Victoria's setting also happens after most of the transatlantic slave trade had been shut down, so it was less important to model the flow of people as a trade good than it was to model the people in the places they had been imported to as labor. With the EU5 time frame, I think this model does a much better job capturing the various ways that slavery was integrated into society.
it´s going to be almost impossible for a small african country like benin to ban french slave trade ? man who would have thought that ? yes it makes sense, it should be almost impossible for them
My full point was "if the French don't respond" It was a mechanical worry, not a realism worry. If the French don't respond, don't send an army to Benin to restore order, will the war ever end, will Benin ever be able to enforce their demands for the French to fuck off.
@@Lord_Lambert I agree in principle it should be more a "I burn this down and France gets a CB to enforce it back on me" for example. But this has problems as well so honestly it needs some debating.
I am impressed that they are bold enough to simulate the quasi omnipresent prevalence of slavery historically and its role in trade despite modern sensibilities as you say. Counting the slaves as indeed population though, sort of indirectly recognises them as people, as it should be. They also didn't try and make slavery a peculiarly or particularly European practice, which for some people in pop culture is basically how it is seen. Very dissapointed that they did not delve into any means/game dynamics you can use if role playing as a anachronistically anti slavery moral crusader (in the 14th century lol). Are there any means of granting some slaves their freedom (manumission is historical)? How is slavery tied to different estates and their political interests? When conquering new lands as say the Mongol nations, is the local population automatically enslaved or is it something you have a choice over? Etc etc.
1:40 the Mamluk official name from the 1380s onward was the state of the Circassians since the majority of slaves in the sultanate(inculding the mamluks soldiers themselves) was from there, so it makes perfectily sense, in 1337 it was called the state of the turks for the same reason
It sounds weird, but I hope that slavery will be stronger and more impactful than in EU IV. in EU IV slaves are just a decent trade good and abolishing slavery is basically a great choice as soon as you get the chance, I hope in EU V it will have a set of downsides for being very strong with a system to get bigger negatives over time when people get more sensible about it
I mean they are. Literally you cant make a profit from your colonies without slaves as it will mostly be depopulated after deseases so yeah you will make a shitone of money from them if you have plantations in america or if you are an african nation or as the mongols.
I dont know if slavery should have an outright positive or negative modifier at any point. With the depth that the economic system in eu5 will have, and population, slavery just existing should create the positive effects that it did economically in real life. As in, it provides a work force that produces prinarily agrarian goods, which allows your non enslaved population to focus more on things like consumer goods. And as industrialization comes along in the 18th century, the practice should start becoming less and less worth it, to the point it's more worth receiving the political and religious benefits of outlawing it
@@tuxtitan780but at the same time having slave populations did create massive issues for those practicing slavery as well. There is a reason that all the regions most involved in slavery are less developed, less innovative, and have more civil conflict. I feel like negative unrest, tech cost, morale of armies, influence, goods produced, development are all justified by the history of slavery. However yeah there should be positive effects that simulate why countries retained their slaves despite the negatives and should be hard to abolish
14:53 that is an absolutely wild statement. I think I get what you mean by it: the institution of slavery wasn't merely because of racism - it was even more base, namely greed. But, yes, I do think you're going to get some pushback on the literal meaning of the words you chose. Afterall, racism has probably been around for as long as humans could differentiate each other.
Racism as we know it today is a direct biproduct of the African slave trade. Prior to it, religion was seen as far more important than someone's skin colour or facial features. For example, a French catholic would've seen an Ethiopian Christian as far more civilized and human than a white Norse Viking. This is why white nationalists who romanticise a common white European history and identity are morons. The notion of race we have today is a social construct that is a direct and intentional product of European commerce and imperialism.
Yep, I have to agree. But I've seen enough of Lambert's dev diary videos to know he sometimes misspeaks. Also just from watching all of them I've never gotten the sense he's a bigot so I think it's safe to say it's up to us to be sensible and try to understand what he is trying to convey. I'll have his back at least if or when shit hits the fan 😅
Not really though. Racism as it is understood today by people who study it is a modern phenomenon because our notion of race is a modern phenomenon (modern meaning 'post 1500s'). Discrimination against others of different groups has existed for a long time, but the particular thing called racism that developed in European dominated Atlantic world is something particular. Other similar forms of discrimination have also developed in parallel and in conjunction to it as well, but 'racism', as a modern day English speaker understands it, with the cultural historical baggage of Atlantic slavery, is something that emerged alongside and as a pos-facto justification of European enslavement of Africans and Amerindians.
@@Einulf_ we're definitely on the same page with that. I heard him say it and my first thought was, "that came out very different than how it was meant." Anyone who says anything worth saying has had a few of those.
Love the confusion about the Circassian slaves. Mamluks were originally slave soldiers in the Islamic world which originated in the Caucasus mountains and Asia Minor. These slave soldiers could gain a lot of power in states like the Fatimid Caliphate (Egypt). The last Ayyubid Sultan (Saladin's dynasty) surrounded himself with Mamluk advisors. The Mamluks overthrew the Ayyubid Sultanate somewhere in the 13th century and established a new dynasty. In theory after the death of the sultan new Mamluk sultans were elected by a council of emirs and mamluks, but because of different power blocks and corruption often the new sultan was the son of the previous one.
After I finished recording I looked it up and.. well it was a memory issue. I did already know the history of the mamluks, I just forgot it in the moment. But hey, now I just look silly on a video... not the worst case scenario I guess
16:17 the (at release) part is the key. That will more than likely be part of there DLC for the future. We knew it would be something. I don't have a problem with it.
I think you did way too much tiptoeing to be honest. They were goods, thus are represented as goods, that's what happened. People in this genre are into real history, we aren't exactly modern critical theorists trying to reframe historical fact away from being "hurt" by the very idea that modern sensibilities are in fact not pre-modern.
Plenty of people thought slavery was wrong way before modern times. New England had next to no slaves by the time of the American War of Independence. Japan banned slavery in 1590. The US actually banned the Transatlantic Slave Trade in 1808 already, just not the posession of already present slaves.
I imagen if bennin declared on France to get rid of the slave center, then the war goal would be the Provence with the center. So depending on how hard it is to transport troops by sea, then bennin just needs to wait for ticking war score to tick up to 25 and peace out.
I hope they lean into the horror of the institution and cover the abolitionist movement with more detail. I never liked how paradox effectively ignored the ugly parts of history, especially in Hoi4. I think it's irresponsible and aids apologists and denialists
Couldn't agree more. You can colonise, conquer, ethnically cleanse or force convert people and send millions of men to die in wars, but apparently being faithful in at least having an event pop up say "XYZ" thing is happening, because of what your nation did is somehow too much? It's just a weird choice by Paradox
I think they'd be damned more if they didn't ignore it in Hoi4. Can you imagine if there was a focus tree for pursuing the holocaust as germany for example? They might make the news. How would you though want to model/highlight the horror of slavery in this game do you think? Maybe have events related to slave revolts or notifications of mass fatalities of slaves (in transport, due to mistreatment in harsh climates etc)?
Including the holocaust in hoi4 would attract so many more nazis to the game and aid apologists so much more than it does now, because it'd effectively be a game where they can carry our their dreams, and justify them
@@tuxtitan780 I disagree, though they'd need to be careful. I think if they show the true horror of the events, and emphasize the sheer pathetic depravity of the evil people and leaders involved, the game would be repellent to them. I think they need to show fascist leaders as weak, broken and sick humans through events, rather than allowing them to be mystified. I think the TNO mod does this well They could at the same time show the heroism of the opposing side
@@roscaris6541 Yeah I think events would useful for immersion and educating people about real events. They could have POV narratives that the player could skip or read.
modern sensibilities? cmon, this is a history simulator (as well as map painting game) where we tackle hard topics. Sure, slavery sucked but at the very least we all had to deal with it at some point or another. Berber pirates were notorious for raiding coasts in the Mediterranean and taking slaves. If you were lucky you could become a concubine of a sultan... if not... galley rower (trust me, nobody wanted to be that). In fact it happened for so long that the one of the first missions of the US Marines was to stop the berber pirates. I get that its a touchy subject but it is history. One thing i would like to see that would be more historical is not that european (or others) set up shop and started making slaves out of coastal countries. That's not quite how it went. Maybe a choice for those countries? either they fight against the invaders, or they work with them and enslave more inland peoples. That would be more historical although i could see that being difficult to do for a game.
Historically Kingdoms in african had to either go to war, become Christian or both to stop European slave raids in their lands. So it does make sense. But I think there should be a diplomatic solution as well. None should be easy to do though since the triangle trade shouldn't be a trivial part of what's going on.
From what I understand European slave raids were not common. From what I remember the Portuguese were the ones that did it most but even then it was still a decently small minority of the total Portuguese slave trade. The vast majority of the slaves taken from Africa in the Transatlantic slave trade were already slaves in Africa and were bought by what were effectively European merchants. It was much easier, quicker, and more organized to buy X number instead of sailing from village to village taking what they could find. Barbary slave raids were on a much larger scale and were direct slave raids. As for the African kingdoms they weren’t really converting to stop direct European slave raids, but were more along the lines of slaving African kingdoms would align/befriend/pseudo-ally different Europeans to dissuade other slaving African kingdoms from attacking them. The idea wasn’t that they wanted the French to stop slave raiding them but instead have the French buy the slaves the African kingdom raided for and pressure the surrounding slaving kingdoms into leaving them alone. After all the French couldn’t buy as many slaves if the people they buy slaves from keep getting turned into slaves.
Europeans generally didn't slave raid tho, not that it didn't EVER happen, but slave raids were more of an islamic or african thing- if you were an african slave in the 1500s you were most likely enslaved by another african
They should have explained how slavery intersects with rebellion risk and revolts ( think slave revolts which obviously is a historical phenomenon).Or have they already explained this elsewhere?
Fun fact, Mamluk sultans were Circassian slaves from 1382 until 1517, they were also known as 'State of the Circassians' ( see Burji Mamluks )
this is also why in eu4 you often get circassian candidates for mamluk succession
Victoria's setting also happens after most of the transatlantic slave trade had been shut down, so it was less important to model the flow of people as a trade good than it was to model the people in the places they had been imported to as labor. With the EU5 time frame, I think this model does a much better job capturing the various ways that slavery was integrated into society.
it´s going to be almost impossible for a small african country like benin to ban french slave trade ? man who would have thought that ? yes it makes sense, it should be almost impossible for them
My full point was "if the French don't respond"
It was a mechanical worry, not a realism worry.
If the French don't respond, don't send an army to Benin to restore order, will the war ever end, will Benin ever be able to enforce their demands for the French to fuck off.
@@Lord_Lambert I agree in principle it should be more a "I burn this down and France gets a CB to enforce it back on me" for example.
But this has problems as well so honestly it needs some debating.
I am impressed that they are bold enough to simulate the quasi omnipresent prevalence of slavery historically and its role in trade despite modern sensibilities as you say. Counting the slaves as indeed population though, sort of indirectly recognises them as people, as it should be. They also didn't try and make slavery a peculiarly or particularly European practice, which for some people in pop culture is basically how it is seen.
Very dissapointed that they did not delve into any means/game dynamics you can use if role playing as a anachronistically anti slavery moral crusader (in the 14th century lol). Are there any means of granting some slaves their freedom (manumission is historical)? How is slavery tied to different estates and their political interests? When conquering new lands as say the Mongol nations, is the local population automatically enslaved or is it something you have a choice over? Etc etc.
They're finally willing to model the trans-atlantic slave trade somewhat properly. What does this say about HOI 5?
1:40 the Mamluk official name from the 1380s onward was the state of the Circassians since the majority of slaves in the sultanate(inculding the mamluks soldiers themselves) was from there, so it makes perfectily sense, in 1337 it was called the state of the turks for the same reason
Time to see what changes theyve made (from eu4 and imperator)
It sounds weird, but I hope that slavery will be stronger and more impactful than in EU IV. in EU IV slaves are just a decent trade good and abolishing slavery is basically a great choice as soon as you get the chance, I hope in EU V it will have a set of downsides for being very strong with a system to get bigger negatives over time when people get more sensible about it
I mean they are. Literally you cant make a profit from your colonies without slaves as it will mostly be depopulated after deseases so yeah you will make a shitone of money from them if you have plantations in america or if you are an african nation or as the mongols.
I dont know if slavery should have an outright positive or negative modifier at any point. With the depth that the economic system in eu5 will have, and population, slavery just existing should create the positive effects that it did economically in real life. As in, it provides a work force that produces prinarily agrarian goods, which allows your non enslaved population to focus more on things like consumer goods. And as industrialization comes along in the 18th century, the practice should start becoming less and less worth it, to the point it's more worth receiving the political and religious benefits of outlawing it
@@tuxtitan780 spot on mate
@@tuxtitan780but at the same time having slave populations did create massive issues for those practicing slavery as well. There is a reason that all the regions most involved in slavery are less developed, less innovative, and have more civil conflict. I feel like negative unrest, tech cost, morale of armies, influence, goods produced, development are all justified by the history of slavery. However yeah there should be positive effects that simulate why countries retained their slaves despite the negatives and should be hard to abolish
6:50 makes sense pirates didn't exactly stay long in the same place wether they plundered it or not
14:53 that is an absolutely wild statement. I think I get what you mean by it: the institution of slavery wasn't merely because of racism - it was even more base, namely greed. But, yes, I do think you're going to get some pushback on the literal meaning of the words you chose. Afterall, racism has probably been around for as long as humans could differentiate each other.
Racism as we know it today is a direct biproduct of the African slave trade. Prior to it, religion was seen as far more important than someone's skin colour or facial features. For example, a French catholic would've seen an Ethiopian Christian as far more civilized and human than a white Norse Viking. This is why white nationalists who romanticise a common white European history and identity are morons.
The notion of race we have today is a social construct that is a direct and intentional product of European commerce and imperialism.
Yep, I have to agree. But I've seen enough of Lambert's dev diary videos to know he sometimes misspeaks. Also just from watching all of them I've never gotten the sense he's a bigot so I think it's safe to say it's up to us to be sensible and try to understand what he is trying to convey.
I'll have his back at least if or when shit hits the fan 😅
Not really though. Racism as it is understood today by people who study it is a modern phenomenon because our notion of race is a modern phenomenon (modern meaning 'post 1500s'). Discrimination against others of different groups has existed for a long time, but the particular thing called racism that developed in European dominated Atlantic world is something particular. Other similar forms of discrimination have also developed in parallel and in conjunction to it as well, but 'racism', as a modern day English speaker understands it, with the cultural historical baggage of Atlantic slavery, is something that emerged alongside and as a pos-facto justification of European enslavement of Africans and Amerindians.
@@Einulf_ we're definitely on the same page with that. I heard him say it and my first thought was, "that came out very different than how it was meant." Anyone who says anything worth saying has had a few of those.
I would rephrase his statement just slightly as, "racism existed alongside slavery, rather than enslaving being done only because of racism"
8:55 burning a tradepost of a european power, really looks like a declaration of war ....
No thumbnail with Johans face today? lol.
It felt a little... iffy to put his face on that image.
Love the confusion about the Circassian slaves.
Mamluks were originally slave soldiers in the Islamic world which originated in the Caucasus mountains and Asia Minor. These slave soldiers could gain a lot of power in states like the Fatimid Caliphate (Egypt). The last Ayyubid Sultan (Saladin's dynasty) surrounded himself with Mamluk advisors.
The Mamluks overthrew the Ayyubid Sultanate somewhere in the 13th century and established a new dynasty. In theory after the death of the sultan new Mamluk sultans were elected by a council of emirs and mamluks, but because of different power blocks and corruption often the new sultan was the son of the previous one.
After I finished recording I looked it up and.. well it was a memory issue. I did already know the history of the mamluks, I just forgot it in the moment. But hey, now I just look silly on a video... not the worst case scenario I guess
I think they clearly mean greatest literally to mean size. Like greatest extent.
undoubtedly
14:55 Not pushback, but a reading recommendation for understanding the emergence of contemporary (Anglo)-Atlantic notions of race: Colin Kidd
16:17 the (at release) part is the key. That will more than likely be part of there DLC for the future. We knew it would be something. I don't have a problem with it.
I think you did way too much tiptoeing to be honest. They were goods, thus are represented as goods, that's what happened. People in this genre are into real history, we aren't exactly modern critical theorists trying to reframe historical fact away from being "hurt" by the very idea that modern sensibilities are in fact not pre-modern.
Plenty of people thought slavery was wrong way before modern times. New England had next to no slaves by the time of the American War of Independence. Japan banned slavery in 1590. The US actually banned the Transatlantic Slave Trade in 1808 already, just not the posession of already present slaves.
I imagen if bennin declared on France to get rid of the slave center, then the war goal would be the Provence with the center. So depending on how hard it is to transport troops by sea, then bennin just needs to wait for ticking war score to tick up to 25 and peace out.
I highly recommend Epic history channel 2 episodes on Abbasids Capliphate if you want to know why Mamluks came from so far north.
Big fan of that channel, I will do. Thanks.
I hope they lean into the horror of the institution and cover the abolitionist movement with more detail. I never liked how paradox effectively ignored the ugly parts of history, especially in Hoi4. I think it's irresponsible and aids apologists and denialists
Couldn't agree more. You can colonise, conquer, ethnically cleanse or force convert people and send millions of men to die in wars, but apparently being faithful in at least having an event pop up say "XYZ" thing is happening, because of what your nation did is somehow too much? It's just a weird choice by Paradox
I think they'd be damned more if they didn't ignore it in Hoi4. Can you imagine if there was a focus tree for pursuing the holocaust as germany for example? They might make the news.
How would you though want to model/highlight the horror of slavery in this game do you think? Maybe have events related to slave revolts or notifications of mass fatalities of slaves (in transport, due to mistreatment in harsh climates etc)?
Including the holocaust in hoi4 would attract so many more nazis to the game and aid apologists so much more than it does now, because it'd effectively be a game where they can carry our their dreams, and justify them
@@tuxtitan780 I disagree, though they'd need to be careful. I think if they show the true horror of the events, and emphasize the sheer pathetic depravity of the evil people and leaders involved, the game would be repellent to them. I think they need to show fascist leaders as weak, broken and sick humans through events, rather than allowing them to be mystified. I think the TNO mod does this well
They could at the same time show the heroism of the opposing side
@@roscaris6541 Yeah I think events would useful for immersion and educating people about real events. They could have POV narratives that the player could skip or read.
Finally, the good stuff.
Nice video dude!
Slave meta when Lambert?
The Mamluk nobility were Circassian slaves
modern sensibilities? cmon, this is a history simulator (as well as map painting game) where we tackle hard topics. Sure, slavery sucked but at the very least we all had to deal with it at some point or another. Berber pirates were notorious for raiding coasts in the Mediterranean and taking slaves. If you were lucky you could become a concubine of a sultan... if not... galley rower (trust me, nobody wanted to be that). In fact it happened for so long that the one of the first missions of the US Marines was to stop the berber pirates.
I get that its a touchy subject but it is history. One thing i would like to see that would be more historical is not that european (or others) set up shop and started making slaves out of coastal countries. That's not quite how it went. Maybe a choice for those countries? either they fight against the invaders, or they work with them and enslave more inland peoples. That would be more historical although i could see that being difficult to do for a game.
Historically Kingdoms in african had to either go to war, become Christian or both to stop European slave raids in their lands. So it does make sense. But I think there should be a diplomatic solution as well. None should be easy to do though since the triangle trade shouldn't be a trivial part of what's going on.
From what I understand European slave raids were not common. From what I remember the Portuguese were the ones that did it most but even then it was still a decently small minority of the total Portuguese slave trade. The vast majority of the slaves taken from Africa in the Transatlantic slave trade were already slaves in Africa and were bought by what were effectively European merchants. It was much easier, quicker, and more organized to buy X number instead of sailing from village to village taking what they could find.
Barbary slave raids were on a much larger scale and were direct slave raids.
As for the African kingdoms they weren’t really converting to stop direct European slave raids, but were more along the lines of slaving African kingdoms would align/befriend/pseudo-ally different Europeans to dissuade other slaving African kingdoms from attacking them.
The idea wasn’t that they wanted the French to stop slave raiding them but instead have the French buy the slaves the African kingdom raided for and pressure the surrounding slaving kingdoms into leaving them alone. After all the French couldn’t buy as many slaves if the people they buy slaves from keep getting turned into slaves.
Europeans generally didn't slave raid tho, not that it didn't EVER happen, but slave raids were more of an islamic or african thing- if you were an african slave in the 1500s you were most likely enslaved by another african
Damn
1:25 mostly gone from Europe, so "gypsie slavery" in the Danubian principalities?
mostly = not 100%
Hence mostly.
They should have explained how slavery intersects with rebellion risk and revolts ( think slave revolts which obviously is a historical phenomenon).Or have they already explained this elsewhere?
Slave revolt was not that common, very rare on a large scale in the EU5 time frame.....
Wow
Please add racism in eu5🙏🙏
Greatest slave trade ever 😅