Feudalism: Serfs being bound to land - how was this enforced?

[Ele_the_Stoic]

Taxing them into the ground. You need to pay to move things, just like today. You have to buy a car, pay for the gas, put everything in the car, buy a new home, unload everything, and continue to pay rent/mortgage on your new place. You also had to pay to use your lord’s land resources - cutting wood, hunting, fishing, etc. It was a token amount usually, but it was there. You further had to pay for the lord’s baker to make your bread. You didn’t just have an oven in your house, they were communal, and operated by a professional baker. Usually you could mill for free though.

All of this mobility is far beyond the means of the poor in today’s free society, so considering you would have to literally buy your freedom (essentially buying the lease from the landowner, without a legal transfer of land ownership), you likely were not going to go anywhere as a serf. If a serf ran away, there were generally unspoken agreements that one landowner would return the serfs of another landowner, and would expect the same in return. Sort of like extradition treaties with the neighboring lords, particularly when they were related. Though the system where you could live in a city for a year existed, it was generally restricted to only those who were A) Close to such cities B) were generally unneeded in their lord’s manor anyway, and could hide for that long and C) already wealthy enough to afford to travel there and survive for said year.

Far more common than running or buying your freedom however, was to volunteer for the lord’s military. The military paid a healthy amount, and you could also work on the farm while not at war and earn extra money that way. Then it became much more likely for you to be able to buy A) Better weapons and armor, becoming a true knight in your lord’s retinue, eventually becoming a landowner yourself or B) Your freedom, allowing you to move to the city and become an artisan if you had a craft, or hire serfs of your own to work the land, while you contemplated expansion.

You could also legally buy the land from your lord if he were inclined to sell it, but because you’re still in his demesne, you still owe him taxes. That was far more common than outright serfdom in much of Europe. Serfdom as we think of it today was only particularly common in areas of France, Russia, and some parts of Germany and Britain depending on how big of an asshole the local lord was.

@robert_columbia

But, say, suppose there was a dispute between John the farm laborer and Baron William Jones III. John works in Baron Jones’ field. John claims he is a free laborer and entitled to quit and go work for Earl Cornelius Fitzgerald (perhaps Earl Fitzgerald pays more, maybe the Fitzgerald estate is closer to John’s friends, John likes the view better, John enjoys working with barley the most but Baron Jones is planing nothing but peas these days, etc.), Baron Jones says, “No, you are a serf and not entitled to leave, get back in my fields.” Was there a court where the matter could be adjudicated, or was it a matter mostly of power politics and who has the nastiest looking sword and the most support in the community?

Power politics. You did it because he told you to, and if you didn’t, he was going to strip you of your right to work that land (read: your income), your possessions (your house, and any money you had stashed there), and in some of the more dastardly lordships, you were required to send at least one son to be a part of his military or the local clergy - essentially a hostage. Daughters would instead be required to work as handmaids, threadspinners, basket weavers, etc. in his Lordship’s castle/manor. Only an ass would up and leave his children to the mercy of a lord who’s a big enough dick to make you want to leave.

Also, technically they were never paid. They grew X amount of crops, and were allowed to keep some of it. Nitpicking perhaps, but it’s an important distinction - the lord didn’t owe you anything except protection and access to the clergy, and enough food to survive.

@Aspidistra

One big snag however, is that the law on the Jones estate is administered by Baron Jones. In fact, at this point (I think) all law is administered or at least overseen by feudal lords of one sort or another.

The courts were run by Jones’ manor holders. If he was a manor holder and had no other manors under his command, then the matter would be brought up in his lord’s court, where he would presumably not be allowed his normal place on the bench.

Linkies

@Martin_Hyde

For various historical reasons England had serfdom in the least numbers and serfdom ended the earliest

Except for Scandinavia, where the culture and demographic nature of the area made serfdom ill suited for use. They continued to use the Leidang into the high middle ages instead of organizing systems of serfdom (though they did experiment with serfdom in some areas, most notably areas of Denmark which had higher population densities, and closer connections with the Holy Roman Empire). Those experiments quickly tended to fail, because of the shortage of labor. It led to the serfs who did exist to rake in the dough.

[clairobscur]

@aruvqan

Link to a Roman dining table, image painted on a tomb wall just outside Pompeii. Oddly enough they seem to have a word for table.

The Romans did have tables. I was talking about medieval Europe. I know that wikipedia isn’t a peer reviewed journal but here is what it says :

@wikipedia

As a result of the necessary movability, most tables were simple trestle tables, although small round tables made from joinery reappeared during the 15th century and onward

From another article :

@wikipedia

In the Middle Ages the trestle table was often little more than loose boards over trestle legs for ease of assembly and storage.[2] This simple, collapsible style remained the most common Western form of table until the 16th century, when the basic trestle design gave way to stronger frame-based structures

We do have a break with very minimal extant wooden artifacts for Anglo-Saxon and Viking Britain, however in the kjanesinga saga [iceland] we have
which does seem to mention tables.

I don’t know what was the situation in Iceland. But using the word “table” doesn’t mean that said “table” was a permanent furniture as opposed to a large plank put on sawhorses.

Also, the word “table” itself is derived from a latin word for “plank”, as opposed to the latin word for the permanent furniture, “mensa”.

We have King Arthur’s round table first described in about 1100, and it was a permanent feature of his hall [and then a series of rather interesting forgeries, somewhere I have the tudor forgery picture I snapped years ago which had the wood dated to the late 1200s.] The Winchester Table was originally fixed onto a pedestal but was removed so it could be hung. Seriously ugly piece if you ask me.

There might have been some exceptions for ceremonial purpose. But a table was still not something that people, including wealthy people usually owned and used to eat on.

14th century book of hours, with Alexander at the table busily being poisoned.

Which shows exactly what I mention if you look at it : a large plank put on sawhorses

And a whole page of links of similar vintage - I actually have it for the vessels, but there are illustrations done in period that are showing people at table.

Well, most links in fact show vessels. But from your list of links, you can see herehttp://www.godecookery.com/afeast/dining/din039.html again exactly what I describe : a plank put on sawhorses.

In some of the links it’s not even possible to see what they’re dining on (for instance, “noces at canaa”, “ataxerxes banquet” where we only see a rectangle with food on it. On others, only the tablecloth covering the table is depicted, so you can’t see the table itself.

“Feast of Saint Louis”, “banquet at Arthur’s home”, etc… again show…planks on sawhorses.

I didn’t check every single link you provided, but apart from the round table, all the depictions I looked at either didn’t allow to see the table itself or showed sawhorses.

@Nava

Yes they did… not everybody but yes they did. What was rarer but certainly not unknown was chairs, banks were more common for a long time (and often doubled as storage, if in a private home).

There are some truly lovely Greek, Roman, Goth and medieval tables around Spain (I’m remembering a huge one whose top is a single chestnut plank - definitely not very common, a tree that size),…

Indeed, the pictures linked to by aruvqan depict people sitting on banks rather than chairs.

As for Greeks, Romans (and possibly even Wisigoths), I do not deny they had permanent tables. I was refering to medieval Europe (by the way : there are Greek or Roman furniture still in existence? )

And regarding the medieval one you mention : are you sure it doesn’t date back to the very late middle ages/ beginning of the Renaissance? If not, then it might be some rare ceremonial counter-example.

[Nava]

Spain isn’t Europe, got it…

You seriously think that the fixed table got de-invented in the year the Moors invaded Spain? POOF! And everybody turns the table into kindling and goes to IKEA for a couple of sawhorses and a plank?

And yes, there is roman and greek furniture still in existence. Mostly stone or metal stuff (the stone ones are both built-in-place and mobile).

[clairobscur]

@Nava

Spain isn’t Europe, got it…

I meant that I had no clue about the Wisigothic period. I don’t know if tables were still in use in Europe, let alone in Wisigothic Spain, during the 7th century. During the classical middle-ages, though, people didn’t use tables as we understand the word : a permanent furniture with a fixed frame.

You seriously think that the fixed table got de-invented in the year the Moors invaded Spain? POOF! And everybody turns the table into kindling and goes to IKEA for a couple of sawhorses and a plank?

I’ve no clue about the Spanish Moors eating habbits. I don’t know when exactly the table was “de-invented”, but it was. As shown by the medieval depictions provided by aruvqan himself. It’s exactly what a medieval writer would have had in mind when refering to a table : Ikea sawhorses and planks that you put on when it’s dinner time. Not a furniture with a sturdy frame that sits all the time in the middle of a room.

[aruvqan]

Aruvqan is a herself …

[Nava]

@clairobscur

I meant that I had no clue about the Wisigothic period. I don’t know if tables were still in use in Europe, let alone in Wisigothic Spain, during the 7th century. During the classical middle-ages, though, people didn’t use tables as we understand the word : a permanent furniture with a fixed frame.

I’ve no clue about the Spanish Moors eating habbits. I don’t know when exactly the table was “de-invented”, but it was. As shown by the medieval depictions provided by aruvqan himself. It’s exactly what a medieval writer would have had in mind when refering to a table : Ikea sawhorses and planks that you put on when it’s dinner time. Not a furniture with a sturdy frame that sits all the time in the middle of a room.

The mention of the Moors invading Spain is because that’s the year Spanish historians use as “the official start of the Middle Ages” (basically here they’re equated with the Reconquista). I imagine that other locations use other dates, but they can’t be very far.

Again: 8-or-so centuries, dozens of domains, they did not all have the same customs, nor did those customs change at the flip of a switch.

[md2000]

I remember a tour of the Henry VII palace, at Hampton COurt. The tour guide mentioned that even up until that time, when large numbers of men-at-arms were living in a place like that, the main hall was a giant communal sleeping hall.

As a result, I presume during the middle ages or earlier, tables and other fixtures were not fixed - they were pushed aside or dismantled to make room for the off-hour uses. A trestle table would be ideal for this. Meanwhile, the idea that everyone had their own private room to sleep in is a modern conceit. In the old palaces and castles, the king or queen had a room where the slept in a nice bed, their most privileged servants and hangers on slept on the floor by the door, lesser people in the next room; and your position was indicated by how many rooms away you slept (on the floor) to guard the approach to the final room. It was only around the 1600’s that people started wasting valuable interior space on simple but limited-use corridors.

Not to mention that making furniture cost time and money, so a table or trestle was likely not high on a serf’s list of needs unless they had work that needed one.

[Nava]

But the immense majority of people didn’t live in castles. In some monasteries, the meal room’s tables and benches were carved stone; in others, trestle tables; in others, long tables. In many family houses, having a table you used for many things (such as food preparation or crafts, craftsmen weren’t the only one who made crafts) as well as for eating was easier than having a piece of furniture you needed to keep assembling and taking apart; this includes craftsmen’s houses, farms, minor lords, and people who worked for someone else (day workers mostly, agricultural or not).

[septimus]

One relevant point made by William Robertson in his The Progress of Society in Europe hasn’t been emphasized yet:

It was an established maxim, that no vassal could legally diminish the value of a fief, to the detriment of the lord from whom he had received it. In consequence of this, manumission by the authority of the immediate master was not valid; and unless it was confirmed by the superior lord of whom he held, slaves belonging to the fief did not acquire a complete right to their liberty. Thus it became necessary to ascend through all the gradations of feudal holding to the king, the lord paramount. A form of procedure so tedious and troublesome, discouraged the practice of manumission. Domestic or personal slaves often obtained liberty from the humanity or beneficence of their masters, to whom they belonged in absolute property. The condition of slaves fixed to the soil, was much more unalterable.

But the … enfranchisement of slaves became more frequent… Louis X and Philip the Long issued ordinances, declaring, “That as all men were by nature freeborn, and as their kingdom was called the kingdom of Franks, they determined that it should be so in reality as well as in name; therefore they appointed that enfranchisements should be granted throughout the whole kingdom, upon just and reasonable conditions”.

I do not know how well regarded Robertson is by modern historians.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Feudalism: Serfs being bound to land - how was this enforced?

Death.

Next question.

[md2000]

@Nava

But the immense majority of people didn’t live in castles. In some monasteries, the meal room’s tables and benches were carved stone; in others, trestle tables; in others, long tables. In many family houses, having a table you used for many things (such as food preparation or crafts, craftsmen weren’t the only one who made crafts) as well as for eating was easier than having a piece of furniture you needed to keep assembling and taking apart; this includes craftsmen’s houses, farms, minor lords, and people who worked for someone else (day workers mostly, agricultural or not).

I think the point is that for a lot of people, space was at a premium. Have you seen castles from 1200’s Britain? The round tower in York, or the original castle rooms in the Tower of London over the watergate, for example- the rooms are TINY, cosidering this was a rich man’s extended household. The cottages on Harris and Tweed, or Anne Hatheway’s cottage - a mansion for its time for a lower-class family, and the rich Elizabethan time of the 1500’s not 1100’s… When Betty was kicking serious Spanish butt.

The cottage on the Isle of Harris is a good example. There’s an outer room for the livestock, and an inner room for the people. You don’t have dedicated spaces where you could set up a table and say “this room is just for meals”. There’s 1 room. Construction cost was at a premium and with many buildings the owners settled for “big enough for now”.

IIRC it was in one of the Malcolm Gladwell books where he compares Chinese rice farming with the situation of French peasants; mentions that basically the French spent as little energy as possible outside of planting and harvest, sleeping the time away one giant bed for the whole family. Presumably in this situation, building bigger houses, having dedicated dining rooms and unmovable furniture is a major luxury.

The February of Tres Riche Heures, for example - It’s difficult to say, but the one end of the table appears to be a tripod arrangement. I assume it’s somehow portable like a trestle table. This may be an indoor feast or outdoor temporary setup (hard to tell from the painting, other than I hope February means it’s indoors looking out). Da Vinci’s Last Supper also appears to be a sawhorse trestle table. (Hard to say for sure - we only see the pair of legs at the front each side).

But you are right, let’s not make generalities. There were rich and poor people who had stowable furniture for multi-use rooms, and those who found it reasonable or convenient to leave furniture where it sat, or even more convenient to make a piece solid rather than portable.

I think the general point was that there was a lot more of the former in the dark ages than in the last few centuries - people with limited space made their rooms multipurpose. The bigger the room, the bigger the table, the more likely it was easily movable.