>> Which seems to be a rather fuzzy distinction. A Roman citizen who was
>> enslaved for some crime would be a thrall while a German tribesman who
>> was captured by the Romans and enslaved would be a slave.
>
>The Romans had no such distinction. A slave was his master's personal
>property, period. Thralldom was a practice that originated in ancient
>German or Viking culture, and it spread through Europe when the
>barbarian kingdoms replaced the Roman Empire, AFAIK.
Precisely. I don't know of any society which had both slaves and thralls and distinguished between them. Given that both are property owned by others that makes them synonyms unless someone can identify a distinction.
>Getting back on topic, I think the definition of "born in the same
>culture" for thrall that Joerg proposes will fit Glorantha too. An
>Orlanthi thrall is not a free man but has some rights, and is regarded
>as part of the clan (or at least _property_ of the clan).
Well, the property of a bloodline within the clan. I'm not sure what rights you think they might have and I don't see a way for them to enforce them in Orlanthi law. Nor do I see any neccessity for all thralls/slaves to be born within the culture. The major slave trading town (Pimper's Block) is on the border between Sartar and Prax.
Actually I can see differences between the Orlanthi practice and others but they're specific to Orlanthi culture. The first is that children born of thralls are regarded as free members of the clan. And secondly that thralldom is usually a choice made when someone is desperate to survive and a clan which has no obligation to them offers this as an alternative to turning them away. So there may well be an agreement of terms involved but the thrall is relying on the owner to keep them because there is nothing in the legal system to enforce them.
As an aside, I suspect that most thralls in Orlanthi society are women. I can see an Ernaldan accepting that as the only practical option while the Orlanthi want to try a last raid.
>The same goes for the Vendref in the Grazelands, although in this case
>masters and slaves are not of the same racial stock.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the Vendref are owned by the Grazers. So why should they be considered either slaves or thralls? The situation is more comparable to the Mongol rule of the Rus.
>Being enslaved by Praxians or Pentans is another story.
Why are the Praxians or Pentans different? Most of their slaves/thralls will be captives from other tribes - if a nomad captures someone from Pavis they're going to sell them because they haven't the survival skills for living in Prax.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail