4 ms·

A small castle was also an ideal location from which to terrorize and pillage the surrounding countryside, so not too unlike transacting safety for your store f

A small castle was also an ideal location from which to terrorize and pillage the surrounding countryside, so not too unlike transacting safety for your store from the local mob.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Bit of both, I’m sure. I would also bet that if the peasants had a sufficiently thorough history, they would probably hate first peasants to have entered into serfdom for protection. While that might have seemed like a good idea right after the fall of Rome, it probably looked less good a few centuries later.
bennysonething 6y ago
Exactly, it was a protection racket. And like all protection brackets some people romanticize them (I've come across this view multiple time in my home town, Belfast, where paramilitaries have offered this "service" to small businesses). Also it's worth pointing out that literacy rates across Europe plummeted as the Roman empire fell apart. I read that even Charlemagne "struggled with his letters".
- Bayart 6y ago
  Charlemagne struggled with writing the incredibly arcane Merovingian script [1]. That's the very reason he came up with the Carolingian script [2] the very print script you're reading this message with is descended from and the reason why he implemented school reforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_script [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule
  - bennysonething 6y ago
    Ah well that's interesting, thanks.
ummonk 6y ago
Yup. To the point that guilds in the late Middle Ages started recruiting their own militias to protect their trade from "nobility" (i.e. thugs with castles).
- NoZZz 6y ago
  Would that be similar to buying security software to keep the hackers out?
CaptArmchair 6y ago
Historian here. That's a generalization. Manor lords did not "terrorize and pillage" the surrounding countryside. Have you read the article? I can tell you it's a correct summary of an established views on medieval society, such as it is. A common misconception is to view medieval serfs, free peasants and wage laborers as "oppressed masses" from a modern perspective, colored with romantic glasses from 19th century tales such as Robin Hood or Ivan Hoe. That's just incorrect. Sure, there were plenty of peasant revolts (Jacquerie - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie) against the nobility. Both those were generally not against the foundations of the societal system from which manor lords derived their authority, but rather prompted by the precarious living conditions these groups found themselves in. People didn't revolt because they felt "oppressed or terrorized", they would revolt when they got too hungry or felt unprotected. The Jacquerie happened against the backdrop of the 100 years war. Warbands consisting of unemployed English, German and Spanish mercenaries roamed the French countryside. French nobility was pretty much powerless to do anything at the time. That's what prompted the lower classes, who felt unprotected, to engage in a violent uprising. Most of the times, the legal framework which governed the relationship with a manor lord wasn't questioned since that's what provided a sense of stability and order. Also, the "medieval age" spans 1.000 years if you use commonly accepted termini ab quo / ad quem (476 - 1453). But manorialism itself extended well into the pre-modern age up to the French Revolution and, depending on where you lived, well into the 19th century (Russia, serfdom was abolished in 1861). It certainly wasn't a catch all system: there were many variations and adaptations.
- hoseja 6y ago
  Isn't that a little bit like saying the mob doesn't terrorize people when they know what's good for them?
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    No. Because the same argument could be made about literally any authority. Whether it's an autocratic rule, a modern democratic state, a feudal lord or a mob boss. What makes all the difference is how "good" gets defined. You, I and the next person will likely have differing opinions on that. And I'm pretty sure that the medieval precariat and nobility will have an entirely different perspective on that as well. Medieval times weren't lawless times either. The legal framework at the time was based on customary laws which eventually evolved and coalesced into the formal legal systems we know today. Common Law as it first originated in England is rooted in such customary laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_court As far as "terror" is concerned: the notion of "human rights" is quite modern and only started to become widespread during the late 18th century. Torture, corporal and capital punishment were par for the course in severe criminal cases. These weren't times where one enjoyed the same freedoms as one does today either. But that doesn't mean people were constantly and randomly subjected to horrible fates at the slightest perceived transgression either. Moreover, rather inhumane methods of asserting and delivering justice rooted in Frankish, Germanic, Saxon or Nordic traditions were rooted out rather early. Trial by ordeal was abolished by the Church in the early 13th century, for instance. As I said, we're discussing over 1.000 years of history. And depending on the time and location, you'd be more or less at risk of finding yourself at the tentative mercy of authority such as it ruled.
Bayart 6y ago
Why would you terrorize your own workforce and pillage your own assets ? Feudalism was largely rooted in the Late Roman fiscal system that incentivized industrialized agriculture with large estates and self-sufficient villas in Gaul and Britain. When imperial authority failed they became political forces, and the regional military forces started acting out as peace-breaker and eventually became sovereign polities (the so-called barbarian kingdoms). Nowadays historians have become increasingly suspicious of Late Roman land-owners, as there are quite a few known cases of families switching from seemingly Latin names to seemingly Germanic ones. The Medieval castle's just a villa with a military streak. The purpose isn't as much pillaging the direct surroundings as it is to protect your assets from the next land-owner over.

A small castle was also an ideal location from which to terrorize and pillage the surrounding countryside, so not too unlike transacting safety for your store from the local mob.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Bit of both, I’m sure. I would also bet that if the peasants had a sufficiently thorough history, they would probably hate first peasants to have entered into serfdom for protection. While that might have seemed like a good idea right after the fall of Rome, it probably looked less good a few centuries later.

bennysonething 6y ago

Exactly, it was a protection racket. And like all protection brackets some people romanticize them (I've come across this view multiple time in my home town, Belfast, where paramilitaries have offered this "service" to small businesses). Also it's worth pointing out that literacy rates across Europe plummeted as the Roman empire fell apart. I read that even Charlemagne "struggled with his letters".

Bayart 6y ago
Charlemagne struggled with writing the incredibly arcane Merovingian script [1]. That's the very reason he came up with the Carolingian script [2] the very print script you're reading this message with is descended from and the reason why he implemented school reforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_script [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule
- bennysonething 6y ago
  Ah well that's interesting, thanks.

ummonk 6y ago

Yup. To the point that guilds in the late Middle Ages started recruiting their own militias to protect their trade from "nobility" (i.e. thugs with castles).

NoZZz 6y ago
Would that be similar to buying security software to keep the hackers out?

CaptArmchair 6y ago

Historian here. That's a generalization. Manor lords did not "terrorize and pillage" the surrounding countryside. Have you read the article? I can tell you it's a correct summary of an established views on medieval society, such as it is. A common misconception is to view medieval serfs, free peasants and wage laborers as "oppressed masses" from a modern perspective, colored with romantic glasses from 19th century tales such as Robin Hood or Ivan Hoe. That's just incorrect. Sure, there were plenty of peasant revolts (Jacquerie - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie) against the nobility. Both those were generally not against the foundations of the societal system from which manor lords derived their authority, but rather prompted by the precarious living conditions these groups found themselves in. People didn't revolt because they felt "oppressed or terrorized", they would revolt when they got too hungry or felt unprotected. The Jacquerie happened against the backdrop of the 100 years war. Warbands consisting of unemployed English, German and Spanish mercenaries roamed the French countryside. French nobility was pretty much powerless to do anything at the time. That's what prompted the lower classes, who felt unprotected, to engage in a violent uprising. Most of the times, the legal framework which governed the relationship with a manor lord wasn't questioned since that's what provided a sense of stability and order. Also, the "medieval age" spans 1.000 years if you use commonly accepted termini ab quo / ad quem (476 - 1453). But manorialism itself extended well into the pre-modern age up to the French Revolution and, depending on where you lived, well into the 19th century (Russia, serfdom was abolished in 1861). It certainly wasn't a catch all system: there were many variations and adaptations.

hoseja 6y ago
Isn't that a little bit like saying the mob doesn't terrorize people when they know what's good for them?
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  No. Because the same argument could be made about literally any authority. Whether it's an autocratic rule, a modern democratic state, a feudal lord or a mob boss. What makes all the difference is how "good" gets defined. You, I and the next person will likely have differing opinions on that. And I'm pretty sure that the medieval precariat and nobility will have an entirely different perspective on that as well. Medieval times weren't lawless times either. The legal framework at the time was based on customary laws which eventually evolved and coalesced into the formal legal systems we know today. Common Law as it first originated in England is rooted in such customary laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_court As far as "terror" is concerned: the notion of "human rights" is quite modern and only started to become widespread during the late 18th century. Torture, corporal and capital punishment were par for the course in severe criminal cases. These weren't times where one enjoyed the same freedoms as one does today either. But that doesn't mean people were constantly and randomly subjected to horrible fates at the slightest perceived transgression either. Moreover, rather inhumane methods of asserting and delivering justice rooted in Frankish, Germanic, Saxon or Nordic traditions were rooted out rather early. Trial by ordeal was abolished by the Church in the early 13th century, for instance. As I said, we're discussing over 1.000 years of history. And depending on the time and location, you'd be more or less at risk of finding yourself at the tentative mercy of authority such as it ruled.

Bayart 6y ago

Why would you terrorize your own workforce and pillage your own assets ? Feudalism was largely rooted in the Late Roman fiscal system that incentivized industrialized agriculture with large estates and self-sufficient villas in Gaul and Britain. When imperial authority failed they became political forces, and the regional military forces started acting out as peace-breaker and eventually became sovereign polities (the so-called barbarian kingdoms). Nowadays historians have become increasingly suspicious of Late Roman land-owners, as there are quite a few known cases of families switching from seemingly Latin names to seemingly Germanic ones. The Medieval castle's just a villa with a military streak. The purpose isn't as much pillaging the direct surroundings as it is to protect your assets from the next land-owner over.