@Kaarme
"No, they were no such universal rule. Typically an eldest son would inherit the father's business. However, it's entirely possible the business couldn't give livelihood to more people than one family. The rest would need to find their fortunes elsewhere."
you forget that dying was pretty common back then, people would hve many children to ensure the future of the family so yes they would all be trained for the trade. Of course if nothing happened they'd hve to look for work elsewhere.
"Sure, it was convenient with slaves, but at the end of the day, in the distant past most people lived from hand to mouth. You could pay pittance and still find workers. The situation was made even more straightforward in the places where being a vagrant (in a town) was a crime. You needed to have a job or be under someone's protection, or you would get into trouble with the law."
No it doesn't work as well, whenever temples, roads, and otehr buildings needed to be built, Slaves where the best bet, becus ethey could simply push the slaves to do any job, while hiring vagrants or just anybody wouldn't work as well as they could simple refuse a job that was too much for them to handle as individuals. Vagrants and others would usually work on smaller jobs.
"Eh. Only priests, bigger merchants, high officials, bankers, architects, philosophers, other aristocracy and such people had jobs that required formal schooling. The vast majority learned their craft through apprenticeship. In fact when the guild system developed (and overdeveloped), you couldn't even practice many professions without going through that. And the guilds decided when some town had enough masters of some craft. How to become an apprentice wouldn't be something to sort out in a single sentence."
Isn't that what I said though? That only nobles and the like had access to school? High Officials, Priests, Philosophers, most of them were either rich or were actual aristocrats.
"People dealt with coins as much as they could. Merchants preferred them, and when people from the countryside came to towns to sell their produce, they preferred them, although if they also needed to buy something and got a better deal by bartering, sure, why not. Still, like you said, depending on the country/province, it could have been more undeveloped. For example, it wasn't uncommon for farmers to pay their taxes in the form of whatever they were growing, be it crops, meat, butter, etc. One practical problem was the amount of money in circulation. Since it wasn't fiat money, the government needed silver (and gold) to create the money. There might not have always been enough of it."
That doesn't contradict my comment in anything, as a matter of fact it reinforces it. People usually lived in villages, unlike nowadays there wasn't many reasons for people to leave the interior and head for cities. Like I said people used money to buy thing from merchants, they got that money by selling their own products, obviously, but the necessities such as pots, food and tools they usually got that by trading products directly. As it was much easier since there would usually be local artisans in their villages, they would trade for forks and knives with Blacksmiths, for pots and tapestry with artisans, anything that wasn't available they woul buy from merchants with money, but it was totally possible to live without spending a dime, depending on whether a village or town had such products available.
"A slave always has an owner. Unless the owner has been killed, but then officials would figure out who inherits the slaves (unless a testament set them free). If nobody was around, I imagine the crown claimed them. If someone else's slave was killed for no good reason, the killer had to compensate the slave's worth to the owner, as slaves were property. Since few people actually were swimming in money in the distant past, you really didn't do things that made you lose money unnecessarily. Doing something and not being able to pay would be even worse."
Yes, a slave always has an owner, but that doesn't mean that slaves didn't escape or weren't illegally freed. My comment refers to these situtions. Slaves that escaped or were freed were usually treated like crap, I could even give you more modern examples of this happening, as in my country's history we did have things like this happening. There's even one guy who became pretty famous for that, and went about freeing other slaves, he became a national hero with a day dedicated to him. But I digress, anywy there were indeed ocasions where Slaves became "free" and were mistreated.