The problem is that even today sugarcane is still a very labor intensive crop. You need the kind of mechanical harvesting tech that's only been used in the last 50-60 years or so to make that work. It is extremely depressing to me that given the New World and Sugar, that black slavery seems almost inevitable absent African states actively preventing it and at this point, why would they without knowing the future?The way to be rid of slavery is to have more modern farming techniques be developed so you don't need the sheer numbers only slavery can economically provide.
Well, slavery was not banned in Europe. Slavery was very alive in Italy, Spain the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Why slavery had died in France, Western Germany, Britain, the Lowlands and Scandinavia is unsure, but it was not banned there.I am just spitting out ideas now but the reason or at least this is what I think that slavery was banished in Europe for sometime in europe was due to Feudalism.
If the West african countries have a feudal like system of governing we might just see the practice of the slave trade to be dieing out and or be on low scale.
Another way to demote West african slavery is to have the Africans learn how to make use and learn gun warfare if this happens I don't think the West africans will have any reason to go and enslave themselves over foreign commodities.
Also If you tie it too what I said earlier the Colonising power's will might try to create their own source of free or cheap labor. This might mean humanizing working conditions in order to attract more workers.
Actually the Portuguese tried to capture slaves themselves early on. They were beaten badly by the Africans even though the Portuguese had guns and the Africans hadn't. So Europeans capturing Africans themselves just wouldn't work. No way to cut out the middlemen.AFAIK the Europeans didn't go inland to capture slaves themselves. The African kingdoms captured people and sold them to the Europeans on the coast. Guns spreading won't help a thing unless you want it to spread to every remote village in the region which is pretty unlikely.
AFAIK the Europeans didn't go inland to capture slaves themselves. The African kingdoms captured people and sold them to the Europeans on the coast. Guns spreading won't help a thing unless you want it to spread to every remote village in the region which is pretty unlikely.
Why? They profited from the trade.Well I meant that with the knowledge of guns that with that they can form their own sort of trade system... And maybe kick out the european trading partner
Think about location. Spain and Italy were next to Muslims and enslaving Muslim war captives was seen very differently than enslaving fellow Christians. The Balkans and Eastern Europe of course, were where the slavs were and closer to the slave markets of the east. Capturing slaves and selling them to the Byzantines (later Ottomans) or eastern Islamic powers was still a profitable business.Well, slavery was not banned in Europe. Slavery was very alive in Italy, Spain the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Why slavery had died in France, Western Germany, Britain, the Lowlands and Scandinavia is unsure, but it was not banned there.
This is why I noted above that unless the African states were against it, it would happen--and why would they be against it? For a long time it was a good source of income (and also didn't deplete the population too badly after some new crops were introduced).Why? They profited from the trade.
Think about location. Spain and Italy were next to Muslims and enslaving Muslim war captives was seen very differently than enslaving fellow Christians. The Balkans and Eastern Europe of course, were where the slavs were and closer to the slave markets of the east. Capturing slaves and selling them to the Byzantines (later Ottomans) or eastern Islamic powers was still a profitable business.
As for the north....
Domesdaybook.netIf the recorded slaves were all individuals, they constituted little more than 2% of the population, since the totals for other groups are normally multiplied by a factor of 4-5 on the assumption that the numbers represent heads of families rather than individual peasants. These divergent estimates are of real consequence. The lower figure would certainly help to explain the rapid disappearance of slavery after the Conquest. However, the most recent investigations have concluded that slaves were probably counted on the same basis as other social groups, in which case they formed 10% of the population. In this case, their virtual disappearance within a generation of 1086 was a remarkable social transformation aided, perhaps, by a tendency by lords to endow slaves to perform their ploughing functions as 'free ploughmen'.I'd say serfdom had a lot to do with it. Though in Scandinavia I'd wonder to what extent they engaged in the slave trade in the eastern Baltic along with other trade. Also I'd say low population would make it difficult to export a lot of slaves without causing damage to the domestic economy.