This way you get them young enough to train them and keep the docile. Isn't it easier to raid a few nearby villages, than vanquish an enemy. You can't keep on getting new slaves every time one dies.Įven the US of A realised eventually that slaves were human being too, but did things really change when slavery was abolished.? It's an investment made, that can't be ignored. A living slave had value, a dead one was worth nothing. When ruling a province or a kingdom or an empire you had to take the slaves into account. Okay, probably they weren't considered citizens, but they were still part of the populace. If you look at the wonderful pictures on the inside of Egyptian tombs, the grave gifts showing artisans, peasants, farmers and fishermen, you'll see that Egyptian 'citizen's' came from all levels of society. Dumbo got wearly after a while -another pop-up afterwards for winning would not be better. Slaves can also be bought through the slave trade, but they're prohibitively expensive and limited in number both to buy and people who can afford to buy them from your city. This would be gravely ahistorical for the egyptian period.

When the number of slaves taken is determined by battle, I can easily see people sacrificing their own soldiers in an effort to get more slaves. Large city, large amount of slaves Small city, small amount of slaves. The number of slaves should be based on the size of the city you conquer. This description of battle would be great for a Mayan game, however, being closer to their method of warfare, which was very obsessed with the number of slaves they could capture in battle -sometimes to the ignoring of tatics. I don't like the idea of battles becoming like chess, where's there's a unique king for every field unit.

Battle slaves game