can learn alot more on Scarlet Brotherhood related content such as this from a different sourcebook that I don't have at hand atm, but I'm sure I can find sometime this weekend to post the model number. Otherwise, it's simply titled "Scarlet Brotherhood."
If you have really really old content available to you anything relating to the Paynim Baklunish and From the Ashes boxed set dwells quite abit on slavery as well.
Originally posted by Samwise
Slavery is generally anachronistic throughout most of the Flanaess, or at least it should be. Most nations deeply into the Middle Ages, or even at an Early Renaissance state of development should have abolished slavery long since. Even having people bonded to the land (serfs) should be rapidly heading into the dustbin of Flanaess history.
Err... why?
Slavery began significantly rising around the 1500's and peaked around the 1600's, IIRC, where several million slaves were sold every year. Especially slaves from africa. And pretty much all nations who traded internationally, traded in slaves, including england, france, denmark, spain and italy.
I know Oerth isn't Earth, but I see no reason why the nations of Oerth wouldn't barter and trade slaves. It's a time-honoured tradition throughout Aerdi lands and I find it unlikely that Aerdi influenced kingdoms such as Nyrond and Furyondy would cease slavery out of the goodness of their hearts.
On Oerth, there is no colonial economy that requires, or could use, that number of slaves. Keep bringing that many slave to the Great Kingdom, and the economy will collapse as free people are put out of work. Not even Rome could keep going for a thousand years under such circumstances.
None of those nations would cease slavery out of the goodness of their hearts. They would cease out of economic development and a desire to continue growing.
Originally posted by Samwise
It peaked in those periods in the colonial economies of the Americas.
True.
Originally posted by Samwise
It was over and done in the mature economies of Europe.
False.
Geez dude, for someone who claims to be a major history buff, you seem to know jack ****. What would your sensai think? Oh that's right, you're a sensai yourself! What else have you done and are a master at? The cheeto from bag to mouth maneuver no doubt...
Originally posted by Samwise
On Oerth, there is no colonial economy that requires, or could use, that number of slaves.
Sea Princes, Lordship of the Isles, Sea Barons, Pirate Isles, Kingdom of Shar...
Originally posted by Samwise
Keep bringing that many slave to the Great Kingdom, and the economy will collapse as free people are put out of work.
What a load of rot. I get tired of you continually going against everything I say and yet doing so from a stance so flimsy it's amazing it holds your vast weight. When you've actually done some research on slavery, come back and we'll talk, til then, I really wish you'd STFU, since you have no real clue as to what you're going on about.
Ok so Nyrondion nobility, are jerks but at least he speaks the truth. One of many scenario's in my campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Samwise
It was over and done in the mature economies of Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False.
Geez dude, for someone who claims to be a major history buff, you seem to know jack ****. What would your sensai think? Oh that's right, you're a sensai yourself! What else have you done and are a master at? The cheeto from bag to mouth maneuver no doubt...<
It is not false. If you have some evidence of slavery on the scale you are talking about, thousands of people being imported per year, into Europe during the 16th-18th centuries, please produce it. You won't be able to though, as it simply didn't happen.
As for your moving into obnoxious personal attacks, I will take that as admission that I am right, and rather than being able to admit it, you are once again descending to your typical tactics.
>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Samwise
On Oerth, there is no colonial economy that requires, or could use, that number of slaves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Princes, Lordship of the Isles, Sea Barons, Pirate Isles, Kingdom of Shar...<
Seeing as the last two of those are in Faerun and not Oerth, I must wonder how far you will go to prove I am right.
>What a load of rot. I get tired of you continually going against everything I say and yet doing so from a stance so flimsy it's amazing it holds your vast weight. When you've actually done some research on slavery, come back and we'll talk, til then, I really wish you'd STFU, since you have no real clue as to what you're going on about.<
Your ignorance of the extent of my knowledge is exceeded only by your ignorance of pretty much every other topic you make yourself look foolish discussing.
Originally posted by Argon
I guess no one want's to bring up slave armies. Who better to lay dead on the field of battle then a worthless slave. Besides it keeps our citizens from having to do so and is quite alot cheaper.
Ok so Nyrondion nobility, are jerks but at least he speaks the truth. One of many scenario's in my campaign.
That is assuming the slaves stay around to fight, and don't just flee, surrender, or turn on you.
It is easy to throw a slave into an arena and force him to fight for his life. It is significantly more difficult to convince him to fight your enemies.
That is assuming the slaves stay around to fight, and don't just flee, surrender, or turn on you.
Well if we look back in history I'm sure we can find were slaves were used in armies. Besides the slaves won't be the only forces one commits to a battle.
Originally posted by Argon
Well if we look back in history I'm sure we can find were slaves were used in armies. Besides the slaves won't be the only forces one commits to a battle.
There is a difference between slaves being used in an army and slaves being the army.
Yes, many times slaves have been part of an army. Almost always they were just servants, who on rare occasion took up arms to defend their masters. Then there were the armies of freed slaves, such as led by Spartacus, or during the Servile Wars. Or the times when slaves were promised freedom if they fought to save a city, such as in Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. Some times slaves were forced into combat, such as with galley slaves on merchant vessels. Very rarely you found actual military slaves, men from a unit captured in battle then given a choice of fighting for their captors or being treated like other slaves. Given a choice between gelding and dying in a mine, or going down fighting, going down fighting was then a viable choice. Such would not work with ordinary slaves though. Perhaps the only really significant slave armies were the Mamelukes, but they had their own unique attributes that are not easily transferrable to Oerth. (They were captured as children, converted to a different faith, given extremely intense training, and granted an incredible degree of power. They also came from a culture where slavery had a significantly different status than in Europe, and several other factors that make them unsuitable for general use outside of the Baklunish lands.)
So exactly what slave armies were you thinking of?
There is a difference between slaves being used in an army and slaves being the army.
Ok so were's the argument!
Yes, many times slaves have been part of an army. Almost always they were just servants, who on rare occasion took up arms to defend their masters. Then there were the armies of freed slaves, such as led by Spartacus, or during the Servile Wars. Or the times when slaves were promised freedom if they fought to save a city, such as in Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. Some times slaves were forced into combat, such as with galley slaves on merchant vessels. Very rarely you found actual military slaves, men from a unit captured in battle then given a choice of fighting for their captors or being treated like other slaves. Given a choice between gelding and dying in a mine, or going down fighting, going down fighting was then a viable choice. Such would not work with ordinary slaves though. Perhaps the only really significant slave armies were the Mamelukes, but they had their own unique attributes that are not easily transferrable to Oerth. (They were captured as children, converted to a different faith, given extremely intense training, and granted an incredible degree of power. They also came from a culture where slavery had a significantly different status than in Europe, and several other factors that make them unsuitable for general use outside of the Baklunish lands.)
Sound examples!
So exactly what slave armies were you thinking of?
You listed some fine examples above but you must also remember that sometimes not every thing is so black and white. Each nation could have different levels of slavery and often did as per some of your well stated examples. Slaves can also be given certain rights for their service to the crown. Similar to the french foreign leigion. Yes it's true the foreign leigion is full of foreigner's who volunteered to serve the French goverment. You would be hard pressed to state they receive the same level of treatment as their native French counterparts though.
With a little tweaking slavery becomes a useful commodity. Not too mention that slaves once bought have very little upkeep which is beneficial to poorer governments which need the labor but can't afford to pay for it.
Originally posted by Delglath
Sea Princes, Lordship of the Isles, Sea Barons, Pirate Isles, Kingdom of Shar...
Originally posted by Samwise
Seeing as the last two of those are in Faerun and not Oerth, I must wonder how far you will go to prove I am right.
The Kingdom of Shar is the alternative name for the Scarlet Brotherhood, and the Pirate Isles are south of the Amedio in the, IIRC, Pearl Sea or Vohoun Ocean.
Originally posted by Samwise
Your ignorance of the extent of my knowledge is exceeded only by your ignorance of pretty much every other topic you make yourself look foolish discussing.
No, I just think you're a posuer who has no life so he has to bully people online by pretending he knows everything when in fact he knows virtually nothing.
I think the above example goes to prove just how little you know.
Originally posted by Argon
You listed some fine examples above but you must also remember that sometimes not every thing is so black and white. Each nation could have different levels of slavery and often did as per some of your well stated examples. Slaves can also be given certain rights for their service to the crown. Similar to the french foreign leigion. Yes it's true the foreign leigion is full of foreigner's who volunteered to serve the French goverment. You would be hard pressed to state they receive the same level of treatment as their native French counterparts though.
With a little tweaking slavery becomes a useful commodity. Not too mention that slaves once bought have very little upkeep which is beneficial to poorer governments which need the labor but can't afford to pay for it.
When it comes to slavery, it is pretty black and white. Slavery involves a degradation of the spirit of both the slave and the slave owner that can not be overcome, even in those rare cases where the slave was a direct member of the household.
As for the French Foreign Legion, it remains that they are not slaves. They are mercenaries, with all that goes with that status. Mercenaries are rarely treated the same as native soldiers.
As for the economics of slavery, a slave requires the same upkeep as a free person if they are to be as effective, most especially if you hope to use them as troops. Starve them, give them poor clothes, put them in inferior housing, equip them with inferior arms and armor, and it will have the same effect as if you treated regular troops in such a manner. At a certain point, they will be useless. Factor in the need for guards for them in garrison, and you haven't saved anything, least of all your kingdom when you are invaded.
No, there is no way to make slavery "work" in the long run. Once a nation passes a certain level of development, it produces a drag on the economy that guarantees the nation will lose out to its neighbors that gives its people any degree of freedom.
Originally posted by Samwise
It is not false. If you have some evidence of slavery on the scale you are talking about, thousands of people being imported per year, into Europe during the 16th-18th centuries, please produce it. You won't be able to though, as it simply didn't happen.
Oh, now you're saying INTO Europe. Whereas before you were ranting on about slave economies in the Americas. Which one is it?
Firstly, let's dismiss this silly notion that Europe wasn't reliant upon slaves and that it's economy would somehow collapse if it were.
The Americas were not a nation unto themselves until independance... when was that again? 1800's wasn't it?
Before then, aside from it being the land of the native american peoples, it was European COLONIES. They were ruled by governers and generals, not presidents or prime ministers.
The vast crops of sugar cane, cotton and then tobacco were the mainstay of the European economies which RELIED on slave labour. Most of the money didn't stay in the Americas until rich merchant 'lords' set up miniature baronies and began infiltrating the cash crop trade. Even then, that wasn't until the later stages when the Americas were becoming America.
Slaves didn't live rich lives of luxury where their every need was catered for so having a bunch of slaves was pretty cheap. You indicated that somehow their population would increase and put 'free people' out of work... no, that's not how it worked. In fact, despite millions of slaves having been transported to the european colonies, the actual slave population of said colonies remained fairly consistant per colony. Geez... wonder why? BECAUSE THEY WERE DYING BY THE TRUCKLOAD! Or should I say ship load.
It was cheaper to buy a new slave than to keep one well fed. In fact, due to this, the slave trade was the most lucrative of the markets that the colonies produced. And therefore, was most beneficial to the economies of european nations.
Aww, what's that I hear? Sammy running away and hiding in embarrassment for being so utterly and completely wrong?
Btw, any moron with half a brain can check this by typing in 'slavery' into a browser and reading a page or two. How you think you can get away with spreading your BS is beyond me.
Originally posted by Samwise
As for your moving into obnoxious personal attacks, I will take that as admission that I am right, and rather than being able to admit it, you are once again descending to your typical tactics.
No, I just don't have the patience to teach people like you a lesson that can be learned by anyone with a computer and a net connection in under five minutes. The above was an exception I guess, probably since I just had a really nice lunch and am thus in a good mood.
Originally posted by Yamo
Where, how and by whom is slavery practiced in the Flanaess?
I haven't read the Slavers series of modules but from the Gazeetter, I can recall that it is the minority of nations who do NOT practice slavery in some form or another. Of them I can only recall Furyondy, Keoland, the Pale and Nyrond, and even them I'm not sure of as I think I remember reading somewhere about indentured servitors in one of those places.
Of the ones that stand out from the crowd as actively participating in the slave trade, as opposed to merely keeping slaves in one form or another, ie. serfs, indentured servents, bonded, etc., the remnants of the Great Kingdom certainly do, the Scarlet Brotherhood is renowned for it's use of slaves and in fact has a government body known as the Office of Thralls, the lands of the Sea Princes did before the SB took over, as did the Sea Barons and Lordship of the Isles, IIRC.
I can't recall specifically but I'm fairly certain that the nomads and some Baklunish lands do. There's also Ull, and the Pomarj but they're humanoid lands so it's to be expected. I *think* the Valley of the Mage does also, but I can't be sure on that as I haven't read much on it. I'm certain that the majority of the various Bandit Kingdom domains do and Iuz most definitely does. I also recall reading something about slaves being used by the Thillonrian barbarians but I can't remember if this was canon or a canonfire article.
That's about all I can remember off the top of my head. Personally, I would have slavery be practiced, in one form or another, pretty much everywhere, with the flan being the most dominant of indentured races, and the olman taking over that role in more southern lands. In fact, in most places I would have the flan as an almost underclass, much like africans were in europe and america, even when freed.
In 'good' lands like Keoland and Furyondy and Nyrond, etc., this would be in the form of serfs mostly, but also servants in any noble household. They would get poor pay, poor conditions and virtually no respect, however it would still be better than living on the street.
But that's just my opinion.
As for the French Foreign Legion, it remains that they are not slaves. They are mercenaries, with all that goes with that status. Mercenaries are rarely treated the same as native soldiers.
Samwise I would suggest you read my last post again. I never stated that the French foreign leigion was a slave army. But I said you can use it as a basis upon which to build one.
First many criminals are within their ranks, it provides a great place to hide from authorites. Sencond many of these said criminals were actually given legal naturalization status after serving for a number of years in the Foreign Leigion.
The one point you forget to mention on slaves in the military is that they receive no pay. As long as you keep them feed and clothed it is a big improvement over poverty. The only weapons most slaves would probably be entrusted with would be simple ones. Such as spears, Pikes,Pitchforks, and etc.
Many nations have a standing militia which could be used in a war. They were by no means the most effective type of troops. But if you have slaves to put up instead of local citizens for battle fodder which would you choose.
Also my trained troops would receive better armor and weapons than my slave ones. First my normal troops are better trained and armed while my slave troops main adjective is to have a body on a body. Place these fodder troops up front and let them were your enemy down then supply the second line with trained soldiers it will give you a fresh reserve of better trained troops to fend off your enemies.
Now, Samwise it seems you are taking this issue a little bit too much to heart. There's no need for this relax. We don't have to agree with each other their smooth. So go out enjoy yourself. If your old enough get yourself a drink and mello out a bit. If that doesn't work try the personal ads I'm sure there's someone out their for you smooth.
Ok, I was stoned when we covered the American Civil War. Didn't the Confederacy use Slave troops towards the end of the war? They had a low troop to officer ratio, discipline was brutal, and moral must have been terrible, but I think they existed.
Samwise :sad: Delgath
You two both need to relax. You seem to be reasonable guys in Greytalk. Its just a game, boys. No one is keeping score here.
Originally posted by rostoff
Samwise :sad: Delgath
You two both need to relax. You seem to be reasonable guys in Greytalk. Its just a game, boys. No one is keeping score here.
There, I can put him on ignore...
But you're right, my beef with Sam goes beyond just these arguments here and I shouldn't bring that into this forum. From now on, I'll just try and forget that he exists by holding my nose...
And as a force of non-slaves, it is not a good basis.
No matter what else, they have another option. Slaves do not.
"The one point you forget to mention on slaves in the military is that they receive no pay. As long as you keep them feed and clothed it is a big improvement over poverty. The only weapons most slaves would probably be entrusted with would be simple ones. Such as spears, Pikes,Pitchforks, and etc."
Slavery is not a big improvement over poverty. All it does it mean someone is forcing you to do something every day. You can starve and be underclothed just as well being broke.
As for those weapons, either they are effective and can be turned on the overseers, or they are not effective and so useless in battle. You can't have it both ways.
"Many nations have a standing militia which could be used in a war. They were by no means the most effective type of troops. But if you have slaves to put up instead of local citizens for battle fodder which would you choose."
Local citizens. They are fighting to save their homes and keep their families from being slaves. The slaves would just be fighting to stay slaves.
"Also my trained troops would receive better armor and weapons than my slave ones. First my normal troops are better trained and armed while my slave troops main adjective is to have a body on a body. Place these fodder troops up front and let them were your enemy down then supply the second line with trained soldiers it will give you a fresh reserve of better trained troops to fend off your enemies."
Or have them turn on your trained troops, forcing them to cut down your slaves, leaving them exhausted for when the enemy troops come in over their dead bodies.
"Now, Samwise it seems you are taking this issue a little bit too much to heart. There's no need for this relax. We don't have to agree with each other their smooth. So go out enjoy yourself. If your old enough get yourself a drink and mello out a bit. If that doesn't work try the personal ads I'm sure there's someone out their for you smooth."
I am quite mellow. You are using some poor or outright incorrect assumptions to try and estabblish slavery as something "useful" in the game, and I am simply correcting those assumptions. If for some reason you prefer not to use proper historical facts and analysis, so be it. But other people should have a chance to benefit from all the bits and pieces I have picked up over the years. Isn't that what a forum like this is for?
Originally posted by rostoff
I'm no historian, oh wait, I do have a degree in History, so I am a historian.
Ok, I was stoned when we covered the American Civil War. Didn't the Confederacy use Slave troops towards the end of the war? They had a low troop to officer ratio, discipline was brutal, and moral must have been terrible, but I think they existed.
Weren't they used with the promise of freedom for the slaves in the units employed?
Did not some of the units simply defect at the first opportunity?
Did I not suggest both would be issues with the use of slaves, thus making the units either technically not slaves or not worth the expenditures to equip them?
So yet again, slavery is not viable in the core nations of the Flanaess, Keoland, Furyondy, and Nyrond and their adjuncts, as well as most of the Great Kingdom, either economically or militarily.
For other nations on the fringes it can be of some utility, but for the most part those countries suffer from the various drawbacks of slavery, on the economy, in a military, and to the cultural integrity overall.
Oh, and if I offended you in any way in my last post then I apologize. No offense intended!
P.S. I wonder what you base magic on ? If you can't base a slave unit off a mercenary unit.
Originally posted by rostoff
I'm no historian, oh wait, I do have a degree in History, so I am a historian.
Ok, I was stoned when we covered the American Civil War. Didn't the Confederacy use Slave troops towards the end of the war? They had a low troop to officer ratio, discipline was brutal, and moral must have been terrible, but I think they existed.
As a historian you'd think you would do the 1 minute of research I did on the subject before making a statement.
http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/trclark.htm
But really, I didn't need to research it. I mean if you were a slave owner would YOU give a gun to your slave and have him march in the direction of people trying to liberate him?
Back to Greyhawk: I'm running A1-4 right now, so here's my take. The Pomarj is being controlled by orcs, who are at war with Ulek. This has created a lot of chaos that a organization 'The Slave Lords', mostly human, has taken advantage of. They have raided towns along the wild coast and elsewhere to obtain slaves. Now where are these slaves going? I figure most are used for labor, in places such as mines. If you read the modules you know some slaves are being used for a more sinister purpose.
In most countries like Keoland slavery is unheard of and outlawed. This is partly why the 'Free lands' are so upset, they see the slavers getting out of control and they are desperate to put a stop to it.
My version medieval society is very idealistic; Kingdoms like Keoland are 'benignly feudal'(a fantasy I know, but hey, its a fantasy game). The nobles act as managers of the land but the commoners are relatively free to do as they please. A place like Pomarj is a free for all, controlled (barely) by the army. Some place like the Empire Iuz is the worse kind of fascist state and at this point probably has slavery down to an art form.
If those people have a fault, it is that they allow the use of slaves in their nation, despite strong protests from the Yeomanry. It is reported that the Prince of Monmurg would abolish this practice, but his fellow nobles (the Prince of Toli, the Plar of Hool, and the Grandee of Westkeep, along with the Commodores of Jetsom, Fairwind, and Flotsom) prevent it.
I think this quote from the description of the Sea Princes from the 83 box set sheds some light on slavery in the Flanaess. The fact that it merits mention in the description of one non-evil nation implies (to me) that the practice of slavery should be rare or nonexistent, in all but the overtly evil nations.
Scott
I think this quote from the description of the Sea Princes from the 83 box set sheds some light on slavery in the Flanaess. The fact that it merits mention in the description of one non-evil nation implies (to me) that the practice of slavery should be rare or nonexistent, in all but the overtly evil nations.
While I am a firm believer in the freedom of all people. If your stating that a nation must be evil if it has slaves. Then your stating that The Colonial America was evil, Ancient rome was evil, Ancient Egypt was evil, and a few more of earth's most established nations were evil.
Instead I would assume that slavery was a much more accepted practice at one time. History shows that many of the dominating nations at one time or another practiced slavery. So I would say while I agree slavery is definitely not a good act. At one time it was an acceptable practice.
The problem with most of us is that we tend to measure every thing by our current American standards. We forget that slavery still exists today in some parts of the world. We also forget that not every nation is a Democracy and many people of other nations are not granted the same freedoms as we americans.
I'll state it again as much as we would like everything to be black & white. The closer we get to the truth the grayer things become.
Originally posted by ScottyG
I think this quote from the description of the Sea Princes from the 83 box set sheds some light on slavery in the Flanaess. The fact that it merits mention in the description of one non-evil nation implies (to me) that the practice of slavery should be rare or nonexistent, in all but the overtly evil nations.
Scott
Oh, that's good. Geographically it made sense that slaves might be transported from the Pomarj to the Sea Princes, but I hadn't looked up whether they would tolerate that sort of thing. What kind of country is the Sea Princes? I always imagine a pirate nation.
Scott
Originally posted by Elendur
Oh, that's good. Geographically it made sense that slaves might be transported from the Pomarj to the Sea Princes, but I hadn't looked up whether they would tolerate that sort of thing. What kind of country is the Sea Princes? I always imagine a pirate nation.
Formerly pirates, now primarily explorers and traders (after being checked by Keoish and Ulek warships), but I'm sure some official privateering still occurs, and true pirates would probably have little trouble finding a safe port in the area, as long as they confined heir activities to foreign vessels and distant waters.
Scott
Originally posted by Argon
While I am a firm believer in the freedom of all people. If your stating that a nation must be evil if it has slaves. Then your stating that The Colonial America was evil, Ancient rome was evil, Ancient Egypt was evil, and a few more of earth's most established nations were evil.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm stating is that the quote indicates to me that most of the nations of the Flanaess do not currently practice slavery. By making a point to mention that the Sea Princes do practice slavery, and naming it a fault, leads me to believe that the Sea Princes are the exception and not the norm of those nations that are not overtly evil.
Instead I would assume that slavery was a much more accepted practice at one time. History shows that many of the dominating nations at one time or another practiced slavery.
I don't dispute this. In the past perhaps slavery was much more common across the Flanaess. Currently, most nations have abandoned the practice.
The problem with most of us is that we tend to measure every thing by our current American standards.
I'm not measuring this by current American standards; I'm measuring this by how I interpret a quote pertaining to slavery from A Guide to the World of Greyhawk.
Scott
As for the other part . . .
Yes, you are correct. Slavery used to be more widespread. Now, do you know why it declined and eventually died out in most places?
Oh,
"but I'm sure some official privateering still occurs,"
Official privateering would require the Sea Princes to be at war with some other nation, and issue letters of marque against that nation. If they weren't at war, issuing such letters would provoke one in very short order.
What you likely mean is "unofficial pirating" - a merchant captain deciding he can increase his profit margin by simply taking what he wants instead of trading for it.
That happened a number of notable times in history.
Originally posted by Elendur
What kind of country is the Sea Princes? I always imagine a pirate nation.
Just found this additional tidbit. The description of the Azure Sea ends, "and the Sea Princes are not above the occasional buccaneering."
Scott
Originally posted by ScottyG
By making a point to mention that the Sea Princes do practice slavery, and naming it a fault, leads me to believe that the Sea Princes are the exception and not the norm of those nations that are not overtly evil.
Yes and no. From what I perceive to be the case, there are all types of slavery and just because it makes a specific mention of slavery in one states description, doesn't mean that other forms of slavery aren't being practiced elsewhere.
I'm sure that if I read thoroughly enough, I would find reference to serfs and bonded individuals and indentured servents in the write-ups of various other nations. All of these are forms of slavery as they are effectively one person 'owning' another.
Originally posted by ScottyG
I don't dispute this. In the past perhaps slavery was much more common across the Flanaess. Currently, most nations have abandoned the practice.
I would go so far as to agree that some of the more prominant or outspoken (for the rights of individuals and freedom, etc.) nations would have abolished the 'in your face' type of slavery where there are humans and humanoids put up on stands and sold outright to the highest bidder, however like I said, slavery takes many forms and I highly doubt that landed nobles would give up their serfs just because of a few do-goodeers preaching what is right and just.
And unlike what some people say, the economic benefit is solid and there are many historical examples of all forms of slavery benefitting nations, including such 'enlightened' nations as England and France and Germany and Denmark and Spain, up to and including medieval and even romance times.
Given that there are distinct similarities to those nations in nations across the Flanaess, I would argue that slavery in the form of serfdom and indentured servitude (although, it has been argued that this is voluntary as it is essentially a contract, at the end of the day, the person had little choice in signing the contract, and in so doing, they basically lose all rights afforded a free individual), and bonded (criminals or people paying off a debt of some kind) individuals would still be quite prevalent, even in such places as Keoland and Nyrond.
Keep in mind too, that peasant militias and levies are essentially people forced to form a military presence by their government. Most of these people resent the fact and would rather be working their (read: the crowns/states) farms. By the very fact that it is disregarding the persons will and forcing them to do what another wishes, it is slavery. Such levies were raised by Nyrond in the last few years and some still exist...
You can't have freemen without serfs...
Now as for finding this reference again... sigh... I'll try, but there's a lot to be said for taking things on faith
I personally can easily envisage states like Furyondy and Nyrond using slave labour in the form of POWs to rebuild thier shattered border towns and to build additional defences even if in peacetimes they would never condone slavery.
When faced with a struggle for survival even 'enlightened' states will use methods that our 21st century sensibilities find questionable.
And that is not considered "questionable" by modern standards, being recognized and covered by the Geneva Conventions.
LABOUR OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 49
The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.
Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.
If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.
Article 50
Besides work connected with camp administration, installation or maintenance, prisoners of war may be compelled to do only such work as is included in the following classes:
(a) Agriculture;
(b) Industries connected with the production or the extraction of raw materials, and manufacturing industries, with the exception of metallurgical, machinery and chemical industries; public works and building operations which have no military character or purpose;
(c) Transport and handling of stores which are not military in character or purpose;
(d) Commercial business, and arts and crafts;
(e) Domestic service;
(f) Public utility services having no military character or purpose.
Should the above provisions be infringed, prisoners of war shall be allowed to exercise their right of complaint, in conformity with Article 78.
Article 51
Prisoners of war must be granted suitable working conditions, especially as regards accommodation, food, clothing and equipment; such conditions shall not be inferior to those enjoyed by nationals of the Detaining Power employed in similar work; account shall also be taken of climatic conditions.
The Detaining Power, in utilizing the labour of prisoners of war, shall ensure that in areas in which prisoners are employed, the national legislation concerning the protection of labour, and, more particularly, the regulations for the safety of workers, are duly applied.
Prisoners of war shall receive training and be provided with the means of protection suitable to the work they will have to do and similar to those accorded to the nationals of the Detaining Power. Subject to the provisions of Article 52, prisoners may be submitted to the normal risks run by these civilian workers.
Conditions of labour shall in no case be rendered more arduous by disciplinary measures.
Article 52
Unless he be a volunteer, no prisoner of war may be employed on labour which is of an unhealthy or dangerous nature.
No prisoner of war shall be assigned to labour which would be looked upon as humiliating for a member of the Detaining Power's own forces.
The removal of mines or similar devices shall be considered as dangerous labour.
Article 53
The duration of the daily labour of prisoners of war, including the time of the journey to and fro, shall not be excessive, and must in no case exceed that permitted for civilian workers in the district, who are nationals of the Detaining Power and employed on the same work.
Prisoners of war must be allowed, in the middle of the day's work, a rest of not less than one hour. This rest will be the same as that to which workers of the Detaining Power are entitled, if the latter is of longer duration. They shall be allowed in addition a rest of twenty-four consecutive hours every week, preferably on Sunday or the day of rest in their country of origin. Furthermore, every prisoner who has worked for one year shall be granted a rest of eight consecutive days, during which his working pay shall be paid him.
If methods of labour such as piece-work are employed, the length of the working period shall not be rendered excessive thereby.
Article 54
The working pay due to prisoners of war shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Article 62 of the present Convention.
Prisoners of war who sustain accidents in connection with work, or who contract a disease in the course, or in consequence of their work, shall receive all the care their condition may require. The Detaining Power shall furthermore deliver to such prisoners of war a medical certificate enabling them to submit their claims to the Power on which they depend, and shall send a duplicate to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123.
Article 55
The fitness of prisoners of war for work shall be periodically verified by medical examinations at least once a month. The examinations shall have particular regard to the nature of the work which prisoners of war are required to do.
If any prisoner of war considers himself incapable of working, he shall be permitted to appear before the medical authorities of his camp. Physicians or surgeons may recommend that the prisoners who are, in their opinion, unfit for work, be exempted therefrom.
Article 56
The organization and administration of labour detachments shall be similar to those of prisoner of war camps.
Every labour detachment shall remain under the control of and administratively part of a prisoner of war camp. The military authorities and the commander of the said camp shall be responsible, under the direction of their government, for the observance of the provisions of the present Convention in labour detachments.
The camp commander shall keep an up-to-date record of the labour detachments dependent on his camp, and shall communicate it to the delegates of the Protecting Power, of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or of other agencies giving relief to prisoners of war, who may visit the camp.
Article 57
The treatment of prisoners of war who work for private persons, even if the latter are responsible for guarding and protecting them, shall not be inferior to that which is provided for by the present Convention. The Detaining Power, the military authorities and the commander of the camp to which such prisoners belong shall be entirely responsible for the maintenance, care, treatment, and payment of the working pay of such prisoners of war.
Such prisoners of war shall have the right to remain in communication with the prisoners' representatives in the camps on which they depend.
A code of conduct makes sense within the real world where warfare is genarally limited to clear strategic objectives, either in defence or attack, against a backdrop where opposing nations realise that they may easily become allies against a 3rd party within a scant few years as has happened many times in the history of Europe. Therefore the concept of 'civilised' warfare makes political and economic sense.
In GH the type of conflicts circe CY592 is charecterised by wars where the losers are likely to be exterminated or totally subjugated by the victors. There is no need for Furyondy for example to wage 'civilised' war upon Iuz, there will be no reconciliation, it is a fight to the finish.
Within that framework I feel that the likely treatment of enemy combatants in GH is unlikely to be of Geneva convention model and is much more likely to be of the WW2 Japanese model of POWs used for slave labour.
Originally posted by StevieS
Within that framework I feel that the likely treatment of enemy combatants in GH is unlikely to be of Geneva convention model and is much more likely to be of the WW2 Japanese model of POWs used for slave labour.
I agree. I can definitely see the overseers of such operations paying out on orcs and, especially, human mercenaries (orcs are expected to be evil, but human mercenaries who sided with Iuz would be considered worse than scum); beatings, mutilation, humiliation, starvation. I hardly think they would be treated very well. Sure, the official stance may be that they have rights and privaledges (although, given the whole 'Great Northern Crusade' thing, I doubt even that), but unofficially, and in reality, they would treated very harshly.
And regardless, even if they were treated as well as the Geneva convention lays out, it's still slavery. Paint it nicely, it's still vile.
To be honest, though, I think only the orcs and other humanoids would be kept for slave-labour. The human mercenaries would most likely be torched alive on mass pyres in the centre square.
As for how they would be treated in GH, I'm not sure that the Orcs etc would be treated any differently from evil humans. They are all intelligent humanoids who can be exploited but I certainly agree it wouldn't be pretty.
Originally posted by StevieS
I'm not sure that the Geneva convention is particularly relevant to GH.
A code of conduct makes sense within the real world where warfare is genarally limited to clear strategic objectives, either in defence or attack, against a backdrop where opposing nations realise that they may easily become allies against a 3rd party within a scant few years as has happened many times in the history of Europe. Therefore the concept of 'civilised' warfare makes political and economic sense.
In GH the type of conflicts circe CY592 is charecterised by wars where the losers are likely to be exterminated or totally subjugated by the victors. There is no need for Furyondy for example to wage 'civilised' war upon Iuz, there will be no reconciliation, it is a fight to the finish.
Within that framework I feel that the likely treatment of enemy combatants in GH is unlikely to be of Geneva convention model and is much more likely to be of the WW2 Japanese model of POWs used for slave labour.
The comparison was made in the context of:
Would modern people object to prisoners being used as labor?
The answer, referring to the Geneva Convention, is obviously no.
Now, would they be treated the way the US treated POWs during WW II, or the way certain other nations treated POWs?
Obviously, they will be treated less pleasantly, primarily because of the greater difficulty in controlling people with the lower technology. (Though granted, they could replace it with judicious use of charms and domination if needed.)
As for the types of wars, in some cases, as you note between Furyondy and Iuz, it is a campaign of near genocide. Furyondy has no need to take Orcs prisoner, or let them go on parole. Indeed the history of the Greyhawk Wars makes it clear that they engaged in sweeps through the Vesve, specifically dedicated to wiping out Orc lairs. Likewise Iuz has little use for Furyondians aside from temporary slave labor until they are sacrificed to him.
This is very different from other conflicts though. Take Nyrond and the Great Kingdom and its successors. While not particularly pleasant, the GK wants new subjects, not new corpses. The same with Nyrond should they win. As such, they will treat prisoners considerably better compared to the Furyondy-Iuz conflict. That doesn't mean they will dine on fine wine and cheese, but it does mean they have a decent chance of surviving if they surrender.
And of course, a note should be made about "officers". In Greyhawk, these would obviously be nobles. And just as in the real world, they would be spared in conflicts between "civilized" nations for the simple fact that they could provide a significant ransom. That was always a critical consideration in history.
Originally posted by Samwise
The comparison was made in the context of:
Would modern people object to prisoners being used as labor?
The answer, referring to the Geneva Convention, is obviously no.
Sure, that was understood. I just wanted to clarify what I meant by POWs as slave labour is all.
As for the types of wars, in some cases, as you note between Furyondy and Iuz, it is a campaign of near genocide. Furyondy has no need to take Orcs prisoner, or let them go on parole. Indeed the history of the Greyhawk Wars makes it clear that they engaged in sweeps through the Vesve, specifically dedicated to wiping out Orc lairs. Likewise Iuz has little use for Furyondians aside from temporary slave labor until they are sacrificed to him.
Agreed but considering the likely collapse of agriculture during the wars, as able bodied men were dragged from the fields and given a spear, any source of manpower would likely be seized upon for labouring purposes even captured Orcs.
This is very different from other conflicts though. Take Nyrond and the Great Kingdom and its successors. While not particularly pleasant, the GK wants new subjects, not new corpses. The same with Nyrond should they win. As such, they will treat prisoners considerably better compared to the Furyondy-Iuz conflict. That doesn't mean they will dine on fine wine and cheese, but it does mean they have a decent chance of surviving if they surrender..
True I was thinking about that when typing. I would imagine it would depend upon who was captured. The ordinary rank and file troops, human citizens of the North Kingdom, would likely be treated pretty well, after all a downtrodden serf from the NK would likely jump at the chance to swap sides to Nyrond given the chance or is likely to be compliant given that they might expect to be released once hostilities ended.
IIRC the NK also uses significant numbers of Orcs etc from the Bone March/Ratik, here I think the treatment would be much harsher if Nyrond captured them.
How NK would treat captured Nyrondese may be a different matter, a life of serfdom further south away from the border seems likely if they are not repatriated.
And of course, a note should be made about "officers". In Greyhawk, these would obviously be nobles. And just as in the real world, they would be spared in conflicts between "civilized" nations for the simple fact that they could provide a significant ransom. That was always a critical consideration in history.
Well unless Henry V is around and in a hurry anyway :D
I doubt Orcs would be useful for agriculture beyond clearing new lands. Which, since you don't have enough men to work the fields you already have wouldn't be needed.
Likewise, I wouldn't trust an orc to watch my livestock if you paid me.
At most, they could be used to replace miner and loggers and similar laborers who could be sent to the fields, or perhaps replace serfs and peasants in their labor requirements.
"How NK would treat captured Nyrondese may be a different matter, a life of serfdom further south away from the border seems likely if they are not repatriated."
It would be a life of slavery.
A serf is a very specific social class. You can't just grab some new person and make them a serf. It requires a mutually agreeable social contract to do so. (And that's why serfdom disappeared - the serfs stopped agreeing.)
"Well unless Henry V is around and in a hurry anyway"
Yes well, and with an Ivid, there is likely a 50/50 chance of being invited to star in the night's entertainment in Rauxes.
Still, most noble commanders will want both the gold from a ransom, and the memory and like consideration should they be captured, to keep noble prisoners alive.
This is why I can quite easily see slavery alive in the Flanaess, even by the supposed good guys, given the military and economic situation they find themselves in circa CY592.
Also bear in mind what I said about slavery eventually making itself a drain on the economy. All of those slaves means someone is out of a job until the slaves die. What do you when your farms are up and running again, and all those people want some extra work? Say sorry, but you have the orcs?
No, in the end, slavery will not be wanted in Furyondy, Nyrond, Keoland, or their surrounding vassals and former vassals. (Excepting of course Iuz, the Horned Society, the Bandit Kingdoms, and any lands they have conquered.) They will likely use prisoners for forced labor for a short time, but that is it. Even the Great Kingdom and its successors will likely have very little slavery, and only use serfs. Such being a prime cause of its decline naturally.
Originally posted by StevieS
I personally can easily envisage states like Furyondy and Nyrond using slave labour in the form of POWs to rebuild thier shattered border towns and to build additional defences even if in peacetimes they would never condone slavery.[/b]
The potential peacetime markets for slaves from the yellow sails et al has been noted previously and is pretty much limited to the Pomarj, SB areas, Empire of Iuz, various evil cults and maybe humanoid enclaves like in the Bone March. I also wouldn't be shocked to find slaves in Stonehold captured from Tenh or one of the barbarian tribes.
I was just airing my opinion of the issue based upon a CY592 snapshot where the good aligned nations are likely to be more grey than whiter than white.
Originally posted by Samwise
And of course, a note should be made about "officers". In Greyhawk, these would obviously be nobles. And just as in the real world, they would be spared in conflicts between "civilized" nations for the simple fact that they could provide a significant ransom. That was always a critical consideration in history.
This reminds me of episodes of Hornblower where, in several instances, the capture of an enemy ship was only made official when the captain gave up his sword to the leader of the raiding party, who was most often Mr. Hornblower
After that, the prisoner was treated with the utmost respect and dignity and basically given free reign on the promise that they wouldn't do anything untoward.
Then there was also an episode where Hornblower was a prisoner and he was given parole (in essence it was a promise that he doesn't try to escape, even though he said to the commanders face that it is his duty to try... it was complicated, you have to see the episode). During his parole he was allowed to walk the country-side OUTSIDE of the prison, unguarded and with a lady who was a noble of England! They had picnics with fresh fruit and bread and wine supplied by the commander of the prison!
Originally posted by Samwise
So obviously, Furyondy is not going to be a market for slaves brought up from the Pomarj, or captured in the Shield Lands, or anything similar.
Nobody said those nations would involve themselves in the slave trade, however the keeping of slaves in other forms such as serfs, indentured servents, bondsmen and other forms of forced labour would, IMO, still be present.
I don't see the Flanaess as being on the border of a renaissance, I see it as being at a stage almost bordering on entering the dark ages, where so very much culture and technology was lost due to wars, poverty, disease and simple stupidity. So to me, an enlightened stance such as you're suggesting, not only isn't on the table as far as anyone is concerned, but hasn't even entered anyone's mind yet. With the exception of Keoland and the Bakluni nations, the rest of the Flanaess is essentially at war, regardless of treaties signed. It's not a time to be thinking about the rights of individuals, it's a time to be kicking ass and chewing bubblegum, and since there is no bubblegum (that I know of) in the Flanaess, there's only room for kicking ass.
Originally posted by Samwise
Also bear in mind what I said about slavery eventually making itself a drain on the economy. All of those slaves means someone is out of a job until the slaves die. What do you when your farms are up and running again, and all those people want some extra work? Say sorry, but you have the orcs?
I want figures. You keep saying that slaves are a drain on an economy whereas I've proven they're not. So if you're going to insist on this line, I want historical evidence to support your claims. I don't just want your word on it, or your opinion, I want to be able to reference a legitimate source of information pertaining to exactly this line of reasoning.
The GK most certainly uses slaves as they have virtually no-one else to do manual labour. All the peasants are either enlisted or scared shitless or are so apathetic they just don't care whether they live or die. And the people in charge certainly don't care whether slaves live or die so they would work them to death just to keep the food crops going, let alone the mines and other resources.
The Scarlet Brotherhood is renowned for its use of slaves. The Lordship of the Isles and the Sea Princes, among others, have cash crops such as sugar which need a constant inflow of slave-labour since the slaves there would be worked to death too. Stoneholders in Tenh would keep all those lovely Flan girlies for play-things too and work the men to death out in the fields to supply them with mead and bread.
I think that to assert that slavery is dead in the Flanaess is silly in the extreme. There are markets and there are reasons for it to be very much alive and well.
Heh. Of course you know I read the entire series when I was in high school, don't you?
So yes, I am quite familiar with everything you describe. Things are somewhat different in the navy, but indeed, most surrenders are not "official" until the commanding officer acknowledges such.
And yes, parole could be quite lenient when dealing with "gentlemen", or nobles for that matter in earlier times. What should be noted of course is the difference in the use of the word parole then (an individual gives his word) and the use of the word today (someone else decides you can be trusted to leave jail after being convicted of a crime).
Nobody said those nations would involve themselves in the slave trade, however the keeping of slaves in other forms such as serfs, indentured servents, bondsmen and other forms of forced labour would, IMO, still be present.
I repeat, serfs are not slaves. They are a distinctly different social class. It can be hard to recognize the difference today, but in a world where the existing social order is collapsing, being a serf, and thus being guaranteed a certain amount of land to work, was actually a good thing at the time.
Indenture and bonding are actually closer to slavery than serfdom, despite the "limited" timeframe they were for.
I want figures. You keep saying that slaves are a drain on an economy whereas I've proven they're not. So if you're going to insist on this line, I want historical evidence to support your claims. I don't just want your word on it, or your opinion, I want to be able to reference a legitimate source of information pertaining to exactly this line of reasoning.
Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations.
I can't recall the specific chapter offhand, but he details the shift in an economy where all workers are either a bonded tenant or servant to one where they are independent proprietors, employees, or renters.
Wealth simply will not increase to any real degree when everyone is owned. There is no incentive for slaves, serfs, servants, or bondsmen to improve the land or their manufactures. And even when the liege accumulates some bit of wealth, there is little for him to with it but spend it on consumables for those working for him.
The GK most certainly uses slaves as they have virtually no-one else to do manual labour. All the peasants are either enlisted or scared shitless or are so apathetic they just don't care whether they live or die. And the people in charge certainly don't care whether slaves live or die so they would work them to death just to keep the food crops going, let alone the mines and other resources.
Why would peasants be afraid or apathetic? They might have to live in a really bad place, but there is little reason for them to just stop working. Remember, if they don't they starve too.
As for slaves doing it, they are much more likely to want to run off than freemen. As such, you will need people to guard the slaves, as well as the slaves doing the actual work.
At best you wind up with Rome during the transition from the Republic to the Imperium. Too many slaves destroys the free middle class, turning it to urban poor that is kept sated by bread and circuses. That destroys the pool for recruiting for your army so you have to turn to mercenaries, and that destroys your empire when the mercenaries realize they can just loot you first, then fight the invaders so they can keep it for themselves instead of for you.
The Scarlet Brotherhood is renowned for its use of slaves. The Lordship of the Isles and the Sea Princes, among others, have cash crops such as sugar which need a constant inflow of slave-labour since the slaves there would be worked to death too. Stoneholders in Tenh would keep all those lovely Flan girlies for play-things too and work the men to death out in the fields to supply them with mead and bread.
Let's consider them in turn:
The Scarlet Brotherhood has all those slaves and they have managed what in the 1,000 years since the Twin Cataclysms? They rule one lousy peninsula, and after showing themselves and making a few quick conquests have lost control of virtually all of them.
The Lordship of the Isles is the only place the Scarlet Brotherhood could keep control of.
The Hold of the Sea Princes was taken out by the Scarlet Brotherhood, then fell into total anarchy when the Black Brotherhood started trouble. Before that, Prince Jeon wanted to end slavery to end the extreme ostracism the nation faced from civilized nations, but the plantation owners refused.
The Stoneholders are essentially a closed market. They are not going to import slaves from the Amedio or Hepmonaland when they can abuse the Tenha without going anywhere.
I think that to assert that slavery is dead in the Flanaess is silly in the extreme. There are markets and there are reasons for it to be very much alive and well.
The markets for slaves are few and remote. Either the far north (Iuz, Horned Society, Bandit Kingdoms, Stonehold), the far south (SB, LotI, HotSP), the far west (Bakluna), certain, more depraved, areas of the Great Kingdom, and perhaps the Pomarj.
All except the far south, the GK, and the Pomarj are so isolated from one another as to make a slave trade absurdly unprofitable. Can you really see someone trying to transport slaves all the way from the Amedio, past Keoland and Bissel to Ket, or past Greyhawk, across the Nyr Dyv, through multiple Bandit Kingdom holdings, around the Horned Society, and to Iuz? Not even a Demi-Power has the resources to pay those shipping costs!
The SB, HotSP, and LotI are final markets, though they might ship to the Pomarj and GK.
The HotSP and SB would ship to the Pomarj, but how profitable would it be? Pre-Wars, the HotSP would face Keoish and Uleki patrols, not to mention rabid Trithereonites coming down from the Yeomanry to take a slave ship riding past the mouth of the Javan. The SB would need to get past the Iron League patrols. (Post-Wars, the issue is nearly irrelevant.)
As for the LotI, Pre-Wars they are members of the Iron League, and are more likely to raid Sea Barons ships and take the slaves for themselves than to transport them regularly. This particular trade might increase Post-Wars, if the economies of the sucessors states to the GK can afford slaves. More likely they will just parcel out the land to the survivors and turn to herding over farming, and they will have more than enough locals to do it that they don't need a bunch of slaves who need to be guarded to do it for them. (Which is what happened in Europe after the Black Plague and the depopulation it caused.)
In short, it is nice to say slavery is "there", but a considered analysis reveals that it should have virtually no place in the three main nations, and little place in the GK and successors. And while it does exist around them, there is virtually no way a significant profit could exist for it to be a "thriving" trade.
Which is what I said from the beginning.
Originally posted by Samwise
Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations.
I can't recall the specific chapter offhand, but he details the shift in an economy where all workers are either a bonded tenant or servant to one where they are independent proprietors, employees, or renters.
Wealth simply will not increase to any real degree when everyone is owned. There is no incentive for slaves, serfs, servants, or bondsmen to improve the land or their manufactures. And even when the liege accumulates some bit of wealth, there is little for him to with it but spend it on consumables for those working for him.
IIRC this happened in Europe following the plague mid-14th century when around 25 million died which was approx a third of the population of Europe at the time.
This led to severe labour shortages, the peasants demand higher wages and revolted leading to the collapse of the existing economic system of serfdom and bonded labourers.
I'm not sure of figures but I doubt the Flanaess has seen such a drastic shock to the labour market that the existing economic structures would collapse so these concepts should be alive and kicking circa CY592.
Given that the slave trade from Africa really got going around the same time, I guess to provide labour to replace the dead in Europe and for conquests in the new world, continuing till the 19th century our history tells us that there could be a thriving organised slave trade within nations of freemen.
I suppose the question has to be asked about the causes of the slave trade and if those conditions exist within the generally benign nations of the Flanaess, severe labour shortages at home and in largely empty new world colonies, but it seems clear to me that for 400+ years it happened here so theoretically could happen on Oerth.
You recall 100% correctly.
And indeed, this is precisely the reason cited by Adam Smith for the social and economic shift.
I'm not sure of figures but I doubt the Flanaess has seen such a drastic shock to the labour market that the existing economic structures would collapse so these concepts should be alive and kicking circa CY592.
Errr . . .
The Twin Cataclysms?
Migrating several hundred miles across the Flanaess?
An empire expanding then collapsing?
Everyone and their brother complaining that the population figures for the Flanaess are absolutely too low?
Given that the slave trade from Africa really got going around the same time, I guess to provide labour to replace the dead in Europe and for conquests in the new world, continuing till the 19th century our history tells us that there could be a thriving organised slave trade within nations of freemen.
The slave trade was almost exclusively confined to the New World. The reason for it was simple - raw materials procuring and refining that required large amounts of labor under less than ideal conditions. No free people would bother with it. More, with so much land available, even those who indentured themselves for passage could simply leave after serving their time, and have no trouble finding a place to start their own farm with a more than reasonable chance of success. Even if they failed, they could pick up and move a few hundred miles and try yet again.
This was because the New World had a Colonial economy, a very rare state of affairs. It also had a reasonable source of slaves - that being Africa.
To compare this to Flanaess, we see the same Colonial economy, but except for the indigenous Flan, we have no source of slaves. And indeed, checking various sources, we learn that most of the Suel migrants did enslave them. However, we also see from those sources that the Oeridian migrants did not, or at least treated them significantly better. Until ship technology, as well as ports to support them, could be developed to explore and raid the Amedio and Hepmonaland, there is no source of slaves other than other migrants. And apparently, except for the Suel, virtually all of whom were driven off, nobody did this. By the time they had the naval technology an infrastructure, they had mature economies, and didn't need slaves.
So except for fringe areas or excessively Evil rulers, slavery was never relevant. Some would exist here and there, but no real market could ever develop for them.
Even at the start of the american colonies, there were black freemen who owned white slaves. Only though predjudice, ease of identification, and resistance to diseases, did american slavery become solely that of one ethnicity, the africans.
Not to mention, there is probably a group that would would have a demand for human slaves, that would be humanoid tribes. They would even have a double use for them. Work them to near death, then eat them as emergency food supplies.
Yes many nations may be against slavery, but it still may well happen within thier borders.
Habler
You mean exocultural slavery. (Which is the taking of slaves from foreign cultures.)
All slavery winds up being for both the lives of the slave and their progeny. I know of only one exception to this rule, and that was long extinct by the Middle Ages.
As for Oeridians enslaving other Oeridians, it is certainly possible, but it doesn't seem to have any economic potential.
Why would the Aerdi enslave the Nehron? They conquered them of course. And installed their own nobles. But why now enslave them? What could be gained?
The same in Ferrond.
By the time those areas were taken, the Aerdi were the Great Kingdom, and didn't need to enslave new conquests. They just needed more lands for second sons to rule. And once they had those, the people could be left free, or at least not enslaved, under new rulers.
Not to mention, there is probably a group that would would have a demand for human slaves, that would be humanoid tribes. They would even have a double use for them. Work them to near death, then eat them as emergency food supplies.
And yet those humanoids are solely fringe groups in the Flanaess. Until very recent times in the Flanaess, there is no record of any humanoid nation existing. While you may wish to declare such existed, there are no references to them in any canon materials. As such, those humanoids would never form the kind of stable market you need for slavery to flourish as it did in the Americas or before the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by Elendur
Just from reading A1-4, slavery is considered a serious threat, else why would adventurers be taking such a risk just to find out their operations? A1 does say the lords of the land allowed it to go on at first, until it got out of hand, so maybe its a matter of degree.
IMO, noone cares if you are plucking your slaves from the jungles of the Amedio or Hepmonaland, but once you break protocol and start preying on the people of the civilized nations, as the Slavers did, your neighbors are going to get upset.
IMO, most of the nations of the flanaess would not endorse keeping members of the other 'civilized races' as slaves. No humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc.
Orcs, goblins, kobolds (I cant see why, but you never know), etc, go for it!
And as for those pesky Olman and Touv savages, you don't think the proper folk of the flanaess consider them human, do you?
It's ugly, yes, but it's believable, and gives the setting that sort of "grey" morality that makes it interesting. There are few knights in shining armor who are true paragons of virtue, and IMO, none of them sit on the thrones of nations. Queen Yolande of Celene ignored treaties (formal or informal) and sat out the wars. King Kimbertos of Keoland played politics when Geoff and Sterich begged for aid as the giants invaded, and Prince Corond of Ulek probably overlooks the fact that Olman and Orcish slaves are being used to work his mines while his men (including dwarves and halflings) are off fighting Turrosh Mak's army.
Ugly, unpleasant, but that's the way it is.
I'm sure though that the "goodly" nations avoid the actual term slavery and call it something else; indenture, bonded serfdom, whatever. The differences are minor and to the guy doing the work or facing the whip or explusion from the land, it's all about the same.
Although I think that The Great Kingdom of Aerdy utilized a serf caste prior to the fall of the Celestial House of Rax, with the ascension of House Naelex, I believe that some nobles began to utilize slave labor in limited instances.
I think that this practice developed but sporadically and in isolation until the 6th century CY, when the practice began to develop throughout the lands now known as Ahlissa. I believe that the exploration and development of the Hold of the Sea Princes, and the development of the humanoid-dominated Pomarj contributed significantly to this practice. Likely the Lordship of the Isles was also instrumental -- taking slaves from the coasts of Hepmonaland.
We know from the Slavers series that some slaves were imported into Ahlissa (via Usurers once dedicated to Zilchus in Scant). Also, FtA noted the practice of piracy, kidnapping, and slave-taking in the immediate aftermath of the Greyhawk Wars -- visited upon coastal Nyrond by by raiders from Ahlissa.
In the late 6th century of the Common Years, some market existed in certain parts of the Great Kingdom for slaves. As far as I know, only fans have described in part that market. Slaves may have become sacrifices for the priesthood of Hextor; slaves may have been used in the house-holds of certain depraved princes. Slaves worked certain plantations. Some slaves may have become gladiators or worked in the mines.
The Ahlissan market for slaves was likely never "great," but it was significant, and the markets of the Great Kingdom are very substantial. As GH'98 products showed, Ahlissa's wealth dwarfs that of the Jewel of the Flanaess itself.
Therefore, it is reasonable to "imagine" that the limited Ahlissan slave market provided the pull-factors that supported the slave-taking practices of the Hold of the Sea Princes and the Pomarj. While such practices are not definitive of the Flanaess as a whole, they do distinguish the Azure Sea region.
Fans have also discussed a system of slavery that pulls from the Central Flanaess into Ket and beyond...
Originally posted by Samwise
Errr . . .
The Twin Cataclysms?
Migrating several hundred miles across the Flanaess?
An empire expanding then collapsing?
Everyone and their brother complaining that the population figures for the Flanaess are absolutely too low?
Ah, I was considering that prior to the GH wars there was no real need for slave labour as most of the good-aligned states had stable economies with ample labour. My thought was that IF the driver for the start of the slave trade from Africa was severe labour shortages due to the plague then I don't think the GH wars were devestating enough to trigger the same effect.
I'm sure the Suloise enslaved anyone they found post cataclisms but the infrastructure needed for an organised slave trade were not in place with stable markets, navigable sea routes, ship technology etc.
Would the expansion and collapse of the GK have been so devastating? My reading of GH history is more of a slow decline leaving behind reasonably solid nations, Furyondy & Nyrond et al, so again no collapse in society.
So what I'm driving at is that the reasons for the absence of an organised trade in slaves in the central Flanaess is not really to do with a society of freemen rendering slavery a limiting factor upon economic growth, as seemed to be your point previously, but is more that the triggers for an organised slave trade did not exist ie discovery of a new world & a seismic shift in the economics of your home markets following a disaster of plague-like proportions and equally as importantly alignment factors.
A general alignment descriptor of good precludes enslavement of people so the central states find it abhorrant except in short term extremis (my point about orc/goblin POWs previously).
So basically I agree that there is no organised slave trade in the central Flanaess but think the reasons why are due to historical factors and alignment not economics.
The slave trade was almost exclusively confined to the New World.
Well I'm no expert on the slave trade, as I'm sure it has greater prominence in US history than UK history (we learn loads about beating the French up time after time in school :D), but I was under the impression that slaves were imported into Europe in an attempt to fill the labour shortages cheaply. I'm happy enough to cede the point.
One area I'd like to know more about is the attitude to slavery in the far west, Zeif etc. It seems to me that the areas of the real world that these states are based upon had slavery in some forms but do the GH equivalents?
Indeed that was the situation.
And the plague didn't drive the need for slaves in Europe. It did precisely the reverse, leading the way towards more freedom for feudally obligated commoners.
Would the expansion and collapse of the GK have been so devastating? My reading of GH history is more of a slow decline leaving behind reasonably solid nations, Furyondy & Nyrond et al, so again no collapse in society.
For the Great Kingdom, most certainly. They were the ones losing territory and taxes.
For the newly freed nations, they did nothing but gain.
However, just as the first nations that arose from the final collapse of the Western Empire also enjoyed brief flashes of expansion, they too eventually broke apart due to regional stresses.
Well I'm no expert on the slave trade, as I'm sure it has greater prominence in US history than UK history (we learn loads about beating the French up time after time in school ), but I was under the impression that slaves were imported into Europe in an attempt to fill the labour shortages cheaply. I'm happy enough to cede the point.
Not on anywhere near the scale of their importation to Europe. Captured Muslims were used as slaves, as they used captured Christians, but an active slave trade was never established, simply because one was not needed.
The reason it was needed in the New World was due to the combination of a lack of labor and the cost of transporting free or indentured labor was so great. While it would indeed be cheaper to transport slaves to Europe, there was already a surplus of labor there, resulting in no real savings from the purchase of a slave.
Originally posted by Samwise
[b]Not on anywhere near the scale of their importation to Europe. Captured Muslims were used as slaves, as they used captured Christians, but an active slave trade was never established, simply because one was not needed.
...
God you talk a lot of ****.
I encourage anyone who is reading this thread to take what Samwise says with a grain of salt and do their own research into this subject. There are a gazillion free resources on the net about slavery, including many essays by history professors of leading universities. All of which contradict what he is saying.
That's the last I'll say on the matter as it's getting my blood boiling and I'm afraid I won't be able to remain as civil as I have been...
Abysslin
Originally posted by Delglath
...
God you talk a lot of ****.
I encourage anyone who is reading this thread to take what Samwise says with a grain of salt and do their own research into this subject. There are a gazillion free resources on the net about slavery, including many essays by history professors of leading universities. All of which contradict what he is saying.
That's the last I'll say on the matter as it's getting my blood boiling and I'm afraid I won't be able to remain as civil as I have been...
Then cite one.
Any one. I'd welcome it, as it would save me a lot of time.
I just searched for over an hour before finally finding a single extended reference to the Portuguese bringing in Africans who were treated as indentured servants, with their children born free, at the awesome rate of 1,000 per year. Overall, perhaps 2.5%, at most of all, slaves taken from Africa from 1450-1900 were brought to Europe.
So please everyone, do some research and see if you can that much. I certainly have no fear of being proven wrong.
Originally posted by abysslin
lol, I swear you 2 are married.
Abysslin