I've been reading Heiligers' series, A Short History of the Iberian Peninsula, wherein he mentions slave soldiers at a couple points in the history. So naturally I want to make available slave soldiers in my campaign, but I'm at a bit of a loss on how it works.
I should think there are two points to consider:
- Story: Why the slaves fight or how the commander induces them to fight.
- Game mechanics: What modifiers to apply to slave soldiers or how they are different from the normal fighting man.
As for the first, I am vaguely familiar with the slave soldier of the American Civil War: "Fight for us and we'll set you free."
I wonder, what other models of slave soldiers exist in history?And are there any other models from fiction (novels, movies, etc.)?For the second point, I imagine the in-battle moral score of slave soldiers might be modified based on the reason they fight. They might also have a higher chance of desertion between battles. Plus, their training level might be considered rather low depending, again, on the story, i.e. the reason they fight.
What other mechanical considerations should I consider?Examples from existing rules sets could be useful.
Any thoughts on either of these points or any additional points you can suggest are most welcome.
I would imagine that, in an Iberian context, he's probably thinking of Islamic slave-soldiers, ghilman (the plural of ghulam); the Caliphate of Cordoba used such slave-soldiers recruited both from Europe and Africa. The Abbasids and various other later Islamic dynasties also used a lot of mostly-Turkish ghulam soldiers of slave origin, and the Egyptian Mamluks and Ottoman janissaries are also famous troops of slave origin - though many were legally freed once they completed their training, and remained in a client-patron relationship with their masters. But there are also less institutionalised instances of the Greeks, for instance, occasionally arming slaves.
To start with, have a look at:
Peter Hunt, "Arming Slaves and Helots in Classical Greece" (http://www.colorado.edu/classics/clas2041/Arming%20Slaves.pdf)
Patricia Crone, "Slaves on Horses" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/209055010/Crone-Slaves-on-Horses#scribd)
Reuven Amitai, Military Slavery in the Islamic World (http://med-slavery.uni-trier.de:9080/minev/MedSlavery/publications/Amitai.pdf)
Excellent, Duncan. That should get me started. Thank you!
Also we have to remember that we have a very clear cut distinction between slave on one hand and free on the other.
In the ancient world there were societies were there were gradations which covered the same spectrum. Many would not have regarded the modern 'wage slave' as 'free' ;D
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 04, 2015, 05:11:33 PM
Also we have to remember that we have a very clear cut distinction between slave on one hand and free on the other.
In the ancient world there were societies were there were gradations which covered the same spectrum. Many would not have regarded the modern 'wage slave' as 'free' ;D
Also, note while we tend to think of slaves as almost definitionally at the bottom of the social scale, this doesn't apply to Islamic military slaves and freedmen, who took a relatively lofty social position. A mamluk was far closer in status to a knight than to a serf.
Think Janissaries and Mamluks. The Slave soldiers of the Andalusian Moslems were often Slavs , captured by Vikings or Carolingians and sold as children. They were useful as troops because they were more likely to be loyal and stay loyal than the settled descendants of the Syrian Junds or the Berber tribesmen whonhad loyalties to their own emirs. As Jim suggests 'slave' does not carry quite the same meaning then as it does today where the peculiar racial exclusivity of Amrican slavery has come to domibate perceptions. A slave was someone who was owned by another man and could be bought and old , could not marry or carry on a trade without permission, but in an age when most peopke had to get their lord's or village elder or guild master's permissionto marry etc and where no one voted or had basic political rights the distinction was somewhat academic. The slave had certain advantages because his master. had to feed and clothe him. That sounds pretty basic, but imagine an eighteenth century soldier who signed up for ten years to get. food and a coat because starvation was. the alternative. Imagine too the Zroman legionary, a free citizen, who signs a twenty five year contract, cannot marry, cannot leave and go to another unit, how free is he. True, upon completing his service the legionary was sippised to get land , but a slave might expect manumission and a piece of land, or just. to be provided with a wife and a position as a gate guard or tax collector.
So the Slav slaves of the Andalusian Caliph and then petty kings got fed and clothed and given a position that was respected because soldiers that are not respected will not fight well. I suggest that they firmed the core of the army because, Caliph, Vizier or petty king is going to want enough men dependent upon him to overawe Arab or Berber groups who were also armed and were potential rebels.
What we just do not know is the extent to which Slavs brought pre existing military skills with them. Likely they were recruited young and trained when they arrived..
Roy
Quote from: aligern on January 04, 2015, 05:37:36 PM
What we just do not know is the extent to which Slavs brought pre existing military skills with them. Likely they were recruited young and trained when they arrived..
Which raises a question - why did Andalusian rulers get Slav ghilman, rather than the Turkish ones that were standard issue in the Middle East? Sure, they were further away from steppe than the easterners were, but the Slavic world wasn't exactly next door either. Did the Byzantines block supply across the Med? Later they were happy to allow mamluk recruits to be shipped from the shores of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus to Egypt.
I've been told most "Slav ghilman" were actually Western European mercenaries with a politically correct name, but presumably at least some must've been the genuine article to get the term started.
I wouldn't say there were no Turks in Spain, but very few. The simple answer to why Slavs is that the Carolingian state was next door to Andalusia and the Franks were slave raiding in Bohemia and across the Elbe. Also. Turks for sale would have to go through other Muslim states to reach a pirt or cross North Africa.
Roy
A lot to think about there, Roy. Thanks! Lots of nuance that seems to grow out of the source culture. I'll have to absorb the text of Paul's references.
I'm tempted to agree with the many, Jim, that the modern "wage slave" is still a slave -- maybe I can use that as a model!
Quote from: Stephen Wendell on January 04, 2015, 11:21:09 PM
A lot to think about there, Roy. Thanks! Lots of nuance that seems to grow out of the source culture. I'll have to absorb the text of Paul's references.
I'm tempted to agree with the many, Jim, that the modern "wage slave" is still a slave -- maybe I can use that as a model!
It's interesting that one theme that comes out of some Athenian and Greek thought is that the citizen is expected to take part in the governing of the city. This meant turning up for trials and votes. Yes you got paid for doing so, but you still had to be able to attend.
I often wonder if this is one reason why you get so few employees in such places, instead you got 'day labourers' and the steady work done by slaves. After all if you are an employee and have to turn up for five consecutive days a week, you cannot fulfil your duties as a citizen and turn up to listen to the discussion and turn up to vote when the vote is called.
Jim
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m-Wvg__iHPAC&pg=PA133&dq=slavs+valencia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bVmqVO2OEZLias32gtgM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=slavs%20valencia&f=false
Discusses the Saqaliba or Slavic slaves in Al Andalus.
Roy
Oh yes, just thought - the other occurrence of fighting slaves in Iberian history is the Visigothic law requiring owners to bring a proportion of their slaves armed to the muster:
Quote from: http://libro.uca.edu/vcode/vg9-2.htm"THE GLORIOUS FLAVIUS WAMBA, KING.
IX. Concerning Those who Fail to Enlist at the Appointed Time or Place, or Desert; and What Proportion of the Slaves Belonging to any Person shall Join the Army. ...
Therefore, we hereby decree, that whenever anyone, whether he be general, count, or gardingus, Goth, or Roman, freeman or manumitted slave, or any serf attached to the service of the Crown, joins the army, he shall bring the tenth of his slaves with him; and in order that said slaves may not come unarmed, but may be provided with the proper weapons, whoever brings them must furnish a part of them with suitable armor, and the greater portion must be provided with shields, two-edged swords, lances, bows and arrows, slings, and other arms, and he who brings them must parade them, armed in this manner, before the king, general, or commander-in-chief."
It has been suggested that slave-recruitment is one of the reasons for the fragility of the later Visigothic army, but I'm not sure if that idea was ever any more than guesswork.
Interesting also that serfs attached to the crown may apparently be expected to own slaves.
I do find myself wondering if these "slaves" might be more like high medieval serfs than chattel slaves, and whether the "serfs" attached to the service of the crown may be something more like ministeriales than peasants. You wouldn't happen to know what the original terms are?
Found it in the online MGH (http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000852_00412.html?sortIndex=020%3A020%3A0001%3A010%3A00%3A00&contextSort=sortKey&contextType=scan&contextOrder=descending&context=zaba) -
"slave" is simply "servus" - obviously the origin of the words "serf" and "servant", but also the standard Latin for "slave". You'd have to do your own searching through the English and/or Latin version of the code to see if there is anything about buying and selling servi.
"or any serf attached to the service of the crown" - "sive etiam quislibet ex servis fiscalibus"
The Mediaeval serf would be a creation much later than the decree of Wamba. The nearest equivalent to the serf in late Antiquity was the 'colonus', who was rather less bound to his landlord than the Mediaeval serf. They don't seem to be mentioned here. The sense of the Latin then is:
| Et ideo id decreto speciali discernimus, ut, quisquis ille est, sive sit dux sive comes atque gardingus, seu sit Gotus sive Romanus, necnon ingenuus quisque vel etiam manumissus, sive etiam quislibet ex servis fiscalibus, quisquis horum est in exercitum progressurus, decimam partem servorum suorum secum in expeditione bellica ducturus accedat...
And thus, by this special decree, we lay down that whosoever he may be, whether he be dux or count or gardingus, whether Goth or Roman, not excluding any free man or even manumitted slave, or anyone too of the crown/public slaves; whosoever of these joins the army, is to come on the military enterprise leading with him a tenth part of his slaves... |
The distinction then is between public and private slaves.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 05, 2015, 02:31:19 PM
Found it in the online MGH (http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000852_00412.html?sortIndex=020%3A020%3A0001%3A010%3A00%3A00&contextSort=sortKey&contextType=scan&contextOrder=descending&context=zaba) -
"slave" is simply "servus" - obviously the origin of the words "serf" and "servant", but also the standard Latin for "slave". You'd have to do your own searching through the English and/or Latin version of the code to see if there is anything about buying and selling servi.
"or any serf attached to the service of the crown" - "sive etiam quislibet ex servis fiscalibus"
Thanks. :)
So (forms of)
servus for both 'slave' and 'serf' - apparently one sort of
servi can possess another.
There are references to the sale of
servi - Book 6, 4th title, 17th law specifies that no-one may be compelled to sell his slaves, frex - but I'm afraid I'm not quite enough into legal history to try and figure out whether
all slaves were alienable property (and let's not even consider the possibility that law and actual practice may have differed).
Great stuff, great stuff! A great deal of stuff!
(I'm glad I didn't ask about something less esoteric, like shapes of shields or medieval honorifics...)
Thanks to all and to all a good night!