General politics thread: | Page 40 | Vital Football

General politics thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've made that comparison previously and yet again brought it back up. It's the language of a racist to continually diminish the impact of slavery by comparing with the Norman conquest.

Serfdom wasn't slavery and if you think everyone was living a merry old life of freedom and prosperity before 1066 you're fucking delusional. If you think we weren't well on the path towatd serfdom you're fucking delusional. Nationalism didn't even particularly exist as a concept on 1066, the only people who gave a flying fuck were the elites when they were replaced by another group of Elites.

For the record slavery existed in England before the Norman conquest, the Norman's outlawed it. For a Historian you know fuck all about history.

Enjoy collecting your thumbs up from the likes of Polly and JBcasta. You're bang on the same page as them.

https://forums.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/here-we-go.110362/page-235

Exceptionally arrogant of you to assume you needed to teach me any history lessons on slavery in England.

I have not mentioned the Atlantic Slave Trade, you have. I have compared nothing to the Atlantic slave trade, you have. You've been called out for this countless times; you don't get to make up things people have said and then take the moral high ground in opposition to what you've just made up.

You have denied the existance (and certainly the importance) of slavery in this country in the past.

Serfdom was a form of slavery.

Was the serf a free man? No. Hence there being a separate class of Freemen.

Was the serf free to find another lord? No

Were the serf's children and dependents also serf's? Yes

Did the Lord have the right to extraordinary privileges over the serf? Yes- I gave the example of the right of the first night, but even if you wanted to bake bread you had to pay the lord to use his mill- you couldn't use another one.

If a lord killed a serf, would the be punished for it? No.

The only difference was that no formal ownership existed and the lord was under no compunction to feed his serf's; which in hard winters made a serf's lot much worse, not better.

Now, if you want fairly widespread slavery, the Danes are your people, although the middle East has a long tradition also.
 
https://forums.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/here-we-go.110362/page-235

Exceptionally arrogant of you to assume you needed to teach me any history lessons on slavery in England.

I have not mentioned the Atlantic Slave Trade, you have. I have compared nothing to the Atlantic slave trade, you have. You've been called out for this countless times; you don't get to make up things people have said and then take the moral high ground in opposition to what you've just made up.

You have denied the existance (and certainly the importance) of slavery in this country in the past.

Serfdom was a form of slavery.

Was the serf a free man? No. Hence there being a separate class of Freemen.

Was the serf free to find another lord? No

Were the serf's children and dependents also serf's? Yes

Did the Lord have the right to extraordinary privileges over the serf? Yes- I gave the example of the right of the first night, but even if you wanted to bake bread you had to pay the lord to use his mill- you couldn't use another one.

If a lord killed a serf, would the be punished for it? No.

The only difference was that no formal ownership existed and the lord was under no compunction to feed his serf's; which in hard winters made a serf's lot much worse, not better.

Now, if you want fairly widespread slavery, the Danes are your people, although the middle East has a long tradition also.

What was the difference before and after the conquest for the average peasant.

Slavery was made illegal, it wasn't before.

There were new laws to ensure the Normans did not abuse their power, such as the crime of murder being applied to the unjustified killing of non-rebels or for personal gain and the introduction of trial by battle to defend one's innocence.

Feudalism was a coming without the Norman conquest. At most it marginally hastened it.

You on multiple occasions have brought up the Norman conquest during discussions on slavery to justify your dismissal of the legacy of slavery.
 
What was the difference before and after the conquest for the average peasant.

Slavery was made illegal, it wasn't before.

There were new laws to ensure the Normans did not abuse their power, such as the crime of murder being applied to the unjustified killing of non-rebels or for personal gain and the introduction of trial by battle to defend one's innocence.

Feudalism was a coming without the Norman conquest. At most it marginally hastened it.

You on multiple occasions have brought up the Norman conquest during discussions on slavery to justify your dismissal of the legacy of slavery.
You must be joking.

Do you really think things stayed as they had been for the English? Oh dear.

The Norman invasion is the single greatest calamity to ever befall this island.

The traditional Thanes were replaced by Norman Lord's of the Manor; who brought in their own legal system and, of course, spoke French.

Forest laws immediately banned the English from hunting in most of our forests and barred the English from any kind of Hawking, which was a very traditional way of getting food.

Serfdom turned a country that was 90% freemen into a country that was 98% indentured, unfree serf's; bound to their Lord's land in perpetuity and owing countless feudal dues and rents via labour. If one of their group stepped out of line, all were punished.

Did you know that Nottingham actually had a French and an English district until the 1400's? With the French district being what we now consider the city centre, and the English district being modern day Radford, St Anne's, Sneinton, etc

William even, by the estimates of some historians (including his own) had the kindness to massacre up to 200,000 people up North.

Slavery wasn't made illegal either
 
The conclusion I've reached after many years of looking, is that political theory is mostly nonsense; and if you want to understand politics in any meaningful or important sense, then read history instead.
One drop of history is worth a sea of political theory, IMO.

Do u understand how much political theory is simply a reaction to history. The two are indivisible tbh
 
You must be joking.

Do you really think things stayed as they had been for the English? Oh dear.

The Norman invasion is the single greatest calamity to ever befall this island.

The traditional Thanes were replaced by Norman Lord's of the Manor; who brought in their own legal system and, of course, spoke French.

Forest laws immediately banned the English from hunting in most of our forests and barred the English from any kind of Hawking, which was a very traditional way of getting food.

Serfdom turned a country that was 90% freemen into a country that was 98% indentured, unfree serf's; bound to their Lord's land in perpetuity and owing countless feudal dues and rents via labour. If one of their group stepped out of line, all were punished.

Did you know that Nottingham actually had a French and an English district until the 1400's? With the French district being what we now consider the city centre, and the English district being modern day Radford, St Anne's, Sneinton, etc

William even, by the estimates of some historians (including his own) had the kindness to massacre up to 200,000 people up North.

Slavery wasn't made illegal either

My understanding was that the french district was the castle and surrounds while the original centre the saxons, around st marys. Market square came into being as the place in the middle where they could trade. Wasnt much in radford or st anns in the 1400s
 
My understanding was that the french district was the castle and surrounds while the original centre the saxons, around st marys. Market square came into being as the place in the middle where they could trade. Wasnt much in radford or st anns in the 1400s
I mean the farmland there, not that it starts there. The English borough basically moved north from Narrow Marsh

unnamed.gif
 
You must be joking.

Do you really think things stayed as they had been for the English? Oh dear.

The Norman invasion is the single greatest calamity to ever befall this island.

The traditional Thanes were replaced by Norman Lord's of the Manor; who brought in their own legal system and, of course, spoke French.

Forest laws immediately banned the English from hunting in most of our forests and barred the English from any kind of Hawking, which was a very traditional way of getting food.

Serfdom turned a country that was 90% freemen into a country that was 98% indentured, unfree serf's; bound to their Lord's land in perpetuity and owing countless feudal dues and rents via labour. If one of their group stepped out of line, all were punished.

Did you know that Nottingham actually had a French and an English district until the 1400's? With the French district being what we now consider the city centre, and the English district being modern day Radford, St Anne's, Sneinton, etc

William even, by the estimates of some historians (including his own) had the kindness to massacre up to 200,000 people up North.

Slavery wasn't made illegal either

As usual completely wrong.

GCSE History lol

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxjm9qt/revision/1

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/normans-and-slavery-breaking-bonds

So cool you'd rather be a slave that a serf, nice one lol also England was clearly heading towards a serfdom
 
As usual completely wrong.

GCSE History lol

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxjm9qt/revision/1

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/normans-and-slavery-breaking-bonds

So cool you'd rather be a slave that a serf, nice one lol also England was clearly heading towards a serfdom
Oh come on, I fucking teach this stuff. Do you think it might be a bit more complicated than GCSE bitesize?

If you go back in time to 1067 you'll find slaves.

If you go back to 1086 you'll find fewer slaves.

If you watch the coronation of William Rufus you'll find almost none.

But you'll find a fucking load of people who now can't leave the land they were born on when they could before.

Yeah, according to CP the Feudal system was a great liberation for the English. Jesus.
 
Oh come on, I fucking teach this stuff. Do you think it might be a bit more complicated than GCSE bitesize?

If you go back in time to 1067 you'll find slaves.

If you go back to 1086 you'll find fewer slaves.

If you watch the coronation of William Rufus you'll find almost none.

But you'll find a fucking load of people who now can't leave the land they were born on when they could before.

Yeah, according to CP the Feudal system was a great liberation for the English. Jesus.

No, I'm saying that culturally the Norman's detested slavery and gradually phased it out. Between 10 and 25% of the population were slaves prior to their invasion, within 100 years there were none.

Backpeddle all you like, I'm right, you're wrong.

As I've repeatedly said to you Feidalism was headed here anyway, at most it was speeded up under the Normans. Again I'm right, you're wrong.

I've said nothing about feudalism being great lol but make up as much as you like to impress your racist mates.
 
No, I'm saying that culturally the Norman's detested slavery and gradually phased it out. Between 10 and 25% of the population were slaves prior to their invasion, within 100 years there were none.

Backpeddle all you like, I'm right, you're wrong.

As I've repeatedly said to you Feidalism was headed here anyway, at most it was speeded up under the Normans. Again I'm right, you're wrong.

I've said nothing about feudalism being great lol but make up as much as you like to impress your racist mates.
Oh dear.

https://forums.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/here-we-go.110362/page-235

Check out post 4,695 and then look at the time of that and the time you started your half cocked history lesson to a guy who does this day in day out.
 
Kudos :)

I've only seen your messages to me as I've been busy....

Incidentally do you serious not believe feudalism was already on its way irrespective of the Normans
Saxons had their own version of it- a kind of serfdom you could join and leave at will- some people used to become serfs when they needed a Thane's protection in the winter and then bugger off to live in the forests in the spring/summer. In the Danelaw... Well, Normans were just Danes anyway really.

You can't underestimate the brutality of the regime the Normans brought in though. It was a massive shock to the system and made lives a misery. The Saxon societal system was actually pretty good.

A little example; a Saxon married couple could get divorced. If the woman was leaving the man, she got all her pre marriage property back or half of everything. The assumption was that if a woman was leaving the protection of her husband, there must be something seriously wrong in the domestic violence sort of way.

If he left her, then the wife gets all her property and half of his- the assumption being that he has run off with a younger model and his now abandoned wife is going to need more property to survive (as well as giving him good reason not to look elsewhere).

Normans came in and scrapped all that. Everything was mysogeny and primogeniture from thereon in, which is where our current aristocracy comes from; the current "elite" would not have happened under the Saxons, who divided property equally(ish) among sons (and sometimes daughters). Funnily enough, they did not bring salic law; that may have come later in France, I can't rememebr
 
Status
Not open for further replies.