Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2014, 05:26 PM
 
1,385 posts, read 1,515,743 times
Reputation: 1723

Advertisements

Not necessarily. Archeology shows that the common "peasant" was relatively we nourished and could live to a relatively old age. The perception is that people would not have lived long in the Middle Ages, this being based on average life expectancy. The latter, however, reflects the fact that infant mortality rates were high, and the rate of women dying in childbirth would have more of a factor as it is now. But in general if a person survived beyond childhood there must have been a reasonable expectation of a long life. Also I believe that peasant life was relatively stable and not subjected to much outside influence. Wars tended to be localized and the armies small - while in small parts the countryside may have been "ravished," the people who really suffered were townsfolk. (Extraordinary exceptions would be rare events like the Mongol invasion.) While the peasant lived a servile existence, I believe that they they had certain rights and privileges (depending on where they lived) based on age-old customs and the church. Did there not used to be a whole slew of holy days that the peasant was exempt from working on? (No surprise that the aristocrats were always trying to undermine or control Church authority.) In general I think the peasant would have had a better and safer existence than those in urban areas, and in particular those who had to participate in the (early) industrialization of the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
Well, the average peasant never traveled more than 10 miles from home in his entire life.

But life was nasty, brutish and short to quote Hobbes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2014, 07:54 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,149,727 times
Reputation: 5239
I know this much, people were taxed at a lower rate then than they are now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 11:43 AM
 
Location: NW Indiana
1,491 posts, read 1,609,822 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Feudal system peasants belonged to the land and the land belonged to the local noble, so they were never free to just pick up and go somewhere, permission was required.

Most peasants seldom traveled far from their homeland and those that did get permission for travel most likely would be setting off on a pilgrimage to one of the multitude of European towns which advertised some sacred relic. This village had the "Three True Nails" from the cross, that village had the bones of some saint who was supposed to have worked some fantastic miracle 5 or 6 hundred years earlier, across the river might be the town with the table used at the Last Supper, further up the valley was the city with the piece of leather which came from the whip used to scourge Jesus before his execution, travel another 30 miles and you come to the other town with the "Three True Nails" etc. And you could hardly go anywhere without encountering some place with pieces of the True Cross.

It was a relic happy, extremely superstitious culture and tourism was based on the fame of your town's relic.

Traveling in groups to these sites was relatively safe, traveling alone left one prey to whatever highwaymen might be about.
If you go to Europe, you can still find many of these "relics" today. Cologne Cathedral has the skulls of the three wise men and several Churches in Rome still host "holy" relics. I find such things fascinating, even if the authenticity is questionable.

As Grandstander noted, such relics were very popular in the Middle Ages. They actually became the foundation of what passed for tourism. Rome is noted for being very proficient in trying to part the pilgrim/tourist from their money. If you had a relic, than your little local cathedral / church could hope to cash in on some of that money.

Even non-religious relics were used. The Holy Roman Emperors had the grave of Charlemagne opened up and removed various body parts for use a relics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 11:58 AM
 
1,470 posts, read 2,068,348 times
Reputation: 779
People used to travel in heavely armed groups of 40 to 100 adscribed to some of confrary, organization or feud. Not very safe if met by a rival confrary, rival groups.

At that time you were born forming part of a larger group whose origin was uncertain, also you could be part of a guild, a confrary, a feud, so those groups were used to fight openly if that was the case.

The only safe place was the land at certain distance or around a church, such land was safe of all attacks and subsequently was very expensive, also the land under the protection of a lord or under the protection of the king.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,003,049 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miserere View Post
also the land under the protection of a lord or under the protection of the king.
Wasn't that all of the land? The King owned everything and gave away sections of land to his vassals to rule and make money from it. The vassals paid taxes and would pledge x number of mounted knights, x number of horses etc that the king could call to service whenever the necessities of war demanded. The land owned by the church was also donated by the king.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,214 posts, read 9,362,276 times
Reputation: 7802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken S. View Post
While the peasant lived a servile existence, I believe that they they had certain rights and privileges (depending on where they lived) based on age-old customs and the church. Did there not used to be a whole slew of holy days that the peasant was exempt from working on? (No surprise that the aristocrats were always trying to undermine or control Church authority.) In general I think the peasant would have had a better and safer existence than those in urban areas, and in particular those who had to participate in the (early) industrialization of the economy.
I've read that the average Middle Age peasant actually worked less and had more free time than we Americans do in our modern age. Not sure if that's true or not, but something I remember reading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 10:26 AM
 
3,244 posts, read 5,223,285 times
Reputation: 2551
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
I know this much, people were taxed at a lower rate then than they are now.
How do you know this? Most people had very little, and most were forced to labor for the nobility, in lieu of paying taxes in coin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,747,639 times
Reputation: 40160
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
I know this much, people were taxed at a lower rate then than they are now.
I understand that you are one of those posters who can rarely refrain from taking a partisan dump all over a thread that has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with contemporary politics.

With even that said, your claim is nonsense.

The obligation of the most common strata of medieval European peasants included not just monetary taxation but substantial labor aside from working the fields they were allotted, as well as part of the harvest from that field.

Back to monetary taxation, that cut deeper in to the non-discretionary income - the basic needs for food/shelter/clothing: the basic requirements to live - than does modern taxation.

The sum obligation of a peasant was far more onerous than modern taxation.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled whining.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2014, 09:54 AM
 
1,470 posts, read 2,068,348 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Wasn't that all of the land? The King owned everything and gave away sections of land to his vassals to rule and make money from it. The vassals paid taxes and would pledge x number of mounted knights, x number of horses etc that the king could call to service whenever the necessities of war demanded. The land owned by the church was also donated by the king.


No, there were lands that were free of tutelage and taxes, Villefranche, Villafranca, Vilafranca. In general, those were lands that were in the frontier, or land exposed to attacks, or lands near the coast, a rather unsafe territory during middle ages. Also, there were land with special laws that were independent, or citys that were governed by a parliament with the three powers and the king had not power for almost anything. Such was the case of all mediterranean city-states or also Hanseatic cities, etc.

In fact, during the middle ages there were more special laws, privileges granted to cities, etc, etc, etc, than during the period of absolutism or "despotic enlightment".

In later years (15th and 17th Century, Charles II in England, Lois XIV, Felipe II), many intellectuals claimed that the predemocratic government of many cities during the Middle Ages was "feudal" and "not modern".

Life expectancy was higher in the countryside, not in cities until the 17th century.

You are talking about the feudal system, that was not universal at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2014, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,782,786 times
Reputation: 7801
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceAndLove42 View Post
If you were a lowly peasant in the Middle Ages and say you decided to travel so you packed up what you could and just started heading out on a journey how safe would you have been from say looters or being randomly attacked/killed for your belongings?
Probably similar to Mexico today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top