3 ms·
That applied to aristocracy only, didn't it? Peasants were considered as slightly more intelligent livestock, their lives nearly worthless.
by why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
That applied to aristocracy only, didn't it? Peasants were considered as slightly more intelligent livestock, their lives nearly worthless.
- neaden 6y agoNo, peasants had rights which varied immensely depending on their exact status and where they were. Still the aristocracy couldn't just kill them or take their stuff, and one of the primary responsibilities of the aristocracy or other landholders was adjudicating disputes between peasants. So if we were two free peasants who got in a fight, we might end up in court with the lord or their representative deciding between us, with one or both of us possibly facing fines.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoSerfs had a lower maximum tax rate (33%) than we have in the USA. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-022058-4275r/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-0220...
- neaden 6y agoI don't think that is a good metric, in a couple different ways. First you can't universalize the tax rate of serfs like that, and serfs don't represent all peasants/lower classes. We are talking about hundreds of years across a huge area. Different social classes also paid different taxes, a villein's obligation to their lord in a village would be different than a free peasants. Much of what a peasant paid was also in kind, either in the form of crops or work for their lords estate. The "history" in the linked article in uncited, so I am not sure where the author is getting that figure from but at best it represents the lives of a specific group of people, not some statement across centuries and countries.