Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2018, 05:47 PM   #31
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf View Post
From my research was that Slaves in Antiquity were not commodities but the form of production. Slaves were treated fairly well because that's what helped to fund wars. Many Roman and Greek armies had freed slaves (ie a tribute from the land owners to gain more slaves from the conquest).
You say this as if something could not be both. The computer on my desk is a form of product; it's a capital asset that I use to edit manuscripts and write game books, and it brings in most of my income and helps generate nearly all my productive output. But it's also a commodity, since I bought in from Apple for a sum of money.

It also appears that slaves in the ante-bellum South were a form of production. Indeed the agitation among British textile workers against slavery can be taken as a clash of participants in two incompatible forms of production.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 03:55 AM   #32
smurf
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
You say this as if something could not be both. The computer on my desk is a form of product; it's a capital asset that I use to edit manuscripts and write game books, and it brings in most of my income and helps generate nearly all my productive output. But it's also a commodity, since I bought in from Apple for a sum of money.

It also appears that slaves in the ante-bellum South were a form of production. Indeed the agitation among British textile workers against slavery can be taken as a clash of participants in two incompatible forms of production.
Slavery in Antiquity was a form of production. They were the 'machines' of their day. To mistreat the slaves (harms them so they cannot perform their duties) would be akin to the Boss taking a sledge hammer to their production lines.

17th Centruy slavery onwards was about primitive capital accumulation. As soon as a Slave became too old, infirm, ill etc they could be cast out and a new Slave bought to replace them. Slaves were on 'tap'. After independence the USA expanded its terriritory thus requiring in more Slaves which the British tried hamper the trade in Slaves.

This was nothing like Antiquity, Slaves were long term investments. They could be come free, and it made no sense to mistreat them. When more slaves were required (ie by the 1,000s) then Slaves would be used in the army as freed slaves, and after the conflict they could be given land to farm and have their own slaves.

Moreover, there was no racist ideology in Antiquity. Whereas the slaves of modernity were the basis to justify slavery through pseudo racist ideology. Many Christians were slave owners (iirc the Quakers turned their back on it) and many of the slaves created their own Churches and prayed to the same god as their masters.

Slavery in Antiquity could be killed in warfare and the consequence of the vanquished. Slavery of modernity was a blood trade in human cargo where death was rife the the traders compensated through insurance.

I would argue the Slave of Antiquity had some form of dignity and a higher status to the Slave of Modernity. It would be the lowest status: treated as beasts of burden, property, lower intellegience, and racism towards skin colour. That's how I see it but a gm can dispence with nuance and just simplyfy to whatever they feel is necessary.
smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 06:36 AM   #33
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf View Post
This was nothing like Antiquity, Slaves were long term investments. They could be come free, and it made no sense to mistreat them. When more slaves were required (ie by the 1,000s) then Slaves would be used in the army as freed slaves, and after the conflict they could be given land to farm and have their own slaves.

I would argue the Slave of Antiquity had some form of dignity and a higher status to the Slave of Modernity. It would be the lowest status: treated as beasts of burden, property, lower intellegience, and racism towards skin colour. That's how I see it but a gm can dispence with nuance and just simplyfy to whatever they feel is necessary.
Even in antiquity there were variations - whilst a house slave, particularly a body servant or skilled assistant could be treated well (and it appears some lower class Roman wives started their careers as slaves and were then freed and married) - the slaves who worked the mines or plantations were treated at least as badly as those who later did the same in the Americas*. The mines in particular were known to be effectively a death sentence and was where slaves who annoyed their owners were sent...

*But then there were also well treated house slaves in the Americas. Hence the traditional slur.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 07:09 AM   #34
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf View Post
Slavery in Antiquity was a form of production. They were the 'machines' of their day. To mistreat the slaves (harms them so they cannot perform their duties) would be akin to the Boss taking a sledge hammer to their production lines.

17th Centruy slavery onwards was about primitive capital accumulation. As soon as a Slave became too old, infirm, ill etc they could be cast out and a new Slave bought to replace them. Slaves were on 'tap'.
On one hand, that was also true in antiquity to a significant degree. If I recall correctly, Cato the Elder wrote a manual of agricultural practice where he recommended exactly such harsh practices toward slaves; Wikipedia says that he "was noted for his chilling advice on keeping slaves continually at work, on reducing rations for slaves when sick, and on selling slaves that are old or sickly." And surely one would think that "primitive capital accumulation" was exactly what Rome was doing.

But on the other, slaves in the ante-bellum South were also effectively machinery, and were priced as such. See Fogel and Engerman's Time on the Cross for the industrialization of southern agriculture on the plantations.

Of course, the South was distinctive in that its slaves were ethnically different (though there were also free persons of color, notably in Louisiana, and I believe that early on there were enslaved whites). But that was partially true in Rome, where slaves came from conquered peoples such as the Germans. And certainly in the Middle Ages ethnic distinctiveness was typical. Consider the etymology of the word "slave" from "Slav." Free Romans or Western Europeans could certainly recognize a German or a Bulgarian, even if they were both "white" in 19th or 20th century terms, and didn't hesitate to embrace ethnic stereotypes about them—any more, for that matter, than 19th century Americans hesitated to stereotype the Irish. The ethnic differences were really obvious in the South, but on the other hand there were light-skinned blacks who "passed" for whites, and there was a cultural hierarchy among blacks from dark-skinned to light-skinned.

So I'm not seeing the dichotomy you describe. I do see a difference in that people in the ancient world could be enslaved in war or for debt, and were thus always aware that they might suffer as their slaves did; but on the other hand I don't think that necessarily prevented their treating slaves harshly.

I think your model has a little too much "either/or" and not enough "both/and."
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.

Last edited by whswhs; 10-22-2018 at 07:13 AM.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 09:33 AM   #35
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf View Post
Just a pointer. The original question was based on the differences between Antiquity and the building of modernity.

From my research was that Slaves in Antiquity were not commodities but the form of production. Slaves were treated fairly well because that's what helped to fund wars. Many Roman and Greek armies had freed slaves (ie a tribute from the land owners to gain more slaves from the conquest).
I would suspect that the distinction gets skewed because there were a lot more roles for slaves in antique and Islamic societies. It is hard to believe that mining gangs or plantation crews had much to choose simply because some slaves were bureaucrats or soldiers there and only freemen did such things in the American South.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 10:10 AM   #36
Black Leviathan
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Default Re: Slaves

Slaves would have a hefty Duty based on their responsibilities. A field slave would be in service virtually every hour of every day. A slave to the royal family would have intermittent responsibilities through the day.

Most slaves would be dead-broke. Many cultures had laws that slaves could not be found in possession of a coin. However the Romans had very wealthy slaves in service to generals and Senators. As a general rule no owner will allow their slave to represent them poorly in appearance or ability. If a slave is expected to travel it will have money, if it is expected to interact with wealthy persons it will have the means to present itself well.

Social Stigma is entirely based on how society feels about that form of slavery. A fantasy realm under siege by Orks might throw rocks at ork slaves or murder them when they catch them away from others. A Fantasy world where everyone typically employs slavery to attend to basic household needs might not have any kind of social stigma, it's hard to hate a slave when there's one just like them tucking your children in at night. Is slavery a punishment in your world? Is it an economic judgement? Is it the fate of those who fight against your King? The why's determine how slaves would be treated.

Slaves can be any status you want. Rome's slaves were often more powerful than her Citizens. Harem Slaves would hold a great deal of status in a society. Slaves could be Status -4, but status isn't just a number. There would have to be 3 distinct social classes between slaves and ordinary free folk. I'd recommend that the base Status of a slave be -1. You could differentiate between Servants and the unemployed and slaves but from the point of view of society you'd have to have some remarkable social features to matter less than the dirty rabble. Especially in a society where slavery is common, peasants aren't going to be telling slaves they have to go back to the end of the line with all of the other filthy slavies.
Black Leviathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 10:40 AM   #37
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Leviathan View Post
Slaves can be any status you want. Rome's slaves were often more powerful than her Citizens. Harem Slaves would hold a great deal of status in a society. Slaves could be Status -4, but status isn't just a number. There would have to be 3 distinct social classes between slaves and ordinary free folk. I'd recommend that the base Status of a slave be -1. You could differentiate between Servants and the unemployed and slaves but from the point of view of society you'd have to have some remarkable social features to matter less than the dirty rabble. Especially in a society where slavery is common, peasants aren't going to be telling slaves they have to go back to the end of the line with all of the other filthy slavies.
Indeed I would expect the slave of a Roman aristocrat to be served before poor freemen - they might not get the deference their master would, but they are unlikely to be kept waiting on his behalf either. I don't know if that fed the sort of resentment of slave economics that such men such as Julius Caesar and Augustus capitalised on, or whether it was primarily things like the latifundii that did that, but I can't imagine it helped.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 11:56 AM   #38
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Leviathan View Post
Social Stigma is entirely based on how society feels about that form of slavery. A fantasy realm under siege by Orks might throw rocks at ork slaves or murder them when they catch them away from others. A Fantasy world where everyone typically employs slavery to attend to basic household needs might not have any kind of social stigma, it's hard to hate a slave when there's one just like them tucking your children in at night.
Even in that case, though, slaves will have Social Stigma (Valuable Property). That doesn't carry a reaction penalty, but it limits your freedom of action in comparison with that of a free person.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 02:14 PM   #39
Black Leviathan
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Even in that case, though, slaves will have Social Stigma (Valuable Property). That doesn't carry a reaction penalty, but it limits your freedom of action in comparison with that of a free person.
In our society that's totally how slavery works but slavery can be very different in another world. The people who serve average citizens could be owned but have greater freedoms or social privileges than the average citizen. Think of the Unsullied in Game of Thrones. They're slaves but the slaves of the queen if they're coming down the street, you'r the one that gets out of the way and apologizes.
Black Leviathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 03:04 PM   #40
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Slaves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Leviathan View Post
In our society that's totally how slavery works but slavery can be very different in another world. The people who serve average citizens could be owned but have greater freedoms or social privileges than the average citizen. Think of the Unsullied in Game of Thrones. They're slaves but the slaves of the queen if they're coming down the street, you'r the one that gets out of the way and apologizes.
Sure, but Valuable Property doesn't conflict with that in any way. Read the way it's actually defined in the Basic Set. It's perfectly possible to have that Social Stigma and also have high Status, perhaps even Status 7 or 8. The important thing is that you have less freedom of action and fewer privileges than someone of Status 7 or 8 who is not owned.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
slavery

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.