Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radsoc]

You had slavery in ancient Rome and Greece. In Medieval times slavery had almost entirely been replaced by feudalism and people were mostly serfs (with some remnants remaining past the french revolution and the introduction of capitalism. In some cases way into the 20th century, like in Sweden where it was finally abolished in 1943). There are exceptions of course, e.g. Crimea, Iberia and the Ottoman Empire

[EnigmaticHat]

as soon as you can recruit a gal or invite her tp court and marry her off and convert.


really, buying an actual peasant servant would be easier though.

the question is:. 'human bondage when?'

We have forced concubines.  Although the line there is kind of blurry, you could argue that the feudal version of arranged marriage was already slavery-esque what with the inability to leave and legalized beatings and such.

[scriver]

Okay, since I am a Swede, that hit a nerve. I am going on a rantpage.

1, Serfs are slaves. Arguing that they are not is like arguing that thralls were not slaves because it used a different word and legal system than the Romans and Greeks or Colonial Europe.

2. Sweden were never feudal. There were no serfs in Sweden. There is one single estate that is an exception to this, granted by the king directly to some noble that I can't remember which, but the names aren't important. That was the o my instance of feudality and serfdom in Sweden. Furthermore. Norse proto-swedes owned thralls. These were slaves, no doubt about it. Thralldom was abolished in Sweden in 1335. Since then up until early modern times all slavery was illegal in Sweden - Sweden thus became one of the few countries in Europe where the majority of the people were free men, and according to the feudal system would be considered nobility (akin to the Universal Nobility granted to the Basque - who were also free men - when Navarra was incorporated into the feudal Castille). The effects of this can be seen for example  when Riga, after the crusades had seen the Baltics into the hands of German crusader orders, were selling off conquered Latvian land and Sweden "encouraged" Swedish farmers to settle there (very likely planning to do a Russia later and invade to "defend" Swedish people later, if the Marques of Protection issued are anything to go by) to such an extent that Swedes were legally forbidden from purchasing land there. Since nobility was more or less tax-exempt, Swedish settlers could not be taxed or controlled the way serfs could, and that was not suitable to the Germans' goals.

The system of slavery you refer to is no doubt the "Statar" system, which had it's foundation in 18th century land reforms that over the centuries led to more and more farmland being accumulated into the hands of very few (yay capitalism!), meaning there was more and more farmers who diidnt own land, and was also enabled by the general spread of liberalism, which meant the old customs and rights of the people became weaker and weaker until it was fine to treat people like slaves again. Like slaves, however. The "Statare" system was wage-slavery, just like in the factories and mines of the time. Perhaps it is the most extreme end stations on the wage slavery slippery slope, since it entails people literally binding themselves to a farm for a year by contract, and it was with no doubt a most cruel, exploitative, and thoroughly deplorable system. But the "statare" were not slaves. They were free men and women entering an extremely one-sided contract. They were not serfs, like you say, serfs were the property of the estate they lived. "Statardom" was not slavery, it was just the natural result of liberal gilded age policies and abusive Manchesterisms applied to the agriculture business. Differs only from the abuse the lower classes suffered during the industrial age all over the world only by the extent of the ruthlessness of the capitalists in question. Wage slavery is work under the most slavish of circumstances, but it is not slavery. It was abolished in the 50's as one of the last bastions of liberalism to be removed by the worker's rights movement.

I also find it weird that you list Iberia and the Ottoman Empire as exceptions. Crimes I know little about, so I couldn't say, but in Iberia slaves was held by both Christians and Muslims (and that is apart from serfdom) and slavery very much being the foundation upon which the Ottoman Empire lay.

[Persus13]

Slavery was very much a thing in medieval times, but I've mainly seen it brought up in the context of piracy in the Mediterranean.

While serfs are very similar to slaves, the key difference is that slaves were considered property and could be bought and sold, while serfs were tied to the land they worked, and at least nominally protected legally.

For CKII, what would be the point of representing slavery in the game? The only addition that would work could be an option to sell captives into slavery. There's other medieval games where simulating slavery and serfdom would work (Mount and Blade's Viking Conquest DLC has runaway slave missions), but those aren't the people CKII cares about.

[Teneb]

Yeah, serfdom is a type of slavery, but it included some protections to the serf and they couldn't be moved, yeah.

Slavery still absolutely existed. It only started to be frowned upon anywhere at all in the 19th century.

[scriver]

Different systems of slavery have given slaves different rights. Serfs had more rights than for example thralls, which had basically none, as far as we can tell. This is does not mean slavery is not slavery.

For CKII, what would be the point of representing slavery in the game? The only addition that would work could be an option to sell captives into slavery. There's other medieval games where simulating slavery and serfdom would work (Mount and Blade's Viking Conquest DLC has runaway slave missions), but those aren't the people CKII cares about.

I dont think anyone was saying slavery should be added to ck2, just joking around about it. I had to rant about it above because I didn't want misinformation spread about Swedish history.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Honestly, IDK why slavery in CKII would be such a big deal? I mean. Shit happened, yo.

[pisskop]

Its just not worth much more than capital.

We dont really focus on specific business ventures.  Its all vagueries.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Well, it would present a nice pre-1000 start date socio-political timer, as historically, Europe began moving away from christian-on-christian slavery by the year 1000 and if you were a pagan or muslim that shit went on until the end of CKIIs time frame.

[Cruxador]

I mean, technically. This is medieval times. 90% of Europe is slaves and I have absolutely no clue what the numbers are for the countries that allowed literal direct slavery but I'm sure it's not low.

Even if you're calling serfs slaves (which is definitionally wrong; slaves are owned by people whereas serfs are owned by land) that number seems suspicious. Especially if we're counting everyone from the first start to the last end. There would be a lot of slaves in the middle east, but Europe and India didn't really work that way, the serfdom of Europe is often overstated (like a lot of grim things about the time period) and the Indian system is even harder to parallel to slavery.

according to the feudal system would be considered nobility (akin to the Universal Nobility granted to the Basque - who were also free men - when Navarra was incorporated into the feudal Castille). The effects of this can be seen for example  when Riga, after the crusades had seen the Baltics into the hands of German crusader orders, were selling off conquered Latvian land and Sweden "encouraged" Swedish farmers to settle there (very likely planning to do a Russia later and invade to "defend" Swedish people later, if the Marques of Protection issued are anything to go by) to such an extent that Swedes were legally forbidden from purchasing land there. Since nobility was more or less tax-exempt, Swedish settlers could not be taxed or controlled the way serfs could, and that was not suitable to the Germans' goals.

The Spanish hidalgo system does not actually parallel the Swedish system. German tax code aside, it's more accurate to call the Swedish peasantry "yeomen" than hidalgos. Aside from a Swede, nobody could realistically maintain that Swedes are all noble.

Like slaves, however. The "Statare" system was wage-slavery, just like in the factories and mines of the time.

If serfs count as slaves to you, then I don't see why this is different.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the most extreme end stations on the wage slavery slippery slope, since it entails people literally binding themselves to a farm for a year by contract, and it was with no doubt a most cruel, exploitative, and thoroughly deplorable system. But the "statare" were not slaves. They were free men and women entering an extremely one-sided contract. They were not serfs, like you say, serfs were the property of the estate they lived.[/quote]Did you read your own writing? You literally just said that they were bound to the land (like serfs) and then that they were not serfs because serfs are bound to the land.

I know it's popular among Swedes to romanticize Sweden much more so than other nationalities do of their countries, but it's important to at least keep your arguments in doing so both logically and factually correct. This is more ridiculous than people who deny that Sweden ever perpetrated genocide. At least there, you can come up with semantic loopholes to wiggle through.

[SaberToothTiger]

The Sami people sterilized themselves, Sweden help Untermensch families (by preventing children and thus additional mouths to feed). <--- True story.

[Descan]

Any time you're not allowed to change your employment status, I think that counts as a slave. Edge-cases are when you're *technically* allowed to change that status, just that doing so is so beyond feasible that it might as well be impossible, like wage-slavery.

and yes this is not a perfect definition so you can take your nitpicking and stuff it up the pope

[umiman]

I remember when slavery was simple and just meant owning humans as property.

Now you weird people made it all complicated with your ethics and morals.

[Radsoc]

While definitions may vary, serfs are no slaves. In Sweden you had not only one type of serf but a handful, and while not as strict as in e.g. Russia it was still serfdom in pratice, even if sometimes on a 50 year contract basis. Superficial legalism and morals are always there to try to justify various kinds of exploitation, that's the purpose of it.

To me modes of production like slavery, feudalism and capitalism are defined by how the production is organized in practice.

In slavery all fruits of labor are appropriated by the owner.

In feudalism you are required to perform day work for the owner, on his land, while tending to your own plots the rest of the week. So e.g. 5 of the days you work for yourself on "your" plots, and 1 for the owner. This was undoubtly the case in Sweden. And even if serfs were theoretically allowed to move conditionally it would in pratice just be to another estate, where the same system applied.

In capitalism the distinction between work for yourself and the owner is no longer separated by time and space. Here, if separated, you need to work perhaps 5 hours to earn the value of your own wage and the rest 3 hours you produce surplus that the owner appropriates.

[scriver]

I mean, technically. This is medieval times. 90% of Europe is slaves and I have absolutely no clue what the numbers are for the countries that allowed literal direct slavery but I'm sure it's not low.

Even if you're calling serfs slaves (which is definitionally wrong; slaves are owned by people whereas serfs are owned by land) that number seems suspicious. Especially if we're counting everyone from the first start to the last end. There would be a lot of slaves in the middle east, but Europe and India didn't really work that way, the serfdom of Europe is often overstated (like a lot of grim things about the time period) and the Indian system is even harder to parallel to slavery.

That number was a playful exaggeration and not meant to be taken seriously. As for serfs being owned by land, I agree and that's usually the way I put it when I want to explain the difference between serfdom and other types of slavery, but here's the thing - that land was owned by people. Which means that the serfs were owned by people in turn.

according to the feudal system would be considered nobility (akin to the Universal Nobility granted to the Basque - who were also free men - when Navarra was incorporated into the feudal Castille). The effects of this can be seen for example  when Riga, after the crusades had seen the Baltics into the hands of German crusader orders, were selling off conquered Latvian land and Sweden "encouraged" Swedish farmers to settle there (very likely planning to do a Russia later and invade to "defend" Swedish people later, if the Marques of Protection issued are anything to go by) to such an extent that Swedes were legally forbidden from purchasing land there. Since nobility was more or less tax-exempt, Swedish settlers could not be taxed or controlled the way serfs could, and that was not suitable to the Germans' goals.

The Spanish hidalgo system does not actually parallel the Swedish system. German tax code aside, it's more accurate to call the Swedish peasantry "yeomen" than hidalgos. Aside from a Swede, nobody could realistically maintain that Swedes are all noble.

According to the Swedish nobility system, not all Swedes are nobility. Being a free man was not the basis for nobility in the Swedish system, but in the feudal world, it was. That's why all Swedes would have counted as the lowest rank of nobility down in Europe.

You could compare it to yeomen instead of hidalgos, but if I recall correctly, yeomen was granted freedom in exchange for military service, and were an "exception class" - Swedes, however, was free en masse and by natural right, just like how thr Basque came to be under Universal Nobility. The comparison was also not to Spanish hidalgos in general, but strictly to how all Basque people were granted peerhood in the Castilian system of nobility when Basque Country was conquered by Castille. Basque country was not non-feudal like Sweden, but it was substantially less feudal than the surrounding countries and had a free peasant class.

A better English equivalent would be the Franklins, who were free men who over the centuries after the Norman conquest and the obsoletion of the Danelaw also came to be considered non-nobility. During the middle ages, however, they were considered noble.

I guess I must ascede the point there is no way for me to say that they would be taken as nobility in feudal Europe in practice. They probably wouldn't (in fact Swedish nobility was generally looked down upon as ignoble throughout history to begin with). The historical example from German-occupied Baltics shows that at least at that time, they were.

Like slaves, however. The "Statare" system was wage-slavery, just like in the factories and mines of the time.

If serfs count as slaves to you, then I don't see why this is different.

One is owned and not free, the other one is free under contract. You could argue that there is no de facto difference for an individual, but when discussing societies and structure the difference is definitely not just semantical.

Perhaps it is the most extreme end stations on the wage slavery slippery slope, since it entails people literally binding themselves to a farm for a year by contract, and it was with no doubt a most cruel, exploitative, and thoroughly deplorable system. But the "statare" were not slaves. They were free men and women entering an extremely one-sided contract. They were not serfs, like you say, serfs were the property of the estate they lived.

Did you read your own writing? You literally just said that they were bound to the land (like serfs) and then that they were not serfs because serfs are bound to the land.

One is bound to the land simply by existing, owned by the land. The other is a free person bound by a contract that they have entered willingly. Their employer does not own them, he employs them.

I know it's popular among Swedes to romanticize Sweden much more so than other nationalities do of their countries

Give me a break, Leader of the Free World and Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and American Dream and Founding Fathers and fucking faces hewn into the goddamn mountainside.

This is more ridiculous than people who deny that Sweden ever perpetrated genocide. At least there, you can come up with semantic loopholes to wiggle through.

The Sami people sterilized themselves, Sweden help Untermensch families (by preventing children and thus additional mouths to feed). <--- True story.

Please take this attitude and fuck off. I am in no way denying that statare-hood was a fucked up practice. I am equivalencing it to all the other horrible practices of the liberal 19th century. Those were all abuse of free people as well. And you bring up Swedish racism and supremacist nationalism as if that had anything to do with what I'm saying, or as if I was a denialist of it. Seriously, fuck you, and especially fuck you Cruxador for diminishing the atrocities done against the Sami like that.

Any time you're not allowed to change your employment status, I think that counts as a slave. Edge-cases are when you're *technically* allowed to change that status, just that doing so is so beyond feasible that it might as well be impossible, like wage-slavery.

and yes this is not a perfect definition so you can take your nitpicking and stuff it up the pope

I am not a stranger to calling statar-hood slavery, I have argued that very point on this forum, because it is quicker to call it slavery than explain the differences between it and actual slavery, and I am an opponent to wage-slavery in all forms. But to count as a slave, as I see it, you have to have your basic freedom of existence revoked. A prisoner is not a slave simply because he cannot leave, for example, even if he does penal labour. A hired worker is not a slave, even if the conditions he works in are exploitive and abusive, just like a slave does not cease to be a slave if his conditions are comfortable and desirable. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Like I said above, for two individual people it might not make much of a difference, but when we are discussion society level systems and structures, the difference should be made.

While definitions may vary, serfs are no slaves. In Sweden you had not only one type of serf but a handful, and while not as strict as in e.g. Russia it was still serfdom in pratice, even if sometimes on a 50 year contract basis. Superficial legalism and morals are always there to try to justify various kinds of exploitation, that's the purpose of it.

Even if I, for the sake or argument, were to concede that statar-hood equals serfdom, statarhood did not exist in Sweden until the 19th century. It was the product of land reforms in the 18th century combined over time with liberal reforms and policies intended to create an abusable working class for capitalists. There were no statare in medieval Sweden. It cannot be used as an example of serfdom in medieval Sweden.

In feudalism you are required to perform day work for the owner, on his land, while tending to your own plots the rest of the week. So e.g. 5 of the days you work for yourself on "your" plots, and 1 for the owner. This was undoubtly the case in Sweden. And even if serfs were theoretically allowed to move conditionally it would in pratice just be to another estate, where the same system applied.

Sweden was never feudal, so no. I repeat. Sweden, like Norway and Iceland, never shared the feudal social structure and laws the rest of Europe had. After thralldom was abolished in the 14th century, Sweden's farming class populace came to consist mainly of free farmers farming their own land for themsleves. This continued until said land reforms in the 18th century made it easier for great-farmers to buy and consolidate larger and larger amounts of land, meaning the now unlanded farmers now had to farm for them instead of themselves on the land they had previously owned.