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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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' date=' the economy, warfare, etc.?[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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

[Rapier]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

An ambitious king could absorb the peasants into an army' date=' and go conquering. Or just get a lot of them killed off that way.[/quote']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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

Those paybacks are gonna suck!

[austenandrews]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

I think actual serfs were what they called 'bound to the land'' date=' 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.[/quote']

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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

 

They'd make good fertilizer though.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

They'd make good fertilizer though.

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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' date=' silver, etc.) would move the economy toward currency?[/quote']

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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

[austenandrews]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

Renters would be turned out only if the slaves were significantly cheaper to keep' date=' or gave [i']significantly[/i] 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]

Re: Influx of Slaves

 

In the short term' date=' probably not. The lord would be importing them based on a theoretical economic model that was of yet, untested.[/quote']

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.