4 ms·

I wouldn't have guessed that "those who fight" would have had a very high social status. Can someone explain?

detaro 6y ago
With the context given as High Middle Ages, "those who fight" primarily as in knights, with ideas around chivalry etc having strongly developed by then, and at least the "proper" knights being landed etc.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
What they're referring to here is that medieval European aristocrats were typically military aristocrats, with the power to personally command troops and fight wars in addition to administering their lands. Random farmers who got levied into an army wouldn't have gained high social status from it.
Lazare 6y ago
"Those who fight", in this case, means the military aristocracy. Compare to the three estates of the French Ancien Régime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm#Kingdom_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm#Kingdom_o...). The first estate was clergy (aka, "those who prey"). The second estate was nobility, original the "nobility of the sword" (aka "those who fight"), but later including administrators and judges as the "nobility of the robe". Note that the second estate was exempt from most taxes and forced labour, which underscores their power and prestige. And then the third estate was "everyone else", basically peasants, serfs, wage labourers, etc.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  > The first estate was clergy (aka, "those who prey") It was originally "those who pray", though "prey" may also be appropriate.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  The etc. also covers all the lower clergy, very different fromnthe higher one. Also a part of the poorer nobility.
IdiocyInAction 6y ago
I am not a historian, but IIRC, warrior-nobilities were really not that uncommon before gunpowder was invented. Sparta had a (very cruel) one, Greece had one, etc.
Karrot_Kream 6y ago
Brahmins, a scholarly class, have traditionally been atop the Hindu caste system in wide usage in South Asia for millenia, with Ksatriyas, the warrior class, below them. Not all societies view might as right. (And in fact, much of Asia has a history of assimilating, not coming under, invaders pre-British imperialism.)
- socaldat 6y ago
  > Brahmins, a scholarly class, have traditionally been atop the Hindu caste system in wide usage in South Asia for millenia There's no real concrcete evidence for this. The British colonialists actually artificaly created most of the caste system rules and hardened them. Much like Leopold in Rwanda and the artificial invention of the Hutu vs Tutsi narrative which had devasting consequences later on. "When the Belgian colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined "Tutsi" as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical feature of a longer nose, or longer neck, commonly associated with the Tutsi. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi
watwut 6y ago
"Those who fight" are the ones who have power. It takes strong civilian control over army for them to not have much power. And social status flows from power.
stereolambda 6y ago
This came from the fact that in the early Middle Ages it seemed more feasible to pay your warriors with land than with money. Money was scarce and harder to use in a collapsed economy. In the beginning, you had just the fighting men of your barbarian post-Roman kingdom. The barbarians had their military egalitarianism, but what remained from the Antiquity's culture perceived soldiers more like we do (as a specialized force and not as the societal elite). The warriors (which became knights) were supposed to hold the land on the condition of military service. But it gradually became hereditary. Over the centuries, holding the main form of capital in the society gave knights high position and tremendous clout. (Note that the other big landowner was the Church.)
robotresearcher 6y ago
The article identifies 'those who fight' as knights. Knights often raised, resourced and commanded their own armies. "As “those who work” (in Latin, laboratores), peasants supported people more privileged—“those who pray” (oratores) and “those who fight” (pugnatores). Each of these three orders ideally helped the other, with clergy contributing prayers and knights providing protection, but the mutuality of the system was more ideal than real. Also, the three groups were not equal. A peasant might have benefited from the prayers of a nun or from the protection offered by a knight, but a peasant was deemed to do work of lesser value and to be a less worthy person. Born into this unexalted state, a peasant’s lot was to labor for the benefit of others."

With the context given as High Middle Ages, "those who fight" primarily as in knights, with ideas around chivalry etc having strongly developed by then, and at least the "proper" knights being landed etc.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

What they're referring to here is that medieval European aristocrats were typically military aristocrats, with the power to personally command troops and fight wars in addition to administering their lands. Random farmers who got levied into an army wouldn't have gained high social status from it.

Lazare 6y ago

"Those who fight", in this case, means the military aristocracy. Compare to the three estates of the French Ancien Régime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm#Kingdom_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm#Kingdom_o...). The first estate was clergy (aka, "those who prey"). The second estate was nobility, original the "nobility of the sword" (aka "those who fight"), but later including administrators and judges as the "nobility of the robe". Note that the second estate was exempt from most taxes and forced labour, which underscores their power and prestige. And then the third estate was "everyone else", basically peasants, serfs, wage labourers, etc.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
> The first estate was clergy (aka, "those who prey") It was originally "those who pray", though "prey" may also be appropriate.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
The etc. also covers all the lower clergy, very different fromnthe higher one. Also a part of the poorer nobility.

IdiocyInAction 6y ago

I am not a historian, but IIRC, warrior-nobilities were really not that uncommon before gunpowder was invented. Sparta had a (very cruel) one, Greece had one, etc.

Karrot_Kream 6y ago

Brahmins, a scholarly class, have traditionally been atop the Hindu caste system in wide usage in South Asia for millenia, with Ksatriyas, the warrior class, below them. Not all societies view might as right. (And in fact, much of Asia has a history of assimilating, not coming under, invaders pre-British imperialism.)

socaldat 6y ago
> Brahmins, a scholarly class, have traditionally been atop the Hindu caste system in wide usage in South Asia for millenia There's no real concrcete evidence for this. The British colonialists actually artificaly created most of the caste system rules and hardened them. Much like Leopold in Rwanda and the artificial invention of the Hutu vs Tutsi narrative which had devasting consequences later on. "When the Belgian colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined "Tutsi" as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical feature of a longer nose, or longer neck, commonly associated with the Tutsi. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi

watwut 6y ago

"Those who fight" are the ones who have power. It takes strong civilian control over army for them to not have much power. And social status flows from power.

stereolambda 6y ago

This came from the fact that in the early Middle Ages it seemed more feasible to pay your warriors with land than with money. Money was scarce and harder to use in a collapsed economy. In the beginning, you had just the fighting men of your barbarian post-Roman kingdom. The barbarians had their military egalitarianism, but what remained from the Antiquity's culture perceived soldiers more like we do (as a specialized force and not as the societal elite). The warriors (which became knights) were supposed to hold the land on the condition of military service. But it gradually became hereditary. Over the centuries, holding the main form of capital in the society gave knights high position and tremendous clout. (Note that the other big landowner was the Church.)

robotresearcher 6y ago

The article identifies 'those who fight' as knights. Knights often raised, resourced and commanded their own armies. "As “those who work” (in Latin, laboratores), peasants supported people more privileged—“those who pray” (oratores) and “those who fight” (pugnatores). Each of these three orders ideally helped the other, with clergy contributing prayers and knights providing protection, but the mutuality of the system was more ideal than real. Also, the three groups were not equal. A peasant might have benefited from the prayers of a nun or from the protection offered by a knight, but a peasant was deemed to do work of lesser value and to be a less worthy person. Born into this unexalted state, a peasant’s lot was to labor for the benefit of others."