abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Medieval serfdom was voluntary, just like your shitty job.
Medieval peasants got a lot more vacation time than you
- Thread starter Fungus Gnat
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
no. that is a LIE
a serf was boorn a serf, his children were born serfs, they remained serfs until they died*, and should their liege sell the land they live on, the serfs came with the property.
*void where prohibited by law
a serf swore no oaths, in fact their oaths were considered invalid under law.
a serf's only escape from serfdom was to flee from his liege to aa place that did not recognize his liege's ownership, did not recognize serfdom, or nobody knew him, so he could claim a new name and become a villain (landless freeman with no property, and few rights under the law)
some serfs fled to the hills and became highwaymen, some fled to other lord's lands and became a serf under (hopefully) less brutal repression, and some took apprenticeships in towns becoming craftsmen.
either way, a runaway serf who was identified and caught was usually hung, as a warning to the rest, some were pressed into drudgery (hardest labour, fed scraps, no chance of ever being anything but a drudge) and others were forgiven their flight and simply pushed back into the feilds to resume their serfdom. it was all on the whim of their liege.
you really need to learn what words like Voluntary, Serf and Liberty mean.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Serfs were not chattel, like you so hope to mislead. They were not property and could leave the fief if they wanted, and many did decide to become serfs elsewhere. It was voluntary.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Hell they didn't even have to sign a W-2!! "serfin' USA"
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
"Serfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
really bro, he could not be more wronng unless he declared serfdom was a form of suspension bridge.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Can you not recognizing me teasing Uncle "W-2s are voluntary" Buck? Just whose buzz am I Bogarting here??
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Serfs were not chattel, nor were they property. They could leave their lord's estate, and many did so, to become serfs elsewhere or to serve in a king's army.
It was voluntary.
It was voluntary.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
huh?
man im really high right now.
i gotta get RETARDED before i argue with AC, cuz im all about the Fair Play.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Make another long winded diatribe about how serfdom and slavery mean the same thing and quote wikipedia. Be sure to post a meme too.
Pro-tip: slavery wasn't voluntary
Pro-tip: slavery wasn't voluntary
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
repeating the same UNTRUE statement over and over does not prove a falsehood true.
it is... yes, you guessed it, CHILDISH.
historical records clearly document the illegality of fleeing one's serfdom, as well as detail the punishment5s brought against those who violated those laws.
you are talking about Villains, who were un-bonded peasants who COULD if they choose voluntarily become serfs by binding themselves and their progeny to a new liege, but that was very rare. becoming a villain was not easy, and most would rather become outlaws or highwaymen than serve as serfs again.
protip: the Villain's reputation for being a brigand, thief and a schemer is where the modern usage of the word comes from.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, it is not childish, you see, your long winded butthurt diatribe did not actually contain a viable counter to the fact, so I repeated the simple fact.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i could quote any number of sources, but why bother?
only a dolt would believe your assertion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/serfdom
serf (sûrf) n.
1. A member of the lowest feudal class, attached to the land owned by a lord and required to perform labor in return for certain legal or customary rights.
2. An agricultural laborer under various similar systems, especially in 18th- and 19th-century Russia and eastern Europe.
3. A person in bondage or servitude.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin servus, slave.]
serf
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Kynes.
Serfs were not chattel.
By definition.
Therefore...
wait for it...
It was voluntary.
Serfs were not chattel.
By definition.
Therefore...
wait for it...
It was voluntary.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's a tough nut to crack, ain't it?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
broken record is broken, it is also still WRONG
Demonstrably Wrong
Adamantly Wrong
Belligerently Wrong
Just Plain Wrong.
and thats why you are well recongnized as a LIAR, not a mere fool who is WRONG, but sincerly believes he is correct, but a DECEIVER who persists in asserting his "rightness" when the evidence is overwhelming that his statements are UNTRUE.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom
"serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lord’s land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his lord’s grain mills and no others.
The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serf’s lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lord’s permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape."
ohh snap.
Demonstrably Wrong
Adamantly Wrong
Belligerently Wrong
Just Plain Wrong.
and thats why you are well recongnized as a LIAR, not a mere fool who is WRONG, but sincerly believes he is correct, but a DECEIVER who persists in asserting his "rightness" when the evidence is overwhelming that his statements are UNTRUE.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom
"serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lord’s land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his lord’s grain mills and no others.
The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serf’s lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lord’s permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape."
ohh snap.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're an idiot Kynes. You're so stuck in a false dichotomy, that when presented with new information which renders your views stupid, you decry deceiver.
Serfs were not chattel, therefore it was voluntary.
That is a completely true statement, yet you can not reconcile this with what you believe voluntary to mean. Surely there exists societal factors which goad people to accept serfdom, therefore according to you, it can not be voluntary. It is not deception when I make a point, knowing full well that you will disagree because of what you think a word means. In this case, voluntary.
So why is it that the serfs volunteered their service to the lords?
The answer is simple Kynes, it is because the only difference between the serfs and lords, was property. The lords had property and the serfs did not. The lords owned the land which sustained them all. This is a sufficient goad to coerce a man into voluntary serfdom.
Again Kynes, serfs were not chattel. I have to be a broken record with you, because you're stupid.
Serfs were not chattel, therefore it was voluntary.
That is a completely true statement, yet you can not reconcile this with what you believe voluntary to mean. Surely there exists societal factors which goad people to accept serfdom, therefore according to you, it can not be voluntary. It is not deception when I make a point, knowing full well that you will disagree because of what you think a word means. In this case, voluntary.
So why is it that the serfs volunteered their service to the lords?
The answer is simple Kynes, it is because the only difference between the serfs and lords, was property. The lords had property and the serfs did not. The lords owned the land which sustained them all. This is a sufficient goad to coerce a man into voluntary serfdom.
Again Kynes, serfs were not chattel. I have to be a broken record with you, because you're stupid.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Stop trolling. You're looking like a few others here. Just plain wrong and won't back down from your wrongness.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Since when is it trolling to present an argument complete with premises and a conclusion directly appropriate to the discussion and thread title?
Similar threads
