Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Trackmaster15 t1_ish4ntf wrote

Reply to comment by Sex_E_Searcher in Anglo-Saxon hall where kings and warriors dined discovered in England by unheated1

Its funny how lords and kings basically had the one pragmatic purpose for peasants: to "protect" them. But really, the lords and kings just conscripted peasants to fight their wars anyway.

24

OtisTetraxReigns t1_ishezus wrote

Probably not as often as you think. It’s not prudent to send all the people that grow your food off to die.

69

YishuTheBoosted t1_ishpq12 wrote

Textbook mistake in age of empires.

24

TheLastPromethean t1_isiaf4n wrote

Nah bro, I'll just Wolololo some of your villagers to replenish my workforce. Pro gamer move right there.

15

Dokutah_Dokutah t1_isivnxi wrote

I counter your monk with at least 2 archers to kill him quick before he converts any.

4

Trackmaster15 t1_ishf5ks wrote

Then they're not getting protection. My point is that the "protection" that they offer is coming from themselves. And the king or lord has no claims to the peasants food without giving them something in return.

4

TastyVictory t1_ishhvgo wrote

Think of it as a modern day draft. Its only used for desperate times. The peasants were protected by not being sent off to war unless the alternative was everyone would be brutally killed any way.

22

mehvermore t1_isiq3z1 wrote

Peasants were tenant workers. Being able to live off their lords' land was what they were getting in exchange for the burden of serfdom. Not that it was a fair system by any means, but protection was at most a distant secondary consideration in the "contract" between a peasant and their lord.

6

borednord t1_isimzgf wrote

You seem to be under the misconception that kings and lords ruled over peasants in some sort of mutual contract of protection?

1

Trackmaster15 t1_isj2xsw wrote

I was not under any misconception. You seem to have not learned about this historic fact. You might need to take some courses on feudalism.

0

borednord t1_isjfqqm wrote

There is no need for hostility my friend. I offered a question as your take on Lords providing some sort of service in return for goods from peasants is a take that is mistaken on many levels as regards to the concept of feudalism.

Simply put a lords "claim" to a peasants food was "I am instated by God" and "I let you work my land and you give me your food". Rather your take on peasants providing food for a ruling caste is better described as manoralism and really has nothing to do with the term feudalism, as that describes the relationship of vassalage and should be further distinguished by geographical constaints, as feudalism in England is different from France, and the rest of europe.

4

GirthIgnorer t1_isj5443 wrote

Idk everyone seems to be owning you for your dumb reductionist take all over this thread, maybe go hit the books for a couple years yourself

−1

Sex_E_Searcher t1_ishl3um wrote

It was not very common to do so. Peasants were not skilled fighters and you'd need to equip them. Most medieval armies were small and consisted of full time soldiers and nobles.

10

Alaknog t1_isivg5g wrote

Many times this "peasants" is equipped by themselves and know how fight too. They just not do this full time job.

1

Sgt_Colon t1_isiugi1 wrote

Those that comprised the fyrd would have been ceorls, free men that owed service as part of their social standing (and according rights and wealth) and as a continuation from earlier 'germanic' society.

2