FSTGOD1: A Cool Idea

[Hotfoot]

Bah, slaves make the Bacchanalia go 'round!

[Pablo Sanchez]

No slaves for me. Tyranny bad.

It's the most efficient way to farm and mine for the era. In the Roman Empire slave plantations ran pretty much all small landholders out of business following the Punic wars.

[Stormbringer]

No slaves for me. Tyranny bad.

This is the Iron Age, as in the age of Rome or so, no one is really going to care. I mean really, this is the kind of time period that slave holding is common enough and no one is going to question it at all. If fact they're likely enough to look at you funny if you speak out against it.

[SirNitram]

Slavery is on the way out in the Principality. Not so much because of silly ideas like 'It's wrong to keep slaves'(Really, where else are the poor dears going to get work without a proper education? And would it keep them fed three meals a day, one required to have meat, and to have ample off time and days off?), but because as our tech level continues to head away from the Iron Age baseline, it simply becomes more and more economically unsound to depend on masses of untrained labour. The Principality is thus not importing slaves, and is starting the tenuous road towards shifting them to full subjects and trying to educate them all. Indentured servitude remains, however, for debtors.

[Imperial Overlord]

Slavery isn't productive and your population keeps dying out. Slave populations are less productive than free populations (less incentive to work hard) and don't replace themselves.

The structure of Rome's social-political system favored the large estate owners. Slaves and booty (principly land, government jobs, and tax farm rights) from conquered territories poured into the large land owners. The famer/soldier class were increasinly dependent on their generals to make sure they got their pensions. Thus they supported their generals against the state and their conquests enriched their economic competitors. When the state collapsed, most of the large landholders had already retreated to their estates. The manpower shortage brought in serfdom.

I was making a statemate about the view point of my nation. It is prosperous, but not an economic powerhouse and slavery would cause it. . .problems.

[SirNitram]

Slavery isn't productive and your population keeps dying out. Slave populations are less productive than free populations (less incentive to work hard) and don't replace themselves.

Uh... Are you high? Slaves replace themselves. It's called breeding them together. And in the Iron Age tech level, it's about the best way to do things, economically.

I think you're thinking too much of the 18th/19th century slavery.

[Imperial Overlord]

They do replace themselve, but not at the rate they die off in Classical times. Other fun population facts: cities are population sinks before the mid 19th C. People die off (mostly from diseases) faster than they replace themselves. Immigration from the country side is what allows them to maintain their numbers or grow.

[SirNitram]

They do replace themselve, but not at the rate they die off in Classical times. Other fun population facts: cities are population sinks before the mid 19th C. People die off (mostly from diseases) faster than they replace themselves. Immigration from the country side is what allows them to maintain their numbers or grow.

No shit. Everyone tilling your fields would die off.. if this was history.

Welcome to Fantasy, where medical magic exists. Where you can drop infant mortality to zero and keep most diseases from running rampant. In any case, if people working the fields are OMG GONNA DIE OFF, then they're gonna do that free or slave.

Oy.

[Imperial Overlord]

And it isn't efficient. The large estates are somewhat efficient, but that isn't because of slavery. You get more labour out of a serf or a free man. That's why slavery dies off in the fields of Medieval Europe. It doesn't vanish entirely, but it becomes the exception instead of the rule.

[Pablo Sanchez]

And it isn't efficient.

Then why did it produce more grain for less cost than the system of free farmers which preceded it?

The large estates are somewhat efficient, but that isn't because of slavery.

"The large estates, whose very existence depended upon the use of slave labor, were more efficient than small landholdings. But not because of slaves!" Yes, that makes sense.

You get more labour out of a serf or a free man.

With correspondingly greater overhead.

That's why slavery dies off in the fields of Medieval Europe.

Or it may have had more to do with the complete collapse of the slave-holding system following the collapse of Roman authority.

[Imperial Overlord]

You spend magical resources on field slaves? It must be nice to be rich. People died all the fucking time back then. Go read the domesday book. You'll get your fill of death there (short summary: open fire dangerous, beware of ditches when walking home drunk, waudle and daub walls don't stop determined thieves).

All I was saying is that slavery isn't efficient. Large scale agricultural operations have other advantages and free people will be selling themselves or their relatives into slavery when they slip to a certain point near the starvation line. I wasn't saying that it won't work (I would be stupid to do so). I was merely saying that slavery didn't give him an economic advantage (other than concentrating wealth which is another ball of wax).

[SirNitram]

You spend magical resources on field slaves? It must be nice to be rich. People died all the fucking time back then. Go read the domesday book. You'll get your fill of death there (short summary: open fire dangerous, beware of ditches when walking home drunk, waudle and daub walls don't stop determined thieves).

My nation, and most others, have extensive magical investments in the health of it's people, subject, slave, or citizen. Because it's a worthwhile investment.

All I was saying is that slavery isn't efficient.

Yea, that's the thing. You just say it. You don't prove it, you don't back it up, you just repeat over and over that it isn't and your mind won't be changed.

Large scale agricultural operations have other advantages and free people will be selling themselves or their relatives into slavery when they slip to a certain point near the starvation line. I wasn't saying that it won't work (I would be stupid to do so). I was merely saying that slavery didn't give him an economic advantage (other than concentrating wealth which is another ball of wax).

You really are ignorant of the era, sir.

[Imperial Overlord]

The large estates existed at the same time their wasn't much in the way of free agrarian labour.

I conceed on the use of the word "efficient." My bad. Slaves are cheaper than free men. One of the advantages of serfdom is that the serfs work to maintain themselves.

Yes, free men require more upkeep. That doesn't mean they are less productive. Lower costs is not the same thing as greater productivity.


I did mention that the collapse of slave holding system contributed to serfdom. Thanks for reading all of my post.

[Imperial Overlord]

Oh, thanks for the insult Sir Nitram.

[Stormbringer]

They do replace themselve, but not at the rate they die off in Classical times. Other fun population facts: cities are population sinks before the mid 19th C.

Some what, Roman cities while far from perfect were pretty darn good for the era. A proper, well managed system of sewer and public water will do a damn good job of keeping the city healthy. And when you're eating decent diet and not slurping from lead lined pipes that's even better.

[SirNitram]

The large estates existed at the same time their wasn't much in the way of free agrarian labour.

Again, are you high? Large estates were huge during the Roman Empire, when slavery was perfectly normal and codified in various ways in law.

I conceed on the use of the word "efficient." My bad. Slaves are cheaper than free men. One of the advantages of serfdom is that the serfs work to maintain themselves.

Ah, you are high. You do realize that a slave will benefit from bringing in food, yes?

Yes, free men require more upkeep. That doesn't mean they are less productive. Lower costs is not the same thing as greater productivity.

Now all you have to do is actually show there's a dropoff in productivity with slavery, and you'd have a fucking point.

I did mention that the collapse of slave holding system contributed to serfdom. Thanks for reading all of my post.

Thanks for being an idiot. We didn't have enough of them. [/sarcasm]

[Thirdfain]

Imperial, Nitram is right. The slavery systems of the time were damn effective, and slavery has a place in this STGOD. I use a peasantry system which isn't *technically* slavery, but it's damn close.

So, please, stop compaining. This is a dark, unenlightened time even in the most urbane of nations, and that's just life.

Consider this issue modsticked.

[Sea Skimmer]

Some what, Roman cities while far from perfect were pretty darn good for the era. A proper, well managed system of sewer and public water will do a damn good job of keeping the city healthy. And when you're eating decent diet and not slurping from lead lined pipes that's even better.

The fact that the Romans limited growth within there cities also was very important, as it kept those sewer and water systems from being overwhelmed, along with garbage disposal. It also provided an incentive not to let valuable real estate within the walls decay into slums.

[SirNitram]

I should make something clear; with the exception of the more backwards and barbaric nations, slavery is likely to be alot like that of Rome. That is, there are legal protections for the slaves themselves. Yes, it was actually against the law to beat your slaves too hard. The Principality has taken this a step further and mandated specific living conditions for slaves, including regular meals, hours per day and days per season.

What many people think of with slavery(That of the American plantations of old) was a far worse system than the old, 'barbaric', pagan Romans. Go fig.

[Imperial Overlord]

I wasn't trying to argue against slavery. I conceeded on the efficientcy, because I meant productive.

I'm not trying to say it didn't work or that your empires aren't economically viable. I was just saying it wouldn't work for MY STATE for socio-political reasons.

I won't argue the issue any more.

[SirNitram]

I wasn't trying to argue against slavery. I conceeded on the efficientcy, because I meant productive.

Unless you're going to actually present an iota of evidence for that, concede the goddamn point.

[Imperial Overlord]

I am much more familiar with medieval agriculture and classical slavery than modern slavery. I seriously thought over the slavery issue before deciding against it for my nation, especially the POW/recently conquered issue.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The large estates existed at the same time their wasn't much in the way of free agrarian labour.

Huh? There were absolute shitloads of people who didn't have any property or occupation at all during the late Republican/early Imperial era of Roman history. These people were living on government bread in Rome itself, and would have been damn happy to return to the land as tenant farmers. Except that nobody was going to waste land on them, because they had slaves. Because it was the slaves that had displaced the unemployed into the city in the first place!

I conceed on the use of the word "efficient." My bad. Slaves are cheaper than free men. One of the advantages of serfdom is that the serfs work to maintain themselves.

Yes, free men require more upkeep. That doesn't mean they are less productive. Lower costs is not the same thing as greater productivity.

In other words... "You're right, except that I was never actually arguing with you on that point because [insert semantic bullshit]." I hate it when people are wrong and don't have the dignity to admit it.

With iron age technology, large slave estates produce more grain at a lower cost than free farmers working the same land. This is historical fact, because that is precisely what happened in the waning days of the Roman Republic. You have yet to address this problem with your assertion.

I did mention that the collapse of slave holding system contributed to serfdom. Thanks for reading all of my post.

I did read your post, genius. The problem is that you flatly contradicted yourself in the post I was replying to. Let's have some more fun with verbatim quotation.

You said in post A that "When the state collapsed, most of the large landholders had already retreated to their estates. The manpower shortage brought in serfdom."

You said in Post B that "You get more labour out of a serf or a free man. That's why slavery dies off in the fields of Medieval Europe."

Which is it, the higher productivity of serfs, or the collapse of the state? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch and accuse me of misinterpretting your statements, then you should at least have the fucking courtesy to find a position on the issue and stick to it.

[Imperial Overlord]

Well my evidence is my memories from UBC history classes, so I don't have anything on hand. I don't want to continue arguing on a thread that a mod has already heard enough on and I am getting up early tomorrow morning. How about I post something somewhere else in the near future?

[Imperial Overlord]

Yes, I am tired and I stated it poorly. You can beat me up in the near future. Agreed?