Skip to main content
34 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 14, 2019 at 11:17 history edited Liam Morris CC BY-SA 4.0
Removed “Edit”s - that is what the edit history is for. Improved formatting, fixed numerous spelling mistakes and errors.
May 15, 2018 at 14:55 vote accept skout
S Apr 21, 2018 at 23:52 history bounty ended skout
S Apr 21, 2018 at 23:52 history notice removed skout
Apr 21, 2018 at 19:52 comment added FoxElemental Though you have to award a bounty to someone, if you aren't sure which answer to accept, you could self-answer using the community wiki button (for fairness) and include points from all three answers (being sure to credit the original posters) and accept your own canonical answer. Just a tip.
Apr 20, 2018 at 17:46 history edited skout CC BY-SA 3.0
added 218 characters in body
Apr 20, 2018 at 4:42 history edited skout CC BY-SA 3.0
complete overhaul.
Apr 17, 2018 at 21:31 answer added Kaiannae timeline score: 9
Apr 16, 2018 at 22:04 comment added Michael Kutz "not allowed" means "go get it on the black-market". I can see many brothels specializing in human-elf erotica. The offsprings would then sold to "legitimate traders".
Apr 16, 2018 at 19:52 comment added skout @adaliabooks the laws allowing for inter-species marriages*********** is basically a result of hundreds of years of negotiations between the parents and inter-species couples that ended up eventually being codified in laws.
Apr 16, 2018 at 19:49 comment added skout @Tyler Sigi what I mean is that half-breeds require two full breeds to make, full-breeds aren't slaves so you can't force them to grow the slave population.
Apr 16, 2018 at 19:40 comment added skout They would be detached from half-breed children, not regular children. And as I stated the most common type of half-breed is there because the longevity of the life of the slave-mother and the longevity of her fertility period allows it. They are supposed to be connected to children of their own species like humans are to ours, but not to half-breed children which are considered slaves at birth.
Apr 16, 2018 at 15:26 comment added Tyler S. Loeper You also have a major problem with the concept of mothers having children just so they can sell them for a better life. This is not how nature works. If mothers were this detached from their offspring so as to intentionally leave them in a situation that can result in their death, then the species would have gone extinct long ago. So this just would never ever happen in any reality. Even insects do better than this. So this is perhaps one of the most farfetched parts of your description.
Apr 16, 2018 at 15:23 comment added Tyler S. Loeper What does this mean: "your corral of slaves won't grow unless you get a non-slave from a different species to help (also meaning that you can't force it to grow)"
Apr 16, 2018 at 14:45 answer added flox timeline score: 2
Apr 16, 2018 at 7:41 answer added Tim B II timeline score: 9
Apr 16, 2018 at 7:16 comment added M i ech @AlexP Britain and France used slaves a lot. All colonial powers did, It's irrelevant that slaves were not used on homeland, because colonies were main source of wealth (BTW IIRC French colonies had the highest slave mortality rates). Middle East was famous for both slavery and especially famous for using slaves for war (ever heard of Janissaries?). Egypt also used slaves, including slave soldiers (ever heard of Mameluks?). Historically Islam is infamous for using slave soldiers and slave civil servants. In feudal societies peasants are indistinguishable from slaves.
Apr 16, 2018 at 6:19 comment added adaliabooks I'm not really sure I'm getting the point here. You say inter species romances are generally forbidden or frowned upon, so there probably aren't going to be too many of them. Add that to the fact your slave population can't breed itself and I doubt you would have many slaves at all, particularly considering your assumption is that parents would sell their own children into slavery, which I think in most cases is highly unlikely.
S Apr 16, 2018 at 2:57 history bounty started skout
S Apr 16, 2018 at 2:57 history notice added skout Draw attention
Apr 14, 2018 at 18:43 comment added skout I wasn't saying they weren't inefficient, they ARE super inneficient but the fact that the south held on to the slave economy is what destroyed it. The south did have a slave economy and that is what I was saying, when the south held on to the slave economy after the war it caused their destruction.
Apr 14, 2018 at 11:37 comment added kingledion @skout Its actually not true that cotton production ceased after the Civil War. The cotton economy actually grew a lot! Its almost like free people are better workers than slaves...AlexP is right saying that slave economies were very inefficient. Consider that US cotton exports in 1870 were 3 times higher than in 1850, and that is even with five years of widespread destruction in the middle.
Apr 14, 2018 at 8:39 review Close votes
Apr 15, 2018 at 0:06
Apr 13, 2018 at 22:21 comment added AlexP You are right about the southern American states and Brazil. I am truly sorry, I just wasn't thinking about modern aberrations. (Although intellectually I know about the cotton fields of the U.S.A. and the sugar plantations of Brazil, I just cannot wrap my head around a modern country keeping large numbers of slaves in the 19th century, when it was blindingly obvious that this was not a reasonable or sustainable mode of production. What on Earth possessed them to fall back to the low-productivity model of a Roman latifundia I just cannot comprehend.)
Apr 13, 2018 at 22:11 comment added skout Also you can look at india, it has had . slave class for all of history and it still has one today, emancipation is actually still a fight in India. Look at feudal europe, it's entire population was pretty much enslaved. Look at the congo, the entire native population was either enslaved or in the jungle to far from the belgians to know anything was happening! Slave based economies have existed everywhere at some point and most of these are gladly gone, don't tell me that only rome had it.
Apr 13, 2018 at 22:06 comment added skout @AlexP You know the southern US had a slave based economy, don't tell me i'm wrong cause I live here! We fought a flippin war over it, after the slaves were gone there was nobody to harvest the cotton-fields and our economy went down the toilet, even after thy were supposed to be gone we still had jim crow laws that made the blacks a slave class and we were totally dependent on them! The souths economy was slave based and you don't have to go much farther then any book on the slave trade that the same was true of brazil, the carribean and britian at the same time!
Apr 13, 2018 at 22:06 comment added AlexP ... And the Romans had a slave-based economy for a few centuries only because they engaged in a series of successful wars of conquest and for those few centuries had a large influx of newly acquired slaves. Given that the same Romans had an inclination to set the children of slaves free (and make them citizens), this petered out just about as soon as the empire stabilized. By the 4th century even Italy and north Africa no longer had slave based economies.
Apr 13, 2018 at 22:02 comment added AlexP "Slave based economy of the past (everywhere has had some sort at some point):" oh no they didn't. In fact, most places didn't. Britain didn't. Gaul/France didn't. Egypt didn't. Mesopotamia didn't. India didn't. Japan didn't. China didn't. Central and northern Europe didn't. The Near and Middle East didn't. The only honest-to-goodness slave based economy was in parts of the Roman late republic/early empire, and there the social and economic position of a "slave" covered a vast array of specific situations, many of which were not bad at all.
Apr 13, 2018 at 21:36 history edited skout CC BY-SA 3.0
added 151 characters in body
Apr 13, 2018 at 21:33 comment added skout @Alexander, i need to add that but they are reared to be slaves.
Apr 13, 2018 at 21:33 comment added skout i speak of world history
Apr 13, 2018 at 21:17 comment added AlexP Different from "our" historical slave-based economy? Who are "we"? The only truly slave-based economy that I know of is (parts of) the late Roman republic or early Empire, and it that economy slaves could occupy a vast variety of positions from lowly farm workers hardly distinguishable from animals, to domestic help, to skilled workers (who usually made lots of money), to what would be called today junior ministers / secretaries in the government. Most usually, a society had some slaves but they were peripheral to the economy, which was mostly based on free or semi-free work.
Apr 13, 2018 at 21:15 comment added Alexander Are half-breads reared as slaves from very early age, or they may enjoy free life?
Apr 13, 2018 at 20:57 history asked skout CC BY-SA 3.0