What caused serfdom to gain prevalence over slavery in Europe?

anticounter · 2012-05-24T23:09:41.232525+00:00

Serfs actually originated in the late Roman Empire. I'm sitting in class at the moment, so I can't provide any sources, but as the Empire began to decline, and life in outlying farms became less desirable - more banditry, fewer markets for grain and produce, etc - people began moving to cities, in search of food or work. It actually became a serious problem, to the point where laws were introduced tying peasants to their land - an early form of serfdom.

As for slavery, once the vast trade network of the empire began to deteriorate, it became less viable to transport and sell them. Slavery clung on for a while, but eventually fell out of general use.

I'm not sure how the land made the transition from the farmers to the lords, but eventually it just became cheaper ad easier to get serfs to work your land, and to let the serfs produce their own food and goods - taking a portion of it for yourself.

GoblinTechies · 2 days

You mean there are more?

KimJongUno · 5 days

I know that SRS has taken over this thread, and, honestly, while I can't stand them, they have a point here. "What names make you instantly lose respect for the parents?", and then he responds with mention of African names. You might find the names silly, because for you they are unusual - I do, definitely - but you have to recognise that that is a totally subjective mindset.

Many of the names in this thread are nouns, adjectives, or mutilated spellings of ordinary names: these are, objectively, bad. But to claim that a name is bad because it's from a different culture, is - well, it seems to imply that they should pick good, strong Western names. It's incredibly closed-minded, is what I'm saying.

"Ha, that's your culture? Those names are silly. What sort of twit named you Shaniqua? You should be like us, and have a good name, like us."

Dildo_Ball_Baggins · 11 days

I...

You...

What?

lucidone · 11 days

Thank you. I've been looking for his record for a while now.

lucidone · 11 days

Similar question - does anyone know where to start looking, considering that my grandfather was in the British Army for the duration of WWII?

63beetle · 12 days

kiassen's post is only ~50 minutes old, whereas mctrigger's is twice that. Hopefully Kiassen gets some more recognition, because his post is both interesting and thoughtful.

Keithy42 · 14 days

You're amazing, thank you!

bobzmccormick · 14 days

Historians of each era try to apply the issues of their own times to the fall of the Empire. Gibbon claimed, living during the Enlightenment, saw Christianity as the source of many of the Empire's troubles, whereas environmental issues are a popular justification, today. Tiako mentioned homosexuality, but, as far as I'm aware, that suggestion has been almost totally absent from academic circles until fairly recently. As such, there's always a bias towards assuming that the problems of the present day were also those that caused Rome's fall - keep that in mind as you read these replies.

There are also popular claims that things like the lead pipes in the plumbing lead to brain damage in Roman citizens, but, as far as I know, those have been pretty strongly disproved.

ANYWAY, the fall of the empire is generally seen as a combination of factors. It's nigh impossible to say exactly when Rome's decline began, because it was never really a clear divide. Certainly, after Constantine, it was never the same, but that's not to say that the issues that eventually brought it low did not have their origins earlier in Rome's history.

I still have nightmares of the essay I wrote on this, so I'll try and keep it brief:

Political instability.

The very earliest that you'll hear people try and claim that the empire's decline began was with the end of Pax Romana, and the death of Marcus Aurelius. This view is not widely held, and for good reasons. Rome had survived civil wars before (after the murder of Nero, for instance), and there's no reason to assume that this was any different. True, Rome never again attained such a long period of (relative) peace and prosperity, but that's not to say that the decline began immediately afterwards.

The view I subscribe to is that Rome's decline, and eventual fall, began with the Crisis of the Third Century. During this time, after the death of the last Severan emperor, there were somewhat over twenty claimants to the Empire within a fifty year period. For reference, Augustus ruled (in all but name) for an incredibly stable forty five year period. The Empire was gutted by the crisis of the third century. Brigands and bandits were everywhere - no one could hold the throne long enough to actually maintain law and order - and young men were conscripted into the armies of the various claimants. The effects of this on Rome cannot be overstated. Internal trade was crippled - the roads were no longer safe - and whole generations of able-bodied men were taken up by the various war efforts.

Anyway, the crisis of the third century ended when a man called Diocletian took power, and 'reforged' the empire. He enacted massive reforms in the interests of providing checks and balances on the emperor - (the empire was split into four, with each the east and the western halves being governed by a senior emperor, and a junior emperor. This was intended to allow the emperors to keep each other in check, prevent further civil war, and hopefully avoid incompetent leadership in the future), on the military (which was split into two parts - the majority of the army was stationed at the borders, while a mobile, smaller, better equipped and highly trained portion of the army would be able to quickly respond to serious threats), and in terms of preventing inflation, which was becoming a serious problem.

Actually, I have to go off and do stuff now, but I might be back to write some more, should anyone be interested in reading more of what I have to say. If you, the OP, are just writing an essay, PM me and I'll send you one I wrote last year, so that you can use it as a reference, and I don't have to type the whole thing out again. If you want to just do some further research yourself, Wikipedia has a great article on this, that provides an excellent overview of the topic.

Foreverfiction · 14 days

You can spin it and flick it now? I feel like I just stepped out of a time machine.

Hug_It_Out · 14 days

I don't like guns, but trying to blame the seller is somewhat ridiculous.

FAFASGR · 16 days

I think that was the consensus on the ASOIAF boards. I can't really see GRRM just screwing with us like that after so long setting the stage. Not when it actively hinders the plot so much.

ChuqTas · 18 days

What's he going to say? "You should totally fire this guy, because he's thinking mean things about me!"

Heh, I wish him luck.

ephphatha · 19 days

Well...

sojazu · 19 days

He's certainly dedicated, I'll give him that.

Jaja89 · 20 days

I wonder if one day - when people are beating the next Valve game to death for karma and memes, perhaps - if we'll look back fondly on this period, and this poor, tenacious bastard might actually get some love.

hosey · 20 days

I don't like her character much, and I don't want to see her on the Iron Throne. The dragons are awesome, yeah, but she's determined to get the throne because she believes that she deserves it. Not because she can protect or provide for the people of Westeros - she remembers almost nothing of the place. She wants the throne simply because she feels it is her birthright, and that sits ill with me.

Stannis can justify his claim, but I really don't think Dany can. There's a lot of room left for character growth though, and so I haven't given up on her yet though. Speculation

lo-lee-ta · 20 days

I can't help but wonder if they're touching Earth at all, or if we're simply going to get a different scene after the space brat. It'd be really cool if Earth could be shaken up a little, so that we can see the consequences of our actions, but it's probably more than we can rightfully expect from free DLC.

Either way, I'll be watching this closely.

jacobtf · 23 days

Amazon did this with an amazing ereader called Stanza. Because it was in competition with their Kindle app, they bought it, patched it so that only OS 5.0 worked on it - to cut out as many people as possible, but also to be able to justify it - then stated that they were never going to fix the compatibility issue, and left it totally without support after that.

Fuck Amazon. Fuck them right in the anus.

Dorsal_Fin · 24 days

Gee, thanks. I don't dislike them because they're "gay [hippies]," - I'm critical of them because I think that some of their policies are batshit insane.

As sharlos pointed out, however, these are the ones that they has the smallest chance of achieving. I might give my local greens member a second look, at least.

logicbound · 24 days

Damn. Not really sure there's anything left to try, then.

Dorsal_Fin · 24 days

I probably would, to an extent. Many green positions are reasonable, but some are so out there - or I disagree with them strongly enough - that it ruins everything else for me.

Still, I might go through and do this for the other two, anyway. It'd be enlightening, I'm sure.

Dorsal_Fin · 25 days

Perhaps incompetent is the wrong word. They certainly have Labor under control. Let's try, "utterly stupid". I support the general sentiment behind the greens party - environmentalism and liberalism - but they're batshit insane, and it's good to remember that. From Wikipedia, because it's the easiest place to find a definitive list, let's go through their policies.

Ban the importation of animals for zoos in Australia "except where the importation will assist the overall conservation of the species"

Heh, no.

Ban and phase out respectively the display of wild or domesticated animals in circuses in Australia promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency

Good.

opposition to uranium mining and nuclear power and opposition to construction of new hydro-electric dams for energy production.

I don't see what the fuck Australia has against nuclear power. They want clean energy, but also unrealistically expect renewables to be able to instantly supply baseload power.

preparation for peak oil

Smart.

promotion of a "sustainable" approach to water management
public transport expansion

Good.

opposition to construction of dams for water supply
Construction of a high speed rail link between Sydney and Melbourne

Difficult, but smart.

Abolition of the existing World Trade Organisation

Unrealistic goal, and stupid. For all its problems, the WTO does more good than harm, and very few intelligent people would seriously propose this. Not to mention that Australia's influence in this situation would be laughable.

Ending Australia's Defence Treaty with the United States unless it can be brought into line with Party views on Australia's national interest

The ANZUS treaty is in our interests, no question. It never actually forces us into anything. We agree only to consult, and even then only if the US or NZ are actually attacked first. In return, we receive a military alliance with the most powerful state on Earth. How closely Australia should be tied to the US is a matter for debate, but it is clearly within Australia's interests to maintain this treaty.

in 1991, opposition to the Gulf War, and in 2003, the Iraq War; and continued opposition to the Afghanistan War. support for independence movements around the world, including in Palestine, Tibet and West Papua

Their opposition to these various wars is worthy of recognition, although, again, that's a matter of debate, but explicitly supporting the independence of Palestine, Tibet and West Papua is awkward, diplomatically. Encouraging public discussion, or decrying government crackdowns, good, but actively supporting the independence of these regions, particularly Tibet, could be very tricky. Not even the US, which has pledged military support to Taiwan in the event of war, and continues to export weapons to them, explicitly denies the one China policy.

in 1999, support for armed intervention in East Timor
support for human rights in countries such as China, and Burma

Yup, good.

qualified support for voluntary euthanasia
support for same-sex marriage
free gender reassignment surgery for those born with an "intersex condition"

In purely social terms, yes, they're fantastic.

2010 Australian Federal Election: advocated an increase in the company tax rate to 33% and an increase in the Gillard Government's Mineral Resource Rent Tax; a new top marginal tax rate of 50%; the reintroduction of estate duties; a "Tobin tax" on foreign currency transactions; that family trusts be taxed as "companies"; the introduction of road congestion charges; and elimination of fringe benefit tax concessions for cars

I admit, I don't know enough about this specific area to comment with certainty on the issue, and it's a matter of ideology anyway. I'm not a big fan of estate tax, however, and, from my brief look at this point, there are other negatives.

1998 Australian Federal Election: opposition to the introduction of a Goods & Services Tax (during the Australian federal election, 2001 indicated that they would oppose the Labor Party proposal to remove the GST from gas and electricity bills)

Doesn't really matter. No party will give up a new tax once implemented - this is certainly not unique to the greens.

Support the abolition of the 30% private healthcare rebate, so as to increase funding for public healthcare

Matter of ideology. My personal view is that to already provide such massive funding to public healthcare, and yet to seek to cut loose private healthcare is a dick of a thing to do. People on private healthcare are citizens too, and very few of them are the stereotypically rich folk we like to imagine.

support for refugees and opposition to mandatory detention of asylum seekers.
support a low population in Australia

Heh, funny. There are better solutions to the problem than mandatory detention, but I couldn't find a single source where a green suggested one. Saying that we should do away with the deterrents, and welcome those that seek to enter, but at the same time magically keep a low population is, well, interesting.

Review relationship between the exclusive ownership of property and exclusive use of its resources

Not a fan, but, again, a matter of ideology. I believe that if you own something, then it logically follows that you have sole access to whatever benefits it provides. We already have tax - a lot of it - for the redistribution of wealth, and this reeks to me.

regulated use of cannabis for medical purposes

I'm sure reddit just loves this one. Personally, I don't care.

support trials of state-supplied heroin on prescription

Had to do a debate on this a while ago. There's potential, certainly, and precedents, so I'm cautiously optimistic about it.

Supported National Apology to the Stolen Generations
Opposed Northern Territory National Emergency Response[14]
Support the Queensland Wild Rivers Legislation (a Cape York conservation initiative, opposed by Noel Pearson)

The first is good, if seen as part of a wider intention to help the aboriginal community, but I honestly don't know enough about the second two to say anything intelligent.

Final thoughts: the Greens are Australia's equivalent to a socialist Ron Paul. I can certainly see the appeal to younger people, ie, redditors, but many of their policies are utterly stupid, and many of the individual party members are questionable. That the redditors of /r/australia like the general sentiments that they express does not mean that we should uncritically accept them. Then again, I'm just as critical of both the Coalition, and Labor.

I don't really like any of the parties, at the moment. ಠ_ಠ

note: Yes, I know I used Wikipedia, and that I was too lazy to actually look up any sources, but please forgive any inaccuracies - this is still enough to provide a general overview of their positions.

/edit Just had a look at their website - they support the abolition of the IMF too, unless their demands are met. Cool. Let's just abolish the organisation that provides concessionary loans to countries in desperate need, why don't we. I wonder how that fits into their agenda of making the world a better place...

Keithy42

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login