I am going live doing the Sengoku Jidai MP deathmatch later today, so if you are here as the video dropped, catch me live either here on TH-cam or over on Twitch: www.twitch.tv/lemoncake101
11:56 the main reason paradox didn’t include the mass killing is because the don’t want problems with it and not many people would want to by that kind of a game then it’s are still
I was kind of hoping you'd at least mention, among history lessons, that Modern European chattel slavery was objectively worse than ancient debt slavery. Edit: mostly because half of my fellow Americans still haven't gotten the memo...
11:00 enslaved work WAS the worst form of labor, though, in more than just the inhumanity of it. Those kept as chattel slaves in the new world weren't even taught to read for fear they'd discover all the contradictory passages of the Bible(s) which say, "actually, this is bad kinda." Edit: 13:00 during the Roman times, emperors were often overseen by enslaved doctors.
Imo, vic 3 slavery is awesome if combined with agrarism and homesteading. Makes half your farmers double as rich, leading to better investment by them via homesteading.
SPOILER: they don't. there's any expression about holocaust, concentration/extermination camps, pows, penal labour, labor camps, joy divisions, comfort women etc. i hate that attitude. if you make a game about ww2, you must show the horror and terror of war on civilians for that war is the only war that civilians have been killed above soldiers.
@@cemekiz6266 Reminds me of the way TH-cam kills any video that mentions The Painter, The German Not-So-Good Party, the No-no-caust or anything to do with the topic in a firepit and shits on the ashes. It's gotten ridiculous at this point.
Why? Ww2 in hearts of iron is used for power fantasy of running a country is during one of the most global events in history it's not meant to be a serious critique or deep dive into war.@@cemekiz6266
@@cemekiz6266I can kind of understand why they wouldn’t want to make the holocaust something your able to choose to do (along with other atrocities) but I think that it should honestly just be part of HOI4 itself
I love how stellaris has like five different flavors of slavery but also makes it one of the less horrible things you can do besides the seven different flavors of genocide mass biological nuclear and chemical warfare and state mandated racism
Why bother with the species when you can simply blow up the planets?Better yet, go for the stars! Bombing 10 different planets in a star system is too much hassle.
On the note of Stellaris' scientist slaves, it's worth looking to the Roman approach to Greece. Many Roman families would have enslaved Greek tutors, since they were seen as the world's premier philosopher types. So it's not _completely_ unprecedented.
If you were an economically well of family in Rome and didn't have a Greek slave to educate your children you were literally made fun of in some cases.
They were not slaves, where did you get that information? Greeks were the most well integrated people in Roman society and were respected far more than many romans. Teachers were very well paid and formed aristocracy, many aristocratic families learned Greek as their first language. How being well paid and not to be considered a property makes one a slave?
@@glara-i4s "Aristocratic Roman families often employed Greek‐speaking tutors for their children (Livius Andronicus and Ennius were early examples) and these tutors-often slaves or freedmen-commonly taught both Greek and Latin;" excerpt from the Oxford Reference about Roman education. The thing to remember about ancient Rome is, that slaves in prestigious positions were often allowed to buy their freedom after some years of service. There were massive amounts of slaves sold to Roman aristocrats, which they bought as skilled educators. That a lot of these men later gained their freedom and continued their line of work doesn't mean, that they weren't slaves at the start.
@@glara-i4s M. Tullius Tiro was born a slave (child of greek house slaves) and received his freedom from Cicero in his 40s. Epictet was enslaved and became a respected teacher in Rome, before he returned to greece a free man. This did happen. Not all greek tutors were slaves, but more than enough. They were treated well, didn't do any hard labour, ate and bathed with their masters and were usually freed after educating a generation of children.
I'm gonna defend Vic 3 as a good implementation of slavery Slaves do actually consume goods, but it's the owners that buy them and their rate of consumption is far lower than any other kind of laborer Which is exactly how it worked irl and why it is a bad system for an economy irl But it also makes running costs for whatever building they're working for far lower which makes them more profitable Which is also how it worked irl and why slaveowners worked so hard to maintain it They're also still politically active, but neutered so hard they are all but irrelevant (I'd say more so than irl) What I don't like is the way slavery gives a huge boost to landowners directly regardless of how many slaves there actually are so a country with a million citizens and three slaves is exactly as politically committed to it as a country with three citizens and a million slaves Also some countries with low populations (or at least countries wirh a labor shortage) really benefit from the... involuntary migration... and so have an interest in keeping the slave trade, which is also why it happened irl
What I find weird is the lack of slave revolts. Like, i don't know if it was fixed in the last updapte but usually the Dutch East Indies get 90 % slaves ( and more ) 20 years into the game. Truly nothing bad will happen to the slave owners. And they did remove the landowner boost from slavery but then added it back again because it made liberalising too easy ? The way they change the politics in the game is very strange and bad ( petite bourgeoisie being forever strong for example )
Slavery is economically bad because slaves are unable to seek out their own needs and wants within the market. All of their demand is made irrelevant by the fact that their needs are filtered through the preferences of their master, who doesn't care to give them anything beyond the bare minimum. The crucial "and then they spend their pay on the things they want" part of the economy is missing under slavery. I would also like them to change slavery as you describe, so that the slave/landowner clout is proportional to their actual economic value - not sure how this would be implemented with the current system with the manor houses and all, whether there would be a way to give extra clout to landowners who happen to own slaves - maybe give the owners the political power the slaves would have if they were free?
@@albator8254 the lack of a weighted and/or situational political system is one of the low priority/long term issues I'd like them to fix at some point No matter what the national situation is the PB will always want a monarchy to exactly the same degree they want a national guard or elected bureaucrats Most slaves get neutered twice I think, once because they're slaves and then again because of cultural discrimination so they usually have too little political power to do revolts
How will they show different types of slavery? I.e. chattel slavery in the US vs Mamluk slavery where a slave can own slaves, slaves are soldiers and paid, slaves can be generals, slaves can also be kings?
I feel the crusader kings games don't really bring slavery up because half of the game is more court intrigue and social interactions while the other half is land development and warfare, there are mentions of slavery, such as captured manpower from raids, recruiting prisoners and in ck2 there is an event where slavers will visit and give you a really good steward from africa but they don't really focus on the non-court populace
You are right. The thing is that CK makes you focus so good in other aspects of the era that I geniunely forgot that slavery was a big thing in those times. Kingdoms like the abbassid caliphate for example practiced slavery a lot, but I'm so focused on fucking persia up that I never noticed the lack of slaves. Savery could be a good game mechaninc in my opinion.
Yeah, it's like... slavery was SO ubiquitous that there's nowhere really left to fit it in mechanically. Maybe a slavic trade route to represent both that those rivers had a lot of trade and that slaves were one of the things on them? But other than that slavery was like the peasantry: so far below your notice as a ruler that they're not really present outside of flavour text, and what effect it had is already part of your economic and legal machine.
Well, smart people should budget for the dead. Because if you drive governmental policies that creates allot of dead people that otherwise should have been alive, eg war. Then those now dead former taxes payers and demand creators need to be impaired down and the nations "book value" (as if one think of the nation as a company) would be reduced and by all metrics every aspect of society would be reduced in value because of the war. Basically, current day Russias future....
@@LemonCake101 great video! On a side note, I do somewhat disagree with your take on the the Victoria 3 Slavery implementation. From a purely economic perspective (not getting into the immorality of slavery) I would think that slavery in that period is inherently negative for the overall GDP of a nation. Why? Well, slaves don't get paid a salary and don't really have many expenses (outside the bare minimum food and fabric). Employees on the other hand get paid a salary and have much higher expenses. They generally pay rent, heating, higher food and clothing costs and buy nicer amenities. Which overall leads to greater demand for products and services, alongside the spending power to buy them, so GDP goes up! And that is, I think, what Victoria is representing and why slavery is not optimal for the south. Not from the the pov of the whole nation. The slaver owners lose out, of course, in both this implementation and the real world (well, arguably the price of basic goods might increase in the real world after a switch from slavery), but the rest of the economy as a whole gets bigger! TL:DR Slavery is suboptimal. Freedom has a higher gdp. Victoria 3's slavery implementation seems reasonable. On the other hand if the slaves are not capable of buying goods from your national market. I.e. they are slavers in a foreign country, then suppressing costs would probably be more productive. (I'm thinking of the abhorrent, near-slave wages that clothing factories pay in many parts of the world. They then sell those clothes in larger, richer markets).
@@MontuPlays I don't disagree, it may be a way I present things that everything I say looks like a critic but it was more an exploration of how pdx does it. The main critic was just how quickly, directly and immediately emancipation provides an economic boost, when in practice that wasn't quite the case. As a model of the transition into an industrial society though, it does work.
@LemonCake101 oh, fair enough then! Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was wrong for the Confederate American States to switch to slavery (from an economic point of view). I think the large landowner power block would be poorly impacted by this switch, even if it's better for the overall economic health of the nation, and that's reasonably represented in the game. You're totally right though, nothing changes overnight in the real world in quite the same way it does in these games like this!
2:18 Given the number of times I have come across Sol 3 inhabited by a stone age Pre-FTL civilization, I would like to propose that *Stellaris* is the oldest Paradox game by historical time period.
I frankly enjoy Stellaris for being so unburdened from what has been. People love to make jokes about its genocide buttons (plural because now you can feed even your normal population into a giant auto-genocide brain factory you can use to break physics), but the game also makes much more utopian and egalitarian playstyles fun and viable at least to me. The game is less about being optimal but more about emergent story telling than the others. Also regarding slave researchers, insert joke about grad school in our world here.
I think both options in Stellaris are equally enjoyable. This is the game where you can roleplay as a space Trotskyist and spread the gift of shared burdens via liberating the galaxy and at the same time you can play as the most authoritarian, xenophobic, spiritualistic, most despicably evil empire ever. Or even transcend good and evil by playing as a gestalt consciousness and either play as the Flood or Skynet.
Yeah, let me play in the sandbox. It is a game. Allowing gamers to take Constantinople actually lowers the chance of people wanting another Crusade IRL. Running over Pedestrians in GTA doesn't lead to gamers doing so IRL. We gamers suffer from the whim of the Ignorant Investors.
@@therealspeedwagon1451 Adding my personal favorite type of empire to run - Xenophobic egalitarians. "All men were created equal... you just aren't people." is a fun one to run.
@@randomintrovertedspider7510 it´s called HUMAN rights for a reason. you look human you get rights, you look like some sentinent pebbles, plants, animals, some mold growth/ fungus or like the biggest accidental mistake nature committed you get immediat employment and free travels all across the empire to get into the mines, fields and factories if you look human enough you get resident rights.
The Victoria segment reminded me of a phrase (Idk who said it but it's rather fitting for the situation) "Slavery is bad because Slaves don't pay taxes"
That is partially true, but it’s mainly the fact that if you pay your workers, they can buy things which boosts other businesses and the economy as a whole
Slavery during early capitalism worked out economically when there were bigger markets elsewhere to export to, so your profits don't depend really on the buying power of your domestic market, and the market is not saturated and overproduction crises are not a problem yet. Overproduction crises require the downscaling of production and thus workers are laid off, but slaves are considered property, so you either try to sell them off, which is difficult when you are in a generalized crisis, or you free them because you don't want to pay for their upkeep. The American South was exactly this type of export oriented slave society, exporting primarily to Britain and the Northern US. The abolition of slavery was very profitable for the Northern US industry and industry at large because a huge amount of new "free" labor entered the labor market driving wages down, so production costs, increasing profits.
V3 also has a great basis to explain when should/should there not be slavery. The only reason why you might want to have slave trade is if you have a lot of natural resources you could exploit but no population to actually exploit it, and immigration is either not an option or doesn't work fast enough. But slavery fucking sucks once any sort of economy exists, so why shouldn't it be immediately abolished once you have your pops? Well, then it's no longer a matter of whether the player/country should abolish it, but rather, there's now a social class that has gained great privilege from having slaves, and abolishing slavery means fighting them off, which might be quite difficult if they're well entrenched. In this sense, the design philosophy of Victoria 3 is a great foundation, the problem instead is the numbers tweaking.
@dorinpopa6962 Yes and no. Remember, demand is greater for free labor. Therefore, if you have free laborers, then the economy as a whole grows. The laborers can purchase clothes, food, furniture, etc. And grow other sectors of the economy. However, in a slave system, only the master benefits. The demand that comes from the master is less than the master and free laborers, and so only a few sectors grow, thus reducing overall growth. Slavery is a net negative, but for those few at the top who have connections to the system (the planters, slavers, and politicians) benefit. It is why the South seceded in the first place. Those with power benefitted and so fought to keep it dragging the average Joe along with them.
slavery works when you produce something and sell it the next moment the economy grows then but really slowly he gave an example of a normal economy where the material is produced manufactured and sold slavery can be beneficial for some people if slaves work in the fields or mines BUT there are manufactories which sells the manufactured items internationaly
@gigachad8425 Free laborers are still preferable. They create more demand and can be incentivized with things like higher wages for increased supply. This encourages greater economic growth, and since jobs are limited, slavery is net negative for the economy.
I think a major issue here is that the western concept of "slavery" always invokes the image of United States chattel slavery, where slaves are purchased and then "bred"/kept forever with their children also being slaves. The reality is that this is just one of many models. South American slaves were typically worked to death since importing new slaves from Africa was cheaper than breeding new slaves domestically. Arab slave trade outright castrated with no intention of letting them breed. Serfs weren't really slaves, but were unfree and their children inherited that status. Viking thralls were slaves but generally low density. Slaves in antiquity could serve in very high skilled jobs like tutors. Also, there can be a racial component to slavery like we see in Stellaris where you basically define entire pops as slaves. The whole idea of "slavery" as a monolith and the dichotomy between slave not slave seems silly. Some would consider all forced labor slavery and some "special" minds even think even voluntary labor is slavery.
It gets even more complicated once you consider that an agricultural slave in the late Roman republic was likely treated almost entirely differently than a house slave, or one of them fancy tutor slaves "imported" from Greece for little Gaius' literature classes... It's not just that different societies did it different, it's also that within a given society there were effectively different kinds of slaves. If not de iure, then de facto. . The memory of US slavery is a politicized topic, so the issue is reduced to slogans, and emotionally charged everywhere the US has cultural influence (so most places). Which in turn means talking about it, outside of closed social circles, is inviting pointless drama, as people project their perceived political interests on the topic, and "take sides" instead of discussing anything to do with the matter.
Sure, but you dont have to be special to see that once you take away leverage for low skilled labor, specially in a fiat currency based economy (inflation will happen via intention to a given level by design and upkeep of regulators), if you take away such low skilled labors leverage to retain buying power over times, aka Unions in most cases. At some point living wage jobs start to decline, middle class (buying power, not "average folks") starts to shrink, domestic demand goes down etc etc. At some point you could argue such socially dumped wage employees are practically the same as serfs or slaves in economical impact, specially on a service based economy.
The Helots of Sparta were slaves owned by the state instead of individuals, and the Crypteia that kept them from rising up was effectively a secret police
@@jansatamme6521 the rich very much loved owning slaves, it was profitable, BUT the government didn't see those profits, so the government didn't care that the rich loved it. Peasants didn't like slavery as it prevented them from getting jobs, slaves didn't like it cause they were slaves, non-slave businesses didn't like it as it made it harder to compete with slave owning businesses, and government didn't like it cause they couldn't tax the slaves, nor tax the people who were jobless due to the slaves, nor tax the businesses that collapsed due to the slaves. Slaves ONLY benefited the slave owners, and thus it was in everyone's interest, even the government's, to end it.
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 Slaves in the US were also becoming unprofitable, for the same reasons serfdom became less and less productive, slaves also couldnt work industrial jobs as with enough education for that they would almost certainly revolt
I think victoria 3 does the best job because it shows slavery within the context of the era including why capitalism made it unsustainable economically
7:45 don’t forget how some guys in Persia having an identity crisis and schizophrenia suddenly makes a single rug worth more than the entire country it’s made in
Slavery in the Mediterranean was widespread, with the Genovese and the Venetians being important slave traders. Its also where slave sugar plantations first popped up around the 1300s.
@@aksmex2576 The Arab world also paid extra for castrated slaves and that's where most of the slaves Europeans took ended up. I don't like to think about how many manhoods were taken, but I can't help but do.
You only scratched the surface of the pure creativity the player can get on with for doing slavery in Stellaris and the detail they have for it. You have multiple different types of slavery, from Chattel Slavery (what we were doing, my fellow Americans), Indentured Servitude (basically debt slavery), and Livestock Slavery, which I think you can figure out. Not only that, but you can genetically engineer or cybernetically alter your slaves to be more docile, work harder, and have less free will. You can even play as raiders that go to war not to conquer land but to kidnap other species and bring them back to your lands as slaves to work your mines. And if that's all too dreary for you you can play as a slave revolt of many different species all coming together to free themselves and bring the fight back to their former masters and all those in the galaxy that would enslave sentient life. Stellaris is my favorite paradox game for a goddamned reason.
I am excited to see how the modelling of pops and migration has an effect on how slavery is presented in eu5. The fact is that in eu4, economic and cultural modelling is incredibly gamey and binary. Modelling pops will show better how slavery impacts cultures, demographics, location productivity, and civil unrest especially in the new world.
as an EU3 player who never picked up 4, this part was rather surprising - managing population growth and exactly how much genocide you want to commit to speed up that first thousand to get a functioning province at long term cost from losing the productive labor of the native population (who can't be assimilated if you've genocided them) is a major strategic element of EU3 colonialism, and it's more or less hard capped by the slow generation of Colonist agents. Population productivity is likely to be a significant contributor to the economic value of provinces in EU3 that aren't producing the lolexpensive trade goods, too, and slaves' demand is directly influenced by the presence of the plantation buildings anywhere in the world - more plantations means slaves become worth more, so there's a point where you can abolish it cheap early or do it late to convert slave-trading provinces to a better good, but if you own the slave-trading provinces and no plantations, in between you can make a lot of money being horrible.
19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1
Won't this lead to the bug "If you don't kill them your computer will CHUG" that Stellaris already has in the endgame?
Forgot the fact that Xenophobic Empires in Stellaris can literally use Slaves as food production, the Lifestock stance which also makes you unpopular with other empires cause yeah, xenophage. Heck, one of the precursor storylines is that a whole species of plantoids got harvested by a xenophobic empire and when you get to "revive" them via their relic it turns out they have the "delicious" trait. The only thing that Stellaris fumbles with the whole Slavery thing is that you cannot trade enslaved species until the Galactic Market forms cause the Black Market depends on it. Raiding style empires would be so much fun if you could abduct species and trade them right away at the start of the game but sadly, you have to wait like 50 years when every corner of the galaxy has already been painted.
I think Paradox glosses over a massive factor in the Nazi German war economy, labor shortages were so extensive in Germany that slave and forced labor filled massive gaps and ensure that war production continued more smoothly. Many industrial plants were also constructed completely by slaves in and beside concentration camps as well. Many companies in Germany profited massively from the institution of slavery and forced labor and worked thousands of slaves to death in their factories. Nearly all occupied territories relied on the use of the existing workers as forced labor to maintain the industrial output of these regions and extract their resources for German industries, 2 million French prisoners of war alone were used as forced labor after the fall of France in 1940. So without recognizing this in the game, the German economic tree is nearly completely divorced from reality and enforces the idea that the German war economy did not rely on forced labor and slavery to supply the massive labor shortages caused by the mobilization of the male population of Germany as well as the enforcement of an inferior position of women, which should also be mentioned I believe, as the Nazis forced millions of women out of jobs to decrease unemployment when they came to power. So overall, without recognizing the use of forced labor, slavery, murder, and sexism to achieve the production necessary to continue the war Paradox does not accurately represent the German war economy and it is completely divorced from reality.
The newest dlc might have it in the euphemistically nammed 'economy of conquest'. It looks like text describes looted gold but i think the effects might (inadvertently?) model the slavery.
The best they tried to do without going full "realism mode" is when they added Harsh Quotas occupation laws. Which play into the Economy of Conquest thing that the guy above mentioned as at least the final focuses are locked behind resource nodes. However yes, Germany and Russia in the game are portrayed without their flaws and with 3-5 times higher industrial output then they had irl. Which is why I suggest playing with booster sliders for majors. But then there's the excuse that HoI4 after all is an alternate reality game no matter what you do(since Germany has a chance to win WWII somehow😂) so one can argue that it is definitely NOT the one that followed the path of irl one😅
That’s kinda the thing about HoI4 though, it’s more of a chessboard with a lot of flavour than a retelling of history. Also, like Lemoncake said, there are some…interesting…HoI players that they REALLY don’t want to be associated with, nor would I.
I would argue against "Imperator: Rome having bare-bones slaves mechanics" Like, once you actually understand the game, you realise that the accumulation of slaves is the fastest way to get rich in the game above commerce or conquest. You can invade just to take slaves instead of taking territory you would be forced to manage, or use ships as certain cultures to capture slaves. Also, the game has plenty of events relating to slavery and characters can "exploit slaves" in territories they got estates for personal money gain, and slaves revolts can be a big deal if they happen in a province that's of a particular importance to you.
The South experimented with industrialized slavery before the war, it actually worked alright but they found the workers weren’t expendable enough to compete with the Irish.
so funnily enough with the comment about Stellaris's slave Administrators, historically that did happen a bunch of times in history, most commonly in Muslim and Middle Eastern empires, but also rather notably with the Holy Roman Empire where there was a entire caste of enslaved nobility (yes, you heard that right), called the Ministerialis, who were literally owned by their masters and could be bought and sold and traded like any other slave, but they became useful as administrators as they were usually educated and since they couldn't legally own property (cause they're slaves), they made ideal choices as the castellans of castles.
14:36 so both eu4 and vic2/3 are actually less gamey in terms of economy than the others, because as you yourself have explained in the video slavery is not a profitable policy, not just because they don't get wages and can't spend any money, but also because they naturally don't want to be slaves so there is a cost to maintaining them
To be fair 50/50 cause that extra labour you get in something like a sugar plantation from slaves working it 24/7 does make tons off money and gives you a Huge head start for the output of the plantation itself while reducing the cost, its later on when you run into issues that cannot be fix just by having more people work or if you literaly want to diversify your money in anything that isnt extracting a raw resource and grow that when slavery flops, it also boost the happyness of people and especialy the higher classes since the ones suffer things like lack of food shelter or other goods are for the most part are the slaves not the people that run them
It gives all the money to the aristocracy, which is bad because slaves radicalize, landowners loose power because of industrialization, and slaves expectations increase with increased education
In the context of Germany, they are so strong in game because they are missing a mechanic. The holocaust was very costly for the Germans to set up and follow through on. A lot of their war potential was put into those concentration camps and the men needed to run and maintenance them. In Hoi4 they should have events that reduce your core population through event chains, there should also be IC sinks that Germany has to poor into to fulfill their historical tree. Gotterdammerung sort of did this with the MEFO bill mechanics. But the effects are really underestimated.
The thing is as well is that the German war economy only functioned on MEFO bills from 1937-1938. MEFO bills were only issued in those years and beyond that the German war economy relied on the use of short term bonds and debt to fund war production.
@@lukeparcell4896 Hey they kinda did the MEFO bill system correctly in the new dlc. Still totally not what it was like in reality but it's at least a change that makes the struggle feel more historical.
To be fair crusader kings is the least accurate games in terms of history. I realized this when my 30 year old sea king got killed in a duel by a 16 year old girl.
I will always love the descriptions and flavour text of options in stellaris. Whether it be a reference to a sci-fi book or, well, the ones you mention. You can tell the devs have some fun. Also thanks for telling me about millennia, I'm off to play that now and see if I don't go insane (premium edition is currently the same price as off-sale normal edition)
‘Slaves can’t buy stuff so they can’t increase consumer demand and scale your economy’ is possibly the funniest critique of slavery one can raise LMFAO
Slaves ONLY benefit the slave owners, to the point it is detrimental to have slavery in large capacity. Slaves can't pay taxes nor increase consumer demand, non-slaves become jobless as employers prefer slaves instead, non-slave owning employers find it hard to compete to slave owning employers due to extra expenses being paid in the form of wages, the government doesn't benefit from any of this as they're losing revenue from unemployment, businesses going under, and slaves not being able to pay taxes.
18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 So basically the same problem we have now with illegals?
With the exception of Stellaris, I feel like Paradox are terrified of modelling anything bad. Not asking for them to accurately portray the Holocaust or turn the Crusades into depopulation campaigns, but slavery is just a universal mechanical bad whenever they even bother portray it, when that's just not historically the case. For EU4 and Vic3, sure, make it something you'd want to abolish, it was more or less crushed over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries after all, but even in Imperator? Back then it was a fact of life, you lost a war, you were probably going to serve the Romans, but ingame those Romans will fight tooth and nail for your right to be free, something that's frankly ridiculous given the period. You kind of glossed over CK as well, but that covers the Viking age and we took enough slaves to put some 16th century Portuguese traders to shame, it was a huge part of the raiding. Don't even get a province modifier to sort of halfway simulate that anymore, it's just completely gone.
Tbh I think paradox is so anti bad stuff just because of how weird the fanbase is and they don't wanna encourage more than they already have. The meme of every hoi2 player being either a notzee or a femboy isn't far off from reality so when you add mechanics like slayvery and it's actually good it's gonna attract even more of those players which isn't gonna look for the company
@@Nugundamsisntforshow Correction: HOI fans are not Natzees OR femboys, they are Natzee femboys. It's not a HOI thing either - you would be surprised how weirdly common this combo is among discord Natzees...
@@Nugundamsisntforshow Obviously people with an unhealthy fascination with the NSDAP are going to gravitate towards something that lets you imitate them, regardless of how hollow that imitation is. Same thing goes for people who might not think slavery is the single most evil concept people have ever come up with. That's just inevitable. I also do understand walking a bit on eggshells around the Holocaust or warcrimes in HoI, since there's still both victims and perpetrators of those still alive, but I feel like at this point we're far enough removed from 867 to maybe start being objective with portrayals of the era. You also won't find people who glorify the middle-ages often enough to be worried about them. The CK community is more loaded with people who just think it's funny to arrest their son on spurious charges so they can cut out his eyes and balls. Fucked up, but not really concerning. It can be done tastefully, in a way that doesn't attract weirdos, avoiding it like this is the worst possible way to handle it.
@@Nugundamsisntforshow Counterpoint: according to Paradox' own collected data, most Stellaris players play egalitarian, xenophile democracies. So all the talk of constant atrocities seems more like a very vocal minority.
Just a quick note that "historical revisionism" as a term encompasses the reinterpretation of history on basis of reasonable evidence. The word you probably meant to say was "historical negationism" or "historical denialism" unless you're of the opinion that historical revisionism is inherently a bad thing!
Oh fair enough if thats what the definitions dictate. I have heard of the term "historical revisionism" and assumed the two later terms where very much 'under its umbrella'
@@LemonCake101 They are, but that's kind of the point actually. It's like saying that something "tastes like cake at worst", but what you really meant was the subset of cakes made with actual shit as an ingredient. You would want to specify that so people don't get the impression that cake tastes bad the next time they see that in the store. Maybe a bad example but you get the point. Nice vid tho
I actually do try to be ethical when I play the Paradox games, though admittedly I do often crush rebels instead of negotiating with them, which admittedly probably isn't super humaine, and this does actually make me think deeper about how I interact with Paradox games.
Honestly for me it depends how powerful I am and if the rebels pose a real threat if I’m rich and have a good economy I’ll give ‘em more autonomy but if I’m poor or it’s the age of absolutism in eu4 you can say goodbye to your pitchfork and hello to god
The problem is that most Paradox games give little incentive to negotiating. For instance, in EUIV, giving into rebel demands incurs so many malus that even minor concessions are not worth granting. Victoria 3 ironically I think models it the best, since often its demands to pass reform laws the players want, and there is organic opposition from reactionary IGs with lots of clout.
@@pax6833 I think that is definitely a problem with many strategy games, including the Total War games. I definitely think having a better way to negotiate or get rid of rebels beyond boosting stability or killing them. That is also why I tend to go for Humanist ideas and such, to try and prevent rebels to begin with.
@JinTheAceStar I don't play Skyrim because it's crap :> To answer your question more seriously, for the brief time I did play, I did not steal, and I tried to avoid unethical decisions. I usually do that in any game I play. In HoI4 I pretty much always go democratic, or at least side with the allies. In EU4 I try to he tolerant and gentle to the best of my ability. In other strategy games like AoE2 and such I try to play the "Good Guy" factions and do what is right in the campaign.
8:14 technically speaking. To do that you need to Invest massive state resources to make those wayward provinces worthwhile with the implication a lot of people are being moved to operate infrastructure machinery and farmlands to make it work
As I recall, based on the population count in the Domesday Book, people are numbered based on their households. There is also a count of slaves that are in the country, and if we assume that they are also intended to be listed as heads of households in the same way, the slave population of England at the time of writing could have been up to 1/4 of the English population. Even if it genuinely was intended that it would only be the simple number of slaves, it's still more slaves than people would commonly expect despite the perception of medieval Europe. The count would go down in later head counts over time. There was also a slave trade run out of Prague where pagans captured further east were sold (considered less bad to enslave people who were not coreligionists), and of course there's the slave trade out of the Black Sea which was lucrative for the Italian city states, the Romans, and the steppe peoples on the other side despite many of the people being captured and sold there being Christian slavs. Accounts of sieges in the Balkans during the period do also mention that many civilians of captured cities would be enslaved. Of course many of these were captured to be sold into the Arab Slave trade, but there was to some extent still a native 'market' even if it waned over time. This is just from my perfunctory research into the topic though, so take it with a grain of salt. You forgot to time stamp the CK section btw despite it being longer than the Imperator one.
The thing is probably…for some reason, kinda had unintentional commentary on higher ups who had dehumanized views on people as resources and tools to be utilized. Like the old account books or transaction treating them like commodities with euphemisms to sanitize the implications.
I really like Stellaris' systems. I like how the game even finds a way to have the player actually be involved in the slave trade too, from the literal slave market, to actual direct slave raids on other powers. It makes it feel like much more of a thing in the game. Whereas, CK is so focused on court intrigue that slavery isn't much of a factor going on that you would reasonably be able to control. In EU4 I reallllly do thing Slaves should have a MUCH better production bonus, should provide a scaling buff to all colonies either output or creation of new colonies and slaves themselves should have a much higher economic output from the tile. In the Anbennar mod for EU4 it goes a long way to make slavery more interesting. Orcs are the primary race being enslaved globally, and many nations have a lot of ideas and missions surrounding this. You even have an option to adopt Orcish Slavery giving you a buff to colonization, but it gives you Orcish minorities on those tiles and even has risks of slave revolts in certain areas. On top of that the Slavery trade good is worth 5.5 gold for much of the game. Also, the fact that Slaves as a trade good for the tile producing gives 1% missionary strength for that local tile is so... ??? very odd and lazy.
1:05 I did the Original Peacekeeper "As a pacifistic empire, have all other independent empires be pacifistic as well." by going Fanatic Purifier on the galaxy, then Ethic shifting into pacifism.
The issue is how would they implement stuff like the holocaust without having either some question people playing out their sick fantasies or having some sort of gameplay mechanic to it? Imagine if the holocaust actually gave some sort of buff or attribute. Imagine a focus thats essentially just "exterminate the jews". Although to be fair they should atleast mention it existing in some form.
I feel like for the Imperator section you missed mentioning the "Sell into slavery" character interaction. So if you have an adult character in prison you can sell them into slavery for a price depending on their skills. I found this useful when playing Imperator when I start the game as a small country. After you fully annex another country in a war you get an option to imprison all of their great family characters, which puts like 10-20 people in your prison at once. So from mass selling of these characters I can get like a 100 gold or more per annexed country, which can mean a lot early game when I start as a shitty minor fighting other shitty minors.
I think that slavery is more of a obstacle than a useful mechanic in the Vic games. You aren't meant to develop a strategy that takes advantage of it, you're meant to overcome the problems it presents you. It falls into the same catagory as low literacy. I think it does a pretty good job achieving these aims within the extremely materialist framework that Victoria adopts, even if Victoria 3 could have explored other kinds of unfree labor like convict transportation or indentured service that were important in the time period.
1:14 See one important part is that I am not playing myself as if I was a leader in the real world. I am playing a leader of the militaristic materialistic Imperium who has found themselves with more jobs then applicants to fill them... and so as any good militaristic we go to war with our neighbors for the resources we lack, thus improving the lives of our citizens as less of them have to be farmers and miners to keep everyone alive, and can be in the middle class.
Ironically the reason why slaves are bad in Victoria 3 is the reason why slavery in real life was becoming obsolete inside protectionist capitalist economies like the northeastern United States. A strong tariff system makes it sub-optimal for growth to depress laborer wages.
Slavery like warfare has been a constant in humanity since the first time someone realised with force they can get others to do back breaking labour.
18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา
You mean make others farm to make surplus food so your faction would experience hypergrowth, allowing you to enslave more primitives? There's actually a book about this "Against the Grain", which blames agriculture for slavery, not at all for advancement. I guess someone found a red shack or something?
"A good amount of people think slavery was invented in 1776 and ended in 1863" 100%, waaaaaay too many people think America invented the concept of slavery.
Thats not true... There is a ck2 viking raiding event where you can get a temporary surplus of thralls in your capital province that you can stack 4-5 times that drastically reduces both cost of building things, and the speed you make them.
1:18 1 - Almost always. I very rarely bother influencing elections 2 - Ok, you've got me there, but to be fair, there is literally no benefit to civilian economy (for some reason). Also, unlike most people, I normally play as democracies 3 - I'll often raise autonomy to conserve manpower
The Victoria system actually makes sense. Modern economies are driven by mass consumption. In pre-modern economies you don't have the problem of there not being enough consumers for whatever you are able to produce, so slavery makes more sense economically. In modern economies slavery makes sense for the slaveholders, but is very inefficient from the perspective of society at large.
"I understand Paradox's desire to be careful with such developments" An understatement if I ever heard one. Seriously, when Russia declared war on Ukraine, well some people started showing their true colors...
*slavery isn't just part of human history* that is because humans aren't unique in regards to that. Other creatures like ants also practice slavery. Any creature that is capable of forming complex social organization end up practicing slavery to some degree.
You got the economics of early-modern slavery completely backwards. The fact they don't get paid means that 1. they don't pay taxes and 2. YOU personally have to build everything for them, meaning you have to invest a lot. It's much more economically beneficial to free them, make them pay tax and make them take care of themselves, while also rendering their labour. A slave is much more expensive to maintain than a contracted worker while not paying any taxes - this was the principal reason for the abolishment of it to begin with.
7:40 okay, but the labour theory of value fails to take into account quality of goods and services. Using it alone will always lead to people spending 8+ hours to do something that they could do in 30 mins if they were competent. Frankly, the labour theory of value is anti-meritocratic and clearly favours a system where skilled workers do not get rewarded for their skill, which will lead to less skill in the workforce over time. One cannot rely on the labour theory of value as a reliable metric of how much someone's work is worth.
one of my buddies keeps sending me screenshots of the new and fun things he does to the aliens in his empire, the hoi4 community might be full of mouth breathers, but the stellaris players would kill us all with a smile on their face
Well to be fair for the EU4 portion, the Labour Theory of Value is kind of rediculous since it's completely irrational (a week of making mudpies will never be as valuable as 30 minutes of specialized medical work). There is no value to labour innately , but labour as a resource would be a fantastic game mechanic. It could be tweaked to be affected by happiness, capital, incentives, and more. Also, slavery IS extremely bad for the economy compared to capitalism, every country in the world got richer once we realized a happy incentivized worker is happier than a miserable slave.
If Palworld has taught us anything, it's that slavery as a game mechanic is incredibly fun. There's LOADS of room to creatively make slavery mechanics that are detailed, fictional, or realistic. First thing that comes to mind is managing slave revolts & political movements. Terrible irl, absolutely horrible. But as a game mechanic? It's a real missed opportunity to scratch the itch for dominating efficiency or comical villainy.
Well, technically, the Ottoman empire had Slave administrators, who came from the Jannisaries, and ended up in high stations of power like Vizers, but i guess at that point with all the power and wealth that comes from the position, its hard to argue about them being slaves. Same with the Mamluks of egypt.
To be entirely fair to our boys at Paradox the labor theory of value is completely bunk, but my god the value of labor could definitely be modeled better in eu4
@@alanywalany6460 How about ya read some Mises and Rothbard then come back? Some rando's videos are not my style, especially after having read Smith, Locke and Marx's take on the labor theory of value.
@@belthesheep3550 LMFAO I KNEW IT! XDDDDD every. single. TIME! WITHOUT FAIL! It's always the Mises and pdfbard who talk about how incorrect it is and it's always they who don't even understand it ahahahaha. Mises and pdfbard and their feelings and assumptions can go where the pepper grows.
I think Crusader Kings' lack of mention of slavery largely stems from the lack of much depth to economy more broadly. You just kinda get taxes which appear based on development. What those taxes are on, be they trade goods, produce, or whatever aren't really explored at all (beyond "you built a port, so now you get more money" or "you built a farm," etc. The point is it's not specific trade goods like in EUIV). Gold is just a sort of abstract representation of wealth. I think the only area they really ought to make it more present is in the reliance on slave armies in a large part of the Islamic world, since that does affect the areas which the game does focus on (namely fielding armies as well as court politics, since those slave soldiers could become very powerful). As for slaves as a social class, as others have mentioned, the game is mostly focused on nobility. Even most of the peasants we encounter are meant to be important members of a village community, so I can forgive a lack of characters with slave status showing up (again with the exception of the Islamic world, where you'd expect powerful slave soldiers playing prominent parts in the court)
I'm gonna have to say 8/10 because I think that was a front flip/side flip not a back flip. EDITED: now I have absolutely no idea which way the cake is meant to be facing! Oh no, I always assumed it was facing right
You're mostly correct about CK3 ignoring slavery, however, it should be mentioned that viking events do sometimes involve the mention of "thralls" which are slaves. It is however, mostly flavour text with little mechanical importance
So with CK2, they don’t completely ignore slavery but it’s such a minute detail that unless you’re playing as a raiding realm, you’ll likely never run across Thralls and the province modifiers. For the sake of argument, the game as a whole ignored the subject but it was just one thing I remembered from my many Norse playthroughs
"[slave researchers] indeed got reworked." What, when? techno slavers has been strong for years, through all reworks. Even now, you have a choice between a 40% increase from non-slave focused to 75% with slave focused.
Honestly uh... Man with this video you perfectly explained why exactly there is a perception by 'educated' americans that slavery was 'inefficient' economically (with the claim that they'd be better off without ever having done it) with the Victoria section, since, of course, if you are suddenly paying your workers and buy shit, the GDP ends up skyrocketing overnight.... This is not what I turned up for in this video, but uh, good job?
To be clear, this isn't a video regarding the modern politics. I had to touch upon history here, but I am looking at this through the video game lenght
To be clear we would with 100 percent certainty be better of not having done it. The obvious moral repugnance but my understanding this theory that it developed in efficient and non scalable economies is just true. What is this question marks "educated" Americans what are you really getting at here
Slavery isn’t about efficiency-it’s a status symbol for rich idiots who want to show off their power. Owning people gives them control over life and death, which feeds their egos, but from a practical standpoint, it’s a terrible system. You’re paying years’ worth of wages upfront just to own someone, then covering all their ongoing costs-housing, food, clothing, and healthcare. If a slave dies, that’s a massive financial loss, so you have to keep spending to keep them alive and working. On top of that, you need guards and overseers to stop them from escaping or rebelling, which only adds to the cost. The only edge case where slavery might make economic sense is in extremely dangerous jobs, like mining, where the risks are so high that it’s hard to find willing workers. For most work, hiring free laborers is way cheaper, more efficient, and less hassle. They’re motivated to work because they want to get paid, and if they quit or die, you just replace them. Slavery isn’t just morally indefensible-it’s bad economics.
If slavery wasn't competitive with hiring workers in a wide variety of cultures then it would never have happened on such a large scale. If it was only about the egos of slaveowners then the practice would have been largely restricted to household slaves, who could be shown off to the other rich people whose opinion the egoists cared about. In actual history plantation slavery (the most well-known form) can't possibly have been solely about the egos of the owners. Many plantations in the Caribbean were owned by absentee landlords, whose interest in the way the plantation was run was solely in the profit they got from it. If somebody had demonstrated that a plantation run by free men was more profitable then virtually all of those plantations would have used hired labour, rather than slavery. Bur in reality you'll struggle to find even a couple of examples of such plantations which used hired labour. Its also worth noting that in some eras slavery served other purposes. In the ancient world selling yourself or your family members into slavery was often the only option to survive if you fell on hard times. Alternatives to slavery would have required inventing some other option for dealing with people in those kinds of situation. In many cultures slaves were taken in war as the alternative to killing everybody on the losing side. Also, the idea that slavery is morally indefensible comes from a very particular worldview. It's only really found in cultures that have a strong influence from Judaism and/or Christianity, and derives from some very specific beliefs in those religions (the most important being that all of humanity is created in God's image). Virtually all human societies throughout history have practiced some form of slavery without anybody protesting the morality of slavery. So it's trivially true that somebody who rejects the basic assumptions that led the Western world to stamp out slavery can quite easily come up with a reason why slavery is morally acceptable that fits within their worldview.
It really depends, you shouldn't make general statements like this. In hoi4 germany for example many conpanies would have made a good buck using camp labor, same goes for us prisons.
@@stephengray1344 Bro how do you think the economy works? Yeah the slave plantations makes a lot of money, but where does that money go? Into the owners pocket. Instead of plantations supporting the growth of entire towns and villages it goes to one family who just keeps it in a vault forever. The reason that capitalism is falling apart at the seams now is people don't understand that you don't want 1 guy to own everything, you want to spread the money out to as many people possible. Also From that last comment I know the kind of person you are, but lets just agree that owning a person and forcing them to perform act for you under threat of death is always morally indefensible, and only those without any empathy would think otherwise
The thing about slavery is that it's usually not very effective economically. Slaves often cost more than free workers; you still need to feed and house them, but now you also need to guard them. Their work drive will also be a lot lower. A minimum wage worker costs less. Slavery is almost exclusively used in jobs where the job is so unpleasant or dangerous that you can't hire people to do it at a reasonable price. Hand-mining, harvesting dangerous/painful crops in extreme heat, prostitution, drug mules, textile workers, and assembling electronics/small parts. If it's a job where they can just hire a minimum wage worker, they won't use slaves. A great example is the diamond industry. They used to use slavery because it required sorting ore by hand in the hot sun, but it dropped from ~80% to ~2% in a few decades the moment there was an alternative to slave labor with more advanced sorting machines that were cheaper than slavery. Paradox does a good job of it. Slavery doesn't mean east money in the games, it often costs more to use it.
Slavery is still allowed in the US under the 13th Amendment for prisoners. Considering the amount of false incarnations combined with overhoging (overpolicing) in minority neighborhoods, America basically rebuilt their slavery system.
18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา
Great! How many actually WORK? We have a cop-killer who got itself a blood-sugar condition from INFINITE appeals, 40 years of Last Meals, and no self-control
*Stares at all the Eu games, Vic games and Imperitor Rome* Differently. Also slavery became defacto illegal in England (later Britain) due to William the Conqueror You sadly didn't cover Eu3's method. But pretty similar to Eu4's The issue is also... there are diffrent types of slavery. Most people tend to think of the Trans-Atlantic Chattled slavery
The labor theory of value is, while quite simple to understand, completely bollocks. It does not matter if you worked your entire life as hard as you could to make this one singular wooden chair, if no one wants to pay 1 billion dollars for it it isn't worth 1 billion dollars. Labor doesn't determine value, fair market value is determined by the evaluation of everyone else. If I barely do any work at all but I cure cancer it obviously really matters, if I work my ass off to make a chair and it doesn't even stand the weight of a toddler I should get 0 dollars and be ashamed of myself for it.
That doesn't completely negate the value of labor. Labor, Capital and Soil are the classical factors of production, you can't create anything of value without any labor.
Define Value Ancap Scab. You're talking about something completely different. You fell for a strawman made up by the Austrian School. Have you considered that maybe, value has multiple definitions? Food for thought. Read.
4:29 I’ve been looking for sources regarding the slave revolt mentioned and I haven’t found any readings on the matter that aren’t 100+ pages, with most of those pages being dedicated to the Viking Slave trade as a whole. To anyone who knows and is willing to share the information, could you give me a rundown on what happened?
Abe Lincon: "Now, Men shall be free!" Free Man: "Actually uh, the confederates already freed me?" Abe Lincon: "Doesn't their whole economy rely on you pretty heavily?" Free Man: "They don't pay me very well, but they pay me. Basically nothing changed." Abe: "But...The war? It was basically about that and states rights and...Screw it, I'm going to a theatre."
Abe didn't actually free the slaves btw if you actually read the emancipation proclamation it was just him saying that southern slaves should be freed y'know the same south that had seceded from the union and thus weren't listening to them it was in practice more of a wake up call for the slaves to get smart and rebel since all the men were off the plantations so the only threat they had to worry about was women
@@alanywalany6460 The confederate meta strategy is just to drop slavery. However, in real life when slavery was forcefully dropped. They mostly just re "Hired" their "workers" for dirt cheap. Like. Dirt cheap. While technically the civil war wasn't just about slavery, it was about, technically the rights of states. It was a pretty big focal point in several regards. Also Abe just really liked Theatre.
I actually wrote a term paper on why slavery (specificially in the american south) is generally bad economically and your vicy 3 section covers the main reasons why. Something that I found actually though was that, ownig a small army of slaves or even like just around 10 or so like most slave owners did is pretty expensive. It's a huge initial cost and then the cost of keeping that person alive and healthy enough to work. Past that, the way the economy was, the cheapest thing you could buy to increase production was more land. More land needs more slaves means more upkeep and the upkeep very quickly outscales production so they buy even more land and more slaves and you get the idea. Another thing, slave owners didn't use things like the cotton gin. Buying more slaves was generally cheaper for them. The way they were able to maintain a small army of over 100 slaves was, they would take out loans from banks and merchants to buy the requisite food for their slaves. When the harvest came around, the typical loop for a plantation owner was: Pay the interest with 90% of the revenue from the cotton, buy more land, buy more slaves, buy enough seeds for your land, replace broken tools (if they even used them), buy fancy clothes to show how affluent they are, take out another loan (note they never actually paid off the old loan, just the interest), and then buy food for the slaves with that loan. By the time of the american civil war, most slave owners were *deep* in the shit, because an oversupply of cotton meant bales were only about 14 cents (a bale is like, 500 pounds of cotton). Hilariously, after the Union blockaded the CSA, there was a global cotton shortage, and the price of cotton per bale spiked to iirc $14 or $12, and that shortage made Egypt, who actually kept up with agricultural technology, very rich
I am going live doing the Sengoku Jidai MP deathmatch later today, so if you are here as the video dropped, catch me live either here on TH-cam or over on Twitch: www.twitch.tv/lemoncake101
11:56 the main reason paradox didn’t include the mass killing is because the don’t want problems with it and not many people would want to by that kind of a game then it’s are still
Waiting for a comment about Project Cesar
I was kind of hoping you'd at least mention, among history lessons, that Modern European chattel slavery was objectively worse than ancient debt slavery.
Edit: mostly because half of my fellow Americans still haven't gotten the memo...
11:00 enslaved work WAS the worst form of labor, though, in more than just the inhumanity of it. Those kept as chattel slaves in the new world weren't even taught to read for fear they'd discover all the contradictory passages of the Bible(s) which say, "actually, this is bad kinda."
Edit: 13:00 during the Roman times, emperors were often overseen by enslaved doctors.
Imo, vic 3 slavery is awesome if combined with agrarism and homesteading.
Makes half your farmers double as rich, leading to better investment by them via homesteading.
Can’t wait for the sequel “How paradox deals with the holocaust”
not much content there I am afraid
SPOILER:
they don't. there's any expression about holocaust, concentration/extermination camps, pows, penal labour, labor camps, joy divisions, comfort women etc. i hate that attitude. if you make a game about ww2, you must show the horror and terror of war on civilians for that war is the only war that civilians have been killed above soldiers.
@@cemekiz6266 Reminds me of the way TH-cam kills any video that mentions The Painter, The German Not-So-Good Party, the No-no-caust or anything to do with the topic in a firepit and shits on the ashes. It's gotten ridiculous at this point.
Why? Ww2 in hearts of iron is used for power fantasy of running a country is during one of the most global events in history it's not meant to be a serious critique or deep dive into war.@@cemekiz6266
@@cemekiz6266I can kind of understand why they wouldn’t want to make the holocaust something your able to choose to do (along with other atrocities) but I think that it should honestly just be part of HOI4 itself
I love how stellaris has like five different flavors of slavery but also makes it one of the less horrible things you can do besides the seven different flavors of genocide mass biological nuclear and chemical warfare and state mandated racism
You forgot corporate sponsored Xenoburgers.
@@phyrexian_dude4645 Technically, that is a flavor of slavery.
@@phyrexian_dude4645What about corporate sponsored drug manufacturing?
Why bother with the species when you can simply blow up the planets?Better yet, go for the stars! Bombing 10 different planets in a star system is too much hassle.
@@stevenseagull4990get religious and make your people worship the drugs. 👌 State-mandated pharma-religion
On the note of Stellaris' scientist slaves, it's worth looking to the Roman approach to Greece. Many Roman families would have enslaved Greek tutors, since they were seen as the world's premier philosopher types. So it's not _completely_ unprecedented.
If you were an economically well of family in Rome and didn't have a Greek slave to educate your children you were literally made fun of in some cases.
They were not slaves, where did you get that information? Greeks were the most well integrated people in Roman society and were respected far more than many romans. Teachers were very well paid and formed aristocracy, many aristocratic families learned Greek as their first language. How being well paid and not to be considered a property makes one a slave?
@@glara-i4s "Aristocratic Roman families often employed Greek‐speaking tutors for their children (Livius Andronicus and Ennius were early examples) and these tutors-often slaves or freedmen-commonly taught both Greek and Latin;" excerpt from the Oxford Reference about Roman education.
The thing to remember about ancient Rome is, that slaves in prestigious positions were often allowed to buy their freedom after some years of service. There were massive amounts of slaves sold to Roman aristocrats, which they bought as skilled educators. That a lot of these men later gained their freedom and continued their line of work doesn't mean, that they weren't slaves at the start.
@@glara-i4s M. Tullius Tiro was born a slave (child of greek house slaves) and received his freedom from Cicero in his 40s. Epictet was enslaved and became a respected teacher in Rome, before he returned to greece a free man. This did happen. Not all greek tutors were slaves, but more than enough. They were treated well, didn't do any hard labour, ate and bathed with their masters and were usually freed after educating a generation of children.
It happened to diogene !
I'm gonna defend Vic 3 as a good implementation of slavery
Slaves do actually consume goods, but it's the owners that buy them and their rate of consumption is far lower than any other kind of laborer
Which is exactly how it worked irl and why it is a bad system for an economy irl
But it also makes running costs for whatever building they're working for far lower which makes them more profitable
Which is also how it worked irl and why slaveowners worked so hard to maintain it
They're also still politically active, but neutered so hard they are all but irrelevant (I'd say more so than irl)
What I don't like is the way slavery gives a huge boost to landowners directly regardless of how many slaves there actually are so a country with a million citizens and three slaves is exactly as politically committed to it as a country with three citizens and a million slaves
Also some countries with low populations (or at least countries wirh a labor shortage) really benefit from the... involuntary migration... and so have an interest in keeping the slave trade, which is also why it happened irl
What I find weird is the lack of slave revolts. Like, i don't know if it was fixed in the last updapte but usually the Dutch East Indies get 90 % slaves ( and more ) 20 years into the game. Truly nothing bad will happen to the slave owners. And they did remove the landowner boost from slavery but then added it back again because it made liberalising too easy ? The way they change the politics in the game is very strange and bad ( petite bourgeoisie being forever strong for example )
Slavery is economically bad because slaves are unable to seek out their own needs and wants within the market. All of their demand is made irrelevant by the fact that their needs are filtered through the preferences of their master, who doesn't care to give them anything beyond the bare minimum.
The crucial "and then they spend their pay on the things they want" part of the economy is missing under slavery.
I would also like them to change slavery as you describe, so that the slave/landowner clout is proportional to their actual economic value - not sure how this would be implemented with the current system with the manor houses and all, whether there would be a way to give extra clout to landowners who happen to own slaves - maybe give the owners the political power the slaves would have if they were free?
@@albator8254 the lack of a weighted and/or situational political system is one of the low priority/long term issues I'd like them to fix at some point
No matter what the national situation is the PB will always want a monarchy to exactly the same degree they want a national guard or elected bureaucrats
Most slaves get neutered twice I think, once because they're slaves and then again because of cultural discrimination so they usually have too little political power to do revolts
13th Amendment makes prison slavery legal, and ofc there is plenty of illegal slavery still going on
How will they show different types of slavery? I.e. chattel slavery in the US vs Mamluk slavery where a slave can own slaves, slaves are soldiers and paid, slaves can be generals, slaves can also be kings?
I feel the crusader kings games don't really bring slavery up because half of the game is more court intrigue and social interactions while the other half is land development and warfare, there are mentions of slavery, such as captured manpower from raids, recruiting prisoners and in ck2 there is an event where slavers will visit and give you a really good steward from africa but they don't really focus on the non-court populace
Slaves we’re very important in medieval courts especially in the Muslim world. They ignore it because they know it would engender controversy
You are right. The thing is that CK makes you focus so good in other aspects of the era that I geniunely forgot that slavery was a big thing in those times. Kingdoms like the abbassid caliphate for example practiced slavery a lot, but I'm so focused on fucking persia up that I never noticed the lack of slaves. Savery could be a good game mechaninc in my opinion.
Yeah, it's like... slavery was SO ubiquitous that there's nowhere really left to fit it in mechanically. Maybe a slavic trade route to represent both that those rivers had a lot of trade and that slaves were one of the things on them? But other than that slavery was like the peasantry: so far below your notice as a ruler that they're not really present outside of flavour text, and what effect it had is already part of your economic and legal machine.
@@ferro6854 It weren't just the Abbasids lol
@@McHobotheBobo I know, it was an example
"We do not budget for the dead"
is a line that goes way harder than it should.
Well, smart people should budget for the dead. Because if you drive governmental policies that creates allot of dead people that otherwise should have been alive, eg war. Then those now dead former taxes payers and demand creators need to be impaired down and the nations "book value" (as if one think of the nation as a company) would be reduced and by all metrics every aspect of society would be reduced in value because of the war.
Basically, current day Russias future....
"We do not budget for the Dead."
- This title has been rated Ages 7 & Over
Well hello there
Fancy you popping in :)
@@LemonCake101 great video!
On a side note, I do somewhat disagree with your take on the the Victoria 3 Slavery implementation. From a purely economic perspective (not getting into the immorality of slavery) I would think that slavery in that period is inherently negative for the overall GDP of a nation.
Why? Well, slaves don't get paid a salary and don't really have many expenses (outside the bare minimum food and fabric). Employees on the other hand get paid a salary and have much higher expenses. They generally pay rent, heating, higher food and clothing costs and buy nicer amenities. Which overall leads to greater demand for products and services, alongside the spending power to buy them, so GDP goes up! And that is, I think, what Victoria is representing and why slavery is not optimal for the south. Not from the the pov of the whole nation.
The slaver owners lose out, of course, in both this implementation and the real world (well, arguably the price of basic goods might increase in the real world after a switch from slavery), but the rest of the economy as a whole gets bigger!
TL:DR Slavery is suboptimal. Freedom has a higher gdp. Victoria 3's slavery implementation seems reasonable.
On the other hand if the slaves are not capable of buying goods from your national market. I.e. they are slavers in a foreign country, then suppressing costs would probably be more productive. (I'm thinking of the abhorrent, near-slave wages that clothing factories pay in many parts of the world. They then sell those clothes in larger, richer markets).
@@MontuPlays I don't disagree, it may be a way I present things that everything I say looks like a critic but it was more an exploration of how pdx does it. The main critic was just how quickly, directly and immediately emancipation provides an economic boost, when in practice that wasn't quite the case. As a model of the transition into an industrial society though, it does work.
@LemonCake101 oh, fair enough then! Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was wrong for the Confederate American States to switch to slavery (from an economic point of view).
I think the large landowner power block would be poorly impacted by this switch, even if it's better for the overall economic health of the nation, and that's reasonably represented in the game.
You're totally right though, nothing changes overnight in the real world in quite the same way it does in these games like this!
2:18 Given the number of times I have come across Sol 3 inhabited by a stone age Pre-FTL civilization, I would like to propose that *Stellaris* is the oldest Paradox game by historical time period.
interesting idea, but sol 3 pre FTL don't have slave by the game mechanic side.
@@earthfederationspaceforce9844
Not yet, they don’t. -Authoritarian/Xenophobic empire
I frankly enjoy Stellaris for being so unburdened from what has been. People love to make jokes about its genocide buttons (plural because now you can feed even your normal population into a giant auto-genocide brain factory you can use to break physics), but the game also makes much more utopian and egalitarian playstyles fun and viable at least to me. The game is less about being optimal but more about emergent story telling than the others.
Also regarding slave researchers, insert joke about grad school in our world here.
It's not slavery, it's unpaid internships!
I think both options in Stellaris are equally enjoyable. This is the game where you can roleplay as a space Trotskyist and spread the gift of shared burdens via liberating the galaxy and at the same time you can play as the most authoritarian, xenophobic, spiritualistic, most despicably evil empire ever. Or even transcend good and evil by playing as a gestalt consciousness and either play as the Flood or Skynet.
Yeah, let me play in the sandbox. It is a game. Allowing gamers to take Constantinople actually lowers the chance of people wanting another Crusade IRL. Running over Pedestrians in GTA doesn't lead to gamers doing so IRL. We gamers suffer from the whim of the Ignorant Investors.
@@therealspeedwagon1451 Adding my personal favorite type of empire to run - Xenophobic egalitarians.
"All men were created equal... you just aren't people." is a fun one to run.
@@randomintrovertedspider7510 it´s called HUMAN rights for a reason.
you look human you get rights,
you look like some sentinent pebbles, plants, animals, some mold growth/ fungus or like the biggest accidental mistake nature committed you get immediat employment and free travels all across the empire to get into the mines, fields and factories
if you look human enough you get resident rights.
Now I understand why EU5 Dev talk was reliant on managing population.
The Victoria segment reminded me of a phrase (Idk who said it but it's rather fitting for the situation)
"Slavery is bad because Slaves don't pay taxes"
That is partially true, but it’s mainly the fact that if you pay your workers, they can buy things which boosts other businesses and the economy as a whole
Think it was from CallMeEzekiel who said that lol.
It is objectively true. A slave is far less valuable than a wage labourer.
Jokes on you, slaves are the only people who ever paid taxes!
They also make money for their owners through free labour and cost pretty much nothing to maintain outside of the most basic food so they can survive.
Slavery is actually economically damaging. Your explanation during the Victoria 3 section is exactly why.
Slavery during early capitalism worked out economically when there were bigger markets elsewhere to export to, so your profits don't depend really on the buying power of your domestic market, and the market is not saturated and overproduction crises are not a problem yet. Overproduction crises require the downscaling of production and thus workers are laid off, but slaves are considered property, so you either try to sell them off, which is difficult when you are in a generalized crisis, or you free them because you don't want to pay for their upkeep. The American South was exactly this type of export oriented slave society, exporting primarily to Britain and the Northern US. The abolition of slavery was very profitable for the Northern US industry and industry at large because a huge amount of new "free" labor entered the labor market driving wages down, so production costs, increasing profits.
V3 also has a great basis to explain when should/should there not be slavery. The only reason why you might want to have slave trade is if you have a lot of natural resources you could exploit but no population to actually exploit it, and immigration is either not an option or doesn't work fast enough. But slavery fucking sucks once any sort of economy exists, so why shouldn't it be immediately abolished once you have your pops? Well, then it's no longer a matter of whether the player/country should abolish it, but rather, there's now a social class that has gained great privilege from having slaves, and abolishing slavery means fighting them off, which might be quite difficult if they're well entrenched. In this sense, the design philosophy of Victoria 3 is a great foundation, the problem instead is the numbers tweaking.
@dorinpopa6962 Yes and no. Remember, demand is greater for free labor. Therefore, if you have free laborers, then the economy as a whole grows. The laborers can purchase clothes, food, furniture, etc. And grow other sectors of the economy. However, in a slave system, only the master benefits. The demand that comes from the master is less than the master and free laborers, and so only a few sectors grow, thus reducing overall growth. Slavery is a net negative, but for those few at the top who have connections to the system (the planters, slavers, and politicians) benefit. It is why the South seceded in the first place. Those with power benefitted and so fought to keep it dragging the average Joe along with them.
slavery works when you produce something and sell it the next moment the economy grows then but really slowly
he gave an example of a normal economy where the material is produced manufactured and sold
slavery can be beneficial for some people if
slaves work in the fields or mines BUT there are manufactories which sells the manufactured items internationaly
@gigachad8425 Free laborers are still preferable. They create more demand and can be incentivized with things like higher wages for increased supply. This encourages greater economic growth, and since jobs are limited, slavery is net negative for the economy.
Me literally attempting to make the lives of my people better in Paradox games cause my moral compass was shaped by watching Transformers G1.
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings (or something idk I didn’t die on a table in the movie)
Me literally attempting to make the lives of my people worse in Paradox games cause my moral compass was shaped by watching Transformers G1.
G1 is so based
@@GrahamCrackerX You rooted for the Decpticons... didn't you...
@@GrahamCrackerX Dude roleplaying as Shockwave. XD
I think a major issue here is that the western concept of "slavery" always invokes the image of United States chattel slavery, where slaves are purchased and then "bred"/kept forever with their children also being slaves. The reality is that this is just one of many models. South American slaves were typically worked to death since importing new slaves from Africa was cheaper than breeding new slaves domestically. Arab slave trade outright castrated with no intention of letting them breed. Serfs weren't really slaves, but were unfree and their children inherited that status. Viking thralls were slaves but generally low density. Slaves in antiquity could serve in very high skilled jobs like tutors.
Also, there can be a racial component to slavery like we see in Stellaris where you basically define entire pops as slaves.
The whole idea of "slavery" as a monolith and the dichotomy between slave not slave seems silly. Some would consider all forced labor slavery and some "special" minds even think even voluntary labor is slavery.
It gets even more complicated once you consider that an agricultural slave in the late Roman republic was likely treated almost entirely differently than a house slave, or one of them fancy tutor slaves "imported" from Greece for little Gaius' literature classes... It's not just that different societies did it different, it's also that within a given society there were effectively different kinds of slaves. If not de iure, then de facto.
.
The memory of US slavery is a politicized topic, so the issue is reduced to slogans, and emotionally charged everywhere the US has cultural influence (so most places). Which in turn means talking about it, outside of closed social circles, is inviting pointless drama, as people project their perceived political interests on the topic, and "take sides" instead of discussing anything to do with the matter.
Sure, but you dont have to be special to see that once you take away leverage for low skilled labor, specially in a fiat currency based economy (inflation will happen via intention to a given level by design and upkeep of regulators), if you take away such low skilled labors leverage to retain buying power over times, aka Unions in most cases. At some point living wage jobs start to decline, middle class (buying power, not "average folks") starts to shrink, domestic demand goes down etc etc. At some point you could argue such socially dumped wage employees are practically the same as serfs or slaves in economical impact, specially on a service based economy.
A pretty big generalization with Arab slaves. They did have plantaions for slaves, and breeding chattel erc varied. A very ignorant statement.
Depends how voluntary the labour is I guess! I can choose to die, but few are going to consider that an actual option, so I guess I have to work.
The Helots of Sparta were slaves owned by the state instead of individuals, and the Crypteia that kept them from rising up was effectively a secret police
In ezikiel vic 2 guide quote "slaves dont pay taxes"
If this worked irl slaves would still be a thing in the western world as well
@@jansatamme6521 can you please elaborate?
@@ham_the_spam4423 The rich would use them to not pay taxes
@@jansatamme6521 the rich very much loved owning slaves, it was profitable, BUT the government didn't see those profits, so the government didn't care that the rich loved it. Peasants didn't like slavery as it prevented them from getting jobs, slaves didn't like it cause they were slaves, non-slave businesses didn't like it as it made it harder to compete with slave owning businesses, and government didn't like it cause they couldn't tax the slaves, nor tax the people who were jobless due to the slaves, nor tax the businesses that collapsed due to the slaves. Slaves ONLY benefited the slave owners, and thus it was in everyone's interest, even the government's, to end it.
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 Slaves in the US were also becoming unprofitable, for the same reasons serfdom became less and less productive, slaves also couldnt work industrial jobs as with enough education for that they would almost certainly revolt
I think victoria 3 does the best job because it shows slavery within the context of the era including why capitalism made it unsustainable economically
Why not. Slavery can always work. But it's literally not cool to treat humans like objects even if they black
Nicely said
7:45 don’t forget how some guys in Persia having an identity crisis and schizophrenia suddenly makes a single rug worth more than the entire country it’s made in
Slavery in the Mediterranean was widespread, with the Genovese and the Venetians being important slave traders. Its also where slave sugar plantations first popped up around the 1300s.
Yeah when Christians were banned from being enslaved they started enslaving slavic people "slavs". Hence Genoa having Crimean bases.
Fair: I just chose to use Ireland as the example.
@@aksmex2576 The Arab world also paid extra for castrated slaves and that's where most of the slaves Europeans took ended up. I don't like to think about how many manhoods were taken, but I can't help but do.
are you sure you didn't mean 1400s for slave sugar plantations? I thought Europeans didn't start exploring colonizing until around 1450?
@@aksmex2576 the trade of slaves across the Black Sea existed far before the emergence of the slavic peoples
You only scratched the surface of the pure creativity the player can get on with for doing slavery in Stellaris and the detail they have for it. You have multiple different types of slavery, from Chattel Slavery (what we were doing, my fellow Americans), Indentured Servitude (basically debt slavery), and Livestock Slavery, which I think you can figure out. Not only that, but you can genetically engineer or cybernetically alter your slaves to be more docile, work harder, and have less free will. You can even play as raiders that go to war not to conquer land but to kidnap other species and bring them back to your lands as slaves to work your mines. And if that's all too dreary for you you can play as a slave revolt of many different species all coming together to free themselves and bring the fight back to their former masters and all those in the galaxy that would enslave sentient life. Stellaris is my favorite paradox game for a goddamned reason.
How do you play as a slave revolt?
@@garak55 Broken Shackles Origin
It's one of the origins from one of the dlc, you start as a group of slaves that hijacked a slave ship ala la amistad@@garak55
Yes, but I don't want to be banned from TH-cam
@@garak55 you can also just get a slave revolt and you get a button to join the otherside
I am excited to see how the modelling of pops and migration has an effect on how slavery is presented in eu5. The fact is that in eu4, economic and cultural modelling is incredibly gamey and binary. Modelling pops will show better how slavery impacts cultures, demographics, location productivity, and civil unrest especially in the new world.
Tinto talks 34 is actually about that very subject.
No lie, the eu5 slavery dev diary was the first one that got me interested in the game
as an EU3 player who never picked up 4, this part was rather surprising - managing population growth and exactly how much genocide you want to commit to speed up that first thousand to get a functioning province at long term cost from losing the productive labor of the native population (who can't be assimilated if you've genocided them) is a major strategic element of EU3 colonialism, and it's more or less hard capped by the slow generation of Colonist agents. Population productivity is likely to be a significant contributor to the economic value of provinces in EU3 that aren't producing the lolexpensive trade goods, too, and slaves' demand is directly influenced by the presence of the plantation buildings anywhere in the world - more plantations means slaves become worth more, so there's a point where you can abolish it cheap early or do it late to convert slave-trading provinces to a better good, but if you own the slave-trading provinces and no plantations, in between you can make a lot of money being horrible.
Won't this lead to the bug "If you don't kill them your computer will CHUG" that Stellaris already has in the endgame?
Forgot the fact that Xenophobic Empires in Stellaris can literally use Slaves as food production, the Lifestock stance which also makes you unpopular with other empires cause yeah, xenophage. Heck, one of the precursor storylines is that a whole species of plantoids got harvested by a xenophobic empire and when you get to "revive" them via their relic it turns out they have the "delicious" trait.
The only thing that Stellaris fumbles with the whole Slavery thing is that you cannot trade enslaved species until the Galactic Market forms cause the Black Market depends on it. Raiding style empires would be so much fun if you could abduct species and trade them right away at the start of the game but sadly, you have to wait like 50 years when every corner of the galaxy has already been painted.
Or at least if you are an slaver mega corp.
Steallaris only gets away with horrible slavery crimes because the target population are funny aliens and not negr0es and indigenous americans lmao
I give that backflip a 4/5, great initial spring into the jump, but the landing was a little static
excellent thank you
I think this video as a whole gets a 3/5 from me
I think Paradox glosses over a massive factor in the Nazi German war economy, labor shortages were so extensive in Germany that slave and forced labor filled massive gaps and ensure that war production continued more smoothly. Many industrial plants were also constructed completely by slaves in and beside concentration camps as well. Many companies in Germany profited massively from the institution of slavery and forced labor and worked thousands of slaves to death in their factories. Nearly all occupied territories relied on the use of the existing workers as forced labor to maintain the industrial output of these regions and extract their resources for German industries, 2 million French prisoners of war alone were used as forced labor after the fall of France in 1940. So without recognizing this in the game, the German economic tree is nearly completely divorced from reality and enforces the idea that the German war economy did not rely on forced labor and slavery to supply the massive labor shortages caused by the mobilization of the male population of Germany as well as the enforcement of an inferior position of women, which should also be mentioned I believe, as the Nazis forced millions of women out of jobs to decrease unemployment when they came to power. So overall, without recognizing the use of forced labor, slavery, murder, and sexism to achieve the production necessary to continue the war Paradox does not accurately represent the German war economy and it is completely divorced from reality.
The newest dlc might have it in the euphemistically nammed 'economy of conquest'. It looks like text describes looted gold but i think the effects might (inadvertently?) model the slavery.
The best they tried to do without going full "realism mode" is when they added Harsh Quotas occupation laws. Which play into the Economy of Conquest thing that the guy above mentioned as at least the final focuses are locked behind resource nodes.
However yes, Germany and Russia in the game are portrayed without their flaws and with 3-5 times higher industrial output then they had irl. Which is why I suggest playing with booster sliders for majors.
But then there's the excuse that HoI4 after all is an alternate reality game no matter what you do(since Germany has a chance to win WWII somehow😂) so one can argue that it is definitely NOT the one that followed the path of irl one😅
Could definitely say something very similar about the USSR’s portrayal in the game
They will never say bad things about their german precious.
That’s kinda the thing about HoI4 though, it’s more of a chessboard with a lot of flavour than a retelling of history. Also, like Lemoncake said, there are some…interesting…HoI players that they REALLY don’t want to be associated with, nor would I.
Day 4 of asking lemon cake for an anbennar race tierlist
The countdown truely does begin
База
@@LemonCake101 Do you have a recommended nation for a first time Anbennar playthrough?
Dwarf>Ruinborn>>>>>>Literally Everything Else>>>>>>L*rentish Half-Elf
This is true and undisputable
@@tuxedo_cat_gaming he literally has a whole video on it
I would argue against "Imperator: Rome having bare-bones slaves mechanics"
Like, once you actually understand the game, you realise that the accumulation of slaves is the fastest way to get rich in the game above commerce or conquest. You can invade just to take slaves instead of taking territory you would be forced to manage, or use ships as certain cultures to capture slaves.
Also, the game has plenty of events relating to slavery and characters can "exploit slaves" in territories they got estates for personal money gain, and slaves revolts can be a big deal if they happen in a province that's of a particular importance to you.
in Crusader Kings when raiding you can also capture workers to build up your settlements
The South experimented with industrialized slavery before the war, it actually worked alright but they found the workers weren’t expendable enough to compete with the Irish.
"How does Paradox deal with Slavery?"
Stellaris.
so funnily enough with the comment about Stellaris's slave Administrators, historically that did happen a bunch of times in history, most commonly in Muslim and Middle Eastern empires, but also rather notably with the Holy Roman Empire where there was a entire caste of enslaved nobility (yes, you heard that right), called the Ministerialis, who were literally owned by their masters and could be bought and sold and traded like any other slave, but they became useful as administrators as they were usually educated and since they couldn't legally own property (cause they're slaves), they made ideal choices as the castellans of castles.
14:36 so both eu4 and vic2/3 are actually less gamey in terms of economy than the others, because as you yourself have explained in the video slavery is not a profitable policy, not just because they don't get wages and can't spend any money, but also because they naturally don't want to be slaves so there is a cost to maintaining them
To be fair 50/50 cause that extra labour you get in something like a sugar plantation from slaves working it 24/7 does make tons off money and gives you a Huge head start for the output of the plantation itself while reducing the cost, its later on when you run into issues that cannot be fix just by having more people work or if you literaly want to diversify your money in anything that isnt extracting a raw resource and grow that when slavery flops, it also boost the happyness of people and especialy the higher classes since the ones suffer things like lack of food shelter or other goods are for the most part are the slaves not the people that run them
It gives all the money to the aristocracy, which is bad because slaves radicalize, landowners loose power because of industrialization, and slaves expectations increase with increased education
The whole thing about Stellaris "Prisoners with jobs"....that hits me right in the Yes. (And this is someone who refuses to enslave lmao)
In the context of Germany, they are so strong in game because they are missing a mechanic. The holocaust was very costly for the Germans to set up and follow through on. A lot of their war potential was put into those concentration camps and the men needed to run and maintenance them. In Hoi4 they should have events that reduce your core population through event chains, there should also be IC sinks that Germany has to poor into to fulfill their historical tree. Gotterdammerung sort of did this with the MEFO bill mechanics. But the effects are really underestimated.
The thing is as well is that the German war economy only functioned on MEFO bills from 1937-1938. MEFO bills were only issued in those years and beyond that the German war economy relied on the use of short term bonds and debt to fund war production.
@@lukeparcell4896 Hey they kinda did the MEFO bill system correctly in the new dlc. Still totally not what it was like in reality but it's at least a change that makes the struggle feel more historical.
@ oh yeah most definitely it’s an upgrade but still lacks true depth
1:21 wtf is an election? Is it edible?
- Someone who played a democracy a grand total of once.
To be fair crusader kings is the least accurate games in terms of history. I realized this when my 30 year old sea king got killed in a duel by a 16 year old girl.
You're trying to say there were no Egyptian girls who made you immortal back then?
@FifinatorKlon ill check my sources
Ah yes, the Wattpad school of swordsmanship
I will always love the descriptions and flavour text of options in stellaris. Whether it be a reference to a sci-fi book or, well, the ones you mention. You can tell the devs have some fun.
Also thanks for telling me about millennia, I'm off to play that now and see if I don't go insane (premium edition is currently the same price as off-sale normal edition)
I did put 88 hours into Millenia, shame its not doing well but I do agree it needs more time
‘Slaves can’t buy stuff so they can’t increase consumer demand and scale your economy’ is possibly the funniest critique of slavery one can raise LMFAO
I mean... funny yes, but it is also why it got abolished or limited in most places.
Slaves ONLY benefit the slave owners, to the point it is detrimental to have slavery in large capacity. Slaves can't pay taxes nor increase consumer demand, non-slaves become jobless as employers prefer slaves instead, non-slave owning employers find it hard to compete to slave owning employers due to extra expenses being paid in the form of wages, the government doesn't benefit from any of this as they're losing revenue from unemployment, businesses going under, and slaves not being able to pay taxes.
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 So basically the same problem we have now with illegals?
With the exception of Stellaris, I feel like Paradox are terrified of modelling anything bad. Not asking for them to accurately portray the Holocaust or turn the Crusades into depopulation campaigns, but slavery is just a universal mechanical bad whenever they even bother portray it, when that's just not historically the case. For EU4 and Vic3, sure, make it something you'd want to abolish, it was more or less crushed over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries after all, but even in Imperator? Back then it was a fact of life, you lost a war, you were probably going to serve the Romans, but ingame those Romans will fight tooth and nail for your right to be free, something that's frankly ridiculous given the period. You kind of glossed over CK as well, but that covers the Viking age and we took enough slaves to put some 16th century Portuguese traders to shame, it was a huge part of the raiding. Don't even get a province modifier to sort of halfway simulate that anymore, it's just completely gone.
Tbh I think paradox is so anti bad stuff just because of how weird the fanbase is and they don't wanna encourage more than they already have. The meme of every hoi2 player being either a notzee or a femboy isn't far off from reality so when you add mechanics like slayvery and it's actually good it's gonna attract even more of those players which isn't gonna look for the company
@@Nugundamsisntforshow Correction: HOI fans are not Natzees OR femboys, they are Natzee femboys. It's not a HOI thing either - you would be surprised how weirdly common this combo is among discord Natzees...
It's not just Vikings. Genghis Khan is in the game!
@@Nugundamsisntforshow Obviously people with an unhealthy fascination with the NSDAP are going to gravitate towards something that lets you imitate them, regardless of how hollow that imitation is. Same thing goes for people who might not think slavery is the single most evil concept people have ever come up with. That's just inevitable. I also do understand walking a bit on eggshells around the Holocaust or warcrimes in HoI, since there's still both victims and perpetrators of those still alive, but I feel like at this point we're far enough removed from 867 to maybe start being objective with portrayals of the era. You also won't find people who glorify the middle-ages often enough to be worried about them. The CK community is more loaded with people who just think it's funny to arrest their son on spurious charges so they can cut out his eyes and balls. Fucked up, but not really concerning. It can be done tastefully, in a way that doesn't attract weirdos, avoiding it like this is the worst possible way to handle it.
@@Nugundamsisntforshow Counterpoint: according to Paradox' own collected data, most Stellaris players play egalitarian, xenophile democracies. So all the talk of constant atrocities seems more like a very vocal minority.
Just a quick note that "historical revisionism" as a term encompasses the reinterpretation of history on basis of reasonable evidence. The word you probably meant to say was "historical negationism" or "historical denialism" unless you're of the opinion that historical revisionism is inherently a bad thing!
Oh fair enough if thats what the definitions dictate. I have heard of the term "historical revisionism" and assumed the two later terms where very much 'under its umbrella'
@@hestepige1234 who decides what counts as reasonable evidence?
@@kaimacotta403 Expert consensus. But keep in mind that I'm no expert, so that might be wrong.
@@LemonCake101 They are, but that's kind of the point actually. It's like saying that something "tastes like cake at worst", but what you really meant was the subset of cakes made with actual shit as an ingredient. You would want to specify that so people don't get the impression that cake tastes bad the next time they see that in the store. Maybe a bad example but you get the point. Nice vid tho
@@hestepige1234 To be clear proper term is important, I was just under the impression I used the correct term
Glad you made the seperation between Serfdom and Slavery as with the Fuedel Relationship Serfs are considered a resource
I actually do try to be ethical when I play the Paradox games, though admittedly I do often crush rebels instead of negotiating with them, which admittedly probably isn't super humaine, and this does actually make me think deeper about how I interact with Paradox games.
Honestly for me it depends how powerful I am and if the rebels pose a real threat if I’m rich and have a good economy I’ll give ‘em more autonomy but if I’m poor or it’s the age of absolutism in eu4 you can say goodbye to your pitchfork and hello to god
The problem is that most Paradox games give little incentive to negotiating. For instance, in EUIV, giving into rebel demands incurs so many malus that even minor concessions are not worth granting. Victoria 3 ironically I think models it the best, since often its demands to pass reform laws the players want, and there is organic opposition from reactionary IGs with lots of clout.
@@pax6833 I think that is definitely a problem with many strategy games, including the Total War games. I definitely think having a better way to negotiate or get rid of rebels beyond boosting stability or killing them. That is also why I tend to go for Humanist ideas and such, to try and prevent rebels to begin with.
bruv it's a game, you never stole an item in skyrim because it's unethical?
@JinTheAceStar I don't play Skyrim because it's crap :>
To answer your question more seriously, for the brief time I did play, I did not steal, and I tried to avoid unethical decisions. I usually do that in any game I play. In HoI4 I pretty much always go democratic, or at least side with the allies. In EU4 I try to he tolerant and gentle to the best of my ability. In other strategy games like AoE2 and such I try to play the "Good Guy" factions and do what is right in the campaign.
1:30 too soon
RIP Jimmy favourite president
WOAH
8:14 technically speaking.
To do that you need to Invest massive state resources to make those wayward provinces worthwhile with the implication a lot of people are being moved to operate infrastructure machinery and farmlands to make it work
As I recall, based on the population count in the Domesday Book, people are numbered based on their households. There is also a count of slaves that are in the country, and if we assume that they are also intended to be listed as heads of households in the same way, the slave population of England at the time of writing could have been up to 1/4 of the English population. Even if it genuinely was intended that it would only be the simple number of slaves, it's still more slaves than people would commonly expect despite the perception of medieval Europe. The count would go down in later head counts over time.
There was also a slave trade run out of Prague where pagans captured further east were sold (considered less bad to enslave people who were not coreligionists), and of course there's the slave trade out of the Black Sea which was lucrative for the Italian city states, the Romans, and the steppe peoples on the other side despite many of the people being captured and sold there being Christian slavs. Accounts of sieges in the Balkans during the period do also mention that many civilians of captured cities would be enslaved. Of course many of these were captured to be sold into the Arab Slave trade, but there was to some extent still a native 'market' even if it waned over time.
This is just from my perfunctory research into the topic though, so take it with a grain of salt. You forgot to time stamp the CK section btw despite it being longer than the Imperator one.
Ah I wasn't aware about the Doomsday book slave records, thats interesting!
And thanks for the timestamp stuff, fixed now!
10/10 backflip, love the new editing style man!
Thanks, all credit to Pika!
The thing is probably…for some reason, kinda had unintentional commentary on higher ups who had dehumanized views on people as resources and tools to be utilized.
Like the old account books or transaction treating them like commodities with euphemisms to sanitize the implications.
I really like Stellaris' systems. I like how the game even finds a way to have the player actually be involved in the slave trade too, from the literal slave market, to actual direct slave raids on other powers.
It makes it feel like much more of a thing in the game. Whereas, CK is so focused on court intrigue that slavery isn't much of a factor going on that you would reasonably be able to control. In EU4 I reallllly do thing Slaves should have a MUCH better production bonus, should provide a scaling buff to all colonies either output or creation of new colonies and slaves themselves should have a much higher economic output from the tile.
In the Anbennar mod for EU4 it goes a long way to make slavery more interesting. Orcs are the primary race being enslaved globally, and many nations have a lot of ideas and missions surrounding this. You even have an option to adopt Orcish Slavery giving you a buff to colonization, but it gives you Orcish minorities on those tiles and even has risks of slave revolts in certain areas. On top of that the Slavery trade good is worth 5.5 gold for much of the game.
Also, the fact that Slaves as a trade good for the tile producing gives 1% missionary strength for that local tile is so... ??? very odd and lazy.
1:05 I did the Original Peacekeeper "As a pacifistic empire, have all other independent empires be pacifistic as well." by going Fanatic Purifier on the galaxy, then Ethic shifting into pacifism.
Similar issue to how paradox deals with other awful things in history, like the Holocaust in HOI4.
Historically accurate lmao
blindness isn't always the best approach is it now :(
holocaust is when brutal oppression occupation policy in hoi4
The issue is how would they implement stuff like the holocaust without having either some question people playing out their sick fantasies or having some sort of gameplay mechanic to it? Imagine if the holocaust actually gave some sort of buff or attribute. Imagine a focus thats essentially just "exterminate the jews". Although to be fair they should atleast mention it existing in some form.
It's a realistic implementation
I feel like for the Imperator section you missed mentioning the "Sell into slavery" character interaction. So if you have an adult character in prison you can sell them into slavery for a price depending on their skills. I found this useful when playing Imperator when I start the game as a small country. After you fully annex another country in a war you get an option to imprison all of their great family characters, which puts like 10-20 people in your prison at once. So from mass selling of these characters I can get like a 100 gold or more per annexed country, which can mean a lot early game when I start as a shitty minor fighting other shitty minors.
I think that slavery is more of a obstacle than a useful mechanic in the Vic games. You aren't meant to develop a strategy that takes advantage of it, you're meant to overcome the problems it presents you. It falls into the same catagory as low literacy. I think it does a pretty good job achieving these aims within the extremely materialist framework that Victoria adopts, even if Victoria 3 could have explored other kinds of unfree labor like convict transportation or indentured service that were important in the time period.
1:14 See one important part is that I am not playing myself as if I was a leader in the real world. I am playing a leader of the militaristic materialistic Imperium who has found themselves with more jobs then applicants to fill them... and so as any good militaristic we go to war with our neighbors for the resources we lack, thus improving the lives of our citizens as less of them have to be farmers and miners to keep everyone alive, and can be in the middle class.
Millennia was just published by paradox. It is not a 'paradox game' in the sense as EU4 or Imperetor
There is at the start of the game in the 800s start date in CK3 a slave revolt in the Abbasid Caliphate
oh neat I didn't know that
Ironically the reason why slaves are bad in Victoria 3 is the reason why slavery in real life was becoming obsolete inside protectionist capitalist economies like the northeastern United States. A strong tariff system makes it sub-optimal for growth to depress laborer wages.
We use prison labor different name same game
@@justinallen2408 China makes criminals work unto death. As long as it's not US owning the slaves, it is clearly not happening.
13:30 "Slave researchers" aka the average PhD student. xD
Slavery like warfare has been a constant in humanity since the first time someone realised with force they can get others to do back breaking labour.
You mean make others farm to make surplus food so your faction would experience hypergrowth, allowing you to enslave more primitives?
There's actually a book about this "Against the Grain", which blames agriculture for slavery, not at all for advancement. I guess someone found a red shack or something?
"A good amount of people think slavery was invented in 1776 and ended in 1863"
100%, waaaaaay too many people think America invented the concept of slavery.
Can't believe they are giving America all the credit
Thats not true... There is a ck2 viking raiding event where you can get a temporary surplus of thralls in your capital province that you can stack 4-5 times that drastically reduces both cost of building things, and the speed you make them.
1:18
1 - Almost always. I very rarely bother influencing elections
2 - Ok, you've got me there, but to be fair, there is literally no benefit to civilian economy (for some reason). Also, unlike most people, I normally play as democracies
3 - I'll often raise autonomy to conserve manpower
Yo this video is blowing up, DAMN congratz on 36.5k subs
The Victoria system actually makes sense. Modern economies are driven by mass consumption. In pre-modern economies you don't have the problem of there not being enough consumers for whatever you are able to produce, so slavery makes more sense economically.
In modern economies slavery makes sense for the slaveholders, but is very inefficient from the perspective of society at large.
"I understand Paradox's desire to be careful with such developments"
An understatement if I ever heard one. Seriously, when Russia declared war on Ukraine, well some people started showing their true colors...
Yeah like making other peoples homelands Ukrainian in Vic 2. Even though Ukrainians were the colonizers then.
Huh what happened as a result of that?
Wdym?
oh so because the Ua-Ru war is modern it is not okay to replicate? but wars that happened 80 years ago ARE okay?
@@jodyheinrichs5725 @gutsjoestar7450 HoI4 got used as a propaganda piece by some gamers in Russia.
*slavery isn't just part of human history*
that is because humans aren't unique in regards to that. Other creatures like ants also practice slavery. Any creature that is capable of forming complex social organization end up practicing slavery to some degree.
Can't wait for an update to this video after the release of Project Caesar
You got the economics of early-modern slavery completely backwards.
The fact they don't get paid means that 1. they don't pay taxes and 2. YOU personally have to build everything for them, meaning you have to invest a lot.
It's much more economically beneficial to free them, make them pay tax and make them take care of themselves, while also rendering their labour. A slave is much more expensive to maintain than a contracted worker while not paying any taxes - this was the principal reason for the abolishment of it to begin with.
I really like this format! Keep making these😀
AYO WHY IS MY THUMBNAIL IN THERE LMAO 11:44
LMAO I just checked it is yeah I needed to communicate 'nazi rp' and hey your stuff worked!
I love your vids, I didn’t know you watched this kind of content, I was surprised to see you in the comments
7:40 okay, but the labour theory of value fails to take into account quality of goods and services. Using it alone will always lead to people spending 8+ hours to do something that they could do in 30 mins if they were competent. Frankly, the labour theory of value is anti-meritocratic and clearly favours a system where skilled workers do not get rewarded for their skill, which will lead to less skill in the workforce over time. One cannot rely on the labour theory of value as a reliable metric of how much someone's work is worth.
1:35 I am not tyrannical! I am just being hyper-efficient!It's their fault that they cannot see my vision!
I am unironically an enlightened despot
Informative and entertaining. You get my sub
one of my buddies keeps sending me screenshots of the new and fun things he does to the aliens in his empire, the hoi4 community might be full of mouth breathers, but the stellaris players would kill us all with a smile on their face
Mi :3
Well to be fair for the EU4 portion, the Labour Theory of Value is kind of rediculous since it's completely irrational (a week of making mudpies will never be as valuable as 30 minutes of specialized medical work). There is no value to labour innately , but labour as a resource would be a fantastic game mechanic. It could be tweaked to be affected by happiness, capital, incentives, and more. Also, slavery IS extremely bad for the economy compared to capitalism, every country in the world got richer once we realized a happy incentivized worker is happier than a miserable slave.
If Palworld has taught us anything, it's that slavery as a game mechanic is incredibly fun.
There's LOADS of room to creatively make slavery mechanics that are detailed, fictional, or realistic. First thing that comes to mind is managing slave revolts & political movements.
Terrible irl, absolutely horrible. But as a game mechanic? It's a real missed opportunity to scratch the itch for dominating efficiency or comical villainy.
Well, technically, the Ottoman empire had Slave administrators, who came from the Jannisaries, and ended up in high stations of power like Vizers, but i guess at that point with all the power and wealth that comes from the position, its hard to argue about them being slaves.
Same with the Mamluks of egypt.
1:27
You feature Jimmy Carter in your video and like an hour later he dies
This is proof you have supernatural powers
Meanwhile, way back in Civ4: It's not a question of if you'll select Slavery, but when.
To be entirely fair to our boys at Paradox the labor theory of value is completely bunk, but my god the value of labor could definitely be modeled better in eu4
Is it? Paul Cockshott and Hakim have videos on it that I can recommend
@@alanywalany6460 Yeah, it's 1000% bunk. You only need a passing inspection of it to show this is the case.
@@belthesheep3550 Watch said videos, then come back. I highly doubt you understand it.
@@alanywalany6460 How about ya read some Mises and Rothbard then come back? Some rando's videos are not my style, especially after having read Smith, Locke and Marx's take on the labor theory of value.
@@belthesheep3550 LMFAO I KNEW IT! XDDDDD
every. single. TIME! WITHOUT FAIL! It's always the Mises and pdfbard who talk about how incorrect it is and it's always they who don't even understand it ahahahaha. Mises and pdfbard and their feelings and assumptions can go where the pepper grows.
I think Crusader Kings' lack of mention of slavery largely stems from the lack of much depth to economy more broadly. You just kinda get taxes which appear based on development. What those taxes are on, be they trade goods, produce, or whatever aren't really explored at all (beyond "you built a port, so now you get more money" or "you built a farm," etc. The point is it's not specific trade goods like in EUIV). Gold is just a sort of abstract representation of wealth. I think the only area they really ought to make it more present is in the reliance on slave armies in a large part of the Islamic world, since that does affect the areas which the game does focus on (namely fielding armies as well as court politics, since those slave soldiers could become very powerful).
As for slaves as a social class, as others have mentioned, the game is mostly focused on nobility. Even most of the peasants we encounter are meant to be important members of a village community, so I can forgive a lack of characters with slave status showing up (again with the exception of the Islamic world, where you'd expect powerful slave soldiers playing prominent parts in the court)
11:54
The bounciness of the flip was frankly just adorable, but it was a tad too slow. Backflip adds some style points. 9,5/10
I'm gonna have to say 8/10 because I think that was a front flip/side flip not a back flip. EDITED: now I have absolutely no idea which way the cake is meant to be facing! Oh no, I always assumed it was facing right
You're mostly correct about CK3 ignoring slavery, however, it should be mentioned that viking events do sometimes involve the mention of "thralls" which are slaves. It is however, mostly flavour text with little mechanical importance
So with CK2, they don’t completely ignore slavery but it’s such a minute detail that unless you’re playing as a raiding realm, you’ll likely never run across Thralls and the province modifiers. For the sake of argument, the game as a whole ignored the subject but it was just one thing I remembered from my many Norse playthroughs
I always thought of those guys as unpaid interns
@ yeah it was like how in that show Vikings, the Catholic Monks that were captured could just ask to leave!
That's why I like playing Victoria 3.
I rush for Council Republic and try to max out Standard of Living.
Back in my day Stellaris had a PEGI 3+ rating. (it still had genocide and slavery mechanics)
"[slave researchers] indeed got reworked." What, when? techno slavers has been strong for years, through all reworks. Even now, you have a choice between a 40% increase from non-slave focused to 75% with slave focused.
Gratz on the big win on the video man!! Almost 200k views so far
Honestly uh... Man with this video you perfectly explained why exactly there is a perception by 'educated' americans that slavery was 'inefficient' economically (with the claim that they'd be better off without ever having done it) with the Victoria section, since, of course, if you are suddenly paying your workers and buy shit, the GDP ends up skyrocketing overnight.... This is not what I turned up for in this video, but uh, good job?
To be clear, this isn't a video regarding the modern politics. I had to touch upon history here, but I am looking at this through the video game lenght
To be clear we would with 100 percent certainty be better of not having done it. The obvious moral repugnance but my understanding this theory that it developed in efficient and non scalable economies is just true. What is this question marks "educated" Americans what are you really getting at here
You write this like you are disagreeing with the mathematical proof that slavery is a net negative?
@@JackdotCthere is no formal mathematical proof ....
Very good video, nice editing, humor and makes a good point and a fenominal backflip. Do try to mind you articulation
Dont see anything wrong with it, paradox doesnt promote it, its only there as a part of the time period
Either this is a joke or you missed the point like how paradox missed the existence of slavery in the ck games.
@@MyVanir relax bro i didnt know mb lol
@@eclyphh He literally said it in the video, you troglodyte.
Oh my lemon cake has been putting effort on his acrobatics. Marvelous backflip congratulations, dear.
Slavery isn’t about efficiency-it’s a status symbol for rich idiots who want to show off their power. Owning people gives them control over life and death, which feeds their egos, but from a practical standpoint, it’s a terrible system.
You’re paying years’ worth of wages upfront just to own someone, then covering all their ongoing costs-housing, food, clothing, and healthcare. If a slave dies, that’s a massive financial loss, so you have to keep spending to keep them alive and working. On top of that, you need guards and overseers to stop them from escaping or rebelling, which only adds to the cost.
The only edge case where slavery might make economic sense is in extremely dangerous jobs, like mining, where the risks are so high that it’s hard to find willing workers. For most work, hiring free laborers is way cheaper, more efficient, and less hassle. They’re motivated to work because they want to get paid, and if they quit or die, you just replace them.
Slavery isn’t just morally indefensible-it’s bad economics.
wjat about the kids in my basement
If slavery wasn't competitive with hiring workers in a wide variety of cultures then it would never have happened on such a large scale. If it was only about the egos of slaveowners then the practice would have been largely restricted to household slaves, who could be shown off to the other rich people whose opinion the egoists cared about.
In actual history plantation slavery (the most well-known form) can't possibly have been solely about the egos of the owners. Many plantations in the Caribbean were owned by absentee landlords, whose interest in the way the plantation was run was solely in the profit they got from it. If somebody had demonstrated that a plantation run by free men was more profitable then virtually all of those plantations would have used hired labour, rather than slavery. Bur in reality you'll struggle to find even a couple of examples of such plantations which used hired labour.
Its also worth noting that in some eras slavery served other purposes. In the ancient world selling yourself or your family members into slavery was often the only option to survive if you fell on hard times. Alternatives to slavery would have required inventing some other option for dealing with people in those kinds of situation. In many cultures slaves were taken in war as the alternative to killing everybody on the losing side.
Also, the idea that slavery is morally indefensible comes from a very particular worldview. It's only really found in cultures that have a strong influence from Judaism and/or Christianity, and derives from some very specific beliefs in those religions (the most important being that all of humanity is created in God's image). Virtually all human societies throughout history have practiced some form of slavery without anybody protesting the morality of slavery. So it's trivially true that somebody who rejects the basic assumptions that led the Western world to stamp out slavery can quite easily come up with a reason why slavery is morally acceptable that fits within their worldview.
It really depends, you shouldn't make general statements like this.
In hoi4 germany for example many conpanies would have made a good buck using camp labor, same goes for us prisons.
@@stephengray1344 Bro how do you think the economy works? Yeah the slave plantations makes a lot of money, but where does that money go? Into the owners pocket. Instead of plantations supporting the growth of entire towns and villages it goes to one family who just keeps it in a vault forever. The reason that capitalism is falling apart at the seams now is people don't understand that you don't want 1 guy to own everything, you want to spread the money out to as many people possible.
Also From that last comment I know the kind of person you are, but lets just agree that owning a person and forcing them to perform act for you under threat of death is always morally indefensible, and only those without any empathy would think otherwise
@@JackdotC yes, but the plantation owners ARE the 1 guy who's getting rich, so no they wouldn't want to pay workers
The thing about slavery is that it's usually not very effective economically.
Slaves often cost more than free workers; you still need to feed and house them, but now you also need to guard them. Their work drive will also be a lot lower. A minimum wage worker costs less.
Slavery is almost exclusively used in jobs where the job is so unpleasant or dangerous that you can't hire people to do it at a reasonable price. Hand-mining, harvesting dangerous/painful crops in extreme heat, prostitution, drug mules, textile workers, and assembling electronics/small parts. If it's a job where they can just hire a minimum wage worker, they won't use slaves.
A great example is the diamond industry. They used to use slavery because it required sorting ore by hand in the hot sun, but it dropped from ~80% to ~2% in a few decades the moment there was an alternative to slave labor with more advanced sorting machines that were cheaper than slavery.
Paradox does a good job of it. Slavery doesn't mean east money in the games, it often costs more to use it.
ah, yes. advice on ethics and morality as well as workplace efficiency from a Vtuber with an anime profile. just what I needed in life
@@sologemeni bro what's your point
Slavery is still allowed in the US under the 13th Amendment for prisoners. Considering the amount of false incarnations combined with overhoging (overpolicing) in minority neighborhoods, America basically rebuilt their slavery system.
Great! How many actually WORK? We have a cop-killer who got itself a blood-sugar condition from INFINITE appeals, 40 years of Last Meals, and no self-control
*Stares at all the Eu games, Vic games and Imperitor Rome*
Differently. Also slavery became defacto illegal in England (later Britain) due to William the Conqueror
You sadly didn't cover Eu3's method. But pretty similar to Eu4's
The issue is also... there are diffrent types of slavery. Most people tend to think of the Trans-Atlantic Chattled slavery
The labor theory of value is, while quite simple to understand, completely bollocks. It does not matter if you worked your entire life as hard as you could to make this one singular wooden chair, if no one wants to pay 1 billion dollars for it it isn't worth 1 billion dollars. Labor doesn't determine value, fair market value is determined by the evaluation of everyone else. If I barely do any work at all but I cure cancer it obviously really matters, if I work my ass off to make a chair and it doesn't even stand the weight of a toddler I should get 0 dollars and be ashamed of myself for it.
That doesn't completely negate the value of labor. Labor, Capital and Soil are the classical factors of production, you can't create anything of value without any labor.
did you read actual source material or just decided to make a horrid critique of labor theory of value?
Define Value Ancap Scab. You're talking about something completely different. You fell for a strawman made up by the Austrian School. Have you considered that maybe, value has multiple definitions? Food for thought.
Read.
Not only is value and price not the same thing, but there are different types of value and you've got an incorrect undetstanding of the entire theory
I believe the Ottoman Empire had slave administrators so historically speaking it makes more sense than you would think
Probably janissaries transfered to the imperial administration after years of military service which made them less fit for combat
Represent slavery better so i could play prosperous barbary pirate and not seeing yet another Spanish/Portugal-Maghreb realm. :v
No, the conquest of plazas fuertes will continue into eternity
4:29 I’ve been looking for sources regarding the slave revolt mentioned and I haven’t found any readings on the matter that aren’t 100+ pages, with most of those pages being dedicated to the Viking Slave trade as a whole. To anyone who knows and is willing to share the information, could you give me a rundown on what happened?
Abe Lincon: "Now, Men shall be free!"
Free Man: "Actually uh, the confederates already freed me?"
Abe Lincon: "Doesn't their whole economy rely on you pretty heavily?"
Free Man: "They don't pay me very well, but they pay me. Basically nothing changed."
Abe: "But...The war? It was basically about that and states rights and...Screw it, I'm going to a theatre."
Abe didn't actually free the slaves btw if you actually read the emancipation proclamation it was just him saying that southern slaves should be freed y'know the same south that had seceded from the union and thus weren't listening to them it was in practice more of a wake up call for the slaves to get smart and rebel since all the men were off the plantations so the only threat they had to worry about was women
"States right to do WHAT, huh?"
@@Fluoman_ "Apparently the state's right to declare war! and NOTHING ELSE."
what
@@alanywalany6460 The confederate meta strategy is just to drop slavery.
However, in real life when slavery was forcefully dropped. They mostly just re "Hired" their "workers" for dirt cheap. Like. Dirt cheap.
While technically the civil war wasn't just about slavery, it was about, technically the rights of states. It was a pretty big focal point in several regards.
Also Abe just really liked Theatre.
I actually wrote a term paper on why slavery (specificially in the american south) is generally bad economically and your vicy 3 section covers the main reasons why. Something that I found actually though was that, ownig a small army of slaves or even like just around 10 or so like most slave owners did is pretty expensive. It's a huge initial cost and then the cost of keeping that person alive and healthy enough to work. Past that, the way the economy was, the cheapest thing you could buy to increase production was more land. More land needs more slaves means more upkeep and the upkeep very quickly outscales production so they buy even more land and more slaves and you get the idea. Another thing, slave owners didn't use things like the cotton gin. Buying more slaves was generally cheaper for them.
The way they were able to maintain a small army of over 100 slaves was, they would take out loans from banks and merchants to buy the requisite food for their slaves. When the harvest came around, the typical loop for a plantation owner was: Pay the interest with 90% of the revenue from the cotton, buy more land, buy more slaves, buy enough seeds for your land, replace broken tools (if they even used them), buy fancy clothes to show how affluent they are, take out another loan (note they never actually paid off the old loan, just the interest), and then buy food for the slaves with that loan. By the time of the american civil war, most slave owners were *deep* in the shit, because an oversupply of cotton meant bales were only about 14 cents (a bale is like, 500 pounds of cotton). Hilariously, after the Union blockaded the CSA, there was a global cotton shortage, and the price of cotton per bale spiked to iirc $14 or $12, and that shortage made Egypt, who actually kept up with agricultural technology, very rich