Back in the Middle Ages they had a thing called Social Classes. Although some people did not see it, there were many faults in this way of living. Social Classes basically went like this: if you were born a slave you died a slave and if you were born an Aristocrat then you live a better life than the serfs. There are so many things wrong with this, that it is hard to list just a few things. These are some things that should have been done to better the Middle Ages. These are the rights of each and every individual person, the treatment of these people, and the fact that there is no way to move up in life.
The first thing wrong with this is that there are no or very few rights is that not everyone is considered equal then. Back in the 1600’s they did not have the Constitution but they did have the Bible and in the Bible it says that every man is unique and God loves everyone the same. If this period was so into the Church and the Church was the center of teaching why would they put people in different categories based on where they came from (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1u.html)? The serfs and servants had barely any rights and no chance to be higher than their current position (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1u.html). There were no promotions in the Middle Ages. Whatever you are born you die. This is why Social Orders violated the rights of humans.
The next flaw in the use of Social Classes was that the treatment of lowers in this society was cruel and terrible. The Council of the Worms says, “If any one shall kill his own slave without the knowledge of the judges---a slave who has committed such thing as may be worthy of death---he shall emend the guilt of blood by excommunication or by a penance for two years” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/876Worms.html). This is pretty much saying that you will go to hell if you kill your serf or slave. This is on the side of the serfs and slaves because knowing this the owners would not likely kill or mistreat their slaves. The Council of the Worms also says, “If any woman incensed by a fit of jealousy should beat her slave, so that within three days she [the slave] should die in torment, so that it be uncertain whether she killed her intentionally or by accident, she shall do lawful penance for five years, if it be by chance, but for seven years if she do it intentionally” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/876Worms.html). This is pretty much saying that if a woman beats her slave so much that she dies from torture she has to spend five years doing lawful penance. If she beats the slave on purpose than it is seven years of penance. On the other side of this is Gregory of Tours’s “Harsh Treatment of Serfs and Slaves” it lists some punishments that slaves and serfs were given for doing nothing wrong. When the slaves and serf would not do something or do something wrong they would do certain torture measures to them. This document says, “For if, as was customary, a slave held a burning candle before him at dinner, he caused his shins to be bared, and placed the candle between them until the flame died; and he caused the same thing to be done with a second candle until the shins of the torchbearer were burned. But if the slave tried to cry out, or to move from one place to another, a naked sword threatened him; and he found great enjoyment in the man's tears” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/575Rauching.html). This is just one of the cruel punishments that slaves were given if they did not obey the needs of the owners. In modern life these would be cruel and unusual punishments that are considered illegal. This is why we got rid of slaves and treat everyone equally now.
The third problem with Social Orders is that there is no way to move up in life. If you are born a slave, serf, or a peasant you pretty much get the short end of the stick and that is how it will be the rest of your life. In the Middle Ages there was no such thing as a promotion. The slaves and serfs sometimes got angry at this and revolted against the noble families. In Gregory of Tours’s “Enslaving Noble Families it states, “But Theoderic and Childebert entered into a treaty and each took an oath that neither would wage war upon the other. They took hostages so that they might the more firmly adhere to what they had promised. Many sons of senatorial families were thus given but when a new quarrel broke out between the kings they were reduced to servitude on the fiscal domains. And those who had taken care of them now made slaves of them” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/511Noblslav.html). This says that the kings were reduced to slaves and they had a flip flop of power with the slaves. The people they had owned now owned them. We have no slaves today because there were so many revolts that they could no longer control the mass populations of slaves.
There are more flaws than advantages in the use of Social Orders. 90% of the people are unhappy with this because they could not move up from being serfs. The Lords were ok with this because for them it was a great life twenty-four hours a day. We no longer abide by these rules and now we have a Constitution where we know all men are created equal. In modern day life every man is created equal and we are leaning towards a new tomorrow.
Citations: "Medieval Sourcebook: Council of Worms: On the Murder of Slaves, 876." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 03 May 2010. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/876Worms.html>.
"Medieval Sourcebook: Gregory of Tours: Harsh Treatment of Serfs and Slaves, C."FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 03 May 2010. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/575Rauching.html>.
"Medieval Sourcebook: Gregory of Tours: Enslaving Noble Families, 511." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 03 May 2010. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/511Noblslav.html>.
"File:Germansalute.jpg." Wikimedia Commons. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germansalute.jpg>.
While you cite articles and primary sources in your bibliography, there is no in-text citation or evidence that you are using them in your paper to support your argument. Without proper MLA formatted parenthetical documentation (as we have gone over in class several times), your paper is considered incomplete.
ReplyDeleteI find this article amatuerish and badly researched. Social mobility was possible in the Middle Ages, just look at the Chaucers, or other peasant families after the Black Death.
ReplyDeleteSerfs could gain thier freedom, and peasants could marry somebody with more money and status then them.
As to the claim that aristocrats had a 'better' life, this was simply not the case most of the time. They had more money certainly, but they had as much chance of dying of disease, and were more likely to be killed in war or executed.
Peasants often had more choice over who they could marry than aristocrats, both male and female.
Plus those of the noble classes had to survive politcal and social upheavals, depositions, revolutions, and the brutal hardships of Medieval politics. Hardly an 'easy' life.
Sorry, have you taken a poll of 90% of Medieval dead people or something? How exactly do you know that '90% of the people were unhappy with thier lot' and as shown above the life of an aristocrat was anything but 'great'.
ReplyDeleteBeing married at 15 to a men twice your age and dying in childbirth at 25 is not a great life, not is being killed in battle at 25, or being beheaded because you are on the losing side in a battle or a civil war, or having everything taken from you because your father or Uncle was on the wrong side.
Oh, and the 'Peasant's revolt' in England consisted almost entirely of Middle Class people, not serfs and slaves.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a prime example of what happens when you impose modern beliefs and attitudes onto the past, and condemn people in the past for failing to measure up to moden expectations.
This is arrogant and does not enhance our understanding of history in any way.
Looks to me as though you have approached the subject matter through the perspective of your own preconconcieved notions and beliefs on it, and have simply engaged in 'proof texting' or finding evidence to back up what you already believe.
ReplyDeleteNot much Historical objectivity that I can see.