The author of TFA and a few others like it is Marc Morris. To get his viewpoint at greater length, see his The Norman Conquest: The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England (2012).
Since at least the 19th century, there has been sharp controversy among English academics over whether the Norman invasion was a good or bad thing. Morris is strongly on the "good" side. For a view from the other direction, try the short and readable The Norman Conquest: A Very Short Introduction by George Garnett (2009).
It's kind of weird to think of historians coming down on "good" and "bad" sides. But even if they do, it's hard to imagine anyone looking at the reign of William and saying "yeah that was awesome". At least from the point of view of the losers. I don't imagine even the slaves enjoyed the Harrying of the North.
"Mixed" seems reasonable. "Good" seems a lot to ask.
A skeptical read would be that the economics of Norman style feudalism heavily relies on the peasants to work the land. Obviously you need the peasants to stay in their place. If all the warrior caste have the same perspective, you can't be carting off the population and selling them off overseas, without some major friction. And if you are trying to "take" some land from another warlord, it's not going to be very economical for you to sell off the peasants, cause then who is going to work the land?
A very interesting article, especially in that historians still aren't sure why war-based slavery died out completely in Britain in only 60 years -- between 1066 and 1120. You have to wonder if there was mostly an economic reason for it, like making more money from renting to serfs than owning them and having to house and upkeep them (as the article suggests). I can't believe the angels of lords' better natures was the catalyst. The uptake of Christianity thereabouts begat 800 years earlier with Charlemagne; that's a heck of a long gestation to develop a moral conscience.
The timeline overlaps with the Peace of God movement and the Gregorian reforms which legal historian Harold Berman calls the Papal Revolution in his book Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Also coincides with the beginnings of renavatio that Charles Taylor mentions in A Secular Age. You could argue though that perhaps it took some time until the population fully Christianized; it is precisely in this time period we start seeing the use of familiar Biblical along with a set of standardized Germanic first names all across Europe while old Germanic naming conventions start to disappear.
> You have to wonder if there was mostly an economic reason for it, like making more money from renting to serfs than owning them and having to house and upkeep
You wouldn’t be enslaving your own peasant but rather buying foreigners or capturing people outside of your territory in raids etc.
If the slave populations were self-sustaining I’d assume just banning the slave trade would had a significant effect
> that's a heck of a long gestation to develop a moral conscience.
True, but there were many reformist movements around ~1000 AD and the church was finally able to assert its independence from secular authorities around that time. Before that it had somewhat limited power to force anyone to do anything so they just usually went along with stuff like slavery, polygamy etc. while occasionally criticizing it.
At the time, Ireland was indeed a wealthy country, having made its fortune selling leather to the Romans three centuries before, because the semi-nomadic Irish cultivated large herds of cattle roaming on unfenced plains, while the settled Britons kept sheep. This permitted the establishment of a culturally sophisticated Gaelic Order so stable that it was able to assimilate the invading Vikings and the first wave of Normans, who actually went native and began speaking the Irish language.
Ireland had viking settlement activity in the 800s and 900s. Newly formed settlements/kingdoms were consumers of slaves to further develop. But also, maybe they were named simply because Irish viking rulers had close ties with York, and therefore, there was more trade between nearby and politically close viking kingdoms.
Ireland was colonized by the vikings from the 8th century onward, who continued their long history of seaborne trade even after they abandoned the practice of raiding for which they are more famous. So they had the liquid wealth (primarily gold and silver) and the cultural willingness to acquire slaves. The viking settlements became the first large towns in Ireland, and supported the first sophisticated cash economy on the island capable of generating the liquidity for purchasing slaves from abroad. While the native Celtic Irish also had a history of slave-holding and raiding (see, e.g., the life of St. Patrick), they produced and held significantly less liquid wealth than the viking settlers and never established the large scale trading communities necessary for slave markets to emerge. As a result, pre-viking native Irish slavery did not involve large scale cash-based slave trading.
Also worth mentioning that the scale of the medieval British slave trade was likely small relative to the total populations of either England or Ireland, because it disproportionately consisted of the sale of young women as concubines. Note that there is a difference between the size of the enslaved population and the size of the slave trade. While as much as 30% of the population of Anglo-Saxon England may have been enslaved and the vast majority of those were economic slaves, only a small portion were ever bought or sold on the slave markets, and an even smaller portion sold to the foreign market.
There was simply less demand for purchasing economic slaves because Ireland did not have a robust cash economy for agricultural goods that would have generated the revenue necessary to acquire slaves. That is, acquiring economic slaves for cash only makes sense if those slaves can be used to generate further cash. Concubinage was an exception because in economic terms it is a form of consumption rather than investment. Economic slaves were more likely to be acquired via raiding or conquest, which effectively converts a surplus in defense spending into an economic investment.
Which isn't to say economic slaves weren't bought and sold, just that demand for them was weak and likely the trade only existed because acquiring them was a "free" byproduct for a seller who acquired them while conducting raids aimed at acquiring liquid wealth and potential concubines. As in, a viking group may have raided a village with the specific intent of seizing any valuables and young women, but figured that they might as well take the young men too because they could at least get something in exchange for them. Demand for agricultural economic slaves was low because the productivity of early medieval agricultural workers was extremely low. Once the Christian church turned against concubinage and extra-marital relationships in general, the demand for slaves disappeared, reducing the incentive to raid and thus the incidental production of economic slaves. Which is a corollary of the argument the OP article proposes for the decline in Norman slavery.
Bottom line, a relatively narrow class of wealthy traders and viking raiders in Ireland would have been purchasers in the slave markets, even though the country as a whole wasn't especially wealthy and did not need to be for the slave trade to exist.
The Normans were the great "levelers" of society. Yes, they may have raised up the slave, but they also deprived many others of their historical rights, say, of "sake and soke."
Sake was the right to hold low court on your own land.
Soke was the right to pay your taxes and infeudate yourself to the lord of your choice. There was an entire class of Anglo-Saxons known as "sokesmen." They practically disappeared overnight, historically-speaking.
Normans placed severe restrictions on your infeudation. None of this "I'll withhold my allegiance simply because my local baron is a tyrant" thing. Nope. Doesn't matter. Good, bad or evil, you owe your fealty to the local ruler.
So, while the Normans may have been a relief for the very, very bottom, they were very, very bad for the equivalent of the "middle class" of commoners.
I thought "middle class" arose out of the bourgeois class later on?
It's like when I realized that slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church but simply didn't own very many things
slavery became awuful around things like deciding black people were closer to animals so it was ok to exploit them but really they were competing, or rather, trying to keep up with steam-based looms which were much faster at processing cotton so pick that cotton faster *cracks whip *
>‘I prohibit the sale of any man by another outside of the country,’ says the ninth law of William the Conqueror
preventing "hands drain" so to speak. They did Doomsday book, kind of stabilized the land ownership and revenue/taxes extraction based on it, and the land needs hands to produce the revenue.
Isn't this a quite common pattern in history repeating itself? Including the reaction of the historians, to gloss over it?
The pattern that, a cohort of a society that under previous rule didn't have any right nor representation, acquire that as a side-effect during invasion of competing faction. Often under brutal circumstances, but the effect can be clearly seen if you how a society change during such over-hauling effect.
Japans invasion of South-east Asia comes to mind. Mostly for their own benefit, installing puppet-government, but it seems to be a contributing factor to decolonization of SEA of European influence. Depending on the source you read, this is probably glossed over to great deal.
I assume you can probably find similar cases in places like Spain (Reconquest), Christianization of East/North Europe, Islamic conquest of Middle East/Indus etc.
This sounds more like indentured servitude, but it's not even as bad as that. As frustrating as this situation is, in the USA you are not sent to prison for this unpaid debt and still have agency over your time. But of course human trafficking throughout the world is still a problem today and I very much want to see it ended (as much as possible).
:edited my first sentence to clarify it's not quite indentured servitude :)
I think we should be extremely careful with this thinking. People in debt that work eight hours a day and go home to play video games, watch tv, and eat delicious food are a universe away from slaves in classical times which owned nothing.
>Sadly, every culture has had a slave or slave-like underclass. Even the US has one - anyone with 50K in student loan debt, working a minimum wage job, with the debt growing faster than the payments, can tell you it feels awfully close to slavery. Some would probably even prefer being beaten once in a while, than to have no hope of ever getting free of the debt after a decade of trying.
This is not slavery nor is it slave-like. You diminish the evils of owning people when you jump on your anti-pay-back-the-money-you-borrowed hobby horse and claim it's slave-like.
Stop reading here.
$50,000 is an outlier for student borrowers. The mean debt for a graduate in 2023 is around $30,000. For someone a decade ago it was 20% less according to a brief search. A person a decade into their career who has $50,000 in debt and is working a minimum wage job needs to take a hard look at their choices. The majority of borrowers have less than $20,000 in loans to pay back.
[+] [-] wrp|1 year ago|reply
Since at least the 19th century, there has been sharp controversy among English academics over whether the Norman invasion was a good or bad thing. Morris is strongly on the "good" side. For a view from the other direction, try the short and readable The Norman Conquest: A Very Short Introduction by George Garnett (2009).
[+] [-] jfengel|1 year ago|reply
"Mixed" seems reasonable. "Good" seems a lot to ask.
[+] [-] paleotrope|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
[+] [-] randcraw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] traject_|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rawgabbit|1 year ago|reply
I understand analysis of structural forces is a thing. But the great persons of history had a fair impact too.
[+] [-] ywvcbk|1 year ago|reply
You wouldn’t be enslaving your own peasant but rather buying foreigners or capturing people outside of your territory in raids etc.
If the slave populations were self-sustaining I’d assume just banning the slave trade would had a significant effect
> that's a heck of a long gestation to develop a moral conscience.
True, but there were many reformist movements around ~1000 AD and the church was finally able to assert its independence from secular authorities around that time. Before that it had somewhat limited power to force anyone to do anything so they just usually went along with stuff like slavery, polygamy etc. while occasionally criticizing it.
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ninalanyon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] blueyes|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kentosi-dw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Zuider|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrale|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] stult|1 year ago|reply
Also worth mentioning that the scale of the medieval British slave trade was likely small relative to the total populations of either England or Ireland, because it disproportionately consisted of the sale of young women as concubines. Note that there is a difference between the size of the enslaved population and the size of the slave trade. While as much as 30% of the population of Anglo-Saxon England may have been enslaved and the vast majority of those were economic slaves, only a small portion were ever bought or sold on the slave markets, and an even smaller portion sold to the foreign market.
There was simply less demand for purchasing economic slaves because Ireland did not have a robust cash economy for agricultural goods that would have generated the revenue necessary to acquire slaves. That is, acquiring economic slaves for cash only makes sense if those slaves can be used to generate further cash. Concubinage was an exception because in economic terms it is a form of consumption rather than investment. Economic slaves were more likely to be acquired via raiding or conquest, which effectively converts a surplus in defense spending into an economic investment.
Which isn't to say economic slaves weren't bought and sold, just that demand for them was weak and likely the trade only existed because acquiring them was a "free" byproduct for a seller who acquired them while conducting raids aimed at acquiring liquid wealth and potential concubines. As in, a viking group may have raided a village with the specific intent of seizing any valuables and young women, but figured that they might as well take the young men too because they could at least get something in exchange for them. Demand for agricultural economic slaves was low because the productivity of early medieval agricultural workers was extremely low. Once the Christian church turned against concubinage and extra-marital relationships in general, the demand for slaves disappeared, reducing the incentive to raid and thus the incidental production of economic slaves. Which is a corollary of the argument the OP article proposes for the decline in Norman slavery.
Bottom line, a relatively narrow class of wealthy traders and viking raiders in Ireland would have been purchasers in the slave markets, even though the country as a whole wasn't especially wealthy and did not need to be for the slave trade to exist.
[+] [-] PeterCorless|1 year ago|reply
Sake was the right to hold low court on your own land.
Soke was the right to pay your taxes and infeudate yourself to the lord of your choice. There was an entire class of Anglo-Saxons known as "sokesmen." They practically disappeared overnight, historically-speaking.
Normans placed severe restrictions on your infeudation. None of this "I'll withhold my allegiance simply because my local baron is a tyrant" thing. Nope. Doesn't matter. Good, bad or evil, you owe your fealty to the local ruler.
So, while the Normans may have been a relief for the very, very bottom, they were very, very bad for the equivalent of the "middle class" of commoners.
[+] [-] actionfromafar|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] acc4everypici|1 year ago|reply
I thought "middle class" arose out of the bourgeois class later on?
It's like when I realized that slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church but simply didn't own very many things
slavery became awuful around things like deciding black people were closer to animals so it was ok to exploit them but really they were competing, or rather, trying to keep up with steam-based looms which were much faster at processing cotton so pick that cotton faster *cracks whip *
[+] [-] trhway|1 year ago|reply
preventing "hands drain" so to speak. They did Doomsday book, kind of stabilized the land ownership and revenue/taxes extraction based on it, and the land needs hands to produce the revenue.
[+] [-] hoseja|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ggm|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] NalNezumi|1 year ago|reply
The pattern that, a cohort of a society that under previous rule didn't have any right nor representation, acquire that as a side-effect during invasion of competing faction. Often under brutal circumstances, but the effect can be clearly seen if you how a society change during such over-hauling effect.
Japans invasion of South-east Asia comes to mind. Mostly for their own benefit, installing puppet-government, but it seems to be a contributing factor to decolonization of SEA of European influence. Depending on the source you read, this is probably glossed over to great deal.
I assume you can probably find similar cases in places like Spain (Reconquest), Christianization of East/North Europe, Islamic conquest of Middle East/Indus etc.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fsckboy|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mistrial9|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bazoom42|1 year ago|reply
> Some would probably even prefer being beaten once in a while, than to have no hope of ever getting free of the debt after a decade of trying.
You are missing that slavery means your owner can beat you up and rape you as much as they want and you still have no hope of getting free.
[+] [-] rangerelf|1 year ago|reply
A student _loan_ is nothing at all like being a non-person OWNED by someone who can do whatever he/she wants with you, even use you as alligator bait.
Here's from the Jim Crow museum: https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/question/2013/may.htm
Enjoy.
[+] [-] stephenhuey|1 year ago|reply
:edited my first sentence to clarify it's not quite indentured servitude :)
[+] [-] BurningFrog|1 year ago|reply
It is very common in these discussions, and makes it very hard to communicate.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ddgflorida|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Mistletoe|1 year ago|reply
https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/nero-man-behind-my...
[+] [-] wang_li|1 year ago|reply
This is not slavery nor is it slave-like. You diminish the evils of owning people when you jump on your anti-pay-back-the-money-you-borrowed hobby horse and claim it's slave-like.
Stop reading here.
$50,000 is an outlier for student borrowers. The mean debt for a graduate in 2023 is around $30,000. For someone a decade ago it was 20% less according to a brief search. A person a decade into their career who has $50,000 in debt and is working a minimum wage job needs to take a hard look at their choices. The majority of borrowers have less than $20,000 in loans to pay back.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]