Jason Kingsley CBE, the Modern Knight, discusses social class and slavery in medieval England. Were peasants little more than slaves, and how could you win your freedom? #history #historyfacts #documentary
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @modernknight
"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."
"You're fooling yourself. We live under an autocracy where we are exploited"
"Dennis! There's some lovely filth down 'ere."
How d'ye know he's a king? Easy. He's the only one not covered in sh*t. And then you learn about wattle and daub.
@@joeturner8184 Must collect me berries, get back to me cave, and chastise meself ...
yep that's a reference to a movie
"You either die a villein, or live long enough in the town to be declared a free man."
Maybe villein not villain. Two separate things. Bloody English language!
@@fedupwelsh7211 Thank you for the correction.
Villein is basically farmer
If you were a villein and ran away, if your lord didn't catch you within 4 days the lord would have to go to court to get you back.
@@fedupwelsh7211 same root.
*video description:* "What's the difference between a Serf and a Slave?" *video content at the beginning:* "Here are 15 ways in which you are basically still a serf today."
Worse, they can take your house if you go bankrupt and you have to work far more than a serf today
@@GALA89 we absolutely work far less than slaves and serfs had to.
@@Quincy_Morris wrong, he literally said it in the video, other than being a quick google search away. Serfs worked 160 days a year
@@Quincy_MorrisAnother lie you've been sold
@@GALA89 on one hand, yes, on the other hand, no, they worked longer hours as the work had to be done in a time frame which was short, but outside of that they had fewer tasks for their job, they just filled it with things others do for us now, preparing food, any projects that need to be done, etc
I saw a comment from Denmark. Swede here and for most of our history we have had a rather unique situation where not only were the vast majority freemen, but they paid taxes directly to the crown, not the local lord. Swedish nobles had few freemen and even fewer serfs. We also had elected kings all up to Gustav I in the mid 16th century. This meant that unlike in a lot of Europe the farmers often voted with the king when there were tings or "Riksdags" and the king used the farmers as support to keep the noble families in check. Even after Guatav I the farmers usually sided with the king.
But what about Nils Dacke and his men? If it was as you describe, then the actions of the Swedish king, imposing Lutheranism on his subjects, must have embittered the Swedish peasants.
The farmers usually sided with the king, because they demanded that the king would promise to continue to upheld the farmers rights and freedoms, or else.
That’s fascinating, thank you for shedding some light on this history in this part of the world!
"how servile are you?" one of the standard questions in every job interview
My servility increases relative to monetary compensation... so very much so, but that's up to you.
Also in the preamble to any good marriage.
I have often thought that an IQ test is essentially a test of servility. Perform these abstract tasks just because we tell you to.
@@tamlandipper29 An IQ tests determines whether you were smart enough to practice doing IQ tests beforehand.
"As you can imagine, with human beings, the situation is quite complicated." A phrase for the ages.
Lol when I scrolled down to see comments I read yours just as he spoke those words. So true though
How every historical argument starts, really.
I have always loved cooking and I was living in a very rural area of Spain a few years ago. One day I started to think about how medieval peasants were capable of doing the work I used to do (but without modern equipment) eating only mud and squirrels. So I searched in KZhead medieval peasant food and find your amazing videos with that lovely lady about medieval classes food. I subscribed immediately and this is still the best channel for me. What a treat
thanks for your kind words and support!
"A steady diet of mud and squirrels"
Very true with the king making you a freeman from helping him in battle. I myself am a freeman of Malmesbury. My ancestor had helped king Athelstan in the battle against the Danes and therefore was made a freeman and also given land.
Evwry in feudalism has someone on top of them...even nobles need to kiss the ass of their superiors
Yeah right and I'm Harry Houdini
It is exactly the same phrase in Germany: "Stadtluft macht frei." - "Town air sets you free"
Just what I was going to remark! And the rule of a year and a day was the same, too.
Very interesting! German is a semi second language to me and I say semi because there's still a lot I don't know, especially little sayings and idioms like this. Did Germany have a hand fast ceremony as well? Hand fasting was akin to being married but without the church vows. It also lasted a year and a day. At then end of it, you either chose to marry in a proper church ceremony or go your separate ways. It gets me wondering if there were other year and a day arrangements.
Of course it's the same laws that applied to England and Germany, because neither of these nations existed during the Middle Ages. It was all formally the Western Roman Empire. William the Conqueror took as Duke of Normandy (dux = Roman title of a commander of several provinces, i.e. counties) orders from Pope Alexander II and the Roman Emperor Henry III. All of Western Europe was one complex hierarchical feudal empire. And the Church made sure that certain laws were universally followed.
@@magister.mortran That's interesting. I mean, I know about pretty much of Europe being united in the Holy Roman Empire, and I was aware that this rooted in the conquest of the Franconian Empire some centuries before. But I was never aware that England was so closely connected to continental reign and law. Obviously there was a lot of intermarrying between the leading houses over all of Christian Europe. But that doesn't automatically mean there are identical laws pushed by a central power. Does anyone know if there are surviving documents from the period, attesting to this law taking its origin with a pope or emperor of the time? (edit: grammar)
@@magister.mortran Im sorry but the Crowns of England and France were not part of the Roman Empire at that point. The HRE was mainly the german lands, the low countries, bohemia and italy.
Lord: "Rent!" Serf: "YOU'LL GET YOUR RENT WHEN YOU FIX THE GODDAMN MOAT!!!"
Gold, if only lol!
Thank you. That will keep me chuckling for days
“Shall I flog him, Sir?” “No… he is good boy.”
Why does the serf care about the moat anyway?
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana renters just need any reason to shout. There lives are sad. They want to take it out on you
The divide between the Danelaw and southern England is interesting to me as an American. There's a work on the ethnographic origins and the folkways of settlers in the 13 colonies called Albion's Seed, and it traced the ancestry of the southern US States like Virginia to Cavaliers from Southern England. The work shows that the indentured servitude traditions of these colonists lead to the development of plantation culture in the south, and a heavier class stratification that eventually reified into chattel slavery. It's so interesting to see the sharp north-south cultural divide that served as one of the main fracture points of our own civil war reflected so clearly in much deeper English history.
Another major divide was in how different cultural groups decided the concept of "freedom". Basically each American cultural class had a different concept of what "liberty" meant, and as such this lead to fractions in the young nation and eventually war. The Coastal northerner's conceptions of "liberty" were based on the religious ideas of the Puritan, Quaker, and religious refugee stock who conceptualized their liberty as a means of practicing faith and self organization distinct from a hereditary monarch. In the South - which had become dominated by a landed aristocracy - the conceptualization of "liberty" was based on their rights as private owners of land, having a far more classicist view of freedom as their right to pursue their happiness and interest in the accordance with their station.
Eh that's not entirely correct. while the upper class of South was dominated by aristocratics from England majority of the colonists were from lower classes from the border regions of England and the Scots and Irish who were the indentured servants.
I've always heard the opposite. People from the north of England settled the American South and the Northern U.S. was settled by people from the South of England. This distribution is said to be reflected in speech patterns, however I am southern born and bred, but I find it easier to understand the English accents from the southern end of England. Northern English accents grate on my ears like people from New York, New Jersey and New England do.
@@purrdiggle1470 the north of England is the border region between England and Scotland. Speech patterns in both US and England have changed a lot since then.
Hi Jason, I recently discovered your channel and just want to let you know that it is incredible. Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge in an interesting and digestible format! This episode on peasants and serfs is very well done. I would be very much interested in seeing future content that continues to expand upon your Medieval People and Society episodes, such as more on specific roles in medieval courts other than knights (e.g., kings & queens, household & servants, royal guard, other nobility & court appointments, musicians & entertainers, etc.) And on that note, perhaps the topic of medieval instruments and music as well. I love the episodes where you interview other people in their area of expertise and relate the discussion to medieval society. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for watching our work!
Regarding a serf becoming free because of military service, this reminds me of a similar thing in feudal Japan where a peasant could be elevated to the class of samurai. A supreme example of a spectacular rise in social ladder is a peasant, Hiyoshi-maru, who became an ashigaru (peasant foot soldier) for the Oda clan and was promoted to a samurai and eventually changed his name to Toyotomi Hideyoshi.. When he died, he held the title of Taiko instead of Shogun because he began his life as a peasant and therefore could not claim to be from a samurai lineage traceable to the ancient Minamoto clan which is a requirement to be a Shogun although he was in reality the true ruler of Japan and as powerful as any Shogun. The irony is that as Taiko, he locked down the class system so that no one born a peasant could be promoted to the rank of samurai.
Is not that strange, in both cases it was a time filled with violance, where one day you would be ok and the next your village could be burned down by invaders of another land. Everyone was in war with everyone. So anyone who could fight back and participates in the battlefield can get enough prestige and power to even change their status, but very few did really see that happend to them. People tend to forget that for any winner there where thousands of losers behind. And reason why Hideyoshi Toyotomi make the class system so rigid so no lowborn could be promoted, along with removal of weaponry among the peasant class, it was for the sake to maintain peace, even at the cost of the rights of the citizens.
yeah,only his boss Oda Nobunaga were considered have an actually will to make some changes of feudal system of japan,and therefor he murdered by his own trusty vassel(un able to spell the name) which is a classic samurai having a decent lineage.So,I think Hideyoshi may have to make some compromise with his powerful samurai Daimyos.
Usually they don't come back, but the English did.
@@hilskalaludwig3561 your looking for akechi mitsuhide ?
@@hilskalaludwig3561 both Oda Nobunaga and Ieyasu Tokugawa were very fond to name foreigners as samurai
Genuinely one of the best history channels on YT. Thank you for doing all this great work.
Hey I know you
Weird seeing you here. How's the cat?
Agreed
Wow, crossover time I guess (also I agree)
Oh shit off ponse
Thank you, Jason. I love the way you put complex concepts into readily understandable short videos. Obviously a lot more to it that you know, but a great start. Personally I prefer the more social stuff rather than the military. Keep it coming.
This is my first MH video. I loved the personal nature of it; I felt like he was talking to me directly and certainly not giving me a boring lecture. Learned quite a lot they missed way back in grade school! It was also interesting to learn that you may have had a better situation if you were a serf rather than free. Which of course triggers a very complex and interesting philosophical question. Anyway, looking forward to lots more of these - going to queue them up!
Thanks for watching, and yes the subject is complicated and requires a shift in perspective from today.
I find it really interesting how the class system really worked. It's nowhere near as plain as it was taught in school.
Is their anything in history. That is as simple as it was taught in school?
Start off with the basic assumption that everything teachers tell you in school is a lie, especially now.
@@EvidensInsania That's what happens when the government takes control of education. They're not going to tell you anything that goes against their version of history.
Aye, as much as we like things being black or white, it's often a tricky grey what serves as an explanation. One that comes to mind, is 'people in ancient times died at 30-40', well, there was a lot of miscarriages and kid mortality which brings the mean down, but for sure there were healthy men living more than 50 years old.
@@cabroncete William Marshall successfully led the charge against invading French forces despite being in his 70s. And this is after 70 years of brutal fighting in tourneys, wars and the crusades.
Despite him trying to demonstrate how complicated it was, he's actually simplifying things, because if you read the Doomsday book in the original Latin, or at the least in a translation that preserves the Latin when there is no direct translation, you find that there were two different ranks of servile, each apparently with their own set of rights based on the type of serf that they were. One of the most important reasons for proving you are Free, is if your are Free, then your children don't need anyone's permission to move away and start their own life. They can head off to London and seek their fortune, or take a longbow and serve as mercenaries in Europe for good wages (if they aren't cheated of their pay), or board a ship and go to the Holy Land, or take your tools and contract to work on the great Cathedrals, or whatever. Which again, shows that while 90% of the population probably never went more than 20 miles from their birthplace, there was a class of people even in the Middle Ages who were quite cosmopolitan. And another level of complexity to this is that economic status and social status were not so well tied as you might think. There are example in the Doomsday book of quite poor Lords and quite wealthy Serf families that own a lot of land and paid comparatively low taxes. At it's heart, Feudalism was government by private contract, and this extended all the way down to serfdom. All that court going was often to renegotiate the terms of your legal contract, and it would work both ways. A poor Lord that didn't manage his affairs well, could effectively be taking out loans from his serfs in return for improved social status, legal status, or better long term contracts. While there were broad customs and standards, every relationship was basically privately encoded and therefore legally unique.
Thanks for the insightful comment :) I am wondering, why is it called Doomsday book do you know? That sounds like something bad, like it's about the apocalypse or something! But it sounds more like a record of the land and the people who dwell there (I had never heard of it until I watched this video) :)
@@Vexarax I am fairly sure that the word "doom" in Old English originally meant something like "fate" or "destiny." So the "Doomsday book" could better be translated "Book of Destinies," which could be a fitting title for a book about people's statuses.
Do you know where i can read the book ? I would be thankful
@@Comradez thanks for the reply, I only just saw it as I was notified of the new comment here!
@@AmirAli-of6zf - I am on my phone so can't check Google for it right now, but have you tried typing "Doomsday book in modern English full text online free" - it might be archived somewhere!! I've found extremely rare very old books that way :D
I love your videos. They are very well researched and I like the presentation. As a history teacher, I use them quite a lot for inspiration or examples in the classroom. It’s nice to have little in-depth information next to the textbooks texts. Your work is very much appreciated!
Glad you like them, please send my best wishes to your pupils.
@ModernKnight whats wrong with his eyes?
It's always a pleasure to watch these videos! Thanks for making them.
Glad you like them!
A medieval saying was "the miller's collar is the bravest man in the village as he has caught a thief by his neck". Miller's had the right of "quernage", this means he could seize and destroy querns, or hand grain mills, and destroy them. If the miller presented the remains of the quern to the lord he received a bounty. Millers were infamous for stealing some of the grain given to them to mill, true or not, and then reselling it and this illegitimate tax was resented far more then the dues paid to the lords. In times of strife the miller was probably the first to flee the area until order was restored for obvious reasons.
I mean, people tend to displace anger, rightly or not, on people close at hand. When famine hit Paris during the revolution, citizens were lynching bakers in the streets convinced they were hiding bread.
@@k.v.7681 in psychology terms, this is the difference between anger and rage. Rage is wild, uncontrolled and typically taken out on whatever is within reach.
Interesting. In the game Kingdom Come Deliverance, the millers are treated like a sort of mafia, so maybe that has a basis in reality then.
@@gunnar6674 if you read the codex in KCD, they explain how millers were the victims of unsubstantiated rumors.
@@gwkiv1458 Ah, just like certain Sicilian businessmen.
Denmark also had geographic differences in the amount of freemen vs serfs (at least in the 19th century). The western, less fertile part of the country had more freemen, while the fertile east was more organised in large manors. The population density of the western part was lower, so people got used to being independent and taking care of their own affairs. The liberal movement in the 19th century also found more backing among the people in the western part of Denmark. The cultural distinction between the more independently minded westerners and the rest of the country still exists up to this day. Funny thing is the difference in fertility was caused by the distribution of ice in the last ice age. The east got the clay from the glaciers, the west got sand from glacier streams. So you could say the political and cultural landscape of Denmark was caused by an ice age 12.000 years ago.
Wonderful bit of infomation, thanks.
So, people in Jutland are the Danish equivalent of cowboys :) ?
this is the cool thing about historical materialism - you can often trace the social structure of a society to the geography that they were born into.
Very interesting. Thanks for the info about Denmark
@@memyself4852 Only if you like simplistic reductionism.
Really good stuff man! Thank you for all the work you put into these.
Another excellent episode of history, thank you sir!
Missed you! So glad to see you back. Always interesting content. Still wondering about the mule with no name. Can we see him again?
Yes, inquiring minds would like to know.
I could hear him braying in the distance late in the video LOL
Read: Mule with no name ... Brain: Cue "A Horse with no name"
@@billmiller4972 Now you’ve got me singing that in my brain! Probably for the rest of the day. 😊
@@billmiller4972 Perhaps the mule was left in the desert?
Splendid work. I love the level of information you present, the accuracy of your research and your presentation style, but I have to Say, GOSH that forest shot Is beautiful. Is that a grove near where you live?
It's on his estate. He's a british millionaire.
Thanks, oh elfin one. Yes, it's woodland on my farm. I am very lucky to live where I live.
You two could do worse than to collaborate on a video. Just saying..😉.
@@ModernKnight And I was thinking you had been demoted from a knight or earl to a peasant 😹
@@ModernKnight Now that he knows where it is, Metatron is going to rob your medieval stuff, pretty sure about it
As fascinating as usual, or even more so! Thanks for putting all this together.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
It blew my mind when I found out our host here develops video games..
Wait what? Links please!
well duh
@@AdamJorgensen He's one of the CEOs or one of the founder members, I don't remember the details, of the game Dev of the Sniper game franchise. People talk about it sometimes here in the comments.
@@AdamJorgensen Jason is the CEO of Rebellion Developments Limited, famed for Sniper Elite, he is also CEO of Rebellion Developments the publisher of 2000AD, (Judge Dreed etc.).
Steam had the full Rebellion catalogue on sale recently and a bought it mainly out of support for Jason who seems like a great guy. Also especially with how the game and movie industry is so heavily infected with wokeness and run by absolute scum I feel it's important to back those who aren't like that.
It was the Normans who brought the concept of noblesse oblige, the duty of nobility to treat the common people well. In the strict definition of a monarchy all lands and people ultimately belong to the Crown. Nobles don't actually own the land, they are given possession of the right to hold the land, in service to and at the pleasure of the Crown. Because the monarch is the nation and embodies the people, any insult to even the least of subjects is an insult to the Crown. Nobility was not immune to having their titles and lands repossessed by the Crown. All license is by order of the Crown, which is illustrated today by the fact Queen Elizabeth needs no driver's license: It is by her own permission she is allowed to drive.
Does she ever drive though? (Or did she when she was younger?)
@@bbgun061 She was in the British Military, as all Royals are obliged to be, and she served as an Army vehicle mechanic, so she presumably did drive those vehicles. And I believe I recall seeing a picture of her driving a Land Rover recently. Not needing a driver's license may not seem like much of a perk, but it does symbolize the fact that, even in today's Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen actually possesses vast powers she never uses, in the interest of upholding the Constitution.
@@natfoote4967 I had no idea she was an army mechanic. I assumed once she became queen, she was chauffered everywhere.
Really convenient for the nobility, and even powerful people today, that the serfs couldn't write their side of the story. I'm sure they'd have a lot to say about how noblesse oblige worked in practice. Here in the US, there are plenty of southerners who want to talk about how slavery wasn't that bad because some slavers were nice.
@@jeffersonclippership2588 I don't think anyone is claiming it was a good system. But the Normans did improve the lot of the average serf in some ways. The Norman Conquest has a very negative reputation among the public, for many good reasons. But it is also worth pointing out where there were social advancements. As an Englishman, it took me a long time to acknowledge the benefits that the Normans brought with them. This has nothing to do with justifying their rule over serfs.
Absolutely fascinating and really well presented again!! Love your channel! Wish your YT was around back when I was in prep school!!!
Big thank you for this clarification. Thought provoking, as usual.
Very welcome
Lord: I expect 10 chickens by the end of the week. Peasant: What?! I pay rent, I'm a freeman! Lord: No you're not. You're my Serf. 10 Chickens. Peasant: Nonsense! I'm taking you to court! Lord: You don't have the shilings for the legal fees. Peasant: We'll see about that! Man... things haven't changed much, have they?
Ahh the beauty of language. You could be a freeman but are you a free man?
When you took your lord to court it was in the lord's manor court. Evidence as we know it was almost unknown and guilt or innocence were proven by ordeal. Transmutation of boon work into rent only happened owing to a shortage of labor resulting from one of the regular plagues, or when the king had conscripted a whole bunch of the lord's laborers for one of the regular wars, and the laborers found that they liked being soldiers more than they liked being serfs. Back at the ranch opportunities for rape, looting and pillage were limited.
@@shadeburst pretty sure tennäntsusually arent favouredin court? Also the money on court. Also why do you guesssubscribe m8stly im theus army,poorpeople, 🤔 🤔tedthey tied alot bons to being in the army and pay for college, but still.
They did, for a little while, but we backslid into things we used to do. It's the story of humanity; We keep making the same mistakes and trying to trick ourselves and those around us that were doing something new by calling those same things by some other name. But it's still the same 💩
@@shadeburst You know, in the middle ages the peasants would not have made such silly claims and would have known that while court might be situated at the manor, for convenience, the lord would not preside the court for himself, but a judge. The peasants would have laughed at you for suggesting the lord could judge a case where he was the one being accused. Did you know, btw, that medieval hoaxes that were easily disproven in the medieval times go around the internet because apparently, medieval peasant can outsmart a modern internet user. In short, dont believe everything you see in a Hollywood movie.
So much of history is about countries and the extremely wealthy. I really appreciate anything on the topic of the common people. Great stuff. Truly.
Thanks for these videos. They're great for passively learning information (which has surely shaped our modern day laws and values) while also allowing the mind to drift sufficiently long into another world to prime a specific kind of dream
Another great lesson from my favorite historian on the tube, I could listen all day
Glad you enjoy it!
He is quite wonderful to listen to.
This man has taken the time to read the Manor rolls. They aren't hard to find, and really I wish, wish, wish that Fantasy authors would take the time to learn HOW the medieval period actually was. We have all these stupid misconceptions about the medieval world thanks to the lazy authors of the 80s.
They are fascinating (if a little boring!), same as the court records too.
While some of this is the writer's failure of education and failure of imagination, this often as not is actually a problem of the reader's failure of education and failure of imagination. If you are writing your Fantasy novel or even your Historical novel, how much time do you really want to spend on technical exposition to explain a world that is so alien to the readers current norms? How much time do you really want to spend trying to get the reader to realize just how differently the characters see the world and think about the world, especially when in the end you just might end up making the reader relate less to your character? When you start talking about modern Fantasy novels, quite often the writer's concepts were invented after exposure to modern Fantasy RPGs. But even in this situation, where you can really dig in and simulate an alien society, how much does it help the enjoyment of the game to dwell on the technical details of the game world. You run into problems if you make your game too realistically Medieval, that your players need a PhD in history in order to pretend successfully to be characters within that world. And if you add to that all the other things that make your game world unique, you find you are really demanding too much of the players and slowing the pacing of your rousing adventure story. So, even if you really know a lot about the real history, you usually accept anachronisms and simply things or push them aside to dole out in small amounts as color for the sake of the story. Fantasy writers are often doing the same thing, even those in the 1980s.
@@celebrim1 you don't have to explain the intricacies to your reader, like everything else you show it to your reader. further, much like in your daily life you don't need someone to explain to you how the power grid, computers, or cars work, you just have know the rules, you pay your power bill, you need to know what a monitor keyboard and mouse is, but the rest is magic for most people, you buy gas maintenance and repairs for your car, but if i gave most people a screw driver and told them to work on it people who use these things every day would not know where to start. the core problem is the authors don't know enough to make the worlds "real" or believable.
@@vidard9863 Imagine the situation reversed and you are trying to explain the life of a person in the modern world to a medieval person. You wouldn't necessarily need to explain how the power grid, computers, or cars work, but you would have to explain that those things exist, and then you'd have to explain that none of it was magic, that was is just a complicated application of natural philosophy no more mysterious than a grist mill - if you knew enough about the middle-ages to use terms like natural philosophy and grist mill. So would you then choose as part of your story to explain what a mouse and keyboard were, sufficiently well that the medieval person would grasp the rudiments of them if he then encountered them, knowing for example enough to explain that when he was right clicking or left clicking? Would this really help your story? In the same way, you might have in your medieval story that the yeoman's son goes to town to sell a cow on behalf of his father, and he falls into argument with a pair of drovers near the gate who complains that they ought to have the right of the road, but just then the Fuller's Guild led by a church father carrying the icon of their patron Saint , James the Less, because this being the 3rd of May is the feast day of James the Less, and therefore the Fuller's Guild is having a parade. And the Guild Apprentices are cavorting in their ceremonial sheep skin robes, and the masters are marching the the symbols of their trade, and behind them children are dancing and screaming and hoping to be thrown a present like a sweet roll or a pomegranate. And our protagonist sees his friend, who ran away from the master a year ago to make his fortune in the town among the apprentices. And a fight breaks out between the drovers and the fullers, and the priest is chastening them mightily their un-Christian behavior. And at this point you might have to explain what drovers, fullers, saints, feast days, and guilds are unless your audience is particularly well read.
@@celebrim1 ok, now where do i get this fantasy book?
I had god knows how many years of medival classes in my history class and this channel has taut me more about these times in like 4 videos
I love this channel. Keep uploading content!
I NEED more shots and videos like those clips of you in full laborer garb walking through the woods. I LOVE it. And the general videos of daily life and the small stuff like this? Perfect. You make learning fun, and you bring the lives of ages long past to life. And THAT is the work of a truly great scholar. Thank you.
If I could upvote your comment more than once to show how much I agree... I would!
I quite like it too, knights and soldiers are flashier (and heck, I still love them) but as I age I'm getting more into what the lay people lived like, is quite fun to learn about it and how they lived.
Oh.. u mean u need more of him in his everyday life... Lol. That's maybe part of why he doesn't so much... Would youuuu.. want to Flaunt and show off your everyday life.. noo. You will just wanna do.. LIFE
Why is so much of history focused on warfare? Im more interested in what life was like than the battles fought. Edit: I get it, that was rhetorical. Just thought I'd clarify since this is the internet.
@@weaksause6878I think it has to do with both simplicity and impact. Simplicity because discrete dates and events are easier both to remember and to digest. Impact I think because of time frame. obviously all the small activities and nuances of daily life have tremendous influence on everyone, but that influence tends to operate over very long and consistent time periods, the arcs it traces may be tremendous, but they take a while to properly view. on the other hand, a war, or even a battle, can completely change the fortunes of a people or a kingdom overnight, and so for a moment to moment measurement their influence is far greater. e.g. Twisting your ankle hurts and can ruin your day, so you will remember it, even if sleeping on a bad mattress for many years can disfigure your spine in a way that will change your entire life.
Part of it also depended on where you were. England apparently had some of greatest rights for serfs, but Russia's version was toeing the line of outright slavery.
Yes definitely. Reminded me a lot of sharecropping, which many people consider an extension of slavery.
Yes. The medieval era wasnt homogenous. You learn about medieval monarchy at school, normally centered on french or british feudalism. But these don't explain how the system works in places like the italian republics.
Probably depends on which part of the medieval period you were in and who owned the land you were on (predominantly church or nobility, I think)?
Toeing the line is perhaps a little conservative. Russian serfs that were not state serfs (belonging to the monarchy) could be bought/sold/gambled away, could not get married without their lord's permission, didn't have free right of travel, and could be abused and often times even murdered with no repercussions. They technically had some rights but I think it is hard to say that they amounted to much.
I'm pretty sure Russian version is just slavery 💀
Thank you for all your research and sharing it with us. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, will do!
I love your knowledge and insight. I always learn a lot from your videos. Thank you!
You are welcome!
Teachers/professors take notes; this is how you teach a subject. Love these videos! Entertaining and educational. Bravo, Jason. And... 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 A standing ovation for Kasumi's mad editing skills! Superb, seamless transitions. 👏👏👏 Thank you both for this great video and great content. Hope you're all keeping well.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@ModernKnight Loved it!
calm down, dude's a video game CEO who's a history hobbyist, not some history professor
@@Chuubii where might we see your contributions to society? Can you please list your achievements or accomplishments?
@@Chuubii I'm very much aware of what Jason does for a living. My point is that he makes history interesting where as there are professors who will put you to sleep!
A few notes One may contrast English freemen from the French. The former were taxed and made to pay rent, forced to learn learn archery, made to be ready to enlist as mercenaries in campaign, the latter were truly free. Stabilis, a serf of Fleury on the continent, worked his way to marrying a noble lady (nobility pertaining to wealth and respectability than peerage in medieval times) and owning an entire freehold. Society was more like a trifle than a sandwhich: visible layers yet overlapping and blurry borders, like the sherry seeping through a trifle's layers. Distinction between nobility and commoner mattered far less than servile vs free - a clerk in a royal household could be more "noble" than a rural judge. Social mobility was strong and alive in Medieval times, with econometric estimates for Paris determining human capital to be the greatest predictor of income based on tax rolls. Good reasings are Reynolds - Fiefs and Vassals, Epstein - A Social and Economic History of Latter Medieval Europe, Reynolds - Communities and Kingdoms in Western Eurooe 900-1300, Crouch - The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France, 900-1300 Source for the last note is Income Inequality in Paris in the Heyday of the Commercial Revolution by Sussman
I really like that trifle analogy 👍
Do you have a channel?
@@stevenobrien557 I'm writing the script for my first video (about the Great Famine, 1315-1322). Taking a long time with the combined research (have to shift through studies not just about the Famine itself but also about socio-economic conditions in 1300s Europe), work, and graduate school.
@@viatorinterra I was half joking, you have a really good way of explaining for a midwit such as myself. I look forward to anything you end up posting to KZhead.
TBH England was a proto Prussia and was in constant war with literally all its neighbors so they needed a constant supply of funds and men
Wonderfully informative. Thanks for another, Mr. Kingsley (and video team?).
17:20 in medieval Romania, especially in the principalities of Muntenia and Moldova, peasants were awarded with land for their military service. Historical records show us that the vast majority of peasants were free, mostly thanks to this system, by the times of Vlad the Impaler and Stephen the Great, and that the backbone of the army were free peasants (called răzeși/părtași in Moldova, moșneni in Muntenia and Oltenia). The situation in Transylvania was similar up until 1438, when Ius Valachicum and Universitas Valachorum were removed and the romanian peasants became permanent serfs/slaves to the hungarians and later to the austrians.
Feudalism ended in Britain pretty much in the 14th century
Interesting to learn how they thought about social arrangements. So, yeah, a serf is tied to the land and he can't leave it, but he is also tied to the land and nobody can sell it without including him and his right to work it. Splitting the concept of ownership of the land and ownership of the right to work it is an interesting concept.
I suppose this is a bit like "landlords" today selling homes which have ongoing tenants in them. The rent paying tenants are passed from one landlord to the next. Makes you realise, that today we might not be as free as we think! I wonder how the labour of a serf compares to rent for a typical home today? In this video it is described that you could buy your freedom or run away to a town. That is a bit like buying a home so that you no longer have to pay rent. I suppose we have one area of freedom that definitely did not exist back then, which is the welfare state.
No, it's splitting the concept of nobles having to eat food with making someone else do the work of producing it.
Yeah, he is not "cattle" to be bought and sold to the highest bider. He's not an commodity.
I think it is like game sort of. Lowest level of people like farmers consume lowest resource and without any skills. Most civilization will try to make sure that they don't die of starvation, disease, robberies, and natural disaster. More resource will pour more into more skills people as carpenter, blacksmith, and so on. more resource will pour more into knight, smart people, and royals, as they will protect the land from attacks from aggressive outlanders, robbers, and thieves and decide where resource will pouring into to produce better plans for the civilization.
@JeffersonClippership Yes, nobles were human and needed to eat. Incredible I know.
Abandoning land and buildings and allowing them to fall into disrepair without releasing title was injurious to the ville and to the manor. Land abandoned for a year and day is forfeit, and the rights of the serf to hold it are extinguished. While the air of the town is free, and freedom, the *typical* lot of a 'free' serf with only the shirt on his back was one of a labourer, living in relatively cramped conditions, and in a location where (as the settlement size (minor) and density (major factor)) increased famine and pestilence were more prevalent than in less the rural environment at large. A peasant here 'gains the freedom' to breathe town air, but at the cost of his rights to hold and use the land and messuage he inherited. The land holder might want to hold a skilled tenant on the land, but also might want to clear up intent to leave, rather than sloping off in the night - the land in waste harms other tenants, the desmene and glebe lands, and risks the surplus which collectively can be produced. If farmed (rights to work the land passed to another), then another tenant can work the land to their profit and to the benefit of all. If the rights to the land are granted away, the land can be gifted to other hard working peasants who will remain. The serf is also 'stealing' the rents, the works due within that year and day, and perhaps other dues payable (including heriot) and may be seeking compensation for those losses. It may have a lot more to do with contractual law and profits than it does with the *man*. At least in some cases.
On another note, isn't that last bit about Henry V translate closer to, "if you fight with me and win, I release you from your yearly dues so you can come pillage with me. Also, I'll probably settle things with your lord."
Yes. "The greater good" is the clarion call of tyranny and oppression.
So the free peasants are the medieval equivalent of a freelancer while serfs where similar to employees? Kinda makes sense, if you where a serf you wouldn´t have many rights, but at least you had some kind of protection in the land you worked unlike a free one. Plus back in the day nepotism was a common practice, people would rather hire a family member, even if there are bad at the job, way more than a complete stranger. Don´t forget this was a time where wars are rampant, and people usually where very cautious to anyone who doesn´t belong to their community. For someone of the Middle Ages being part of one it was a very big deal.
@@harrymills2770 everyone's got to eat in the winter
they were slaves, see I explained it in one sentence....
Superbly done as always…
Another thing thats interesting about northern England is that the survival of Anglo-Saxon landowners was higher than other parts of the country. The domesday book and the cartae baronum lists a higher number of knights and landowners with Anglo-Saxon/Norse first names than there was in the south.
Fascinating video delivered with great passion! The first scenes of you in the woods in medieval garb would look so different if you were in modern dress. Our eyes pick up on the cues of the clothes from those remote times and the woods behind you somehow suddenly feel like a place of mystery and adventure. That's the way I see it anyway. Probably played too much D&D as a kid and watched too many 80s fantasy movies :)
I really enjoy your channel. I am an American and amateur medieval historian. Your channel is so very informative and I savour every episode. My family came from South Oxfordshire. All that to say thank you.
Thank you very much!
Hope you have or will come and visit your homeland Brother.
@@boogeh3630 there’s no place in this world I would rather visit than England. 🏴 I want to see Stonehenge, the Tower, Hastings, the land of Edward I and III, Henry the Vth, and I could go on and on. That isle set in the sea, this land this realm this England. Thank you, I pray that I might visit soon. 🙏🏻🏴🇬🇧
l'm sorry l don't understand - when you say your family came from South Oxfordshire do you mean just one generation ago or was it further back than then? lf the latter then how much research did you make to establish that all your family came from that one location. l've done some checking on my family history and, in my family's case, came across far more diversity in the origins of them.
@@billythedog-309 hi, I understand. It was on my mother’s side of the family that came from England. My great grandparents came over in the 1880’s into Canada. My mother was the first American born child in Michigan. Her father was British in citizenship back then Canada was part of Britain still. I am adopted so I did a DNA search and found what areas we originally came from as well as getting in touch with my biological mother. It’s been a long haul. My great grandparents left the south of England and moved to the Isle of Man. From there immigrated to Canada. My father’s side is Native American. I hope I haven’t confused you.
I’ve always wondered about this. Even Uni would never explain it with detail remotely close to this interesting video.
Glad I didn't click back at the cheesy opening.. This guy has a great, easy going and enthusiastic manner and I really enjoy his videos. Clearly knows his subject and all his videos have been very informative. Great job Jason!
Glad you enjoyed it!
This is completely off topic but can you get your company to make you a henchman in evil genius 2? With the suit of armor lol
I'm definitely a Big fan of the game evil genius!!!
About church law and the death penalty : in France at least, the only "crime" the Church could condemn you to death for was for being "relapse" (no idea how to translate that), that is falling back into ill ways you had officially renounced (such as heresy - or being a woman in men's clothes as a certain saint was informed). Most people who got condemned to death in relation to religious trials were so by the civil court, generally on grounds of disturbing the peace or rebellion.
It never ceases to amaze me how much power the church had at that time. (They still do but it's quite different now) I'm Protestant Christian myself but I feel terrible about things the church did. I also would have been screwed because I hate wearing dresses because they're so impractical to things I need to get done. Haha
I have some doubts about that because the trial that condemned that woman in men's clothes to death was later declared null after a (post-mortem) retrial. Even a relapse wouldn't have condemned her to death since it was merely about clothes. With that said, I can see the rationale for executing someone relapsing into heresy, especially if rebellion charges are attached to it.
@@TheRisskee oh they are just much subtler now. Mossad is envious of the Vatican's spy system and acknowledged they are superior spys.
Joan of arc 'what its not my fault armor doesn't come in womans sizes' lol
@@Knoloaify Well that particular trial was not exactly the fairest ever, since there were important people (the English) who really really wanted "that person" dead. It doesn't change the fact that the legal basis for her execution was her supposedly being relapse.
Nice, simple presentation from someone who knows what he is talking about. Compare and contrast with 95% of KZhead channels. Keep up the good work
I am hooked on your channel! Great work. Thank you for the interesting historical content. 😊🌺
Glad you enjoy it!
One of THE best KZhead channels out there. Just superb.
Thank you. I have some school work I reviewed with my kids about how literally all non-royals in the medieval period were serfs, and that's just a fancy way to say slaves connected to land. How they were stuck there, always mistreated, and weren't ever allowed to leave their backbreaking drudgery. Also, their food was bland and uninteresting, while the nobles eat Peacock and other things. I had to correct this. It drives me crazy how "experts" write books blatantly wrong.
It is an unfortunate fact that people suffer from a normalcy bias and most of us dont realize it. We like to look down on our ancestors and imagine that everything must have been worse back then. We like to think that the way they organized society must have been inferior to ours and that they were mistaken about what is right or wrong while we are so much better - smarter, wiser and more righteous. This kind of thinking is where the classic trope of the permanently shit-stained peasants in grey rags comes from. Regarding this topic specifically, i believe the misconceptions you describe are common partly due to this mindset, which occurs naturally, and party due to intentional indoctrination. We in the west are taught liberal democracy and egalitarianism with all of their dogmas since childhood. Few of us ever really question and ponder this philosophy. We are subtly conditioned to think of democracy as a guarantee or synonym of freedom and righteousness. It does not surprise me in the slightest that schools teach kids to look at medieval societies the way you describe.
There was also a lot of protestant porpaganda which the enlightenment later doubled down on. Both factions were anti-catholic, so it was in their interests to make the catholic dominated medieval period seems as ignorant and miserable as possible - with historical revisionism to make things look much better in ancient greece.
Its entirely fabricated to attack the era where christemdom was mostly united and the catholic church "ruled the states". Look into an peasant or an slave during the classical era and you will find he lives the same or worse than medieval peasants, but for some reason they never bring it up. We have an glorified version of the classical era while the medieval era is vilified. Just wait until you realise the inquisition wasn't some monty python sketch and that it was more lenient than the medieval secular courts or "vigilante" justice of the era and that there's no proof about "millions of people burned at the stake by the inquisition. Its incredible easy to create facts in the past if you have the media behind you, like the canadian "native kids mass graves in the homeschools", no real mass graves were found, not one skeleton was showed or even tested nor any proof of foul play was shown. They just went to cemeteries and concluded that there were bodies there(duh).
Vast amounts for respect to you and your work good sir.
I like the vocal editing in here. Nicely done. Also I love the content. Very interesting, bravo
In terms of the military service one, I believe the Roman Empire did something of the sort. It was some 20 years of service in a legion, and then you’d be granted ownership of land somewhere, and maybe a pension? Of course, there weren’t so many standing armies in the medieval period, so it couldn’t really be done in years of service, but it might’ve been a similar sort of idea.
Yeah I do as well recall something about that, a legionary would be granted a bit of land to live on, unless he wished to continue in service or was recalled post-service as evocati.
Yup, that particular topic of rewarding Veteran soldiers is pretty much what caused the Roman Civil war, Caesar had an obscene amount of soldiers he needed to pay after his Gallic campaigns (with Land or coin of equal value) and my history is a little fuzzy but as i remember. the Senate did not think to pay them as well as they; the veterans. thought they deserved, and also it was 'expected' that Generals had to pay their own men... (See Crassus's folly) and Caesar was not nearly rich enough, So Caesar argued that the Senate should pay them in a complicate legal contract. Of course whether you think Julius used this as a plight and excuse to stage a civil war. or if he just genuinely wanted to provide for his veterans is up for the poets. point of the story being that Caesars veterans didn't just cross the Rubicon because they just "loved Caesar sooooooo much" no they did it because they wanted money & land and felt cheated.
@@marth8000 right. After 20 years of service, where is your land and where is your wife ? The land is probably not kept and the wife is probably remarried. Those issues did not begin with Julius Caesar to be sure.
How great would it be now if on leaving service after 20 years or so our military were given a house or plot of land to build on
Roman Empire had people with status similar to serfs but it is not about Legion service.
About the military service...imagine you are a noble. You are expected to maintain a retinue of a certain size. Some of your men died during a war and you need replacements and the sons of your existing retainers are too young to join. It would make sense to look at the serfs who have followed you to war as part of their feudal obligation and offer the most well-performing and loyal ones a spot in your retinue, which would naturally lift them out serfdom. Though this is probably not the same becoming a freeman as the former serf would then become a retainer instead.
Freedom through military service is pretty common in many cultures from large swathes of asia (china and japan specifically) to Greek and Roman
Oh shut up
@@thebitsanpiecesman4423 Who are you talking to and why?
@@HiragamaIkunai Service guarantees citizenship!
The right to bear arms is also complicated. You could be a Freeman but not have the right.
My great grandmother, who was alive when I was a child in the 1970's (she, 106 or so - they didn't record births and deaths too well in Russia back then, for the lowest class). She started life as a peasant in Russia (a serf ..by 'Russian' standards!) When she escaped genocide and came to Britain (still really, just a child). In the UK, she then became what was called an 'indentured servant'. However, this really meant you were 'owned' by the household you worked for (and a slave to whatever they decided). Thankfully, because it was the 19th century in Britain. Her owners were kind (and against classic Slavery per se). And so, like many other privileged families at that time, gave her a full education and treated her well (compared to anywhere, globally). That education, allowed her to break a cycle. And, later start a family. It allowed her to create stable generations going forwards (rather then future generations of poor and uneducated). It'd hard for some to understand, but we still truly thank that family who saved our great grandmother. It will be a debt MY family never forgets. Its why, as a family, we will always be proud of the British. And, to be British ourselves!
lovely history.
thats awesome. what genocide were your granfma fleeing from exactly?
@@lordnelsonmc.billionberg9166 The ones in Russia where ethnic minorities were either mass murdered or had to flee to the ports to look for safe passage to other countries. Given the wording of your comment, I trust you can research these massacres yourself. Russia though, aren't that big on remembering this history (and like to 'revise' it). Peace.
@@lordnelsonmc.billionberg9166 Most likely the Holodomor or a similar man made famine, they were quite common in Soviet russia around the time frame they specified or, if far enough back, the german invasion of the Soviet Union. Quite horrific events and the posters grandmother was very fortunate and likely strong of character to survive and later thrive.
That is incredible!
Excellent video - I haven't seen anything that well presented for ages. Subscribed. I used to teach history at the University of Reading - I wish I could have delivered my lessons with as much aplomb.
This is one of the best History Channels on YT.
thanks
In regards to the Doomsday book the north of England was substantially depopulated by the Harrying, which was essentially a genocide.
What is harrying
@@cv4809 William the conqueror wiped out those who would not submit to him after the battle of Hasting due to massive popular revolts to drive the norman invaders away, extremely extremely common thing, people never did bow to foreigners easily, nationalism unlike many disingenous people and outright liars claim has always existed, and so you, if you were a foreign invader cannot take land without signficantly taking a toll on the population which will take arms against you. Machieavelli speaks of this aswell. The commenter is mentioning specifically the "Harrying of the North"
@@cv4809 To Harry of Harrying, to carry out repeated and persistant attacks to wear somebody down. Which leads to a stupidly maccho nickname which then becomes just a normal name.
@@alexmag342 I don't think Nationalism was a thing yet or at least not yet a popular belief, people were more concerned with local issues as the issue with William was less because he was Norman but because he was a conqueror and most of the Lords are Saxon. (thus endangering the Saxon nobility and because Will is also a Bastard.) While people have an attachment to their people it was less because they believe in a rule of the people and thus the Nation but more who the next King would be (Monarchy is built on the Mandate of God while Nations are buit in the mandate of the people which wasn't really common back then.) P. S people back then while yes have a love for their people that doesn't mean they believe in building a Nation with that people like how we see it.
Genoside is really not that uncommon back then especially when it comes to wars between people of different faiths and ethnicities, but its also rare as wars are usually on the small scale.
Great content. It’s far more interesting to learn about how real people lived than being able to recite a list of dates of the " important " stuff. Could you address how the numerous religious holidays played into this system? I’m glad you mentioned that it was difficult to just pull up stakes and move. We are accustomed to the free right of travel. Besides banditry there were inherent dangers in travel to places where you were not known.
The cramming of "important history stuff" literally is the reason I couldnt give a shit in school. Ever since discovering these channels that go into the daily lives of people surrounding these events is so much more interesting
There may have been a distinction between serfs and slaves back then but with the modern meaning of the term "slave" serfs would be considered slaves. If police found out serfdom was still being practised the perpetrators would be prosecuted under modern anti-slavery laws.
Just started watching you videos, i just love them.
Glad you like them!
Oh man that will be interesting,as it varies a lot all around Europe what rights and duties they had.
A thousand years of history in dozens if not hundreds of different communities is impossible to have simple answers for.
@@phodon129 Rightly so, also learned some stuff in this one, like the Normans actually getting ride of slaves (bondsmans, but baby steps).
It seems that in feudal kingdoms, the most important right was the right to use land which came with the duty to either pay rent to the landlord or become a servant for the landlord
Such perfect presentation - it is so easy for videos on history to feel dumbed down & patronising. Thank you for your gentle, intelligent and inspiring videos. They are a window into the past.
...And woe betide anyone that... is a phrase that does not get enough use in modern English. Well done.
"quitrent" my new favorite word.
They wouldn't have thought of themselves as slaves. They probably felt fortunate to be part of the community at all. In exchange for their labor, they would also get the benefit of living near the castle (or in the case of some privileged laborers like blacksmiths, they actually got to live in a lot of cases AT the castle) and their payment was literally just protection. Most of them would have been farmers, so in exchange for their crops they would get to live "under the umbrella" so to speak. Some lords probably took better care of their peasants than others, but generally speaking an attack on them was an attack on the vassal himself and would be treated as such. They weren't educated so their opportunities were limited as far as doing much else with their lives. I don't think the vast majority of them cared nor did they view themselves as slaves.
Those who lord it over others are invariably less loved by those they oppress and exploit than they'd like to imagine. Nobody wants to slave the fields to provide luxuries for some nob in a manor house.
Would they have even understood the concept? I mean considering the amount of uprisings and attempted uprisings I don't think their lives were particularly great. And expecting a lord not to abuse their positions...1 in a 1000 maybe.
i think they were well aware of how weak and powerless they were, and there's a good reason why peasants had revolts that killed lords.
On the other hand, if a lord just didn't feel like spending the time and effort protecting his serfs from bandits or whatever, there was nothing the serfs could do to make him. Same is true if the serfs were threatened by their own cruel or greedy lord. This idea of noblesse oblige only survives because serfs didn't have the ability or chance to leave records of their side of the story.
@@berilsevvalbekret772 There's a limit to that and most lords understood their position and weren't willing to abuse their power and contracts, you have to consider the amount of lords that existed compared to the amount of revolts and you'd notice how uncommon it was for your average lord to so anger his subjects that they'd be willing to revolt. Its similar to today in many cases, do most people revolt (peaceably or not) over slightly subpar work environments? Not really, only when you see exceptional cases of decrepit workplaces does that happen, usually when they have a way too much central power over too wide a swath that you start to see corruption and the allowance for more wicked actions for which people generally revolt over. Same happened in serfdom and feudal cases, a lord with a relatively small amount of serfs did not have much power and was incapable to just abuse them because they could go so far as to revolt and easily win, but a lord with a rather large amount of serfs would have a lot of power and over time would be more likely to become corrupt and abuse some serfs, which may cause revolts but wouldn't always result in a successful revolt.
The power that landlords had over serfs varied across Europe, the idea of "rights" was strong in Britain, in theory if not in practice. I like the fact that you address some of the complexities, in the time you have quite a few.
That's an issue with the notion of "medieval Europe". And while a lot of people warn against the fact that it was a pretty long period of time with gigantic changes, people tend to forget that it's also a pretty big area with a BIG amount of cultural differences among dozens or even hundreds of cultural groups as well. A spanish peasant had almost nothing in common with a british or polish one. We know from chroniclers of the time that even nobles weirded each other out, and they married each other across borders. Try making any sense of the peasants who considered people from 5 villages over as foreigners in any united kind of way for the entire continent.
@@k.v.7681 it can be difficult in an age of constant communication and easy travel to remember that 2 villages 20 miles apart might have no direct contact among the peasants who were unlikely to have the inclination to walk 40 miles to say hi, and who couldn't spare a full day day to walk there and back even if they had the inclination.
Rights werent a thing until we can really consider the enlightenment age.
@@Jayremy89 rights were a thing but a very different thing. For example feudal lords were very big on their rights, as were kings. The idea of rights for an individual rather than rights as a consequence of rank were very much a later development. Magna Carta though very 0ver praised in its actual importance did include some idea of a right to justice (Though the main motive behind it was more about protecting privileges than rights.
@@Jayremy89 Ah yes, the drone of the indoctrinated masses.
When we talk about slavery in the world today, we seems always to be speaking of the American system of racial caste chattel slavery. The American system was in part based on the serfdom model and in part on the Roman manor model. In the Roman model, referring to the manor situation only, all of the persons living there, including the slaves, were considered part of an extended family under the direction of a _pater familias._ The American model also imitated the feudal European manor, with its clear and insuperable division of caste. The difference is, the European model was based on the feudal concepts of vassalage, liege and feudal obligation. The European system gave serfs certain rights the American chattel slaves absolutely did not have. They for one thing had a hereditary right to be on the land they lived on, and could not be removed from it. For another thing, they had the right to marry, the right to have a family name I suppose, and the right to practice religion (albeit the religion of the realm), but still religion. America chattel slaves absolutely had none of these rights under law. They were property and could be sold away from the land where they were born and raised. They could not marry and establish a legal family. They had no right to practice a religion, even the religion of their masters. In the European system, all were considered equal human beings in a transcendental order, with different place in worldly order created by God. Perhaps many slave masters believe the same thing - that their slaves and themselves all were equal beings in God's eyes serving in the worldly order in different ways. But the American slave master was not in any way required to adhere to this creed. The American system had its antecedents in the historical experience of the people who established it. For all of the depredation it visited on those in bondage, it was not in any way the worst system. The difference between it and feudal serfdom was the absolute lack of enforceable legal rights and the idea that the Black African slaves represented not only a different caste as the serfs but a different order of being entirely.
Thats not really true, yes they had the right to stay on the land but they also had an obligation to do so, they could marry with their lords permission. They were frequently subject to extreme brutality for slightly disobeying their lord, their entire house burnt down with them inside it, rape, flogging etc and these were punishments for not being able to pay the rent even if the land they had been assigned was not enough to pay that rent. They constantly lived in fear of something happening that would result in their lord wanting to punish them.
The tale in Northumberland is the Knight Templar's hide the Grail under the Holy Trinity Chapel in old Bewick. a very special place with cup and ring stones, a stone age fort then a roman one and to cap it off a ww2 pill box on the hill above it
Fabulous content! From the composition, to the videography, to editing the final package, this is 18 minutes of condensed history for the history buff. Sir Jason, your voice is nectar and honey! More, please. 👏 👏
Thanks!
@@ModernKnight I wonder, have you read "The Tribes of Britain", by David Miles? It documents some of what you say, and details how the plague created a labor shortage, and thus tipped the balance towards freemen.
I can't remember, but maybe, I've read so many books!
This is one of the few channels where I actually let the ads play, just to support the channel. Great content; always totally engrossing even if the topic seems mundane at the outset. I particularly enjoy the ones about medieval food.
Wow loving your content mate keep it up!!
Well spoken, indeed
Great to have you back! And with a specially interesting topic too!
ITS THE LAD JASON what up man hello from america. glad to see you havent stopped doing this. that tunic fit is lookin FRESH
Love your stuff. Keep it up!
That was amazing Thank you
Don't know how you do it, but you are amazing at humanizing the people of the past
A new video I'm so excited
"must work 3 days in each week" LMAO brooooo we work more than peasants. I'm shook right now...
640 eggs a year? I think i could manage that level of productivity
Easy life tbh
If I remember correctly, the produce of those 3 days a week went entirely to the lord, essentially unpaid labor. They had the remaining 4 days a week to see to their own needs, grow their own food, fix their own houses, etc.
As part of your arrangement with your lord, you would be given a certain amount of land for your own use. You would spend three days working on the lord's land and three days working on yours (Sundays would, ideally, be a day of rest, although I'm sure there was still work that needed to be done). Your land was your main source of food - they were essentially subsistence farmers.
@@markz8665Proportionally, more of our labor goes to enriching the 1% than it does to us. We don't even take home 1/100th of our productivity. Serfs took home 4/7ths of their productivity. Obviously this is way more complicated than what I'm saying in an almost disrespectful level of oversimplicity. But my point is, we take home less of the fruit of our labor than anyone has in history, barring slaves and indentured servants.
Thank you for this.
My pleasure!
@@ModernKnight Other than enjoying it, it's probably selfish on my part. The more people are exposed to the truth about the period, the less as a historical fiction author I have to deal with the massive misconceptions. 👍
I love you guys so much... I appreciate all the work you guys put into this channel. Thank you for all this great information!
Our pleasure!
This is brilliant! Your videos are wonderful and very interesting to watch. I find peasant and just normal every day life so fascinating. You’ve already done some great videos on food, but do you have any more planned? Perhaps on drinks / wine / ale? Or life in “cities” in London? Medieval life is so interesting. To add: I love the natural setting of your videos. The birds chirping, sounds of stepping on grass, it all adds a lot to the atmosphere.
Glad you like them!
Would have been so awesome to have this man as your history teacher!
Brilliant video! I am learning about my country more and more
Glad you enjoyed it!
Lovely to see you back...always learn so much from these
Me, too! I love watching and learning -- and thinking about how my great-grandparents lived and worked like medieval peasants. My grandparents started their lives like that, but eventually got electricity, indoor plumbing and tractors.
By far the best history channel on KZhead! Keep up the great work!
It's incredible to see most of these laws in some form or another are still in place
I recently watched a medieval history lecture where the presenter said that after the Black Death the lives of serfs were greatly improved, because there was a tremendous labor shortage. More people were needed than were available so they were highly valued and in those times they were treated very well. Someone else said that there were times when serfs went to court to prevent the lord from "freeing" them so they wouldn't be forced to come up with cash rent instead of owing codified types and amounts of labor. Apparently there were periods in the middle ages when it was more advantageous to be a serf than a free "masterless" man. A lord couldn't let his serf starve, but a freeman was on his own.
Marx wrote something similar in that regard. How comfortable a slave was depended on how much he was valued by his owner. While the comfort of working class freeman depended on how much the market values them. So at times it was better to be a slave then a freeman. You can see that in medieval middle east. Where it was common for slaves to reach positions of power. In the middle east kings would appoint slaves to high positions of power such as emirs and high level generals because it was much easier then dealing with dynastic politics of freeman. But after the industrial revolution in 19th century. The wages of freeman exploded so high that it was simply objectively better to be a freeman then a slave.