|
“Known to her faithful as the Dawnflower, the Healing Flame, and the Everlight, Sarenrae (pronounced SAER-en-ray[1]) teaches temperance and patience in all things. Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary
The church of Sarenrae is mostly composed of altruistic priests who are also ready to be stern should it be warranted. The church is known for blessing crops, healing the sick, and reforming criminals and evil doers. They are often consulted to solve feuds and disputes among neighbors and family. [4] The Empire of Kelesh holds her as their patron deity and is responsible for spreading her faith throughout the Inner Sea.[6]”
Cut and pasted form the “galoriapedia.
Slavery
“ No discussion of Qadiran Trade is complete without Mentioning the buying and seling of slaves….Portions of the markets of all major cities are dedicated to the sale of sentient beings as if they were so much cattle” Page 7 of Pathfinder Companion: Qadira Gateway to the East.
Now I see a contradiction. We have Qadira whos main faith is Sarenrae, and one of her major tenents is redemption. How then can slavery be such an integral part of this society? Wouldn’t the clergy of Sarenrae try to dissuade the trafficking of sentients?
Im just curious. Perhaps there lies an answer in our own history.
What do all of you think? How can the church and faith of Sarenrae co exist with the slave trade?
|
|
Last time I checked, redemption is about doing bad things and repenting for them.
Therefore, you have to check what is a Bad Thing according to Church of Sarenrae. I'm not really seeing slavery as a major sin against her religion by itself. Being cruel to slaves, exploiting them - sure, but regular slavery isn't really on her portfolio.
Cayden, Milani, maybe Desna are the deities to whom slavery is an anathema, as it restricts the freedom they vaunt so much.
Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues
Sounds like in those nations, they take a view on slavery akin to 1700's and 1800's Religious Southern US of A.
"Masters, be kind to your slaves"
Nothing in her description precludes slavery, it precludes cruelty. We live in an enlightened era, and consider slavery itself cruel, but I'm sure it defenders in Qadira are quick to point out that slaves are fed, clothed, and sheltered by their masters, none of which are free. Were that person not a slave, they would be on their own, and many would starve, or suffer cruel fates at the hands of the harsh land and the beasts around them.
There were cultures where slaves were beaten and tormented, treated with less respect than you'd treat a hammer - a slave is a tool, not a person. And there were cultures where slaves were simply people that had a job, but no choice in the matter. With the above quote in mind, I'd suggest that Qadiran slaves are probably treated well, and the whip is reserved for punishing recalcitrant or lazy slaves, and good slaves are more like servants than true slaves.
Creative Director
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sarenrae herself, and her church, does not tolerate slavery, but nor do they preach "Kill the slavers!" They would certainly look for non-violent ways to seek a slave's freedom—purchasing the slave and setting the slave free is probably the preferred method.
Now that said, there's a wide range of individual variations among the specific worshipers of Sarenrae—as with ANY religion. There are some worshipers of Sarenrae who would, perhaps, seek to simply comfort slaves if possible, espcially if they see the alternative (living on your own with no support structure in a dangerous city) is more painfula nd dangerous than slavery itself. There's ABSOLUTELY some worshipers of Sarenrae who crusade against slavery and slavers themselves and DO use violence against the slavers.
Now, as for Qadira? It's important to keep two things in mind about Sarenrae's faith being the most widespread faith in Qadira:
1) It's not in charge. The government of Qadira is richer and more powerful than the church of Sarenrae in Qadira, and as a result, the government is the one that gets to say if slaves are legal or not. The church has to either go along with that or rebel, and in Qadira's case, the church has opted to go along with it.
2) The church of Sarenrae in Qadira is NOT the most faithful of all of Sarenrae's churches. In fact, it's one of the most corrupt of her churches, because they've more or less lost sight of the "redeem your enemies" and "peace is better than war." Over the course of many generations, the church of Sarenrae in Qadira has become militarized, basically, and they're a lot more pro-war than they should be—but not SO pro-war that the chruch is in immediate danger of losing all their clerical powers. This church's tolerance of slaves in Qadira is but one of many examples of how the church is straying from Sarenrae's path. It's also why there's a schism building among the church, as a growing number of worshipers are coming to realize that things have somehow gone sour in the faith here. But an outright rebellion would tear the church apart, cause massive unrest in the faith AND in the nation, and could even start a Qadiran civil war—which is exactly the type of thing the true worshiper of Sarenrae DOESN'T want. So the actual honest worshipers of Sarenrae in Qadira are sort of caught in a terrible spot—either stand up for the actual teachings of their goddess and risk tearing their church apart, or stay quiet and risk letting the church stray that one final bit that finally forces Sarenrae to take action against the church.
All of this is set up to give a really interesting political angle to the church, honestly—it'd be super easy to just paint Sarenrae's church as a "can do no wrong" set of do-gooders, but this is, in my opinion, a far more interesting and realistic portrayal of the corruption of power. And it's got built into it the seeds of a really interesting-sounding campaign!
|
I recently went on a whole spiel about slavery and how, while certainly bad, and something someone like Sarenrae would absolutely object to, it's likely no worse than, say, enforced poverty in the lower classes (which is hardly uncommon), or the nobility getting free reign to treat peasants how they wished. So, definitely a bad thing, but probably not as bad as a civil war or revolution.
Full rant found in this thread:
Or in spoilers here:
And those monsters and races are all recognised to be evil, and slavery is part of what makes them so, especially since slaves in those societies are doomed to short miserable lives and frequently cruel barbaric (or nastily sophisticated in the case of drow) deaths.I wouldn't dream of disputing this. And I'd like to start out by notng that I don't think slavery is anything other than an Evil institution, both in reality and in the game. It removes the right to choose about, well, a lot of things, from it's victims and is just generally not good. However...
"No matter how gilded the cage....."
Perhaps you have no problem with the idea of living from day to day with the idea that your destiny lies with the whim of your masters, that your children, your spouse can at any moment be ripped from you, sold elsewhere to slavery, prostitution, or perhaps some other form of cruel demise. Or traded off to another owner to be bred as cattle. No matter what the conditions are the reality that it boils down to is ...your life is not your own when you're a slave. If you're murdered by a member of the owning race... the worse that they can be charged with is property damage.
It permeates into how other people treat you as well. Slavery is a dehumanising paradigm in which people are turned into objects. Maybe we are more sensitive about it now, but that's also because our ethics have developed as well in the belief of the basic humanity of all people. And yes, D+D makes no bones about the fact that it draws on modern concepts for the ethical and moral standards that D+D societies are measured by.
Okay, full on pedantry mode activated: This is not remotely true of historical slavery. Almost anywhere. It was true in the American South and...basically nowhere else ever.
Slavery in Roman times made someone owned, yes, but in no way removed many of their rights as a person. Killing them (for anyone but their master, anyway) was no legally different from killing a free man, for example. And masters were usually under several legal obligations regarding their treatment.
Nor were they 'bred', because slavery was very rarely a transferable condition to children. The idea of slavery being genetic was...not quite unique to the American South, but very rare elsewhere.
Nor were slaves necessarily seen as 'animals', 'property', or 'inhuman'. They were of a lower social class, yes, but no more so than peasants in medieval Europe (and often quite a bit above that, depending).
In most Muslim areas (where Katapesh is clearly based on) being a slave was to be seen as unlucky. Much how you might look at someone who got their identity stolen and had their credit ruined today. Y'know "Oh, that's a shame." And something you definitely worried about happening to you and strove to avoid, but it wasn't seen as making you less of a person per se.
And in many of these societies, freeing slaves was common practice if they served well, and in Rome they were even paid salaries (which they could save up and buy their way free, and many did so). So a relatively benign master might get a lot of loyalty from a slave in hopes they'll be freed. Of course, if they saved his life a few times and weren't they might easily grow bitter...
Slavery in the American South was different for a variety of reasons I won't go into here, but it was only able to be as awful and repressive as it was for a simple reason I will go into: Black people looked different.
In every other slave culture, slaves were not universally of one race, and masters another. This meant a slave could run, claim to be free, and it was very difficult to prove otherwise. This was dangerous and illegal, but it could be done. This was much harder for a slave to do in the American South, which greatly added to the amount of abuse they had to endure.
This fact also allowed the racist ideology that tried to justify slavery by seeing the slaves as less than human (an idea most other slave cultures would've found silly) to evolve. Okay, I lied, I'm gonna go into it a little:
It's almost certainly at least partially because the South was part of America (a country founded on principles of equality and feedom) that the South took the dehumanization so far, because they were, as stated, trying to justify keeping slaves. Most cultures that kept slaves, didn't feel the need to justify treating people badly. They were just cool with treating people badly. But the Southern Slaveowners were hypocrites. They beieved in freedom and the equality of all men, so the slaves couldn't be men, not really. They must be some form of animal. Or at least objectively inferior. Yeah. That's a large part of how that went. Not all of it, but all of it is way too complex to go into here.
Anyway, back on topic, in Golarion, I'll note, there is a direct parallel here between slavery in the American South and the endemic slavery of Halflings in Cheliax. But not with slavery anywhere else in the world. So Halflings in Cheliax being treated this way (and having their own underground railroad in the Bellflower Network) makes perfect sense. Something similar happening anywhere else does not. Slave revolts were common enough (and a nation stepping in and stopping the slave trade ala Andoran certainly happened as time progressed), but an underground railroad isn't necessary anywhere where they can't tell you're a slave by looking at you.
.
.
.
Now, to clarify, sex with slaves was pretty much never considered rape, males in Muslim areas were sometimes castrated, people could indeed be sold away from loved ones, and slaves were in many ways treated quite badly...but the degree to which they were dehumanized in the American South was pretty much unique. They were still considered people just about everywhere. Abusing actual people (to some degree, slaves usually had something in the way of rights) was just not considered that big a deal a lot of those places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like in those nations, they take a view on slavery akin to 1700's and 1800's Religious Southern US of A.
The institution of slavery in the United States was dissimilar to slavery practiced in more ancient societies around the Mediterranean. Among the differences were a strong racial component, huge legal hurdles surrounding manumission, and a nationalistic component based in part on the 'manifest destiny' of the United States as the exemplar and perfection of European culture and its natural domination of so-called lesser races.
I've considered slavery in Golarion as closer to the older Mediterranean model than any of the newer, more insidious forms (although any form of slavery is repugnant).
MI
|
|
Sarenrae herself, and her church, does not tolerate slavery, but nor do they preach "Kill the slavers!" They would certainly look for non-violent ways to seek a slave's freedom—purchasing the slave and setting the slave free is probably the preferred method.
Now that said, there's a wide range of individual variations among the specific worshipers of Sarenrae—as with ANY religion. There are some worshipers of Sarenrae who would, perhaps, seek to simply comfort slaves if possible, espcially if they see the alternative (living on your own with no support structure in a dangerous city) is more painfula nd dangerous than slavery itself. There's ABSOLUTELY some worshipers of Sarenrae who crusade against slavery and slavers themselves and DO use violence against the slavers.
Now, as for Qadira? It's important to keep two things in mind about Sarenrae's faith being the most widespread faith in Qadira:
1) It's not in charge. The government of Qadira is richer and more powerful than the church of Sarenrae in Qadira, and as a result, the government is the one that gets to say if slaves are legal or not. The church has to either go along with that or rebel, and in Qadira's case, the church has opted to go along with it.
2) The church of Sarenrae in Qadira is NOT the most faithful of all of Sarenrae's churches. In fact, it's one of the most corrupt of her churches, because they've more or less lost sight of the "redeem your enemies" and "peace is better than war." Over the course of many generations, the church of Sarenrae in Qadira has become militarized, basically, and they're a lot more pro-war than they should be—but not SO pro-war that the chruch is in immediate danger of losing all their clerical powers. This church's tolerance of slaves in Qadira is but one of many examples of how the church is straying from Sarenrae's path. It's also why there's a schism building among the church, as a growing number of worshipers are coming to realize that things have somehow gone sour in the faith here. But an outright...
I find this to be a very realistic approach, considering the history of religions in our own world. In the U.S., churches and synagogues were divided before the Civil War on the issue of slavery -- and continued to be so during the Civil War.
Some followers of Sarenrae, particularly in Andoran or the Andoran faction in the Pathfinder Society, may be among the few who are relatively militant about ending slavery. (Diplomacy is still likely a preferred option, as is gathering information to help lead to an end of slavery.) In Qadira, we may see a nascent schism in the Church of Sarenrae -- which could become a schism as the nation and the church grow more militant.
Player characters who worship Sarenrae, whether they come from Qadira or not, may find themselves having to deal with the different branches of her faith. A campaign involving a schism in the Church of Sarenrae in Qadira could prove very interesting. GMs will have to determine at what point Sarenrae decides if her clerics have crossed the line, and what do they do about it. (Would defrocked clerics of Sarenrae convert to the worship of another deity? Would they become penitent? Also, what would the government of Qadira do, let alone the leaders of the Keleshite Empire?)
In the Qadira Companion, it was revealed that a high officer of the Qadiran Navy is a Sarenrae follower who is secretly waging war against slave traders. ...Likewise, that product suggested this same ´faction´ works hard to counter the jingoistic tendencies of the Qadiran court (aimed largely against Taldor), tendencies which may be promoted by Rovagug cults.
(I don´t know if I should spoiler that or not, given it doesn´t seem like something that ´the average Qadiran´ would know about, since it involves an officer leading their own campaign against legal, state-promoted activities. Normally I would, but the Qadira Companion is already a player-focused product)
So it would make sense that Qadiran Sarenrae followers who are actively fighting against slavery would find themselves allied with the Church of Sarenrae in Osirion/Garund and Andoren. I can see working with Milani and the other Good dieties already mentioned in the thread. As James Jacobs said, instigating a conflict with the slave-owning Qadiran regime may not be something the main-line of Anti-Slavery Sarenrae followers in Qadira are ready to start right now, but they MAY be much more willing to take the fight outside of Qadira, i.e. against Katapesh and other locales crucial to the slave trade. I could see them also seeking a political solution which doesn´t have as much threat of ruining the Qadiran state... If there´s some possibility of the Kelesh Emperor appointing a new Satrap, they would want to influence that choice I´m sure. Otherwise, they may simply act to sabotage the military, ie. preventing preparations for another Taldan war, sabotaging slave traders or any ´slave catching´ police forces. Not to mention that slavery of elementals is a huge aspect of slavery in Qadira...
|
This is where I wish Golarion had stronger regional pantheons. I'd love to know what other Qadiran/Kelesh gods thought about slavery and a bit more about who they worshiped before Sarenrae became the chief god. She seems to have been their patron for quite a while, but if her faith was fairly new (or fairly recently dominant), her church might be slowly trying to change long-established norms. Also, gods tend to be somewhat quiet on Golarion - what's the hierarchy like? Who speaks for her on earth? Over the years, different and conflicting (and self-serving) messages may have come from her various hierophants and self-proclaimed prophets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of sounding unsympathetic to real world history, it should be pointed out that in a world with undead thralls of necromancers and dark priests, and virgins sacrificed to demons (and the demons actually accepting the sacrifice), the evil of slavery really becomes a lesser of three evils.
Moreover, as pointed out earlier, having slaves does not mean that slaves do not have rights. Historically, some slaves could own property, earn wages, and also purchase their freedom, making such forms of slavery analogous to modern military contracts. Note: analogous, not identical.
It should also be pointed out that the Temple of Sarenrae probably owns slaves itself due to converts willing them to them, and the slave not having any useful skill set to function in the outside world. Tossing them out on the streets with a "You're free!" would be both cruel and callous, so making a place for them in the temple is the only reasonable thing to do. I mean, you heal the noblewoman's child, and in gratitude she gifts the temple with her most beloved possession, her faithful old eunuch.
The temple of Sarenrae now has a faithful old eunuch. What are they going to do with him?
The temple of Sarenrae now has a faithful old eunuch. What are they going to do with him?
That's just a lead-in to your next major poetical epic, What Do You Do With a Faithful Eunuch?, isn't it?
MI
|
|
2) The church of Sarenrae in Qadira is NOT the most faithful of all of Sarenrae's churches. In fact, it's one of the most corrupt of her churches, because they've more or less lost sight of the "redeem your enemies" and "peace is better than war."
Very interesting and thanks of the clarification. Having just read the goals of the followers of Sarenrae in Faith of Purity I had trouble reconciling that with the position of the church in Qadira.
That said in a good number of ancient cultures a slave was a valued property so generally not too mistreated (think of how most people treat a horse. It is property but you don't abuse it.) and a slave could own property by himself and buy his freedom.
Look the Janissaries of the Ottoman empire. They weren't free man but a property of the Sultan. They received a salary during wartime and had the possibility to work for themselves in peacetime.
Roma slaves were capable of earning enough money to buy theyr freedom.
Generally in cultures where slavery wasn't based on racial prejudices but in beings war prisoners, war booty or becoming a slave to pay for debts the slaves were treated better than in cultures where they were considered inherently inferior [it is a oversimplification, I know].
Quadira seem to fall in that category. Slaves are people that fall in that category by misfortune or are the sons of slaves. They aren't slaves for purely racial reasons.
Naturally there is people that will mistreat his property silply because they can, but I think they are viewed by the other Quadirians like normal people did see a guy that mistreated his horse in the 17 and 18 century.
|
|
Sarenrae herself, and her church, does not tolerate slavery, but nor do they preach "Kill the slavers!" They would certainly look for non-violent ways to seek a slave's freedom—purchasing the slave and setting the slave free is probably the preferred method.
Now that said, there's a wide range of individual variations among the specific worshipers of Sarenrae—as with ANY religion. There are some worshipers of Sarenrae who would, perhaps, seek to simply comfort slaves if possible, espcially if they see the alternative (living on your own with no support structure in a dangerous city) is more painfula nd dangerous than slavery itself. There's ABSOLUTELY some worshipers of Sarenrae who crusade against slavery and slavers themselves and DO use violence against the slavers.
Now, as for Qadira? It's important to keep two things in mind about Sarenrae's faith being the most widespread faith in Qadira:
1) It's not in charge. The government of Qadira is richer and more powerful than the church of Sarenrae in Qadira, and as a result, the government is the one that gets to say if slaves are legal or not. The church has to either go along with that or rebel, and in Qadira's case, the church has opted to go along with it.
2) The church of Sarenrae in Qadira is NOT the most faithful of all of Sarenrae's churches. In fact, it's one of the most corrupt of her churches, because they've more or less lost sight of the "redeem your enemies" and "peace is better than war." Over the course of many generations, the church of Sarenrae in Qadira has become militarized, basically, and they're a lot more pro-war than they should be—but not SO pro-war that the chruch is in immediate danger of losing all their clerical powers. This church's tolerance of slaves in Qadira is but one of many examples of how the church is straying from Sarenrae's path. It's also why there's a schism building among the church, as a growing number of worshipers are coming to realize that things have somehow gone sour in the faith here. But an outright...
Thank you all for taking the time to respond. Thank you Mr. Jacobs for taking the time to further illuminate things.
It does make allot of sense, that within a particular faith there would be a variety of attitudes towards a particular moral issue namely that of slavery. This proves very interesting in terms of campaign, role-playing and story ideas. Thank you.
Kevin Andrew Murphey, comparing peoples view to slaves as being similar to our view of owning and caring for a horse makes allot of sense.
As an American I probably have trouble getting beyond the lens of my own history when I think of slavery. My immediate assumptions about slavery are that it would be similar to the slavery of 150 years ago in the American south.
I do realize it took other forms, in other civilizations further in the past.
Now of course I do find slavery abhorrent.
I have just been curios about this question because one of my characters is a Qadiran cleric of Sarenrae, and I was trying to better figure out what his perspective would be.
Slavery does still exist in parts of the world. It may have other names, but that is a subject for another thread.
As for the discussion of setting a slave “free” without any other considerations, well this in a way reminds me of one of my own experiences.
About 11 years ago I went on a student exchange program to India. I stayed with a wonderful family. They were very kind to me and did their best to help me learn about India, the difficult things and all. In that family there was a child of seven or eight. Initially I had trouble figuring how he fit into the family. He was not a relation of any of the myriad of family members. There were numerous cousins aunts uncles etc I had trouble keeping track of everyone. It was explained to me that he was a servant. It was also explained, that he came from a very poor family who couldn’t afford to feed him. In return for his work around the house, he was fed clothed and earned some money. I have no idea how much. Now while perhaps this wasn’t an optimal solution, it was a solution. I never saw anything my western sensibilities would construe as abuse in the way this family treated this child. they seemed to treat this child relativly well.I suppose if the child weren’t working for this family, he would have been begging on the street. Now while perhaps this wasn’t an optimal solution, it was a solution. I was there as a guest, a student, a photographer, I was trying to learn and for a little while this Indian family took me into their family. I did not feel it was my place to judge.
Anyways thank you everyone very much for your thoughts on this thorny issue. Mr. Jacobs question of course has led me to another question that I will start another thread with.
Thank you.
Okay, full on pedantry mode activated: This is not remotely true of historical slavery. Almost anywhere. It was true in the American South and...basically nowhere else ever.
Slavery in Roman times made someone owned, yes, but in no way removed many of their rights as a person.
[snip]
And in many of these societies, freeing slaves was common practice if they served well, and in Rome they were even paid salaries (which they could save up and buy their way free, and many did so).
Slavery in the American South was different for a variety of reasons I won't go into here, but it was only able to be as awful and repressive as it was for a simple reason I will go into: Black people looked different.
In every other slave culture, slaves were not universally of one race, and masters another.
[etc...]
I think you have a rosy view of slavery in the rest of the world compared to the South.
For one, you will see very nearly the same paradigm of slavery that was used in the southern US all across the Americas. In the Caribbean and Brazil, in Central America, etc... It was not at all unique to the South, neither the racial-slavery aspect nor the plantation-slavery aspect nor any other feature.
For two, manumission in Greco-Roman society almost never rose to the level of "commonplace." In ancient Greece it would depend on which city-state exactly you were a slave in, but overall, very rare. An Athenian slave wasn't ever going to become a citizen; that he would be worked to death in the silver mines was far more likely. And there was absolutely a racial dimension of Greek vs non-Greek.
Ancient Rome furnishes most of the examples of manumission, but even then, it never was "common practice." Nor was paying slaves a wage that they could use to buy freedom. Highly skilled slaves and personal companions made up most of the manumissions (just as in the South) but just as in the South, were always in the minority. Slaves working the fields on the Italian plantations were no more likely to be manumitted than slaves working the fields of the Southern plantations.
Southern-style slavery was not so unique, and Greco-Roman slavery not so mild, as you seem to believe.
|
|
I think you have a rosy view of slavery in the rest of the world compared to the South.For one, you will see very nearly the same paradigm of slavery that was used in the southern US all across the Americas. In the Caribbean and Brazil, in Central America, etc... It was not at all unique to the South, neither the racial-slavery aspect nor the plantation-slavery aspect nor any other feature.
You're right. I actually knew this, I just wasn't thinking when I wrote this. I should properly have referred to "the slavery of Africans in the Americas" or something like that. The point of contrast stands though (as do the explanations, for the most part, post-Enlightenment society)
Sorry for the lack of precise terminology. My bad.
For two, manumission in Greco-Roman society almost never rose to the level of "commonplace." In ancient Greece it would depend on which city-state exactly you were a slave in, but overall, very rare. An Athenian slave wasn't ever going to become a citizen; that he would be worked to death in the silver mines was far more likely. And there was absolutely a racial dimension of Greek vs non-Greek.
I never brought up Greece. There's a reason for that. Greek slavery (depending on precisely where you were) often got really bad (helots in Sparta leap immediately to mind), I'm well aware, and I was making a point that slavery wasn't always that bad. You'll note that I did mention that slavery getting as bad as it did in the American South was rare, not entirely unique.
Ancient Rome furnishes most of the examples of manumission, but even then, it never was "common practice." Nor was paying slaves a wage that they could use to buy freedom. Highly skilled slaves and personal companions made up most of the manumissions (just as in the South) but just as in the South, were always in the minority. Slaves working the fields on the Italian plantations were no more likely to be manumitted than slaves working the fields of the Southern plantations.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'common practice', doesn't it? And o what era of the South you're talking about. Manumission wasn't uncommon at all in Revolutionary War era America...but was much less common a few decades later
Honestly, even American slavery wasn't as it's often portrayed for a large segment of it's history, I just didn't want to get into that little debate.
Southern-style slavery was not so unique, and Greco-Roman slavery not so mild, as you seem to believe.
Uh...I verge on CG in real life. I'm a firm advocate of the freedom to choose in just about every aspect of life. When I began that little spiel with comments about slavery taking away people's choices, well, that's literally about the worst thing I can say about any crime (up to and including rape and murder). Also note the references to rape and castration. I'm not trying to make slavery look all inviting and shiny, just clarify for people who immediately envision slaves being seen as and treated as nothing more than livestock that that kind of dehumaniztion was actually quite rare.
People in the thread I was originally posting that to were making some sweeping, blanket, generalizations about slavery that were not universally true, and nobody was contradicting them. A more balanced viewpoint seemed necessary.
Sounds like in those nations, they take a view on slavery akin to 1700's and 1800's Religious Southern US of A.The institution of slavery in the United States was dissimilar to slavery practiced in more ancient societies around the Mediterranean. Among the differences were a strong racial component, huge legal hurdles surrounding manumission, and a nationalistic component based in part on the 'manifest destiny' of the United States as the exemplar and perfection of European culture and its natural domination of so-called lesser races.
I've considered slavery in Golarion as closer to the older Mediterranean model than any of the newer, more insidious forms (although any form of slavery is repugnant).
MI
Do what? Subjugation of African Races in slavery was somehow different and more racist than subjugation of the Jews in Egypt? The Egyptians didn't view the Jews as a lesser race? They didn't see themselves as entitled above others? What slavery situation in "the old world" was different?
In regards to the church of Sarenrae, that is something I am looking forwards to, a schism where the church starts to fragment given the region in Katapesh/Qaudiran/Kelesh seems to be a choice of Gorum and/or Rovarug the Rough Beast in terms of Gods to follow after The Dawnlight kicks their asses to the curb.
I have encountered this with my players (and myself, but I try to think "okay, no modern values, be open-minded but don't go too deep here" and roleplay as somebody who doesn't like the concept but will play along so long as certain 'values' aren't compromised!) when they encounter slaves.
The problem I see with the Slaves of the aforementioned nations is that they are prisoners, not down-on-their-luck merchants or commoners. Keleshite slavers are infamous all across the known lands of Golarion, buying their stock from Chelax, the Orcs, the Gnolls, Pirates of all stripes, prisoners from other countries and generally anyone who has the people to sell.
Keleshite Slavers seem to be rather brutal with their slaves as well, all too willing to use a whip to make sure the slaves know exactly who is in charge, unless the slave in question could be useful as pleasure-slaves (let's not call a harem anything other than a private brothel, people, only difference is you're paying for the furniture and food, not the efforts of the gals or guys involved!) or otherwise useful, in which they'd liked be Pesh'ed to the eyeballs for the duration of the trip and then use the time that it takes to cure the slaves of their addiction to also break their will and make them submit to their new status in life.
And yes, I have taken out more than my fair share of slavers in Golarion. One particularly judgemental Paladin shackled all the slavers together, broke all their hands and then sent them marching back home with enough water for seven days, still shackled together.
GM gave her a 'Divine High-Five' for that one.
Notes on the other American slave societies and on Revolutionary War-era manumission duly noted :)
I guess much of what I was arguing with in your post, however, was the idea that classical slavery (or perhaps just Roman slavery) was less evil, or more humane, or less harsh than Southern slavery. This is an idea that comes up fairly often in such discussions, and it is wrong. I apologize if I read too much of it into your post, but I did seem to see it there.
In any case, classical slavery wasn't better. It was often worse. The Athenians did things to their slaves that would make even the less savory Southern masters ill. So did the Romans. It was rare to deliberately work slaves to death in the South, after all. If you go to the mines in classical times, being deliberately worked to death (and to have a life expectancy of mere months) was basically the guaranteed outcome.
There are great differences between the societies, of course, including in the way they set up their systems of slavery. But to be a slave on the Roman latifundia was not to have a better fate to look forward to than a slave picking cotton for the gin. In both societies a small number of slaves could hope for freedom; in the Roman, indeed, the very lucky few could hope to advance to the heights of society in a way that a free black in the South never could. But for the majority in either case no such prospect was realistic.
And frankly the similarities between the slave societies, Southern and Roman, are more than the differences IMO. The obsession with fugitive slaves. The paranoid fear of slave revolt and the brutality with which such was met (though worse in Roman than American times). The divides between domestic slaves and agricultural slaves and the treatment they received. The reliance on plantation agriculture.
They are fundamentally similar institutions, but if I had to pick a worse one, I would pick the classical model, largely because the extremes of maltreatment were more extreme, more common, and more socially acceptable.
Hopefully, since classical slavery has been given as a closer comparison to Golarion slavery than US Southern slavery, this is not completely off topic :)
At the risk of sounding unsympathetic to real world history, it should be pointed out that in a world with undead thralls of necromancers and dark priests, and virgins sacrificed to demons (and the demons actually accepting the sacrifice), the evil of slavery really becomes a lesser of three evils.
Moreover, as pointed out earlier, having slaves does not mean that slaves do not have rights. Historically, some slaves could own property, earn wages, and also purchase their freedom, making such forms of slavery analogous to modern military contracts. Note: analogous, not identical.
It should also be pointed out that the Temple of Sarenrae probably owns slaves itself due to converts willing them to them, and the slave not having any useful skill set to function in the outside world. Tossing them out on the streets with a "You're free!" would be both cruel and callous, so making a place for them in the temple is the only reasonable thing to do. I mean, you heal the noblewoman's child, and in gratitude she gifts the temple with her most beloved possession, her faithful old eunuch.
The temple of Sarenrae now has a faithful old eunuch. What are they going to do with him?
Ironically, this exactly what happened in Post-Civil war America. "You're Free" but have no skills and you can't compete with me for jobs, but I'll pat myself on the back for freeing you, what a great person am I.
The vast majority of slaves were better off in slavery (you do have to feed slaves just like animals or they die, cheaper to feed them than buy more every few weeks).True sacrifices have to be made for future betterment, but the US Government should have made some kind of effort other than, oh well, that's done go find some work! Never mind most of them couldn't read,write or even speak the indigenous language for squat (most slaves spoke and amalgam of african languages and something else like a french/english/spanish/dutch mish mosh), Creole is a left over from that era of mish-moshes. True they could all speak to themselves, and the former masters got used to the language, but most people really had no idea what they were talking about the majority of them time.
Similar to someone who is starving, you can't simply say, "Go eat" because they will eat themselves to death. There needs to be an adjustment period (unless it's a recent hunger or enslavement).
Zoo animals or domestic animals would be the same, can't simply open a cage and say "go free!" in most cases that's certain death.
The Jews had Moses and God. I'd Dare-say the perceiverence of the African Races from post-civil war to modern day would have to be a miracle in and of it's self. Equally true, however is that any society that lost it's slaves or subjugated people to the extant they relied on them for economy, crumbled following the loss of said slaves, so the mere existence and prosperity of the United States afterward is also uncharacteristic of history.
The institution of slavery in the United States was dissimilar to slavery practiced in more ancient societies around the Mediterranean. Among the differences were a strong racial component, huge legal hurdles surrounding manumission, and a nationalistic component based in part on the 'manifest destiny' of the United States as the exemplar and perfection of European culture and its natural domination of so-called lesser races.
You can find all of these in ancient Mediterranean slave societies.
The vast majority of slaves were better off in slavery (you do have to feed slaves just like animals or they die, cheaper to feed them than buy more every few weeks).
True sacrifices have to be made for future betterment, but the US Government should have made some kind of effort other than, oh well, that's done go find some work!
I agree that the postwar US gov't handling of freed slaves was really poor. However, the first part I suspect is equal parts Southern white propaganda (that has to an extent crept into history) as it is fact. If you asked those people how many of them would prefer to be slaves again, I don't know that you'd get an answer suggesting they were better off enslaved.
|
|
Notes on the other American slave societies and on Revolutionary War-era manumission duly noted :)
Yeah, sorry for the imprecision there.
I guess much of what I was arguing with in your post, however, was the idea that classical slavery (or perhaps just Roman slavery) was less evil, or more humane, or less harsh than Southern slavery. This is an idea that comes up fairly often in such discussions, and it is wrong. I apologize if I read too much of it into your post, but I did seem to see it there.
You were sorta right. I was actually primarily arguing that slavery in the Islamic world (that being the closest equivalent for Keleshite slavery) was less bad than in the American South for various reasons. Rome really only got mentioned in passing, mostly as an example of slaves having certain legal protections, not of them being treated well, and I never even mentioned Greece.
And just for the record, slavery in the Islamic world was still bad, especially if you got castrated or raped (both very possible), but it wasn't dehumanizing in the same way as, say, slavery in the Americas.
The problem I see with the Slaves of the aforementioned nations is that they are prisoners, not down-on-their-luck merchants or commoners. Keleshite slavers are infamous all across the known lands of Golarion, buying their stock from Chelax, the Orcs, the Gnolls, Pirates of all stripes, prisoners from other countries and generally anyone who has the people to sell.
Absolutely! All evidence points to them being utterly indiscriminate in their purchasing habits and, indeed, morals in general. slavers pretty much need to be complete pieces of s~~* to get into the trade in the first place...but none of that has anything to do with the attitude of your standard slave-owner, who's the one who'd simply see slaves as unlucky.
Keleshite Slavers seem to be rather brutal with their slaves as well, all too willing to use a whip to make sure the slaves know exactly who is in charge, unless the slave in question could be useful as pleasure-slaves (let's not call a harem anything other than a private brothel, people, only difference is you're paying for the furniture and food, not the efforts of the gals or guys involved!) or otherwise useful, in which they'd liked be Pesh'ed to the eyeballs for the duration of the trip and then use the time that it takes to cure the slaves of their addiction to also break their will and make them submit to their new status in life.
That strikes me as really unlikely, actually. Drug-addiction damages the slave's value significantly, since you've either got to keep them supplied or deal with withdrawal. Maybe if they're intended to go work on a pesh-plantation anyway, but that's kinda hard to predict.
Ditto for any permanent maiming (including too severe whippings). Such things certainly could happen if you're sufficiently annoying and recalcitrant, but only to a tiny fraction of the people bought and sold as slaves.
I think what you're failing to consider is that a large percentage of slaves are going to get used as household workers, skilled professions, gladiators or even soldiers, sexual playthings, and other uses where any permanent damage is likely to be a significant downside and drop in price, and that slavers don't always know which will be bought for these things. Heck, even unskilled labor ala plantations requires being in good physical condition to get the most out of the slave.
And a harem of slaves isn't just a brothel (which can be entirely consensual), it's almost always effectively rape, since they can't say no. And therefore definitely worth killing over.
And yes, I have taken out more than my fair share of slavers in Golarion. One particularly judgemental Paladin shackled all the slavers together, broke all their hands and then sent them marching back home with enough water for seven days, still shackled together.
GM gave her a 'Divine High-Five' for that one.
And would've from me, too. :)
You were sorta right. I was actually primarily arguing that slavery in the Islamic world (that being the closest equivalent for Keleshite slavery) was less bad than in the American South for various reasons.
Maybe. You've got Janissaries and slave armies on the one hand (something indeed fairly unknown in Western slavery), and on the other you've got the galley slaves and such :p
I think that Keleshite slavery as described is somewhere in between the less-bad and the more-bad, but it seems like it can veer more-bad pretty commonly.
|
|
Maybe. You've got Janissaries and slave armies on the one hand (something indeed fairly unknown in Western slavery), and on the other you've got the galley slaves and such :p
Well, for me, the big distinction is that there wasn't a prejudice against slaves as such. They were often treated badly, but so were non-slaves (albeit in different ways), making being a slave often no worse than being a poor free person.
I think that Keleshite slavery as described is somewhere in between the less-bad and the more-bad, but it seems like it can veer more-bad pretty commonly.
Something like that, yeah. Though I think, to a large extent, it'll depend on the master's Alignment:
Good = Less BadEvil = More Bad
Neutral = In Between
Now Evil slave-owners are likely a bit more common than Good ones, but not necessarily vastly so in that cultural milieu.
The thing to remember is when comparing American plantation slavery vs ancient style slavery is that the ancient slave was really not treated any worse than their free poor counterparts, and sometimes even had a comparatively easy life, to the point that some people actually signed up to be gladiators to have a shot at earning enough fame and wealth to be able to live comofortably. That is very different from the plantation style slavery where the equivalent free counterparts of the slaves often at least had some land and/or income that made their lives markedly better than the slaves. That difference may not have been huge, but it was still far greater than what you would have found in ancient Rome or with the Norse thralls. So the lifestyle of the slaves were probably about the same, but the lifestyle of the poor around them was much closer in ancient times, and people openly acknowledged that their society was inherently unfair and that class differences existed.
This may not have made slavery better, but it made it more palpable since everyone in the poor classes functionally lived basically the same life with basically the same lack of real legal options to protect themselves with. The only real difference between slave and free poor was that the free poor was usually bought off with public banquets when the rich needed them to do something in mass, when slaves could be told what to do and be expected to follow it, no matter how many of them were to be moved. Otherwise, on an individual basis, free poor and enslaved were functionally the same thing to the rich.
Really, what is the distinction between slave and prisoner?
If you fight in a war, inevitably people surrender in battle, you then capture them and put them somewhere, where they are forced to work.
Similarly criminals are captured, I know they are not forced to work here in the US anymore, but, they were up until not that long ago... So how its "slavery" different from "prisoner"?
Criminals do things wrong and get punished, I know, but what about a war? Both sides see the 'other' guy as the 'bad' guy.
People have to produce in order to survive and be fed, no one can afford to host a population for free for any length of time. Most slaves have come out of a prisoner of war situation. If you were in a generations long war, what like with dwarves and goblins, what would you realistically do with all the prisoners that accumulate over the years? Either kill them, or make them work.
How is a Harem of slaves different than arranged marriages? The women do not have a choice in their mate, and arranges marriages often (but no always) are occurring in polygamous societies with more than one wife, so are harem slaves just rebadged polygamy/arranged marriages or is it vice versa?
Things happen differently in different societies for different reasons. One system of government or society is not wrong.
One man's porno is another man's entertainment, one man's cruelty is another man's justice. One man's slavery another's economic answer to a cast system sparked by years of war.
The 'illusion' most people have about being "free" is false. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wants. No Society offers that. Act outside of the law, and one becomes a prisoner, and "freedom" is lost.
In most cases slaves have families (also slaves of course), they have homes and they have food. They may not be able to go from their home to say another place because it is "forbidden" but last time I checked chilling out in the oval office was off limits for me too.
In societies that have casts or assigned positions, that were also accompanied by assigned living situations, (former USSR comes to mind) to what extent does this person have "freedom"?
If you cannot move up or out, and must do your job or perish or be imprisoned or punished, is this not the same as the life of a slave?
The detestable idea of one being, having 'greater worth' exists all over the world without any "slavery". Celebrities, royalty, government officials, the wealthy are all renown for treating others like this and getting away with it. In the US celebs don't even have to go to jail (really), for breaking all the same rules we normal people have.
People who are buried in debt from credit cards or taxes have the same life style as a slave, they have to go to work every day, and basically get nothing out of it, it is all taken from them.
Most societal systems are not so very different from slavery, If one is free to worship and free to have a family, what else , really is there?
The thing to remember is when comparing American plantation slavery vs ancient style slavery is that the ancient slave was really not treated any worse than their free poor counterparts
I've spent some time trying to demonstrate that this isn't true. It isn't.
Better treatment o fslaves is generally found a few systems which are generally marked by their lack of large-scale agricultural/industrial slavery, not their modernity or antiquity.
If one is free to worship and free to have a family, what else , really is there?
A slave generally does not enjoy the second freedom and occasionally not the first.
Better treatment o fslaves is generally found a few systems which are generally marked by their lack of large-scale agricultural/industrial slavery, not their modernity or antiquity.
My point is that for most of history, the same was true of the poor in general. Slavery wasn't pretty, but it was generally no worse than being free, but poor. The chains that limited the formal slaves were merely more physical and tangible, while the chains that limited the "free" poor were less tangible, but nonetheless just as strong in most cases. Neither free peasant nor slave were particularly likely to break out of the economic and social situation they found themselves in.
Slave on European plantations of the America's were different in that their neighbors typically either had land themselves, even the poor neighbors, or had the opportunity to eventually go elsewhere and get land. Either way, the "free" poor had real opportunities to improve their lives, where the slaves were stuck into a rut that they couldn't get out of without permission from their masters.
This may not seem like much of a difference, but when the distinction between free servant and slave is virtually nonexistent, slavery is likely going to be less of a racial punishment and more likely to be simply one more of many social strata. Thus, they are no more or less likely to be seen as human as any free servants or employees their masters might have. Plantation style slavery or its older equivalents in the forms of galleys and quarries, is different, as it is necessary to formalize the slave/master relationship on that scale to be at least partially efficient, making it easier to dehumanize the slaves. It also becomes necessary to create the illusion that the free servants/employees working beside them are somehow "freer" in order to create a social border between free and slave to keep the slaves from being able to revolt.
Well my point then is that that is wrong. I don't think there is any ancient society where the distinction between slave and poor free is virtually nonexistant. Not Rome, not Greece, not Egypt or Persia or Israel or Assyria. Scandinavia might come the closest, and after them probably Persia, but in neither case are the lines really blurry.
Well my point then is that that is wrong. I don't think there is any ancient society where the distinction between slave and poor free is virtually nonexistant. Not Rome, not Greece, not Egypt or Persia or Israel or Assyria. Scandinavia might come the closest, and after them probably Persia, but in neither case are the lines really blurry.
Given how some of the poor in ancient times lived, I would disagree. When as a parent, you can feel that you are improving your child's life by signing a contract to make them a virtual slave to a rich merchant or you think that by signing up to be a gladiator, and thus virtually a slave literally fighting for your life, is an improvement on your current lot in life, I would say that the distinction is pretty nonexistent in the day to day reality of their lives.
Egypt was different in that all of the slaves were really more like indentured servants to the various temples rather than being owned by individuals. While probably extremely unpleasant at times, they were not without a degree of power, especially the lucky ones assigned to the Pharaoh, who were often little more than spies for the temples.
EDIt: Since people mentioned Greece, in Athens the distinction between free and slave didn't matter as much as citizen(which is this case meant native born free male) and non citizen (which included native born slaves, all women, and all immigrants, irregardless of whether that immigration was voluntary or not.)
Easy answer?
Hypocrisy. No one said they actually followed the tenets of the faith -- just that they claim them. If people can be hypocritical of their religion in the real world then I don't see how they couldn't do the same in a fantasy game.
Well my point then is that that is wrong. I don't think there is any ancient society where the distinction between slave and poor free is virtually nonexistant. Not Rome, not Greece, not Egypt or Persia or Israel or Assyria. Scandinavia might come the closest, and after them probably Persia, but in neither case are the lines really blurry.Given how some of the poor in ancient times lived, I would disagree.
Let us take a case study, then. Classical Athenian, male, first a citizen, then a slave.
Citizen: You most likely work either in farming your own land or in your own business in the city, unless you have been selected for a government position. (One citizen working for another is shameful, and thus avoided). You participate in politics unless you live at an inconvenient distance from the city, you are eligible to get a government job by lottery between all citizens, and you are also eligible for periodic payouts from the profits of the state-owned Laurion silver mines and for well-paying jobs as a sailor in the fleet (also paid for by the silver mines).
Slave: Some less horrible jobs exist (such as slave police, household servants, etc) but the single largest employer of slaves is the same silver mining operation, which works between twenty and thirty thousand slaves at a time in order to pay for the operation of the Athenian empire. Very few of whom will live longer than four to five years. You can guess why.
But I'll tell you anyway; it's because they were starved, beaten, and worked to death.
Can you see a difference? I haven't even gone into freedoms like the freedom to marry, or to travel, or other such basic things. Or the (incredibly important) social distinctions.
Easy answer?
Hypocrisy. No one said they actually followed the tenets of the faith -- just that they claim them. If people can be hypocritical of their religion in the real world then I don't see how they couldn't do the same in a fantasy game.
The problem with this answer is that clerics who are hypocritical lose their powers in a fantasy world.
There is less penalty for non-clerics, of course, but eventually those lay people who least follow the teachings of Sarenrae would find themselves receiving some degree of punishment - even if it is only the social stigma of clerics refusing to cast spells for those they find most offensive.
The corrupt clerics, on the other hand, risk losing their powers entirely if they continue to cast spells for those working against Sarenrae's causes, so they might also withhold spells at times - if only to put off the risk of losing their powers, although possibly also to keep up the illusion that they are not walking the knife's edge of losing their powers.
This depends alot on how much dirrect influence the gods spend in the campaign world. In some worlds, gods walk among the populous and perform miracles, and the clerics have constant direct contact. In other worlds, like how Golaron is usually described, he gods are more hands off.
And how will followers know if they are walking the razor edge? They are in the dark about this, and can't see the cliff. Its not like they are intentionally flirting with it. They are more likely unaware of where the edge should be, and have no idea how close they are.
Well my point then is that that is wrong. I don't think there is any ancient society where the distinction between slave and poor free is virtually nonexistant. Not Rome, not Greece, not Egypt or Persia or Israel or Assyria. Scandinavia might come the closest, and after them probably Persia, but in neither case are the lines really blurry.Given how some of the poor in ancient times lived, I would disagree.Let us take a case study, then. Classical Athenian, male, first a citizen, then a slave.
Citizen: You most likely work either in farming your own land or in your own business in the city, unless you have been selected for a government position. (One citizen working for another is shameful, and thus avoided). You participate in politics unless you live at an inconvenient distance from the city, you are eligible to get a government job by lottery between all citizens, and you are also eligible for periodic payouts from the profits of the state-owned Laurion silver mines and for well-paying jobs as a sailor in the fleet (also paid for by the silver mines).
Slave: Some less horrible jobs exist (such as slave police, household servants, etc) but the single largest employer of slaves is the same silver mining operation, which works between twenty and thirty thousand slaves at a time in order to pay for the operation of the Athenian empire. Very few of whom will live longer than four to five years. You can guess why.
But I'll tell you anyway; it's because they were starved, beaten, and worked to death.
Can you see a difference? I haven't even gone into freedoms like the freedom to marry, or to travel, or other such basic things.
Of course to be a Citizen you must first not be of the lowest non-slave class. There were many living in Athens who were not slaves and were not Citizens. Citizens had rights others did not.
You also delibrately choose an example that you previously say is one of the worse classical examples. Your opponent has already admitted that not all areas treated slaves the same, so choosing only 1 area does not make for a proper case study from which you can draw a conclusion. Especially when you have previously admitted that the example is bias in your favor.
Of course to be a Citizen you must first not be of the lowest non-slave class. There were many living in Athens who were not slaves and were not Citizens. Citizens had rights others did not.
This is precisely my point. Most of the time in the ancient world, free and slave only came into play in extreme situations. Most of the time, the distinction made was rich and not rich. You could break down each category into subcategories, but most of the time someone from the rich category interacted with someone from not rich category, the subcategories vary rarely mattered.
Easy answer?
Hypocrisy. No one said they actually followed the tenets of the faith -- just that they claim them. If people can be hypocritical of their religion in the real world then I don't see how they couldn't do the same in a fantasy game.
There is less penalty for non-clerics, of course, but eventually those lay people who least follow the teachings of Sarenrae would find themselves receiving some degree of punishment - even if it is only the social stigma of clerics refusing to cast spells for those they find most offensive.
Why? You are telling me that Sarenrae tracks every single follow and makes sure they regularly follow all her tenets to the letter or punishes them?
I can almost agree with the clerical part -- I could see that being a bit of a problem. But for joe-blow the average who does the equivalent of showing up on sunday making his donations then going home to drink, adulter, and whatever else is a sin for his faith? Probably not. Simply isn't worth it to Sarenrae to get to that level of policing the supposed "faithful".
As to the clerics themselves? Well yeah if they are actual clerics and not just some expert then there is a bit more issue -- but even here if we were to go with a more 'old testament' version of slavery (or the Ulfen version in the first campaign setting) it could fall under "not so bad".
Of course to be a Citizen you must first not be of the lowest non-slave class. There were many living in Athens who were not slaves and were not Citizens. Citizens had rights others did not.
Non citizens living in Athens were either
-Women and children
-Foreigners (merchants and the like)
-Freed slaves
You will have basically no adult, male, Athenian non-citizens except for slaves and ex-slaves. The only case in which such will happen otherwise is when someone is stripped of citizenship.
And while women, children and foreigners were not citizens, they were absolutely not treated on the level of slaves. Women had the least rights out of those three groups, but they were not nearly slaves.
No such class of working-poor non-citizen families existed.
This is precisely my point. Most of the time in the ancient world, free and slave only came into play in extreme situations. Most of the time, the distinction made was rich and not rich. You could break down each category into subcategories, but most of the time someone from the rich category interacted with someone from not rich category, the subcategories vary rarely mattered.
This is simply not true on any level. Free and slave were never practically equivalent in any classical society. You could never in any society legally do the same things to a free man working for you as you could to your slave. Always poor free men are above 99% of slaves on the social ladder. In Athens, in Rome, in Israel, in Egypt. In Scandinavia too. Anywhere.
You also delibrately choose an example that you previously say is one of the worse classical cases
I say it was bad. It was not a fringe case, though. Athens was by far the largest consumer of slaves in Greece, and the mines were by far the largest consumer of slaves in Athens.
Feel free to look at other areas, though. Roman agricultural slavery should provide just as fruitful a comparison as Greek industrial. There's plenty of literature both primary and secondary to draw from.
Non citizens living in Athens were either
-Women and children
-Foreigners (merchants and the like)
-Freed slavesYou will have basically no adult, male, Athenian non-citizens except for slaves and ex-slaves. The only case in which such will happen otherwise is when someone is stripped of citizenship.
And while women, children and foreigners were not citizens, they were absolutely not treated on the level of slaves. Women had the least rights out of those three groups, but they were not nearly slaves.
--------------------------------
This is simply not true on any level. Free and slave were never practically equivalent in any classical society. You could never in any society legally do the same things to a free man working for you as you could to your slave. Always poor free men are above 99% of slaves on the social ladder. In Athens, in Rome, in Israel, in Egypt. In Scandinavia too. Anywhere.
For the first point, I doubt foreigners and women were likely to be much comforted by the fact that they were technically "free" despite the fact their movements and activties were often times just as constrained, if not more so, than the movement and activities of slaves were.
Second, in ancient times, the legal definition of what one could do very rarely came up for the poor. If you had a rich patron, it didn't matter because they would protect you in return for your service, whatever title that service may have fallen under, with that service usually at least bordering on duties we would consider slave labor. If you didn't have a rich patron, you were basically praying the rich didn't notice you for more than 5 minutes at a time; if they did, you were probably hosed no matter what the legal statutes said about what someone in your social position should be allowed to do. The only real difference is if you paid the rich with what little money you had or your service.
with that service usually at least bordering on duties we would consider slave labor.
Such as?
Being forbidden from marrying except as your patron allowed? Working for him without compensation? Having him decide how much food and water you get? Able to sell you to a different patron on a whim?
The patron-client relationship was always big in Rome (not so much in Athens) but never equivalent to the slave-master relationship. And when patrons encroached, clients complained, pushed back, found other patrons. I can point you to primary sources documenting this. Martial's epigrams to his patrons, for a start.
with that service usually at least bordering on duties we would consider slave labor.Such as?
Being forbidden from marrying except as your patron allowed? Working for him without compensation? Having him decide how much food and water you get? Able to sell you to a different patron on a whim?
The patron-client relationship was always big in Rome (not so much in Athens) but never equivalent to the slave-master relationship. And when patrons encroached, clients complained, pushed back, found other patrons. I can point you to primary sources documenting this. Martial's epigrams to his patrons, for a start.
Functionally, on a day-to-day basis, I seriously doubt they looked all that different. Another similar system was the apprentice-journeyman-master relationship common in the trade guilds. Whatever it was called, it amounted to the fact that while some of the support class had outlets they could turn to eventually while others did not, none of them, whether they were slave, servant, or apprentice, really had much ability to shape immediate circumstances with their patrons or anybody else from the patron class.
You're trying to split hairs that most people in that era may have known about and to a certain degree cared about on some level, but not usually on a day to day level when interacting with people of a completely different social class.
You're trying to split hairs that most people in that era may have known about and to a certain degree cared about on some level, but not usually on a day to day level when interacting with people of a completely different social class.
No. On a day to day level, you cared whether you were slave or (poor) free. You cared a lot. In Greek society, in Roman, in Scandinavian, etc. Absolutely. It was a huge and critical distinction.
There's no splitting hairs about it.
You're trying to split hairs that most people in that era may have known about and to a certain degree cared about on some level, but not usually on a day to day level when interacting with people of a completely different social class.No. On a day to day level, you cared whether you were slave or (poor) free. You cared a lot. In Greek society, in Roman, in Scandinavian, etc. Absolutely. It was a huge and critical distinction.
There's no splitting hairs about it.
We will have to agree to disagree than, because there are a lot of other factors that have to be considered beyond slave vs free. In all of those societies, and medieval society, and our own when it comes right down to it, freedom is an illusionary construct whose definition is defined by the individual society and can very rarely be applied to other cultures and societies without running into some kind of cultural static. Pendagast did a beautiful job of illustrating this earlier. A roman, slave, free, rich, or poor, doesn't matter, would feel as out of place in our society as you or I would in their culture.
Being forbidden from marrying except as your patron allowed? Working for him without compensation? Having him decide how much food and water you get? Able to sell you to a different patron on a whim?
Yes, in varying forms; don't forget the tradition that your master/king/patron could choose take your brides virginity from her before you married her, which was still around in the French Revolution, even if it was rarely practiced at that point. Frequently; this continued into medieval times with the different labor requirements the serfs had to meet. Not quite as frequently as the others, but still not uncommon, whether that ability be direct or indirect, through how much they provided, and how, and when they provided compensation. I'll grant you this one.
One out of 4 being a major difference between "servant" and "slave" looks like a rather blurry line to me.
The prima noctis is an urban legend. And from a different time period than the classical Mediterranean one in any case. Patrons/kings/lords were not allowed to take the virginity of their clients' brides.
Their slaves, however? Sure.
One more difference.
Really, though, there is a preponderance of primary evidence showing that the free/slave distinction was not a trivial one. Slaves who were lucky enough to get a chance to buy their freedom spent their life savings to do so. They chose to spend the inscrptions on their tombs noting not how many denarii they had or what socio-economic level they had reached, but that they had been freed. A major revolt during the Roman struggle of the Orders was touched off when a free man who had fallen into poverty was about to be sold into slavery; the plebians of the city near-universally rebelled against the government rather than allow such a fate to befall him. The whole issue of being sold from (poor free) to (slave) due to unpaid debts was one of the fundamental plebian grievances that led to the Roman civil wars and the destabilization of the Republic.
I don't doubt that as the Empire grew, the distinction became more important, but that was because as the it aged grew, the economic well being of the free poor also grew, as did the need for the rich to provide a firm definition of what it meant to be free vs what it meant to be a slave in order to maintain a stable workforce to drive the massive Roman economy.
Greek city-states never really grew large enough to automatically require the distinction. Sparta ruled over a single conquered nation, and fought tooth and nail to maintain distinctions between the two cultures, so they had to make a sharp line. Athens was a bit of a mish-mash of ideas to start with, so their differences kept them from ever drawing much of a line beyond citizen and non-citizen.
The Norse, Saxons, and Celts all had a need to define it to a point, but very few of those groups really grew big enough to make having the slaves be part of the extended household, and subject to the same treatment as everyone else in the extended household, become cumbersome. Later Medieval cultures, The Normans, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantines, all developed to a point where the upper class had to create social barriers between the different segments of the poor in order to keep the lower classes from rioting all the time.
The African tribes catching and selling the slaves to the Europeans probably never understood just what they were selling their brethren into. I am sure they expected their prisoners to lead a very unpleasant life, but I doubt they fully understood just how deep plantation style slavery went in its oppression, being more used to tribal level of slavery where women would often marry into the tribe and men could win honor and freedom on the battlefield, much the way it would have been under the Celts, Norse, and Saxons.
A pattern similar to what happened in Rome happened in American slavery. When the various colonies were young, slavery, at least in what became the US, was not as common as indentured servants, who were basically slaves for a contracted number of years. When that proved to be ineffectual, they turned to multiracial slavery, using mostly indians and blacks, but really any poor person in a lifetime indentured servant contract would do. It was still not quite multi-generational, but was starting to be in some cases. When it slaves running away became too much of a problem, they were forced to further refine into a racial institution so that they could find and recapture escaped slaves when they ran away easier, which was a critical process when the entire economy was dependent on plantations, which were dependent on slave labor. Like the Romans and medieval Fuedalist societies, the plantation owners, along with the northern business owners, had to create a social barrier between black slaves/ex-slaves and the other poor segments of society, especially the large population of sailors, in order to maintain what they thought was the "proper" social order.
So, yes, in large empires, the distinction matters, but it matters far more in the later period of those empires than the early part when they were still growing and able to treat the entire lower class more or less the same without fear of causing riots and revolts. Ceasar, in his youth, probably spent a fair of time with slaves in taverns and other recreational areas. Constantine would not have.
there was an issue of the archaeology magazine that had an article on the dio Gino mine area I'n Iberia. apparently it was heavily mined from 150 bc I think to 500 ad before stopping then being re discovered I'n modern times.
according to the article freemen miners dud I think 10 hour days got breaks and an okay wage. the slaves did I think 12 hour days got no breaks and uf they died they would just be tossed I'n with the slag pile.
my numbers might nit be exact I read it months ago.
I think the over all thing really is slaves existed as a. mixture of cog I'n the industrial machine if the ancient world and their quality of existence likely varied from time place and society.
and I agree they have ALOT I'n common simply with the state of being a prisoner.