Slave soldiers

>Slave soldiers

How does that even work? Why should not the slaves desert or rebel at the first opportunity

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_and_Porcian_laws#Porcian_laws
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Mameluks
>Janissaries

>How does that even work
Badly. Ask egyptian caliphs. What started out as slave soldier class eventually grew too strong, overthrew their masters and became Egypt's new rulers.
And this is far from the only case of mamluks doing that.

Slavery just means they don't get paid and are held in bondage. That doesn't mean they're in the worst case scenario.

With adequate food for slave soldiers during a famine, you'd see plenty of free people willingly submitting themselves to slavery.

Slave soldiers are usually taken by an early age, indoctrinated. They are also not realy treated like shit like you probably imagine.

Similiarly to mamluks, Janissaries also soon grew too influential and rebellious. Don't do slave soldiers, guys, it never works out well in the long run.

After all, why would you treat your soldiers like shit, whether they're free men or not? You need them strong, able to fight.

Magical brainwashing

The Romans did slave soldiers pretty well, actually.

>Take slave
>tell them if they fight in the army that their family becomes citizens

You give them inferior weaponry and put them between your enemies and your own, better equipped troops.

The Soviets managed to make it work on a short term basis with penal battalions.

What you could perhaps do is make all the soldiers slaves, but make the officers natives. Or make the slaves really shitty soldiers that only exist to catch arrows for the real army. These slaves would be screening troops with shields, javelins, shortswords, helmets and if they're lucky some kind of armor. They'll probably die before even getting any thoughts of rebelling.

Didn't they also assassinate a sultan or two? Or am i thinking of the Praetorian Guard

This sounds retarded. Do you imagine the expenses of feeding a gigantic army of slaves that you don't even intend to live very long? And it has to be big, to compensate shitty training and weapons.

Screening troops are a thing in warfare, and have been a thing since ancient times. An army is always expensive, true, but cheap screens are easier to replace than hardened elites.

Where would they even run to?

The important thing is to treat them just well enough to stay subordinate.

>How does that even work? Why should not the slaves desert or rebel at the first opportunity

They're slaves in that they're owned by the state.

However, you have to realize the relatively shitty conditions and "free people" usually live in. A slave soldier would often have a better education, more authority/protections, a nicer standard of living, and greater political influence than the majority of free people.

And since social mobility wasn't much of a thing back in those days, you had parents wiling offer their kids to be slave soldiers as they knew it meant a better life than working on someone's farm.

But it's not like there weren't rebellions or issues with morale and the like. Also, as your population gets wealthier/more educated/capable, they become more viable options for recruitment. Some of the many reasons why more and more military forces over the millennia turned to all volunteer professional soldiers.

Have them not be treated like shit, but do be sure to have them be the first wave (either defending or attacking) while your actual dudes do the actual killing.
Also have a group of actual dudes behind the slaves to force them to push forwards.

Wrong solution.

You make your slaves lives MORE comfortable than the poor classes you "recruit" them from.

>expect to die and hate your life
REBEL
>comfier life than before, maybe you won't die
"hmm this is okay"

Through most of history poor people generally barely have enough to eat so to get your slaves not to rebel they really just need to be fed enough and not treated too harshly.

>This sounds retarded. Do you imagine the expenses of feeding a gigantic army of slaves that you don't even intend to live very long? And it has to be big, to compensate shitty training and weapons.

There's definitely an ideal ratio that you want to strive towards but can't because of various constraints.

But a farmer with a pointed stick costs WAY less in so many ways than an elite soldier in a way that it in many ways offsets the fact that dozens of peasants consume more bread and water than a single elite soldier.

Nothing ever works out in the long run. Seriously, if you just want something interesting for a setting, don't avoid it because 'it's not practical in the long term.'

Bunch of attempts, one or two successes. Most famous one is the murder of Genç (young) Osman. They even raped the poor kid.

Mamluks led Egypt for 250 years.

Slave soldiers are a privileged class above the society, have a strong sense of superiority and a quality of live superior to their neighbours.

They are also the property of their sultan/emperor/caliph, can be to put to death and their property seized on a whim. It's actualy not an uncommon situation.

Every person in the Ottoman empire was a slave of the sultan, so we can say that every soldier was a slave in the Ottoman army. Being a slave isn't the defining aspect of the Janissaries. They were almost always taken from non Muslim families (though there were restrictions, for example a single child of a family wouldn't be taken. And only one in forty houses would give a child). Smart ones were sent to the palace to take education and would be commanders and even viziers, normal ones would be trained as soldiers.
But they weren't the most important part of the army. Janissaries were at the center, 'sipahi's were the aides of the formation. And most of the army was made of sipahi's. Unlike Janissaries 'sipahi's were muslim and weren't taken from their families.

>Janissaries
Did you forget the part where the Janissaries were wiped out by a mentally handicapped man?

The promise of citizenship.

Literally this.

>be slave soldier
>day consist of training with bros, eating with bros and banging whores with bros
>then we go to war
>fight with bros, rape&pillage with bros, party hard when we win.
>dont have the option to quit cus slave soldier
yep sure sucks not being a free mudfarmer.

The army used to take over the government all the time in the pre-modern world. The lesson is not that slave armies don't work, but that slave armies are functionally not much different than armies made of citizens or nobles.

"Slave" just means a person who is "owned" by someone else, but what that entails in practice varies enormously. A "slave" who manages a castle for his emperor, sleeps in a large bedroom, wears fine clothing, eats good food, and trains to be an effective soldier replete with the best armour money can buy is not really in the same social arrangement as a cotton picker in Alabama.

Additionally its worth noting that both Mameluks and Janissaries started out not just as slave soldiers but as non-Muslim soldiers too. This meant that it was much more difficult for them to exert political influence over the Muslim countries they defended than had they been practicing Muslims themselves and the Mameluks of Egypt took over the Caliphate not long after they converted.

Mameluks and Janissaries were also drawn from foreign peoples. Janissaries were often Greek and the Mameluks of Egypt were originally from places as far north as modern day Russia.

Slave armies are a good way for strong central powers to lower the status of their de facto military elite. Just don't get caught up on the idea of them being this abused underclass unless you have some sort of magical explanation for why the people with the military power and coordination to overthrow governments don't overthrow a government that is treating them like garbage.

There are still lots of interesting stories to tell about slave armies though. The disconnect between the low status they are supposed to have and the privileges that (as a warrior class) they are likely to enjoy in practice is a great source of conflict. For a declining aristocracy or a malcontent populace a pampered army of slaves could easily be a symbol of how the proper social order has been turned on its head.

>Every person in the Ottoman empire was a slave of the sultan

That's actually not true, only the janissaries and officials were slaves, others were either free men or slaves to free men.

So being a slave was a defining trait of the janissaries, at least up until the 19th or so.

Sparta used Helots as troops to deal with manpower shortages, particularly towards the end.

This is different situation because you're using slave soldiers to supplement a larger force. Helot society seemed to be pretty well developed in its own right as well, with helots having families and separate settlements and so on. So I guess you could say that some slave soldiers are more like auxiliaries in the Roman Empire or colonial troops of the European empires.

Being a slave soldier is not much different from getting drafted into a modern military.

When you get drafted, you go back to your ordinary life in a year or two.

Also, you get paid and you can expect pretty decent treatment, as well as advancement options. A conscripted soldier is a citizen first and foremost.

Not when the military offers more opportunities than you would otherwise have, as they often do.

>you can expect pretty decent treatment

...lulwut? That only holds true for a very small amount of nations that have used conscription in the modern era, and even then, only over a small timeframe.

1, annex new place, fortify with own troops

2, start conscripting/taxing young local men to your auxilia, depriving rebellions of fuel

3. send them somewhere far of to serve as security, not being local will lessen the chances of mutiny, xenophobia is a grat divider

4, make them serve for 10 years, mandatory , before they are manumitted, during this time teach them war and the many benefits of your rule and culture

5, once manumitted, offer them employment as a paid soldier, 10 more years gets them citizenship and a plot of land,reward loyal service


this serves to deprive budding revolts of young men to serve as fodder, and nets auxilia to police other less recently conquered lands plus trained soldiers/citizens later

>What are Skaven?

>Do you imagine the expenses of feeding a gigantic army of slaves that you don't even intend to live very long?
Cheaper than feeding a lot of good equipped troops good food (to keep up morale) for a long time.

Cannon fodder.

>Why should not the slaves desert or rebel at the first opportunity

They should, and they almost always do. Slave armies are terrible idea.

>Didn't they also assassinate a sultan or two?
If we're talking Mamluks then the overwhelming majority. It was really common for a Mamluk Sultan to be murdered by one of his Emirs. Baybars is famous for dying at age 54, which is the equivalent of Lemmy dying at 70.

>Slav soldiers

How does that even work? Why should not the slavs get drunk or sell their gear at a pawn shop at the first opportunity

It's just a good idea to not have elite bodyguards.

>They should, and they almost always do. Slav armies are terrible idea comrade

Russia's greatest weapon has always been how cold, empty, impoverished, barbaric and disease-ridden it is.

conscripts still get paid

Up until the Napoleonic wars part of the appeal of using the Cossacks is that the local russian peasantry looked at conscription as being functionally the same as a death sentence.

the other part of the appeal was that they're considered a different ethnic group from "normal" russians.

This works especially well in a place like Rome where being born in the empire isn't automatic citizenship.

Ancient slavery is not the same as 18th century chattel slavery. In the ancient world, slavery was often a, possibly even voluntary, way to pay off debt, like indentured servitude. So not all slave soldiers have to be the Unsullied.

>This works especially well in a place with common sense

>get a snappy uniform
>pay
>status
>training
>purpose
>brotherhood
>Have top-tier logistics support to the degree where Janissaries on deployment ate much better than the average western European
I mean, "being a slave" sucks, but what else are you going to do?

>So not all slave soldiers have to be the Unsullied.

And technically speaking, the Night's Watch are slave soldiers. It's not like the majority of them chose to be there, or can just voluntarily walk away without consequence. It's a lifetime gig. They don't get paid for their services either and have to do whatever their superiors order them to.

How did they even know who was a citizen and who wasn't?

I presume they'd have some kind of document proving their Roman citizenship. It was kind of a big deal because it included the ability to vote or be voted for, as well as exemption from the death penalty.

The empire went to shit after every Germanic dindu who squatted down west of the Rhine could call himself a Roman.

Despite being slaves those had more benefits than your average man. So most were ok with being technically slaves.

??????

Auxiliaries weren't slaves. They weren't Roman citizens, but they gained citizenship at the end of their service.

ON THE CONTRARY, the whole Roman society went ballistic on the idea of "armed slaves", with arena fighters being an exception. The "slave rebellion" trope was a typical horror story for the Roman higher classes. Slaves were armed just in the direst emergency.

Auxiliaries, again, aren't slaves: they are a vehicle for the romanization of subject peoples: furthermore, auxiliaries aren't "allied peoples" (Germanic meatshields or Arab allies) that contributed troops to the Roman war machine.

Where the heck did you find the idea that Romans had slave soldiers?

>exemption from the death penalty.
What? No I'm pretty sure that is not true. Just read the 12 tables.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_and_Porcian_laws#Porcian_laws

Perhaps I phrased it wrong. A Roman citizen could turn his death sentence into a voluntary exile.

What the heck. Roman citizens could be executed: they even had the luxury of being decapitated (a more "honourable" way to go).

What the heck guys, what's happening

exemption from crucifixion for 500 points

>be a slave
>do menial work
>get food and shelter
>never leave the city or kingdom because no freedom

>be a freeman
>do menial work
>get money for food and shelter
>never leave the city or kingdom because my work is here

I don't think they gave a shit about being slaves, OP.

>as well as exemption from the death penalty.
meh, I'm not a native english speaker, I understood what he meant.
IIRC, there was a similar english law effective until the very recent years, that one of british citizenship could not be hung for capital offenses like highway robbery unless you were absolutely sure. otherwise it'd be a lifetime exile or deportation or whatever the legal term is to australia. or just lifetime jail.

Peasants lived shitty lifes too, some rebelled and some didn't.

every war is fought by people marching into a meatgrinder for very little reward. people like to pretend they are individualistic but in actuality they are a retarded hive mind and most people will do anything they are told.

>bringing up GoT in a historical thread

commit sudoku

don't give those autistic gotfaggots attention, its what they live for

>a more "honourable" way to go
Not so much more honorable, but a lot less painful considering the alternative was crucifixion.

What most people dont get is that slaves in the east (where this was common) were not extremely mistreaded like your stereotypical slave used in the americas, it's a system which allowed slaves to be influential and be well treated, in that system the existence of slave doctors and lawyers., so Slave warriors like the Janissaries and Mamluks were normally really pampered and well treated

>They even raped the poor kid
Really? Haven't found a source on that one, unless I'm looking at teh wrong Genc Osman.

They may start out as elite bodyguards, but the problem is that they end up as the secret police

And god forbid you get a honest man in office. That a recipe for an assassination, and then a throne auction.

You treat some of the slaves well and have them enforce compliance.

>What most people dont get is that slaves in the east (where this was common) were not extremely mistreaded like your stereotypical slave used in the americas

I like how you cited your sources when making such a retarded claim

You do realize slaves were treated in a variety of ways throughout history, and that each individual slaving culture was usually pretty different, right?

if this is a fantasy world, just use mind control magic or curse them to never disobey you

Not if they're dead.

I wasn't bringing it up in a historic context, but in a "peoples' perception of what is/isn't a slave soldier". A lot of people think it's like GoT Unsullied or some BS.

>You do realize slaves were treated in a variety of ways throughout history, and that each individual slaving culture was usually pretty different, right?

Stop trying to make me feel guilty for being white!

Skaven are rat people from the Warhammer Fantasy setting. All Skaven models are males, with Broodmothers being females. The females are stupid and used only to spawn new Skaven to fight and conquer.

what?

The world was a lot smaller back then, you could feasible know all the citizens in a city that wasn't Rome. Anyone claiming to be a citizen probably just was, and could be verified by word of mouth. The only place voting mattered was in Rome, and the structure of everyone into class-blocks meant a couple hundred poor fake voters didn't really mean anything in the grand scheme. Citizen was certainly important, and they kept records on it, but it wasn't all-important to be exacting about it.

>Unsullied in the show.
>Wear really fucking awful leather armor and poke people with spears.
>BEST OF THE BEST
I guess slave soldiers are just better?

The Janissaries went to shit once they stopped being exclusively recruited from Christian children. When they were exclusively a "foreign" element, they had no place in politics or society outside of being bodyguards and soldiers.

Same argument can be said for any conscript force, but that rarely stops nations from using them.

The OP picture is literally of the Unsullied from GoT. It's pretty fucking on topic, user.

Even in the books that was brought up. They don't have the strength, stamina, or necessarily even the skill of other soldiers.
But they will always, ALWAYS fight to the last man if commanded.

That's really their only useful characteristic: following orders to the letter. No hesitation or fear, just doing what they're told. If GoT didn't also have wights, I'd have called the Unsullied Martin's take on an undead army.

By making them slaves to a Dark God

it's all about context. Persian Immortals were some of the best warriors of their era and fought with wicker shields, bronze scale armor, wooden spears

>come to my brother
veni fratrer is all you need

cuz game of thrones lol!@!!!!!!

You do realize he still didn't post any sources at all, right?

>Rome
>Common sense

The "taken from non Muslim families" part was eventually dropped. Muslim families lobbied to get their children made into jannisaries, too.

After they grew decadent and blocking modernization attempts.

Even the most cursory of searches will find you articles talking about the range of ways slaves were treated in the middle east, and the differing rules on how to acquire slaves.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Similar searches will find you differing treatment by the ancient greeks based on legal status rather than race.
Different groups of people did slavery with different techniques and levels of harshness and different categories of what does and does not make a slave. This is such an incredibly basic trait of humanity that I am quite frankly baffled at how you didn't know it already. How you came to the idea that all these entirely independent legal structures had the same idea as to how slavery was to be orchestrated is a complete mystery.

The code of hammurabi goes into detail on how any babies made with a slave woman by the owner would become free, as opposed to enslaved as per certain western styles of slavery. I can't even say all styles of western slavery because it's such a varied and non-homogenous activity, given the legal and logistical issues have to be solved by each group doing the slaving.

Give them first class education, their own variation of your religion, good accommodation, pay them well, give them positions according to merit. And make it clear all that is gone should they rebel.

>Spaniards in the Americas
>pretty much any muslim policy with access to the Black Sea and the Caucasus region

It works by not having an economy built on torturing slaves.

The only slaves with arms in Rome were gladiators, bodyguards, private police forces and rebels.

A chance at upward mobility I suppose?

>How does that even work?
it generally doesn't.

It worked for america during WW2.
Any kind of drafting activity could easily be described as a defined period of enslavement.