>>512104459>Romans didn't own "slaves" they owned servants.Egypt, Rome, and all major civilizations at the time owned slaves... They even worked in mines. You're mistaken about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
>Medieval wasn't nearly as violent as they made it out (if you didn't work as a serf you didn't eat, but nobody beat you to death for not working except during times of crisis and/or tyranny)Feudalism was inherently a violent system, marked by both organized warfare and interpersonal violence. It was characterized by a hierarchical structure where lords and vassals were bound by military obligations, leading to frequent conflicts and power struggles. Additionally, violence was a tool used by lords to control their peasants and maintain their social dominance.
Violence was used against a lord's own peasants, and in invasions of other lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War
I meant bonded exploitative labor in the sense that the only authority the lord has is the ability to be violent and subdue you. Because that's how they enforced land ownership. And so, you had to submit and be subjugated if you didn't want to die.
>Just not true. In Roman Empire all the tech was centered only in Rome itself. Even after conquering Briton and France the Romans lagged at building widespread forges. They had highways for transporting goods back to Rome proper, but widespread roads were non-existent. English built nearly all castles, wells, awuaducts, sick houses and water wheels long after the fall of Rome."Stifled human potential and technological progress" is compared to the modern age. Such statement can only exist as a comparison. It is true that both of those were slower and more limited than in the modern age. I mean modern as in capitalist.
>How on earth would I have nostalgia for a time that was a thousand years before my birth?Search up what "anemoia" means