In terms of how badly they treated their slaves. I know that barbarians and nomads took slaves but their children would be free, and they often granted freedom if the slaves behaved well.
Romans and greeks fucked, whipped and forced slaves into heavy labour.
The ottomans and other muslim states used slaves as soldiers and castrated them.
There are others I don't know of, so which nation treated slaves the worst? Also was slave breeding a thing and did it ever make up a country's economy?
Other urls found in this thread:
etymonline.com
timesofisrael.com
twitter.com
Southern united states
Castrating your slaves would be a huge waste of lives, I highly doubt that the common slave got castrated in bigger quantities.
Eunuchs usually had either important tasks like watching over a harem (in islamic nations) besides other political duties, or they got used as musicians when their voices were good for singing.
Source would be appreciated if I'm wrong
Historical slave maltreatment is a meme. It's in your best interest to take care of your own property.
Castrating soldiers seems to be like a horrible idea as well.
yeah probably the ottomans or some arab kingdom
just take a look at how they treat "foreign workers" today
To be perfectly fair for most of their history they didn't practice chattel slavery which was a western innovation.
that is simply not true
what are you doing here when you're not even trying to appear credible when it comes to historical facts, just go to /b/
The word "Slave" literally comes from "Slav" so the people selling Slavs into slavery.
/int/ tier bait
PL-GR user
Historically i don't know when to start.
In recent years some Hillybilly Farmer-gangsters in Pelloponese held many syrian-bangla-pakistani slaves for farmwork + you have literally endless amounts of forced prostitution.
Are you sure? Because if it does, the meaning is stupid. Slav is originating from glory in Russian. Anyone who compares slavs, to slavs is stupid. True slavs are the Ukrainian and polish, who fight for their heritage and land. The bastards are the russians.
I am a slav and i confirm this. It had to do with the northern europe crusades.
Funny huh...
Being a fish does not mean that you know shit about the ocean
Check out the Northern Europe crusades.
>be serb boy
>get taken into slavery
>become grand vizier
>restores the serbian church and installs his brother as patriarch
>holds highest positions in the ottoman government for 24 years, and sees 3 sultans come and go
the berbers and ottomans
and the africans ofcourse, as they still have slavery
...
Every man and woman has the will to act on their own. Therefore only the weak allow themselves to become the enslaved.
please, those pickaninnies had it pretty good
They were actually quite mild for American standards.
The Portuguese in Brazil and the French in Saint-Domingue were much, much worse.
>get turk buttfuq'd your whole life
>kid peepee gets cut off
No, he's right - if you check the entymology slav does come from slave
etymonline.com
When I first heard this, I thought it was stupid too.
This.
>I buy a cat/dog
>It's my property so I spend the time torturing and beating it
Now of course there are some deranged pet owners like that but a vast najority doesn't mistreat them. Same applied to slave owners.
Other way around retard. Slave comes from Slav.
>Slavs share same root word as slaves
yeah GTFO with your MEMEtionary
Janissaries were not castrated. They were originally just not allowed to have children inherit their property.
I'm pretty sure that meme came from John Green.
As for the former, i can neither confirm nor deny, as i don't have sources.
>MEMEtionary
Ooh Yuri coming in with the sick diss
Mongolians. Asians tend to be extremely cruel.
Nah, that meme has been around a lot longer than John Green, I read a book about an ex-jannisary 10 years ago and they allready talked about it.
you're not relying on your cat/dog to make you money and keep your margins high.
That's what makes owning a slave different from owning a pet.
arabs
a cat/dog is not the same as a work horse
central asians and turkic peoples
and that's why alexander destroyed persepolis: because persians did not mutilate their greek slaves
I can't confirm for worst, but the Native southern Americans used by the Spanish in the mines had pretty rough deal.
the traffic of slaves from Africa to south america started because the indios could not deal with the amount of work, they rather an hero instead of going to the mines.
NTG but it still doesn't help your margins to starve a workhorse or beat it half to death.
>implying the vast majority of pet owners aren't neglectful shits and sustain their animals on a diet of dry kibble, move out and don't take their pets so they become strays and end up in my backyard
if they were slaves at least they'd have some economic advantages to keeping them
Yeah so you won't mutilate someone who you need to be healthy and fit to work, unless you're a fucking retard.
>huge waste of lives
There's a country full of potential slaves next door you dummy
>Yeah so you won't mutilate someone who you need to be healthy and fit to work, unless you're a fucking retard.
Which is why they invented the whip. The kind of injuries it causes are superficial flesh wounds, but the pain they inflict is excruciating because long-term slavery is only really practical when slaves are kept in a state of perpetual terror and fear of punishment. You have to crush their spirits and keep them crushed or they start to slack off or get rebellious.
>Mutilate Greek slaves
Is that yet another one Persians did that coincidentally just got Greek sources to it?
Look at the history of horse ownership. Many were treated like absolute shit. You only see the pretty ones in movies.
>build bridge that joins bosnia and serbia
>book is written, showing this bridge as a symbol of unity and friendship between muslims and christians
>ethnic cleansing is done on said bridge, with serbs murdering bosniaks
The Arabs. Holy shit, they really fucked Africa.
>castrate all the males
>sell all the females into sex slavery
what did they do
Turns out paying your slaves was better motivation than the whip.
>When I first read that slaves were paid overtime, I was convinced I had read that wrong. Since a master could whip a slave to make him work, why would he pay them instead? If the planter was going to pay his workers, why did he need slaves?
>Slaves leased by their owners were more often paid a bonus or overtime, if not paid a piece-rate. Since someone who leased a slave was liable if the slave was killed or injured, whippings were (somewhat) limited. But, owners often paid their own slaves overtime, suggesting that some owners understood that rewards motivated their slaves better than punishment.
>Slaves working in forestry, mining, and industry were often paid a piece-rate, with a bonus for exceeding the quota. Frederick Law Olmstead toured the eastern seaboard on the eve of the Civil War and reported that slaves in tobacco factories, forestry, and mining earned "over-wages."
>Even slaves working in agriculture were sometimes paid a bonus, especially during the harvest when more work was required. By custom and law, slaves were not required to work on Sunday. If slaves worked for their owner or for someone else, they would be paid.
The laws:
Rice v. Cade, 10 La. 288, 294-5 (1836)
>"According to the provisions of law, slaves are entitled to the produce of their labor on Sunday; even the master is bound to remunerate them, if he employs them. He, therefore, who does not require their services on that day, and does not retain them on his plantation, impliedly permits them to earn money by their labor, and cannot complain of their being employed by his neighbors."
Arabian slave trade was pretty despicable
>implying there's anything wrong with killing mudslimes
Europeans in the Caribbean
Belgium.
Jewish enslavement of slavs.
Islamic nations, especially Saudi Arabia, are still engaged in sex slavery. Saud royal family buying (unwilling) slaves, some sourced in Eastern and Western Europe, is real.
Runner-up is Israel, believe it or not.
timesofisrael.com
And they have been doing it since time immemorial.
>European slaving nations always ended up with their slaves entering society as equals.
>Arabs realized they could avoid that if they just chopped their dicks off.
That pic is wrong. Sclavus doesn't come from clavus, it comes from the Byzantine Greek Sclabos/Sclaboi (itself a mis-transliteration of what the Slavs called themselves). Sclavus is also a Medieval Latin term (obvious since it comes from Medieval Greek), the classical Latin term for slave was servus.
Plantations in the Carribean
Oh you're one of those faggots.
Here you go
Atleast in islamic nations slaves had higher prospects than plucking cotton for the rest of their lives.
Also eunuchs were in very small numbers most slaves became soldiers and shit depending on the dynasty.
Belgians in the Congo Free State I think
So was slave breeding a thing?
Should I make another thread about it?
>giving weapons and military education to slave
what could go wrong?
Categorically false, it derived from the "Inclavus". Medieval authors have had a tendency of misreading the letter "I" for "S", due to letters sharing a near-identical form.
The Wends were enslaved, but merely disarmed and brought into Christian fold.
Not at all, the missing link in that image is the word "Inclavus", between "clavus" and "inclavare". Although it's true that many Slavs were enslaved in the Early Middle Ages, because they weren't members of the "Societas Christiana", which made them fair game.
"Slav" should begin with a capital letter.
>You can't go a single day into the release of any consumer electronics product without dozens of videos of people breaking them on Youtube.
>Implying people wouldn't take their anger out on slaves.
>Insinuating people wouldn't rape slave women.
>Inferring people couldn't keep slaves unless under duress.
>Insinuating slave societies in which owners were closer to their slaves weren't even more extreme, because being a "master" became an intangible part of a slave owner's identity.