Yes. Considering the Royal Navy has surpassed both the French and Spanish navies
The Royal Navy surpassed both French and Spanish navies because Britain had fundamentally changed and become a seapower state, especially in the wake of the Glorious Revolution, whereas France focused on being primarily a land power for much of its existence.
Additionally the Royal Navy become the premier navy of all Europe whilst Britain, France, and Spain all owned and traded in slaves. Britain would remain naval hegemon whilst owning slaves but abolishing the slave trade.
, and the USN eventually surpassed pretty much the rest of the entire world combined.
The US Navy only surpassed Britain during/after WW2. Will you next say being a republic rather than a consititutional monarchy is what caused this to happen if not trading in slaves somehow makes your navy better. Despite how you'll need a large merchant marine to both trade the slaves and then export the products home from the colonies
You completely missed my entire point. It would be a "MODIFIER" that affects innovativeness and corruption "OVER TIME."
How much is this modifier going to affect, if Portugal could reach Japan in 1543 but had been engaged in trading slaves for a century beforehand? For societies without slaves how much more advanced are they going to be due to the lack of this modifier compared to euros? Could rotw get better naval tech than they did irl due to lack of slaves due to euros trading slaves for too long?
If slavery increases corruption and decreases innovation how badly affected with rotw ai be in 1500s if theyve had slavery for 2 centuries. The ottomans tech will still be on par with euros until 1600
Like I've said before, there could be a decent short-term gain. But over the LONG-TERM (I'm pretty sure I very specifically used that particular phrase),
Yes youve said long term, but if its +0.00001 per day once slavery starts thats going to be far more distantly felt than a +1.0 per day, which would be the day after the first slave is traded you now face a big malus
a slave-holding society absolutely does gain corruption (after all, slavery as it's very nature IS corrupt!
if owning someone and their labour is corrupt then this source of corruption would never go away in the time frame unless you become a peasant republic. And corruption as a game mechanic, like unrest, will be something a player eventually wants to turn to 0
; and loses innovativeness.
A society full of free citizens who may pursue their own wishes and talents as they please, combined with the ability to obtain a good education, breeds...well... Talent!
The world of science is much better off with humans who actually naturally have the ability to think rationally and scientifically. Engineering is much better off with people who are natural tinkerers. Music is much better off with people who are naturally musically-inclined.
Slavery, as practiced in the EU through Victorian time periods, takes away entire segments of the populations' ability to pursue their own interests and talents. And yes. That absolutely does accumulate over time.
can we not turn this argument on its head that slavery let the slave owners pursue whatever talents they had, as they didnt have to work a normal job but could instead spend the fortunes they got from slavery on writing poetry and philosophy or inventing things? This inverse is compeltely anti thetical to our notion of universal human rights of course, but in age prior could easily be used to justify slavery itself
Same with corruption. Free people who see others in slavery, increases false perceptions of their own superiority. You wind up with more Preston Brookses, than you do with the Charles Summers of the world False.
Humans are a migratory species. Humans have successfully traveled by foot to the Americas long before the Roman Empire was even established.
Even during the colonial times, such groups as the Puritans and the Quakers were willing to travel across the sea to establish new colonies. Slavery wasn't introduced in the English colonies until 1619.
People facing religiously persecution are more easily moved than your average subject. But if you're trying to move people who are the same as you to new lands it can be hard to convince them all, meanwhile if you own slaves, you just need to employ enough overseers to keep the slaves marching.
Vermont was the first state to abolish slavery in 1777. Pennsylvania gradually abolished slavery beginning in 1780. Followed by New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1783, then Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784. By 1804, slavery was completely abolished in all the northern states.
huh thought maryland and delaware were part of the North, seeing how the Capital is there
The transatlantic slave trade abolished in 1808. And the British Empire abolished slavery empire-wide in 1834. All with barely a blip in economic output and/or the willingness of people to move to faraway places.
indentured servitude of irish being swapped for slavery of africans being swapped for indentured servitude of indians from the British Raj
In fact, if anything, the UK and the northern states became fabulously wealthy and powerful compared to slave-owning societies. While correlation does not mean causation, it is still undeniable that there is a VERY STRONG correlation between free states and nations with power and wealth, vs. slave societies that are seemingly always stuck in a backwards agrarian economy.
You will find very few instances of a chattel north America slave-style or European/Russian serfdom-style society that actually outproduces a society without such slaves or serfdom.
The classical empires had slavery, to be sure. But that was more along the lines of indentured servitude, and there were strict laws against the physical abuse of slaves. Roman slaves could and frequently did earn their freedom. Poor Romans would willingly sell themselves into slavery (which is basically what indentured servitude is.)
Poor Romans selling themselves into slavery are going to have very different experiences to Gauls and Carthaginians captured in wars. Roman slaves could be freed and adopted by their master, but they could also all be put to death if one slave killed their master.
The North American style of chattel slavery is unique in the annals of human history, and the regions that practices it, were quickly left behind economically and socially.
Enslaving based on race or ethnicity and the child of a slave being a slave isnt unique
As already explained above. There are people with moral principals. There are also people with their own economic interests. That's EXACTLY how the Civil War occurred:
You had the slave-owning interests of the south that clashed up against the moralistic principals of some northerners, and the economic interests of most of the rest of the Northern labor force.
Slavery is in direct competition with free men with little to no skills other than their own labor they provide in exchange for a wage. Northern factory workers resented the idea of slavery, since it would erode the value of their labor. Again, it's much the same argument that rightwingers make today against immigration.
How is this going to work when theres little industrialisation let alone class conciousness in the 14th to very early 19th century
Too, you had the traditions of the Quakers. Particularly from Pennsylvania, that found chattel slavery morally repugnant and in direct violation of the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independance that was written in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
As theres likely to be bans on same culture same religion being slaves, certain religions will likely also ban slaves as a whole
Wilberforce also had his detractors in Parliament in 1805 when he petitioned to end the slave trade empire-wide. Though the British themselves were no where nearly as divided on the issue as the USA was. They did vote overwhelmingly to end the slave trade.
Yes. Only because it has helped some few greedy and morally corrupt land-owners. It did no favors to anyone else in society.
Weavers back home will like access to american cotton as itll be cheaper than indian cotton
I don't know! That's my entire point about the red Xes! What, exactly, is it that people are disagreeing with?
Are they disagreeing with the idea of implementing new game mechanics or modifiers to reflect the negative aspects of slavery? Or are they disagreeing that slavery is bad? I'm really hoping that everyone on this forum would agree that slavery is bad.
As none of them have the Vic2 CSA flag as their user icon, I think its just game mechanics youre suggesting that they disagree on
Therefore, there must be disagreements regarding game mechanics or modifiers. I'm no computer programmer and certainly not a mathematician. So if there is game play balance or programming issues involved, maybe someone might explain it and I learn something new?
Please don't gloss over my point. You know perfectly well that the northern and southern economies and cultures were extremely dissimilar. You also must know that the free North completely outcompeted the slave-holding south in terms of wealth, productivity, and innovation.
Wait. What!? Are you kidding me!?
Ava Lovelace - first computer programmer
Mary Anderson - invented the windshield wiper
Margaret Knight - inventor of a machine that produces grocery bags.
Marie Curie is an obvious and perhaps most famous example
Eleabor Cloade
And I could go on, right through into the middle of the 20th century.
The industrial revolution lasted until the middle of the 20th century?
Right! That's my entire point! Thank you!
So to mitigate inventions lost to slavery you need a) to abolish slavery b) provide universal education somehow in 14th to 19th centuries c) have funding available enough for said inventions
No. It isnt. People of other cultures tend to hold grudges for a very long time. That's how the Conquistadors were able to conquer the Aztecs. They used all the other local tribes' built-up resentments against them. The Palestinians. Look at Ghandi's Indian and African movements against the British Empire, and they weren't even chattel slaves! Look at all the different slave revolts and uprisings.
yeah by trading your rivals as slaves you continue the blood feud started by your constant wars, but if youre the one trading them as slaves, youre pretty free from the consequences. Especially in the case you've been trading slaves north to muslims since before start and 100 years ingame the Portugese arrive asking for more slaves
Look at all the serf uprisings, to the point where the Romanovs wound up getting slaughtered in their own home!
... they were executed during a civil war having abdicated before even the last gov. The Great Peasants War in Germany meanwhile led to very very few nobles being killed off later on
Enslaving people is a GREAT way to ensure continued hatred and resentment gainst your empire. Not to mention, all those noble and righteous free people in your country who have a conscience.
The nobles helping trade and capture the slaves are fine tho
Um. No. Not at all. What does a hunter-gatherer know about farming or plantation work? They don't have those skills, nor that work ethic. They have to be beaten and chastised to work it like that
They dont have the skills or work ethic but once beaten into them, they would be more productive wouldnt you say
. A freeman with engineering skills can (and have!) singlehandedly increased production beyond the means of billions of human laborers since Elijah McCormick's day!
Whom?
Yeah, because that's EXACTLY what I said.
If having slaves makes you lose innovation, and inventions, along with increasing corruption, would abolishing slavery not instantly get rid of said modifier, or would it tick down as slowly as it increased? If so, who's going to abolish slaves in the late 18th early 19th century, as the modifier wouldnt finish ticking down before the game was done
I don't understand this question at all. If none of your subjects are being sold into slavery, they WOULDNT have any penalties. And that's the entire point!
So Kongo, raiding Ndongo for slaves, holding them briefly, then selling them to Portugal, wont suffer maluses? I think most people read you saying "The game should also reflect penalties on the source countries as well." as, the african kingdom selling the slaves should have a penalty, rather than the african kingdom which has lost both war and men already
.png){kind=avatar}
