Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ferengi_Earwax t1_istfkfq wrote

Yes most medieval villeins had an oxen if they could afford it. There are documents that explain villages would rent out an oxen to plow their fields through barter( or labor) from a person that had one. There's even documents of how a whole village shared the same oxen. Horses weren't used predominantly in ploughing until the late 18th century I believe. Villains/serfs belonged to the lord and lived on the lords land. He owed labor and rent, paid usually in working his masters field a certain amount of days. You then have free tenants who could move about as they like and didn't have to work the lords lands. There are stories of free peasants selling themselves back into serfdom to survive tough winters/failed harvests. At the top of the peasants were yeoman who could own land and probably employed multiple free peasants to help during harvest. They werent subject to the lord, but still would be subject to the lord that represented the crown in the area. They are obviously the most likely to afford their own oxen.

2

Druss369 t1_isuc7t1 wrote

Oh those nasty villains and their horses. Heroes had to make do with a mule!

3

ngorso t1_iswwjgc wrote

That‘s true for most of Europe for most of the middle ages, yes. Something I‘ve not seen mentioned though, is that in the absence of oxen, farmers would also use cows as beasts of burden. Especially here in Switzerland where cows were rather common in the high- and late middle ages. This was mostly due to the the nature of the terrain; up on the mountain slopes you can‘t feasibly farm grain, but you can have pastures for cattle, simply called „alps“ in German. The main settlements would generally remain in the down valleys where farming was possible, while the wealthier farmers could join the „Alpgenossenschaften“ for a fee, so they could send their cattle to the communally owned mountain pastures. This way cheese became the dominant export good for many alpine regions, something Switzerland is still known for today. It‘s worth mentioning also that, certainly in Switzerland, there tended to be more „free“ farmers toward the end of the middle ages (we even had a couple civil wars where farmers fought for their rights in the early modern period). Additionally, in Switzerland farmers in service to a lord tended to have more freedoms later on, having a fairly complex societal structure in which the lord didn‘t just have complete authority over the villages. Rather the village’s community appointed representatives, which then had to be either accepted or denied by the lord‘s representative. other than that, the lord‘s influence was mostly limited to managing legal matters and taxes, though often a sort of veto would be retained by the lord‘s representatives if they didn‘t like what the village council came up with, but it seems like this was rarely used. In many regards they enjoyed a surprising degree of autonomy. So, it was a lot more cooperative than you‘d think in a feudal society. I don‘t know how common this was in the rest of Europe though. Swiss farmers were rather infamous for rising up against the „natural order of things“ (the estates), especially after the Habsburg Wars and especially by Swabian lords before, during and after the Swabian War (called Swiss War in Germany). But that‘s another matter entirely.

As a quick aside: Hugary is also interesting to mention, as Hungarian cows and oxen were exported en masse into central Europe during the middle ages.

But yes, horses were really rather rare and expensive during much of the European middle ages. not just to buy but also to maintain, as they ate more than cows of the period (there is a pletitude of sources for this here in Switzerland, eg. Alpgenossenschaftsbücher). I read that English kings would often dwell in the houses of wealthy citizens when they were travelling, which put a large logistical burden on the host, since he had to feed all those horses - a king never travels alone. On a smaller scale, I‘ve seen the same sort of principle in a source about a prestigious abbess from western Germany, when she was visiting her domain. Apparently it put quite the strain on the hosts, not because they had to feed the abbess and her entourage, but because they suddenly had to feed dozens of horses. That leads me to believe that, even if they could afford one, peasants would likely not buy a horse since they cost a lot of upkeep. Oxen were the obvious choice.

2

Ferengi_Earwax t1_isy40qf wrote

I didn't know that about Switzerland and the "alps". Very interesting. I've heard stories about using using cows. It's not so far fetched because cows would be more attainable and served more than one purpose. I'm also aware of the rights granted to the lower classes in the late medieval to early Renaissance Era. Alot of fascinating rebellions that led to the common classes restoring some of their rights. I believe the holy Roman empire lended itself to the situation by being leas centrally dominated than France or England. From what I know it was a web of independent operators which were loosely grouped together, so rights could vary widely across the empire. Overall it seems the lower classes enjoyed more freedom and representation quit earlier than the rest of the western big powers. I was not aware that Hungary imported alot of cattle, but it would make sense due to the expansive grasslands. As for the last part about traveling nobles, that was the norm since the fall of the roman empire. Lords/kings would travel to designated areas staying with their vassals to dispense justice and no doubt for some, to ease their own financial burden. In English history, there are multiple nobles who bankrupted themselves readying their estates for an impending monarchs visit. They would do it to get into the monarchs good graces in hopes of lucrative contracts. There are stories where the monarch never showed up, and the lord ended up bankrupt anyway without the monarch reimbursing them with favors. I usually would never use from this site, but I've read it and it's well written. https://www.history.com/news/elizabeth-i-royal-progress-expense

1