
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Tiny Human Ferret wrote: > > R. Steve Walz wrote: > > > > Look, I loved Latin and studied it for 5 years, but Rome was the > > ultimate feudalism, with as many as 2/3rds slaves as its residents. > > Steve > > The origins of Feudalism as we had it in the Dark Ages was when the > Romans -- mostly in the Empire in the East, originally -- declared that > even free citizens must enter the trades and occupations of their > fathers, couldn't travel farther from their tax-collector than a certain > distance, etc. In effect, the free citizens became slaves in all but > name. At the height of the Republic slavery was comparatively rare, and > as the form of government was exchanged to that of a monarchy and the > empire expanded, so did slavery, after all one of the main economic > factors in the Empire was the constant stream of slaves returned to the > capital from the newly conquered provinces. > > The argument is easily made that one of the reasons that there was so > little advance in development of mechanism was that it was far cheaper > to expend slaves than to develop machines. Once the empire was in its > final collapse and the plagues swept through, there weren't even enough > people to keep any of the survivors in bondage, and with such > desperation for manpower combining with such a superfluity of metals > just lying about, development of mechanism wasn't just economically > viable, but essential to make up for the lack of labor. And with so many > minds free to think towards solving their own problems, rather than > being crushed under some assigned drudgery, of course the Renaissance > followed.. Recognize that you are talking *White_People* here. A few thouzand milez to the South, no effortz whatzoever were made to advance what pazzed for civilization among the DAFNbongo SpearChuckerz... to the
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |