What do you LEARN

[whitelaughter]

Indeed, leaders will often do things that are bad for the country as a whole, but GOOD for certain elements within that country that they are working for.

And often they will do things that are bad for everybody, because they aren't prepared to plan ahead; or because their egos demand it.

Slavery wasn't illegal in medieval Europe, there simply weren't enough slaves to do all the work, so they used serfs. Pretty pragmatic.

nope. Where do you think serfs came from? Granted some were Coloni, but most were freed slaves. The last estimates I saw put 2/3rds of the population of the Roman Empire as serfs - they didn't die out with the empire, they were granted new rights.

I cannot speak for all countries, but the reason the US abolished slavery was as a propaganda tool against the Confederacy, not for some altruistic reason. There was international pressure on both sides to abolish it.
:

International pressure? And why would that be?
The USA was founded to protect slavery. The British Courts had already declared slavery unconstitutional, and then Wilberforce was elected to Parliament. The colonies wanted representatives in the House of Commons to block the emancipation legislation Wilberforce presented every year. When they couldn't get it, they rebelled.

In more civilized parts of the world, things went differently. Britain solved the slavery question in India by the simple but expensive solution of buying every slave in the sub-continent and granting them their freedom. It cost a fortune, but was celebrated as the best money the government had ever spent.
Didn't help the economy, or their military strength, or international relations, or anything like that. It was done purely on ethical grounds.

 

[thegastation]

Except that - they don't.
Countries insist on doing incredibly stupid things, flushing their personal interests down the loo. That's usually short term greed, destroying a country for a dictator's ego; but sometimes it isn't. There wasn't a pragmatic reason to replace slavery with serfdom in Medieval Europe, nor was there a pragmatic reason to abolish slavery at the start of the modern era.

Well the reason slavery was abolished in the modern era was because capitalism which replaced mercantilism made the entire system incredibly inefficient and costly. Slave revolts, low production, ecetera, only emphasized in the Industrial Revolution. As for serfdom...well it was the exact same system the Romans used in there economy only it was a latin name. Lattifundia is an area of roman land filled with freed slaves that worked the land in exchange for shelter and protection, which the owner provided. Its the exact same as feudalism, the Europeans were just continuing the Romans. Sorry for the history, just clearing stuff up. Of course, both theories are debatable, obviously ones opinion of the main cause of such events would differentiate from one, but what I'm trying to say is that there is a reason for the abolishment of slavery and serfdom. Personally, I don't see the difference between serfdom and slavery.

As for what I learned from civ, I suppose it would be that the best way to plan strategy is just to have a general idea to win, and improvise from there, anything more complicated, is sure to fail. That philosophy works for me anyways.

 

[Snowman084]

ok, not sure that i actually learn all that much about history, but civ has made me learn a serious amount of city names, which nationality they belong to, and some basic "famous" leaders for various nationalities, which is sort of a huge thing.

i had a german friend, a while back, and he contested that americans really know almost nothing about the rest of the world, down to major city names of european nations, and when asked to name, say, 5 cities in spain, most people would be absolutely clueless. thanks to civ, i am able to do that for every nationality listed... for what its worth.

i agree, thats what ive also learned also too the names of wonders and famous people, and the names of the religous buildings... its lead to alot of reading

 

[whitelaughter]

Well the reason slavery was abolished in the modern era was because capitalism which replaced mercantilism made the entire system incredibly inefficient and costly.

While that theory has fierce proponents, the figures shoot it down. Hugh Thomas gives the figures of slaves bought and sold from 1791-1800 at four hundred thousand - this is a massive, incredibly profitable industry.

Personally, I don't see the difference between serfdom and slavery.

Quite simple - a serf has rights. Slaves were routinely worked to death - the silver mines of Athens is the classic example, Brazilian sugar plantations a more recent case. Slaves were sex toys - even as children. Slaves could be vivisected by the curious. Slaves could be forced to kill each other as public entertainment.
Serfs may not have had many rights by modern standards, but the ones they did have, they valued highly.

A problem with using Civ for 'learning' is that the game tries to give plausible ingame reasons for doing what was done historically - ie shifting from slavery to serfdom. While this is a good thing, it makes the game more believable, it's a mistake to assume that real world decisions were made for the same reasons we make them in-game.

 

[JeebusGreen]

Damn, do you have to ruin my addiction justification with mature historical debate?

I've also learnt that '... it's always the Mongolians' is applicable to most situations.

 

[whitelaughter]

Damn, do you have to ruin my addiction justification with mature historical debate?

[looks remorseful] "I'm sooooorrrrrry....I'll try not to do it again......"


Bet I fail!

 

[Supr49er]

Welcome to the Forums thegastation.


Welcome to the Forums Snowman084.

 

[Phatkarp]

I think Civ teaches the vaule of deliberate and thoughtful planning and strategizing. I can play the game without paying attention to what is going on, but I get punished for doing so. When, on the other hand, I take my time, think things through, and pursue a focused strategy, I am successful.

 

[Iranon]

Most important life lesson from civ4: If violence doesn't solve your problems, you aren't using enough.

 

[bestbrian]

Most important life lesson from civ4: If violence doesn't solve your problems, you aren't using enough.

Amen, Brother.

The Corollory to that: When in doubt, bring more siege (you should see the look on their faces at the bank).

 

[landoljackson]

While that theory has fierce proponents, the figures shoot it down. Hugh Thomas gives the figures of slaves bought and sold from 1791-1800 at four hundred thousand - this is a massive, incredibly profitable industry.

Might I add that a large number of those slaves ended up in Brazil and the Caribbean. I believe it was somewhere around 1805 that the British, by an act of Parliament criminalised the slave trade. From then on they began to enforce it in the Atlantic Ocean, specifically near the West African Coast. The slave trade continued in the Americas up until about 1896 when Cuba was the last to outlaw it.

I wouldn't say I learn much from this game other than how incredibly complex it is to run an economy, especially when most of your land is desert or useless tundra.

 

[Mesodius]

nope. Where do you think serfs came from? Granted some were Coloni, but most were freed slaves. The last estimates I saw put 2/3rds of the population of the Roman Empire as serfs - they didn't die out with the empire, they were granted new rights.

We could debate actual numbers all day and neither of us be right, however, the point I was getting across is that there are slaves and serfs both, and that there were pragmatic reasons for having both. Thegastation gives several reasons why it isn't efficient to have 3/4 of your population as slaves. Given the human rights track record of many monarchs, I don't they decided to start giving people more freedoms just because they were swell guys.

In more civilized parts of the world, things went differently. Britain solved the slavery question in India by the simple but expensive solution of buying every slave in the sub-continent and granting them their freedom. It cost a fortune, but was celebrated as the best money the government had ever spent.
Didn't help the economy, or their military strength, or international relations, or anything like that. It was done purely on ethical grounds.

I'm not knowledgeable enough in that specific case to argue it, though I still suspect there was a very pragmatic reason for it. I'll let someone else take it up if they prefer.

Most important life lesson from civ4: If violence doesn't solve your problems, you aren't using enough.

LOL Indeed, Iranon, indeed. Can be applied to almost any situation.

 

[Davor]

Please tell me you're kidding.....

Oh I wish I was kidding. How sad can we go? Now they are kicking out Vetrans from stores or malls where there where there for years before, saying you can't be there no more.

 

[thegastation]

I would love to continue having these historical debates, white laughter. Though the reason why I don't see the reason between serfdom and slavery is that although serfs had more rights than slaves, its not like they were any more different. I realize the difference between serf and slave are clear on paper but if a slave was granted freedom and then given a choice to be a serf, it wouldn't really be much of a change. Where is the peasent in the feudal system? Very bottom. The slave? Exact same place. A slave that spent his life planting seeds for his owner is freed and brought under protection so that he can spend his life planting seeds for his owner. This is why I don't see the difference between serfdom and slavery.

So I can redeem myself of staying in this topic...
Another thing I learned from civ is that mongols are a pain to have war with, no matter what their tech is. HOW DOES A SPEARMEN BEAT A TANK!?

 

[CHEESE!]

I actually learned quite a lot of historical info by Civ- usually when I am bored and reading the Civilopedia. Never knew the slightest thing about Timbuktu, Ottomans (thought they were footrests) or anything else historically.

Though I actually learn more from CFC than anything else.

 

[whitelaughter]

We could debate actual numbers all day and neither of us be right, however, the point I was getting across is that there are slaves and serfs both, and that there were pragmatic reasons for having both.

Sloppy. Go ahead, debate the figure - but no matter how you look at it, you'll be arguing about a massive, incredibly profitable industry.

As a local example, the city of Melbourne is named after Lord Melbourne; he made his fortune in the slave trade and was able to use that wealth and influence to become Prime Minister of Great Britain - and ended up fighting Wilberforce and the rest of the anti-slavery movement.

Thegastation gives several reasons why it isn't efficient to have 3/4 of your population as slaves.

Two reasons - revolts and low production.

Slave revolts: have tinspired freedom where? The most famous was Spartacus - look what happened to him. Rome still had slavery centuries later. Sure there were major revolts in the Carribean, with Haiti being taken by the slaves - yet slavery continued there longer than it did in nations without the revolts! No revolts of any importance in India. Influence of American revolts - nil.

Low production - no slavery has a higher production! That's what made Brazilian slavery so profitable. The extra production of gained by working slaves to death far exceeded the cost of the slave, allowing maximum use of the land.

Given the human rights track record of many monarchs, I don't they decided to start giving people more freedoms just because they were swell guys.

Now that's just sloppy thinking! Rights weren't handed out by genocidal maniacs, they were handed out by more benevolent leaders.

Which brings us full circle to Airefuego's posit - that everything in international politics is done out of self-interest.
It just ain't so - twice over. Many leaders are simply to spiteful and short-sighted to do what is in their best interests; others either have a degree of idealism, or are being pressured by idealistic groups.

Consider the massive increase in human rights violations at the moment. Why? Because the USA has been tying foreign aid to standards of human rights, and withholding aid to nations that won't treat their own citizens well. The financial crisis means that aid money is drying up, so dictators no longer care about keeping the US happy and can cheerfully return to daily atrocities.

 

[whitelaughter]

I would love to continue having these historical debates, white laughter.

Awesome!

Though the reason why I don't see the reason between serfdom and slavery is that although serfs had more rights than slaves, its not like they were any more different. I realize the difference between serf and slave are clear on paper but if a slave was granted freedom and then given a choice to be a serf, it wouldn't really be much of a change.

Okay, this will take a little while to answer.
Your first major point - that it doesn't matter about the theory, but what is happening in practice, is a good one.
Firstly though, even a difference on paper matters when legal appeal is possible. Now of course, if your local lord is also your judge, then it doesn't help - but feudalism is superior to earlier systems in that you have two lords: a secular lord and the local bishop. This meant if you were suppressed by one you could appeal to the other - and while they often worked together, just as often they would happily defend the peasantry etc to undermine the authority of the other.
Secondly, there are fundamental differences between the treatment of slaves and serfs. I gave examples above, but consider: a serf is tied to the land. Not even his lord could move him. A slave could be sold to someone in a distant country; a serf always knew that he couldn't be taken from his home or family. To get rid of a serf, you had to free him - which is why serfs headed to the cities when England developed their wool industry. If they'd been slaves they would have been sold to the colonies in the New World.

Where is the peasent in the feudal system? Very bottom. The slave? Exact same place.

Okay - firstly, peasants weren't at the bottom.
In theory, they were jointly at the top with the clergy and the knights! We hear a lot about Divine Right of Kings, but there was also Divine Right of Peasants - Peasants had been put in their lot by God and no one could interfere with their rights without facing Divine Retribution.
In practice, of course, they were clearly inferior to both the clergy and aristocracy, but they were regarded more highly than tradesmen etc - blacksmiths were particularly narked by being treated as socially inferior to the peasantry.
Secondly - who is at the very bottom in modern society? The unemployed perhaps? Are they slaves? Would you argue that formally enslaving them wouldn't change their position?
Someone is always going to be at the bottom. But the bottom can move, dragging everyone up. Or down.

A slave that spent his life planting seeds for his owner is freed and brought under protection so that he can spend his life planting seeds for his owner. This is why I don't see the difference between serfdom and slavery.

Okay, a slave is freed and then enserfed.
How about the American slaves who were freed and then forced to continue working in the cotton fields at a pittance, because there was no other work?

In both cases, the slaves have gained new rights. Sure, their position is one that would horrify us, but it is still better. They can't be written off as unproductive and so killed, for starters!

So I can redeem myself of staying in this topic...
Another thing I learned from civ is that mongols are a pain to have war with, no matter what their tech is. HOW DOES A SPEARMEN BEAT A TANK!?

I feel your pain - still, after a while, you get used to it, and enjoy killing enemy tanks with your own spearmen.

 

[Bob the Barbari]

Firstly though, even a difference on paper matters when legal appeal is possible. Now of course, if your local lord is also your judge, then it doesn't help - but feudalism is superior to earlier systems in that you have two lords: a secular lord and the local bishop. This meant if you were suppressed by one you could appeal to the other - and while they often worked together, just as often they would happily defend the peasantry etc to undermine the authority of the other.

Clearly you must be reffering to some Western European system. In Eastern Europe churches had their own serfs and bishops had authority only to judge in their cases. The only one you could appeal to was the sovereign, but it was purely theroethical and was dropped at the beggining on renaissance.

Secondly, there are fundamental differences between the treatment of slaves and serfs. I gave examples above, but consider: a serf is tied to the land. Not even his lord could move him. A slave could be sold to someone in a distant country; a serf always knew that he couldn't be taken from his home or family. To get rid of a serf, you had to free him - which is why serfs headed to the cities when England developed their wool industry. If they'd been slaves they would have been sold to the colonies in the New World.

Once again a regional difference. In Eastern Eurone being tied to the land was the curse of serfs because they had very limited options of improving their lives by moving to cities. It was one of the reasons behind the fact that a great number of Eastern European cities were populated by Germans.

Okay - firstly, peasants weren't at the bottom.
In theory, they were jointly at the top with the clergy and the knights! We hear a lot about Divine Right of Kings, but there was also Divine Right of Peasants - Peasants had been put in their lot by God and no one could interfere with their rights without facing Divine Retribution.
In practice, of course, they were clearly inferior to both the clergy and aristocracy, but they were regarded more highly than tradesmen etc - blacksmiths were particularly narked by being treated as socially inferior to the peasantry.

And again the tradesmen and craftsmen in Eastern Europe had a better position both in theory and practise (and were quite often Germans). Nevertheless it is true that noone, not even the king could interfere with the rights of the paesants. It should also be noted that there existed many groups of serfs throught the history including wealthy serfs who had their ovn paid service although nobility constantly tried to make all serfs equally poor.

My point is not that you are wrong but that there were "serfs", and "serfs". In some countries they had more rights in some less, but still much more than slaves.

 

[Supr49er]

Welcome to the Forums landoljackson.

 

[Mesodius]

Sloppy. Go ahead, debate the figure - but no matter how you look at it, you'll be arguing about a massive, incredibly profitable industry.

As a local example, the city of Melbourne is named after Lord Melbourne; he made his fortune in the slave trade and was able to use that wealth and influence to become Prime Minister of Great Britain - and ended up fighting Wilberforce and the rest of the anti-slavery movement.

Sounds similar to the Union/Confederacy situation. When one region/segment of the population finds slavery not as profitable anymore, it sees no reason not to outlaw it and impose its will on other parts of the Empire. If we want to talk about sloppy reasoning, it is sloppy to not look at the underlying reasons for why people do things, and simply chalk it up to "oh they must just be a great leader" instead.

You DO realise that for those who DON'T own slaves, that slavery is extremely unprofitable. It eliminates many of the jobs that these non-slaveholders could be working. One example. Just sayin...

Which brings us full circle to Airefuego's posit - that everything in international politics is done out of self-interest.
It just ain't so - twice over. Many leaders are simply to spiteful and short-sighted to do what is in their best interests; others either have a degree of idealism, or are being pressured by idealistic groups.

Making my point for me here.

Consider the massive increase in human rights violations at the moment. Why? Because the USA has been tying foreign aid to standards of human rights, and withholding aid to nations that won't treat their own citizens well. The financial crisis means that aid money is drying up, so dictators no longer care about keeping the US happy and can cheerfully return to daily atrocities.

At the moment? Massive human rights violations have never ceased. When was this golden age of human equality? Granted, the USA itself has seen a increase in human rights violations, but for many parts of the world it is just business as usual.