Influx of Slaves

[austenandrews]

I'm mulling over a fantasy idea and thought I'd toss out a question. Say there's a medieval land equivalent to England around 1400. Someone starts importing slaves that are much more efficient workers than peasants. What happens? What kind of changes take place in society, the economy, warfare, etc.?

[Rapier]

I'm mulling over a fantasy idea and thought I'd toss out a question. Say there's a medieval land equivalent to England around 1400. Someone starts importing slaves that are much more efficient workers than peasants. What happens? What kind of changes take place in society, the economy, warfare, etc.?

A large number of peasants were little more than slaves. Tenant farming in feudal England was notoriously slave-like.

It could even have a positive effect. If slaves are actually moved into many of the serf-held positions, it is possible those serfs would move on to a more middle-class position. It might kick off some kind of renaissance.

[austenandrews]

Wouldn't it be more likely that the peasants would be out of a job?

[Rapier]

Wouldn't it be more likely that the peasants would be out of a job?

Yes, but they still have to eat. They would be doing SOMETHING. The only question is what would they be doing? Some would probably end up even worse. Some might move into more merchant or military fields.

[Lucius]

Hm. Something like this happened in England; it led to what were called "The Enclosures."

Oh, not slaves. Sheep. Landowners found they could make better money turning the serfs off their land and raising sheep instead. You may have heard the expression "in clover" meaning having a run of luck or being well off. It comes from this period - the way to make money was plant clover and raise sheep on it.

The displaced peasants moved to the cities, which became sites of squalor and overpopulation and poverty. Many kept moving, right into ships and off to the colonies.

Of course, things might play out differently. An ambitious king could absorb the peasants into an army, and go conquering. Or just get a lot of them killed off that way.

What makes these slaves so super efficient anyway?

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary Enterprises. The authorized source for palindromedaries and palindromedary products.

[Mantis]

An ambitious king could absorb the peasants into an army, and go conquering. Or just get a lot of them killed off that way.Um, depending on exactly what period of history you're looking at, the peasants *were* the army. Ownership of land was divided up between the nobility. People who weren't nobility were allowed to live on the land and plant whatever crops they wanted and/or ply their trade, but in return paid a proportion of their income to the landowner (i.e. paid tax), although this payment was "in kind" as there was no monetary system at that time. They also owed servitude to the landowner, and this could include service as a man-at-arms in time of war. At a "call to arms" the peasant would take a suitable farm implement as a weapon and march off to act as a footsoldier for his lord. There was, at that time, no such thing as an army, battles were fought between cadres of allied nobles and a handful of trained soldiers (themselves serfs) who owed fealty to their lords, at the centre of what amounted to an armed mob.

What makes these slaves so super efficient anyway?They're cheap? Serfs would only pay a percentage of their income as tax to their lord and master, and would keep the rest (a serf could become wealthy in their own right), but a slave need only be given the bare minimum of food, water and shelter but 100% of the fruits of his or her labor are returned to the owner. Also, a lord owed protection to his serfs and this was an expense he had to bear (feeding his soldiers who were otherwise non-productive), but upkeep on slaves could be much less.

OTOH, a serf was more motivated than a slave, as the more profit a serf made, the more he earned for himself as well as his lord; a slave gets no benefit from his labor. A slave also makes a poor soldier, again they lack motivation (a serf could be rewarded for his actions on the field of battle by being enobled; perhaps a slave could earn his freedom?). In fact serfs were preferred to slaves in Europe, other than for non-productive laboring tasks (e.g. house servants) until the introduction of the monetary system, the change to more efficient farming systems (as Lucius said) and increased urbanization from the Industrial Revolution lead to a general breakdown of serfdom.

[Curufea]

The only way I could think a slave would be more efficient than a peasant would be if they ate less.

It is within the lord's rights to stop renting the land to the peasants - forcing them to move on and find somewhere else to grow their crops and raise cattle.

[Rage]

cheap constructs?
Sasquatch like heavy labourers?
Smart but combat ineffective peoples who look like grey aliens?
maybe they are just better physical specimens, you know, like a basketball player vs your typical joe public.

[Curufea]

Better physical specimens require better feeding - all that high metabolism stuff.

Otherwise, maybe...
I'm thinking something mechanised might be more efficient - or magically powered. Slaves require upkeep - guarding and regular free will suppression.

[Outsider]

I think actual serfs were what they called 'bound to the land', meaning that they couldnt be legally seperated from it. You sell the land, the serf goes with it. He is part of the land, and has the right to work it, so long as he pays the (fixed, traditional) fee. In an actual medieval milieu (as opposed to a post-medieval one) conservatism ruled the roost, and lords who tried to turn out their serfs for mere profit would probably be seen as dangerous radicals who were violating the social contract.

Of course, if you change things to a money economy, and provide a 'new world' safety valve for excess population pressure, 1600s attitudes might develop in 1400s England...

[BoneDaddy]

Zombies or Automatons would have to be useless as soldiers for a King to use them in place of peasants. What the heck would a king need with peasants if he had good automatons? Expect a military theocracy at that point - turn the farmers into soldiers and go get more land for the automatons to work. Maybe teach the automatons to mine, train some peasants to oversee and maintain the automatons, get more gold, discover the great uses of coal... Keep the peasants busy with a war or two. Prohibit private ownership of automata.

[austenandrews]

What makes these slaves so super efficient anyway?
They're elfs of the British Isles variety - brownies, fairies, sidhe, et al. You know, the kind that do a week's work overnight; that sort of thing. It doesn't go well for them when soldiers with steel (iron) weapons and armor discover a fixed passage to elf land.

I've been thinking along the same lines as Lucius A., that towns and cities would swell and poverty would mushroom. Meanwhile the lords and knights are bringing back slaves and booty from the elf land. Maybe lots of extra money + lots of men with free time = lots of professional armies on the march. Probably lots of sickness, too.

The idea is to have a milieu in flux, the old order demolished, the new order not yet fixed. Injustice is rampant. Add PCs with some inside information and stir.

[BoneDaddy]

Those paybacks are gonna suck!

[austenandrews]

I think actual serfs were what they called 'bound to the land', meaning that they couldnt be legally seperated from it. You sell the land, the serf goes with it. He is part of the land, and has the right to work it, so long as he pays the (fixed, traditional) fee. In an actual medieval milieu (as opposed to a post-medieval one) conservatism ruled the roost, and lords who tried to turn out their serfs for mere profit would probably be seen as dangerous radicals who were violating the social contract.
That's very true. But my understanding is that England in 1400 (which I've chosen as a convenient model) had far more free men than serfs. Though that's interesting - renters could be turned out with impunity while serfs might remain to work with the elf slaves. In some ways the serfs might be better off.

Of course, if you change things to a money economy, and provide a 'new world' safety valve for excess population pressure, 1600s attitudes might develop in 1400s England...
Do you think the influx of elf treasure (the usual stuff - gold, silver, etc.) would move the economy toward currency?

As for a "new world," initially elf land will be the exclusive domain of nobility and their soldiers. Wholesale conquest & settlement is not yet underway; rather the nobles trade with coastal elf kings, iron for slaves & treasure. My idea is that the PCs will be among the first to explore the place. So I don't want immigrants just yet (though the PCs are welcome to try to start the process).

[Badger]

Uhh, Bonedaddy I dont think zombies would be good farmers. Definitely dont want them handling my food.;)

They'd make good fertilizer though.:eg:

[mayapuppies]

They'd make good fertilizer though.:eg:
Assuming you could get the restless dead to plant themselves long enough...or just have them walk through the fields and leave a bit of themselves behind.

[austenandrews]

Those paybacks are gonna suck!
Potentially, but the humans hold a big upper hand. The fay have lost much of their power in the human world, and they're mostly small; whereas in elf land, steel arms & armor are magic items and folk charms & "old wives' hexery" are as potent as any elf wizard.

Of course if the elfs get their power back in the human world, it could get ugly.

[Outsider]

One of the empires in my campaign world uses zombies militarily.

On land they make dandy pikemen. Very steady, and one can counter many of the drawbacks of their non-intellegence by teaming them up with living archers. Each archer runs 1 or 2 pikes.

At sea they are mainly galley rowers. Non-tiring galley rowers. Ramming speed all the time!

[Basil]

That's very true. But my understanding is that England in 1400 (which I've chosen as a convenient model) had far more free men than serfs.
Indeed, in most of Western Europe, but especially in England, by 1400 serfdom was dying. Just another victim of the Black Death.

The Black Death (which hit in the 1340's) killed so many farmers and farm workers that they could command their own price(s). And one thing most of them insisted on was freedom. After all, if manor-lord A insisted on the old feudal dues, the farmers and farm workers would move to manor-lord B's land, because manor-lord B would treat them as freedmen. And if/when manor-lord A tried to get the "serfs" back, B would laugh him off.

Though that's interesting - renters could be turned out with impunity while serfs might remain to work with the elf slaves. In some ways the serfs might be better off.
Renters would be turned out only if the slaves were significantly cheaper to keep, or gave significantly higher monetary return. Otherwise the trouble the renters could cause wouldn't be worth it. And under medieval(-style) law, a renter had some major rights and powers. Not to mention the renters sneaking in and burning things down. Including the manor-house, if they got angry enough.

BTW, in 1400 a goodly number of the descendents of (former/escaped) serfs were small land owners; people who had free&clear title to the land their homes were on. This land was often too little to live off of, and they had to work on a large land-owners place, but they couldn't be tossed off their homes. It wasn't until a couple of centuries later that The Enclosures happened, by which time a lot of the descendents of the small land owners had sold their land, piecemeal, usually to pay off a debt.

Also, note that The Enclosures were most prevelent in the North of England, or in Scotland or Ireland; areas were serfdom had been less prevelent, and where as a consequence fewer people landed up with their own land after the Black Death. In those areas, "crofters" (free persons who rented their land) were the norm from way, way back. Thus, they were easier to through off their land when sheep raising became a big-money business.

Do you think the influx of elf treasure (the usual stuff - gold, silver, etc.) would move the economy toward currency?
By 1400, there was a strong money economy already.

Though if the influx is large and fast enough, you could easily have major inflation. Just look at what happened to Spain after 1492: the economy blew up like a balloon, popped, and dropped like a rock. It took centuries for things to recover.

[Curufea]

Elf and faerie magic isn't all good either - they may fix all the shoes overnight in a shoemaker's shop, but equally - they may get offended at not being invited to your first born's christening and curse your entire family.

They are too chaotic to make good slaves.

[Badger]

Hey! I didnt say I had perfected the zombie fertilizer plan yet.:D

[austenandrews]

Elf and faerie magic isn't all good either - they may fix all the shoes overnight in a shoemaker's shop, but equally - they may get offended at not being invited to your first born's christening and curse your entire family.

They are too chaotic to make good slaves.
Most of their magic doesn't work in the human lands anymore (campaign plot point). Even so, they're far more efficient than human workers. They get more done, eat less and take less space to house. And since they're not human, they don't have to be treated humanely. They have no legal rights nor (based on their notorious history) moral standing.

It's a good point, though, to consider what sort of magic they could retain without making slavery impractical.

[Vondy]

Wouldn't it be more likely that the peasants would be out of a job?

In the short term, probably not. The lord would be importing them based on a theoretical economic model that was of yet, untested. Further, feudal contracts between serf and lord were deeply rooted in cultural tradition, and were very much a two way street. There would be a great deal of pressure from all segments of society (not just the peasants) not to rock the boat, and to make the slaves into unfree serfs. Further, in "terminating" the fuedal contract the lord is effectively freeing the serfs. They will either go where they can become sharecroppers, or enter fuedal obligations to another lord. And with that reality, the Lord loses his experienced work force. Unless he himself is competent to be reeve, beadle, herdsman, woodward, and warden - then he'd better hope some of his new slaves will be competent to do those jobs - and in a few cases - be willing to arm them. Also, what of the yeomanry. In a midieval village they were a critical part of the defense. Peasants, who are also unfree, are more highly motivated because they have a more vested interest - both in terms of the lord's obligations to them and the chance to profit from the partnership. A slave has no such motivation. This is why confusionism was so effective in its heydey - it effectively turned slaves into serfs and gave them motivation to work harder. I would recommend that the lord consider them new serf-fodder. He might even be viewed as "enlightened" by the former slaves, who are now unfree tenants with a clearly defined contract.

[austenandrews]

Renters would be turned out only if the slaves were significantly cheaper to keep, or gave significantly higher monetary return. Otherwise the trouble the renters could cause wouldn't be worth it. And under medieval(-style) law, a renter had some major rights and powers. Not to mention the renters sneaking in and burning things down. Including the manor-house, if they got angry enough.
Yeah, that's one thing I'm trying to work out. Basically the monetary gain from slavery is too great to ignore. Because of the influx of gold, lords will be able to hire men to support it, which means strong peasants will be paid to run weak ones off the land and defend it. At the same time, the prevalence of gold will make it more attractive for peasants to migrate to the cities. On the surface it seems life will be grand - work in a mill or militia and get paid in a month what a year's worth of farming never earned! Of course it's not that simple, but economic theory wasn't very advanced in medieval society.

Am I missing anything in that scenario?

Also, note that The Enclosures were most prevelent in the North of England, or in Scotland or Ireland; areas were serfdom had been less prevelent, and where as a consequence fewer people landed up with their own land after the Black Death. In those areas, "crofters" (free persons who rented their land) were the norm from way, way back. Thus, they were easier to through off their land when sheep raising became a big-money business.
Interesting. So I need to set up the area such that private owndership of land is not the norm. I could simply say that all land is owned by nobility and all villagers are crofters.

By 1400, there was a strong money economy already.

Though if the influx is large and fast enough, you could easily have major inflation. Just look at what happened to Spain after 1492: the economy blew up like a balloon, popped, and dropped like a rock. It took centuries for things to recover.
That's basically what I'm thinking. Villagers are lured to cities by promises of gold and silver, unaware that inflation will render high wages meaningless. So cities swell, poverty rages and joining a lord's private army becomes an attractive option.

I figure this setup must have been operating for at least a year or two. That way the increased farm yield from elf workers will offset the losses from battle. Warfare will largely consist of knights & lords who have benefitted from the slave trade taking land from those who haven't, as well as enriched lords vying for the best position. Hmm, this setup will produce refugees, won't it?

[austenandrews]

In the short term, probably not. The lord would be importing them based on a theoretical economic model that was of yet, untested.
You make a very good point. There will have to be an initial period during which the first slaveholding lords figure out how useful elf slaves will be. Probably domestics will be among the first replaced. The comelier elfs ("fairs") start as a household novelty and when their effectiveness becomes known, begin to replace their human counterparts. Humans are relegated to the role of handlers and supervisors. Slowly elfs begin to be used in other roles. Peasant farmers would benefit from this, as well, renting slaves from the lord or even owning them outright. Since elfs are much better workers than humans, lords begin to use them exclusively on the demesne. Higher yields mean less returns for smaller farmers & craftsmen. The influx of money attracts younger people to the cities. More slaves are brought in. Villages, which were always farming operations, become slave operations. Export of surplus means more travel between villages and towns.

Hmm, this may take more than a couple of years.

Further, feudal contracts between serf and lord were deeply rooted in cultural tradition, and were very much a two way street. There would be a great deal of pressure from all segments of society (not just the peasants) not to rock the boat, and to make the slaves into unfree serfs. Further, in "terminating" the fuedal contract the lord is effectively freeing the serfs. They will either go where they can become sharecroppers, or enter fuedal obligations to another lord.
I'm increasingly thinking that this social movement will be motivated by the perception of greater wealth overall. Villages will change their fundamental demographics willingly. "Turning out peasants" probably won't happen until later, when the economic momentum has already begun to overturn the old social order.

I'm also thinking that it will be easier not to have serfs at all. No need to complicate things overmuch.

And with that reality, the Lord loses his experienced work force. Unless he himself is competent to be reeve, beadle, herdsman, woodward, and warden - then he'd better hope some of his new slaves will be competent to do those jobs - and in a few cases - be willing to arm them.
That's the beauty of elf slaves. Not only are they already skilled; in many cases they're far more skilled than the best human. After all, many of them have lived for centuries or even longer. However, you're correct that they must have skilled overseers.

Also, what of the yeomanry. In a midieval village they were a critical part of the defense. Peasants, who are also unfree, are more highly motivated because they have a more vested interest - both in terms of the lord's obligations to them and the chance to profit from the partnership. A slave has no such motivation.
I'm thinking hired troops. They're not as motivated but they're more skilled. They'll also be useful in the general slave trade as guards, foremen, etc.

I would recommend that the lord consider them new serf-fodder. He might even be viewed as "enlightened" by the former slaves, who are now unfree tenants with a clearly defined contract.
Things may move in that direction in the future, but my starting premise is straightforward slavery. An injustice to be addressed. You do make me think, though, that skilled elf craftsmen can't help but earn the respect of their overseers. It's almost inevitable that the two races will eventually grow toward cooperation.

[Curufea]

Most of their magic doesn't work in the human lands anymore (campaign plot point). Even so, they're far more efficient than human workers. They get more done, eat less and take less space to house. And since they're not human, they don't have to be treated humanely. They have no legal rights nor (based on their notorious history) moral standing.

It's a good point, though, to consider what sort of magic they could retain without making slavery impractical.
I was kinda thinking Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.

[dbsousa]

I would look to the Master/Servant relationship of Puck and Oberon in A Midsummer Night's Dream for an understanding of how fey would react to servitude. Every commend would be followed as close to the letter and as far from the spirit as possible. Clever fairies would find a way to thwart their masters at every turn while being technically blameless...

[Lucius]

I would look to the Master/Servant relationship of Puck and Oberon in A Midsummer Night's Dream for an understanding of how fey would react to servitude. Every commend would be followed as close to the letter and as far from the spirit as possible. Clever fairies would find a way to thwart their masters at every turn while being technically blameless...

Passive resistance of this sort was common with Human slaves too. It's one of the reasons slaves, and slave races where the institution has a racial component, get a reputation for stupidity.

Lots of planters in the Old South of the US found that if they forgot, at the end of the day, to instruct the slaves to put the tools away, they'd be left out overnight - sometimes, say, in the rain, so they rusted. "But you didn' tell us to put the tools away, massa" they'd say. The master would chuckle about how dumb the slaves are, not realizing how he's being outsmarted.

Lucius Alexander

Insert palindromedary tagline here.

[austenandrews]

Passive resistance of this sort was common with Human slaves too. It's one of the reasons slaves, and slave races where the institution has a racial component, get a reputation for stupidity.

Lots of planters in the Old South of the US found that if they forgot, at the end of the day, to instruct the slaves to put the tools away, they'd be left out overnight - sometimes, say, in the rain, so they rusted. "But you didn' tell us to put the tools away, massa" they'd say. The master would chuckle about how dumb the slaves are, not realizing how he's being outsmarted.
Heh, elfs won't be the most willing of slaves, for sure. But they do have one traditional characteristic that works against them: they are bound by their oaths. Captured elfs are required to take an oath of slavery or die. Presumably the slavers have been doing this long enough to work out the loopholes.

[Roland]

The impact of the influx of booty from the elf lands would depend on 1) whether gold/treasure is considered ultimate wealth, in and of itself, or simply a means to various ends; and 2) the proximity of countries with good trade relations. If the lords of your home country try to keep the treasure at home by rigging trade laws to discourage imports (mercantilism), the inflationary effect of the treasure influx will be magnified, and it could make for hostile relations with neighboring countries. But if they freely spend their newfound wealth abroad, then the inflationary impact will be spread out and diluted, and foreigners will be eager to sell them stuff.

In the latter scenario, the long-term impact will depend on how they spend their new wealth. If they live it up and squander their wealth on an unsustainable standard of living (silks and spices), it will be easy come and easy go. If, OTOH, they are wise enough to invest their windfall in something that will pay long-term dividends (new port facilities, public sanitation, repair of fortifications, R&D), they could put all those unemployed peasants to work and improve their nation's long-term prospects. This is unlikely, however, unless you have power concentrated in the hands of a strong, visionary leader. Historically, I'm afraid, the easy-come, easy-go scenario is more common.

[Markdoc]

Well as to how it'd work out, history already gives us a hint - exactly this situation has played out at least twice before (probably more often) in the real world.

When Athens rose to prominence it started to acquire lots and lots of slaves from its wars of conquest. Large landowners (who just like in medieval europe formed the military elite and provided most of the commanders) got lots of slaves.

Slaves ARE cheaper than serfs - and more efficient. You can work 'em all year and get all of the value. You can work 'em to death and buy new ones cheaply, if there are enough of them - and at the peak of the slave trade, a slave in Rome cost about 500 to 1500 denarii - less than 16 Aes, which was the cost of a Modius: enough wheat to make 20 loaves of bread. Or about the same as a donkey (put that into today's prices: about 100 bucks). Plus - unlike serfs - you can buy educated slaves at a small premium, which means you can set them to running your industry/agriculture. You really *don't* need peasants if you have slaves

We know what happened in Athens. The wealthy class, who had the most slaves, were able to prosper, even though the influx of cheap labor dropped prices. The poorer landowners and craftsmen were unable to compete and either sold their property or simply walked away from it - ending up either in the army, in the city (which started to develop big slums at this point) or dead. Political unrest soared. However, the slave-based economy (not just agriculture, but also slave-based craft workshops and slave-based mining) was so much more efficient that Athens established a hegemony (the so-called golden era) and a disproportionately large economy (at one point half the residents of Athens were slaves). This imbalance was one of the causes of the war that bought Athens down and with the slave trade cut off, the economy crashed hard.

In Rome the same story played out, a few centuries later. They also became owners of hundreds of thousands if not millions of slaves (nobody knows for sure how many, but most historians agree about 300-400 thousand in Augustinian Rome, which at the time had a population of about a million. The military/economic elite had the most slaves and they added the extra twist that the old roman system had a patron/client system based on debt. Many small landowners could not pay their debts - or even buy food - as agricultural prices fell, so were arrested and sold into slavery themselves. This led first to political unrest, then mass rioting and eventually revolt and mutiny in the army, before a law was passed preventing romans being enslaved for debt. Hundreds of thousands lost their land and ended up in the city or in the army. The world's first social welfare programs were set up to keep the unemployed proles (who lived in huge, horrible crime-ridden slums) from rioting - all underpinned by the surplus generated by slave labour. The end was the same too: when Roman military expansion reached its limit, fresh suplies of slaves started to dry up and the roman economy started to go - sliding first into recession and then collapse. With economic collapse came the end of the expensive military and essentially the end of the empire.

Shouldn't be too hard to impose that pattern on a mock-medieval medieval economy: the basic economic structures are more alike than different and though the political structure is different, the elements of unrest and repression and conciliation are the same.

cheers, Mark

[austenandrews]

Now that's interesting. The influx of treasure implies inflation but the influx of slaves implies lower prices. How to reconcile? Here's a question - is it possible to have both? That is the absolute value of gold currency drops, but since human workers can't compete with elf slaves, they still can't earn enough money to make ends meet?

[Roland]

If elf-slave labor displaces human labor in any region or sector, then you'll have a problem of unemployment or underemployment. You could have lower prices and plenty of money in circulation, but anyone who can't find a full-time paying job won't reap his share of the benefits.

One way or another, I would expect the situation to resolve itself by using some of that money to employ or support the displaced peasants and workers. Markdoc gave two possibilities - military recruitment and a public dole. I suggested public works projects.

Another possibility is colonization - encouraging the unemployed to settle in newly discovered or conquered lands. Perhaps the nobles who have staked claims in the fairy lands will need to import human workers to farm their land, work their mines, etc. There could be an exchange of populations - elves to the mundane world, where their magic does not work, and non-magical humans to the fairy lands. The rulers will think they have precluded the possibility of magical revolt. But maybe the humans will start to develop magic if they live in the fairy lands long enough . . .

[Markdoc]

Now that's interesting. The influx of treasure implies inflation but the influx of slaves implies lower prices. How to reconcile? Here's a question - is it possible to have both? That is the absolute value of gold currency drops, but since human workers can't compete with elf slaves, they still can't earn enough money to make ends meet?

Absolutely - in fact, the early Roman empire had both of those things. Increasing inflation AND lower prices. Perhaps I should have been more specific! Sorry about that.

Anyway, here's how things worked: the influx of cheap forced labour drove most product prices down. At the same time, it also reduced wages for free workers in the same fields. That kept inflation in check for many things, although the real wage ie: what you could buy for your money, gradually decreased, since inflation was slightly higher than wages. That's why the bread dole was introduced: it wasn't just for unemployed people - often, even people with poor-paying regular jobs relied on it.

However for goods that were limiting: land, military command, political office, gold and jewellery etc, the price skyrocketted. You can guess the effect: the social elite (the optimates) got rapidly richer and richer - everybody else got slowly poorer. This eventually stretched the republican system to breaking point and led to political collapse and the rise of the empire.

So in your world, the people who are taking elf slaves will benefit from cheap/free labour and sale of same, and also benefit from inflation, since most things will become cheaper while their inflated income allows them to outbid everybody else for things that retain real value.

Expect those nobles who don't have access to slaves to get very angry, very fast, as they see their social position evaporating. Expect the commons to become unhappy - although how much depends on the level of export in your society: if there are lots of merchants and thriving trade, you'll get a booming middle class who can take advantage of cheaper prices to drive export trade: this is what made the post-sheep-farming boom England so wealthy and to some extent blunted the suffering at the lower end of the social scale. Of course the noble class may be a bit unhappy about a rising middle class who can afford to buy slaves (and soldiers!) of their own...

Cheers, Mark

[austenandrews]

Since I want to start with a condition of social unrest, it sounds like I need to limit the amount of exports. In fact I can see the opposite happening - foreign traders coming in greater numbers with luxury goods, to trade not for local products but for plundered fairy gold.