3 ms·

The Normans were the great "levelers" of society. Yes, they may have raised up the slave, but they also deprived many others of their historical rights, say, of

The Normans were the great "levelers" of society. Yes, they may have raised up the slave, but they also deprived many others of their historical rights, say, of "sake and soke." Sake was the right to hold low court on your own land. Soke was the right to pay your taxes and infeudate yourself to the lord of your choice. There was an entire class of Anglo-Saxons known as "sokesmen." They practically disappeared overnight, historically-speaking. Normans placed severe restrictions on your infeudation. None of this "I'll withhold my allegiance simply because my local baron is a tyrant" thing. Nope. Doesn't matter. Good, bad or evil, you owe your fealty to the local ruler. So, while the Normans may have been a relief for the very, very bottom, they were very, very bad for the equivalent of the "middle class" of commoners.

acc4everypici 2y ago
but did "the middle class" exist back then? I thought "middle class" arose out of the bourgeois class later on? It's like when I realized that slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church but simply didn't own very many things slavery became awuful around things like deciding black people were closer to animals so it was ok to exploit them but really they were competing, or rather, trying to keep up with steam-based looms which were much faster at processing cotton so pick that cotton faster *cracks whip *
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  If being raped, castrated or stoned to death was not horribly abused, I don't know what is.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  > but did "the middle class" exist back then? Not as we would recognize it today, but there were always merchants, craftsman and petty gentry that would have a measure of freedom and earning that serfs did not have the ability to achieve.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    when I read Road to Wigan Pier I realized that the 20th Century British term "middle class" had an almost unrecognizable meaning compared to what Americans think of as "middle class" So the first thing you need to figure out, to answer the question "did the middle class exist back then" is: which cultural definition of middle class are we even using to begin with?
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      What’s that definition? I’ve always heard that it was the class in between the upper class/nobility, and the working class. That is, the class that isn’t able to just indefinitely stop working and sustain itself by things they own. But also isn’t living paycheck-to-paycheck and forced to work. Professionals in lucrative careers and successful small business owners. This makes more sense to me that the sort of typical misapplication to people around median income in the US. Around median income is already a thing we have a name for (we can call it median income), and it tells us approximately nothing about their position in terms of labor relations or social class. Working class people should unionize, they should band together to prevent exploitation. Middle class people don’t have to worry about exploitation, they can walk if they want to. They should form guilds and professional societies, to keep unqualified pretenders out of their fields.
      - rsynnott 2y ago
        "Middle class" is super-poorly defined. Marxists use it to mean petit bourgeoisie (ie people who own capital, plus professionals, so right from the start you have an anomaly, in that, say, a doctor is middle class even if they don't own anything; it's not purely capitalists). As you say Americans tend to use it to mean 'practically everybody'. The British definition has always been complex and is at this point probably complex enough that it's impossible to fully pin down; a huge part of it is _self-identification_ (there are plenty of British millionaires who consider themselves working class).
        bee_rider 2y ago
- aetherson 2y ago
  Hot take: slavery was actually always awful.
  - kayodelycaon 2y ago
    Hard agree. It is true that being a slave in one culture is much better experience than others. But that’s only a matter of degree. Example: You intentionally killed someone and are convicted of it. You have done a bad thing. The how and why only determines your sentence, not whether or not you committed a crime
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > "the middle class" I assume small landholders, yeomen etc. and such would be the equivalent of the middle class in such a society. > slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church I'm not sure that's strictly true. It of course varied by time and place and the Church tried to somewhat limit the worst abuse. Also a clear workaround was to enslave infidels. Muslims enslaved Christians (and basically depopulate many coastal areas across the Mediterranean), in turn Christians were fine with enslaving Muslims (all though they didn't necessarily have that many opportunities) and East European pagans were fair game to everyone.
  - paganel 2y ago
    As an Eastern-European, I can definitely say that after year 1000 we were not pagans, but Christian-Ortodox, but it’s true that the Genoese and the Venetians trading us around the Black Sea called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans.
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      > called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans. I guess technically it was a "hack" though, the Genoese bought anyone the Mongols were selling and shipped them to Egypt and other Muslim states without anyone back at home asking too many questions.. Until of course the Ottomans got right of the middle men and took over the slave trade themselves.
    - Ichthypresbyter 2y ago
      Depends which Eastern Europeans- Lithuania stayed pagan until the late 14th century, with some areas not being Christianised until the early 15th century. Of course, the Lithuanians themselves might well say they're not Eastern European...
      - paganel 2y ago
        Wanted to add an aside about the Lithuanians and them not becoming Christian until the 1300s, but, as you said, some Lithuanians themselves might have said that they're not Eastern-Europeans :)
- itohihiyt 2y ago
  This is certainly a popular modern narrative.
actionfromafar 2y ago
As I read, this is pretty much what the article says. The very very bottom may have been as many as 30 % of the total population.
- PeterCorless 2y ago
  I was clarifying because the word "sokesman" doesn't appear in the article. Nor does "cottar/cotter [cotarius/cotarii]" nor "bordar [bordarius/bordarii]" nor even "villein [villanus/villani]." There are a many levels of commoners in Domesday, almost all of whom suffered greatly under the Norman yoke. Estimates vary, but... 35% of Domesday population were villeins 30% cotters and bordars 12% freeholders ~5% burghers (townspeople) Which would leave ~20% at maximum to be slaves (servii).

acc4everypici 2y ago

but did "the middle class" exist back then? I thought "middle class" arose out of the bourgeois class later on? It's like when I realized that slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church but simply didn't own very many things slavery became awuful around things like deciding black people were closer to animals so it was ok to exploit them but really they were competing, or rather, trying to keep up with steam-based looms which were much faster at processing cotton so pick that cotton faster *cracks whip *

actionfromafar 2y ago
If being raped, castrated or stoned to death was not horribly abused, I don't know what is.
arrosenberg 2y ago
> but did "the middle class" exist back then? Not as we would recognize it today, but there were always merchants, craftsman and petty gentry that would have a measure of freedom and earning that serfs did not have the ability to achieve.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  when I read Road to Wigan Pier I realized that the 20th Century British term "middle class" had an almost unrecognizable meaning compared to what Americans think of as "middle class" So the first thing you need to figure out, to answer the question "did the middle class exist back then" is: which cultural definition of middle class are we even using to begin with?
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    What’s that definition? I’ve always heard that it was the class in between the upper class/nobility, and the working class. That is, the class that isn’t able to just indefinitely stop working and sustain itself by things they own. But also isn’t living paycheck-to-paycheck and forced to work. Professionals in lucrative careers and successful small business owners. This makes more sense to me that the sort of typical misapplication to people around median income in the US. Around median income is already a thing we have a name for (we can call it median income), and it tells us approximately nothing about their position in terms of labor relations or social class. Working class people should unionize, they should band together to prevent exploitation. Middle class people don’t have to worry about exploitation, they can walk if they want to. They should form guilds and professional societies, to keep unqualified pretenders out of their fields.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      "Middle class" is super-poorly defined. Marxists use it to mean petit bourgeoisie (ie people who own capital, plus professionals, so right from the start you have an anomaly, in that, say, a doctor is middle class even if they don't own anything; it's not purely capitalists). As you say Americans tend to use it to mean 'practically everybody'. The British definition has always been complex and is at this point probably complex enough that it's impossible to fully pin down; a huge part of it is _self-identification_ (there are plenty of British millionaires who consider themselves working class).
      - bee_rider 2y ago
aetherson 2y ago
Hot take: slavery was actually always awful.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  Hard agree. It is true that being a slave in one culture is much better experience than others. But that’s only a matter of degree. Example: You intentionally killed someone and are convicted of it. You have done a bad thing. The how and why only determines your sentence, not whether or not you committed a crime
Wytwwww 2y ago
> "the middle class" I assume small landholders, yeomen etc. and such would be the equivalent of the middle class in such a society. > slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church I'm not sure that's strictly true. It of course varied by time and place and the Church tried to somewhat limit the worst abuse. Also a clear workaround was to enslave infidels. Muslims enslaved Christians (and basically depopulate many coastal areas across the Mediterranean), in turn Christians were fine with enslaving Muslims (all though they didn't necessarily have that many opportunities) and East European pagans were fair game to everyone.
- paganel 2y ago
  As an Eastern-European, I can definitely say that after year 1000 we were not pagans, but Christian-Ortodox, but it’s true that the Genoese and the Venetians trading us around the Black Sea called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans. I guess technically it was a "hack" though, the Genoese bought anyone the Mongols were selling and shipped them to Egypt and other Muslim states without anyone back at home asking too many questions.. Until of course the Ottomans got right of the middle men and took over the slave trade themselves.
  - Ichthypresbyter 2y ago
    Depends which Eastern Europeans- Lithuania stayed pagan until the late 14th century, with some areas not being Christianised until the early 15th century. Of course, the Lithuanians themselves might well say they're not Eastern European...
    - paganel 2y ago
      Wanted to add an aside about the Lithuanians and them not becoming Christian until the 1300s, but, as you said, some Lithuanians themselves might have said that they're not Eastern-Europeans :)
itohihiyt 2y ago
This is certainly a popular modern narrative.

actionfromafar 2y ago

As I read, this is pretty much what the article says. The very very bottom may have been as many as 30 % of the total population.

PeterCorless 2y ago
I was clarifying because the word "sokesman" doesn't appear in the article. Nor does "cottar/cotter [cotarius/cotarii]" nor "bordar [bordarius/bordarii]" nor even "villein [villanus/villani]." There are a many levels of commoners in Domesday, almost all of whom suffered greatly under the Norman yoke. Estimates vary, but... 35% of Domesday population were villeins 30% cotters and bordars 12% freeholders ~5% burghers (townspeople) Which would leave ~20% at maximum to be slaves (servii).