Thread 18092079

Was it the most brutal slave trade of all time?

>>18092079 (OP)
The Barbary slave trade was pretty bad too
hard to say which was worse tbqhdesusempai

>>18092079 (OP)
Reminder.

>>18092079 (OP)
No

>>18092091
What schizo babble is this?

>>18092079 (OP)
reminder that the spanish crown did not take in as many slaves as the portuguese, english, or french, and they treat them far better

>>18092083
I find it very strange and nearly conspiratorial that any searches for European states conducting slave raids on North Africa leads to a memory hole for anything relevant and only gives the exact opposite despite the fact we do have historical sources for such slave raids occurring.

>>18092655
There was no greater place in the world to be a slave than the USA.

>>18092655
Here's what happens when you go more specific.

>>18092655
>>18092665
Sorry meant to reply to >>18092656

>>18092656
>on North Africa
The Knights Hospitaller raided the open seas. But the Spanish did make the occasional North African venture. Maybe they took some strong hands as galley slaves or simply 'conscripted' people who were enslaved already. But generally speaking, there was no demand in Christendom for North African slaves and the practice was very frowned upon by both Catholics and Orthodox.

>>18092749
I'm not aware of any Christian discouragement on the enslavement of Muslims/Saracens. Care to share?
I've only heard of the discouragement of enslaving Eastern Christians (mostly applied to Greeks) by Roman Catholics and the discouragement of selling slaves of any origin to Muslims, both of which happened anyway in the Middle Ages albeit frowned upon.

You also mention no demand. What time period are we speaking of here?

>>18092079 (OP)
I think so. Imagine being a slave shipped across the Atlantic and then you have to deal with being trans on top of that. And back then people weren't as understanding as they are today

>>18092665
>using ai

>>18092784
The point is to show the obfuscating of information that the AI and search results is doing. It's like searching up a historical event and the search engine telling you that it didn't happen. This is a problem because 90% of simpletons in this world rely on the first page to get their information.

>>18092768
The Church became more and more anti-slavery culminating in banning it altogether in the 1500s. Granted, galley business continued as usual and captains did not care whether they were Christian prisoners sentenced to die or Muslim prisoners captured with their ships
Before the 16th century several Christian households in France, Spain, Italy and elsewhere had Muslim slaves but it was never widespread enough to become culturally significant. Everybody who was so inclined could find the right channels to get in the business, but often you had to be a part pf a certain group or order to truly profit.
The Venetians were good at it, as were the Genoese
Also these cheeky goys below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhanite

>>18092932
The statement is incorrect; the Catholic Church did not ban slavery altogether in the 1500s, but rather became increasingly critical of it during that and subsequent centuries, while Protestant denominations, especially the Quakers, began to oppose it more strongly around that time. The Catholic Church issued bans on enslaving baptized Christians in the 1400s, but the broader institution of slavery continued and was supported by many in the church for centuries after.

>>18092932
While very obscure now, once upon a time a small but considerable part of Venice's population was made up of Caucasian Slaves. Mostly Circassians.
But Venice was more of a purveypr than a buyer. At least in the early middle ages.

>>18092932
Thanks for the info, though you might be mistaken on the ban unless there's some historical document that was de jure in place but de facto not.
Apparently the last slaves that were documented in Spain to be used for labor in naval arsenals was in 1786. Domestic slaves were the last to stay.
>The last domestic slaves, often of African ancestry though usually born in Spain or the Spanish American colonies, became free by manumission in the late eighteenth century or by law in the early nineteenth. Many entered the market for domestic servants; when they married, they followed the normal gender pattern, with the woman working at home and the man securing employment outside the home.

>>18092950
>The statement is incorrect; the Catholic Church did not ban slavery altogether in the 1500s
The papal bull proves you wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_dudum
Anyway, I don't want to get embroiled in some dumb argument with a sectarian zealot. I was comparing slavery in Christendom to Slavery in Islam as related to Barbary States. Your pastor Billy Bob 'church' is not the topic of discussion.

>>18092980
It was never a widespread practice among Medieval and Early Moden Christians to begin with. The Church often opposed it (making exceptions for Muslims or Pagans as needed) and Christians themselves had serfs so there was no need for slaves. The only place they were used agriculturally was southern Iberia.
The exceptions you mention are navy related. Galleys were full of them, they were basically the naval war engine for 2000 years in the Mediterranean. And it was one of the worst punishments except for outright torture. In many ways it was outright torture, being chained day and night to a wooden bench and whipped to row. Being fed only thin gruel and pissing and shitting right where you sit and sleep. disease, malnutrition, cold, infections, putrid air etc. Mortality was very high so they had to be constantly replenished with more raids
Millions suffered this fate through the ages.

>>18093010
>It was never a widespread practice among Medieval and Early Moden Christians to begin with.
Yeah I understand this. Which is why I find it all the more interesting when there is a presence of slavery within Europe. I still don't fully understand why North Africa and the Ottomans were so slave-dependent compared to their Christian counterpart. I've read somewhat on slave trades on both sides but never once did I ever come across the "why" for the difference between the two.

>>18093033
checked
Christianity is the only thing that is different between the two, unless you make the race argument, which doesn't hold considering the Vikings and other pagans engaged in slave raids habitually. Maybe it's a combination of both race and religion as the two cultures developed in different ways

>>18092655
>did not take in as many slaves as the portuguese
PORTUGAL #1 CAMPEÃO DO MUNDO