This should be interesting; I think Qanaxma Deniz is the only civilization that doesn't practice actual slavery. Indentured servitude as punishment for a crime or to pay debts, sure. But actually treating people like objects doesn't happen; going to be a nasty surprise for any diplomat from a slavery-practicing nation that brings along some slaves with them.

I think slaves have it particularly bad in Seculcia.

I can imagine so, since your first post has one being fed to a bear. XD Also, blood sacrifices of any kind aren't practiced by my people; their main God is dead after all and they believe that when they die their souls join his in the afterlife. No need for a blood sacrifice there.

TheSovereignGrave said
I can imagine so, since your first post has one being fed to a bear. XD Also, blood sacrifices of any kind aren't practiced by my people; their main God is dead after all and they believe that when they die their souls join his in the afterlife. No need for a blood sacrifice there.

The main God of Seculcia is very much alive and kicking!

Suehan slaves probably have it best, it seems. Namely, they can be and often are manumitted.

LadyAdanae said
The main God of Seculcia is very much alive and kicking!

That's because they worship their Queen as a God. :P

TheSovereignGrave said
That's because they worship their Queen as a God. :P

Entirely correct. They also worship her as the manifestation of a particular God from their pantheon.

There are no slaves in Naqah...

HazmatMedic said
There are no slaves in Naqah...

So can I post or what?

My slaves arnt treated so bad c:

Damn. Sorry, Wernher, yes you can. I'll just add you to the list

---

This part of the post is more controversial. Enjoy.



Meet Brutus. He's a Brute from the well-known game Assassin's Creed. In my Medieval thread, I somewhat stupidly tried to use him as an argument for the disadvantages of Plate Armour.

However, I recently noticed a few things about Brutus.

- I tried to say that Plate Armour makes one inagile. I used a Brute's inability to free-run as proof.
However, in one of the missions, one can see a Brute on a rooftop. He couldn't have got there without free-running. Also, the far more agile-looking Seekers cannot free run, even if they are disarmed or wielding a sword. Therefore, I believe Brutes stay on the ground to await Ezio's fall, rather than chase him up - completely different to the "They don't because they can't" argument I tried to claim earlier.

- I said Plate Armour made one slow - I used Brutus' slow attack and movement speed as proof.
However, when disarmed or carrying a shorter weapon than normal (as they spawn with two-handed, heavy weapons) they attack at the same speed as a normal guard and run at the same speed as well. This contradicted my argument entirely.

- I said they were bulky and heavy - manouverability would be severely hampered.
However, as bulky as Brutus may seem, he isn't actually much bigger than a normal guard. On one of the few unarmoured parts of Brutus, one can see that the armour barely adds anything to his mass. The answer lies in his large pauldrons - Impressive and intimidating, adding serious bulk to the otherwise normal-sized armour. Great for a city guard like Brutus, who prefers intimidation over combat. Not so good for a knight, who wouldn't put the bulky pads on his armour. A derp by me.

So in short, what i'm trying to say is - the Brutes were actually a fair representation of men in plate armour. Tough, loyal and no less agile than a more lightly armoured soldier, they represented the best the city guard could offer. They were also rare, as plate armour was expensive, so it was only given to the best - like the Brutes, who were the toughest foes one would face in AC2 and second only to the infamous Papal Guard of ACB.

I'd also like to apoligise for my earlier ignorance and for any issues this post stirs up. And I swear, I'll stop using video games as a source from now on.

Heh... Never use movies, games or any other media for reference, unless they are known to be extremely realistic in their portrayal, and even then...

Anyway, I'll be working on a post soon.

Will finish my NS soon!

It boggles the mind that Proto-germanic became Old Norse in a matter of a few hundred years.

True, but you can also say the same for Old English and modern English. Languages can develop and change really fast; it's actually pretty fascinating.

Old English is recognizable, and I can pick words out of Old Norse, but Proto-Germanic might as well be Chinese. Where did the az come from in "wulfaz"? Where did it come from?

It came from Proto-Indo-European (or whatever predated Proto-Germanic) one would assume. XD

And Old English is recognizable? Really? It's so different from English that it's not even funny. It's closer to Icelandic or German than it is to modern English.

I mean, show me the Lord's prayer in Old English and I can tell you that is what it is. I can also vocalize it. Proto germanic is illegible and I cannot pronounce it

Okay, if you can tell that this:

'Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum, sī þīn nama ġehālgod. Tōbecume þīn rīċe, ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum. Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ, and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum. And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālȳs ūs of yfele.'
is the Lord's Prayer without being told that, then that's not normal. That's really impressive. Especially if you can pronounce all of that too.

Is that Old English? It looks more Norse to me.
The phenomena of languages is changing even today. Take terms like "twerk" or "lol" into consideration - these were unknown ten or so years ago. At the same time, words like "ye", "verily" and even "henge" have vanished from modern syntax.
Yet, despite our vast knowledge and advanced social dynamics, we have some of the worst communication skills when compared to animals. In Wolf, a growl means "Go away", regardless of what country it's from. And most animals understand it, too. Owls have about five different calls, all of which mean differant things, yet they all understand each other without being taught.
Even now, I can hear two birds calling to each other - they know what they're saying, as will every other bird in the species. But I don't know, and if you started talking to me in a foriegn language, I wouldn't know what you were saying.
We have so much that animals don't have, yet they can communicate better.
And it's all down to one thing - association. Dogs learn tricks because they are given treats. They associate the treat with the word "sit" and the action of sitting down. Thus, they see a pattern - word "sit" plus sitting down equals treat.
In the same way, we associate words with their meanings. We don't need treats - well, most of us don't - to learn new words, but if I said "I'm making a cake. Would you like a slice?" then every word in that sentence is analysed and assigned an association by the subconcious part of the brain. You roughly translate it into "The source - HazmatLyra - is going to create a sweet-tasting pastry and is offering me a part of said pastry"
If you were told a cake was, say, a diamond from a young age, you would call a cake a diamond. You'd give people bits of birthday diamond, have a huge diamond at your wedding and have a habit of snacking on diamond. At least, that's what your brain thinks, because it associates the sweet taste of the cake with the image of a cake and associates them with the word diamond.

So yeah, language is weird. :)