History buffs - historical slave turnover question
NewJeffCT said:
Sounds like your looking at either a system like sparta in the age of city states greece or maybe rome at its hieght. Probably sparta though.
Spartans had many slaves from defeated enemies who they turned into permanent slave populations. Slavery worked different in classical greece though. The slaves were an underclass with few legal rights but they didnt spend all day in chains in the masters fields. They were sort of a cross between medieval serfs and colonian slaves.
The spartans had a custom where before a teenager was officially a man he had to go out naked, no gear, sneak into a slave village and kill one of them without being seen. Then return with proof. If they were seen they failed and were badly beaten and had to remain a legal child for another year.
I would look quite seriusly at early sparta as a model for any militarily focused, mass slave taking , supremicist culture. Why make things up when history gave you all the example you need?
Celebrim
Legend
Concerning Sparta, that would be the best example of a slave holding society which developed an outlook with regards to slavery (and hetrosexual sex and alot of other things for that matter) which was fundamentally economically and socially untenable.
Sparta's Helot system was one of the harshest examples of a serf system in world history. Sparta increasingly held the life of its helots as cheap, the famous stories about initiation into manhood, being just one example and since its possibly apocryphal its maybe not the most important. The Spartan's were also said to annually declare ritual war on the Helot population in order to keep it intimidated and subdued. Essentially, the Spartans lived in terror of thier own serfs, and in responce terrorized them. The problem was, Sparta's primitive wheat based agricultural system couldn't produce enough output to sustain a birth rate that allowed a society to hold life to be cheap. The more lightly the Spartan's regarded the lives of the helots, the more the enconomic value of the helot's was actually rising. The Spartans were slowly and inexcurably killing off the helots faster than the helots could reproduce, and in turn, since the Spartans were a military aristocracy that depended on having the labor of dozens of helots in order to field a single hoplite, the Spartans were slowly cutting thier own throats.
Spartan faced a long term population crash. In the good years, the helots could produce enough food to keep the health of themselves and the society high enough to replace thier loses at the hands of thier cruel masters. But in lean years, the city would slowly depopulate. Sparta massed at the height of its power some 8,000 of the finest infantry the world has ever seen. By the time of thier first defeat in battle, there where only 1,000. Sparta went from virtual mastery of Greece, to by the battle of Leuctra being unable to mass enough hoplite's from thier depleted aristocracy to face off against thier enemies. Faced with extinction, Sparta did its best to knockdown its own suicidal culture (even going so far as to pass laws that made it illegal not to have sex with your wives), but it was too deeply entrenched. Simply adopting more helots as citizens might have saved them, but even when they promised this reward to helots for thier service in battle, they frequently assassinated them after the battle was won. Sparta ended up by the Roman era being an empoverished tourist trap where wealthy people would go to gawk at the quaint natives.
The lessons in that that could be applied to say the economic system of the Soviet Union, or the present population crash of Western Europe, I leave to the interested reader.
Just by way of contrast, feudal Japan was probably the closest you could come to Sparta in culture - for example the tradiation of testing the worthiness of a new sword by beheading the nearest peasant - but managed to avoid the sort of collapse that befall Sparta in part simply because rice is a phenomenally productive crop, Japan is an island with limited agricultural land, and they could just economically afford to hold life abit more cheaply. Which isn't to say that that sort of life wasn't equally horrible for the peasants.
Sparta's Helot system was one of the harshest examples of a serf system in world history. Sparta increasingly held the life of its helots as cheap, the famous stories about initiation into manhood, being just one example and since its possibly apocryphal its maybe not the most important. The Spartan's were also said to annually declare ritual war on the Helot population in order to keep it intimidated and subdued. Essentially, the Spartans lived in terror of thier own serfs, and in responce terrorized them. The problem was, Sparta's primitive wheat based agricultural system couldn't produce enough output to sustain a birth rate that allowed a society to hold life to be cheap. The more lightly the Spartan's regarded the lives of the helots, the more the enconomic value of the helot's was actually rising. The Spartans were slowly and inexcurably killing off the helots faster than the helots could reproduce, and in turn, since the Spartans were a military aristocracy that depended on having the labor of dozens of helots in order to field a single hoplite, the Spartans were slowly cutting thier own throats.
Spartan faced a long term population crash. In the good years, the helots could produce enough food to keep the health of themselves and the society high enough to replace thier loses at the hands of thier cruel masters. But in lean years, the city would slowly depopulate. Sparta massed at the height of its power some 8,000 of the finest infantry the world has ever seen. By the time of thier first defeat in battle, there where only 1,000. Sparta went from virtual mastery of Greece, to by the battle of Leuctra being unable to mass enough hoplite's from thier depleted aristocracy to face off against thier enemies. Faced with extinction, Sparta did its best to knockdown its own suicidal culture (even going so far as to pass laws that made it illegal not to have sex with your wives), but it was too deeply entrenched. Simply adopting more helots as citizens might have saved them, but even when they promised this reward to helots for thier service in battle, they frequently assassinated them after the battle was won. Sparta ended up by the Roman era being an empoverished tourist trap where wealthy people would go to gawk at the quaint natives.
The lessons in that that could be applied to say the economic system of the Soviet Union, or the present population crash of Western Europe, I leave to the interested reader.
Just by way of contrast, feudal Japan was probably the closest you could come to Sparta in culture - for example the tradiation of testing the worthiness of a new sword by beheading the nearest peasant - but managed to avoid the sort of collapse that befall Sparta in part simply because rice is a phenomenally productive crop, Japan is an island with limited agricultural land, and they could just economically afford to hold life abit more cheaply. Which isn't to say that that sort of life wasn't equally horrible for the peasants.
All true. Sparta did take a long time fully crumble though. They dominated greece for hundreds of years. Lol no one said this slave society had to be viable in the long run. If its supposed to represent the "evil empire" then long term viability is less important then the visuals the land can represent. The cruelty of both sparta and japan were probably exagerated. But for game flavor i would go and look up all the crazy evil rumors you can find on whichever culture he decides to base it on and make all those crazy rumours true.
Besides with magic and divinition its possible a society could afford to be much crueler to slaves then any real world society. Add in religious dogma supporting it and you have a recipe for a true "evil empire".
Besides with magic and divinition its possible a society could afford to be much crueler to slaves then any real world society. Add in religious dogma supporting it and you have a recipe for a true "evil empire".
Aust Diamondew
First Post
There have been many times through out history where the legalized institution of slavery has existed. The way slavery existed in ancient Rome was vastly different from the institution that existed prior to the American Civil War (USA), I could continue to list examples but I'm lazy.
What are you trying to approximate historically?
What are you trying to approximate historically?
Celebrim
Legend
Ok, I've been doing some research on the original question.
Life expectancies for all social classes and virtually all societies prior to 1800 seem to be fairly constant. Infant mortality rate runs from 15-20%. Only about half of all person's born survive to age 15. After age 15, whether by the simple expedient of anyone living through childhood probably having a high constitution, or whether by having developed a more robust immune system, the average person could - depending on where in the world he lived - expect to live between to between 43 and 52. Anyone above those ages could be considered 'old' - and would probably show it in his frame, teeth, and face.
Note that I've broken life expectancy out into two groups. Infant mortality is so high that it skews the numbers. Saying that the average life expectancy was only 26-28 skews the numbers.
One of the interesting things is that there doesn't seem to be much advantage - at least in terms of how long you live - in being wealthy. Between the greater risk of dying in battle, dying from disease while on campaign, dying in a duel, and the greater likelihood that you lived in a crowded unhygenic community that would immediately transmit any disease to every member of the city or household, being noble was of debateable advantage. Some studies have suggested that nobles lived shorter lives than thier peasant counterparts. Another interesting thing is that prior to the Enlightenment era, there doesn't seem to be a marked relationship to technology level and life expectancy. There does seem to be something of a relationship between caloric intake and life expectancy, but this isn't quite the same thing. For example, its estimated that the Aztec citizens had higher caloric intakes (and possiblely longer lives) than the Spainish citizens that conquered them.
On the other hand, lest you think I'm romanticizing the primitive, the lower the tech level the greater percentage of the deaths appear to be related to violence. In medieval Europe, only about 1% of the adult population died violent deaths. In nomadic hunter gatherer tribes, the numbers appear to go as high as 20%. Apparantly no society is quite as prone to total war as loosely organized family bands, and if you would allow me to go off on a tangent I might theorize that the purpose of governments is to insulate the majority of the group from the depredations of war.
Anyway, back on topid, if we assume that by slaves we mean 'adult slaves', and we assume that slaves aren't under normal circumstances living much less long than thier masters, then that suggests that each year conservatively 3.57% of the slaves die. After 10 years, 69.5% of the slave population will still be living slaves. This assumes of course that the practice of slavery is only moderately harsh.
Getting numbers for harsh slavery is complicated by two things. First, we have almost no data on slaves of antiquity. Second, the one harsh slave system that we have good data on is post 1800 and hense some of our assumptions are invalidated. As best as I can tell, the consequences of a being a slave in the antebellum south is that you were forced to continue to live a life of medieval misery and squallor while your white master's were increasingly enjoying the advantages of education, medicine, science, and modern agriculture. Hense, while white child mortality was falling by a significant degree, and white life expectancy rising significantly for the first time in history, black slave life expectancy remained as bad or worse as medieval France in the bad years - an average of just 22 years. Most of that appears to be due to infant mortality - probably as a result of overworked mother's recieving insufficient nutrition during prenancy - and I've not seen good estimates of how long adult slaves could expect to live - though I did find that 10% of the slave population was over 50, which appears to suggest medieval life spans. White life expectancy had risen from a probable average of 30 or so to the low 40's.
So, just as wild extrapolation, let's say that harsh slave conditions result in doubling of the death rate across the board. That's probably not a good assumptions, since it seems more likely that the harshness of slavery impacts the young disproportionately hard, but it's the best I can do. That yields a estimate that each year, under harsh conditions, 7.14% of all slaves die. After 10 years of such hardship, only 47.7% of the slaves will still be alive.
Now, you seem to want numbers on even harsh fantasy slavery, such as the life of the galley slaves in Ben Hur. Keeping in mind that in the real world, no ancient empire used slaves in galleys (that practice didn't start up until the 15th century or so, and it wasn't in warships that I'm aware of), if you really want numbers for slavery as a death sentence, you could double the numbers a few more times - even though they stop making economic sense. At double the estimate for real world harshness, you get only 21% of the slaves still alive after 10 years. Double it again, and only 3.5% of the slaves are alive after 10 years.
Those kind of numbers only make since in unusual circumstances - early years of the sugar boom in South America, for example. Slaves could be purchased cheaply from African tribes who were warring on thier neighbors, sent a short distance across the sea to Spainish colonies to labor under extremely harsh conditions, and the profit was high enough to justify the blood. Or they could be used for actual slavery as a death sentence, say for Gladiators or convicts laboring in the 'salt mines', or whatever.
Life expectancies for all social classes and virtually all societies prior to 1800 seem to be fairly constant. Infant mortality rate runs from 15-20%. Only about half of all person's born survive to age 15. After age 15, whether by the simple expedient of anyone living through childhood probably having a high constitution, or whether by having developed a more robust immune system, the average person could - depending on where in the world he lived - expect to live between to between 43 and 52. Anyone above those ages could be considered 'old' - and would probably show it in his frame, teeth, and face.
Note that I've broken life expectancy out into two groups. Infant mortality is so high that it skews the numbers. Saying that the average life expectancy was only 26-28 skews the numbers.
One of the interesting things is that there doesn't seem to be much advantage - at least in terms of how long you live - in being wealthy. Between the greater risk of dying in battle, dying from disease while on campaign, dying in a duel, and the greater likelihood that you lived in a crowded unhygenic community that would immediately transmit any disease to every member of the city or household, being noble was of debateable advantage. Some studies have suggested that nobles lived shorter lives than thier peasant counterparts. Another interesting thing is that prior to the Enlightenment era, there doesn't seem to be a marked relationship to technology level and life expectancy. There does seem to be something of a relationship between caloric intake and life expectancy, but this isn't quite the same thing. For example, its estimated that the Aztec citizens had higher caloric intakes (and possiblely longer lives) than the Spainish citizens that conquered them.
On the other hand, lest you think I'm romanticizing the primitive, the lower the tech level the greater percentage of the deaths appear to be related to violence. In medieval Europe, only about 1% of the adult population died violent deaths. In nomadic hunter gatherer tribes, the numbers appear to go as high as 20%. Apparantly no society is quite as prone to total war as loosely organized family bands, and if you would allow me to go off on a tangent I might theorize that the purpose of governments is to insulate the majority of the group from the depredations of war.
Anyway, back on topid, if we assume that by slaves we mean 'adult slaves', and we assume that slaves aren't under normal circumstances living much less long than thier masters, then that suggests that each year conservatively 3.57% of the slaves die. After 10 years, 69.5% of the slave population will still be living slaves. This assumes of course that the practice of slavery is only moderately harsh.
Getting numbers for harsh slavery is complicated by two things. First, we have almost no data on slaves of antiquity. Second, the one harsh slave system that we have good data on is post 1800 and hense some of our assumptions are invalidated. As best as I can tell, the consequences of a being a slave in the antebellum south is that you were forced to continue to live a life of medieval misery and squallor while your white master's were increasingly enjoying the advantages of education, medicine, science, and modern agriculture. Hense, while white child mortality was falling by a significant degree, and white life expectancy rising significantly for the first time in history, black slave life expectancy remained as bad or worse as medieval France in the bad years - an average of just 22 years. Most of that appears to be due to infant mortality - probably as a result of overworked mother's recieving insufficient nutrition during prenancy - and I've not seen good estimates of how long adult slaves could expect to live - though I did find that 10% of the slave population was over 50, which appears to suggest medieval life spans. White life expectancy had risen from a probable average of 30 or so to the low 40's.
So, just as wild extrapolation, let's say that harsh slave conditions result in doubling of the death rate across the board. That's probably not a good assumptions, since it seems more likely that the harshness of slavery impacts the young disproportionately hard, but it's the best I can do. That yields a estimate that each year, under harsh conditions, 7.14% of all slaves die. After 10 years of such hardship, only 47.7% of the slaves will still be alive.
Now, you seem to want numbers on even harsh fantasy slavery, such as the life of the galley slaves in Ben Hur. Keeping in mind that in the real world, no ancient empire used slaves in galleys (that practice didn't start up until the 15th century or so, and it wasn't in warships that I'm aware of), if you really want numbers for slavery as a death sentence, you could double the numbers a few more times - even though they stop making economic sense. At double the estimate for real world harshness, you get only 21% of the slaves still alive after 10 years. Double it again, and only 3.5% of the slaves are alive after 10 years.
Those kind of numbers only make since in unusual circumstances - early years of the sugar boom in South America, for example. Slaves could be purchased cheaply from African tribes who were warring on thier neighbors, sent a short distance across the sea to Spainish colonies to labor under extremely harsh conditions, and the profit was high enough to justify the blood. Or they could be used for actual slavery as a death sentence, say for Gladiators or convicts laboring in the 'salt mines', or whatever.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Henry said:
Heh, some Romans paid more for a Greek cheescake than they did for their slaves.
The Auld Grump
Klaus
First Post
In 1888, the Brazilian Empire was the last country in the world to abolish slavery. That, of course, caused the slave-owners to suddenyl support the military and the Empire was overthrown one year later, with the Republic being instituted.
For several years prior to that, the Emperor Pedro II had been passing laws that slowly granted freedom to more and more slaves, first with the elderly ones, then with the newborns (that alone would eventually end slavery).
The Portuguese that arrived in Brazil in 1500 tried to enslave the native indians, but found them to be ill-suited for heavy labor (they were a hunting/gathering bunch), and slaves were then brought in by the boatload from Africa, bought from african nations who captured their rivals and sold them to slavery. Economy was formed by boom-cycles of a single product, and every time a new cycle began, more slaves were brought in. First it was the cinderwood (a type of tree that yielded a red dye... it's portuguese name, pau-brasil, named the country, which was at first called Land of the Holy Cross). Then it was sugar. Then it was gold (and around this time Brazil became an Empire and traded political obedience to Portugal for economic obedience to Great Britain). And finally it was coffee.
After slavery was abolished, economy reeled a bit. But the influx of european imigrants in the 1910s and 1920s brought in a new type of worker, who was cultured and aware of his rights, and demanded payment for his work, something the former slave-owners had a difficulty to grasp.
For several years prior to that, the Emperor Pedro II had been passing laws that slowly granted freedom to more and more slaves, first with the elderly ones, then with the newborns (that alone would eventually end slavery).
The Portuguese that arrived in Brazil in 1500 tried to enslave the native indians, but found them to be ill-suited for heavy labor (they were a hunting/gathering bunch), and slaves were then brought in by the boatload from Africa, bought from african nations who captured their rivals and sold them to slavery. Economy was formed by boom-cycles of a single product, and every time a new cycle began, more slaves were brought in. First it was the cinderwood (a type of tree that yielded a red dye... it's portuguese name, pau-brasil, named the country, which was at first called Land of the Holy Cross). Then it was sugar. Then it was gold (and around this time Brazil became an Empire and traded political obedience to Portugal for economic obedience to Great Britain). And finally it was coffee.
After slavery was abolished, economy reeled a bit. But the influx of european imigrants in the 1910s and 1920s brought in a new type of worker, who was cultured and aware of his rights, and demanded payment for his work, something the former slave-owners had a difficulty to grasp.
Celebrim said:
Wow, I love this board! Thanks for all your work Celebrim.
Since there are some nations that allow harsher treatment of slaves, and others that are more moderate, I will likely bump up the 3.57% number to one that is slightly higher - maybe 4.00% or 4.50%. However, even in the nations that allow harsher treatment, slaves are not exactly cheap, so it is worth it to keep them alive and not abuse them too much.
A quick plug in my little excel table with a 4.5% turnover rate gives me 391,000 slaves worldwide in the past 10 years. So, with a total population on the continent of about 20 million, that still means that less than 2% of the population is in enslaved. Not quite Spartan numbers.
I get a lot of grief 
over appling the 80/20 rule-of-thumb to a lot of things but it could fit here, for every 100 people of your population 20 would be slaves. I know it is not a exact figure but the ratio always seems to appear when you gather your data.
over appling the 80/20 rule-of-thumb to a lot of things but it could fit here, for every 100 people of your population 20 would be slaves. I know it is not a exact figure but the ratio always seems to appear when you gather your data. 
