Like during the Roman and Greek time in the past, or other continents at the same time (for example the Arab Slave trade in Africa)?
-
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.
panderson said:
All societies based upon agriculture on a larger scale will try to recieve slaves (cheap workingclass which lack education and resistance).
Enslavement of Christians were despiced and therefore became banned in most of Europe when well the closest pagan areas had been converted.
But as that most of Europe still was agricultural based with great landlords a lot of Europe recieved a slave-similar economy, serfdom etc, as an substitute for the lacking slaves.
Though areas which could reach easily, and profit, from new pagan areas became happily engaged in slavery again later on.
I think there was slavery, but it was selling Franks to Arab kingdoms. Muslims can't enslave other muslims according to their religion.
I've always thought slaves were used for cash crops like cotton, olives, and grapes on large plantations. Olives and grapes are long term investments that are perennial crops. Plantations require large capital investments and guaranteed labor. Then, if the owner needs more labor, he goes out and buys or sells it, depending on his needs.
Plantations existed mostly in the Mediterranean because of favorable weather conditions.
Subsistence farmers for wheat, millet, etc., aren't going to produce more just because they are slaves, which is the economic motivation for slavery. It's easier for a lord to just squeeze the peasants for an extra chicken each year and not worry about clothing and housing them too. Wheat and millet are yearly crops, so they aren't the same large and long term investment that a crop like olives or grapes are. So, instead you make the peasants into serfs, that is, people that are not allowed to leave the land at will. They are required by law to produce so much wheat for their lord, or work the lord's crops in addition to their own.
That's all my opinion of course, and hopefully a real expert will come along and correct me.
I've always thought slaves were used for cash crops like cotton, olives, and grapes on large plantations. Olives and grapes are long term investments that are perennial crops. Plantations require large capital investments and guaranteed labor. Then, if the owner needs more labor, he goes out and buys or sells it, depending on his needs.
Plantations existed mostly in the Mediterranean because of favorable weather conditions.
Subsistence farmers for wheat, millet, etc., aren't going to produce more just because they are slaves, which is the economic motivation for slavery. It's easier for a lord to just squeeze the peasants for an extra chicken each year and not worry about clothing and housing them too. Wheat and millet are yearly crops, so they aren't the same large and long term investment that a crop like olives or grapes are. So, instead you make the peasants into serfs, that is, people that are not allowed to leave the land at will. They are required by law to produce so much wheat for their lord, or work the lord's crops in addition to their own.
That's all my opinion of course, and hopefully a real expert will come along and correct me.
AFAIK the Romans used slaves in Italy (see all the servile revolts), but in the Middle Age there weren't slaves in Italy, at least in great numbers. I was wondering whatsnore said:
was the decisive changing factor. Was there underpopulation during Roman times?
panderson said:
No. Major question rather was that the ordinary Romans couldn't consider themselves to work (they lived on tributes during some centuries from conquered areas and didn't work or buy anything, everything was recieved for free) and that slavery was what was needed for their plants.
The removal of slavery for the Romans was mainly that their success in conquest dimnished (and therefore also the supply of slaves) and when they turned Christian the idea of slavery turned quickly more and more immoral.
panderson said:
When land is abundant its simply easier to give slaves some land to use for themselves and take the majority from it instead of having to use enormous resources to guard unproductive, dangerous and unmotivated labour.
knott said:
That don't give any real good answer on a lot of things.
For example CSA? Or for that part, why was for example Ragusa the first country in Europe to completly ban slavery and all trade with slavery?
History shows that christians could easily turn to slavery if the incentive was enough.Skarion said:
So there must be an economic / political reason why Europe didn't have
slavery in the Middle Ages : maybe absence of cash crop in the continent?
panderson said:
There existed a lot of cash crop. Especielly in Poland-Lithuania and Italy.
And you can easily see how slavery was abondoned in most Europe at the same time as Christianity was adopted (for example in Scandinavia, though it was thralls here rather then slaves).
The reason for this was economical and political though, Scandinavia have never done anything religious that hasn't had a deeper motive behind it.
Major reason in Scandinavia was that a lot of important trading nations around the Baltic etc refused to trade with a nation which held slaves. Anyone which was doing any trade outside Scandinavia had to be christian and wasn't allowed to use any trade with slavery. So suddenly you had anyone with money (the whole upper class) as staunch Christians and absolitionists.
The reason why slavery was later picked up again was that an anti-slavery stance by the church wasn't needed to try to convert pagans as it did during the medieval age. As soon as Christianity had taken over all nations which could have make any threat militaricly it would be much more profitable for the Christian nations and the church itself if it started with slavery.
This is as of the idea that as Christians would only be allowed to have pagan slaves an easy conversion could be done against African tribes etc by enslaving people until the African recieved a hint.
African slaves were still converted and baptised, and in some areas of Italy, the church still held slaves in carolingian times, though.
Also, serfdom, around the Baltic, was often quite as harsh as slavery, but I don't know when it got that way.
Also, serfdom, around the Baltic, was often quite as harsh as slavery, but I don't know when it got that way.
It looks so in the sources, but... But all of them were written by the men of the Church. It wasn`t "proper" for a christian to be writing about his fellow brothers using slave labor, so it`s difficult to find direct references to slavery in medieval chronicles. In polish or czech works for example you won`t find anyone abusing "slaves", though there is a lot of praising of military leaders, who were able to capture throngs of people, both men, women and children. I don`t believe, they were all sent to the Arabs (especially in XII c.)Skarion said:
Well, it doesn`t seems so. In medieval practice (germanic laws) slaves were simply a part of family`s property, like livestock. Serfdom was more of a contract - indisputably harsh, but nontheless a contract. Serfs lived in their own villages, they cultivated their land on account of themselves. They were "just" (khe khe) obliged to work on their landlords fields during specified period. If a peasant was rich or had a lot of children, he could send his workers or sons to work for the landlord, and devote all his time for his own household.The Gonzo said:
Slavery has two aspects, first it requires a monetary economy to flourish, that was quickly sinking in Europe since the 4th century, and didn´t quite returned until 13th century, second there is a legal aspect, only different people from alien territory could be enslaved, that is why slavery returned in force with the transoceanic expansion of Europe. IMO it has nothing to do with Christianity, since there was nothing in that religion against slavery.
I think the first respondent nailed it dead on. Feudalism replaced Romana proto-mercantilism as the politico-economic system of Europe.
And as counter-intuitive as this may seem, the ethic of allowing people to own other people suggests a certain degree of natural rights. Slavery flourished in Rome because the non-noble classes wanted a life of leisure, too. Large portions of the population (citizens) were allowed by law to own other peoples to further this goal. There wasn't room in feudalism for a life of leisure behind a tiny blood-connected elite.
And as counter-intuitive as this may seem, the ethic of allowing people to own other people suggests a certain degree of natural rights. Slavery flourished in Rome because the non-noble classes wanted a life of leisure, too. Large portions of the population (citizens) were allowed by law to own other peoples to further this goal. There wasn't room in feudalism for a life of leisure behind a tiny blood-connected elite.
Aryaman said:
According to your theory, slavery should get it`s reneissance in XIII c. onwards, as the economy started to take off (in XII c. in fact), while wars did wars were still present (and not only among latin christians). However in central Europe XIII c. is exactly the time when slavery apparently ceased to be. In Western Europe I guess that would be XI-XII c. See the pattern? Flourishing economy actually seems to have made slavery obsolete
Woreczko said:
In the east, serfs had a status much closer to slaves, and could even be exchanged, like livestock.
And it was not much comparable to a contract, it was a inherited status where about the only practical solution out was based on the good will of the landlord or the sovereign. The land held by serfs was also mostly on lease from the landlords. Indentured servitude is a contract, but it was mainly used as a way to pay for colonization - i.e. you'll be my serf for your first year to pay off your debt the the trade company who brought you here, then you're free to settle you parcel.
Divi said:
Yes, serfdom in these contexts was like slavery, but without a lot of the hassle - the "owner" gains a signficant amount of control and the right to a certain amount of labour from someone, but dosen't need to take full responsibility for housing, feeding or otherwise looking after them. This most likely goes a lot of the way to explain why overt slavery wasn't really neccessary in most of Europe in this period.
Sarmatia1871 said:
Spot on! Slavery isn't "free" labour. There's a lot of expenses connected with it. The most economically efficient thing is to get the labour without the expenses - like in serfdom.
rgds/EoE