Freedom vs Captivity

Whilst studying russian history and I started to think about a question which is:


What are the benifets of having a free moving population like in 18th century Britain or having a move restricted population in late 18th century Russia?

And how can a free moving society change into a serf and people bondaged society,

also how can a serf and landed nobility society change into a free moving society?
 
Last edited:
Whilst studying russian history and I started to think about a question which is:

What are the benifets of having a free moving population like in 18th century Britain or having a move restricted population in late 18th century Russia?

And how can a free moving society change into a serf and people bondaged society,or vice versa.

The benefits of a free moving population is that the people have sufficient wealth to allow them to travel at their discretion. This allows a leader to start a project in a difficult location, and know that the people who have the relevant skills can get to the location on their own. At the very least, it is one less problem for the leader to deal with.

It also allows people to travel in search of better jobs. This encourages companies to treat their workers better, as the employees can just leave if they get treated too badly. Without available cash, you would be stuck in a bad job, and you are unable to leave.

The available wealth also means that in case of an emergency, you can raise the taxes to deal with that emergency, returning the taxes to normal afterwards (plus a little politicking by showing how the taxes helped the recovery). You will have complaints because people can't buy the latest fashions/items, but those are luxuries.

To make a free-moving society into a move restricted society, you merely cut down on the available resources, so people cannot afford the disruption of moving to a new location. Increasing taxes, or a high cost of living compared to local average pay is a good way to do so. I.e. if houses are supposed to be 3* your average paycheck, and the average paycheck is ~$50,000, those $200,000 houses are going to sit unsold for a longer time than the $100,000 houses.
 
The benefits of a free moving population is that the people have sufficient wealth to allow them to travel at their discretion. This allows a leader to start a project in a difficult location, and know that the people who have the relevant skills can get to the location on their own. At the very least, it is one less problem for the leader to deal with.

It also allows people to travel in search of better jobs. This encourages companies to treat their workers better, as the employees can just leave if they get treated too badly. Without available cash, you would be stuck in a bad job, and you are unable to leave.

The available wealth also means that in case of an emergency, you can raise the taxes to deal with that emergency, returning the taxes to normal afterwards (plus a little politicking by showing how the taxes helped the recovery). You will have complaints because people can't buy the latest fashions/items, but those are luxuries.

To make a free-moving society into a move restricted society, you merely cut down on the available resources, so people cannot afford the disruption of moving to a new location. Increasing taxes, or a high cost of living compared to local average pay is a good way to do so. I.e. if houses are supposed to be 3* your average paycheck, and the average paycheck is ~$50,000, those $200,000 houses are going to sit unsold for a longer time than the $100,000 houses.


Basically destroy the middle class and or make an emphasis on agrarian or a landed nobility cool;)

what about turning a movement restricted society into a free moving society?
 
Basically destroy the middle class and or make an emphasis on agrarian or a landed nobility cool;)

what about turning a movement restricted society into a free moving society?

have another renaissance. just replicate the events that led to the fall of feudal west europe
 
have another renaissance. just replicate the events that led to the fall of feudal west europe


hmm so what you are saying is that more trade and the ability to pay of debts from land owners..... And having a standing army to taking out the reasons for having nobles in the first place.

But what are the benifets of having a bondage society
 
for the common man, nothing more than knowing that the land he lives on is constant, and thats only a good thing if the land is good.

only the upper aristocracy really benifits, and they benifit from all that wealth
 
hmm so what you are saying is that more trade and the ability to pay of debts from land owners..... And having a standing army to taking out the reasons for having nobles in the first place.

But what are the benifets of having a bondage society

Bonded society - before the age of national bureaucracies, it was an efficient way to get lots and lots of long-term conscripts. It allows to support an aristocracy if that's what you rely on for your intellectual class. It allows for easy accounting and predictable wealth generation.

All those advantages of course rapidly vanish as society innovates to mid-19th c. levels. In the long run, it's not a good solution.
 
So if we are to put a major bondage society like Russia how would we be able to push them off of the road of a bondage society to a freer and freer moving society.
 
they need to develop a strong merchant class, probably based in st. petersburg. if they could somehow create a trade route through their rugged landscape to china, they could become a merchants nation. also, if they could keep their holds along the black sea, that would help
 
they need to develop a strong merchant class, probably based in st. petersburg. if they could somehow create a trade route through their rugged landscape to china, they could become a merchants nation. also, if they could keep their holds along the black sea, that would help

The Kiakhta trade was considerable. Main trade good was tea. That part is covered.
 
The Kiakhta trade was considerable. Main trade good was tea. That part is covered.



:D

How about making Britain into a serf based society?


Also is it natural or biased that a free moving population naturally develops the want to have representation in the governement?
 
:D

How about making Britain into a serf based society?


Also is it natural or biased that a free moving population naturally develops the want to have representation in the governement?

it depends on if the aristocracy gives the more numerous and ultimitely powerful merchant class what they want
 
Since the army under a bondage society has countless number of conscripts how did free moving societies supplement and eventually surpassed this type of army making.
 
Since the army under a bondage society has countless number of conscripts how did free moving societies supplement and eventually surpassed this type of army making.

The big difference is how long you intend to conscript for. Petrine army conscripted for 18-25 years depending on the service. But with railways, timetables, logistics theory and professional officers and NCOs, you could consript many more people at a short notice rather than supporting a guy under arms for 25 years.

So that's my explanation why it made sense in 1700 and no sense in 1860.
 
....
But what are the benifets of having a bondage society

for the common man, nothing more than knowing that the land he lives on is constant, and thats only a good thing if the land is good. .....

During the later Roman Empire, being a serf had the great advantage that you could direct a taxgatherer to talk to your noble, who would be able to negotiate a fair rate of tax for his property.
 
Top