New Stuff

[JeanryChandler]

I agree wholeheartedly that the aristocrats viewed the peasants, and especially serfs, as animals. For example, the legends about the "first flower" law were true, a Lord had the legal right to sleep with the wife of any peasants living on his land on her wedding day. This sort of attitude was actually a large part of what irked the peasants and sparked some of the anger which drove their revolts, perhaps as much as slaughter, plague, taxation and famine.

I remember one of the songs from the Jacquerie of 1358, pardon my french but it was something like "Nous sommes hommes, comes ils son'ts, nous aussi tout grand-ceurs avont..."

The gist was "we are men as mcuh as they, we have hearts as big as they, we can hurt as much as they..." a pretty pathetic slogan, but apparently, a literally revolutionary idea at the time.

I think comparing the European medieval period or even the Renaissance with modern United states is exactly the kind of layering over of modern sentiments which will totally mislead and prevent any understanding of the actual history. This was a harsh, often apocalyptic time. Yes there was good and bad, but it's a matter of degree, and things were a lot worse there a lot more often than they almost ever got in the history of this country.

The black plague, constant wars in some cases lasting generations, heresies, famines, crusades, invasions (the mongols!), revolutions, piracy, and chaos. This period was nothing like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Prince Charming.

If you don't know who the Borgias were, read up. A charming family, a much better example of nobility in the Renaissance than Walt Disney fables.

There were uprisings though and where they were successful, the rights which English peasants eventually enjoyed were a direct results of incredibly bloody revolts which threatened the very existence of the feudal order. The Hussites in the 15th century controlled Bohemia and most of modern day Czech for more than 20 years (in spite of 5 failed crusades launched against them by the creme of knighlty Europe) and forever curtailed the power of their local rulers. In perhaps the ultimate example Swiss peasants threw out Hapsburg lords and formed the Helvetian league which became the most feared army in Europe for centurires...

On the other extreme of course, in areas where there never were successful rebellions, Russia or Poland for example, peasants never really rose above the position of beasts of burden, and as I pointed out before, in Russia this continued until the 1860's... And when the church and state joined sides, look out. Witness how nearly the entire population of southern France was exterminated during the Albigensian Crusade (to stamp out heresy) during which a papal legate, when asked by a knight how to differentiate the guilty from the innocent, pre-empted Soldier of Fortune Magazine by proclaiming "Kill them all my son, God will know his own."

Which reminds me, one more point, Vlad Tepis was killed, but not for his brutaility to peasants! He is still considered a national hero to many Romanians.

A few more things to mull over anyway.

Jeanry

[david welch]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03064a.htm

Burchard of Worms

Bishop of that see, b. of noble parents in Hesse, Germany, after the middle of the tenth century; d. 20 August, 1025. He received his education in Coblenz and other places, and ultimately entered the service of Archbishop Willigis of Mainz (975-1011), by whom he was ordained deacon. He rose gradually in ecclesiastical rank and was finally appointed by Willigis first chamberlain, and primate or judge of the city. In these offices he showed so much discretion and impartiality, that his reputation reached Emperor Otto III. During a personal interview with his imperial master (1000) he was appointed to the vacant Bishopric of Worms; a few days later he was advanced to the priesthood and the episcopal dignity by Willigis at Heiligenstadt. Thenceforth he laboured unceasingly for the temporal and spiritual welfare of his subjects. He rebuilt the walls of Worms and with the approval of Henry II tore down the stronghold of a certain Duke Otto, which served as a place of refuge to criminals and malefactors. Between 1023 and 1025 he promulgated a celebrated body of laws, the "Leges et Statuta familiae S. Petri Wormatiensis", with the purpose of insuring the impartial administration of justice. (Boos, in Urkundenbuch der Stadt Worms, I, 1886; Weiland, in Mon. Ger. Hist.: Leges, IV, 1.)

Part of the reason he was favored was that he was considered "discreet". I believe "the family of St. Peter" would have been the nobility of Worms during the reign of Henry II.

[JeanryChandler]

I rememeber John Clements showing us one time a little excerpt from the Fechtbuchs (i forget which one) in which the master showed how to play a "trick" on a peasant: you grab him by the throat, bunch up the skin on his neck, and cut it. He will think you cut his throat when in fact you have only delievered a painful but superficial wound.

This is the attitude.

Also, the idea that the nobility of Europe gave a whole lot of alms to the poor is, with all due respect, basically absurd. They tithed, which made the Church wealthy. Their money CAME from the peasants, directly. That was how they made money, barring the occasional conquest.

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

There was a certain knight killed in a large peasant uprising in england, who through his own skills and personality rose to the title from the commoners. An animal-man could not have done that if those were the opinions of those over him.

A commoner and a peasant are not the same thing. There were in fact more than three actual classes in medieval Europe. Burghers in the cities, merchant classes, and most importantly soldiers gained increasing importance.

Starting with several key battles in the 14th century (Courtrai, Grandson, and Bannockburn first among them) the importance of infantry began to become increasingly recognized. With this increasing importance on the battlefield came increased status. In England, the most important commoner-soldiers were longbow archers recruited from Wales, and increasingly so called sergeants or men-at-arms, recruited from the ranks of lower soldiers to ride as heavy cavalry for the Lord, because Knights were considered too independent and too likely to flee in battle.

Eventually in England in the cities you had what was called a "gentleman", basically a middle level commoner, often of mercantile or miltiary background or both.

As for Chivalry? All Chivalry amounted to in practice was a deal to ransom other knights captured in combat. Prisoners of low birth were executed. Commoners did practice "Chivalry" to the extent of ransoming knights they captured. Many Welsh yeomen became rich by this method after such battles as Crecy, Poitiers, and later Agincourt.


Jeanry

[Casper Bradak]

I don't think you can argue it was worse with plagues and wars and religious fanatics who kill a lot more people now then ever before. It would seem no less apocalyptic to victims of genocide, invasions, chemical warfare and atomic detonations. Plagues no longer threaten out species but they kill as many.
Comparing my view with disney is just downright mean hehe, and either a joke or you're gettin mad.
Neither the Borgias nor disney characters are good examples to base your opinions of the ren. nobility on. They are both ridiculous extremes.
Comparing the middle ages to a murderous anarchy is no better.
Vlad was killed for an awful lot of things. If he were a nice guy, he wouldn't have had to worry about so much <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
The rights peasants began to enjoy were had little to do with revolts, though I'm sure it had some influence on occasion. The progression of society into the renaissance and the modern era was not about peasant uprisings, and goes to show how little some people read outside of combat accounts. Ever notice how slavery disappeared from europe at the fall of the roman empire and reappeared around the 16th century? The feudal system was embraced whole heartedly by many who were sick of roman imperialism. The feudal system didn't break down or get overthrown, it was gradually replaced and adapted into newer and more encompassing forms of government.

[JeanryChandler]

One more little tidbit of an example which helps you understand the mentality of the period, are the so-called Sumptuary laws. Commoners, and especially peasants or Serfs, were restricted on what they could wear, (what colors, what kinds of fabric or fur) on how many animals (chickens, goats, horses) they could own, how big their house could be, how many dishes they could serve at dinner, and so on and so forth.

One of the reasons the outfits of Mercenaries from the Reniassance are so garish is that they were specifically removed from the constraints of Sumptuary law by their contracts, it was one of their primary perrogatives...

Jeanry

[Casper Bradak]

That definitely sounds more like a complex than an argument. You've never read how they tossed coins about on their way through the cities? Never read about chivalric practice in real life? Even giving out food was a good way to clear the leftovers from a castle.
Also, your last comments agree that the changes were not brought about by peasant revolts.
Peasant was often a generic term for labouring commoners.
Many of the most basic books on medieval life deal with just these topics. I think you'd have fun with a book titled something like "Those Terrible Middle Ages".
From the fechtbuchs, I mentioned things like that in an earlier post. That particular one was from the codex wallerstein.

[Casper Bradak]

Did you know that in modern america, house size is often restriced (I know, I built one, what a hassle) and also on how many animals (including chickens, goats, horses) we can own?
As for dishes, heh, in my state you can only have sex in certain positions, but does anyone ever have the swat team show up about it? The horror of the time. I wonder if the sun ever came out between rapes and murders.
You're argueing for those old novels and movies. The lord isn't getting his taxes fast enough, so he kills all his male villager over 40, rapes the women, and burns a few of their houses. "I expect the taxes and grain to be here in double next time! No excuses! That'll teach em!"

[JeanryChandler]

The feudal system WAS Roman Imperialism! Just in it's late form. And excuse me, but I have read other than just military histories. The fuedal system evolved directly from Latifundia, Roman fortified villas surrounded by tenant farmers. As for Slavery, what do you think a serf was?

While we are at it, how was a serf supposed to go running around the countryside appealing this or that Lord about some kind of abuse, when in 90% of Europe they were not even allowed to leave their own village, under pain of death?

As for the rights of peasants, in England you can trace just about every one DIRECTLY to the aftermath of one or more major uprising, including the Magna Carta.

The difference between Prince Charming and the Borgias, is that the Borgias were REAL. Just like the Medicis, and so many other nearly identical families. Thats why Macchiavelli speaks much more of the reality of the times than the minstrels with their fantasies of Chivalry.

No, I'm not getting mad. We just see things very differently, and with all due respect, I'm a little shocked that even people in the WMA community see those days through such rose colored glasses...

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

Did you know that in modern america, house size is often restriced (I know, I built one, what a hassle) and also on how many animals (including chickens, goats, horses) we can own?

Caspar, in the US, you cannot go to jail for wearing silk or a scarlet colored robe which is restricted to the Aristocracy. This is an absurd comparison!

J

[JeanryChandler]

Even giving out food was a good way to clear the leftovers from a castle.

You are right, I misunderstood what you meant by alms and charity. The scene in The Name of the Rose where they dump the trash out of the castle walls through a chute for the peasants to grub through is probably quite accurate.

J

[david welch]

There was a certain knight killed in a large peasant uprising in england, who through his own skills and personality rose to the title from the commoners. An animal-man could not have done that if those were the opinions of those over him.

"Commoners" refers to the distinction of not being of the noble class not to being a peasant or a serf, and I doubt either one would be refered to as a commoner. I believe that term was left to distinguish between a noble, and someone of means ( such as a successful merchant ) that could be confused with a noble.

I hope you'll forgive me for not referencing this, but the first king of france to be knighted did so in secret from his father. His fathers argument was that he should not be associated with knights because commoners could be knights. If fact, at the beginning, there was no connection between knighthood and nobility except for ability to afford being one.

[Casper Bradak]

Magna Carta wasn't from a peasant revolt, more like a civil war. I disagree about people being so tied to the land.
Serfs are now seen as slaves in many peoples eyes, and they may not have been far off, but the differences are significant and fundamental.
Hitler and saddam are real but I don't think the 20th century is all blood and fire, and I don't base my views of the rulers on them. I am definitely nor argueing that things were rosy and nice, they were hard, but hey, that's putting another modern view on it. It was relative. Sounds like a lot of people think the times were worse because there were no microwaves. People were no different, and their mindsets were not alien.
I'm far from argueing that times back then were good, but I think you're an extremist for the middle ages absolutely sucked side. Or maybe I'm just an optimist. I'm sure they had those back then.
Knights were more often than not given the official positions needed by any lord.
Now comparing the food dump to the scene in the name of the rose is definitely the pessimistic view on things hehe!

[JeanryChandler]

rapes the women,

Look, now you are getting condescending. I'm pretty well read on medieval history. The "first flower" law, the right to rape, was an HISTORICAL FACT. It was a bitter point of contention in many uprisings and resulting political and legal squabbles, and was a valued perrogative fought for bitterly by both church and nobility (often the same thing). For this reason it's existence is often discussed in many medieval records.

But look, obviously, I can't convince you of anything. I'll let other people make the point for a while. You think I get my ideas from TV, yours sound to me like they are from a combination of Walt Disney and the Renaissance Faire...

Jeanry

[Casper Bradak]

I do officially bow out now though, gotta get busy, but I'm far from swaying my opinion. I doubt that any of us are entirely wrong though, or more likely it's all somewhere in the middle.
Edit: Likewise. Sorry, didn't mean to be condescending, but don't do likewise and think I think it was all nice and call my opinions walt dysney. That first flower law has always sounded to me like one of those laws that exists but is rarely followed up on.
P.S. They didn't even have prisons back then, punishement was a lot quicker for most. In regards to too many chickens, same now. Fines and confiscation.