Building times

[lifo]

Does anyone know where to find how much time was needed during the middle age/renaissance to build houses, castles, boats, ships, carriages and other large objects? A rough enstimate of cost and people involved in the construction would be useful too.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Building times

 

Here's one example of a ship -- the Wasa, a manowar of 1,210 tons displacement. Her keel was laid down in January of 1626, she was launched in 1627, and was commissioned in August, 1628. She fell over on her maiden voyage and sank.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Building times

 

Here's one example of a ship -- the Wasa' date=' a manowar of 1,210 tons displacement. Her keel was laid down in January of 1626, she was launched in 1627, and was commissioned in August, 1628. She fell over on her maiden voyage and sank. [/quote']

You're missing a link.

 

Also, are you sure it's a ship if the first thing it did is sink?

[Lucius]

Re: Building times

 

1st edition DM's Guide has that information.

 

How ACCURATE it is, is another question.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Yes I'm working, building a palindromedary

[L. Marcus]

Re: Building times

 

You're missing a link.

 

Also, are you sure it's a ship if the first thing it did is sink?

Here's the English Wikipedia page. And, yes, she was intended to be a ship. That didn't pan out, as she sank less than a nautical mile into the voyage. She's had great success as a wreck, though.

[lifo]

Re: Building times

 

1st edition DM's Guide has that information.

 

How ACCURATE it is, is another question.

A question that I know quite well otherwise I wouldn't be asking here.

Those figures seems a little bit guessed for my tastes.

I tried looking for some infos on the internet but nothing turned out. It seems that nobody knows how many men or days of work were needed to build a ship.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Building times

 

...She's had great success as a wreck' date=' though.[/quote']

 

Serendipity!

[Susano]

Re: Building times

 

I'd have to check some of my books, but I know castles and the like can take years. Also, a cathedral, such as Notre Dame, can take decades.

 

If I recall, a coat of mail (neck to thigh and wrist) with 40,000 rings took a month or so of constant labor by one man to make.

 

A carpenter could knock out a simple 6-board chest in a day.

[Markdoc]

Re: Building times

 

It depends greatly on your labour force: the more people you put on, the more time you can save. As Mike noted, sometimes, building a castle or a cathedral could take decades (occasionally, even many, many decades), However the Co-Cathedral of St John on Malta, which is pretty damn big, went up in 4 years. Even more impressive, the defences of Valletta, which dwarf any castle I have ever seen, went up in just 5 years. Also at Valetta, the maximum building time allowed for a palazzo (multistory stone house built around a courtyard, and hooked up to the drains) was just over two years and most of them went up in the space of months - including internal plastering, carving and painting. The whole city was built in remarkably few years.

 

If you want to go earlier, Dover castle was also completed in a bit over 4 years.

 

So - real rough figures - if you have resources enough, houses can be built in a couple of weeks (for small ones) to several months (for large ornate mini-palaces). Stone castles can go up in a year or so (for small ones) to several years for large ones - and cathedrals and major town fortifications can go up in 4-5 years. Of course, that assumes plenty of resources. You might be able to shorten the times by pouring even more into it, but probably not by much. If you have fewer resources, or take pauses, it takes correspondingly longer. The Hospitallers tinkered with the defences of Krak de Chevaliers for nearly 30 years before they were satisfied, and then launched a second wave of rebuilding a generation later that took them a further 20 years to finish.

 

As for boats and stuff a very large viking longship would take a typical team of 10 men about 6 months including the time to cut down the trees, cure the wood and build and equip the ship, based on the work done at the Roskilde museum. That matches the sagas where people typically built a ship in one summer for use the next summer.

 

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

Re: Building times

 

I know an Amish barn can be erected in a single day, but that uses a large labor force broken down into specific work parties.

[Christopher]

Re: Building times

 

It depends greatly on your labour force: the more people you put on' date=' the more time you can save. As Mike noted, sometimes, building a castle or a cathedral could take decades (occasionally, even many, many decades), However the Co-Cathedral of St John on Malta, which is pretty damn big, went up in 4 years. Even more impressive, the defences of Valletta, which dwarf any castle I have ever seen, went up in just 5 years. Also at Valetta, the maximum building time allowed for a palazzo (multistory stone house built around a courtyard, and hooked up to the drains) was just over two years and most of them went up in the space of months - including internal plastering, carving and painting. The whole city was built in remarkably few years.[/quote']

One little problem with the building times have always been if they could work contionously. That needs the Manpower (paid or forced labor), the raw materials (created at the place or imported for money), people who coordinate it (more money, can't save money here). And then there was the mater of the weather, working in Winter is still not a good idea.

 

A Cathedral Like Notre dame wasn't built in one go, as nobody could afford that much money in that short time. They had to find money givers for each part of it. Actually having sponsored even part of that was a mater of prestige or political favors.

In part palaces where built just to show that you could afford it.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Building times

 

One little problem with the building times have always been if they could work contionously. That needs the Manpower (paid or forced labor), the raw materials (created at the place or imported for money), people who coordinate it (more money, can't save money here). And then there was the mater of the weather, working in Winter is still not a good idea.

 

A Cathedral Like Notre dame wasn't built in one go, as nobody could afford that much money in that short time. They had to find money givers for each part of it. Actually having sponsored even part of that was a mater of prestige or political favors.

In part palaces where built just to show that you could afford it.

Plus, using forced labor on stuff you *Need* to be done skillfully or loyally was considered a bad idea, even in the ancient world. The pyramids were build with volunteers labouring for religious reasons and paid with bread and beer (and yeah, back then, regular food and clean drink would be pay for an unskilled labourer). The common image of slaves rowing a Tireme into battle (even if they don't name the ship, that's the most common used)? False. If they did use slaves, they freed them before the battle, so the slaves had a stake in the battle. Otherwise, they'd have too good a chance of having to fight their own slaves.

[Christopher]

Re: Building times

 

Plus' date=' using forced labor on stuff you *Need* to be done skillfully or loyally was considered a bad idea, even in the ancient world. The pyramids were build with volunteers labouring for religious reasons and paid with bread and beer (and yeah, back then, regular food and clean drink would be pay for an unskilled labourer). The common image of slaves rowing a Tireme into battle (even if they don't name the ship, that's the most common used)? False. If they did use slaves, they freed them before the battle, so the slaves had a stake in the battle. Otherwise, they'd have too good a chance of having to fight their own slaves.[/quote']

Relative danger. Most people back then could not swim and a sea battle isn't the best tiem for a mutiny.

Even ships hired specifically sailors that could not swim and had limited life boats - because they would defend the ship with thier life, literally.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Building times

 

Relative danger. Most people back then could not swim and a sea battle isn't the best tiem for a mutiny.

Even ships hired specifically sailors that could not swim and had limited life boats - because they would defend the ship with thier life, literally.

Check Wikipedia - The ancient Greeks (who built Triremes) did not use slave labour to row their boats.

[Christopher]

Re: Building times

 

Check Wikipedia - The ancient Greeks (who built Triremes) did not use slave labour to row their boats.

Okay, read up on it. It's apparently really a Middle Age thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_slave#Early_modern_era

 

For Triremes it could not work (they had to be trained), but for the later biger ships (with multiple rowers per bank) it was an option. But even then they tended to free them...

 

 

As for building Buildings, I was more thinking of Socage. At least for moving the parts it was an option, but overall still needed skilled labour.

[Markdoc]

Re: Building times

 

Plus' date=' using forced labor on stuff you *Need* to be done skillfully or loyally was considered a bad idea, even in the ancient world. The pyramids were build with volunteers labouring for religious reasons and paid with bread and beer (and yeah, back then, regular food and clean drink would be pay for an unskilled labourer). The common image of slaves rowing a Tireme into battle (even if they don't name the ship, that's the most common used)? False. If they did use slaves, they freed them before the battle, so the slaves had a stake in the battle. Otherwise, they'd have too good a chance of having to fight their own slaves.[/quote']

 

I'd be wary of relying on wikipedia as a source;: too often it's wrong. I'd also be wary of being too dogmatic. Thucydides states plainly that even though most oarsmen were citizens, that Athens (and other states: he mentions the Athenians freeing the hundreds of slaves who had rowed Corcyra's and Chios' ships) also used slaves to row galleys during the Sicilian war. Nicias, commander of the expedition to Sicily mentions in a letter home to Athens the desertion of slaves from his triremes. Xenophon describes a levy whereby all slaveowners with more than a certain number of slaves were required to send one for naval service, and of course in the famous Arginusae from 406 B.C., it is explicitly stated that slaves were among the rowers on the one hundred and ten ships sent out by Athens. Later, the romans (who also used triremes, especially during the early republic) used slaves in quite large numbers. Titus Otacilius has left us documents about purchasing large numbers of slaves to crew his triremes, Scipio impressed slaves for his ships in his planned invasion of Carthage, and in return, the Carthaginians, scrambling for man-power, bought 5000 slaves to power the ships they built for defence, etc etc.

 

It's fair to say that prior to the middle age (where slaves and prisoners were used extensively as rowers in galleys) that most rowers were freedmen. Slaves only seem to have been used in extended wars or emergencies, where demands for manpower were high - but no mistake: they were used. Rachel Seargent, in her article THE USE OF SLAVES BY THE ATHENIANS IN WARFARE states "Freemen were used, then, whenever time and man-power permitted." A crew of slave rowers could hardly be expected to perform as well as freedmen who had practiced together, and were fighting for their city - plus they fought for free, whereas slaves cost money to buy. But we know that slaves were used and we know that they were not automatically freed before battle: the fact that the tyrant of Syracuse did so for his slaves was remarked on because it was unusual, not because it was standard: and he did it because he was desperate and he hoped it would motivate them. There are other examples (Scipio promised to free the slaves he impressed after the war, if they rowed well, though I don't know if he did) but nothing to suggest it as the general rule. The Athenians also freed slaves who had fought for them - but at the end of the conflict, not before the battle.

 

As for building, we also know the Athenians employed save labour extensively in the rebuilding of the acropolis (by coincidence, I'm reading a book about that at the moment) and their long wall which protected Athens and the city's harbour. Ironically, the greeks used so much slave labour that they might be responsible for the idea that the pyramids were built by slaves: they probably couldn't believe that you could initiate any large scale building project without lots of slaves We know that the romans also used slaves extensively in building - including crucial infrastructure like aqueducts and military works. So no, it's not true that "forced labor on stuff you *Need* to be done skillfully or loyally was considered a bad idea": it was actually part of business as usual.

 

Heck, multiple cultures in the ancient world employed slave soldiers. That didn't always end well , but the threat of punishment for disobedience plus the threat that the enemy would kill them was apparently enough to usually keep them in line, and the same was true of slave oarsmen. The wiki article - and much online discussion - results from reaction against the inaccurate picture people had a century ago that most, if not all, oarsmen were slaves. We know now that most weren't. But that does not obscure the fact that thousands were.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Building times

 

I'd be wary of relying on wikipedia as a source;: too often it's wrong. I'd also be wary of being too dogmatic. Thucydides states plainly that even though most oarsmen were citizens' date=' that Athens (and presumably other states) also used slaves to row galleys. Later, the romans (who also used triremes, especially during the early republic) used slaves in quite large numbers. Titus Otacilius has left us documents about purchasing large numbers of slaves to crew his triremes, Scipio impressed slaves for his ships in his planned invasion of Carthage, and in return, the Carthaginians, scrambling for man-power, bought 5000 slaves to power the ships they built for defence, etc etc.[/quote']

Those were times of extreme need. A trireme tended to have 200 man Crew. 95% of that rowers. They changed that ratio for some invasion/sea battles.

And there where big battles with hundreds of ships and ten-thousands of soldiers on each side. Those 5000 where around the crew for 25 ships. 25 out of 2 or 3 hundred ships!

 

So no, it's not true that "forced labor on stuff you *Need* to be done skillfully or loyally was considered a bad idea": it was actually part of business as usual.

 

Heck, multiple cultures in the ancient world employed slave soldiers. That didn't always end well , but the threat of punishment for disobedience plus the threat that the enemy would kill them was apparently enough to usually keep them in line, and the same was true of slave oarsmen.

Most of these cases unskilled/unmotivated people did the trick. The Russians won a World War on Conscripts and Commisars.

But for a Cathedral and all the fine works you need skilled workers. And loyal workers. You can't have them built any hidden passages or skimp on important parts.

Medieval Masonry or Carpenty isn't something as simple as "kill people" or "move objects". It requires talent, motivation and proper education.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Building times

 

I'd be wary of relying on wikipedia as a source;: too often it's wrong. I'd also be wary of being too dogmatic. Thucydides states plainly that even though most oarsmen were citizens, that Athens (and other states: he mentions the Athenians freeing the hundreds of slaves who had rowed Corcyra's and Chios' ships) also used slaves to row galleys during the Sicilian war. Nicias, commander of the expedition to Sicily mentions in a letter home to Athens the desertion of slaves from his triremes. Xenophon describes a levy whereby all slaveowners with more than a certain number of slaves were required to send one for naval service, and of course in the famous Arginusae from 406 B.C., it is explicitly stated that slaves were among the rowers on the one hundred and ten ships sent out by Athens. Later, the romans (who also used triremes, especially during the early republic) used slaves in quite large numbers. Titus Otacilius has left us documents about purchasing large numbers of slaves to crew his triremes, Scipio impressed slaves for his ships in his planned invasion of Carthage, and in return, the Carthaginians, scrambling for man-power, bought 5000 slaves to power the ships they built for defence, etc etc.

 

It's fair to say that prior to the middle age (where slaves and prisoners were used extensively as rowers in galleys) that most rowers were freedmen. Slaves only seem to have been used in extended wars or emergencies, where demands for manpower were high - but no mistake: they were used. Rachel Seargent, in her article THE USE OF SLAVES BY THE ATHENIANS IN WARFARE states "Freemen were used, then, whenever time and man-power permitted." A crew of slave rowers could hardly be expected to perform as well as freedmen who had practiced together, and were fighting for their city - plus they fought for free, whereas slaves cost money to buy. But we know that slaves were used and we know that they were not automatically freed before battle: the fact that the tyrant of Syracuse did so for his slaves was remarked on because it was unusual, not because it was standard: and he did it because he was desperate and he hoped it would motivate them. There are other examples (Scipio promised to free the slaves he impressed after the war, if they rowed well, though I don't know if he did) but nothing to suggest it as the general rule. The Athenians also freed slaves who had fought for them - but at the end of the conflict, not before the battle.

 

As for building, we also know the Athenians employed save labour extensively in the rebuilding of the acropolis (by coincidence, I'm reading a book about that at the moment) and their long wall which protected Athens and the city's harbour. Ironically, the greeks used so much slave labour that they might be responsible for the idea that the pyramids were built by slaves: they probably couldn't believe that you could initiate any large scale building project without lots of slaves We know that the romans also used slaves extensively in building - including crucial infrastructure like aqueducts and military works. So no, it's not true that "forced labor on stuff you *Need* to be done skillfully or loyally was considered a bad idea": it was actually part of business as usual.

 

Heck, multiple cultures in the ancient world employed slave soldiers. That didn't always end well , but the threat of punishment for disobedience plus the threat that the enemy would kill them was apparently enough to usually keep them in line, and the same was true of slave oarsmen. The wiki article - and much online discussion - results from reaction against the inaccurate picture people had a century ago that most, if not all, oarsmen were slaves. We know now that most weren't. But that does not obscure the fact that thousands were.

 

cheers, Mark

1) I believe Christopher addressed how few ships 5,000 rowers would be able to row. Accurately? That, I don't know for sure.

2) So in short, we know freemen were preferred in Ancient Greece and slaves who fought for Athens, at least, were freed after the battle and freeing before the battle was unusual in Syracuse. We also know Carthage might not keep promises to slaves, but even the Romans thought Carthage brutal, IMU.

3) Were those slaves building the long wall around Athens and crucial Roman aqueducts and military works in charge of anything critical to its success as a defensive measure, or did they just move heavy objects? And if so, were they given no motivation for success?

4) How often, how many and how much? And, again, were they given no motivation for success?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Building times

 

Those were times of extreme need. A trireme tended to have 200 man Crew. 95% of that rowers. They changed that ratio for some invasion/sea battles.

And there where big battles with hundreds of ships and ten-thousands of soldiers on each side. Those 5000 where around the crew for 25 ships. 25 out of 2 or 3 hundred ships!

 

 

Most of these cases unskilled/unmotivated people did the trick. The Russians won a World War on Conscripts and Commisars.

But for a Cathedral and all the fine works you need skilled workers. And loyal workers. You can't have them built any hidden passages or skimp on important parts.

Medieval Masonry or Carpenty isn't something as simple as "kill people" or "move objects". It requires talent, motivation and proper education.

 

You're assuming that there is no such thing as skilled slaves. This is not the case, especially for Roman times, when craftspeople and scribes were routinely sold on the slave markets.

 

If you're thinking that that doesn't make much rational sense, you'd be right. If you're thinking that for this reason that the Romans didn't do it, you're guilty of overestimating how rational the Romans were, which is a very common mistake.

 

I can't stress enough that ancient (and even medieval) times were very badly organised. If they weren't, the builders of Uruk would have tied their prehistoric empire together with railways instead of rafts floating down the Euphrates, had a nice industrial revolution, and gone on to explore space.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Building times

 

You're assuming that there is no such thing as skilled slaves. This is not the case, especially for Roman times, when craftspeople and scribes were routinely sold on the slave markets.

 

If you're thinking that that doesn't make much rational sense, you'd be right. If you're thinking that for this reason that the Romans didn't do it, you're guilty of overestimating how rational the Romans were, which is a very common mistake.

 

I can't stress enough that ancient (and even medieval) times were very badly organised. If they weren't, the builders of Uruk would have tied their prehistoric empire together with railways instead of rafts floating down the Euphrates, had a nice industrial revolution, and gone on to explore space.

Alright. For one final question, how many of these skilled labourors were given no motivation beyond "Do it or get whipped"?

[Markdoc]

Re: Building times

 

Those were times of extreme need. A trireme tended to have 200 man Crew. 95% of that rowers. They changed that ratio for some invasion/sea battles.

And there where big battles with hundreds of ships and ten-thousands of soldiers on each side. Those 5000 where around the crew for 25 ships. 25 out of 2 or 3 hundred ships!

 

Would it kill you to do a little historical research? In the examples I gave, the expedition to Sicily contained about 130 ships (including transports). Scipio's invasion of New Carthage around 150 ships (also including Carthage). At Actium, probably the biggest fleet action of the ancient world (in Europe, anyway) involved about 5-600 ships (again, including transports). The Delian League of the Greek cities against Persia were able to scrape together between 200-300 galleys to face the Persian invasion: that's all of their fleets added together. So fleets of 2-300 were very rarely assembled and as a result, you're grossly underestimating the importance of 25 warships. We don't - as far as I know - have accurate figures for the Carthaginian defence fleet, though estimates suggest 130-150 warships, so in this case 25 galleys would represent about a 5th to a 6th of their total strength.

 

I have already noted that most rowers were not slaves - but it very clear from contemporary writers that slave oarsmen were used, and used in their thousands and tens of thousands - and that in case of need, could make up a significant proportion of some fleets. And that's in the ancient world, by the medieval period, galley slaves were used even more frequently (it's estimated that almost all the Turkish oarsmen at Lepanto: more than 35,000, were slaves. Christian records indicate more than Turkish 12,000 slaves were freed in the aftermath of the battle). There were also regular markets held to ransom galley slaves - I visited one such medieval "ransom centre" earlier this month on Rhodos.

 

Most of these cases unskilled/unmotivated people did the trick. The Russians won a World War on Conscripts and Commisars.

But for a Cathedral and all the fine works you need skilled workers. And loyal workers. You can't have them built any hidden passages or skimp on important parts.

Medieval Masonry or Carpenty isn't something as simple as "kill people" or "move objects". It requires talent, motivation and proper education.

 

Right - but masons are also a small part of your building workforce. They are not the only skilled workforce, either. There were other skilled workers involved in medieval building, too. None of that obviates the need for a large - not especially trained - workforce for hauling and lifting stones and digging. Claiming that "slaves weren't used" flies in the face of massive literary and archeological evidence. In many places, they were: we know this. Hell, even here in Denmark. Pretty Nyhavn, with all its bars and restaurants was dug by enslaved swedish prisoners of war, many of whom died in the process. They were used for otehr military building projects as well.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Building times

 

Markdoc, you are aware that you saying I'm wrong - and then go on to proove my point again using the exakt same stuff I said?

[Markdoc]

Re: Building times

 

1) I believe Christopher addressed how few ships 5,000 rowers would be able to row. Accurately? That, I don't know for sure.

2) So in short, we know freemen were preferred in Ancient Greece and slaves who fought for Athens, at least, were freed after the battle and freeing before the battle was unusual in Syracuse. We also know Carthage might not keep promises to slaves, but even the Romans thought Carthage brutal, IMU.

3) Were those slaves building the long wall around Athens and crucial Roman aqueducts and military works in charge of anything critical to its success as a defensive measure, or did they just move heavy objects? And if so, were they given no motivation for success?

4) How often, how many and how much? And, again, were they given no motivation for success?

 

Slavery is a brutal business: there's no way around it. And it didn't actually change all that much between Greek times and pre-civil war US. As for incentives, at base, the incentive was "Do what we say or we will kill you, possibly in inventive and exceedingly painful ways". Less permanent penalties - maiming, branding, blinding, were also employed. Getting a whipping was actually relatively mild on the list on on bad things that could happen to you. But positive incentives were also used. The Romans left a detailed code, but we know the Ottomans, or for that matter, American slavers did the same. If you behave badly: whippings, rape, loss of children or partner, torture and death. If you behave well - permission to take a lover and raise a family, better food, better clothing, some spending money, maybe a little house of your own - and if you save hard, maybe the right to buy your freedom (when you are old and thus less valuable )

 

That situation was pernicious. Although the vast majority of slaves had lives like Newt Gingrich: dull, brutal and short, a few could actually rise to wealth and power, and some to a decent standard of living ... but never security. A slave's position was always subject to his or her master's whims. Despite this relatively few people ran away: the laws and society were ready to detect and hand over runaway slaves. Where could you go? How would you live? Most people would rather live in misery than die in unknown, but probably painful circumstances. And recall, even at the time, some Romans from the late republic complained that household slaves lived better than free peasants. Would you throw over a small amount of comfort, if the odds were 100-1 that you'd just end up getting tortured or killed?

 

As Lawnmower Boy has already pointed out skilled slaves certainly existed - and in relatively large numbers: the Romans had a whole, empire-spanning bureaucracy based around the use of slaves, responsible for upkeep of the roads, aqueducts, public buildings and ... running the state treasury (Aeraerium) which had the responsibility for military expenditure.

 

Yes, slave accountants, and slave administrators. Not just slave accountants, but slave accountants helping to run the military. We also know of slave sailors, slave soldiers (and slave generals!) slave librarians, bakers, builders, messengers, supervisors, etc. In a culture where many people were illiterate, anumerate or poorly trained, why would you waste a newly captured literate slave, with useful skills, by getting them to pull a wagon? Plenty of other people to do that.

 

As far as oarsmen go, there's a Venetian (Cristoforo da Canal) who left us discussions on naval warfare (he was among other things, a galley captain before becoming a politician) in the late 1400's and early 1500's. He (and apparently his fellows) were of the opinion that free rowers were generally better trained, better motivated and tactically more effective. In the Venice of his day, they were also a relatively small minority, because they were more expensive than slaves, being professional sailors, not citizen volunteers as was the case back in Hellenic Greece.

 

So yes, slaves were used on military projects, including in some cases fighting and defending slave-built fortifications. Slaves' work was supervised, of course. A free worker knew that he might be flogged and discharged without pay if he did his work poorly. A slave knew that he might be bound to an iron grill and slowly roasted alive, alongside his children, if he did his work poorly (yes, actual historical example). Given the options, the vast majority of slaves did what they were told. However, even in the face of certain brutal reprisal, slave revolts were a feature of slave-owning societies, meaning that if there was even a small chance at freedom, there were plenty of people ready to grasp it.

 

As for freeing slaves who fought, that was unusual, but certainly not unknown, and not restricted to Syracuse, or Greece for that matter. The Turkish Admiral at Lepanto promised freedom to his slave oarsmen after the the battle was won (though he was probably lying, given the numbers involved), Scipio promised his slave oarsmen freedom after the war was won (and he at least seems to have kept his word). In Greece, slaves who fought for Athens at Marathon were freed - though only some time after and as a result of a legal challenge ... no, really! In the US, there was a proposal in the south to offer freedom to slaves who were willing to fight for the Confederates, when the war was going badly, though the fear of armed slaves meant that went nowhere. And so on. There's plenty of examples, but the people who left us notes about those examples make a point of noting them because they were unusual. The Romans, for example used roughly 9000 slaves to help build the siege works at Masada: the remains of the guarded camps can still be visited, and there the slaves were being used to military architecture which was to be used to attack their co-religionists! We don't know what happened to those slaves, but despite taking an active part in the siege, there's no record that they were freed, indeed, we know from Josephus that some of them at least were later paraded (still slaves) in Rome.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Building times

 

Markdoc' date=' you are aware that you saying I'm wrong - and then go on to proove my point again using the exakt same stuff I said?[/quote']

 

Ummmm. No. I'm simply repeating - in more detail - my original points.

 

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

Re: Building times

 

Oh, and here's one that surprises some people -- slaves owning slaves. I'm not 100% on the cultures involved, but it was possible.