Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Genivaria]

So they were mainly administrators and this was only in the HRE region.
Thank you for disproving yourself.

made up a large majority of what could be described as the German knighthood during that time.

Knight, despite common perception did not automatically equal warrior.
In this case they were civil administrators, as the page you linked clearly states.

[The Parkus Empire]

They did not. Sending serfs to fight made about as much sense as sending cows and sheep.

You can argue against historical fact until you're blue in the face, you're still wrong.

Nope. You are. I am not guessing, I have actually read this much. You do not know what you are talking about

[The Parkus Empire]

made up a large majority of what could be described as the German knighthood during that time.

Knight, despite common perception did not automatically equal warrior.
In this case they were civil administrators, as the page you linked clearly states.

Yep, it did. A knight was a soldier by definition except in some monastic orders.

[Kubra]

While it's not necessarily the time-period for serfdom being discussed, the russian army of the 17th to early 19th century was by an large conscripted serfs for a period of 25 years (basically life long, this was your career now). After service one would become a free man, though it was not terribly well regarded as a way of changing ones social status.

[Genivaria]

You can argue against historical fact until you're blue in the face, you're still wrong.

Nope. You are. I am not guessing, I have actually read this much. You do not know what you are talking about

K. I'm sure you actually have some evidence to dispute historical fact other than your insane romanticism of the era.

[Genivaria]

While it's not necessarily the time-period for serfdom being discussed, the russian army of the 17th to early 19th century was by an large conscripted serfs for a period of 25 years (basically life long, this was your career now). After service one would become a free man, though it was not terribly well regarded as a way of changing ones social status.

The Russian Empire was the last European nation to still have serfdom as an institution, most had abolished it by the 19th century.

[Nevada Communes]

Yes they did, that is a widely known historical fact.


As you've pointed out numerous times, the nobles were warriors, not economists.
Feudal societies had shitty economies, whooda thunk it?

It was absolutely not widely done except perhaps with freeholder peasants who could afford to equip themselves. Serfs did not fight because the aristocracy depended enormously on them as providers (each knight took a ton of serfs just to equipt and maintain) and they were 100% worthless as soldiers.

It depends on context. In the Carolingan times, levies were called upon all within the border regions, and these conscription calls were fairly broad. The Church also drove peasants working its lands into the army at Charlemagne's request.

[The Parkus Empire]

Nope. You are. I am not guessing, I have actually read this much. You do not know what you are talking about

K. I'm sure you actually have some evidence to dispute historical fact other than your insane romanticism of the era.

Jeffrey L. Singman says as much, and I am inclined to trust him until I see otherwise. He even says serfdom was based on the declining role of farmers in combat with the developement of advanced armor, and freedom and fighting became closely linked. Serfs did not fight not so much because they did not have to so much as because they were too poor; fighting was very prestigeous and was how the aristocracy defined itself in contrast with merchants and such, a minor knight having more status than a wealthier merchant.

[The Widening Gyre]

But from a human perspective, we see territory as hierarchical.

Because our conception of the word 'territory' is entwined with that of states and hierarchies. Nature is not beholden to our social norms.

No, of course massive hierarchies cannot exist among animal because they do not have the means. Neither do humans without agriculture. That does not mean animals do not operate according to hierarchy.

As I've pointed out though, they don't operate under what we'd call hierarchy at all. They aren't based on qualitative, universal traits and status is both fluid and binary. A male beachmaster elephant seal is dominant over his harem of females only as long as he as capable of fighting off intruders. The minute he loses a contest, he is now subordinate. That does not make him universally inferior however, and there is nothing stopping him from simply branching off with another group of females and beginning the harem formation process anew. Likewise there's nothing stopping a female from leaving one harem and joining another. It's therefore individualistic, voluntary and atomistic at its core in a way that human hierarchies are not.

The point of all this is that the human conception of hierarchy is fundamentally human. It is not a reflection of some fundamental natural principle, but rather the product of our own social evolution since the agricultural revolution.

[Kubra]

While it's not necessarily the time-period for serfdom being discussed, the russian army of the 17th to early 19th century was by an large conscripted serfs for a period of 25 years (basically life long, this was your career now). After service one would become a free man, though it was not terribly well regarded as a way of changing ones social status.

The Russian Empire was the last European nation to still have serfdom as an institution, most had abolished it by the 19th century.

As I said, this was the state of affairs for the 17th-19th century, periods where other european nations did have serfs. While it's certainly so that serfs probably did not form any significant part of european armies for this particular time period (17th-19th century), it does demonstrate that serfs aren't necessarily useless for battle or that their bondage to the land must at all times take precedent.

[The Parkus Empire]

While it's not necessarily the time-period for serfdom being discussed, the russian army of the 17th to early 19th century was by an large conscripted serfs for a period of 25 years (basically life long, this was your career now). After service one would become a free man, though it was not terribly well regarded as a way of changing ones social status.

Serfdom in Russia was more like colonial slavery than European serfdom.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Russian Empire was the last European nation to still have serfdom as an institution, most had abolished it by the 19th century.

As I said, this was the state of affairs for the 17th-19th century, periods where other european nations did have serfs. While it's certainly so that serfs probably did not form any significant part of european armies for this particular time period (17th-19th century), it does demonstrate that serfs aren't necessarily useless for battle or that their bondage to the land must at all times take precedent.

That iadd after the advent of guns. Serfs were useless because knights were invulnerable to anything but other knights until pikes and longbows became a thing.

[Kubra]

As I said, this was the state of affairs for the 17th-19th century, periods where other european nations did have serfs. While it's certainly so that serfs probably did not form any significant part of european armies for this particular time period (17th-19th century), it does demonstrate that serfs aren't necessarily useless for battle or that their bondage to the land must at all times take precedent.

That iadd after the advent of guns. Serfs were useless because knights were invulnerable to anything but other knights until pikes and longbows became a thing.

Insofar as medieval warfare was not simply heavy cavalry trading charges on each other, it appears that medieval strategists saw some value in maintaining infantry, especially if they'd given de militari a read, for which serfs represent a very obvious source of infantry.

[The Parkus Empire]

But from a human perspective, we see territory as hierarchical.

Because our conception of the word 'territory' is entwined with that of states and hierarchies. Nature is not beholden to our social norms.

No, of course massive hierarchies cannot exist among animal because they do not have the means. Neither do humans without agriculture. That does not mean animals do not operate according to hierarchy.

As I've pointed out though, they don't operate under what we'd call hierarchy at all. They aren't based on qualitative, universal traits and status is both fluid and binary. A male beachmaster elephant seal is dominant over his harem of females only as long as he as capable of fighting off intruders. The minute he loses a contest, he is now subordinate. That does not make him universally inferior however, and there is nothing stopping him from simply branching off with another group of females and beginning the harem formation process anew. Likewise there's nothing stopping a female from leaving one harem and joining another. It's therefore individualistic, voluntary and atomistic at its core in a way that human hierarchies are not.

The point of all this is that the human conception of hierarchy is fundamentally human. It is not a reflection of some fundamental natural principle, but rather the product of our own social evolution since the agricultural revolution.

I was actually referencing private property when I said territory.

Individualism is a human philosophy, don't conflate it with egoism or instinct. And no, animals do not have rule of law, so breakdowns are much more common; does not mean hierarchy does not exist, just that it is not civilized.

[Albrenia]

Unlike in cartoons, knight's armour had weaknesses anyway. They were not invulnerable, particularly if you could kill their horse or pull them off it.

[The Parkus Empire]

That iadd after the advent of guns. Serfs were useless because knights were invulnerable to anything but other knights until pikes and longbows became a thing.

Insofar as medieval warfare was not simply heavy cavalry trading charges on each other, it appears that medieval strategists saw some value in maintaining infantry, especially if they'd given de militari a read, for which serfs represent a very obvious source of infantry.

Not infantry that couldn't afford (or legally own) weapons.

[The Parkus Empire]

Unlike in cartoons, knight's armour had weaknesses anyway. They were not invulnerable, particularly if you could kill their horse or pull them off it.

Yeah, that is why pikes revolutionized warfare. Before them though, that was not an option.

[Kubra]

Insofar as medieval warfare was not simply heavy cavalry trading charges on each other, it appears that medieval strategists saw some value in maintaining infantry, especially if they'd given de militari a read, for which serfs represent a very obvious source of infantry.

Not infantry that couldn't afford (or legally own) weapons.

Couldn't afford? Axes and spears are not terribly expensive, a bow only slightly more so. And in any case, as simply a numbers game, between an equal number of heavy cavalry, the side with infantry, even poor infantry, have an advantage.

[Trotskylvania]

As I said, this was the state of affairs for the 17th-19th century, periods where other european nations did have serfs. While it's certainly so that serfs probably did not form any significant part of european armies for this particular time period (17th-19th century), it does demonstrate that serfs aren't necessarily useless for battle or that their bondage to the land must at all times take precedent.

That iadd after the advent of guns. Serfs were useless because knights were invulnerable to anything but other knights until pikes and longbows became a thing.

Medieval European armies were not homogenous, professional bodies.

Knights with all the rights and privileges of knighthood were a small portion of a typical army on campaign. Knights would bring retainers into battle based on their ability to afford them, including a class of increasingly professional squires who didn't have the prospect for knighthood and didn't want it. These and other men-at-arms, including mercenaries, household troops and feudal retinues, and adventurers out to make a name for themselves, might have formed the core of many medieval armies, but they weren't the only source and could not fight alone.

Levies from the peasantry and urban population were absolutely necessary to give the army on campaign mass and depth, especially for the king on campaign. There's a lot more to soldiery than just marching and fighting, and particularly siege work required an immense amount of warm bodies to build and man battlements. Some states like England relied heavily on conscription of the yeomanry, and in that particular case the nation required all free subjects to practice arms, particularly archery, so that they could fulfill obligations of service

[The Parkus Empire]

Not infantry that couldn't afford (or legally own) weapons.

Couldn't afford? Axes and spears are not terribly expensive, a bow only slightly more so. And in any case, as simply a numbers game, between an equal number of heavy cavalry, the side with infantry, even poor infantry, have an advantage.

None of those weapons were effective (unless you mean longbow) against armored, mounted knights, who were not just "heavy cavalry", they were covered in steel armor, and their horses often were as well. No matter your numbers, untrained rabble infantry is going get cut to shreds against against a charge by highly disciplined, organized, trained knights; they would probably break and scatter within minutes of contact.

[The Widening Gyre]

I was actually referencing private property when I said territory.

Which is even less grounded in the natural world, since humans are the only organisms to recognize objects as being 'property'. And certainly not even universally among humans.

Individualism is a human philosophy, don't conflate it with egoism or instinct. And no, animals do not have rule of law, so breakdowns are much more common; does not mean hierarchy does not exist, just that it is not civilized.

It isn't a breakdown though. Fracturing of groups and contests are linear dominance systems working as intended. Dispersal of males allows for new territories to be colonized by males and their harems of females, and contests ensure that only the 'fittest' males in a given area are given reproductive priority. It is individualistic because these systems are maintained and built through the actions of individual organisms. It is atomistic because there is no universal social order and hierarchy can only be enforced on those who the single dominant organism can exert his will over. It is voluntary because neither the subordinate males nor the dominant males have anything to gain by forcing males or females to stay within their grasp, and they themselves may need to disperse themselves one day if they are deposed from their harem.

[Kubra]

That iadd after the advent of guns. Serfs were useless because knights were invulnerable to anything but other knights until pikes and longbows became a thing.

Medieval European armies were not homogenous, professional bodies.

Knights with all the rights and privileges of knighthood were a small portion of a typical army on campaign. Knights would bring retainers into battle based on their ability to afford them, including a class of increasingly professional squires who didn't have the prospect for knighthood and didn't want it. These and other men-at-arms, including mercenaries, household troops and feudal retinues, and adventurers out to make a name for themselves, might have formed the core of many medieval armies, but they weren't the only source and could not fight alone.

Levies from the peasantry and urban population were absolutely necessary to give the army on campaign mass and depth, especially for the king on campaign. There's a lot more to soldiery than just marching and fighting, and particularly siege work required an immense amount of warm bodies to build and man battlements. Some states like England relied heavily on conscription of the yeomanry, and in that particular case the nation required all free subjects to practice arms, particularly archery, so that they could fulfill obligations of service

here here on the bolded part. A preoccupation with armies clashing on an open field is one we ought not fall into, since most medieval warfare (and warfare right up to Napoleon) was largely about seiges and fortifications.

[Northern Davincia]

Nice moral argument lmao

>me
>moralist

This is utmost slander. When you commit mass-murder, anticipate it go bite you back eventually, which is ultimately the root of counterrevolution.

[The Parkus Empire]

That iadd after the advent of guns. Serfs were useless because knights were invulnerable to anything but other knights until pikes and longbows became a thing.

Medieval European armies were not homogenous, professional bodies.

Knights with all the rights and privileges of knighthood were a small portion of a typical army on campaign. Knights would bring retainers into battle based on their ability to afford them, including a class of increasingly professional squires who didn't have the prospect for knighthood and didn't want it. These and other men-at-arms, including mercenaries, household troops and feudal retinues, and adventurers out to make a name for themselves, might have formed the core of many medieval armies, but they weren't the only source and could not fight alone.

Levies from the peasantry and urban population were absolutely necessary to give the army on campaign mass and depth, especially for the king on campaign. There's a lot more to soldiery than just marching and fighting, and particularly siege work required an immense amount of warm bodies to build and man battlements. Some states like England relied heavily on conscription of the yeomanry, and in that particular case the nation required all free subjects to practice arms, particularly archery, so that they could fulfill obligations of service

You're talking mostly about late middle ages and not at all about serfs.

[Genivaria]

Medieval European armies were not homogenous, professional bodies.

Knights with all the rights and privileges of knighthood were a small portion of a typical army on campaign. Knights would bring retainers into battle based on their ability to afford them, including a class of increasingly professional squires who didn't have the prospect for knighthood and didn't want it. These and other men-at-arms, including mercenaries, household troops and feudal retinues, and adventurers out to make a name for themselves, might have formed the core of many medieval armies, but they weren't the only source and could not fight alone.

Levies from the peasantry and urban population were absolutely necessary to give the army on campaign mass and depth, especially for the king on campaign. There's a lot more to soldiery than just marching and fighting, and particularly siege work required an immense amount of warm bodies to build and man battlements. Some states like England relied heavily on conscription of the yeomanry, and in that particular case the nation required all free subjects to practice arms, particularly archery, so that they could fulfill obligations of service

You're talking mostly about late middle ages and not at all about serfs.

No he isn't.
The late medieval period was dominated by mercenaries and men at arms.