Slavery in EU4

[Shaka]

I start this post because because Newdeath12 had started an earlier one expressing his revultion to the casual inclusion of slavery as a resource in the game.He like me was uncomfortable at the idea but the thread was closed down. I mean the games description as to slavery being around since antiquity pays no reality to what the Atlantic slave trade was and meant.
In roman times an army would conquer a region and take an army captive and maybe a few rebellious tribes. The war would end and those peoples would become part of the empire paying taxes and providing troops etc. The slaves after a generation or two might well be incorporated into the army or marry into slave owning class.
But with Atlantic slave trade we are talking about something different verging on a genocide. Almost half of those transported died from sickness or hunger. Lets be clear as to the Industrial scale of the Atlantice slave trade, they reackon 4 million at least were transported in an area the size of western europe. Show me a time in history when this happened. An area almost the the size of western europe was depopoulated. In the carribean slaves were worked so hard they did not live beyond 30. There was no integration to the land owning classes. Where as most older slavery took place during wars this went on for 400 years.
Why is this important, because younger players and those lazy to see the truth can be easily mislead by the games caption that this was normal practice at the time. Large scale slavery hadnt been present in europe since roman times. Also the games explanation sounds like some sort of justification stating DEMAND as the key concern. No there were paid labourers to be found wherever they looked really, if they paid enough.
I think the game might feel the need to include slavery to be historically accurate but its explanation/justification for it is verging on liablious and is definately very insulting to those who have a humanist outlook.

[Pyromancer]

Romans had millions of slaves, it's estimated there were 3 millions of them in Italian peninsula alone. And it's not like europeans sailed to africa and just grabbed everybody in sight, most of them were sold by local rulers, sub-saharans were selling slaves to arabs by million before Columbus even got on his ship.

[IAmAlpharius]

To carry on with the comments Pyromancer made there WAS a huge DEMAND for African slaves. Not only were they a lot cheaper tahn white or native South American slaves, they could suffer a greater workload and had a greater immunity to diseases found in the tropics.

However i do agree the description is not damning enough and does come across as if it needs justification. At least you can end slavery in your nation which is something i do nearly everytime.

[Shaka]

No you are wrong like i said the Roman slavery was different. Many masters gave their slaves freedom by joining the army or they married into freedom this never happened in the Atlantic slave trade probably due to the racial element.
I used 4 million transported to the Americas as a figure but nobody really knows. It might be 4 times that, considering there are 80 million african americans in Brazil alone.
Local rulers did capture slaves and sold them true. But why? Europeans gave them muskets and money causing an unrivaled desire to capture people. They werent looking to chain up there neighbours and depopulate western and central africa before Columbus.
Your assertion that subharans were slave trading by the millions before Columbus is fiction. It happened but was in thousands. The subsahrran states like Ethopia were quite devoloped due to christianity and Mali was muslim but they had gold. So it was on a much smaller scale maybe akin to the Turks slaving the Slavs at the time. No the Atlantic slave trade was UNRIVALED in history and its effects are still on display today due to income disparity in the Americas. The games casual explanation as to DEMAND being the key reason for it does deny that workers could be throughout the world for the right wages.

[Korburss]

Originally posted by Shaka:

The games casual explanation as to DEMAND being the key reason for it does deny that workers could be throughout the world for the right wages.

Well, the key point here would be. They used slaves because it was cheaper than paying people in most cases and thus their was demand. Slavery was and still is mostly brought about by want of cheap labor.

[Supplican]

No-one in Paradox is comfortable with there being slavery depicted in the game. But it would be impossible to depict this period without it, and if they tried they'd no doubt be accused of excessive political correctness, and IMO correctly.

Intra-African, Barbary, Middle Eastern and other cases of slavery have been left out, as they are out of the game's focus (Europa) and did not have significant economic and historical impact on a global scale.

So slaves are depicted as a trade good like any other, and the details left out or elided over. Which I think is a good compromise in the circumstances.


ETA: Libellous? Who is being libelled here, exactly?

[₦ễȯṱoxicMeꝛçenary]

There was a demand for it, as cash crops costs came from the harvesting mostly. So the farmers wanted to cut costs and increase profits. The best way to do this was free labor. The men who did this cared only about profit and so enslaving was not a problem to them. Demand was high for slaves in South America and the west indies, as most only lived till 25. And the keeping of slaves where they at was because of demand at first. Individualy cash crops dont sell all that much. However there grow quickly and easily as well as there being alot. A lot of slaves where needed to cut costs and to produce a lot of crops to make any profits. Portugal did not have a large population when they started slavery and wages would be high as plantation fight over workers. Demand for low costs to increase profits drived plantations for slaves and a large number of them. Slavery was out done when the industrial revolution happened and waged workers were more reliable than slaves and waged industrial work pasted Slave plantations. This caused tensions between the north and the south in the US. Slavery was caused by a demand for increased profits of cash crops which need large number of harvestors. And nothing cuts costs like free labor. This is why it happened at first, it was because of demand of increased profit margins of cash crops.

Now I hate slavery, and when i get the chance I ban it in my empire when i get the chance. The reason I posted this is because the athour stated that is was not because of demand, it was. Later it turned into something else. Also I would like to know shaka means when demand did not cause it. What did than? And the number i hear of slaves transported is like 12-15 million slaves and between 25-33% of them dieing a long the way. Making the entire thing one of the worst events to happen in all of history.

[Shaka]

The game states that there was DEMAND in its description when a colony resource is revealed. This is not strictly true. other sources of labour were available. Bondsman from England could go to the Americas for seven years servitude with their sponsor. Native Americans were used as labour. Other sources of labour were available, people been working for wages since time begun.
Its the casual explanation of slavery resulting in the term demand that is offensive. All farms need labour, even in europe at the time but there was no rush to depopulate Africa at the time to do this.
Libellous refers to a misrepresentation of history and as a game that is sold to children it may lead to a misinterpretation of facts. This might not be Libellous but in many countries there are laws refering misinterprentation of facts - Holocaust denial etc.
More so, it should be incorporated in modern day society that the Atlantic Slave trade was akin to genocide and against human rights at the time (due to Christianity) and especially now. This kind of outlook is not incorpated in the game. I raised this earlier on posts but I mention it now because a noobie Newdeath12 started a post on the same thing. But his post has been closed?????

[Free Luigi M.]

I don't see how slavery being bad is a convincing argument for removing it from EUIV. It's an historical game and, as such, it includes historic elements.
Are you unconfortable with history? That's bad.
Should we stop creating great historical videogames then? You know, like WWII ones? The massive genocide that it was?
Forgive me but this sounds completely ridiculous to me.

[Shaka]

Please read what i wrote, i wrote enough of it.

[Free Luigi M.]

Originally posted by Shaka:

Please read what i wrote, i wrote enough of it.

I won't read it a second time, thank you.
Also I am not rally debating what you wrote.
Slaves is only a minor resource and it's just barely flashed out. They are simplisticly treated like the rest of the resources in the game. Don't try to overcomplicate things just because you aren't confortable with how they are depicted.
I doubt this game could mislead anyone about this practice. And if it does, I would question their education first.

p.s. How's the justification for it insulting exactly? It's a matter of demand. Slaves were in great demand. End of story. Yes, there were paid workers to be found, but why would you pay someone more to do the same job if you can get a slave to do it? Silly.

[Shaka]

Not being comfortable and with how things are depicted and objecting to an inaccuracy of history are 2 different things. The description for slavery when there is a revealtion of the slavery resource, clearly states that slave were in demand. This is not correct workers could be found in Europe as i mentioned in earlier post. Maybe cheap labour was in demand.
But the game refers to it as just another resource, this does a grave injustice to the horror and genocide as to what the Atlantic slave trade was for reasons previously stated. More so it does not represent a vision of history that is now commonly accepted as the norm.

[Tako13]

your actually wrong shaka, no workers could be found in europe, i mean ya there was a labour force there, but no one would willingly leave europe to work their ass off on a sugar planation in the caribean. Slaves were literally the only option to support the demand for sugar, tobaco, etc. Endentured servants did go, but not very many.

[Tako13]

the only way to get europeans to do the work slaves did on a large scale.... would be to enslave them.

[Shaka]

there was such a thing as bondsmen i stated earlier.

[Tako13]

ya, there were no where near enough bondsmen or endentured servants to support the demand for the goods i mentioned above. it wasnt going to happen.