16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:World History Lecture Five (view source)
Revision as of 21:56, February 26, 2009
, 21:56, February 26, 2009→Corrections relevant to further updates
:::::As people above have said, serfdom was pretty much equal to slavery (except slave-owners actually purchased their slaves, so they had an interest in keeping them alive). I remember reading about how Prince Edward, son of King Henry, once ordered a travelling merchant to be blinded because he was obstructing the road. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:::::As people above have said, serfdom was pretty much equal to slavery (except slave-owners actually purchased their slaves, so they had an interest in keeping them alive). I remember reading about how Prince Edward, son of King Henry, once ordered a travelling merchant to be blinded because he was obstructing the road. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Normally I like to stick to the purely factual errors, such as incorrect dates, but I'll stray into interpretations. Beyond your vast over-simplification of the medieval world (feudalism and manorialism vary greatly temporally and geographically), you are anachronistically applying modern ideas to the feudal society and vice versa. First, you attempt to make some analogy between the feudal system and a free market, which is simply not true. Not everyone had the ability to buy and sell property (I'll allow that I, too, am oversimplifying geographically and temporally); rather, land was deeded by a social superior in exchange for some form of obligation, usually military service. Generally speaking, this applies only to male nobility, and in the case of inheritance, to the first born male. Significant amounts of warfare, including the Crusades, had as some amount of roots the lack of inheritance by second sons or poor lords, who could only hope to obtain property through some martial deed.
The serfs were hardly free labor as we would know it now, they were legally or traditionally bound to the land; if ownership of land changed hands, the serfs were still bound to that set of land and therefore their new lord. Certainly the serfs received the benefits you stated (food and protection), but it was not an amicable free market relationship, but one of obligation and hierarchy based on custom, not on economics. I should also note here that this system is "manorialism" and the hierarchial system of nobles mentioned before is "feudalism." They are not the same thing, although they are similar.
As for your paragraph on "chivalry," you take pains to connect it to modern "chivalry," that is a code of etiquette (which for you primarily means interaction between the genders), yet you never really get into the meat and potatoes of what it was originally. First of all, it was not a code for "everyone." As is the general theme for this era, it was the code of nobility, specifically knights (the warfighting nobility). Peasants were certainly not subject to it. There were specific rules dealing with the customs of "sportsmanship" in war. As said, peasants were not really subject to chivalry. If captured, they were usually killed (they had no economic value attached to them). Knights were treated well and ransomed, partially out of sportsmanship and partially out of their high worth. Depending on the conditions of a city being captured, the inhabitants could be treated well or poorly. As for the "free enterprise" approach to the military, again you apply an anachronistic term. Armies were created through the feudal relationship of hierarchical obligation. (Although there were significant mercenary forces, second born noble sons, etc. that could be seen as slightly more "free market" if you really must apply the term). This developed very good warriors, I'll agree, but not necessarily superior armies (the two are not the same thing), and the invasions were stopped by a combination of forces (not to mention that they don't really stop in the Medieval Period - the Ottomans continue to threaten Vienna well into the 17th century).
Rather than the various things you mentioned, chivalry was merely the code of ethics (and the "code" was hardly written in stone) for the warrior class of nobility. It fluctuated greatly with time and space, and was based primarily in a combination of Christian ideals, traditional warrior ethos, economic ideals, and societal needs.
On a final note, you commented to Robert that liberals "hate" feudalism because of its Christianity. As a liberal, and an avid student of history, I neither "hate" nor love feudalism. I nothing it. It's simply a convenient model to simplify complex interactions in Medieval society. Christianity was the single most important facet in the social relationships of the era, but that doesn't make me hate the era. That would be very, very silly. If I were to apply any moral judgment, it would be that Christianity was a positive by creating organization and regulation were there was little. So be careful before you start throwing accusations around.
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 16:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)