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.