Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on February 10, 2004, 06:34:54 AM
-
Terry Jones of Monty Python fame has started a new documentary series (Medieval Lives) destroying some of the misconceptions surrounding Medieval life in Britain. Here are some interesting facts about peasants:
- an average factory worker in the UK works for around 80 days a year to pay his taxes to the government; a peasant would work for the Lord for 60 days to pay his
- the local Lord was required to throw banquets for his people at least twice a year
- we have 8 public holidays a year in the UK; peasants had nearer 80 holy-days
- peasants were well-versed in law, particularly legislature relating to tax, as demonstrated by one episode when the King was due to pass through a village on his way to Nottingham. This would make the village liable for more tax (it would become part of the King's highway), so when the King's advance party turned up the entire village pretended to be insane. Insanity was thought to be contagious in those days, so King decided to detour around the village, sparing them the increased taxation. I wonder how they explained their recovery "...I got better..."
- the middle peasants perhaps had more control over their lives than now in some ways; after the plague in the 1300s which killed half of England, there was a labour shortage and the peasants could basically name their price for their skills. They started buying flashy clothes, which were eventually outlawed because they started competing with the gentry.
- sadly it all came to an end after the Peasant's Revolt and the feudal system started to die. Peasants had achieved more independance from their Lords, who reciprocated by abolishing all the benefits and replacing peasants much more agreeable and productive sheep (true apparently).
OK, perhaps not the most interesting information you could read, but still... next week Terry Jones becomes a monk and looks at the monastries of England. :)
-
I've been watching the series over here. Very good!
-
I didn't realise it was on over the pond... has it been on long? I think it started here last night.
-
reading the thread tittle at first I thought that Stsanta was back for yetanotherallied bash :)
-
What Channel and Time? Sounds quite interesting.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I didn't realise it was on over the pond... has it been on long? I think it started here last night.
I first saw it a few weeks ago. Strange.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I didn't realise it was on over the pond... has it been on long? I think it started here last night.
I caught an episode about two weeks ago. It was hosted by this Monty Python ex:
(http://www.geocities.com/bum_its_terry_jones/TJ2.jpg)
I believe it came on a Sunday evening, but I came into the program about half way. They were speaking of how the average peasant lived, what they ate (That porrage looked horrible, and Terry ATE some!)
Same program?
-
Must be. That stuff looked pretty disgusting, even by British standards. :)
-
Incidently, another favorite of mine used to be the program with Michael Palin and his travels around the world.
I would even go out on a limb and say that between the Beatles, and Monty Python, that America and England became closer to one another in any existing cultural differences prior to the aforementioned. :)
-
A curse on the local cable company here...useless tossers. I'd really like to see that show.
-
Yeah, they are excellent programs. Always amazed me how he could build a rapport with people who spoke no English and were from such different cultures. A rare and useful skill.
-
Dowding: - sadly it all came to an end after the Peasant's Revolt and the feudal system started to die. Peasants had achieved more independance from their Lords, who reciprocated by abolishing all the benefits and replacing peasants much more agreeable and productive sheep (true apparently).
It seems that Terry Jones confuses causes and consequenses - and understands not the least thing about economics. At least according to your quote - I have not seen the show.
Does he really believe that pesants benefitted from exploiting the Lords under the feudal system?
What are the population statistics of the period? I bet the population of England was exploding at the time of the feudal system dying. Somebody may feel sad that the population size was not held in check anymore by regular starvations and high child mortality but only if one is an inhuman monster or an environazi idiot.
How come after the productive farming land was diverted for use as pasture for wool-production, there was no shortage of food and population kept growing?
Could it be that improvments in farming technology made such production exessive? If so, any farming on such land would be waste of labor/resources that would not pay off. No wonder a sheep was more productive than a peasant farmer. At least sheep was producing something needed unlike farmer producing exess food.
What if the unproductive farmer kept farming, where would he sell his produce - the prices would be so low as to not cover the transport to the market. Such farmer would not be able to buy any tools of implements. He would not be able to enjoy division of labor in the society and sink even further into powerty. He was basically destined to ruin by exess food production.
And by the way, who bought all that wool (used for clothes if anyone wonders) produced profitably from millions of extra sheep? The king and lords? Somehow I do not think they lacked clothes before or even wore much wool.
I believe most of the newly-made wool clothes went to the millions of peope who were not considered wealthy - but who still have means to pay for them and keep sheepherding profitable.
Has anyone checked the numbers of employed in textile industry in England? The numbers of weavers jumped from hundreds to hundreds thousands in a course of decade. Who worked there? The same former peasants, switching from 18-hour back-breaking outdoor labor in harsh english climate with no guarantee of good harvest for indoor 10-12-14 hour non-physically exerting labor with payout guaranteed every week. Poor peasants. Could afford to have and fed and clothe more childen. They lived so much better under the feudal lord who owe them "benefits"... :rolleyes:
miko
-
Jones did another series a few years ago. I forget the name. But I've enjoyed these programs. Michael Palin also did a few - "Pole to Pole" and "Around the Word..." are two examples. Really well done and enlightening.
-
1) I was paraphrasing from memory so I wouldn't use my account as an accurate depiction of Jones' conclusions
2) The war in France and the huge plague that preceeded the Peasant Revolt had thinned the population considerably. Perhaps that meant less land was needed for food production
3) You can buy the book of the series - it will probably answer some of your questions
Westy - Jones' previous program was about the Crusades. Never managed to see them all, but what I saw was excellent. Palin has done 4 'expedition' type programs... 'Around the World in 80 Days', 'Pole to Pole', 'Full Circle' and 'Sahara' (last year or the year before that). He also did a program looking at the life of Ernest Hemingway.
-
Miko...Jones is doing a show on what it was actually like to live as a peasant in those times. I HOPE he stays well away from an economist's analysis...which are usually based in fantasy rather than reality.
-
Dowding: 1) I was paraphrasing from memory so I wouldn't use my account as an accurate depiction of Jones' conclusions
Understood. But it is a common misconseption that people lived better under feudal system than under capitalism.
The war in France and the huge plague that preceeded the Peasant Revolt had thinned the population considerably. Perhaps that meant less land was needed for food production
I am not sure that the war in France could have had a discenrnible effect on population - just consider the tiny size of the contemporary armies. Also, the british were famous for using high-quality mercenaries, not peasants.
The plague did gave a great influence on speeding up the progress towards the liberty in wester civilisation.
With population drastically dropping, there was competition betwee lords for peasants to work their land, so better and more liberal terms were offered.
Money supply stayed the same while population dropped as well as production, so the inflation ensued and made position of feudal lords much weaker while the position of cities, merchants and industrialists was made much stronger.
The Lord's expences were increasing while their revenues stayed basically fixed or dropped - so they got mortgaged to the capitalists and lost their influence or had to switch to modern economic practices.
3) You can buy the book of the series - it will probably answer some of your questions
I will see if they offer the program on DVD on PBS. It sounds inetresting and no more factually incorrect that what they reach in school anyway. Thanks.
miko
-
What about the cart they pushed around while yelling "bring out your dead"? :D
dago
-
Just in interest of clarify I'd like to state that UK was an exception rather then a rule. Serfs in eastern europe had very little rigths and were more comarable to slaves then subjects.
-
Like fd said , we got the "Jacquerie" certainly for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Curval
...which are usually based in fantasy rather than reality.
Man, is that relative to Miko's posts or WHAT!?! ;)
-
Very interesting sounding program.
-
Curval: Miko...Jones is doing a show on what it was actually like to live as a peasant in those times. I HOPE he stays well away from an economist's analysis...which are usually based in fantasy rather than reality.
Don't be silly. You would be hard pressed to find a truthfull show on what it is actually like to live in our times. I constantly hear people and shows expressing views about conditions that I have personally observed that are not even close to reality.
Even if Jones had a time-machine, that would not be a good reason for me to believe his show is historically correct just on your logic-intolerant say-so.
How do you know whether what Jones is showing is "what it was actually like to live as a peasant in those times"? You've been there as a peasant? Had a revelation? At least I use economic theory (really the elementary arithmetics on available historical stats) to verify the historical research.
1. If I read about the population numbers exploding at the times where food was the limiting factor of population growth, I conclude that there was more food produced, not less - despite reduction of farmland.
2. If I read that it becomes profitable to keep millions of new sheep and provide clothes to millions of people, I conclude that most common people in those times were not only better fed but also better dressed for the income they earned than in jolly feudal times you like so much.
Just go ahead and tell me those conclusions are my fantasies rather than realities.
Do you find that kind of "economic analysis" is too confusing for you? Can't you verify so simple pair of syllogisms yourself without referring to your prejudice about "usual" economist's analysis?
Just because you cannot find good economic science and only encounter pseudo-scientific fantasy-based crap passed on as "economist's analysis", it does not mean there is no real economic science out there. It only reflects on your inability or unwilingmess to find it.
When people really want to find knowlege, they get education and learn to tell fantasy from science. The ignorants just sit there and claim that everything is crap and not worth knowing - because crap is exactly what they hear and see from their usuall sources. Of course the same ignorants will claim that anything their favorite talking head says if truth.
Maybe you should turn off the boob tube and open a few books. Then your chances of finding real economics would increase.
miko
-
looks good...
How do you know whether what Jones is showing is "what it was actually like to live as a peasant in those times"? You've been there as a peasant? Had a revelation?
hmm...history is pretty well documented and thats what the thing is based off...documented history...and from that it is pretty safe to say that what he's showing is pretty close to what it was like...and economic theory doesnt work very well when you using modern economics on a much different time
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Just in interest of clarify I'd like to state that UK was an exception rather then a rule. Serfs in eastern europe had very little rigths and were more comarable to slaves then subjects.
Partially right.
Russian serfs were slowly turned down to slaves from almost free people they actually were in XIV-XV centuries.
First they were allowed to change places only on Yuri's day, then even Yuri's day was abandoned, then they turned into some kind of cattle...
But OTOH there nerver were such people as Cossaks in the West, I mean free people who don't pay taxes and only have to serve in the military with their own horse/weapons in times of war...
-
Just like Miko to position himself as an authority on this subject, as he does on every other one and then cast doubt that anyone else knows anything about any subject.
It must be lonely being the only smart person in his world, to be the only one who knows anything, who understands every subject.
Sheesh,
dago
-
vorticon: hmm...history is pretty well documented and thats what the thing is based off...documented history...and from that it is pretty safe to say that what he's showing is pretty close to what it was like...
History documenting that peasants lived off the feudal's largesse? That common people suffered rather than benefited and multiplied as a result of the end of feudalism? That landlords started growing sheep not because it became profitable to provide masses with cheap wool but just to spite unruly peasants?
What kind of history documents that, the marxist history?
Even Marx did not say he felt sad that the feudal system started to die.
I read that the lords loved hunting in forests and fields but never read that they felt partial to sheep. Of course if some of them were great sheep lovers, I can see how it did not make it to the history books.... ;)
and economic theory doesnt work very well when you using modern economics on a much different time
Come on, leave the general rhetorics aside and just read what I posted.
What is so "modern" in my assumption that explosion of population despite reduction of farmed land ment increase of productivity and absolute food production?
That presense of millions of sheep (supply of wool) indicates presence of millions of buyers willing and able to pay for the wool clothes (demand)?
What's in those statements that did not work in the "much different time"?
As for "economics theory" not working in different times in general, that's true about crappy false economic theories. But they do not work in modern times either.
Dago: Just like Miko to position himself as an authority on this subject, as he does on every other one and then cast doubt that anyone else knows anything about any subject.
I plainly stated who elementary syllogisms. That more people ment more food, not less. And that more sheep ment more clothes, not less. More food and more clothes and fewer children dying ment better living.
Now everyone comes out to comment on some nebulous general economics that is supposedely wrong but not commenting on my plain examples.
Dago, you really think one has to be smart and knowlegeable to understand those two plain issues?
Do you feel sad that feudalism has died, along with the rest of the guys?
Don't you feel stupid defending virues of feudalism? Just few days ago you were an ardent proponent of socialism. Did you change your mind? :rolleyes:
miko
-
Miko...I belive you will find that Jones was a graduate of Oxford University...with a degree in history.
I'd take his account over some self professed economist on a BBS thanks.
-
Curval: Miko...I belive you will find that Jones was a graduate of Oxford University...with a degree in history.
I'd take his account over some self professed economist on a BBS thanks.
You can believe anyone you care to. And you can label me whatever you want.
But what do you think about two statements I posted here?
Of does that Oxford-graduated historian does all your thinking for you?
Come on - it's simple:
more people <== more food
more sheep ==> more clothes.
Why don't you refute any of those? Do you really need a Ph.D. from Oxford to help you with that?
How come referring to the world-famous economists like Adam Smith and Mises and Hayek (nobel prise 74) and Friedman (nobel prise 76) and others earns me a derogatory label of "self professed economist" while your referral to some guy nobody heard of before and your open refusal to think for yourself does not earn you a label "self professed historian"?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
How come referring to the world-famous economists like Adam Smith and Mises and Hayek (nobel prise 74) and Friedman (nobel prise 76) and others earns me a derogatory label of "self professed economist" while your referral to some guy nobody heard of before and your open refusal to think for yourself does not earn you a label "self professed historian"?
miko
Never heard of those economists before...sorry, only did the economics classes I "had" to take to get my professional quaifications. Then out I went into the real world.
I "have" however heard of Terry Jones and all of the Monty Python crew...all of them are either Oxford or Cambridge grads.
I profess nothing, other than to put more faith in Jones than ANY economist when refering to the historical past.
-
more sheep== more boiled mutton, yummy
could someone translate 'elementary syllogisms' into non-yale american english?
-
Is it available on DVD?
-
john9001: could someone translate 'elementary syllogisms' into non-yale american english?
syllogism: A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion
For example:
Population growth is limited by the supply of food.
Population drastically increased.
therefore
The supply of food increased.
Curval: Never heard of those economists before...sorry,
They are worth reading. If only to confirm your justified belief in idiocy of "mainstream" "economics".
I profess nothing, other than to put more faith in Jones than ANY economist when refering to the historical past.
That's fair. But doesn't a claim "sadly it all came to an end" when is refering to the Feudal system make you doubt his views a little? :)
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
john9001: could someone translate 'elementary syllogisms' into non-yale american english?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
syllogism: A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example:
Population growth is limited by the supply of food.
Population drastically increased.
therefore
The supply of food increased.
miko
a premise > proposition > a plan or scheme.
therefore , you are basing a conclusion on a plan or scheme not on fact.
sounds like "ivory tower" stuff to me.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
History documenting that peasants lived off the feudal's largesse? That common people suffered rather than benefited and multiplied as a result of the end of feudalism? That landlords started growing sheep not because it became profitable to provide masses with cheap wool but just to spite unruly peasants?
miko
wasnt what i said at all...what i MEANT was that documented history is more trustworthy that economic theory...and they most certainly did not "benefit" from the end of the feudal system (well not for a few centuries at least) sheep became profitable because of technological innovations meaning that they could quickly make more stuff out of wool...basicly the early part...and the work conditions during that phase of history were terrivle
-
Originally posted by Curval
Never heard of those economists before...sorry, only did the economics classes I "had" to take to get my professional quaifications.
You really never heard of Adam Smith? His book, "The Wealth of Nations?
Then out I went into the real world.
Allocation of scarce resources, supply/demand etc. all happen in the real world.
I "have" however heard of Terry Jones and all of the Monty Python crew...all of them are either Oxford or Cambridge grads.
Sure I bet a whole crapload of people have heard of Terry Jones the actor. But I bet very few of heard of Terry Jones the doctor of history. In fact I can't find any reference that he actually has a Ph.d at all.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
What Channel and Time? Sounds quite interesting.
Yeah I'd like to know the same thing. Rip, channel/network?
I'm pretty sure Verm wants to learn more about swinging sticks with Gunns at people in armour :D Just messin! I was actually surprised to hear people participated in such a "large" event... with regional 'kingdoms' and such :) It provided for an interesting Con banquet conversation.
-
Fine Thrawn..I know him..none of the others.
I never said he had a Phd...and frankly I've known a few Phds who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. I have loads of letters after my name...big deal, it means I wrote lots of exams.
-
What channel Dowding? BBC2, 3 , 4, C4, Discovery? Strange I haven't heard of it. I usually try to watch that kind of thing. Timewatch even.
-
What channel Dowding? BBC2, 3 , 4, C4, Discovery? Strange I haven't heard of it. I usually try to watch that kind of thing. Timewatch even.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Dowding: - sadly it all came to an end after the Peasant's Revolt and the feudal system started to die. Peasants had achieved more independance from their Lords, who reciprocated by abolishing all the benefits and replacing peasants much more agreeable and productive sheep (true apparently).
It seems that Terry Jones confuses causes and consequenses - and understands not the least thing about economics. At least according to your quote - I have not seen the show.
Does he really believe that pesants benefitted from exploiting the Lords under the feudal system?
What are the population statistics of the period? I bet the population of England was exploding at the time of the feudal system dying. Somebody may feel sad that the population size was not held in check anymore by regular starvations and high child mortality but only if one is an inhuman monster or an environazi idiot.
How come after the productive farming land was diverted for use as pasture for wool-production, there was no shortage of food and population kept growing?
Could it be that improvments in farming technology made such production exessive? If so, any farming on such land would be waste of labor/resources that would not pay off. No wonder a sheep was more productive than a peasant farmer. At least sheep was producing something needed unlike farmer producing exess food.
What if the unproductive farmer kept farming, where would he sell his produce - the prices would be so low as to not cover the transport to the market. Such farmer would not be able to buy any tools of implements. He would not be able to enjoy division of labor in the society and sink even further into powerty. He was basically destined to ruin by exess food production.
And by the way, who bought all that wool (used for clothes if anyone wonders) produced profitably from millions of extra sheep? The king and lords? Somehow I do not think they lacked clothes before or even wore much wool.
I believe most of the newly-made wool clothes went to the millions of peope who were not considered wealthy - but who still have means to pay for them and keep sheepherding profitable.
Has anyone checked the numbers of employed in textile industry in England? The numbers of weavers jumped from hundreds to hundreds thousands in a course of decade. Who worked there? The same former peasants, switching from 18-hour back-breaking outdoor labor in harsh english climate with no guarantee of good harvest for indoor 10-12-14 hour non-physically exerting labor with payout guaranteed every week. Poor peasants. Could afford to have and fed and clothe more childen. They lived so much better under the feudal lord who owe them "benefits"... :rolleyes:
miko
oh my god :rolleyes:
-
oh come on.
First off, right now, if you don't know what "elementary syllogism" means, fine, there's nothing wrong with that. Go look up syllogism, and learn the term. Chances are you knew what it meant. If you didn't, great, learn now. If you refuse to, well, we can't have a logical discussion, so go yell at someone else.
now,
hmm...history is pretty well documented and thats what the thing is based off...documented history...and from that it is pretty safe to say that what he's showing is pretty close to what it was like...and economic theory doesnt work very well when you using modern economics on a much different time
Huh?
Economic Theory doesn't rely on post-industrial society to work.
History may be pretty well documented, but we all have our own interpretations of it.
and, frankly, the economic history of the late 14th century and the 15th century in general in England is pretty hotly contested stuff. Believe it or not, the "good documentation" involves a considerable margin of error, and the models that have been deployed are all on very thin ice. The best ones recognize that they're speculating on very little data.
However, the net effect in England in terms of the plight of the peasant seems relatively clear.
Here's my understanding, free of charge:
Around the year 1300, population in Europe had reached the saturation point. Practically all good and marginal agricultural land was under cultivation. The economy was labor-rich.
The weather started getting colder, with a general drop-off in agricultural production. That created nastiness. Regional famines hit, and a couple of Europe-wide ones.
In 1347-1351, the black death made its first appearance, and killed anywhere between 10 and 40 percent of the european population.
so by the mid-14th century, you see a sudden shift from a labor-rich economy, to a labor-poor one, and where real estate goes from being very expensive to very cheap (fly over england today, and you can still see the outlines of villages that farmed the marginal land back in the 14th century, and haven't been inhabited since).
So all of the serfs who had been providing (previously cheap) labor duties to their manorial lords, now saw the economic cost of those duties skyrocket.
Meanwhile, the lords, who relied on their serfs not merely for labor, but also for rents (and things like entry fines on real estate), saw their income plummet. At the same time, their servants and other annual laborers, become much rarer and started charging much more.
So parliament passes the ordnance and then the statute of laborers, trying to freeze prices to preplague levels, but these are pretty much dead letters. The peasants in England had their peasant revolts in 1381, as the french had their Jacquerie a few decades earlier (did I mention there was a war on?).
As far as the "conversion to pasturage"; I don't quite see it as a result of these movements. It's crass economics. When land is expensive and labor cheap, you see agriculture. When land is cheap and labor costly, you see animal husbandry. It just works that way. And the island of Britain had always been a preferred supplier of wool for the manufacturing towns of flanders.
so, yes, ironically, miko2d and karl marx are both right here:
miko2d's right that it's basic capitalistic laws of supply and demand, labor and capital, and Karl's right that lords will always screw over those beneath them to the extent that they can get away with it socially. All societies are built on exploiting those who provide the necessities of human existence. Otherwise, we'd all be farmers.
-
gheyest thr3ad EVAR!
-
It's on BBC2 monday nights - either 8PM or 9PM.
gofaster - it probably will come out on DVD, they released Palin's recent stuff.
Dinger - that's essentially what Jones described. That was the background to his premise that life as a peasant was not the drudgery and misery it is commonly depicted as. He stipulated that post-plague living standards were practically as far from the charicature as you could get. He wasn't seriously suggesting they were better off then, than we are now.
-
It is now official, that no thread or subject at AHBB can last more than half page before transforming to talk about modern economic models and how they are infact representation of all scientific models and theories in single package. If historical documents claim, that peasants started to suffer initially because of the industrialization and Mikos economic studies show, that industrialazion is good, then history is wrong. Its that simple!
-
john9001: a premise > proposition > a plan or scheme
In fact, a premise is:
A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
or
(Logic) One of the propositions in a deductive argument.
which in turn is:
(Logic) A statement that affirms or denies something
Synonyms "apriorism, assertion, assumption, basis, evidence, ground, posit, postulate, presumption"
In this particular use, the definition of a logical syllogisn the term "premise" is synonimous to "proposition" but not to "a plan or scheme".
Here are logical syllogisms:
the major premise: all prime numbers are odd
the minor premise: number 13 is a prime number
logical conclusion: thereforenumber 13 is odd.
the major premise: all humans are mortal
the minor premise: I am a human
logical conclusion: therefore, I am mortal
Go ahead, tell me it is not a valid reasoning because I am "basing a conclusion on a plan or scheme not on fact."
You may dispute my premise that "Population growth was limited by the supply of food in medieval times" - and you are welcome to try, but arguing that deductive method is invalid in general because you do not know how to use words correctly is plain nonsense.
vorticon: what i MEANT was that documented history is more trustworthy that economic theory...
Why would that be? Documented contemporary reality is not trustworthy at all - and that is despite the fact that both sides are alive to tell the story. History is written by the winner, so you get a mostly false and one-sided story to start with.
What can you rely on to make sense of such information but solid theory?
And which economic theory is it that you do not believe trustworthy? Wny would you rely on such theory anyway, why don't you use sound theory? Otherwise you are in position of a person denying all science just because astrology or alchemy or homeopathy are false.
Speaking of documented history - I got my hands on the five letters of Cortes sent to Spanish King. Facinating read.
If you think that documented history is not full of contraditions, only resolved by logic and theory (not just economics, but physics, geology, etc), you probably know of "documented history" by hearsay. :)
Thrawn: Allocation of scarce resources, supply/demand etc. all happen in the real world.
:) In a real socialist world it is not obvious to many - at least for a while.
Dinger: When land is expensive and labor cheap, you see agriculture. When land is cheap and labor costly, you see animal husbandry. It just works that way. And the island of Britain had always been a preferred supplier of wool for the manufacturing towns of flanders.
Great write-up Dinger. A couple of corrections.
Animal "husbandry" was purely incidental. It could have been any other activity resultinmg in industrial production.
The shift in value did not happen from land to labor - but from land to labor and industrial capital.
Capital replaces expensive labor with machinery and multiplies existing labor. The value "migrated" mostly from land to factories, mills, etc.
It's crass economics. When land is expensive and labor cheap, you see agriculture.
I am not sure that labor got expensive or that it mattered positively rather than negatively.
The drop in population surely affected the social order and advanced liberties when lords competer for tenantsm but the population could grow fast in those times and good land did decrease in area due to climate change. So the demographically the sitiation was probably not much different after it stabilised than before plagues.
What changed is that increase power of cities and merchants over lords and disarray in guilds provided for more options in accumulating productive capital.
Division of labor, trade and economic monetary calculation was known since antiquity. Capitalism differs from other systems mostly in marketing and investing - it produces for the masses, not for elite and it allows even the poorest people venue for savings/investmentvia banking.
The capitalists - artisans with savings or merchants - opened shops with their savings and hired exess workers from countryside.
In those times, the second brothers and exess sisters could not marry and have children because the father's plots coudl not be subdivided any more. So they were forced to back-breaking work on their brother's farm for food, treated as extra mouths to feed. Such were eager to trade desperate existance without future for a job on factory - indoors, guaranteed income, chance to have family.
Labor had to be cheap because new capitalists had to sell to peasants - which were poor.
Of course factory workers become more politically active than disposessed country peasants - they develop expertise, they cogregate in great numbers, they live in cities where they are exposed to protaganda, etc. They are certainly seen more by historians than peasants.
So they ***** more and are heard more. That's why it may seem that workers that came to work on the factory voluntarily live on worse conditions than they did before they came to town.
Which defies common sense - why would they choose to trade lavish country life for factory "expoloitation".
And they were not disposessed by sheep - the factories appeared first and created demand for wool, only then did the sheep replaced farming. That is also common sense.
so, yes, ironically, miko2d and karl marx are both right here:...
...and Karl's right that lords will always screw over those beneath them to the extent that they can get away with it socially...
No. That is where you and Karl Marx are hugely mistaken.
The change of social order is not the result of class struggle of elite and underclass. It is the result of struggle of old elite and new elite.
Land-owning noble gentry declined in power in favor or merchants and industrialists - mostly former peasants, traders and artisans.
Tuomio: no thread or subject at AHBB can last more than half page before transforming to talk about modern economic models...
What in this thread is "modern economic model"? The claim that more people eat more food? Could you name an actual modern economic model?
Maybe you think 2x2=4 is modern advanced math?
Tuomio: If historical documents claim, that peasants started to suffer initially because of the industrialization and Mikos economic studies show..
Exactly - claim! But based on which ways do they claim that peasants "started to suffer"? I mean, there is no obvious observable "suffering" condition - like pain, thirst, hunger, illness, malnutrition, etc.
It is the historian's conclusion that peasants "started to suffer" based on some real-life observation. That's just a subjective claim - not a fact.
The fact is that peasants starting raising more children to maturity.
The fact is that peasants started buying a lot of clothes produced from millions of sheep.
What are your facts to justify the claim of suffering?
miko
-
Great write-up Dinger. A couple of corrections.
Animal "husbandry" was purely incidental. It could have been any other activity resultinmg in industrial production.
The shift in value did not happen from land to labor - but from land to labor and industrial capital.
Capital replaces expensive labor with machinery and multiplies existing labor. The value "migrated" mostly from land to factories, mills, etc.
Agreed. I left capital out as a simplification. Then again, factories didn't arrive in the late-fourteenth century. And, as you know, Capital isn't just machinery; it can be animal power.
I am not sure that labor got expensive or that it mattered positively rather than negatively.
The drop in population surely affected the social order and advanced liberties when lords competer for tenantsm but the population could grow fast in those times and good land did decrease in area due to climate change. So the demographically the sitiation was probably not much different after it stabilised than before plagues.
Perhaps, but the "stabilization" took something on the order of 150 years on some accounts.
What changed is that increase power of cities and merchants over lords and disarray in guilds provided for more options in accumulating productive capital.
Division of labor, trade and economic monetary calculation was known since antiquity. Capitalism differs from other systems mostly in marketing and investing - it produces for the masses, not for elite and it allows even the poorest people venue for savings/investmentvia banking.
The capitalists - artisans with savings or merchants - opened shops with their savings and hired exess workers from countryside.
Sorry, that sounds too much like Alan Macfarlane to be true. but let's keep going.
In those times, the second brothers and exess sisters could not marry and have children because the father's plots coudl not be subdivided any more. So they were forced to back-breaking work on their brother's farm for food, treated as extra mouths to feed. Such were eager to trade desperate existance without future for a job on factory - indoors, guaranteed income, chance to have family.
This argument has problems. First, it assumes a land-scarce economy, which is not the economy that got the peasants their concessions. I suppose you could go: Black Death-freeing of serfs-enclosure-land problems again.
Second, the notion of second brothers and excess sisters being unable to marry just isn't borne out by the manorial court rolls. Yes, partible inheretance was a divisive factor, but there were strategies to build it up as well.
Third, social factors don't move people around nearly as much as economic ones. Until the nineteenth century, the overwhelming majority of Europeans were engaged in agricultural production; they were peasants, in short. That's for good reason: everyone needs to eat, and the surplus a peasant family produced was relatively small. It's that surplus that enables someone else not to farm. So today, we've got industrialized farming practices that provide for plenty of surplus, so most of us in the industrialized world don't have to farm. You only see people leaving villages and going to cities, or doing something other than farming if there's food for that activity.
Labor had to be cheap because new capitalists had to sell to peasants - which were poor.
I'm doubtful of this. Capitalists didn't start selling to peasants until pretty late in the game. Most of the materials for peasant life were supplied locally through village industry, as many of our last names attest.
Of course factory workers become more politically active than disposessed country peasants - they develop expertise, they cogregate in great numbers, they live in cities where they are exposed to protaganda, etc. They are certainly seen more by historians than peasants.
So they ***** more and are heard more. That's why it may seem that workers that came to work on the factory voluntarily live on worse conditions than they did before they came to town.
Which defies common sense - why would they choose to trade lavish country life for factory "expoloitation".
I don't know about the twentienth century, but I know that until that point, cities had birth/death ratios below one, and life expectancy was much lower. Cities needed to be replenished constantly from the o****ryside.
Capitalists -- merchants, factory owners, bankers -- keep all kinds of records. In GB, all we have for the peasants are manorial court rolls and after 1540, parish records. Literacy matters more in cities than elsewhere, and in cities you also get people who don't have to work for a living, unlike in peasant villages. As for ******ing more, I don't know. Peasant uprisings are at least as common as factory worker revolts, both in the past and in the present. But when factory workers rise up, you're more likely to hear their side of the story.
Oh yeah, another thing, city-dwellers were not subject to the same onerous obligations as peasants. They were technically free, which made cities an attractive place to end up.
And they were not disposessed by sheep - the factories appeared first and created demand for wool, only then did the sheep replaced farming. That is also common sense.
The wool industry is one of the oldest in England and Scotland. As early as the eleventh century, wool was being made for export. It was this trade that contributed to the urbanization of Northern Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries on. The simplified model is: England and Scotland had the flocks and would produce the wool, which would usually be exported overseas to Flanders, where it would be converted to cloth. Traders would take the cloth down to Champagne, where in the towns of Troyes, Provins, Meaux and Lagny trade fairs would be held. Merchants from Italy, among other places, would come with spices and good stuff from the Eastern mediterranean. By the thirteenth century, half the population of Flanders was living in cities, a rate of urbanization unmatched north of the alps, and the dominant industry was cloth production. As political stability improved and the italians developed some sophisticated banking systems, the "trade caravan" system changed to one where trade no longer required face-to-face barter, and goods would be shipped from point to point. All this happened before the plague, and before the peasants got their concessions. So centuries before factories were created, the wool trade was in effect. The demand was there, the supply was there, and the means of production. The mills just streamlined it.
-
Dinger: that sounds too much like Alan Macfarlane to be true.
Have to plead ignorance on that one.
This argument has problems. First, it assumes a land-scarce economy, which is not the economy that got the peasants their concessions.
First, the bulk of concessions should have been won by peasants at the time of the lowest population relative to arable land - considering the climate change.
Second, I would not put much emphasis on peasants getting their concessions as a result of peasant/landlord dynamics. Lords did not have problems keeping peasants in check for millenia.
The most important social process was shift of power from landed gentry to cities and emerging capitalist class. The peasants getting any benefits could have been just a side-effect.
You only see people leaving villages and going to cities, or doing something other than farming if there's food for that activity.
And food increase was provided by peasants getting more and better tools from early capitalists - which freed more labor from fields and more land for non-food production uses - which provided capitalists with more abundant raw materials and labor. And so on in a virtuous circle.
And do not forget the division of labor - even without better agricultural tools the peasant family could get much more productive. Division of labor and specialisation yield great efficiency increases even before the technological progress in agriculture takes off. Once industrually-produced woolen clothes got so cheap that pesants could afford them for less labor that it took to make them in the household, the pesants could dedicate all their time to what they did best - growing stuff, instead of ineffectually producing clothes and other stuff for their families.
Capitalists didn't start selling to peasants until pretty late in the game. Most of the materials for peasant life were supplied locally through village industry, as many of our last names attest.
Right - there were smiths and such who were making stuff for thousands of years. And so did the life conditions of pesants did not change in 8,000 years of recorded history. A smith working in a willage with one or two apprentices was not efficient - he only had specialisation but no division of labor, no economy of scale, no capital to increase productivity, no exchange of ideas and innovations as happens in cities.
Sure - city artisans had all that - scale, machinery, experience, scale, but for hundreds of years the guilds maintained the monopoly on industry and did not allow to turn production for elite into production for masses.
The breakup of the power of guilds may be more important development than any other in the rapid advance of capitalism.
I don't know about the twentienth century, but I know that until that point, cities had birth/death ratios below one, and life expectancy was much lower. Cities needed to be replenished constantly from the countryside.
I have issues with such statistics. I can see too many ways they could have been distrorted.
Cities did not need to be replenished constantly from the countryside as in some had to mandate it. Cities were replenished from countryside by willing peasants migrating there. Since I find it hard to believe that a peasant entering a city forgot the way back, I can only conclude that such peasants changed worse living conditions for better ones. In fact, people run away into the cities.
They were technically free, which made cities an attractive place to end up.
Supply/demand. Any attractive place attracts people untill it becomes hell and conditions equalise - unless it has a system in place to use every person productively. Such was the free market, where addition of every person does not make others worse but may benefit them and that person as well - by allowing him/her to be productive. Cities grew, subject to occasional epidemics.
The wool industry is one of the oldest in England and Scotland. As early as the eleventh century, wool was being made for export.
True. And 4,000 years ago british tin was imported to ancient Egypt. It's the matter of scale - 700 manual weavers or 600,000 veawers using weaving machines and millions of sheep to keep them supplied. Few hundred tonns or ore vs. hundreds of thousands tonns. The facts of production do not paint a true picture without mentioning the magnitude.
So centuries before factories were created, the wool trade was in effect. The demand was there, the supply was there, and the means of production. The mills just streamlined it.
Romans had huge mills in Europe that were not matched for 1000 years afterwards.
Except for small pockets of more-capitalistic populations like Flanders, the production and market relations, however extensive, involved small part of the population - mostly elites. The goods were paid not with money obtained producing and selling other goods, but with rent money from serfs and peasants. The peasant life was to large degree still natural and self-contained.
Only development of all-involwing market relations made the true mass-scale production profitable.
I can't say I disagree with you on general issues - just on scale and relative importance of certain factors.
The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that peasants were migrating to the cities - and staying there - voluntarily because they perceived those conditions as superior to what they had.
Those same pesants migrating to the cities and working at the factories created demand for wool which they used to produce stuff and that caused conversion of farmland to grazing.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[ First, the bulk of concessions should have been won by peasants at the time of the lowest population relative to arable land - considering the climate change.
Second, I would not put much emphasis on peasants getting their concessions as a result of peasant/landlord dynamics. Lords did not have problems keeping peasants in check for millenia.
The most important social process was shift of power from landed gentry to cities and emerging capitalist class. The peasants getting any benefits could have been just a side-effect.
absolutely; the only concessions the peasants get are when such concessions are irrelevant.
And food increase was provided by peasants getting more and better tools from early capitalists - which freed more labor from fields and more land for non-food production uses - which provided capitalists with more abundant raw materials and labor. And so on in a virtuous circle.
And do not forget the division of labor - even without better agricultural tools the peasant family could get much more productive. Division of labor and specialisation yield great efficiency increases even before the technological progress in agriculture takes off. Once industrually-produced woolen clothes got so cheap that pesants could afford them for less labor that it took to make them in the household, the pesants could dedicate all their time to what they did best - growing stuff, instead of ineffectually producing clothes and other stuff for their families.
Yes, for example, the conversion from the mediterranean scratch plow to one with a proper mouldboard better suited to turning the thick N European soil was a major factor in agricultural improvement, as was the use of more efficient yokes.
specialization came in early. Peasant families weren't like american frontier families. Somebody brewed the beer; someone else was a smith, etc.
Sure - city artisans had all that - scale, machinery, experience, scale, but for hundreds of years the guilds maintained the monopoly on industry and did not allow to turn production for elite into production for masses.
The breakup of the power of guilds may be more important development than any other in the rapid advance of capitalism.
This I disagree with. The guilds arise with the cities themselves, and while they promoted specialization and vocational education, as well as claiming a monopoly, which was never complete.Guilds promoted the conditions for capitalism more than they stifled them. The problem is they're too close to modern trade unions, and prolabor and antilabor historians both like to play up the role of guilds in capitalism for the same reasons.
I don't know about the twentienth century, but I know that until that point, cities had birth/death ratios below one, and life expectancy was much lower. Cities needed to be replenished constantly from the countryside.
I have issues with such statistics. I can see too many ways they could have been distrorted.
Although in this case, the statistics cohere with what we'd expect to find, and they come from a broad sample across time and regions.
Cities did not need to be replenished constantly from the countryside as in some had to mandate it. Cities were replenished from countryside by willing peasants migrating there. Since I find it hard to believe that a peasant entering a city forgot the way back, I can only conclude that such peasants changed worse living conditions for better ones. In fact, people run away into the cities.
Yes, exactly. Cities don't need to advertise. People move to the cities. They always have.
I can't say I disagree with you on general issues - just on scale and relative importance of certain factors.
The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that peasants were migrating to the cities - and staying there - voluntarily because they perceived those conditions as superior to what they had.
Those same pesants migrating to the cities and working at the factories created demand for wool which they used to produce stuff and that caused conversion of farmland to grazing.
My argument was more against the claim that the peasants demand for liberties in the late fourteenth centuries was what caused the industrial revolution, i.e., Peasants made waves, made their labor more expensive, and landlords switched to enclosure and wool production. What happened was that the peasant labor got more expensive, and wool production got much less expensive.
The argument you're making (As I see it) is that urbanization has a lot more to do with capitalism than what happens out in the countryside, and I agree with that. I'm just adding that urbanization has a lot to do with the methods of food production and distribution. A city is only as big as the countryside can feed.
But I don't think you can understand the economics of British wool by considering strictly the British Isles. It was a commodity that was valued across Europe. In the premodern era, as much of that stuff that they could produce, they could sell, replacing inferior, locally-produced stuff elsewhere in Europe. Food on the other hand, is largely consumed locally. It's not the roman empire (to speak of a labor-intensive economy) bringing tons of grain from Egypt anymore.
-
Isn't there a famous quote... "those who can do, those who can't teach"?
It should be updated "those who can do, those who can't post longwinded replies on Intardnet BBSs"
-
Dinger: This I disagree with. The guilds arise with the cities themselves, and while they promoted specialization and vocational education, as well as claiming a monopoly, which was never complete.
For lack of time, let's continue disagreeing on that and keep looking for more data.
Yes, exactly. Cities don't need to advertise. People move to the cities. They always have.
Not in modern USA. The government interventions - subcidising suburbs, destroying neighbourhoods and subcidising squlalor and crime in inner cities - make people move out from the cities.
My argument was more against the claim that the peasants demand for liberties in the late fourteenth centuries was what caused the industrial revolution, i.e., Peasants made waves, made their labor more expensive, and landlords switched to enclosure...
I see. I am more inclined to believe it was hardly ever relevant what peasants wanted and what they demanded and very little of what they got was a result of their actions or their uprisings.
I bet the bored lords of those times would gladly slaughter a few rebellious peasants than replace them with docile but boring sheep. Peasant women were also more attractive when young than sheep. :)
It's hard to believe peasant rebellions posed any danger to the lords - there was widespread castellation intended to withstand real sieges by professional military. The peasant rebellions got more publicity than they probably deserved.
I bet the news of the latest joust was the first three pages of their newspapers and the article on massive peasant rebellion was stuck somewhere next to "help wanted" ads.
"Ninteen thousand peasants rebelled last week in the provice of Low Bumsuck. There were no casualties incured during their slaughter though lord X. severely sprained his elbow which may preclude him from participation in this week jousting finals (see his interview tomorrow). Property damage is being asessed to be covered by the raise in taxes. Local landlords say that the pesant population needed thining out long ago. "
But I don't think you can understand the economics of British wool by considering strictly the British Isles. It was a commodity that was valued across Europe.
By top 5-10% of the population at most. That's a lot but not really a mass market by our measures.
Anyway, that was a nice converstion. I am checking out for today. If you have any particular books to recomend on the subject, I'd appreciate.
miko
-
Vulcan: It should be updated "those who can do, those who can't post..."
Hmm...
Vulcan - 2.02 posts per day
Miko - 1.83 posts per day
Dinger - 0.77 posts per day
Oh, gosh, I am back to using "modern mathematical theories" to make my point. Where is my flame-resistant suit? :D
miko
-
Hmm Miko, why don't you quote the whole sentence?
I specified quantity in posts, not quantity of posts. Back to Reading Comprehension 101 by Mailorder my friend :)
-
Vulcan: Hmm Miko, why don't you quote the whole sentence?
I specified quantity in posts, not quantity of posts. Back to Reading Comprehension 101 by Mailorder my friend :)
Oh, it's only posting when you have something to say that earns "stupid points". I see... :rolleyes:
The content of your posts being so preciously scarce, I can see why you get upset with me for leaving a piece out. :)
miko