Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009

  Would this condition have started in during the Roman occupation or was it later? It seems to have been well established before the Norman conquest.
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009

  In my understanding serfdom was never "institutionalised" - especially if talking about societies that had no written laws and down to basics no written texts at all with illiteracy including kings and aristocrats as well and close to total if not for the rare case of 1-2 episcopes here or there. What you had was private properties passed on to future generations among landowner families. Therefore, taking for granted that no landowner would work the land himself, the bulk of the population of agriulturers and shephers were landless people, seen as workers working on the land on the basis of the rent that the landowner defined in each case.Serfs were supposed "free" (free for the standards of the days, in the sense they were not seen as slaves). But since most if not all land fell in the property of some family and in the absence of any state-owned "public" land their motion was restricted in the little state of the place they were born - they could eventually move elsewhere, again to work as workers but that only in the case they were allowed by the local landowner. Afterall we talk about private property everywhere. Sounds strange today but very logical back then. However, workers could indeed move from one place to the other as landowners needed extra pair of hands from times to times, especially in times of feudal wars while technicians were always highly esteemed and thus had a high mobility (masons for example rose to become "high-society").
  
  What makes us think of serfdom as something special is the idea of working only to receive a bit of food... well this is no strange thing in societies where there was practically no money (the only money in the middle Ages with some standard value was the Byzantine and Arab coins). It is clear that as soon as coins started to become standard, serfdom vanished slowly but steadily under the influence of paid work and increased mobility that had started in the Crusades.
  
  At the end of the day, just like in the case of slaves we mostly talk about the working class of the day. The paralellism with today's working classes is the same, nothing has changed, only the environment. The basic social distances remain the same.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009

  Thus to respond to the initial question - I think that serfdom pre-existed in the Roman Empire by means of Roman citizens installing themselves in the rural agricultural areas of the west and using local workforce for cultivation works. These would not be paid, as the barter-trade was more than enough for the standards of the local societies. Hence, worker farmers had only the obligation to give a % of their production to the local owner. As local landowners transformed to powerful figures locally, many of them after the fall of the Roman Empire, newcomers, invaders like Franks, Goths, Vandals etc, this production method became standard thing you would not even think about.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009

  My understanding of the condition is that serfs had few rights apart from use of a plot of land. They were bonded to their master and could not leave his land holding. There were also a few nasty rights the master had also, such as 'Droit de Seigneur,' If my spelling is be somewhat faulty my understanding of it is not - should it be an historical fact. In truth I am not certain of that, though.
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009

  I think that serfdom began in 332AD.
  
  In the Roman Empire, wealth, over the generations, became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, because of the inheritance laws. The size of the population fell (probably because the people were malnourished0, while the demands of the state (which was mainly military spending to repel barbarians) grew. There is no evidence that the rich were required to pay more taxes, the burden fell mainly on the average person. Comparing the living standards of the average labourer in the first century with his situation in the third, shows a tragic decline over the period.
  
  The situation was that most people were very poor, while there were dotted across the landscape, large houses which were inhabited by very rich people. In times of crisis,the poor people might have to rely on the good will of the local lord to represent their case to the government.
  
  It seems that many people decided to leave the land that they rented and farmed, and live elsewhere eg in the woods, taking wildlife for their food. Some formed rebel bands called, i think, bagaudae. Documents from Egypt, from the second century, actually list the names of people who have abandoned their land and have failed to pay their rent for years.
  
  Obviously this was a big problem for the authorities. If the people will not stay and till their land, the authorities could not collect any rent or tax their produce.
  
  Diocletian attempted to regulate the whole sytem, in order to ensure that enough taxes could be paid for a double-sized army. That did not really solve the problem of the poor farmers leaving their land.
  
  In 332 Constantine I established serfdom legally by requiring tenant farmers to pay labour services to their lords. He stated that the farmers must remain on their land to do their duty of cultivating it.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009

  Hi Fascinating
  
  That's a very interesting point and seems to go to show that the peasant's lot did not change that much at all and confirms that throughout the huge changes of control of the country it only really changed at the Warrior Class and above.
  
  Many Thanks - TA

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 8th October 2009

  Most interesting, fascinating, thank you.
  
  So when land was appropriated/awarded to a bigwig, whoever lived on it became a tenant farmer - a serf with no rights. I wonder at what stage all Britain was thus divided? Were there free tracks of land? I can only assume that land impossible to cultivate beyond subsistence level may have been free land. Did common land really belong to no one?
  
  There must have been a gradual transition from tribal land with ownership dictated by the tribe elders/chieftain to private ownership. And that would have been through terratorial trials of strength; survival of the fittest knights/ warlords. Terratorial possession has long been the underlying cause for contention, conflict and conquest. A disturbing thought as the world's pop;ulatoion increases at an alarming rate.
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 8th October 2009

  Hold on, Priscilla, don't go too far in your assumptions.
  
  Their may have been land grants and appropriations to individuals, but that in itself does not fix inequalities for generations.
  
  What does that is the LAWS OF INHERITANCE.
  
  Imagine a large area which humans came to and settled in thousands of years ago. Even if they decided from the start that each family should get exactly the same amount of land, in a few years some would be well off and others would be below average income, due to application, health, skills, above all, luck. In time some will become so prosperous that they can buy some of their neighbours' land, quite cheap, because these neighbours have had such a run of bad luck that they desperately need some money, and can only get that by selling up, and working as a landless labourer.
  
  Now as the generation of first settlers might start to die off. Naturally, the land they leave behind is not owned by anybody, so it should by rights go into the "national" pot and be divided equally among the living again.
  
  But that is not what happens. People seem to think that the children of the person who owned the land are entitled to it by right.
  
  That is the reason why the Duke of Sutherland owns so much land. He did not earn it. He was not granted it. There is simply a law which says that, because his father had it, he gets it.
  
  Thus the inheritance laws ensure that those families which built up some wealth at some time in the past can keep it for generations. And note that, of course, having money means it is relatively easy to make more money. If you have only Β£100 in the bank, any kind of crisis could leave you bankrupt, but if you have a million in the bank, you can just gather interest, and use part of it for cautious investments.
  
  So over generations, the rich get richer. In our world, with economic growth created by our wonderful technology, everybody else can get richer too. In the pre-industrial world, with no economic growth, for any winner there had to be many losers. By the time the Western Roman Empire was on the verge of collapse, there were a small number of some 1000 hyper-rich families, a layer of state and religious functionaries who were relatively well off, with 99% of the population in penury.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 8th October 2009

  I also realised that inheritance would figure into land ownership - and that also leads to squabbles, infighting and mayhem. However, that detracts from my interest in the awful lot of the those bonded into serfdom. I wonder how anyone could escape from it?
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Thursday, 8th October 2009

  The theory goes a bit like this:
  
  In the Roman Empire there was slavery.
  
  Each estate had its slaves who did the agricultural work. These people were not personal slaves but bonded to the estate.
  
  After the collapse of the Roman Empire the slaves stayed on the estate as it kept them fed. Their bondage continued when newcomers acquired the estate.Some estates developed specialist crops and a specialist workforce to cultivate them. This characteristic often appears in place-names.
  
  The problem we all have is proving this apparent sequence.
  
  We also forget that the serfs were bonded to the demesne and not to the estate owner. If anything they were tied to the land.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  Ah - clarification. Thank you, st.
  
  So the assumption is - fascinating can have a quiet writhe about my making assumptions - the assumption is that for the most part, our island's people were slaves to the Romans.
  
  In the disorientation that followed the breaking down of applied stabilising Roman law, the next Johnny come lucky to seize the land thus inherited with it a labour force These being workers being people who did not know what else to do or where to go... cf Jack Straw's remark once of 'On your bike.'
  
  I do so like imagination applied to the history for which we have no proof; a danger to society, I know; guilty as charged, m'lud.
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  I disagree that slavery was all that extensive in the later Roman Empire. It seems that the great majority of people were not slaves.
  
  But hey, you continue to believe what you want.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  Possibly not lash and chain slavery, fascinating, yet very cheap labour and 'a work our land or leave' policy smacks of land-tied serfdom. Why else keep a sitting force of at least 40 000 squaddies in numerous forts? Possibly to keep out anyone else from enjoying the good life, yes, but surely also for keeping local dissidents from making a stand?
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  Jack Straw's remark once of 'On your bike.'Β 
  Actually it was Norman (now Lord) Tebbit: "When my father was out of work he got in his bike..."

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  Could there be a flaw in this argument, fascinating? Whilst marriage implies a "dowry" whereby land accumulates, any family with more than 2 children will have to split the inheritance between them. Of course, as Priscilla says, this often leads to conflict after which one or other may well become dispossessed. But I suspect that the division of holdings between offspring leads to a reduction in the average size of holdings as the population increases. And what about the serfs? If their families increase in size there will be more people than are required to work the land and some will need to leave - perhaps as foot soldiers or travelling jobbers, entertainers, etc.
  I know that life expectancy was generally short in these times but families were generally quite large, were they not, by today's standards?

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  
  What was meant was slavery, which refers to the legal institution whereby people can be owned and used, and those people have no legal rights at all. A slave could not bring his owner or anybody else to court, a 'free' man, no matter how poor, could do so.
  
  So let's keep clear about what exactly we are talking about, because there is some woolly thinking going on in this debate.
  
  You keep mentioning 40,000 troops. Most of these were placed in the North, in other words their primary purpose was defending the frontier. Yes, some were present to prevent revolts among the populace. That tells us nothing about the existence or otherwise of serfdom.
  
  Could there be a flaw in this argument, fascinating? Whilst marriage implies a "dowry" whereby land accumulates, any family with more than 2 children will have to split the inheritance between them. Of course, as Priscilla says, this often leads to conflict after which one or other may well become dispossessed. But I suspect that the division of holdings between offspring leads to a reduction in the average size of holdings as the population increases. And what about the serfs? If their families increase in size there will be more people than are required to work the land and some will need to leave - perhaps as foot soldiers or travelling jobbers, entertainers, etc.
  I know that life expectancy was generally short in these times but families were generally quite large, were they not, by today's standards?Β 
  
  We really don't know if they had large families. However the evidence such as it is shows that the population level was not rising, and was probably slowly falling. Thus, even if families were large, the death rate was so high that, overall, the land did not have to be divided out into smaller parcels. What did happen was that a very few families built up huge estates over a generations, while the vast majority had to either rent land from them, which they were compelled to stay upon and do their duty and farm it, or become totally landless labourers.
  

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 9th October 2009

  Thank you Plot for correction of author of the bike aside. I knew very well who it was too! I got the memory bank of faces and names muddled.
  
  Sorry if my reasoning is woolly, fascinating, if it were clear I'd not have asked in the first place; my assumptions ruffle you, I think. I can see how they would if they contradicted proven fact - about which I am not totally convinced.
  
  Moving on with serfdom, from the Domesday books' listings, there seemed to be several classes of land labourers mentioned. Who were the lowest - and did they have any rights?
  
  Regards, P.
  
  Regards, P>

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 16th October 2009

  Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:28 GMT, in reply to priscilla in message 4
  
  such as 'Droit de Seigneur,'Β 
  
  Priscilla, Droit de Seigneur - the medieval right of a lord to have his wicked way with any maidens on his estate - is a myth. No-one seems to be sure where the idea came from, but there is no evidence of the right ever existing, let alone being exercised.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 16th October 2009

  Mm, on the other hand it seems more likely than not, AN. And I still don't know the various levels of serfdom and who had which rights in the Middle Ages.
  
  Regards, P.... and I thought you were not speaking to me!

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 18th October 2009

  The simple truth is that we don't really know.
  
  Another way of describing it can be through the division of labour. The serf grows the crops that provide the masters with the wealth with which they recruit warbands to gain more land and more serfs.
  
  The truth most likely revolves around a number of factors but the ownership of land including the people who worked that land seems to me the most probable factor.

  Link to this forum: Serfdom: How and when did it begin and evolve?

  Report message20

Back to top