-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There were attempts at least. When Gustav Vasa founded Helsinki, he ordered burghers from a few other towns to relocate there. Most ignored the order so it was not very successful, but some obeyed. His son settled Northern Sweden by promising freedom from taxation for some years for Finns who moved there (other issues may have mattered more than taxes).
Ottomans had sürgün, were the people moved by that slaves?
- 2
Adding on to the above example, Rajputs and Afghans were forcibly migrated under the Mughals. Mohammed bin Tughluq forcibly migrated a large portion of the population of Delhi into the Deccan in 1327; then he moved them back (and promptly lost the Deccan ten years later).
- 3
Also of course worth noting that we have the contours of alternate history to deal with as well. A resurgent Byzantine Empire could very well wind up in the slave-trading business in its border territories against Muslim states (and Catholic ones for that matter; evidently proscriptions against enslaving one of the same faith is quite narrow, and apparently concerns about Bogomilism and suggestions of a heretical nature of the Bosnian Church led both Catholic and Orthodox neighbors take slaves of Bosnians prior to its Ottoman conquest).
It does seem, at least as a basic principle, that raids and conquests of different-religion locations should yield some amount of slaves of those different-religion people (and very much religion, not religion group), at least in Europe (other areas of the world would presumably have different laws regarding this).
It does seem, at least as a basic principle, that raids and conquests of different-religion locations should yield some amount of slaves of those different-religion people (and very much religion, not religion group), at least in Europe (other areas of the world would presumably have different laws regarding this).
- 8
- 1
They should all be represented as migration in game imo
- 1
- 1
Well slaves need only food and a bed, no? payed worker needs only a wage
No im just confused why your post is in italian. I dont speak italian sorry so i didnt understand anything you said lol
- 3
- 2
Damn, the translator need converted in italian before i sended(thanks google chrome XD)
Often not even that - in many contexts, such as the American South, slaveowners did not even provide significant portions of either food or housing, forcing the enslaved to maintain personal gardens and housing on their own time.
- 3
- 2
Speaking of slavery outside of European contexts, I was thinking about the Mamluks.
Since the Mamluks were historically slave soldiers who ended up taking over a bunch of states (the Egyptian Mamluks are the ones everyone knows because they're called, well, the Mamluks, but apparently the Sultanate of Delhi was a Mamluk ruled state until 1290 as well), I was wondering if that's going to be something that's going to affect how they play.
Could it be that while playing as the Mamluks, or other Muslim states as well, you will have to rely on importing slaves (specifically non-Muslim ones?) in order to have recruitable population for your elite units?
This should also be true for the Ottoman Janissaries, so maybe this could be a way for the game to represent the particular deal the Muslim world had with the system of slavery?
Since the Mamluks were historically slave soldiers who ended up taking over a bunch of states (the Egyptian Mamluks are the ones everyone knows because they're called, well, the Mamluks, but apparently the Sultanate of Delhi was a Mamluk ruled state until 1290 as well), I was wondering if that's going to be something that's going to affect how they play.
Could it be that while playing as the Mamluks, or other Muslim states as well, you will have to rely on importing slaves (specifically non-Muslim ones?) in order to have recruitable population for your elite units?
This should also be true for the Ottoman Janissaries, so maybe this could be a way for the game to represent the particular deal the Muslim world had with the system of slavery?
- 4
- 2
- 1
It's something worth considering, as a wide variety of the states in the Middle East / Indian Ocean area had fairly well-developed military slavery in this period. To use EUIV/I:R terms, that would mean their slaves produce largely manpower instead of trade goods.
- 5
I think it'd be more gross to include slavery but completely whitewash in the name of not being a crimes against humanity sim than to not include it all. Ideally you'd have economic reasons to enslave but the game would go out of its way to show the results of that and make you feel bad about it imo through events and possibly effects/modifiers. It's more important to give exposure to the histories and perspectives of slaves whether they be transatlantic or otherwise than to prevent people from making edgy memes.
I remember there being an article about this with EU4 when it first came out. About how you were incentivised to genocide the populace of everywhere you colonised to stop native uprisings but the game abstracted it too much for the writer to feel bad about it in the moment.
I remember there being an article about this with EU4 when it first came out. About how you were incentivised to genocide the populace of everywhere you colonised to stop native uprisings but the game abstracted it too much for the writer to feel bad about it in the moment.
- 9
- 5
- 2
The unique thing with Ghulams, Janissaries and Mamluks is that they weren't just regular manpower for Muslim empires, they used to be elite units and in some cases a privileged class as well, especially the Mamluks in Egypt and Syria. A prestigious military order that could grant people a chance at social mobility, and slaves at the same time. I feel it could definitely be used to give Muslim countries a unique way to interact with slavery.
On the positive side, slavery gives benefits in economy and possibly manpower. On the negative side, history condemns it, and player feels (or at least should feel) bad when thinking about slavery. What were the in period points against slavery? Think about those, then model them in the game.
Naturally there would be poor diplomatic relations with the country your slaves were from, and also negative diplomacy with others of same culture and religion. Did countries without slavery look badly at those with slavery, when the slaves were of different culture and religion? If there's evidence of that, then that's another negative diplomacy modifier. Within your country, the clergy could have a negative modifier when you have slavery, although unfortunately they weren't always against it. And there is the possibility of slave revolts.
The negative points of slavery shouldn't be left just on the player's consciousness, but they should be something period relevant inside the game. Hopefully Tinto comes up with such points.
Naturally there would be poor diplomatic relations with the country your slaves were from, and also negative diplomacy with others of same culture and religion. Did countries without slavery look badly at those with slavery, when the slaves were of different culture and religion? If there's evidence of that, then that's another negative diplomacy modifier. Within your country, the clergy could have a negative modifier when you have slavery, although unfortunately they weren't always against it. And there is the possibility of slave revolts.
The negative points of slavery shouldn't be left just on the player's consciousness, but they should be something period relevant inside the game. Hopefully Tinto comes up with such points.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Yeah this is a tough one. Vic3 had slavery, but it was set in its dying days and after the British closing of the (legal) trans-atlantic slave trade. So it could afford to gloss over the full extent of that sordid practice and its institutions. Project Ceasar meanwhile will be set in the high point of the Triangle Trade! Slaves were the economic drivers of many European colonies. With slaves being an actual pop and not trade good, I see now way to get out of making it a major mechanic.
As others have said, the negatives of it must be shown. Given the state-eye view of the world where individual suffering isn't visible, I think the best way to show how horrible it was will be to ensure the damage it did to Africa proper is represented. Slave raids led to entire regions becoming devastated and depopulated, as European-aligned middle men made businesses out of razing nearby societies to the ground and selling the ashes for profit. This scale of destruction is what set the European slavery system apart from the rest of the old world. The lands surrounding your trading posts should visibly decline. Not just in raw population, but in overall infrastructure and quality of life.
EDIT: Also, have slave pops in the colonies have very negative growth, to represent the extremely high mortality rate the abuse they're put through causes.
As others have said, the negatives of it must be shown. Given the state-eye view of the world where individual suffering isn't visible, I think the best way to show how horrible it was will be to ensure the damage it did to Africa proper is represented. Slave raids led to entire regions becoming devastated and depopulated, as European-aligned middle men made businesses out of razing nearby societies to the ground and selling the ashes for profit. This scale of destruction is what set the European slavery system apart from the rest of the old world. The lands surrounding your trading posts should visibly decline. Not just in raw population, but in overall infrastructure and quality of life.
EDIT: Also, have slave pops in the colonies have very negative growth, to represent the extremely high mortality rate the abuse they're put through causes.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
I remember reading somewhere that many slaves in southern states of the USA (especially those living on smaller plantations/farms) had better living conditions than free farmers who owned little land and often struggled to afford decent living conditions. But I know that in America there's this whole racism problem to this day and this may (or may not, I simply don't know) be some bullshit invented by white people to whitewash slavery.
- 2
If slaves are obtained through raiding and war (as they frequently were) it would make sense to have diplomatic maluses, but as far as I know the triangular trade was about Europeans buying slaves from the existing slave traders or Western Africa, so these African nations weren't even hostile to the idea of trading slaves for European goods.
Slavery was just something very ingrained in several areas of the world and what little compulsion there was against it was usually Christians and Muslims being forbidden from enslaving fellow Christians and Muslims (and even then slave traders always found ways to circumvent even those rules). Only when the moral compulsion against it grew over time, combined with the fact that chattel slavery just wasn't very efficient, led to the eventual abolishment of slavery worldwide, and this was basically in the 19th to 20th century.
- 9
I'm not sure we can make declarations on things like "many" with certainty on any of these issues. Were some slaves better off than some poor free white people? Purely from a "needs met" standpoint, probably, given the large number of people in each class, sure, I'm sure outliers happened.
Did poor white people have repeated and persistent crimes against humanity inflicted on them without any ability to pick up and move like often happened with owned chattel slaves? No, generally they did not.
The "Lost Cause" bullshit of southerners who lost the US Civil War run deep, even on slavery, which they claim the war wasn't about.
- 8
- 1
- 1
Sometimes they were worked to death. It may be an economic thing, if it's cheaper to buy new slaves than to feed the existing ones, the slaver can just work them to death. If new slaves are costly, as in after the Atlantic trade was shut down, the slaver wants to take care of his investment.
Of course personal preferences also played a part, some slave owners had more humane feelings than others. The lot of a house slave was different to that of a field slave. That can be seen even in antiquity, where some educated Greek slaves in Rome could indeed have a better life than the average peasant.
Another fun fact from the American South. The poorest farmers were strongly against abolition. Yes there were exceptions but that was a common sentiment. They realized that they were on the second lowest tier of society, and without slavery they would be on the lowest, and they did not want that.
Yeah, unfortunately so. It's just that the game looks bad and for some players feels bad if slavery is an easy way to do well in the game, with no negatives just positives.
- 2
- 1
It's a game. We all know it's bad in real life, the game does not need to lecture us nor give arbitrary negative effects. It should be profitable for the europeans buying it and profitable for the african state selling their own population. Negative effects I can't think of. Diplomatic bad relationships? Well they had good relationships, thats why they sold them to the europeans for a couple of centuries. Negative pop growth? I don't see why. At least not in africa. The negative pop growth are the pops who themselves are being transported. If anything yes a negative pop growth in the colonies due to bad conditions etc, which incentives you to keep buying more to replace them.
Also lets not forget that the european slave trade was minimal in compared to the global slave buisness. Slavery were a thing in most of Africa, big chunks of Asia, some muslim countries... You can't think of how to do it mechanically just on the atlantic triangle. It needs to represent it as well when you are playing an African/Asian/muslim nation too.
Im even wondering actually. Did pagans at this time still preserved slavery? Should Lithuania have still slave pops? I have no idea about pagans during this time so someone might have to shed some light on it.
Lastly, there should be an option unlocked with tech or institutions around the beginning of the 18th century to end slavery if you want to. And that would unlock a CB to enforce it in other countries. Ending slavery would not bring any benefits other than roleplaying and playing the freer of slaves but it would be cool. I mean I guess once you free them you could have them available for migration if you need more pops? Kind of like in Victoria 3?
Also lets not forget that the european slave trade was minimal in compared to the global slave buisness. Slavery were a thing in most of Africa, big chunks of Asia, some muslim countries... You can't think of how to do it mechanically just on the atlantic triangle. It needs to represent it as well when you are playing an African/Asian/muslim nation too.
Im even wondering actually. Did pagans at this time still preserved slavery? Should Lithuania have still slave pops? I have no idea about pagans during this time so someone might have to shed some light on it.
Lastly, there should be an option unlocked with tech or institutions around the beginning of the 18th century to end slavery if you want to. And that would unlock a CB to enforce it in other countries. Ending slavery would not bring any benefits other than roleplaying and playing the freer of slaves but it would be cool. I mean I guess once you free them you could have them available for migration if you need more pops? Kind of like in Victoria 3?
- 9
- 4
- 1