Idea for additional Delhi flavor

[ninthlite]

Currently reading "A history of India from the earliest times to the present day" by Micahel Edwardes, and found one interesting piece of history that I thought would be perfect for eu4.

Direct Quote from book
The Reign of Firuz (1352-1388)

"The Sultan Firuz was very diligent in providing slaves, and he carried his care so far as to command his fief-holders and officers to capture slaves whenever they were at war, and to pick out the best for the service of the court. (These presents were valued like elephants, and deductions made for them, which no ruler had done before)... Those chiefs who brought many slaves received the highest favor... The numbers brought every year exceeded description... When they were in excess, the Sultan sent them to Multan, Dipalpur, Hisar Firozah, Samana, Gujarat, and all the other feudal dependencies. In all cases provision was made for their support in a liberal manner. In some places they were provided for in the army, and villages were granted to them; those who were placed in cities had ample allowances varying from 100 down to 10 tankas, which was the lowest amount. These allowance were paid in full, without any deduction, at the Treasury, every six,four or three months.... Some [slaves] were placed under tradesman and were taught mechanical arts, so that about 12,000 slaves became artisans of various kinds.... The institution [of slavery] took root in the very center of the land, and the Sultan looked upon its due regulation as one of his incumbent duties... There was no occupation in which the salves of Firuz Shah were not employed. None of the Sultan's predecessors had ever collected so many slaves. The late Sultain Ala-ud-din had drawn togther about 50,000 slaves, but after him no Sultan had directed attention to raising a body of them until Sultan Firuz adopted the practice... When the slaves under great feudal cheiftains became too numerous, some of them, by the order of the Sultan, were given in the charge of amirs and maliks, that they might learn the duties of their respective employments... but after his [Foriz Shah's] death the heads of these favored servants of his were cut off without mercy, and made into heaps in front of the durbur"

Quote from importantindia.com, one lakh = 100,000

"Firuz Shah took great interest in increasing the number of his slaves. He issued instruction to the governors in different parts of the kingdom to send him slaves. Under him the number of slaves totaled one lakh eighty thousand out of which forty thousand been put in the service of the Sultan’s palace. A separate officer with necessary staff was in charge of the slaves and a large sum of money was allocated for the expenses of this department. Slaves would also be posted in different provinces. Firuz Tughlaq made arrangements for the education and training of the slaves but the system was positively pernicious as the slaves like the ulemas began to interfere in the administration and eventually became at least one of main causes of the disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate."


While Firuz reigned right before the start date of 1444, and I'm not sure how long this policy continued to be implemented after his death, there was definitely lasting aftereffects of this policy which would of carried on to 1444. It could be easily said that rulers which succeeded him were at least aware of this unique policy and the possibility of them reinstating it was not entirely zero.

First of all implementing a decision or unique mechanic unique to Delhi regarding this culmination of slaves would add some flavor to Delhi. Gaining manpower, or advisers while sieging provinces in exchange for lowered tax income and corruption as well as some events requiring Delhi to capture slaves, relocate them to provinces, deal with problems regarding slaves, etc.

 

[RagingMonkey]

Probably best to put this in the Suggestions subforum. Its much less likely to get drowned out, therefore more likely to be noticed.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Move to right place.

Regarding the suggestion:
Slavery was certainly very much alive in India throughout the era. Sultan Firuz belongs to a dynasty that has already been ousted in 1444 however and ruled over quite a different state than our Delhi sultans do. In 1398 Timur sacked Delhi and most of its empire then broke away to create the situation you see in our start date where former Delhian governors rule as Sultans in their own right in Gujarat, Bengal, Jaunpur and so on
The Sayid dynasty that rule Delhi in our start date are in fact the old governors of Multan, technically left to rule the Sultanate by Timor (though he didn't actually help them achieve that, they conquered what remained of Delhi on their own 20 years after he left).
The above is therefore not quite as current in our start date, not because slavery was dead, it was still very much alive (and was before Firuz as well) but because our Delhi sultanate is something like the Byzantium you see over in Europe, a former Empire with little but its name left to speak for it.
Unlike Byzantium though, Delhi would have a resurgence, the rebels you see at start are lead by Bahlul Lodi who would eventually seize the throne for himself and reconquer large parts of northern India. Even under his time however the sultanate did not come close to mirror the Tuqlaq era and he would not be projecting his power on places like Gujarat or foreign rulers, quite in the same way as the Tuqlaqhs would have.

I probably went on for too long now Anyway I can certainly see a place for general events about slavery in India (we do have some but more related to the Siddis in western India and the Deccan), but the particular policies of Firuz less so

 

[ninthlite]

Move to right place.

Regarding the suggestion:
Slavery was certainly very much alive in India throughout the era. Sultan Firuz belongs to a dynasty that has already been ousted in 1444 however and ruled over quite a different state than our Delhi sultans do. In 1398 Timur sacked Delhi and most of its empire then broke away to create the situation you see in our start date where former Delhian governors rule as Sultans in their own right in Gujarat, Bengal, Jaunpur and so on
The Sayid dynasty that rule Delhi in our start date are in fact the old governors of Multan, technically left to rule the Sultanate by Timor (though he didn't actually help them achieve that, they conquered what remained of Delhi on their own 20 years after he left).
The above is therefore not quite as current in our start date, not because slavery was dead, it was still very much alive (and was before Firuz as well) but because our Delhi sultanate is something like the Byzantium you see over in Europe, a former Empire with little but its name left to speak for it.
Unlike Byzantium though, Delhi would have a resurgence, the rebels you see at start are lead by Bahlul Lodi who would eventually seize the throne for himself and reconquer large parts of northern India. Even under his time however the sultanate did not come close to mirror the Tuqlaq era and he would not be projecting his power on places like Gujarat or foreign rulers, quite in the same way as the Tuqlaqhs would have.

I probably went on for too long now Anyway I can certainly see a place for general events about slavery in India (we do have some but more related to the Siddis in western India and the Deccan), but the particular policies of Firuz less so

So what I'm hearing, is that it's not impossible? I realize Firuz is a little before our time frame, and that his dynasty ended shortly after his death but I thought this policy of his was pretty crazy and definite something that would add some flavor to the Indian region. Unless I'm wrong albania has the fort defense and maintenence modifer due to Enver Hoxha who was born in the 1900s, which could be an example of when historical accuracy was not totally adhered to for flavor.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Move to right place.

our Delhi sultanate is something like the Byzantium you see over in Europe, a former Empire with little but its name left to speak for it.

Thats a very nice and lucid way to put it.

Though this would attract a lot of disagreement, but long I had thought of a suggestion about doing away with formable Hindustan. This term was more common with Mughals but they are already Mughals in the game. Instead let there be a formable "Sultanat-e-Hind" available to all Indian Sultanates who would restore the previous prestige of the Sultanate - The actual Sultanate as that was called. (Except for Sindh, all the sultanates used to be Delhi once.)

 

[SantoshKashyap]

So what I'm hearing, is that it's not impossible? I realize Firuz is a little before our time frame, and that his dynasty ended shortly after his death but I thought this policy of his was pretty crazy and definite something that would add some flavor to the Indian region. Unless I'm wrong albania has the fort defense and maintenence modifer due to Enver Hoxha who was born in the 1900s, which could be an example of when historical accuracy was not totally adhered to for flavor.

The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with utmost glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave-markets, and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800AD to 1700 AD.

Slavery escalated during the medieval era in India with the arrival of Islam. Slavery and empire-formation tied in particularly well with the iqta system and it is within this context of Islamic expansion. Large numbers of prisoners of war were captured, enslaved and sold in the slave-markets of central Asia. The sources insist that, in dutiful conformity to religious law, 'the one-fifth of the slaves and spoils' were set apart for the caliph's treasury and despatched to Iraq and Syria. The remainder was scattered among the army of Islam.

During the brighter days of Delhi Sultanate Indian slaves were abundantly available at low-price. Since a greater number of people were enslaved as a part of the efforts of the Delhi Sultans to finance their expansion into new territories. For example, Qutb-ud-din Aibak (who himself was a slave at that time) (r. 1206–10) invaded Gujarat in 1197 and placed some 20,000 people in bondage. Roughly six years later, he enslaved an additional 50,000 people during his conquest of Kalinjar. Later in the 13th century, Balban's campaign in Ranthambhore, reportedly defeated the Indian army and yielded "captives beyond computation".

The revenue system of the Delhi Sultanate produced a considerable proportion of the Indian slave population as these rulers, and their subordinate shiqadars, ordered their armies to abduct large numbers of locals as a means of extracting revenue. While those communities that were loyal to the Sultan and regularly paid their taxes were often excused from this practice, taxes were commonly extracted from other, less loyal groups in the form of slaves. Thus, according to Barani, the Shamsi "slave-king" Balban (r. 1266–87) ordered his shiqadars in Awadh to enslave those peoples resistant to his authority, implying those who refused to supply him with tax revenue. Sultan Alauddin Khilji (r. 1296–1316) is similarly reported to have legalised the enslavement of those who defaulted on their revenue payments. This policy continued during the Mughal era.

Levi states that the forcible enslavement of non-Muslims during Delhi Sultanate was motivated by the desire for war booty and military expansion. This gained momentum under the Khilji and Tughlaq dynasties, as being supported by available figures. Zia uddin Barani suggested that Sultan Alauddin Khilji owned 50,000 slave-boys, in addition to 70,000 construction slaves. Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq is said to have owned 180,000 slaves, roughly 12,000 of whom were skilled artisans. A significant proportion of slaves owned by the Sultans were likely to have been military slaves and not labourers or domestics. However earlier traditions of maintaining a mixed army comprising both Indian soldiers and Turkic slave-soldiers (ghilman, mamluks) from Central Asia, were disrupted by the rise of the Mongol Empire reducing the inflow of mamluks. This intensified demands by the Delhi Sultans on local Indian populations to satisfy their need for both military and domestic slaves. The Khaljis even sold thousands of captured Mongol soldiers within India. China, Turkistan, Persia, and Khurusan were sources of male and female slaves sold to Tughluq India. The Yuan Dynasty Emperor in China sent 100 slaves of both sexes to the Tughluq Sultan, and he replied by also sending the same amount of slaves of both sexes.

Alongside Buddhist Oirats, Christian Russians, Afghans, and the predominantly Shia Iranians, Indian slaves were an important component of the highly active slave markets of medieval and early modern Central Asia. After sacking Delhi, Timur (1398) enslaved several thousand skilled artisans, presenting many of these slaves to his subordinate elite, although reserving the masons for use in the construction of the Bibi-Khanym Mosque in Samarkand. Because of their identification in Muslim societies as kafirs, "non-believers", Hindus were especially in demand in the early modern Central Asian slave markets.

Slavery became the predominant system in North India in the thirteenth century and retained considerable importance in the fourteenth century. Slavery was still vigorous in fifteenth-century Bengal, while after that date it shifted to the Deccan where it persisted until the seventeenth century. It remained present to a minor extent in the Mughal provinces throughout the seventeenth century and had a notable revival under the Afghans in North India again in the eighteenth century.

Mughal Emperor, Akbar (1556-1605), banned slave trade in Indian Territory. The slave trade continued to exist in the Mughal Empire, however it was greatly reduced in scope, primarily limited to domestic servitude and debt bondage, and deemed "mild" and incomparable to the transatlantic slave trade.

During the period of Maratha Empire, some slaves were able to enjoy what ever they used to earn and entitled to inherit the property of his father. In most cases the slaves were forced to work all their lives and their children were also slaves. The slaves were given food, shelter and clothes and they did not have means to escape their owners. In short, the slavery under the Marathas was different than the slavery in Europe and America. Some slaves were treated well and they were set free on several occasions, festivals and due to their old age. They were released on the suitable substitute for their owner and allowed to marry with the person of their choice. The marriage of slave girl means it was as good as her manumission.

The arrival of European traders, during this period further increased the prominence of slavery as a segment of the Indian economy, with these forces playing an active role (with the assistance of local collaborators) in enslaving and transporting Indians for use in the expanding plantation economies of their colonies in South America and the Caribbean.

The situation continued to deteriorate during British-rule and with official sanction large numbers of poor Indians took transport to distant colonies as bond-servants. An instance of this involves speculator Sir John Gladstone, father of future British Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone who was able to import large numbers of indebted Indian Indentured-servants, to work in his sugar plantations in the West-Indies. These workers were paid no wages, the repayment of their debts being deemed sufficient, and worked under conditions that continued to resemble slavery in everything except name. Active in politics he worked to secure compensation from the British Government for "property losses" (in this case slaves) incurred as a result of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, and eventually received £106,769 (modern equivalent £83m).

The British Government of the time, through the considerable influence upon it of planters such as Sir John and others inserted a clause into the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, that permitted slavery inside India and enslavement of Indians for colonial markets operated by the East India Company.


There is a need to first differentiate the nature and mechanism of Slavery During Sultanate (and During Mughals) and during British.

 

[ninthlite]

There is a need to first differentiate the nature and mechanism of Slavery During Sultanate (and During Mughals) and during British.

I totally agree but i feel like that would be getting near expansion level terms of complication. I do feel like slavery could use a bit more work to better represent slaves as a strategic trade good.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

I totally agree but i feel like that would be getting near expansion level terms of complication. I do feel like slavery could use a bit more work to better represent slaves as a strategic trade good.

I would not agree with slaves being put as Production commodity during Sultanate or Mughal India. If people are forced into slavery and are made to work on a commodity X, without wages, that province would still produce commodity X.

The nature of slavery in this era was such that it is not easy to represent. How would you like to represent it when:

• There is hardly any province under Muslim rule where infidels were not forced into slavery.
• Anyone other than Muslim if unable to pay tax was forced into slavery.
• Maximum number of slaves were obtained by capturing civilians as spoils of war.
• Slave market were in all administrative cities.
• The actual demand of Indian slaves was in Central Asia.
• As the Delhi Sultanate declined, so the slavery machinery, so after 14th century it weakened in North India while Deccan & Bengal were new centres.
• Slavery was illegal in Sur era (1539-1555) and Mughals India. (1556-1739).
• The nature of slavery was completely different in Maratha period.
• Portuguese and Dutch smuggled slaves. (Slavery was more common in this era in Malabar, coromandel, Daman, Diu, Masulipatnam).
• Portuguese even used to kidnap people and send away as plantation labourers. (very notorious in Bengal which was later exposed during Mughals leading to their Bengal evacuation).
• I would really want to ask a contemporary English officer whether the textile and indigo trade (affecting their Indian Ledger Account Books) from Bihar would be a more preferable representation as chief commodity or the free labourers from Bihar, cost savings from which would not affect Indian Ledger accounts but American.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Slavery, as a trade good, really only works to represent slavery by colonial powers in Africa. It really just doesn't represent any kinds of internal slavery, nor does it really represent regional slavery.

 

[ninthlite]

I would not agree with slaves being put as Production commodity during Sultanate or Mughal India. If people are forced into slavery and are made to work on a commodity X, without wages, that province would still produce commodity X.

I did not really do a good job of conveying what I meant. I think in the current state where slavery is a ingame "trade good" is not really a good representation of slavery, slavery was a bit more complicated that a simple buying and selling of "goods", I think that a good method would be that provinces should not have a province of slavery, but have a option of enabling slavery related events which would increase production of certain goods in exchange for trade off of unrest/ long term damage of province value.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

I am afraid, I can agree with that. Moreover, an entire mechanism about slavery needs to be added to the Iqta form of government, which would be more historical as well. (Mughals had Mansabdari form of political structure).

After Timur's invasion (1398), and once Mongols were firmly established, it stopped the usual flow of Slaves from Middle East which until now were an important source of recruiting army and officers (Delhi sultanate is also called Slave Sultanate for even the earliest kings were slaves themselves). The sultanate was very much dependent on these foreigners for maintaining and increasing their control in this foreign land. (Since rulers of Sultanate were still alien in India, local muslims were still considered inferior and the majority always remained Hindu). This completely changed the nature of polity and structure of government of Delhi Sultanate from 1400s onward where now they were more dependent on local people.

This also led to an increased enlisting of Afghans into the system who were abundantly available locally and were rated above local muslims. (this also made the governors of Western provinces more powerful who were directly responsible for these recruits and now had more influence in the composition of the imperial army). But the age old Afghan sense of democracy and partnership in the government came in direct conflict with the absolutism of monarchy of the Sultanate. Now only those could survive the throne of Delhi who knew a way between the new democracy and old absolutism.

I moved into a completely different direction but Slavery and Iqta form of islamic government moved in hand in hand in the Indian scenario. Once this flow of slaves for imperial service was disrupted it shook the very foundation of the erstwhile empire.