Before the collapse of the roman empire, most of the labours were slaves, but after the collapse, the serfdom became the dominate labour force in europe. Does anyone know what caused this transition and how? Why would any slave owner suddenly stop using salves and start paying the same people for the same work?
Transition of slavery to serfdom
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
The serf system rose from the way the Germanic tribes operated.
Since they didn't make slaves of themselves, they didn't bother with slavery.
In the 4th and 5th century, as western civilization collasped, people still needed food and safety, so at first, they relied on their barbarian kings, but these kings controlled such vast lands (with little communication) they needed men to protect and hold areas, so they gave land grants to Barons, who in turn gave grants from their land to others, and so on.
Poor people, with nothing and nowhere to turn, arrived on these lands, and the lords would offer them protection if they agreed to work the land for six days a week, the 7th they could keep whatever they did for themselves.
At first, people were free to come and go, but there was no place to go, the great cities of Rome were deserted, as no food was to be had in them.
Over time, people forgot the cities, and settled into manor life, and accepted the fuedal system, the manor lord provided for all their needs, he provided a mill for flour, a keep for protection, artisans to make furniture, and so on, so the manor became a little set community, which the Feudal lord protected.
The system always put the landsmen at the bottom, and no matter how hard he worked, he always ended up oweing the Lord, so in time this debt became hereditary, and thus, serfdom.
Since they didn't make slaves of themselves, they didn't bother with slavery.
In the 4th and 5th century, as western civilization collasped, people still needed food and safety, so at first, they relied on their barbarian kings, but these kings controlled such vast lands (with little communication) they needed men to protect and hold areas, so they gave land grants to Barons, who in turn gave grants from their land to others, and so on.
Poor people, with nothing and nowhere to turn, arrived on these lands, and the lords would offer them protection if they agreed to work the land for six days a week, the 7th they could keep whatever they did for themselves.
At first, people were free to come and go, but there was no place to go, the great cities of Rome were deserted, as no food was to be had in them.
Over time, people forgot the cities, and settled into manor life, and accepted the fuedal system, the manor lord provided for all their needs, he provided a mill for flour, a keep for protection, artisans to make furniture, and so on, so the manor became a little set community, which the Feudal lord protected.
The system always put the landsmen at the bottom, and no matter how hard he worked, he always ended up oweing the Lord, so in time this debt became hereditary, and thus, serfdom.
This is interesting: my initial thinking around serfdom is that these people were exploited of their labour in return for food and shelter but they were free to come and go without restriction. This limited freedom was the only differentiation between slavery and serfdom. If they were bounded by their debt and the debt were to be hereditary then what is the difference between this and american slavery? (since american slaves could gather enough money to buy their own freedom)
I have no ground to discount your response since I don't have much knowledge in this subject (that's why I started this thread in the first place). I remember reading something mentioned that serfdom was a more efficient system than slavery. A landlord had to put something on the table (regardless of how little it is) to attract or retain his serf; a slave master just had to keep their slaves alive to work another day.
I have no ground to discount your response since I don't have much knowledge in this subject (that's why I started this thread in the first place). I remember reading something mentioned that serfdom was a more efficient system than slavery. A landlord had to put something on the table (regardless of how little it is) to attract or retain his serf; a slave master just had to keep their slaves alive to work another day.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
A serf had rights, and could appeal the manor lord, could own things, and was not property, but "in debt".
A slave in the US was property, and his chances of a buy-out were slim and none.
Over time in Europe, another class of slavery arrives, the "indentured servant", men who would agree to work as slaves for 10 years in repayment for a trip to the new world and new life, but they were normally cheated, charged for cloths and food and lodging, they often ended up serving 20 years or even lifetimes as slaves, and were treated MUCH worse then slaves, because their owner knew he would have to give him up someday, so an identured servant's fate was often worse, while a slave, as property, was cared for, in the hope he would reproduce and provide more slaves.
A slave in the US was property, and his chances of a buy-out were slim and none.
Over time in Europe, another class of slavery arrives, the "indentured servant", men who would agree to work as slaves for 10 years in repayment for a trip to the new world and new life, but they were normally cheated, charged for cloths and food and lodging, they often ended up serving 20 years or even lifetimes as slaves, and were treated MUCH worse then slaves, because their owner knew he would have to give him up someday, so an identured servant's fate was often worse, while a slave, as property, was cared for, in the hope he would reproduce and provide more slaves.
AnarchyBoy
Despot
Slavery has its origins in Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures around 2700 BC. People became slaves one out of two ways: 1. They were conquered by a stronger civilization in battle and enslaved. To the victor goes the spoils. A good example of this is when the Egyptians conquered both the Hyksos and Nubians, then used them as slave labor as punishment for conspiring against Egypt. 2. People who went deeply into debt and had to sell future labor to pay their way out. This occurs most frequently in Mesopotamian culture (Babylonia, the Hitties, et. al). Some people went so deep into debt trying to keep food on the table that they had to sell decades of their lives to pay off the debt, effectively becoming slaves for a lifetime.
As for serfdom, it occurs later in history but the result is the same. In both the Mycenaean and Minoan cultures, most of the work was done by peasant laborers who derived none of the benefit from civilization, and many of them still lived in paleolithic conditions. The nobles, by contrast, lived in luxurious houses with all of their needs met, because they had control of military and political power. It is worth noting that the Mycenaeans and Minoans have heavy influence on European and American civilization, which might help to explain the heavy concentration of wealth we experience today. Think of people in poor inner cities as sort of modern-day serfs.
The good news is, sooner or later the poor generally get tired of being pushed around and either revolt or at least stop working to support their feudal lords. Maybe there's hope for the poor after all...
As for serfdom, it occurs later in history but the result is the same. In both the Mycenaean and Minoan cultures, most of the work was done by peasant laborers who derived none of the benefit from civilization, and many of them still lived in paleolithic conditions. The nobles, by contrast, lived in luxurious houses with all of their needs met, because they had control of military and political power. It is worth noting that the Mycenaeans and Minoans have heavy influence on European and American civilization, which might help to explain the heavy concentration of wealth we experience today. Think of people in poor inner cities as sort of modern-day serfs.
The good news is, sooner or later the poor generally get tired of being pushed around and either revolt or at least stop working to support their feudal lords. Maybe there's hope for the poor after all...
EdwardTking
Deity
In the old days life was often violent with powerful men beating their wives, children, indentured servants, serfs, slaves etc; and most people lived in the subsistence economy without using money. The difference between serfs, servants and slaves slaves was often problematic and theoretical.
A slave was regarded as the property of an individual or possible state organisation (e.g. Athenian police) that could be bought or sold. In most societies, slaves had no rights or very few rights. In most societies slave owners had no duties. The romans treated slaves differently. A slave in a mine or a galley was worked to death. A slave with a technical skill might be looked after. A slave with a middle class skill; doctor, teacher etc might be respected and permitted to own money. Slavery was seen as a punishment for rebellion; a method of dispersing a conquered nation and slaves were commodities for resale. Most slaves were not seen as part of society. The Romans had no label for any halfway house between being free or being a slave.
A serf was an agricultural worker formally tied to the land.
The lord could sell the land; but the serf would remain with the land. There could therefore be no trade in serfs. As a serf had rights; people were not sentenced to serfdom. In most societies landowners had duties to serfs too. Most serfs were therefore seen and perceived of themselves as part of the society that they lived in. They had a stake; if only a very small stake.
An indentured servant was a servant under contract to his or her master. Indentured servants were typically employed as domestics or on other estate (but not agricultural) duties.
There are three major problems with slavery:
(a) Slaves have no incentive to work and so only work when overseer is about with the whip.
(b) Slaves try to escape and must therefore be guarded.
(c) Slaves won't fight to defend their owner's country/goods.
Serfs however would work harder to get a few nice things in life and need not be guarded. Serfs were also more reliable in that they would could be given pikes and told to defend the lands they lived in; in time of war.
Serfs were therefore more efficient than slaves.
Slavery tended to exist when there was a (a) mechanism for obtaining slaves (wars; trade) and (b) a demand for labour that could not be met by an available supply of serfs.
As others have said; the Romans had this obsession
with reducing conquered people to slavery.
There are four reasons why serfdom replaced slavery:
CULTURAL
The Germanic tribes were less interested in institutionalised cruelty. They took the view that sentencing people to death in the arena was cowardly and were much happier to let their conquered people keep working the land as serfs. The Germans tended to believe in inspired leadership and personal loyalty (as appropriate to nomadic peoples) instead of personal greed and institutional terror (as appropriate to settled peoples).
ECONOMIC
The collapse of the Roman empire wrecked the trading economy and the networks of slave traders. The impoverished lands could not afford the inherent inefficiencies of slavery.
MILITARY
The Germanic tribes were less specialised than the Romans;
their success was that were able to have a larger number of their people available for war than the Romans. They correctly understood that the increase in slavery under the Roman empire had removed its conscript base and did not want to make the same mistake.
MORAL/RELIGIOUS
The Christians disapproved of slavery. Therefore many agricultural slaves became re-categorised as serfs.
A slave was regarded as the property of an individual or possible state organisation (e.g. Athenian police) that could be bought or sold. In most societies, slaves had no rights or very few rights. In most societies slave owners had no duties. The romans treated slaves differently. A slave in a mine or a galley was worked to death. A slave with a technical skill might be looked after. A slave with a middle class skill; doctor, teacher etc might be respected and permitted to own money. Slavery was seen as a punishment for rebellion; a method of dispersing a conquered nation and slaves were commodities for resale. Most slaves were not seen as part of society. The Romans had no label for any halfway house between being free or being a slave.
A serf was an agricultural worker formally tied to the land.
The lord could sell the land; but the serf would remain with the land. There could therefore be no trade in serfs. As a serf had rights; people were not sentenced to serfdom. In most societies landowners had duties to serfs too. Most serfs were therefore seen and perceived of themselves as part of the society that they lived in. They had a stake; if only a very small stake.
An indentured servant was a servant under contract to his or her master. Indentured servants were typically employed as domestics or on other estate (but not agricultural) duties.
There are three major problems with slavery:
(a) Slaves have no incentive to work and so only work when overseer is about with the whip.
(b) Slaves try to escape and must therefore be guarded.
(c) Slaves won't fight to defend their owner's country/goods.
Serfs however would work harder to get a few nice things in life and need not be guarded. Serfs were also more reliable in that they would could be given pikes and told to defend the lands they lived in; in time of war.
Serfs were therefore more efficient than slaves.
Slavery tended to exist when there was a (a) mechanism for obtaining slaves (wars; trade) and (b) a demand for labour that could not be met by an available supply of serfs.
As others have said; the Romans had this obsession
with reducing conquered people to slavery.
There are four reasons why serfdom replaced slavery:
CULTURAL
The Germanic tribes were less interested in institutionalised cruelty. They took the view that sentencing people to death in the arena was cowardly and were much happier to let their conquered people keep working the land as serfs. The Germans tended to believe in inspired leadership and personal loyalty (as appropriate to nomadic peoples) instead of personal greed and institutional terror (as appropriate to settled peoples).
ECONOMIC
The collapse of the Roman empire wrecked the trading economy and the networks of slave traders. The impoverished lands could not afford the inherent inefficiencies of slavery.
MILITARY
The Germanic tribes were less specialised than the Romans;
their success was that were able to have a larger number of their people available for war than the Romans. They correctly understood that the increase in slavery under the Roman empire had removed its conscript base and did not want to make the same mistake.
MORAL/RELIGIOUS
The Christians disapproved of slavery. Therefore many agricultural slaves became re-categorised as serfs.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Thanks for all the informative posts. Good thread.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
No problem.
In Europe, the fall of the west truly was a dark age, even if elsewhere (the eastern empire, Islam, China ect) things were still fine, it was the west which would dominate history when it awoke, so it's interesting to see how it went from Barbarian tribes to great empires.
The slaves to serfs is a good example of human nature, ie explotation of the weak.
In Europe, the fall of the west truly was a dark age, even if elsewhere (the eastern empire, Islam, China ect) things were still fine, it was the west which would dominate history when it awoke, so it's interesting to see how it went from Barbarian tribes to great empires.
The slaves to serfs is a good example of human nature, ie explotation of the weak.
Similar threads
