3 ms·

A skeptical read would be that the economics of Norman style feudalism heavily relies on the peasants to work the land. Obviously you need the peasants to stay

A skeptical read would be that the economics of Norman style feudalism heavily relies on the peasants to work the land. Obviously you need the peasants to stay in their place. If all the warrior caste have the same perspective, you can't be carting off the population and selling them off overseas, without some major friction. And if you are trying to "take" some land from another warlord, it's not going to be very economical for you to sell off the peasants, cause then who is going to work the land?

arethuza 2y ago
The Normans were pretty harsh in their treatment of rebellious areas - the "Harrying of the North" being particularly brutal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
- paleotrope 2y ago
  Yeah but that region wasn't as economically important. And it had a critical problem where it was the border region with Scotland and a preferred entry point for the Danes. Depopulating the area makes sense from a medieval military perspective because invaders won't have crops and infrastructure to pull from as they transverse the region. Other states in this time period had similar state-directed depopulated areas on the border for the same reasons.
  - nerdponx 2y ago
    What are some other examples? That's such a fascinating practice. Was it done in the ancient world as well? What about in other places (Asia, Americas)?
    - pigscantfly 2y ago
      Other folks may have more apt examples to share, but I would examine the history of Dacia and also the Sasanian fortification lines both east and west (but especially east) of the Caspian Sea -- both of which separated the empire from nomadic tribes of the steppe. I believe these involved depopulated regions both north and south of the main defensive structures to allow harrying of invading forces while denying access to plundered resources. Eventually, they were overcome by the Hephthalites (aka White Huns) following heavy Sasanian losses north of the limes in the AD 484 Battle of Herat, but it's interesting to note that the defensive structures separating southern 'civilization' from the steppe were considered a joint responsibility of the predominant (Roman/Sasanian) empires in spite of their generally being at war with each other, as the nomads were a shared threat. Edit: Another great example is drawn from Caesar's description of Helvetian practices in his Gallic Wars; the Helvetians, a Germanic tribe located in modern Switzerland, had deliberately depopulated a wide area around their territory for defensive purposes.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      Off the top of my head, China’s Great Clearance [1] and the Desert of the Duero in Spain [2]. IIRC the area north of Hadrian’s wall was also kept depopulated. The Habsburg Military Frontier [3] could probably qualify too but the area was somewhat populated by soldier-settlers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repoblaci%C3%B3n https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repoblaci%C3%B3n [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      It was pretty common practice from ancient through to modern times for a resisting or rebellious population (especially a city) to be slaughtered or enslaved. A few examples would be the Roman massacres in Judea, the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols or the wars against Native Americans.
      - mistrial9 2y ago
        It was pretty common practice .. by some extremely aggressive groups .. from ancient through to modern times .. by war-like nations. Yes Romans.. not everyone did this worldwide. The world has been wounded repeatedly by the extreme brutality of some armed groups. It is simply false to ascribe this behavior to "pretty common" without distinction, and IMO makes the horrible into some kind of banality.
        mr_toad 2y ago
        I would argue that the groups you label extremely aggressive were just the winners, and the other “less brutal” groups would have done the same thing if the boot was on the other foot.
        mistrial9 2y ago
        yes, I am arguing that is exactly not the case
      - nerdponx 2y ago
        Right, but I was specifically asking about the practice of slaughtering/enslaving or otherwise depopulating an area specifically for the purpose of creating an economically/politically undesirable buffer zone against invaders.
    - rawgabbit 2y ago
      The British did it to the Boers about a hundred years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_...
  - PeterCorless 2y ago
    tl;dr: "Genocide is good, actually."
- ceuk 2y ago
  I'd go slightly further than "pretty harsh". It was basically ethnic cleansing. Albeit an incomplete and fairly moderate one as these sorts of genocidal things go
  - donw 2y ago
    A really thorough ethnic cleansing is generally more difficult without modern government structures and mass media to really gin up the hate: in Rwanda, ordinary Hutu slaughtered half a million Tutsi in three months -- 2/3 of the entire Tutsi population at the time -- and they did it with garden tools[1]. That kind of death used to take a standing army backed by decades, if not centuries, of training and discipline: Caesar's slaughter of the Helvetii is the first that comes to mind, maybe followed by the Qin wiping out the Song during China's Warring States period. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
    - qazxcvbnm 2y ago
      Song was eliminated by Qi. I imagine you are referring to the Battle of Changping where the Qin buried 400,000 of Zhao’s surrendered armies.

arethuza 2y ago

The Normans were pretty harsh in their treatment of rebellious areas - the "Harrying of the North" being particularly brutal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

paleotrope 2y ago
Yeah but that region wasn't as economically important. And it had a critical problem where it was the border region with Scotland and a preferred entry point for the Danes. Depopulating the area makes sense from a medieval military perspective because invaders won't have crops and infrastructure to pull from as they transverse the region. Other states in this time period had similar state-directed depopulated areas on the border for the same reasons.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  What are some other examples? That's such a fascinating practice. Was it done in the ancient world as well? What about in other places (Asia, Americas)?
  - pigscantfly 2y ago
    Other folks may have more apt examples to share, but I would examine the history of Dacia and also the Sasanian fortification lines both east and west (but especially east) of the Caspian Sea -- both of which separated the empire from nomadic tribes of the steppe. I believe these involved depopulated regions both north and south of the main defensive structures to allow harrying of invading forces while denying access to plundered resources. Eventually, they were overcome by the Hephthalites (aka White Huns) following heavy Sasanian losses north of the limes in the AD 484 Battle of Herat, but it's interesting to note that the defensive structures separating southern 'civilization' from the steppe were considered a joint responsibility of the predominant (Roman/Sasanian) empires in spite of their generally being at war with each other, as the nomads were a shared threat. Edit: Another great example is drawn from Caesar's description of Helvetian practices in his Gallic Wars; the Helvetians, a Germanic tribe located in modern Switzerland, had deliberately depopulated a wide area around their territory for defensive purposes.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Off the top of my head, China’s Great Clearance [1] and the Desert of the Duero in Spain [2]. IIRC the area north of Hadrian’s wall was also kept depopulated. The Habsburg Military Frontier [3] could probably qualify too but the area was somewhat populated by soldier-settlers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repoblaci%C3%B3n https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repoblaci%C3%B3n [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Frontier
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    It was pretty common practice from ancient through to modern times for a resisting or rebellious population (especially a city) to be slaughtered or enslaved. A few examples would be the Roman massacres in Judea, the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols or the wars against Native Americans.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      It was pretty common practice .. by some extremely aggressive groups .. from ancient through to modern times .. by war-like nations. Yes Romans.. not everyone did this worldwide. The world has been wounded repeatedly by the extreme brutality of some armed groups. It is simply false to ascribe this behavior to "pretty common" without distinction, and IMO makes the horrible into some kind of banality.
      - mr_toad 2y ago
        I would argue that the groups you label extremely aggressive were just the winners, and the other “less brutal” groups would have done the same thing if the boot was on the other foot.
        mistrial9 2y ago
        yes, I am arguing that is exactly not the case
    - nerdponx 2y ago
      Right, but I was specifically asking about the practice of slaughtering/enslaving or otherwise depopulating an area specifically for the purpose of creating an economically/politically undesirable buffer zone against invaders.
  - rawgabbit 2y ago
    The British did it to the Boers about a hundred years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_...
- PeterCorless 2y ago
  tl;dr: "Genocide is good, actually."
ceuk 2y ago
I'd go slightly further than "pretty harsh". It was basically ethnic cleansing. Albeit an incomplete and fairly moderate one as these sorts of genocidal things go
- donw 2y ago
  A really thorough ethnic cleansing is generally more difficult without modern government structures and mass media to really gin up the hate: in Rwanda, ordinary Hutu slaughtered half a million Tutsi in three months -- 2/3 of the entire Tutsi population at the time -- and they did it with garden tools[1]. That kind of death used to take a standing army backed by decades, if not centuries, of training and discipline: Caesar's slaughter of the Helvetii is the first that comes to mind, maybe followed by the Qin wiping out the Song during China's Warring States period. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
  - qazxcvbnm 2y ago
    Song was eliminated by Qi. I imagine you are referring to the Battle of Changping where the Qin buried 400,000 of Zhao’s surrendered armies.