4 ms·

Serfs were essentially slaves but because Christianity technically forbade slavery the church side-stepped the issue by narrowly defining slavery as only when s

Serfs were essentially slaves but because Christianity technically forbade slavery the church side-stepped the issue by narrowly defining slavery as only when someone is bought or sold. Serfs were bound to the land and lord they 'served' under and had no rights. Lords couldn't buy and sell serfs but they could lease them to other lords. So it wasn't slavery as long as you gave the serf back to the lord you got them from at some point.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
Where is your source that Christianity technically forbade slavery and that this was related to the concept of serfdom? I wasn't aware of this and find it surprising compared to what I had originally thought about the time period on question.
epicureanideal 5y ago
There is a dead sibling comment to my comment that seems inflammatory but is correct historically. Many societies continued to have slaves after the introduction of Christianity, including Britain before the Norman conquest. There was a religious reform movement around the time of the conquest that if I understand correctly gradually eliminated slavery over a few generations to a few centuries.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  The main distinction here is that Christianity was much more open to the slavery of non Christians than the slavery of Christians. The Catholic Church was very particular about this in making sure to only ban the enslavement of Christians while explicitly condoning the slavery of non Christians. It's a classic example of ingroup vs outgroup bias.
  - mc32 5y ago
    I would say that’s not exclusive to Christianity or even Abrahamic religions.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  Someone can correct me but I think the difference is the Church wasn't down with taking a Christian as a slave. That would have resulted in the number of slaves dwindling. I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property. Might be that Romans would have considered the difference between their slaves and medieval surfs as a distinction without a difference. And possibly be horrified by the US variant. Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property. There was nothing especially virulent about slavery in the US compared to slavery in other places. > Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF? It's actually true that American slaves were generally legally forbidden from marrying. This didn't matter, though; marriage was not just not suppressed but actively encouraged by slaveholders. It's not true that American slaves didn't have the right to own property. They did.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

Where is your source that Christianity technically forbade slavery and that this was related to the concept of serfdom? I wasn't aware of this and find it surprising compared to what I had originally thought about the time period on question.

epicureanideal 5y ago

There is a dead sibling comment to my comment that seems inflammatory but is correct historically. Many societies continued to have slaves after the introduction of Christianity, including Britain before the Norman conquest. There was a religious reform movement around the time of the conquest that if I understand correctly gradually eliminated slavery over a few generations to a few centuries.

lalaland1125 5y ago
The main distinction here is that Christianity was much more open to the slavery of non Christians than the slavery of Christians. The Catholic Church was very particular about this in making sure to only ban the enslavement of Christians while explicitly condoning the slavery of non Christians. It's a classic example of ingroup vs outgroup bias.
- mc32 5y ago
  I would say that’s not exclusive to Christianity or even Abrahamic religions.
Gibbon1 5y ago
Someone can correct me but I think the difference is the Church wasn't down with taking a Christian as a slave. That would have resulted in the number of slaves dwindling. I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property. Might be that Romans would have considered the difference between their slaves and medieval surfs as a distinction without a difference. And possibly be horrified by the US variant. Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property. There was nothing especially virulent about slavery in the US compared to slavery in other places. > Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF? It's actually true that American slaves were generally legally forbidden from marrying. This didn't matter, though; marriage was not just not suppressed but actively encouraged by slaveholders. It's not true that American slaves didn't have the right to own property. They did.