Slavery

[SuicideSheep]

Hello buddies ! I want to ask why slavery and slave trade is so important for Essos and mostly for the free cities ?

[Neptunium]

Slavery, while morally despicable, is very effective economically.

Imagine that, instead of giving you your current salary, your employer only had to pay just enough for your accommodation and food. It would be horrible for you, but your employer would save a lot of money. Now imagine that they could stuff you into a single building with all the other employers and no privacy to reduce housing costs, and that they only gave you just enough food to survive and (depending on the job) to work effectively. Suddenly your employer has the potential to make a LOT more money. Now if you didn't have the option to quit and your employer could purchase more 'employees' to work under the same conditions, they could be much more productive for a lower price. And the more money they save the more they can make, and the more money they make the more money they can trade or invest (which can include the purchase of more 'employees'). If every business could do the same thing, then the economy would be far more productive in terms of resources produced (although you'd have to exclude the slaves from any population-adjusted calculation of the economy :-D).

 

Conversely, imagine if I suddenly made the minimum wage $10 000 per hour. A lot of businesses would simply not be able to afford their employees and would have to shut down or at least drastically reduce in size. In the long term, the economy would likely eventually adjust through very rapid inflation, but in the meantime the economy would definitely suffer. Suddenly giving slaves freedom can have a similar effect. The cost employers have to spend per slave/employee would go through the roof, since the former slaves are no longer obliged to work for them. If the pay isn't enough, an employee can simply quit. If other employers are offering more for the same work, then employees will always try to work for the one which pays more. Whereas before employers only had to worry about the costs of buying and selling slaves, as well as the cost of 'upkeep' (food, housing and guards), suddenly they have the additional cost of having to entice people to work for them, in competition with other employers (which can be significant - why would you work for $40 000 per year when you know someone else is offering $60 000 per year?).

[The_Watcher_On_The_Walls]

The slave trade is important to the economy. Slaves don't get paid shit so the masters stay rich, plus they're used as payment - the free cities are always paying off the dothraki with slaves. Slave workers will do heaps for farming, production, ports etc.

[John Doe]

Imagine that, instead of giving you your current salary, your employer only had to pay just enough for your accommodation and food. It would be horrible for you, but your employer would save a lot of money.

Not even that much, in a time with no minimum wage and cheap hirelings in abundance.

[Minstral]

Historically speaking, slavery comes in different forms (which we get a taste of in the series but it is not fully explained). While cheap labor is easy to come by as a result of the slave trade, Jon Snow makes a mention of purchasing slaves from one of the Free Cities that specialize in glass making (to free them of course, but also find out the method to build the glass gardens of Winterfell at the Wall). It is this passage that gives us the idea of how valuable slavery is to the East.

The slave trade is not simply the trade of unskilled labor, but also the production of highly skilled servants and artisans. Slaves such as these are obviously extremely valuable, but also pretty much assured something that would be a comfortable life (not unlike servants or skilled craftsmen of the Seven Kingdoms). So yeah you got cheap slaves, but you also have highly skilled workers that fuel the economy.

Funnily enough, while the Seven Kingdoms outlaws slavery the status of the peasants is almost the same (at least in times of war). Remember Tywin's campaign saw peasants herded to Harrenhal like cattle so that they could be pressed into service for the invading army. The peasants are not slaves where they are bought and sold, but they are certainly not free.

[Anythingatall]

I would be interested to know a bit more about the history of Earth slavery.  Based on my meagre history knowledge it seems that heavy reliance on slaves is unsustainable.  Either the slaves become too many and the masters too few or the slaves begin to threaten the lower classes with their existence or (if the society is lucky) those with influence turn against it.

I am all too aware that there are still slaves in the modern world but from what I understand they are either minimal (that is not essential to the economy) or are in 'lawless' areas where slavery is just one example of the many horrific things happening.  

This post is mostly based on my limited understanding of some situations so I would be happy to hear from somebody with a bit more knowledge on the topic.

[Minstral]

I would be interested to know a bit more about the history of Earth slavery.  Based on my meagre history knowledge it seems that heavy reliance on slaves is unsustainable.  Either the slaves become too many and the masters too few or the slaves begin to threaten the lower classes with their existence or (if the society is lucky) those with influence turn against it.

I am all too aware that there are still slaves in the modern world but from what I understand they are either minimal (that is not essential to the economy) or are in 'lawless' areas where slavery is just one example of the many horrific things happening.  

This post is mostly based on my limited understanding of some situations so I would be happy to hear from somebody with a bit more knowledge on the topic.

"Slavery not sustainable"? It has been a factor in almost the entirety of recorded history. The slave trade could and always would depend on the differing societies and regions (areas would have more or less), and while the slave population could destabilize a population the institution of slavery always survived. Pressing people into a service that they don't want still happens to this day, the sex trade and other migrant workers in some areas being a big example, its just that we don't call it "slavery".

Slavery during the Feudal times is an interesting concept (no I am not supporting it, but as a topic of history it is worth noting), in that there was a decrease of slavery in Europe (it still existed in some form) while the Middle East made a large use of slaves. The most interesting would that the Islamic powers/systems would tend to use slavery of rearing effective servants by making them Eunuchs young but providing them an education so that they could help run their government. It sometimes was the case that a eunuch would actually be a power behind the throne.

The second, are the Mamluks. They essentially started as slave soldiers (they wouldn't be cut like you see in the series) but they also had a status attached to them. There was a certain prestige in joining the ranks of the Mamluks that lower classes and some Nobility would actually join their ranks. As a fighting force, they were effective enough to stop the expansion of the Mongols into Egypt and were "the true masters of Egypt" for centuries... actually they eventually overthrew their Sultan and established Egypt as their own kingdom, also reconquering the leftover Crusader states. That said, Muslim powers used effective slave soldiers in many different formations... its just that the Mamluks are certainly the most famous and most influential.

[Anythingatall]

"Slavery not sustainable"? It has been a factor in almost the entirety of recorded history. The slave trade could and always would depend on the differing societies and regions (areas would have more or less), and while the slave population could destabilize a population the institution of slavery always survived. Pressing people into a survive that they don't want still happens to this day, the sex trade and other migrant workers in some areas being a big example, its just that we don't call it "slavery".

Slavery in the during the Feudal times is an interesting concept (no I am not supporting it, but as a topic of history it is worth noting), in that there was a decrease of slavery in Europe (it still existed in some form) while the Middle East made a large use of slaves. The most interesting would that the Islamic powers/systems would tend to use slavery of rearing effective servants by making them Eunuchs young but providing them an education so that they could help run their government. It sometimes was the case that a eunuch would actually be a power behind the throne.

The second, are the Mamluks. They essentially started as slave soldiers (they wouldn't be cut like you see in the series) but they also had a status attached to them. There was a certain prestige in joining the ranks of the Mamluks that lower classes and some Nobility would actually join their ranks. As a fighting force, they were effective enough to stop the expansion of the Mongols into Egypt and were "the true masters of Egypt" for centuries... actually they eventually overthrew their Sultan and established Egypt as their own kingdom, also reconquering the leftover Crusader states. That said, Muslim powers used effective slave soldiers in many different formations... its just that the Mamluks are certainly the most famous and most influential.

How does the second part of the bolded sentence have anything to do with the part you quoted?  I know slavery played a role in many societies, my point is it inevitably gets ditched because it's unsustainable in the long term.  Slavery may have always survived but I was careful to emphasise that I was talking about societies that relied on slavery.  I also addressed modern slavery and while I don't disagree with your point regarding people being 'pressed into service' for the purposes of this conversation it would be easier to stick to slavery as the ownership of a human being.  

Nothing you have said contradicts my point in any meaningful way, that isn't to say that I am right as I stated I am not confident in this belief because my understanding of it is limited.  

[Minstral]

I'm not contradicting you....

I would be interested to know a bit more about the history of Earth slavery.

You asked, I was gave some background on some of the stuff I once studied.

Either way, the only time slavery was "ditched" was in the case of slaves not being as efficient in after the industrial revolution, or a lower social class like serfs/peasants filling the role to an extent, rendering purchasing them irrelevant in medieval Europe (though the practice still existed). Still, when it was "put aside",  cultural reasons were also hugely relevant when the European powers began to stop buying and trading slaves (their own population began to show discontent at the thought that workers would not be favoured, so politically they also became a liability).

[daywatch]

Talking of feudal societies as slavery is a bit misleading I think. What you see there is mainly a keeping the society together and productive before real economy and human rights ideas and such. The example above of peasants having to fight is about compulsory military service which many countries still have. 

For slavery you have to consider ingroups and outgroups. Slavery is about adding the latter to your system. This probably started by fghting a neighbor village and adding their survivors as slaves to your workforce and killing those not wanted. Often but probably not always you would prevent the slaves from reproduction. So, losing a war generates slaves, yet usually only if the losers are outgroup enough. Being a foreign outsider could also make you a slave.

The next step is to go hunting for slaves which the societies focussed on slavery did. So, the middle east not only saw african slaves but also vikings and other europeans as well as whatever else was reported. In Europe I do not remember a concept for slaves within European people. For slaves you have to go pre-medieval. Ancient Rome was full of slavery. Of course, once European nations became so large at sea that they could go overseas some started to have slaves from these activities, mostly at their colonies, to my knowledge less at home. The end started with the English outlawing slavery in 19th century if I remember right which lead to the idea to colonize in order to stop the slavers and profit elsewise....

 

[daywatch]

Btw, similar to feudal society in communist Europe you had to live where you are supposed to live, work what you were supposed to work and travelling outside the countries was strongly restricted (E.g. Berlin wall, fences and shooting those who try to leave,....). Unlike in medieval society you were assigned a job to some degree from your skills and qualifications and desires where as in medieval societies you did as your father unless special situation.

Just to further counter the feudal = slavery claims.

[daywatch]

Slavery cannot be unsustainable when it worked for many hundreds of years in the example societies. Just think of ancient Rome or Greece. The Greek had 800 years of Olympic games before breakdown. Worked a while compared with the few years our current societies have.

Second, I admire a bit the invention of having slaves (or people from powerless minorities like Jews) in powerful positions as it is a clever invention to prevent competing relatives or other nobles from gaining too much power.  You had people in strong positions that would lose all and usually die  if something bad happens to you instead of schemers against you.

Exactly what Cersei would have needed to keep the dangerous and evil Tyrions at bay. But still she makes the error of giving power to other Lannisters or the like. Dany actually succeeds a bit in doing that except that she frees her slaves. Still they remain in a Dany wins or death situation.

[Grazdan of Ghis]

I would be interested to know a bit more about the history of Earth slavery.  Based on my meagre history knowledge it seems that heavy reliance on slaves is unsustainable.  Either the slaves become too many and the masters too few or the slaves begin to threaten the lower classes with their existence or (if the society is lucky) those with influence turn against it.

You are wrong here. If we look at the history of Earth, economies of all ancient civilizations (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, China, India) were based on slavery and lasted for thousands of years (up to the fall of Roman Empire). While slavery mostly disappeared in Europe during the middle ages, it successfully survived in other parts of the world and was extensively practiced in some countries (USA, Brazil, Russia etc.) as late as 19th century.

During 20th century, forced labor of prisoners (de facto slave labor) was used in many countries, notably Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - political and moral aspects aside, those "enterprises" were quite profitable economically.

So, slavery has been successfully practiced on Earth in one form or another through all 5500 years of its recorded history. Compere this to about one millennium of European-type feudal economy only a couple of centuries history for modern industrial-type economies. So, which is more sustainable?

P.S. I am not advocating slavery, merely pointing out that, historically speaking, economies based on slave labor have by far the longest success record compared to any other known economical models.

[kimim]

I would be interested to know a bit more about the history of Earth slavery.  Based on my meagre history knowledge it seems that heavy reliance on slaves is unsustainable.  Either the slaves become too many and the masters too few or the slaves begin to threaten the lower classes with their existence or (if the society is lucky) those with influence turn against it.

I am all too aware that there are still slaves in the modern world but from what I understand they are either minimal (that is not essential to the economy) or are in 'lawless' areas where slavery is just one example of the many horrific things happening.  

This post is mostly based on my limited understanding of some situations so I would be happy to hear from somebody with a bit more knowledge on the topic.

Heavy reliance on slaves is sustainable. Heavy reliance on ill treated, underpaid people whose freedom is an ill-defined theory is also sustainable. Look at history.

[John Suburbs]

Usually, though, it is more expensive to keep slaves than to hire workers, especially in a feudal society, but in more modern industrial ones as well. Slaves need to be fed, clothed, housed, provided with medical care, and you need a pretty extensive oversight structure in order to prevent escape and rebellion. A typical worker, however, gets a few coppers a week and they have to provide for themselves. And as mentioned above, over-reliance on slavery usually results in legions of slaves controlled by only a handful of masters and their henchmen, so the cost of maintaining the status quo continues to go up and up while labor-for-hire tends to remain relatively flat.

Slavery usually begins as the spoils of war as conquered peoples are reduced to bondage in order to remove them as an immediate retaliatory threat. Once established, it becomes more of a cultural institution than an economic one, and thus is harder to eliminate even though it is usually the more expensive labor solution.

[Grazdan of Ghis]

Usually, though, it is more expensive to keep slaves than to hire workers, especially in a feudal society, but in more modern industrial ones as well.

As the history shows, this is not strictly true. The use of slave labor tends to be very profitable in large-scale operations requiring significant number of unqualified workers. This was the case in Ancient Egypt, this was the case in Roman Empire, this was the case in some medieval societies, this was the case in 17th - 19th century USA, Russia and Latin America, this was the case in 20th century Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. It is still the case now. Slavery is still (illegally) practiced at present day for this very reason - it is very profitable in certain cases.

As far as medieval European feudal society is concerned, slavery was never actually abolished formally, as it happened in the 19th century Americas. The Roman institution of slavery gradually evolved into the institution of serfdoom (the very word "serf" derives from Latin *servus", i.e. "slave"). There is no clear boundary between slavery and serfdoom - legal status of a serf could be anywhere between that of a Roman slave and that of a free peasant depending on a specific historical period and geographic location.

[SeanF]

As the history shows, this is not strictly true. The use of slave labor tends to be very profitable in large-scale operations requiring significant number of unqualified workers. This was the case in Ancient Egypt, this was the case in Roman Empire, this was the case in some medieval societies, this was the case in 17th - 19th century USA, Russia and Latin America, this was the case in 20th century Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. It is still the case now. Slavery is still (illegally) practiced at present day for this very reason - it is very profitable in certain cases.

As far as medieval European feudal society is concerned, slavery was never actually abolished formally, as it happened in the 19th century Americas. The Roman institution of slavery gradually evolved into the institution of serfdoom (the very word "serf" derives from Latin *servus", i.e. "slave"). There is no clear boundary between slavery and serfdoom - legal status of a serf could be anywhere between that of a Roman slave and that of a free peasant depending on a specific historical period and geographic location.

Well, we see the most brutal form of chattel slavery, in Slavers Bay, and among the Dothraki. In the long run, that's very inefficient. Treating people as complete scum generates very low levels of productivity.

But, slavery takes many forms. In the Free Cities, or Qarth, it's likely that many slaves enjoy a good standard of living, and are highly productive.

We don't know yet if serfdom applies in Westeros.

[aryagonnakill#2]

As the history shows, this is not strictly true. The use of slave labor tends to be very profitable in large-scale operations requiring significant number of unqualified workers. This was the case in Ancient Egypt, this was the case in Roman Empire, this was the case in some medieval societies, this was the case in 17th - 19th century USA, Russia and Latin America, this was the case in 20th century Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. It is still the case now. Slavery is still (illegally) practiced at present day for this very reason - it is very profitable in certain cases.

As far as medieval European feudal society is concerned, slavery was never actually abolished formally, as it happened in the 19th century Americas. The Roman institution of slavery gradually evolved into the institution of serfdoom (the very word "serf" derives from Latin *servus", i.e. "slave"). There is no clear boundary between slavery and serfdoom - legal status of a serf could be anywhere between that of a Roman slave and that of a free peasant depending on a specific historical period and geographic location.

Disagree.  Slaves do not work as hard as they can, they work just hard enough to avoid a beating.  Capitalism was and has proven more effective because the harder you work the greater your reward, that's 1 of the reasons the North was so much richer than the South.

[Grazdan of Ghis]

Disagree.  Slaves do not work as hard as they can, they work just hard enough to avoid a beating.  Capitalism was and has proven more effective because the harder you work the greater your reward, that's 1 of the reasons the North was so much richer than the South.

The thing is... sometimes "hard enough" is enough. Btw, you are referring to the North/South of USA prior to Civil War, not to North/South of Westeros, I presume ... In the former case, the thing is: the North was mostly industrialized, economy of the South was mostly based on large-scale agricultural operations. Slave labor was not very profitable in the former case, but quite profitable in the latter case. Yes, there was a political/moral conflict, but there was also an economical conflict. Abolishment of serfdom (de facto slavery) in Russian Empire of 19th century had similar economical reasons - industry was becoming more and more important compared to agriculture.

[aryagonnakill#2]

The thing is... sometimes "hard enough" is enough. Btw, you are referring to the North/South of USA prior to Civil War, not to North/South of Westeros, I presume ... In the former case, the thing is: the North was mostly industrialized, economy of the South was mostly based on large-scale agricultural operations. Slave labor was not very profitable in the former case, but quite profitable in the latter case. Yes, there was a political/moral conflict, but there was also an economical conflict. Abolishment of serfdom (de facto slavery) in Russian Empire of 19th century had similar economical reasons - industry was becoming more and more important compared to agriculture.

I'm not arguing that slavery isn't profitable for the slave owners, rather that it is not profitable for the economy as a whole, or at least not as profitable as free people working in a capitalist economy. The lower and middle class of the south represented the vast majority of the population, and was significantly worse off than the low and middle class of the north.

The main reason that slavery did not expand into the western states is due to it not being profitable, the circumstances have to be just right.