So how much did feudal serfs in the middle ages -actually- work? And how much tax did they pay? I remember reading in my kids' books that they were basically slavewhipped and worked 12 hour days, 6 days a week and had a servile, suffering existence. Then I come on 4chan /his/ and apparently it's fucking around half the day, drinking mead comfy at the pub, and having like 120 holy days off per year.Bullying chatGPT for answers, I basically got told this.>Most of those Holy days were simply Sundays, and another portion were "light work" holy days without provided food benefits>They worked Monday, Wednesday and Friday typically on the lord of the manor's demesne. Typically 4 hours a day, or 12 hours a week.>They had to pay a 10% tithe to the church>manor taxes existed at about 2-4% If we compare it to a 40 hour wage cuck workweek, then 12 hours for comes close to about a 30% tax rate, but there's like 55 holy days mixed in there so you can knock it back down to a 20% tax rate. the 10% tithe is basically a 10% flat tax on everyone. 2-4% to the manor estate can be averaged out to 3%. So all up it's about 33% tax 33% isn't really far off the modern welfare state desu. I also found out there was basically a welfare state in feudal times that the 33% tax paid for. A lot of the wealth came back down to the peasant in provided meat for feasts, reserves of grain during famine, and the church ran welfare programs. It doesn't really seem shit's changed that much in a lot of ways. Feudal serfs seem pretty similar to modern wagecucks.
>>18034744>So how much did feudal serfs in the middle ages -actually- work? The work of a serf was largely the same a free farmer. It was seasonal work, during harvesting or sowing season it was working nearly all day, during winter you might just be doing small jobs. Most work is actually made up of maintenance and general chores which took hours a day to do. Serfs were also made to use the manor's tools (and pay for it) like the mill and also had extra obligations of work for so many days a year to the manor. >And how much tax did they pay? They paid normal taxes like free men, but they had extra taxes to the manor and more arbitrary ones. For example a Serf was obligated to pay the Manor on Christmas either in a levy or food. They also had indirect taxes like having to pay to use things which belong to the manor like their mills, which they are forced to use. When it came to taxes, a free man payed less, he only had the normal taxation and the rent for the land he lived on.>but there's like 55 holy days mixed in Feast days were usually ignored by farmers, and in fact they were even straight up exempt from them under Roman law. Feasts that these people actually got to participate in were far less and were regional. >a 10% flat tax on everyoneThe only consistent taxes that came from the state were the tariffs and taxes on trade. The first consistent hearth tax came into existence in late 14th century France. Taxation was usually ad hoc and depended on the year.>A lot of the wealth came back down to the peasant in provided meat for feastsSerfs had to pay for these. They were expected to pay for the manors feasts.>and the church ran welfare programs. These were mostly limited to urban environments and focused on very particular groups >Feudal serfs seem pretty similar to modern wagecucks.Serfs had no freedom of movement and had no access to the royal courts. They had to go to the manor for justice, even in offenses by the manor to them.
>>18034773Was the tithe a big deal though? I pressured the AI quite a bit on this point, and it made out if you didn't pay the 10% tithe to the church you were ostracized and barred from marriage, inheritance and other things. And the church could petition the manor to force compensation. That's what I meant by a 10% flat tax.
>>18034773But also thank you for your reply. Reading up on it, it seems there were elements of noblesse oblige mixed in there, but not really. Reserves of grain and food were kept in case of famine, and the feudal lord did have an obligation to protect them from hardship. How much this happened in reality, considering how the manor courts were, is questionable thoughbiet. I guess being at risk of being conquered by other manors limited the worst feudal excesses. A lot of serfs apparently did bail, as many as 5% would just skirt it as runaways. And serfs all the time left for new manors and signed other feudal contracts. It'd be pretty easy for a shit abusive manor to just bleed good labour. Feudalism in Russia didn't really have this element of competition though, each manor there being more centrally tied to the tsar.But it's weird, because so many people needed to leave the manor seasonally for the seasonal jobs. To bring goods to the fairs, to transport goods to the city, etc. So serfs couldn't really be tied to the land at all times. I read it was pretty normal for them to just get permission to leave for a few months doing temp labour elsewhere outside of growing and planting. The middle ages was operating at a permanent labour shortage and max employment (apparently) pretty much at all times, and doubly so after famines (which hit like every 15 years). That increased labour shortage would have more lords bidding for hands, giving people a bit more selection.
>>18034804you need to remember that serfs paid with produce or labor
>>18034744There was no fixed rules. Tithes were originally derived from the tenth part of ones income (or generated produce) but could be higher than the 10th part. And there were multiple tithes - church tithes were usually only the 10th part but secular tithes could be higher - as much as 30%. And sometimes this number wasn't relative to the actual generated poduce but rather a fixed number that had to be met regardless of how slim ones harvest might be. And those "flexible tithes" could be arbitrarily changed at the will of the respective lord.Holidays/Holy Days could be of "higher" or "lesser" ranging from festivities to just normal workdays with special sermons. And you are right that you included the work on the lieges land, which were also part of the duties peasants & serfs had to their liege. But keep in mind that they also have to perfom work on their own houses - not just farm work. A roof won't fix itself. There were also additional duties (for the lack of a better term) one had to pay- for example millers had to buy the right to operate a mill from the lord of the land and thus demanded a not unconsiderable aount of money or parts from the milled goods from the ones who wanted to use said mill.>It doesn't really seem shit's changed that much in a lot of waysIn some ways it seems awfully similar. But the quality you can get nowadays for your taxes far outweighs the medieval "state benefits". You also have just more rights - being capable of utilizing them is another thing of course.>>18034773>They had to go to the manor for justice, even in offenses by the manor to them.Good point. And not every place had the right to speak justice (Justice too was differentiated between High and Low, with the High Justice being the prerogative of the respective lord of the land while the Low Justice could be bestowed upon institutions like town judges/councils). Worst case the plaintiff was physically unable to plead his case simply by restricted movement.
>>18034804NtAYou should keep in mind that the Church could also be your secular liege. And not being allowed to marry, inherit or societal ostracization could spell economic doom. And then more "mundane" punishments could be bestowed upon somebody refusing to pay the tithe - more forced unpaid labor, loss of freedom/rights or property.
First step to understanding is to get rid of modern labels and terms like serf, wage, hourly pay, welfare, society, social hierarchy, job, employer, holiday, etc. . They did not know what "Feudalism" or the "mayoral system" was. They did not know what a "peasant" was. Those terms did not exist in their vocabulary. Wipe the slate clean.Okay, now we beginThey "worked" a lot. I say work, but the proper way of describing it is "doing shit", because shit needed to be done. Houses needed to be built, crops needed to be planted and harvested, clothes needed to be manufactured; things needed to be delivered, barns needed to be cleaned; etc etc..There was very little time to lounge around, because something always needed be done. That's just the way shit was.
>>18034744Depends on where exactly.In the Hungarian kingdom and most of German-influenced Europe, the "taxation" looked like so:Nobility - no tax or fixed lump sumChurch - no taxPeasants - one third to the king, one third to the local parish, one third left for them. Payment in produce or corvee labor.Cityfolk - tax policy set by the city governmentHRE famously fucked both the nobility and the church (for the protestant states, at least) while Hungary kept this arrangement until the Napoloenic age. Maria Theresa famously tried to sweet-talk the nobility into helping her causes as she didn't see a single shilling from their holdings. Only later Austrian emperors killed the system with the abolishment of serfdom and all the related laws.
>>18035217I read that Scandinavia didn't even have the feudal system, it was just all free farmers because of the way their geography worked. You couldn't plonk a centralized castle on a block of land and paypig the peons in the area. Farmers were more spread out across a hostile countryside. Then in Russia the feudal system, when it got started, was much more severe and brutal than anything else in Europe. It bled over closer to Roman styled slavery than anything else, and they traded peasants like cattle. The books I've read on the renaissance era, even the 18th century, talk about how serfdom and the labour burden in Russia actually got -worse- as the centuries went on. With cities being preferable to serfdom, it sorta looks like it depends? I pressured again for answers and found that medieval records are filled with people and families just packing up and leaving a manor, leaving for other manors or the city. "City air makes you free" was apparently a common mentality back then. You could escape off your farm, go to a city, work as an actual modern wagecuck on a daily wage, and have a different system. Although cities were permanently deep in sub-replacement fertility so I'm guessing life there must've been harder and more filthy than the countryside.
>>18035870Regarding your point with cities: While a serf (or any other person in a bondage relation) could flee to a city, the city itself had no obligation to hide or protect them. So if the liege lord came knocking, the city would not intervine. It was more so a case of the liege not caring or wanting to allocate resources to find some runaway serfs.And secondly, just living in a city doesn't make you a citizen. In some regards one would have less rights living in a city as there they would be totally free - free to be harmed too,wheres on the estate of their liege they had defined duties and enjoyed protections (although those duties could be raised arbitrarily by the lord).
Oh yeah and regardin the "City air makes you free" statement: This was only a customary law within the HRE. On the condition that a serf wasn't demanded back by his liege within one year, the serf would gain his freedom within the city - but not citizenship. And this custom was rolled back with the "Statutum in Favorem Principum" of 1231.
Peasants had no political representation, and failure to meet obligations could be fatal. Modern systems, in contrast, are codified and relatively secure.
>>18034744Depends and depends. You worked from spring until autumn in the fields, then took winter as a time to work in and on the home or fishing if you lived near a body of water. If you lived in places like Scandinavia field work might only take up half the year. Most peasants did not pay taxes but had a variety of obligations from military service to milling fees.
>>18035982>>18035994It seems de-facto that the logistical cost of wrangling serfs back to the manor wasn't really worth it once they escaped. You'd have to organize several guys to apprehend the guy, you'd have to bring the case to court, you'd have to provide proof that someone escaped on this day and you're not just nabbing some rando from the city. Cities didn't help with defending a guy against the lord reclaiming, but even so, that's a lot of effort on the part of the manor. Especially when you could replace him pretty easily with some other poorfag or wait a few months until other serf peasants come of age. If you make it two cities over and put some distance between you and the manor, it seems almost certain that you'd be clear sailing. But I guess you'd have relatives back on the manor that got vindictively mistreated because of it and would lose the support of an able-bodied person. I guess shit faggots nobody liked having around would be like "yeah he's gone, good shit". The actual escaping seems to be the hard part. But reading up on it, it just doesn't look like everyone was just bound to the land 100% of the time. I read that feudal manors send people off for work all the time when there wasn't much to do at home. Logistical workers, seasonal workers, fairs, feudal beefs, etc all needed hands and labour demand there spiked. Giving ample opportunities for someone to escape, but I guess it's the people that are trusted to return that get given those roles. Bandits themselves seemed to mostly come from raised feudal levees deciding not to return home, and instead camping out in the forest and just paypigging merchants that go through.>the serf would gain his freedom within the city - but not citizenship.Sounds like a step down in a lot of ways honestly, unless you found economic success. The truly destitute in those times tend to be technically freemen. City poor were also the first to die in a famine.
>>18036062>City poor were also the first to die in a famine.Good
>>18034744Slaves are tied to a person. Where ever the master goes, the slave goes. Master can buy and sell slaves.Serfs are tied to the land. Owners of the land can come and go, but the Serf stays on the land.
>>18034773>Serfs had to pay for these. They were expected to pay for the manors feasts.Apparently not though, it was provided by the feudal lord or the church.>In the accounts of the manor of Cuxham (Oxfordshire, 14th century), compiled by the reeve, we find entries for meat and drink provided during church festivals and harvest celebrations, paid for by the lord’s estate. These records show that the manor absorbed the cost, not the peasants.>“Expenses for the feast of St. Swithun: beef, mutton, ale, bread — distributed to tenants and laborers.”There's apparently piles of contemporary sources that either outright state or heavily imply that it's the lord's footing the bill for feast days. It seems similar to a catered end of year lunch at work.
>>18036062>It seems de-facto that the logistical cost of wrangling serfs back to the manor wasn't really worth it once they escaped.True but it's not like whole families got up and left. It is a large investment to uproot your whole economic and social life for the chance of a better future - and a slim chance at that. A peasant had established social nets in his village and none in the city.Oh and after 1231, cities (which were not Free or Imperial) had to apprehend runaway serfs. Easier said than done of course but the former common law of "City air makes free" had been revoked and the control of feudal lords over cities rose. >But reading up on it, it just doesn't look like everyone was just bound to the land 100% of the time. [...]"Bound to the land" means that the legal status of a serf was tied to a piece of land. Serf A lives on plot B. Plot B is owned by Lord C. Lord C can order Serf A around within the framework of the respective bondage relation. If Lord C looses ownership of Plot B he looses the "access authorization" (for the lack of a better term) to Serf A. And depending on the country there was a great variety of types of serfdom presant. For the HRE you had: 1) Leibeigene = unfree, their "body" was owned by the liege, don't have land and directly work the land of the liege2) Hörige = formerly free peasants that entered a bondage relation with a liege, their formerly owned land was transferred to the liege but the Hörige was tied to it and thus not directly owned by the liege. This seems to be the most well known form of serfdom - see the example with Serf A above. 3) Hufner = Premium version of the Hörige. Similar deal but Hufner had typically larger estates and were able to direclty employ servants - those servants could be Leibeigene to the Hufner.1/2
And each of those different types of serfdoms had different contracts that laid out the framework for the bondage relation. Unfortunately those contracts were mostly oral and based on customary laws - and thus could be changed with time to stongly favor the liege lords. But ultimately a liege had many different people under him who he had a fluctuating degree of control over. >but I guess it's the people that are trusted to return that get given those roles.A lord would also just sent a team of people out for such tasks as cattle drives. Headed by a Hufner or a similar position who were invested in keeping a good relation towards their liege.>Sounds like a step down in a lot of ways honestly, unless you found economic successIt was. Non citizens weren't allowed to own property or even practice occupations that were regulated by guilds. They had no way of political participation and only enjoyed the most bare bones of legal protections.2/2
>>18036017>failure to meet obligations could be fatalWow imagine that!
>>18034744They got married younger, had more kids, had lower infant mortality if you take abortion into account, divorced less, committed suicide less, and had a much stronger social constellation.any labor theyd do is trivial compared to the rewards they had.
Bump
>>18037527>>18037530A lot of Austrian Economist libertarians speak pretty highly of the middle ages. Apparently the de-jure absolutism that the nobility control everything was more an exaggerated show, and things were pretty decentralized. Like, on paper the King controlled everything in the realm in an absolutist fashion, with dukes and barons existing at his whim, but in reality the feudal structure went from the ground up. The king had a mobile court, and basically spent his time doing laps of the kingdom with an entourage. All to ensure that the vassals stayed loyal. It was only with the advent of mass commerce and the decline of feudalism could the king just live in his castle at the capitol. I guess the decline of absolutist and brutalist rhetoric followed actual political centralization. Something Theodore Kaczynski somewhat touched on with his writings on Italian city states. Manors apparently averaged 200-500 people in size at the low end, as mostly self sufficient units, which is awfully close to what a tribe numbers in savage societies. And they in a sense competed with other manors, and could feud and beef with other manors. I guess humans probably identified with their manor as "their people" in a sense, and familial blood ties regulated relations. Sure, there's massive abuses, but because everyone is someone's brother's uncle, it wasn't just like victimizing a random wagecuck in a 19th century factory. The guild shit of chartered monopolies always confused me for a long time. It seems wildly inefficient to just lock up the market like that instead of having free competition. Until I realized that the desire for political centralization and control trumped every other concern, because political centralization and control was fucking hard to achieve in such an agrarian society. There seems to be a massive market of people just flouting that law though. Backyard and unqualified tradesmen practiced discretely then fenced their goods far off.
>>18038666There is a distinction between the age of absolutism (late 17th century to the 18th or even 19th century) and the middle ages. Absolutism is just the wrong term to use to describe the middle ages and the rise of absolutism (more so ever increasing state control) was one of the factors that contributed to the end of the middle ages.>Something Theodore Kaczynski somewhat touched on with his writings on Italian city states.Kek, did he really? Wasn't he mathmatics bachelor? >Manors The english manorial system can't be transplanted to the whole of Europe. But yes, they were a small building stone for the feudal hierarchy and from the income the knight/noble in question was to arm an upkeep his retinue and himself.>GuildsThey emerged as institutions for quality control and yes, political control. Keep in mind that guild membership went hand in hand with citizenship and thus guild members had active roles in the politics of their city. And you are right, that long term those systems hindered innovations -that's one of the reason why it was abandoned.>Backyard and unqualified tradesmen practiced discretely then fenced their goods far off.Guilds were linked to cities. A village blacksmith or wandering tradesmen per definition wasn't a guild member. They would be denied working and opening shops in cities that had guilds for their profession but were free to practice in the rural areas. That's one of the fates for a journeyman who would be denied his masters exam. They could be a competent craftsman but due to politics would not become a guild member - so they packed up and left the city or stayed as a in the hopes of one day still achieving the coveted position of master.
>>18034744There were periods of harder labor, like preparing fields, sowing and harvesting. In between people mostly did chores around the house, fixings something, taking care of garden and animals, foraging for food or preparing firewood. They could also find work as labors, or they could practice a craft. There were more holidays during which working was prohibited, so they got a day off. All in all they lived hard lives with their own hardships.
>>18034804Stop using AI, retard.
>>18034744>Then I come on 4chan /his/ and apparently it's fucking around half the day, drinking mead comfy at the pub, and having like 120 holy days off per year.You shouldn't believe everything you read on /his/. Ask these people to source their claims and they will give you fuck all, at the very best they'll cite some idiot who thinks that thinks that all time not spent sowing or harvest was literally leisure time the way we think of leisure time.
>>18034804Chatgpt is designed to be agreeable so you keep using it.
>>18034744>rural people didnt get up at dawn and work till sundown everiwhere all around the world since forever>pesants worked 12 hours a week
