http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_Island#Piracy
QuotePiracy
But the island was hard to govern. Over the next few centuries, trouble followed as both English and foreign pirates and privateers – including other members of the Marisco family – took control of the island for short periods. Ships were forced to navigate close to Lundy because of the dangerous shingle banks in the fast flowing River Severn and Bristol Channel, with its 32 feet (10 m) tide, the second highest in the world.[19][20] This made the island a profitable location from which to prey on passing Bristol-bound merchant ships bringing back valuable goods from overseas.[21]
In 1627 Barbary Pirates from the Republic of Salé occupied Lundy for five years. The North African invaders, under the command of Dutch renegade Jan Janszoon, flew an Ottoman flag over the island. Some captured Europeans were held on Lundy before being sent to Algiers as slaves.[22][23][24] From 1628 to 1634 the island was plagued by pirate ships of French, Basque, English, and Spanish origin. These incursions were eventually ended by Sir John Pennington, but in the 1660s and as late as the 1700s the island still fell prey to French privateers.[25]
:osama: :pirate
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c64gg.com%2FImages%2FP%2FPirates_Of_The_Barbary_Coast_intro.gif&hash=106872eccaa54c7ebc5cd39290f07ee67a38796b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F9%2F18%2F1253292528911%2FAn-Aerial-Picture-Of-Lund-026.jpg&hash=d99439e7ba94f84572b29cd1acea14bd268bc3c6)
The sand-nigger slavetrade dwarfs the european. For some reason people tend to overlook it. I wonder why? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on September 30, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
The sand-nigger slavetrade dwarfs the european. For some reason people tend to overlook it. I wonder why? :hmm:
I'm calling bullshit. There are something like thirty million people in the U.S. alone with over half their genes traceable to slaves.
I mean, if you're counting shit like the Janissaries, then I'm counting Spartacus. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 11:34:21 AM
I'm calling bullshit. There are something like thirty million people in the U.S. alone with over half their genes traceable to slaves.
I mean, if you're counting shit like the Janissaries, then I'm counting Spartacus. :hmm:
Huh? The Janissaries were not part of the slave trade. They were collected as tribute. You are aware the Arabs did indeed create the African slave trade right?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: Slargos on September 30, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
The sand-nigger slavetrade dwarfs the european. For some reason people tend to overlook it. I wonder why? :hmm:
I'm calling bullshit. There are something like thirty million people in the U.S. alone with over half their genes traceable to slaves.
What does your statement have to do with his? What does genetics have to do with the slave trade?
Quote from: Slargos on September 30, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
The sand-nigger slavetrade dwarfs the european. For some reason people tend to overlook it. I wonder why? :hmm:
According to wiki 10-18m African slaves through the Arab slave trade over a period of 1,250 years plus 1-1.25m European slaves.
10.25m arrived in the new world through the Atlantic slave trade with several million dying en route. This was over a 300 year period.
Quote from: Gups on September 30, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
According to wiki 10-18m African slaves through the Arab slave trade over a period of 1,250 years plus 1-1.25m European slaves.
10.25m arrived in the new world through the Atlantic slave trade with several million dying en route. This was over a 300 year period.
The Euros labor needs were a little higher :P
I am curious about the low number of Euro slaves. I thought the Crimean Tatars nabbed so many Slavs that our word for Slave comes from them. But maybe that 1 million or so happened in a small time period?
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
:hmm:
Quote from: Habbaku on September 30, 2011, 11:56:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
:hmm:
Well the Turks were victims of and then practitioners in said trade so acting like they are separate is a little odd.
Yeah, well, in the 16th/17th century everyone in the Med was enslaving whoever they could get away with. :P
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2011, 11:39:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: Slargos on September 30, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
The sand-nigger slavetrade dwarfs the european. For some reason people tend to overlook it. I wonder why? :hmm:
I'm calling bullshit. There are something like thirty million people in the U.S. alone with over half their genes traceable to slaves.
What does your statement have to do with his? What does genetics have to do with the slave trade?
The present-day large black population indicates that there was a large population of slaves in the past. I suppose I could have just said "there were millions of transportees and millions more born in the Americas as slaves." Since these figures are known, I suppose inferring from present population isn't necessary.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:38:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 11:34:21 AM
I'm calling bullshit. There are something like thirty million people in the U.S. alone with over half their genes traceable to slaves.
I mean, if you're counting shit like the Janissaries, then I'm counting Spartacus. :hmm:
Huh? The Janissaries were not part of the slave trade. They were collected as tribute. You are aware the Arabs did indeed create the African slave trade right?
Still slaves. I am aware of an East African slave trade.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 30, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
According to wiki 10-18m African slaves through the Arab slave trade over a period of 1,250 years plus 1-1.25m European slaves.
10.25m arrived in the new world through the Atlantic slave trade with several million dying en route. This was over a 300 year period.
The Euros labor needs were a little higher :P
I am curious about the low number of Euro slaves. I thought the Crimean Tatars nabbed so many Slavs that our word for Slave comes from them. But maybe that 1 million or so happened in a small time period?
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.
Quote from: Gups on September 30, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: Slargos on September 30, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
The sand-nigger slavetrade dwarfs the european. For some reason people tend to overlook it. I wonder why? :hmm:
According to wiki 10-18m African slaves through the Arab slave trade over a period of 1,250 years plus 1-1.25m European slaves.
10.25m arrived in the new world through the Atlantic slave trade with several million dying en route. This was over a 300 year period.
I'm not sure this is much a dig on European culture. So, we proved better at acquiring slaves and ended the trade in a much shorter time-period than a different people who we then beat the shit out of to make them stop slave-trading? Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
Still slaves. I am aware of an East African slave trade.
Sure they were technically slaves but they were never bought or sold as a commodity so do not count in the Slave Trade.
Quote from: Sahib on September 30, 2011, 12:04:39 PM
I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.
Ah you are right. The slavers were the Tatars predecessors in the Crimea though. Kipchaks and Khazars according to wiki. I had the idea right just not the time frame.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:58:31 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 30, 2011, 11:56:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
:hmm:
Well the Turks were victims of and then practitioners in said trade so acting like they are separate is a little odd.
Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.
For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 12:22:15 PM
Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.
For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...
The Mameluks were not Turks. The numbers presented were Africans and Euros not Asians. I was asking if the slaves (not including legal technicalities like Jannissaries but galley slaves and the like) owned by the Turks counted.
Edit: or were they? I guess Cumans do count as Turks. But I was rather talking about the Slaves the Turks owned and bought not counting as part of the Arab trade.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 12:29:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 12:22:15 PM
Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.
For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...
The Mameluks were not Turks. The numbers presented were Africans and Euros not Asians. I was asking if the slaves (not including legal technicalities like Jannissaries but galley slaves and the like) owned by the Turks counted.
Edit: or were they? I guess Cumans do count as Turks. But I was rather talking about the Slaves the Turks owned and bought not counting as part of the Arab trade.
Mamluks were often, in fact generally, Turks, though not from what is today known as Turkey.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 12:22:15 PM
Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.
For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...
Yeah, the blacks got to keep their wedding tackle.
Ok are you just messing with me Malthus? I just said that. Shorty after you corrected me saying Turk slave soldiers do not really count shortly after I said they shouldn't count. :P
I doubt most slaves were soldiers.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 12:22:15 PM
Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.
For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...
Yeah, the blacks got to keep their wedding tackle.
And Mamluks didn't? :huh:
The Eunuch ones probably didn't.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:23:47 PM
The Eunuch ones probably didn't.
There were eunuch Mamluks?
No wonder they were so cruel. :D
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 12:17:25 PM
Quote from: Sahib on September 30, 2011, 12:04:39 PM
I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.
Ah you are right. The slavers were the Tatars predecessors in the Crimea though. Kipchaks and Khazars according to wiki. I had the idea right just not the time frame.
I think there was overlap. When the Mongels came west the Kipchaks allied with them, along with the Armenians and Georgians, and iirc the Kipchak slave trade benefited greatly from this relationship. Much to the later regret of the Mongols when a Mamaluk army (composed of some of those same slaves) defeated the Mongols and marked the end of Mongol expansion in the South West of their empire.
Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:27:46 PM
Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.
Depends on whether you ended up ruling the place or not.
Throughout much of human history, being a "human killing machine" was the same as being "a member of the nobility".
In English, the very term of respect - "Sir" - derives from knighthood, and what is a knight origially but a guy on hoseback wearing armour and carrying weapons?
"Enslavement" is a very relative thing. Technically a European peasant wasn't a slave and a Mamluk lord was a slave, but which would you rather be given a choice?
European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not. On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:27:46 PM
Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.
Depends on whether you ended up ruling the place or not.
Throughout much of human history, being a "human killing machine" was the same as being "a member of the nobility".
In English, the very term of respect - "Sir" - derives from knighthood, and what is a knight origially but a guy on hoseback wearing armour and carrying weapons?
"Enslavement" is a very relative thing. Technically a European peasant wasn't a slave and a Mamluk lord was a slave, but which would you rather be given a choice?
I think the word "knight" originally meant "Servant". Same as the word "Sergeant".
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 01:33:32 PM
"Enslavement" is a very relative thing. Technically a European peasant wasn't a slave and a Mamluk lord was a slave, but which would you rather be given a choice?
Um the Mameluks were DESCENDENTS of slave soldiers they were not slaves themselves.
Being a member of a warrior slave caste? Not the worst of fates but not great. Being a member of a warrior caste that has taken over a kingdom? Now that is pretty nice.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 01:26:57 PM
I think there was overlap. When the Mongels came west the Kipchaks allied with them, along with the Armenians and Georgians, and iirc the Kipchak slave trade benefited greatly from this relationship. Much to the later regret of the Mongols when a Mamaluk army (composed of some of those same slaves) defeated the Mongols and marked the end of Mongol expansion in the South West of their empire.
Well I kind of doubt the Mongols were going much farther anyway. It was sort of like Charles Martel beating the Arabs. Both were flirting with Imperial overstretch.
Still yep it is funny how things work out.
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2011, 11:11:25 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F9%2F18%2F1253292528911%2FAn-Aerial-Picture-Of-Lund-026.jpg&hash=d99439e7ba94f84572b29cd1acea14bd268bc3c6)
Where would you beach a boat in that island?
I see no bays or ports.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:27:46 PM
Anyway, I don't think enslaved and made into a human killing machine would rank as a positive thing.
Depends on whether you ended up ruling the place or not.
Throughout much of human history, being a "human killing machine" was the same as being "a member of the nobility".
In English, the very term of respect - "Sir" - derives from knighthood, and what is a knight origially but a guy on hoseback wearing armour and carrying weapons?
"Enslavement" is a very relative thing. Technically a European peasant wasn't a slave and a Mamluk lord was a slave, but which would you rather be given a choice?
I think the word "knight" originally meant "Servant". Same as the word "Sergeant".
Samurai= Those who serve
Feudal relations were about service. Everybody was somebody's vassal.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:49:09 PM
European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not. On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.
I thought social mobility was pretty low during medieval times.
Becoming a merc being the only honest route to richest (or the dream thereoft) for poor people.
That depended largely on the time and place.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 02:48:26 PM
Where would you beach a boat in that island?
I see no bays or ports.
You can see beaches there. You will just be surrounded by cliffs. But the high tide might cover them up I guess. Obviously you would need a small ship but pirates rarely had Ships of the Line.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
El Cid comes to mind
The Cisco Cid?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:17:39 PM
Um the Mameluks were DESCENDENTS of slave soldiers they were not slaves themselves.
Being a member of a warrior slave caste? Not the worst of fates but not great. Being a member of a warrior caste that has taken over a kingdom? Now that is pretty nice.
Not so. Where are you getting this from?
Mamluks were purchased slaves. While they were technically freed when their training was complete, all Mamluks begain their careers by being slaves. They were not "descendants" of slaves. In fact, their "desendants" were originally *forbidden* to become mamluks!
QuoteUnder the Mamluk Sultane of Cairo, mamluks were purchased while still young and were raised in the barracks of the Citadel of Cairo. Because of their particular status (no social ties or political affiliations) and their austere military training, they were often trusted. Their training consisted of strict religious and military education to help them become "good Muslim horsemen and fighters."[4] When their training was completed they were discharged, but still attached to the patron who had purchased them. Mamluks relied on the help of their patron for career advancements and likewise the patron's reputation and power depended on his recruits. A mamluk was also "bound by a strong esprit de corps to his peers in the same household."[4]
Mamluks were proud of their origin as slaves and only those who were purchased were eligible to attain the highest positions. The privileges associated with being a mamluk were so desirable that many free Egyptians arranged themselves to be sold in order to gain access to this privileged society. Mamluks spoke Arabic and cultivated their identity by retaining an Egyptian name.
and
QuoteWhile they were no longer actually slaves after training, they were still obliged to serve the Sultan. The Sultan kept them as an outsider force, under his direct command, to use in the event of local tribal frictions. The Sultan could also send them as far as the Muslim regions of Iberia.
Sultans had the largest number of mamluks, but lesser amirs could have their own troops as well. Many mamluks rose to high positions throughout the empire, including army command. At first their status remained non-hereditary and sons were strictly prevented from following their fathers. However over time, in places such as Egypt, the mamluk forces became linked to existing power structures and gained significant amounts of influence on those powers.
A similar evolution occurred in the Ottoman Empire with the Janissaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 03:07:29 PM
Not so. Where are you getting this from?
Everywhere. Including your Wiki page. They were always described as 'of slave origin' or 'former slaves' not slaves themselves. If it is because they were bought and trained and then freed well that is weird. It just presumed they were descended from slaves since a systematic freeing of them to do perform their duties is...well rather odd.
But in any case your Mameluk lord was still not a slave. He served a lord same any almost every warrior caste in the world at that time. Besides plenty of craft apprentices were boys who were bought and worked in exchange for learning the craft in Europe but they were not considered slaves once they became journeymen and so forth.
Further I shot down the Janissary thing right at the beginning of the thread. Why are you insisting these guys are typical slaves in the Arab world or should even be classified as slaves? We are talking about actual slaves not some sort of technical rank of a privledged caste.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
El Cid comes to mind
He was born in the nobility.
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
He was born in the nobility.
Well...not really. He had very minor aristocratic blood but no title or land or anything.
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
El Cid comes to mind
He was born in the nobility.
You are thinking of the El Cid of legend not the real man.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 03:16:05 PM
Everywhere. Including your Wiki page.
You mean the one that says the
exact opposite of (your all-caps) "the Mameluks were DESCENDENTS of slave soldiers they were not slaves themselves"? That wiki page? :lol:
QuoteThey were always described as 'of slave origin' or 'former slaves' not slaves themselves. If it is because they were bought and trained and then freed well that is weird. It just presumed they were descended from slaves since a systematic freeing of them to do perform their duties is...well rather odd.
Well, yes, it is odd. That each and every Mamluk, lord or soldier, had been a literal slave, bought and sold like any other merchandise, seems bizzare to us because we associate chattel slavery with extremely *low* status.
But this isn't universal - same deal in ancient Rome: some "slaves" in the imperial household ended up extremely influential.
QuoteBut in any case your Mameluk lord was still not a slave. He served a lord same any almost every warrior caste in the world at that time. Besides plenty of craft apprentices were boys who were bought and worked in exchange for learning the craft in Europe but they were not considered slaves once they became journeymen and so forth.
Further I shot down the Janissary thing right at the beginning of the thread. Why are you insisting these guys are typical slaves in the Arab world or should even be classified as slaves? We are talking about actual slaves not some sort of technical rank of a privledged caste.
Huh? We agreed on the Janessary thing. In fact, my whole point is that you could not count Mamluks - Turkish slaves - in the same way as you do "actual slaves". We *agree* on that.
In summary, you can't simply treat every slave transaction as the same. A shipment of slave boys bound for Egypt to become Mamluks means something very different from a shipoment of slave boys across the middle passage.
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:49:09 PM
European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not. On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.
I thought social mobility was pretty low during medieval times.
Becoming a merc being the only honest route to richest (or the dream thereoft) for poor people.
There was some. And being a merc was not an honest profession. Mercenaries were bandits who were being hired to bother someone else. The difference between an armed criminal and a soldier was only one legal technicality. In peace he was a often a criminal, in war a useful asset. Still people who made an honest living had no desire to see a mercenary hanging around. It was not really an honorably profession. Eustace de Folville is an excellent example of medieval soldiery. He was a knight (I think), and was constantly committing crimes but was being pardoned when ever the King needed soldiers.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 03:27:14 PM
You mean the one that says the exact opposite of (your all-caps) "the Mameluks were DESCENDENTS of slave soldiers they were not slaves themselves"? That wiki page? :lol:
Goddammit Malthus I just explained how I got that impression. :frusty: This is really frustrating. You asked me a question and I answered it. WTF?
QuoteWell, yes, it is odd. That each and every Mamluk, lord or soldier, had been a literal slave, bought and sold like any other merchandise, seems bizzare to us because we associate chattel slavery with extremely *low* status.
But this isn't universal - same deal in ancient Rome: some "slaves" in the imperial household ended up extremely influential.
Yes I do not have that impression. I am well aware of Roman and Ottoman history and the power slaves and ex-slaves could hold. However none of them had anything exactly like the Mameluks. I was not precisely informed of how that worked but even as kids their slave status was a technicality like the Janissary kids.
QuoteHuh? We agreed on the Janessary thing. In fact, my whole point is that you could not count Mamluks - Turkish slaves - in the same way as you do "actual slaves". We *agree* on that.
In summary, you can't simply treat every slave transaction as the same. A shipment of slave boys bound for Egypt to become Mamluks means something very different from a shipoment of slave boys across the middle passage.
Yes I agree. Just as Malcolm X made the distinction between the black slaves who worked in the homes and versus the ones who worked in the fields. My question though had nothing to do with Turks as slaves I was wondering about the Slavs and why their numbers were so low considering the fame of Slavs as slaves and the long period of time it seems that they were captured and sold as such. Further what about the black African slaves? After all the slaves for the middle passage were acquired in this method.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:49:09 PM
European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not. On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.
I thought social mobility was pretty low during medieval times.
Becoming a merc being the only honest route to richest (or the dream thereoft) for poor people.
There was some. And being a merc was not an honest profession. Mercenaries were bandits who were being hired to bother someone else. The difference between an armed criminal and a soldier was only one legal technicality. In peace he was a often a criminal, in war a useful asset. Still people who made an honest living had no desire to see a mercenary hanging around. It was not really an honorably profession. Eustace de Folville is an excellent example of medieval soldiery. He was a knight (I think), and was constantly committing crimes but was being pardoned when ever the King needed soldiers.
The word honest in the same sentence with mercenary should have send your bullshit bells ringing.
I am perfectly aware of what having a free company near your town meant in peace time. In war time at least they got paid, hopefully by your side.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
Still slaves. I am aware of an East African slave trade.
Sure they were technically slaves but they were never bought or sold as a commodity so do not count in the Slave Trade.
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery and probably serfdom in Russia, Hungary, etc.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.
Well it certainly could be. If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar. But there were many better jobs slaves could have.
I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims. Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work? What did most of their slaves do? I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 12:29:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2011, 12:22:15 PM
Enslavement of Turks probably should not count when measured against European, as it was often very different in function.
For example - Egypt was, for hundreds of years, ruled by Turkish "slaves" - the Mamluks. Comparing their fate to that of Black slaves sent to Jamaca to grow sugar cane isn't really fair ...
The Mameluks were not Turks. The numbers presented were Africans and Euros not Asians. I was asking if the slaves (not including legal technicalities like Jannissaries but galley slaves and the like) owned by the Turks counted.
Edit: or were they? I guess Cumans do count as Turks. But I was rather talking about the Slaves the Turks owned and bought not counting as part of the Arab trade.
Mamluks are Caucasian. Garbon says so, so it must be true. -_-
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:37:35 PM
The word honest in the same sentence with mercenary should have send your bullshit bells ringing.
I am perfectly aware of what having a free company near your town meant in peace time. In war time at least they got paid, hopefully by your side.
You throw goats down wells. I have no idea what you mean by honest.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.
Well it certainly could be. If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar. But there were many better jobs slaves could have.
I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims. Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work? What did most of their slaves do? I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.
I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
Still slaves. I am aware of an East African slave trade.
Sure they were technically slaves but they were never bought or sold as a commodity so do not count in the Slave Trade.
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery and probably serfdom in Russia, Hungary, etc.
Women through much of history!
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:45:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.
Well it certainly could be. If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar. But there were many better jobs slaves could have.
I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims. Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work? What did most of their slaves do? I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.
I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery. :)
Hotter slave girls in Rome.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:45:19 PM
I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery. :)
Really? I mean you work all day, you go back to your hovel at night and you die young. Seems pretty similar. And the treatment in the late Republic was so bad you had three servile wars.
Quote from: The Brain on September 30, 2011, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:45:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.
Well it certainly could be. If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar. But there were many better jobs slaves could have.
I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims. Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work? What did most of their slaves do? I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.
I edited, as I'm not sure to the extent Roman slavery was identical to American slavery. :)
Hotter slave girls in Rome.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
El Cid comes to mind
He was born in the nobility.
You are thinking of the El Cid of legend not the real man.
Apparently, recent research indicates his father left him a considerable wealth, far beyond low nobility. He went to court very young to serve as the prince's page as well.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 03:50:35 PM
Apparently, recent research indicates his father left him a considerable wealth, far beyond low nobility. He went to court very young to serve as the prince's page as well.
Darn Dark Ages are so hard to penetrate.
In any case lots of people made their way taking lands from Moors...and losing them again...
That tv show spartacus makes want to reinstate slavery.
Why did slavery disappear?
I mean, the abolicionist movement would have needed some powerhitters behind to convince people to give up their sex slaves.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
El Cid comes to mind
He was born in the nobility.
You are thinking of the El Cid of legend not the real man.
Apparently, recent research indicates his father left him a considerable wealth, far beyond low nobility. He went to court very young to serve as the prince's page as well.
I would be interested in reading that. One wonders why he became a mercenary of sorts if he could have simply lived the life of the idle rich.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery, which was also not chattel slavery as practiced in, say, the American south.
Well it certainly could be. If you were working on a large estate as a field hand or (God help you) in the mines the conditions to the American South were pretty similar. But there were many better jobs slaves could have.
I wonder if that was the same for the Muslims. Did they use slaves in dangerous mining work? What did most of their slaves do? I mean besides the famous galley slaves that every Med power used.
I think the Muslim liked to rape their slaves more. So they wanted more female slaves. Something like 20% of Iraqis are descended from African slaves so they probably made them do menial labor. It's thought that some Sheiks and Emirs in the Arab world still buy slaves. It's a bit ironic that when Malcolm X was out fantasizing about Islam being the black man's religion, the Muslims were still importing Africans.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2011, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
That depended largely on the time and place.
Yeah the marchlands (like that one place where the Muslims and Christians were always trading lands...) were a great place for nobodies to become lords.
El Cid comes to mind
He was born in the nobility.
You are thinking of the El Cid of legend not the real man.
Apparently, recent research indicates his father left him a considerable wealth, far beyond low nobility. He went to court very young to serve as the prince's page as well.
How do you say "space navy" in spanish, since the word "navy" in spanish comes from "sea", instead of coming from "navigation" as in english.
There were moments where being peasant was not that unpleasant and you could certainly become something else. For example, after the Black Death there was great scarcity of manpower, so lords had to be careful or lose their sources of income.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
Still slaves. I am aware of an East African slave trade.
Sure they were technically slaves but they were never bought or sold as a commodity so do not count in the Slave Trade.
Which is why I said if we were counting them, then I could count Roman slavery and probably serfdom in Russia, Hungary, etc.
I think some Russian serfs could be sold.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 03:56:21 PM
I think some Russian serfs could be sold.
You could even sell dead ones according to Gogol.
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:55:20 PM
How do you say "space navy" in spanish, since the word "navy" in spanish comes from "sea", instead of coming from "navigation" as in english.
I'm not quite sure how a discussing of the origins of El Cid prompted that one, but ...
A spaceship is a Nave espacial which I suppose has the same root as Navy. A fleet would be a flota and the service is actually called the Armada. So it would be the Armada Espacial, although I can't see way Marina Espacial wouldn't work. After all names can be quite silly. Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
I am most fond of Breedon on the Hill.
Bree = Hill in Celtic British
Dun = Hill in Old English/Anglo-Saxon
So Hill Hill on the Hill. The people who lived there were really proud of their hill.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 03:55:20 PM
How do you say "space navy" in spanish, since the word "navy" in spanish comes from "sea", instead of coming from "navigation" as in english.
I'm not quite sure how a discussing of the origins of El Cid prompted that one, but ...
A spaceship is a Nave espacial which I suppose has the same root as Navy. A fleet would be a flota and the service is actually called the Armada. So it would be the Armada Espacial, although I can't see way Marina Espacial wouldn't work. After all names can be quite silly. Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
Thanks. That makes sense.
Armada Espacial sounds way cooler than Marina Espacial.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 04:09:34 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
I am most fond of Breedon on the Hill.
Bree = Hill in Celtic British
Dun = Hill in Old English/Anglo-Saxon
So Hill Hill on the Hill. The people who lived there were really proud of their hill.
:lol:
Reminds me of certain Hugh Grant film.
[edit] Also that I love Tolkien.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
They should have called it "New and Improved City."
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
I'm not quite sure how a discussing of the origins of El Cid prompted that one, but ...
A spaceship is a Nave espacial which I suppose has the same root as Navy. A fleet would be a flota and the service is actually called the Armada. So it would be the Armada Espacial, although I can't see way Marina Espacial wouldn't work. After all names can be quite silly. Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
I do kind of wonder why Siege asked that question.
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 02:48:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2011, 11:11:25 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F9%2F18%2F1253292528911%2FAn-Aerial-Picture-Of-Lund-026.jpg&hash=d99439e7ba94f84572b29cd1acea14bd268bc3c6)
Where would you beach a boat in that island?
I see no bays or ports.
Well spotted siege :thumbsup:
I have holidayed on that island and there is indeed no proper port. There is a partly sheltered bay, the ferry stops there and you have to land using a rowboat. You then walk up a cliffside path to get to the plateau above.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 04:26:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
I'm not quite sure how a discussing of the origins of El Cid prompted that one, but ...
A spaceship is a Nave espacial which I suppose has the same root as Navy. A fleet would be a flota and the service is actually called the Armada. So it would be the Armada Espacial, although I can't see way Marina Espacial wouldn't work. After all names can be quite silly. Nueva Cartagena for example means New-new-new-city.
I do kind of wonder why Siege asked that question.
Keep wondering.
I have also read somewhere that piracy wasn't as profitable as most people believe.
A few made it big, and their legends motivated new unemployed seamen to go pirate.
But it seems the average pirate lived in a half starving boat running away from bigger fish trying to score on a cargo boat that likely was loaded with sugar instead of gold.
To me the luckiest pirate, and I am not sure how much of a legend this is, was a french pirate called "Florentino", who in 1525? was off the coast of spain and happened to intercept an spanish galleon loaded with Cortez' aztec treasure for the spanish crown. Florentino disappeared after that and never again was heard from him.
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2011, 11:11:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_Island#Piracy
QuoteIn 1627 Barbary Pirates from the Republic of Salé occupied Lundy for five years. The North African invaders, under the command of Dutch renegade Jan Janszoon, flew an Ottoman flag over the island. Some captured Europeans were held on Lundy before being sent to Algiers as slaves.
That's the same Dutch Islamoid who led a major slaving raid on Iceland in roughly the same period. Only a few managed to get ransomed back. :nerd:
Quote from: Legbiter on September 30, 2011, 07:38:30 PM
That's the same Dutch Islamoid who led a major slaving raid on Iceland in roughly the same period. Only a few managed to get ransomed back. :nerd:
I guess the Dutch really meant it when they said "Better Turkish then Papist".
Quote from: Siege on September 30, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
I have also read somewhere that piracy wasn't as profitable as most people believe.
A few made it big, and their legends motivated new unemployed seamen to go pirate.
But it seems the average pirate lived in a half starving boat running away from bigger fish trying to score on a cargo boat that likely was loaded with sugar instead of gold.
To me the luckiest pirate, and I am not sure how much of a legend this is, was a french pirate called "Florentino", who in 1525? was off the coast of spain and happened to intercept an spanish galleon loaded with Cortez' aztec treasure for the spanish crown. Florentino disappeared after that and never again was heard from him.
That means he drowned. The most successful pirate was probably Barbarossa.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 07:56:53 PM
That means he drowned. The most successful pirate was probably Barbarossa.
He drowned, too. :homestar:
If we blur the pirate/privateer tag - it would be Henry Morgan. :contract: Lt. Gov. of Jamaica and filthy rich.
The best they could hope for was King's Advisor. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:49:09 PM
European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not. On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.
You are talking completely out of your ass. Mamelukes rose to be Sultans. No peasant could hope to be a European monarch.
Quote from: Sahib on September 30, 2011, 12:04:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 30, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
According to wiki 10-18m African slaves through the Arab slave trade over a period of 1,250 years plus 1-1.25m European slaves.
10.25m arrived in the new world through the Atlantic slave trade with several million dying en route. This was over a 300 year period.
The Euros labor needs were a little higher :P
I am curious about the low number of Euro slaves. I thought the Crimean Tatars nabbed so many Slavs that our word for Slave comes from them. But maybe that 1 million or so happened in a small time period?
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.
Yes, Slave is a norse loanword from to english, due to the ethnicity of the slaves the norsemen sold on english slave markets in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. English, Irish and Scottish slaves went the other way.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2011, 06:17:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 01:49:09 PM
European peasant could also rise fairly high though most did not. On the other hand, most Mameluke probably spent their lives as common soldiers.
You are talking completely out of your ass. Mamelukes rose to be Sultans. No peasant could hope to be a European monarch.
Well, non-nobles were occasionally elected Pope. A Crowned head of state.
Quote from: The Brain on October 01, 2011, 03:01:38 AM
The best they could hope for was King's Advisor. :(
Man, I loved that game. Still have it and all the other C-128 games.
Quote from: Viking on October 01, 2011, 08:01:31 AM
Quote from: Sahib on September 30, 2011, 12:04:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 30, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
According to wiki 10-18m African slaves through the Arab slave trade over a period of 1,250 years plus 1-1.25m European slaves.
10.25m arrived in the new world through the Atlantic slave trade with several million dying en route. This was over a 300 year period.
The Euros labor needs were a little higher :P
I am curious about the low number of Euro slaves. I thought the Crimean Tatars nabbed so many Slavs that our word for Slave comes from them. But maybe that 1 million or so happened in a small time period?
Or do the Turks not count as part of the Arab slave trade?
I think Slave/Slav thing comes from early middle ages, when Tatars were still in Mongolia.
Yes, Slave is a norse loanword from to english, due to the ethnicity of the slaves the norsemen sold on english slave markets in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. English, Irish and Scottish slaves went the other way.
Uhm no. It came from Latin via French.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2011, 02:59:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 01, 2011, 08:01:31 AMYes, Slave is a norse loanword from to english, due to the ethnicity of the slaves the norsemen sold on english slave markets in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. English, Irish and Scottish slaves went the other way.
Uhm no. It came from Latin via French.
According to the OED you're both right. It exists in Medieval Latin, Old French, Norse languages, Low German, West and North Frisian and others including Provencal, Spanish and Italian. The first uses in English documents are clearly Medieval Latin which, in turn descends from the Greek word for Slavs (Σκλάβος). So it's a Latin-French-Greek-German-Norse word that reinforced its way by sheer repetition into English :)