General politics thread: | Page 41 | Vital Football

General politics thread:

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
I think you're swapping one form of shit for another. While I don't disagree on some of your points you're happy to overlook advantages: architecture, the economy through developing ports etc, land ownership is actually the first step towards parliamentary democracy and preventing power from being consolidated in the hands of just a few, reformation of the church, a code of law including murder etc.

And abolishing slavery.
 
I think you're swapping one form of shit for another. While I don't disagree on some of your points you're happy to overlook advantages: architecture, the economy through developing ports etc, land ownership is actually the first step towards parliamentary democracy and preventing power from being consolidated in the hands of just a few, reformation of the church, a code of law including murder etc.

And abolishing slavery.
If you put so much stock in abolishing slavery, you would surely acknowledge the role that the same English parliament would play in doing so 700 years later.

And if you are looking at long term benefits/advantages coming out of something terrible, then I would point out you can do that looking at many events in history and would applaud you for finally thinking like an historian and seeing some shades of grey.

The advantages were very long term. Your average Saxon peasant in the 1080's certainly didn't feel the benefit when his nice wooden Saxon church was torn down and replaced with, effectively, a stone castle (which is what Norman Cathedrals essentially were, with prince Bishops ruling in what was left of the north)
 
If you put so much stock in abolishing slavery, you would surely acknowledge the role that the same English parliament would play in doing so 700 years later.

And if you are looking at long term benefits/advantages coming out of something terrible, then I would point out you can do that looking at many events in history and would applaud you for finally thinking like an historian and seeing some shades of grey.

The advantages were very long term. Your average Saxon peasant in the 1080's certainly didn't feel the benefit when his nice wooden Saxon church was torn down and replaced with, effectively, a stone castle (which is what Norman Cathedrals essentially were, with prince Bishops ruling in what was left of the north)
The experience of the North vs the South was drastically different for various reasons. The average peasant probably noticed very little difference going from slavery to serfdom.
 
The experience of the North vs the South was drastically different for various reasons. The average peasant probably noticed very little difference going from slavery to serfdom.
That's not the point. Slavery affected about 10% in 1066 and that 10% were better off. The other 88% who were Freemen were far, far, far worse off. There is no such thing as a "peasant" going from slavery to serfdom. They are three different things. If you were a slave you couldn't be a peasant.

The north did badly because William destroyed it due to rebellion. Two of Harold's key Earls, Morcar and Edwin were northern Earls and rebelled multiple times despite William making many overtures to them.

The hilly north also lent itself far more to livestock raising rather than the crop rotation of agrarian serfdom
 
That's not the point. Slavery affected about 10% in 1066 and that 10% were better off. The other 88% who were Freemen were far, far, far worse off. There is no such thing as a "peasant" going from slavery to serfdom. They are three different things. If you were a slave you couldn't be a peasant.

The north did badly because William destroyed it due to rebellion. Two of Harold's key Earls, Morcar and Edwin were northern Earls and rebelled multiple times despite William making many overtures to them.

The hilly north also lent itself far more to livestock raising rather than the crop rotation of agrarian serfdom
Which suggests a devolution of power and as I said the first step towards democracy...

I think you grossly overestimate the lives of the majority of the population.
 

Old Red Fart

Vital Champions League
Slavery is an interesting subject and not just historic either. Why not include present day slavery although it may be described by another name and include some form of payment. I's not just negros involved, plenty of Asians, often women,. work in other countries in rotten conditions also on ships.

Makes me realize how lucky I am.
 
Slavery is an interesting subject and not just historic either. Why not include present day slavery although it may be described by another name and include some form of payment. I's not just negros involved, plenty of Asians, often women,. work in other countries in rotten conditions also on ships.

Makes me realize how lucky I am.
Things have changed a lot since you were sent to the Colonies, ORF
 
Slavery is an interesting subject and not just historic either. Why not include present day slavery although it may be described by another name and include some form of payment. I's not just negros involved, plenty of Asians, often women,. work in other countries in rotten conditions also on ships.

Makes me realize how lucky I am.
Things have changed a lot since you were sent to the Colonies, ORF

Yes you're right but not always for the good though.
Honestly I'm referring to the present day. Have you ever seen for example the way that some Arabs with cash treat their foreign servants? And that's only one example amongst a good many. It's frightening.
And some times I think that there may be more Asian women working and suffering outside of Asia than inside.

It's quite likely that this subject doesn't get a lot of publicity in the UK, but it does exist.
 
Slavery is an interesting subject and not just historic either. Why not include present day slavery although it may be described by another name and include some form of payment. I's not just negros involved, plenty of Asians, often women,. work in other countries in rotten conditions also on ships.

Makes me realize how lucky I am.
Imo most of us are slaves in all but name.