The Greeks

[Salmoneus]

Well, my conworld is very large and mostly watery, so its easy to 'tuck way' non-humans.

I've only got three non-human species worked out - one doesn't interact with humans (they're cephalopod), one I don't know about (they didn't evolve with humans but there may have been contact) and one occupies a niche (they live around baobab-like trees in semi-arid areas, where the only humans are passing nomads).

However, it's not necessarily true that humans would outcompete a lower-technology species. The species could have other advantage, or the very presence of demons in the woods could limit human expansion through fear and superstition.

[kuroda]

after all, if, say, Australia or America had been inhabited by nonhuman species instead of just other people, they would have been wiped out just the same

So, would that be "wiped out" as in "leaving behind millions of living descendants" -- like the RW, Homo sapiens, natives of Australia and the Americas?

[PyroKinetic]

A natural defense like claws or poison or mind-lasers would definitely help against outcompetition (unless it was too much of an advantage, and humans outcompeted *them*; sentient mind-lasered dolphins wouldn't have much of an advantage, being unable to effectively wield and make tools; but give them hands and legs, and see how long people would have lasted).

I think fear and superstition would be significantly effective only where there's unfamiliarity; if two races occupied the same niche, that would develop within a generation of contact as they saw more and more of each other. People, hominid or not, are pretty adaptable. Now, your mind-laser dolphins would be a terror to any land-dwelling creature pretty much until you developed nuclear depth-charges.

[Salmoneus]

A natural defense like claws or poison or mind-lasers would definitely help against outcompetition (unless it was too much of an advantage, and humans outcompeted *them*; sentient mind-lasered dolphins wouldn't have much of an advantage, being unable to effectively wield and make tools; but give them hands and legs, and see how long people would have lasted).

I think fear and superstition would be significantly effective only where there's unfamiliarity; if two races occupied the same niche, that would develop within a generation of contact as they saw more and more of each other. People, hominid or not, are pretty adaptable. Now, your mind-laser dolphins would be a terror to any land-dwelling creature pretty much until you developed nuclear depth-charges.

I think superstition could last longer than that - if there's a perceived threat there, humans wouldn't enter that niche. Think of the attitude humans used to have to wolves - now imagine that those wolves are clearly intelligent, make artefacts that humans find, and plot against humans. While remaining fairly retiring and elusive. I think it's not unfeasible that, if the humans had enough good land anyway, there'd be a strong resistence to moving into the wolves' territory.

[zompist]

I think differing ecological niches is a reasonable way to allow separate species; it's what I use for Almea, and reminiscent of why chimps and gorillas have survived till the present.

If these wolfish creatures are dangerous, it's not exactly superstition that protects them, but well-grounded wariness.

Still, we shouldn't underestimate humans' ability to change the environment over the long term. Europe was heavily forested 5000 years ago-- and forests were considered pretty dangerous places. (What we call "fairy tales" reveal some deep fears about the deep woods.) But, well, we like wood. So farmers are likely to chop down nearby trees, and bolder souls will venture further into the woods. After a few thousand years, that adds up to a lot of deforestation.

[BGMan]

If I had to theorize, I'd say that multiple sentient species would coexist best (or at least for the longest period) if they occupied different niches in the environment. Multiple hominids would be less plausible to me than a hominid and a cetacean coexistence, or a hominid species and a species that could flourish in an environment that was merely marginal for hominid life (like polar regions or large deserts). Though like any good artists, conlangers have to know when to break the rules of convention and probability for aesthetic purposes.

In our world, the closest thing we have would be the different human races. For example, the South was settled with whites occupying the Appalachians, and blacks dominant in the lowlands. Blacks were better suited for hot, sticky tropical weather, and whites for cold, winter weather... which is one reason black slaves never caught on in the northern colonies. In the Caribbean islands, such as Jamaica, there were also white slaves shipped in, mainly from Ireland and Scotland, but they have nearly all disappeared, displaced by blacks (who oftentimes have Irish and Scottish names).

I have always considered the differences between races fascinating... not an excuse to be "racist", but instead being a faint shadow of having different actual sentient species like fantasy worlds with elves, dwarves, and such. (Also, one might argue that in Rwanda, the Twa do indeed look like hobbits to the Tutsi!)

[So Haleza Grise]

If I had to theorize, I'd say that multiple sentient species would coexist best (or at least for the longest period) if they occupied different niches in the environment. Multiple hominids would be less plausible to me than a hominid and a cetacean coexistence, or a hominid species and a species that could flourish in an environment that was merely marginal for hominid life (like polar regions or large deserts). Though like any good artists, conlangers have to know when to break the rules of convention and probability for aesthetic purposes.

In our world, the closest thing we have would be the different human races. For example, the South was settled with whites occupying the Appalachians, and blacks dominant in the lowlands. Blacks were better suited for hot, sticky tropical weather, and whites for cold, winter weather... which is one reason black slaves never caught on in the northern colonies. In the Caribbean islands, such as Jamaica, there were also white slaves shipped in, mainly from Ireland and Scotland, but they have nearly all disappeared, displaced by blacks (who oftentimes have Irish and Scottish names).

Er. . . the prevalence of slavery in the south had more to do with agriculture than climate per se. Cotton needs hot weather and flat land (hence there being fewer slaves and slave-descendents in mountainous, coal-mining Appalachia); the plantation economy was reliant on slavery, as opposed to the northern, which became more and more industrialised as time went on. Now there are plenty of blacks living in the north: post emancipation, large numbers of them went to work in northern (cold!) industrial cities.

Whites and blacks aren't inherently disposed to any particular climate as individuals; that's 19th century thinking.

[Salmoneus]

Also, sorry to break into the colour-coded fantasy, but no, there weren't Irish and Scottish slaves - it being illegal to enslave people (and, in most of the slave-trading period, to trade christian slaves). While it is true that some Irish were enslaved, it was by the Arabs, and they were shipped east and south, not west. [Historically, of course, they were also traded by Vikings a lot]

[Aurora Rossa]

Well, I had more problems with the flaids because their so involved in Verdurian history without influencing other regions. 4% of Northern (human) Eretald practices Irreanism. There is something about flaids I liked, but the fact their almost left out except for what seems details is annoying.

(Well I actually have problems with all non-uesti species in Almea. They all seem "out of history" somehow. But this happens a lot when people have a conworld with multiple spiecies. Tolkien was the only one who was able to create an history for three species without concentrating too much on only one. Though he did fail at some points.)

Well, the Flaids have always struck me as somehow redundant, an entire conspecies just to populate one small island. It always seemed to me that it would make more sense simply to make them another racial group within the Uesti rather than a whole new species. Of course I tend to be very parsimonious when it comes to conspecies.

[David McCann]

Also, sorry to break into the colour-coded fantasy, but no, there weren't Irish and Scottish slaves - it being illegal to enslave people (and, in most of the slave-trading period, to trade christian slaves). While it is true that some Irish were enslaved, it was by the Arabs, and they were shipped east and south, not west. [Historically, of course, they were also traded by Vikings a lot]

When Cromwell defeated the Scots at Worcester, the prisoners were shipped out to the West Indies as slaves. English courts didn't rule slavery illegal here until the eighteenth century.

[Salmoneus]

Only if you use a revisionist and misleading definition of 'slaves'. They were condemned to penal labour for a fixed term of years (mostly ten years), in a way more or less analogous to the contemporary system of indenture. The overwhelming proportion of them were also sent to New England rather than the West Indies.

Now, one could indeed argue that indenture is a form of slavery - particularly in later centuries when indefinite and hereditary indentures were introduced, and particularly when kidnapping was invented. However, it's disingenuous to treat it as equivalent or interchangable with american slavery, which was probably the cruellest and most distinctively inhumane form of slavery ever practiced - which is the effect, and seemingly intention, of talking of 'black slaves' and 'white slaves' in the same breath.

[As I recall, about half of the immigration to the colonies was under indenture, although in most cases it was voluntary]

It has always been illegal and heretical to enslave Christians, going back to the Crusades. [Although of course both indenture and serfdom could be seen as alternative forms of slavery]

[-]

The defining characteristic of slavery is that the worker does not own themselves; they are themselves owned and can be traded as a commodity. Technically, this is true of indenture -- though definitely not of serfdom -- and indeed even African slavery in the New World's Anglosphere started out formally as indenture.

But of course Salmoneus is completely right that it's misleading to talk about "white slavery" as though it was in any sense comparable to African slavery in the New World. There were manifold differences in how they were conceived, and in the mere fact that in North America especially even a manumitted African slave faced a real danger of being re-enslaved (in a way that, say, an Irish indentured worker didn't).

Really, though, the signal difference can be found simply in the way the journeys of the two types of worker were likely to begin; for all the many crowded crossings that emigres from Europe endured, not at any point that I'm aware of in all those centuries did it occur to the people transporting them that it might be a good idea to strip them naked and stack them on top of each other like cordwood, taking in stride the expectation that the bottom layer would die horribly in a lake of human excrement. This was, however, fairly standard practice for the Middle Passage from Africa. There was on the whole a fairly major difference in the assessment of the basic humanity of Europeans as opposed to Africans, one which well predated the later codification as "scientific racism" in the 19th century.

[-]

Or should they all be neanderthals in the corners of the world? The former is an appealing challenge... but I also like the austerity of a human-dominated world.

I tend to prefer the human-dominated worlds myself, at least in single-world settings, in so small part because conspecies have a tendency to drift into uses of the Other to illustrate this or that aspect of Human Nature anyway. A lot of things done with "races" in fantasy settings could often more satisfyingly be done with human populations.

[Aurora Rossa]

A lot of things done with "races" in fantasy settings could often more satisfyingly be done with human populations.

That's generally my thought as well. Unless they're truly well-done and interestingly different from humans they probably aren't all that necessary. Often times if you have a race based entirely on living in mines and forging metal they don't seem all that convincing as a conspecies anyway.

[WeepingElf]

A lot of things done with "races" in fantasy settings could often more satisfyingly be done with human populations.

That's generally my thought as well. Unless they're truly well-done and interestingly different from humans they probably aren't all that necessary. Often times if you have a race based entirely on living in mines and forging metal they don't seem all that convincing as a conspecies anyway.

Indeed. Any ethnic group should have a reasonably well-rounded economy, even if some may to some degree specialize in something they are especially good at. Also, most non-human sapient races in fiction are just stereotyped humans in disguise. More realistic, less extreme versions of typically "Elvish" or "Dwarvish" cultures work with humans, I think, and in my conworld, the Elves and Dwarves are indeed humans. (There are no Orcs, though. I strongly dislike the idea of a thoroughly evil race.)

[Yiuel Raumbesrairc]

A lot of things done with "races" in fantasy settings could often more satisfyingly be done with human populations.

That's generally my thought as well. Unless they're truly well-done and interestingly different from humans they probably aren't all that necessary. Often times if you have a race based entirely on living in mines and forging metal they don't seem all that convincing as a conspecies anyway.

Indeed. Any ethnic group should have a reasonably well-rounded economy, even if some may to some degree specialize in something they are especially good at. Also, most non-human sapient races in fiction are just stereotyped humans in disguise. More realistic, less extreme versions of typically "Elvish" or "Dwarvish" cultures work with humans, I think, and in my conworld, the Elves and Dwarves are indeed humans. (There are no Orcs, though. I strongly dislike the idea of a thoroughly evil race.)

You can go the other way, and have two sapient species that actually are as inventive and adaptive to different environments. This is what I have done for my own conworld. I am bothered by the whole "humans are masters in a world full of weird restricted species", so I took it as "main species in my view is only one of the main species in the world, and they mix because they share adaptiveness". How would people react if they were sure that any sexual relation with their neighbor will never bring children, no matter how much they try?

[Aurora Rossa]

Indeed. Any ethnic group should have a reasonably well-rounded economy, even if some may to some degree specialize in something they are especially good at.

I mean, if the dwarves do nothing much forge metal and mine gems, what the hell do they eat? Are they breatharians or something? I suppose they could import food by trading precious metals and objects for it, but in isolation from other races they would be SOL.

[zompist]

Tolkien's fantasy races derive from Germanic and Celtic myth, and aren't intended as con-economics. If you're worried about it, it's easy enough to suggest what dwarves eat: whatever Scottish Highlanders or German miners eat.

Orcs are more of a problem, as it's hard to picture them growing crops, and if they were supposed to be pillagers, they picked a particularly poor habitat to live in— there's few humans anywhere near them.

[Aurora Rossa]

Tolkien's fantasy races derive from Germanic and Celtic myth, and aren't intended as con-economics. If you're worried about it, it's easy enough to suggest what dwarves eat: whatever Scottish Highlanders or German miners eat.

Well, myths don't usually make a whole lot of sense from a scientific perspective anyway. Though I was under the impression that conworlds were typically meant to apply a scientific or at least plausible standard to material.

[Dewrad]

Orcs are more of a problem, as it's hard to picture them growing crops, and if they were supposed to be pillagers, they picked a particularly poor habitat to live in— there's few humans anywhere near them.

Wasn't it that the plains of Núrn were worked by human slaves to feed the Orcs?

[zompist]

Though I was under the impression that conworlds were typically meant to apply a scientific or at least plausible standard to material.

Most fantasy authors do nothing of the kind, I think— Almea is atypical in that way.

Orcs are more of a problem, as it's hard to picture them growing crops, and if they were supposed to be pillagers, they picked a particularly poor habitat to live in— there's few humans anywhere near them.

Wasn't it that the plains of Núrn were worked by human slaves to feed the Orcs?

By the time of LOTR, OK; but who fed the orcs of the Misty Mountains in the time of The Hobbit?

[Aurora Rossa]

Most fantasy authors do nothing of the kind, I think— Almea is atypical in that way.

Unfortunately so, though I kind of assumed most of them didn't consciously develop conworlds but rather their worlds were unplanned epiphenomena of their writing. Hence they have notions of an ancient classical language but no coherent grammar for it, or nominal feudalism without really understanding Mediæval economics, and so on.

Incidentally, how do you feel about bringing the Greek Christians into Almea these days? Is it something you regret but keep because you can't undo it without tearing so much up, or do they fulfill some integral part of your plan?

[Dewrad]

Orcs are more of a problem, as it's hard to picture them growing crops, and if they were supposed to be pillagers, they picked a particularly poor habitat to live in— there's few humans anywhere near them.

Wasn't it that the plains of Núrn were worked by human slaves to feed the Orcs?

By the time of LOTR, OK; but who fed the orcs of the Misty Mountains in the time of The Hobbit?

Imports? White Hand food parcels?

[BGMan]

Tolkien's fantasy races derive from Germanic and Celtic myth, and aren't intended as con-economics. If you're worried about it, it's easy enough to suggest what dwarves eat: whatever Scottish Highlanders or German miners eat.

I wonder what the Khuzdul word for "haggis" is?

In addition, one might note that based upon how many troops Rohan and Gondor mustered, the total human population of those two kingdoms could not have been any larger than Iceland's, so it's not as if Tolkien had a densely-populated Middle-earth to make supporting a "large host" a problem at any rate.

[Xonen]

Orcs are more of a problem, as it's hard to picture them growing crops, and if they were supposed to be pillagers, they picked a particularly poor habitat to live in— there's few humans anywhere near them.

Wasn't it that the plains of Núrn were worked by human slaves to feed the Orcs?

By the time of LOTR, OK; but who fed the orcs of the Misty Mountains in the time of The Hobbit?

Imports? White Hand food parcels?

Misty Mountain Goats?

Or is the point that the population was definitely too large to have lived solely on hunting and gathering? I don't really remember.