4 ms·

Where do you get the idea that peasants owned their land? One of the defining traits of medieval Europe was that peasants were forced into serfdom and were gra

by SR2Z 1y ago

Where do you get the idea that peasants owned their land? One of the defining traits of medieval Europe was that peasants were forced into serfdom and were granted the privilege to work the land. More primitive societies banned usury because the concept of interest was seen as unfair. This held them back from investing or speculating on the future and kept them very poor.

int_19h 1y ago
Serfdom was not universal in Europe, not even at the time when it peaked. However, OP didn't talk about owning land but rather about "permanent land rights", which usually means the right to use land. That is, it would still be owned by the feudal, who might be able to sell it to another feudal, but the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the land at a whim. That was not an uncommon arrangement even in places that had serfdom.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  > the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the land at a whim Is it that they COULDN'T be, or is it that there was no reason to relocate them? Serfdom might not have been universal, but it was extremely common and the predominant system in large parts of medieval Europe.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    They literally couldn't be removed at a whim, yes. That's actually what makes traditional serfdom a distinctive arrangement: serfs are tied to land and must be transferred along with it when it changes hands. This would even be codified in the legal system as a right. In some cases it would be "right to subsistence" or something like it instead, meaning that the feudal could remove the serfs from some particular plot of land, but only by providing a replacement plot for them to subsist on. Courts did, in principle, enforce those rights, although of course the feudals would have a lot more opportunities to subvert them in practice (but there are still many recorded cases of serfs granted relief by medieval courts). In Eastern Europe - and especially in Russia - serfdom began as a similar arrangement, but eventually evolved into full-fledged slavery where people could be bought and sold in and of themselves at a whim, while the original label remained for propriety reasons - basically people wanted to own slaves but didn't want to be called "slaveholders". So, a bit like "democratic people's republics" of whatever today. However, even if you take the label at face value, that arrangement still does not describe most places with serfdom.

by SR2Z 1y ago

int_19h 1y ago

Serfdom was not universal in Europe, not even at the time when it peaked. However, OP didn't talk about owning land but rather about "permanent land rights", which usually means the right to use land. That is, it would still be owned by the feudal, who might be able to sell it to another feudal, but the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the land at a whim. That was not an uncommon arrangement even in places that had serfdom.

SR2Z 1y ago
> the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the land at a whim Is it that they COULDN'T be, or is it that there was no reason to relocate them? Serfdom might not have been universal, but it was extremely common and the predominant system in large parts of medieval Europe.
- int_19h 1y ago
  They literally couldn't be removed at a whim, yes. That's actually what makes traditional serfdom a distinctive arrangement: serfs are tied to land and must be transferred along with it when it changes hands. This would even be codified in the legal system as a right. In some cases it would be "right to subsistence" or something like it instead, meaning that the feudal could remove the serfs from some particular plot of land, but only by providing a replacement plot for them to subsist on. Courts did, in principle, enforce those rights, although of course the feudals would have a lot more opportunities to subvert them in practice (but there are still many recorded cases of serfs granted relief by medieval courts). In Eastern Europe - and especially in Russia - serfdom began as a similar arrangement, but eventually evolved into full-fledged slavery where people could be bought and sold in and of themselves at a whim, while the original label remained for propriety reasons - basically people wanted to own slaves but didn't want to be called "slaveholders". So, a bit like "democratic people's republics" of whatever today. However, even if you take the label at face value, that arrangement still does not describe most places with serfdom.