The Royal Legacy (New Poll on post #1466) (Hiatus)

Slavery is inefficient economically and socially a rebellion focus. So no slavery in my kingdom however , I could let a slavery trade web going through my kingdom safely for a price. Security and supplies, and cheap women… $$

@poison_mara Oh, I wouldn’t say it was completely inefficient economically, afterall free labor would have its benefits. Especially if these slaves are well cared for. The image I’m specifically picturing circulate around, not mass groups of slaves working in individual places, but more of having a few household slaves (at most).

Economy might rise, but rebellions are inevitable as well as those attempting to escape, leading to affects on the economy and likely needing to divert soldiers (Garrison) to manage them.

Illegal, but willing to allow their passage through your lands huh… interesting. Would this be done secretly and during the night, or do you not care if your people know and see?

Actually it could hurt very badly. Officers are distinguishable from the common soldier. Albeit only slightly. The king though? You are practically telling every hostile soldier,“I’m the king! Kill me!” Killing you could end the war and the one that killed you would likely receive enough money for them to live in the lap of luxury. They don’t need to have a sniper, all they need is for a single infantryman to stick a blade in you and you’re done.

If you’re holding a breach then you’re even more likely to fall. The king is only one man with perhaps a moderate degree of skill in combat with above average weapons. That means nothing if you’re fighting an entire army. Which you would be, the second anyone saw your ornate armour you’d be everyone’s target. And lets be honest the majority of rulers, if not all rulers, have always had the best equipment and the fanciest armour during this time which makes you stand out. Having a large contingent of body guards fight with you is a good idea however you’re still in the line of fire. If you die your army routes or worse yet, fights on blindly without someone to command them. Essentially they’d just be lambs sent to the slaughter at that point. If they routed they may have at least been able to regroup at a later date.


@Maj12,that’s the thing though. The king/queen isn’t some ungodly master of destruction. They’re human with limitations. If for instance the king stayed behind to fight the enemy army and dies valiantly what do you think happens afterwards? Your people are refugees, no homes, no food, no nothing. They simply have to make due with what they have. Which land do you think would take these people in? Your neighbours? Why would they? They have their own problems and their own people to feed. They’d be forced back into their own lands where they either try their hand at hiding in another nations land, turning to banditry or living under their conquerors rule. With no one to guide them they’d simply scatter to the wind, making the kings noble sacrifice meaningless.

However if the king survived and sacrificed his guards instead he could have sought refuge elsewhere. Thereby giving him and his host a valid reason to attack those who stole his land. The host would receive part of the land from the conquest and the kings people would have a home again. A dead man,despite how selfless and heroic his death may have been, is still a dead man.

Historically, @poison_mara is correct. Those economies based on slavery had limitations that those which were not did not.

The example I’d point to here is the Southern USA - where the cotton economy only really became viable long-run due to an invention of the cotton gin. The slave economy until that point was actually dying out on its own and it was only the mechanical efficiency of the cotton gin which allowed the slave component to “revive”.

Even given such advancements, greater advances in the non-slave economies were providing much better efficiency and the Northern economy and the western European economies of England, France and the Germanies were advancing forward; the economies based on slavery (or serfdom) were finding themselves being outstripped and out-competed.

2 Likes

No, legally with a special passport for their ware and a license for each trader. Anything outside the license would be outlaw and severely punished. Slavers would pay for security, after all their trade is tremendously profitable.
Edit No one slavery society were profitable economically in history, in fact the slavery was one of things which avoid Roman empire advance economy and in working machinery. They had steam engines !!! But slaves were so cheap that they never implement the new technologies.

1 Like

@Zolataya How interesting, I’ll be sure to note that through development. Was this the same way for other such slave economies throughout the world, Rome and such? I find it interesting that it was this limitation that lead to most of their decline. Looks like I have some more research to do.

@poison_mara Ah so that’s what it was meant by their advancement cap, I see. That’s pretty ingenious there. They’ll be able to only use these licenses to transport, yes I think I can get that image through.

1 Like

The contrast and “viability” issue is seen more in more modern (post-industrialization) economies vs those like the South’s and Imperial Russia’s.

Rome’s economy was different in that 1st: it was based on war expansion and exploitation but even in the Roman world, the economy had more efficiency and growth when there was more freedom granted. A prime example of this was when all “Italian” tribes became “Roman” - an economic boom occurred because the economy then became more inclusive…
2nd: economic theory and such was not as advanced as it was after the Enlightenment - they didn’t have free market theory, and such to provide alternatives.

1 Like

But if your saying he’s had a selfless and heroic death…than how is he not a hero ? I can understand what your saying about how due to his obligations as a ruler ,and the responsibilities that come with it ,your often not’s seen as a hero. However in the case of the king who sacrifices himself for his people ,his family ,his heir ,I can’t see how its any less heroic than any of the other options. Even if its not particularly the wisest.

Because in the end he still let his people be destroyed. I’ve stated before that I don’t see rulers as heroes regardless of what they do. Their actions inevitably lead to the deaths of thousands of people. Emphasis on I don’t see them as heroes.

It’s easy to die a “hero”. It’s much harder to swallow your pride and fight another day.

What about the kings who win Raz?

I will not allow any slavery in my lands. They are nothing but a liability. And i have other…plans.:innocent: Furthermore i will free all slaves in the lands i will conquer.:innocent:

Omega the liberator huh. What will you do about the slaves that are too old and/or would rather remain in slavery? I’m doubtful the nobles that own their slaves from the lands you take will be pleased about you taking what’s theirs.

They will be treated like normal ‘‘citizens’’. All healthy ones will be offered the chance to join the army. How many rulers use slaves? Those nobles are conquered! They should be grateful if they will not be dead.

I feel like id have slavery,but more of a rashidun caliphate slavery ,were its not encouraged ,and you treat your slaves as family ,but it still exists.

Two other nations currently. Curious, if you were conquered would you simply roll over and let your rulers do as they please? Let them take your family land and throw you out of your home and do as they please?

Thus an image in the mind of the conquered. Then there’s the patriots…

Though assimilation and breaking of slavery isn’t so simple, I’ll make it easier so that slavery doesn’t become the focus theme of the story. What if the “healthy” slaves don’t want to join the army and would rather commit to labor as slaves, even begging to return to their old lives?

Who wins what? The war? Cheers for them then I suppose. The country still would have many mothers and fathers, sons and daughters to mourn. Homes to rebuild,farms to replant. In a defensive war it ends in another days survival. In an offensive war it means you’ve now taken from one petty noble and forced its populace to accept that.

Being the one in charge isn’t about being the good guy. You mentioned something about perspective earlier… Who’s the evil one in this scenario? A kingdom is running out of food and has no money to buy more. You’ve refused to send them some because your own people will starve if you do. So they declare war against you. Now say you’re holding that breach, killing all who attacked your land. You can see their faces are gaunt and malnourished.

So who’s the hero and who’s the villain? The one who’s starving and wishes to take your food by force or the one who’s not wishing to let their own people starve? To me it seems more like they’re both monsters. A hero to me could be a villain to you.

1 Like

I suppose it is all about the perspective ,unless its like the Mongols situation ,where they just ride through lands slaughtering everyone and stuff ,I feel like
In that case its a bit more black and white.

Umm…how can someone want to be a slave!?! Is hard to fathom. I am betting so much on their desire to be free…:grimacing: How much those two nations base on slavery? Slave uprisings are a funny thing. Especially when they coincide with invasions.:relaxed:

Well, imagine that your parents were slaves and your parents before that and you yourself are a slave. You aren’t paid, but your every need is provided for. All you must do is serve your master. Now suppose your master is good to you.

Now all of a sudden a ruler comes in and bans slavery, which means you can no longer serve that master, you can no longer be of use. You either must choose to go fight for that lord and most likely will die out there or simply be put into a new work force you simply don’t understand. The easier choice would simply remain a slave. Especially if you were a respected slave. Perhaps you received some education or had a particular skill. You would now be among the simple common folk and generally looked down upon compared to any other citizen.

Now if you were already freed and never knew the life of a slave, perhaps you would want to remain free, but if you became a slave and had nothing to worry about in life… the option can seem more desirable compared to being forced into war or sent into the world to fend for yourself.

2 Likes

Fine! If this will be the situation then i don’t care! Is not like i would free them from compassion.:unamused: