Arabian Slave Trade

[Mr_Fox101]

I think the Arabian slave trade is hugely under-represented. It was specially a major player in mid to late medieval ages where slave soldiers would eventually take over Egypt and even reaching as far as India as the Mamluk Dynasties. So, here is what I suggest.

The system would work like the Jade Dragon's Chinese emperor system. The slave traders are a very powerful tool if treated right. Let's begin with the basic system. Slave traders are by region where characters would be sold in markets in cities, now if you appease these slave traders, bribe them and etc.. They may gift you talented slaves, allow you to adopt child slaves to save your dynasty and etc..

In order to buy a slave, a character travels to a slave selling city (like the kowtow to the emperor) where they stand and await buying slaves. Slaves would be characters that were imprisoned by characters around the CK2 world and sold into slavery by their prisoners. This is a good way for muslims and etc.. to get rid of their political rivals, however it might backfire. Being enslaved of course prohibits a character from inheritance. These characters could highly differ being ex-barons or once powerful rulers. Let's say your cousin was captured in battle with an Indian kingdom and was sold into slavery. Your character chooses to travel to Damascus and buy him back in which you either find him and do it or even going as bizarrely as to enslave your cousin.

There would be course events like a Mamluk takeover/coup and etc.. in kingdoms and counties if the Mamluks gain power.

An example of how IRL slaves were influential/important would be the Mamluk Dynasty of Egypt in which Qutuz, one of the kings, claimed to be the son of the last Shah of Khwarizmi. Baibars, a Cuman slave, turned into a king and etc..

 

[Narvait]

Slave trade was a very important feature not just for Arabs, it was very common also around Baltics.
As well nomad raids into East Europe was all about slaves.

One suggestion would be that we should be able to sell our prisoners (except organized religions should not be able to sell their brothers, except excommunicated ones) into slavery. Their price as slaves would be from 1 to 10 pieces of gold. So, it is more beneficial to ransom them than sell into slavery.

And as slaves there may be many events indeed. Finding long lost relatives in slave markets, some slaves escaping, some made into eunuchs and seen in some Muslim courts, etc, etc. Some Christians becoming advisors for their pagan capturers.

 

[Castimirr]

I've wanted the ability to sell/ransom people to their enemies for a long time. Oh, you guys are at war? He's in my dungeon. What's an instant 100% war score worth to you?

 

[Fire6all]

To my mind, each religion/culture should have his personal "policy" about slaves :
- Some are accepting everybody ( the Vikings weren't very regarding at who they were enslaving )
- Some are accepting nobody ( I'm not a professional historian, but for sure some pacifists were not using slavery )
- Some would accept only slaves from other religions/culture ( a form of empathy...)

Generally speaking, historical researchs about the subject should be done to grant a good system

 

[Woifee]

Slave Trade were very common in medieval times. I always assumed the wealth I made by raiding and sacking cities is not all gold and selver but also livestock amd slaves I took.

Most slaves are not important enough to become characters in the game. As I as ruler don’t have to interact with every farmer individually I don’t have to with slaves. But it would be nice getting some slaves in my administration if they are skilled enough. I assume the travellers gifted Eunuch is such a slave.

If slavery will be included in a bigger way it shouldn’t be limited to arabs tough. There were big slave markets in viking Dublin, in Genua, Venice, Lagos, Constantinople.

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Obligitory link to elvain's proposed overhaul of Islamic mechanics, which includes much info on how slavery would work there: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ves-cadet-branches-and-enhanced-islam.905195/

 

[elvain]

Really good idea, @Mr_Fox101

As @BeyondExpectation pointed out, I already made a suggestion to include Muslim slave trade and slaves into the game, this deals with the way how they would be acquired and it is awesome idea.

These off-map slave traders could be available in traditional slave trade centers or slave markets. In Cairo, Baghdad, Jand/Samarqand/Bukhara, Somali coast, Cordoba and in one of provinces south of Lake Chad in the Sahel. Perhaps few more could exist in Europe too. As mentioned above, Dublin, Constantinople or even Genoa and Venice...

I'm just not sure about having slaves exclusively as characters captured in the game. Many actual slaves were not nobles. Also the use of slaves should not be about selling a captive to his enemy. It's something completely different. They should work more like Eunuchs or other characters offered by Chinese emperor - random, but talented characters, which could sometimes also include war captives, but only if those war captives were sold at some of the existing slave markets mentioned above. Selling captives as slaves never worked as direct selling your captives directly to the enemy, but if the devs find it as fun feature, then it could be accepted as ahistorical anomaly.

While Christianity banned slavery, Muslim rulers often acquired Slaves even from Christian rulers (in the 10th century one of centers of slave trade was early Premyslid Prague), but those slaves were Pagan war prisoners.
The Vikings didn't really care for the religion of their slaves and were selling also Christians.
Here I agree with @Fire6all that each religion should have its policy towards slavery.
- Norse would take slave prisoners anywhere and sell them anywhere as well as use them.
- Islam accepts and uses any slaves except muslims, but does not make slaves out of Christians (If Viking or African slave merchant sells a christian they buy him, but muslim slave merchant (in Cairo, Baghdad or Cordoba) would not offer a Christian slave. Islamic realms should be 90% users of slave characters.
- Christianity bans slavery (does not use slaves), but when Christian rulers pillage or capture pagan land, they can sell their pagan captives as slaves
- African religion allows taking and selling slaves from all religions including all other African cults, except the one followed by the seller.

Then when it comes to the use of slaves, I think my earlier suggestion could still work:

Part 3 The Mamluks - slave soldiers and governors

As already mentioned at various places, one of essential differences of muslim states was the existence of Slave armies, which, since the Abbasid period, were meant as some kind of balancing power to Arab tribes and their military influence.
Therefore Mamluks/Ghulams or Slaves should be available to all islamic sedentary governments (Iqta and Mulk-which will be described later).
These slaves will be indicated by special traits

• Ghulam
• Freed ghulam

The ghulam characters can be bought at slave markets, but buying them can be done similarily to "buying" a noble, or another character in the intrigue menu. The difference is that each ghulam costs some money (originaly the ammount should be minimal, some 0.1 monthly).
They keep their original culture and with little differences in regions where they are bought, they would be recruited from following cultures:

• Turkish (or turkish group - The Karluk, the Oghuz
• Slavic (this means slavic group)
• Georgian and other caucasian cultures
• Armenian
• East and West Africans

Unlike the cultures, they will mostly not keep their original religion, but most of them will be converted to Islam. However, if they are christian, some of them (50%) may keep their original faith, but all of them will have the cynical trait. Also having the Ghulam trait (not the freed ghulam) should block the characters from getting zealous traits.
The cultural aspect may play some role, because when treating other slave characters, the culture should play important role (in relation to their owner/liberator the cultural relations should be ignored and instead there should be big relation boost in favour of the owner (at least +20 relation)

The Ghulam characters can serve as:

• concubines (female)
• military commanders (of either retinues or slave companies)
• captains of slave companies or
• slave governors (most probably this should be available only to freed ghulams)

The ghulams can be freed (and this will be rewarded with piety) either via diplomatic window, or via event - at request.
The freed ghulams can marry either slave women or even free women (according to islamic teachings they should be able to marry up to 2 women) and have children with them. Their children will, however inherit the freed slave trait.
Normal ghulams can marry only slave women (in history, they could also free, but for gameplay reasons this should IMHO be limited) and only if their owner agreed.

Slave governor
- he serves basically like a normal viceroy - normally at a duchy tier level
- having the slave governors makes the kingdom/sultanate/malikate more stable. However for every slave governor, the ruler receives malus in 'Asabiya, because the tribals consider this as weakening of their own position (and it actually is the case)
- if the governor is a normal Ghulam and not a freed one, it should also raise decadence, because islamic clerics would regard it unislamic to have a slave ruling over free muslims
- he should, however, be able to assign his own son (if he has some) to the position of local count or a military commander on his territory.
- Children of ghulams (nor freed ghulams) do not inherit claims, but when their father dies AND they are in position of captain of slave company or a count within he father's viceroyalty, they may (70% in case of commander, 60% in case of count) ask the ruler to inherit the office. (with the absence of claim, this could be treated as ambition typical for ghulam(freed ghulam) characters to inherit father's office.

Slave company
- it should work similarily to a mercenary band or holy order, but unlike them it should work as standing army - an attempt to dismiss the army will always cause discontent and may lead to revolt with territorial claim.
- the slave company will be duchy tier title and thus it will only be available to k_ or e_ titles
- the ruler can have more than one slave company employed at once
- the basic power of a company is 1000 men (with 3 regiments of 300/400/300 each with slave commander)
- they will be managed in separate section of military screen (unique for iqta and mulk governments), where the player can buy both slave companies and also new squads for already existing company (right-click at the leader -> buy troops -> a unit of 300 men with a commander from the same culture as the captain's will be added to the company).
- the ghulam company will be remarkably cheaper than mercenaries, but will cost (monthly) gold. Part (1/5-1/2?) of the expense will turn into personal wealth of the captain. After few years in service, the captain may demand his (company's) salary to rise. Refusal, obviously, reduces loyalty and if is constant, may lead to rebellion.
- if the captain is a freed ghulam (and has enough money), he should be able to buy new troops himself and make his company stronger
- the reinforcements are slower than in case of mercenaries or holy orders and are on expense of the captain.
- each leader of a ghulam company acts independently (it it isn't already obvious), like vasal dukes in feudal Europe, and at war, the company acts like mercenaries - is directly controlled by the ruler (unlike the tribal armies of other clans from the same Qabila, who work as allies)
- an experienced captain who served his master for longer than 10 years may ask for government position, most probably a governor seat. He can be promised a future seat (like unlanded princes in feudal Europe) and if another slave governor dies, the promise comes into effect as auto-assignment.

Ghulam events

• a new Ghulam appears - distinguishes himself in a battle - a young ghulam appears at the court waiting for job assignment
• internal strife within a ghulam company - especially when the company is larger (1600+ men), there can appear to be hostilities among various groups of slaves and if untreated, it may reduce the company's morale ("leave them alone -> morale is weaker for 18 months). The result could be splitting the company ("Don't let the feud weaken my ghulams, split the company -> opinion malus from captain, a new slave company emerges with one of the former's commanders as leader), other possibility is increasing the salary and last thing could be to get rid of unstable ghulams ("Kill those problematic slaves" -> 50% of 1/3 or the company, or one squad gets killed, 50% chance that a new company emerges being at war with both the original company and the ruler. Can be appeased with land-assignment or acknowledgement and employment as new ghulam company.
• Ghulam commander/captain asks for reward, solutions can be "give him money", "liberate him" -> a ghulam becomes freed ghulam, "assign him to a landed office" -> he becomes a slave governor; or lastly his request can be ignored -> opinion malus
• Ghulam wants to marry a women (can simply be accepted or refused either increasing or decreasing his opinion. Accepting the request adds piety (removes prestige) and vice versa, accepting may result in a child which may in future demand to inherit father's office.

generaly, freeing a slave is regarded as pious, but it may create prestige penalty. At the same time employing slaves as military commanders, employing slave companies or assignment of land to ghulams decreases the 'Asabiya and may result in intra-Qabila war with other clans inside the Qabila will demand more land/offices for themselves and less for slaves in order to improve the 'Asabiya.

Basically it means there would be 2 kinds of slaves used:
- slave characters which could play some role either in army or administration as slave military commanders, councillors or governors
- slave armies or slave military companies - military units very similar to mercenaries, but with some substantial differences which would make them closer to retinues. The major difference is that slave armies would be substantially cheaper, effectively working as standing armies. But as such, their leaders should be able to increase the size of their own army by themselves, would gradually ask for more money and/or influence in the realm and eventually for being freed and landed. This means that the probability of a slave military commander becomming a landed governor or effectively a nobleman should be remarkably higher than of a mercenary leader or even advanturer... and this could eventually cause slaves becomming very influential characters, such as the case of Fatimid vezirs like Jauhar, or even independent rulers, like in case of Mahmud of Ghazna and other Turkic leaders... as well as already mentioned Mamluks in Egypt.

 

[Woifee]

Christians didn’t abolish slavery in the ges timeframe. They just ran out of people they can enslave because of converting all the pagans. Therefore in the mediterranean Area slavery survived longer because of the Muslims they enslaved.

 

[Fire6all]

I agree, the christians had no problem with slavery at all ( eg in America, English and Spanish... )
They were just thinking that as soon as you're a wight Christian, you can't be enslaved anymore...

 

[Narvait]

I agree, the christians had no problem with slavery at all ( eg in America, English and Spanish... )
They were just thinking that as soon as you're a wight Christian, you can't be enslaved anymore...

I think some Pope made it illegal to enslave a Christian. Otherwise it was all ok.

 

[moscal]

Problem is scale and value for the economy in christian Europe - eg. in Carolingian Empire ~20% populatios was probably as slave and was important element of economy; BUT with the development of feudalism, the importance of slavery was reduced. Even before "full feudalism period" Europeans did not buy slaves in wholesale quantities and serfs was more important than slaves. Also christian Europe hadn't concept "slave-warrior" (like a Saqaliba in west-muslim world).

Laws about slavery should be limited into realms. Even simple "Full/Limitet/Infidels only/None" will be good. BUT not regulated by religions or culture. OFC Pope (and others "hierocratic" RH) should have possibile to intervetion in style "Please, change the law on slavery or excommunication".

 

[grts87]

In principal I agree with introducing the slave trade, I'm just unsure how to do it well,

The islamic word were major slave traders up until the 1970s so obviously they need to be represented in it up to their eyeballs, in islam slaves were mostly imported from sub saharan africa, or taken from the conquered non muslim population (non muslim meaning not correct muslim, thus sunnis enslave shias etc), and freed once they converted to (proper) under islam they usually from those unable to pay the jizya that hadn't starved to death or been put to death yet for not paying it. They also had massive slave armies that would take huge casualties but with the survivors gaining great prestige and becoming rulers often. So that should be largely unique to them.

The irish banned slavery 100 years before muhammed was even born so no irish culture people should be able to slave trade (that's why saint patrick is a saint), French, and english and pictish people kept slaves of varying types but serfs were far more common once feudalism comes in and it was typically looked down on so it should be available with perhaps a malus for selling people of the same religion or culture only.

Spanish adopted and more or less plagiarized the islamic system of slavery from fighting them for so long.

Balk-lands are a mixed bag but generally had various forms of slavery, the byzantines were big on it for all kinds of things and should have easy access.

Africans being the inventors of slavery made huge amounts of money selling one another for thousands of years (and still practice it in places sadly) as such they should probably get positive modifiers in terms of the price of sale and even opinion boots based on how many they can sell.

I'm not familiar with the eastern practices around slavery save that a buddist (formerly hindu) emperor of india banned it a long time ago and it was then re instituted under islam after being conquered, not sure how to reflect that, maybe if someone unifies india they should have a decision to ban it and get some kind of malus or bonus based on what they pick.

One thing that I think may work is that maybe you can 'pillage' your own non correct religion provinces to raise slave armies as islamic nations. while the rest of it should be an off screen power like china with outposts along the subsaharan trade routes or something.

There's also the problem of variability, western european countries varied wildly in how they dealt with it, and maybe should be able to have laws that allow or disallow it, islam never banned slavery historically nor did the pagan religions, or the Byzantines so those should not be allowed to ban it, unless maybe reformed or something in the case of paganism.

 

[Fire6all]

Please, you must keep in mind the difference between a serf and a slave. There were very few slaves in the Carolingian epoch in the catholics countries, only a few for nobles, whereas there were lots of serfs. Although serfs were exploited very unfairly, they weren't owned as slaves ( they had a "boss", it's different ). A slave's only rights were to obey and work. A serf had the rights to marry, to own a few things, etc...

Another idea : each ruler should have a menu talking of how he treats his slaves ( some masters were cool and the slaves were happy ) : right to breed, status of the children, amount of food, mistreatments, allowed hours of sleep and age after which the slave isn't obliged to work anymore, right to move freely, guards attributed to the slaves...

These politics about slavery, not personal to a country but directly linked to a character, and freely changeable, according to the wish of the master, combined to the politics of the neighbors would determine the wish of fleeing of a slave, and his success chances in his attempt
Several issues :
- success, he is free and the character vanishes
- semi success, he escaped and was taken back by a neighborhood's noble
- failure, leading to the decision of punishment from the master, such as corporal punishment, lessons, prisons, death, hug...decision of punishment which will naturally influence the behaviour of the slaves later

In the other hand, this slave mechanic should be merged with some of the eunuchs events in the game (you know, the talented ennuch given by a foreign merchant...)

 

[grts87]

I'm not sure I agree with that on serfs but the rest I think is solid.

 

[Fire6all]

I'm not sure I agree with that on serfs but the rest I think is solid.

Actually, depends of the country. In England, there were lots of slaves, especiallyfor the saxons who had slavery I'm their culture, but they were treated quite well.
In France, they were few slaves, treated as objects, and lots of serfs.
In the Byzantine Empire, there were lots of slaves, and they were mistreated

 

[Fire6all]

In islam slaves were mostly imported from sub saharan africa, or taken from the conquered non muslim population ( non muslim meaning not correct muslim, thus sunnis enslave shias etc )

Hey ! The muslims were also enslaving the "right muslims", don't worry ! They were sometime selling all their family to the slave market !

 

[grts87]

yes they were but that was comparatively rare and was usually to make up for a debt or a crime of some kind. There's a reason the islamic and arabic word abeed for slave is also the islamic theological word for black person.

Evolution of language is funny like that

 

[Woifee]

yes they were but that was comparatively rare and was usually to make up for a debt or a crime of some kind. There's a reason the islamic and arabic word abeed for slave is also the islamic theological word for black person.

Evolution of language is funny like that

And the ethnonym Slavs and the english word slave have the same origin.

 

[moscal]

And the ethnonym Slavs and the english word slave have the same origin.

Wrong. Slave is from Slavs, but Slavs haven't this same origin like a slave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs_(ethnonym)

 

[elvain]

Another idea : each ruler should have a menu talking of how he treats his slaves ( some masters were cool and the slaves were happy ) : right to breed, status of the children, amount of food, mistreatments, allowed hours of sleep and age after which the slave isn't obliged to work anymore, right to move freely, guards attributed to the slaves...

These politics about slavery, not personal to a country but directly linked to a character, and freely changeable, according to the wish of the master, combined to the politics of the neighbors would determine the wish of fleeing of a slave, and his success chances in his attempt
Several issues :
- success, he is free and the character vanishes
- semi success, he escaped and was taken back by a neighborhood's noble
- failure, leading to the decision of punishment from the master, such as corporal punishment, lessons, prisons, death, hug...decision of punishment which will naturally influence the behaviour of the slaves later

In the other hand, this slave mechanic should be merged with some of the eunuchs events in the game (you know, the talented ennuch given by a foreign merchant...)

While this is interesting, I don't think this is kind of slaves or slave policies CK2 deals with. This is bit too micro management of subjects, which is something CK2 world doesn't work around.

The slaves represented (and traded) in CK2 shouldn't be family slaves or workforce slaves used as family servants or workers in agriculture - CK2 simply doesn't care about this kind of people. It cares about people in potential military and governmental (or church) positions. And these were always treated well (every ruler wanted his military to be obedient and that meant happy).
Also slaves of this kind weren't the ones who would consider fleeing. They were already in some position of power, either as soldiers, military captains or generals, or even governors and if they were not happy with their ruler, instead of fleeing, they had other tools to express their unhappiness. Like to take their arms, usurp their government position, intrique against their master etc.
All what I'm writing is based on position of slaves (ghulams and mamluks) in Islamic world, I'm not very familiar with the usage of slaves by the Norse or others.