Why did the Medieval ages not have as much of a legacy for slavery as the Roman/Greek period and Colonial period did? Why was there a sudden gap in time between two societies that practiced slavery on a mass scale? How common was slavery in Medieval Europe, and why wasn't it adopted on a mass scale considering the economies of almost every single European country relied on manors and agrarian systems. What the fuck is the difference between serfdom and slavery?
>>571830
Feudalism is the great equalizer.
1. slavery was practiced
2. it was gradually abolished in different places throughout the medieval ages and then in the Renaissance
3. The difference between colonial slavery and previous slavery is that it was specifically done in the colonies. You wouldn't find slaves in Britain in the same sense that you'd find them in its colonies; what happens in the colonies, stays in the colonies.
>>571830
The collapse of long distance heavy bulk trade for one. Slavery is an expensive business. You have to procure some slaves to begin with, which has substantial cost whether you're raiding for them yourselves or buying them from someone else. To make up for that expense, you need to sell them at an even higher price, and for that you need a market. Only, you have to ship these slaves to said market, and unless you have plenty of bulk shipping driving down costs you'll be limited to markets within a small radius from where you acquired the slaves. This wasn't sustainable, as much of Europe after the fall of Rome was still undeveloped, with little material wealth outside of the elite who, having plenty of manpower at their disposal in the form of the native population reduced to serfdom, had little need for slaves at least on a large scale.
>>571830
>Why did the Medieval ages not have as much of a legacy for slavery as the Roman/Greek period and Colonial period did?
It did have slavery.
Although not much in Western Europe come the high middle ages.. Italians practiced it (Venice, famously. Galley Slaves) and almost the whole of Eastern Europe.
I'm many parts of Europe serfdom replaced slavery. In eastern Europe and Russia being a serf was partially demeaning whilst in the west, especially England, peasants had many more rights.
>>572176
Peasants rights varied from country to country. In western Europe they were typically left to govern their own affairs owing the lord of the manor certain privileges such as a gift when you died, your livestock would sleep on his land (fertilising it with poop) and a certain number of days (50 days or so in the year) of labour on the lords desmene and a tief of around 15% of your crop. The lord also had the right to grind wheat and charge a fee for it.
In return, The lord had to protect his serfs, provide them with farm land, would invite tenants to festivals, celebrations, and feasts at the manor, and preside over legal claims made by the villages against each other. Peasants were well aware of their rights and would riot and protest at unfair impositions made by the lord that were seen to intrude on their 'ancient rights'.
Peasants also had 100 days of holiday each year. At least in western Europe, peasantry was nothing like being a slave. I'm fact, if you had asked a peasant to choose between more farmland or freedom, he would probably choose the former.
Christianity.
>>572204
>Anglo Slave-boy choirs in Roman Christianity
>Southern_USA.jpg
The Prophet Muhammad did not try to abolish slavery, and bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves himself. But he insisted that slave owners treat their slaves well and stressed the virtue of freeing slaves.
Muhammad treated slaves as human beings and clearly held some in the highest esteem.
For example, he personally ensured the freedom of Bilal, an African slave who had converted to Islam. Bilal was chosen as the first muezzin of Islam because of his beautiful voice.
The Prophet also married a Coptic Christian slave girl.
>>572193
Sounds comfy, desu.
>>572222
Check'd.
>>571830
The medieval church did not permit christians to keep other christians as slaves. Certainly made it difficult to maintain a slave economy.
Serfdom was born in ancient Roman Empire and evolved from colonate system. The serfs were former "coloni". Coloni worked in latifundia's of rich roman land owners
Serfdom continued post-Rome out of the need for protection from hostile raiders in early medieval Europe, because with the breakdown of central authority
>>572222
>>572193
Its varied.
Feudalism was great because at the time it give rulers more soldiers. Empty land is worth nothing if you have no men to cultivate it and defend. Population is wealth.
It shown when Western Europe get population surplus. Peasant condition become worse. Taxes and duties and if you can't deal with it - leave, there is plenty of guys who will gladly take your land. That is why you used to find plenty of Germans everywhere - Germany was literal shithole, divided, high taxed and full of people who prefer to move everywhere to look for better chances. So high taxes but free movement.
On the other hand East - land is plenty but population not - it can leave at any time and go somewhere else where lord offer them better - and it happen all the time. So you force it to stay and block their movement.
Commonwealth was middle ground - mixed system and it worked well at the time.
>>572193
>peasantry was nothing like being a slave
Depends. If you, your family and your lord's family have lived on the same plot of land for generations doing virtually the same thing year after year only disrupted by the occasional famine or some scuffle between the lords, then your servitude will start to look more like a tradition. Chances are if you were the anglo-saxon brutally subjugated by a Norman conqueror you would still get 100 days off simply because your master has no use for you, he will just let you tend to your sheep and gather wild grains on the hilly unproductive land so you are still there to work for him in the harvest season.
>>571830
Mainly because populations had grown to fit the resources available and starvation was enough motivation to get people to work.
Roman and American slaves had somewhere to run to and they had a supply of slaves from snownigger/junglenigger tribes.
>>572646
>Germany was literal shithole, divided, high taxed and full of people who prefer to move everywhere to look for better chances
Really? What made it an exception?
Black people
>Captcha: bananas
>>572724
Divided between many small patty states, constant wars, religious strife, overpopulated so hunger and diseases, high taxes and crime.
On the other hand you have united France(they have their own problems but different) and Commonwealth(mostly peace and low taxes).
No wonder you can easily get some Germans to move to Baltic, Russia, Poland, Hungary, later America. Not mention that colonist get not only land but tax exception and some of privileges(mostly self law).
>>572703
Those days off were religious or traditional holidays that were spread throughout the year. The lord wasn't like a modern employer. He couldn't give a fuck what you did most of the time as long as you gave him what you owed. Some peasants were free farmers and the lord was their landlord.
>>572646
Feudalism declined hugely during the 13th and 14th centuries and many knights/lords opted to simply pay their leige instead of serve in campaigns.
>>572790
In western Europe.
In Eastern feudalism change but it was still kicking in XIX century.
>>571830
1) You dont need slaves when you have serfs.
2) They didnt have enough access to non-christians to enslave.
3) You didn't need massive production in the middle ages. There wasnt much trade. What would you do with the extra?
>>571830
It was not as profitable as other kinds of domination, so agrarian slavery slowly dissapeared.
>>571830
You have to feed people you own. Serfs have to feed themselves.
>>571830
first, youre technicaly wrong, there was loads of slavery and a whole developed slave trade in europe and middle asia troughout the middle ages all the way on into early colonial times, practicaly every crusade that wasnt heading to jerusalem started another slave route, not to mention arabs never stopped going to the slave discout store that always was africa, and hordes of people were kidnapped and captured all over the mediterran, as well as the whole ottoman deal in south-east europe, venetians stuffing multitudes into galleons etc etc...
second, serfs... lots and lots of starving serfs
>>572815
Yeah sorry I should have prefaced that.
we wuz Qingz
>>572060
>Venice, famously. Galley Slaves
What a tard, you actually called up the one example of free oarsmen in mediterranean history. Venice only started using prisoners (PRISONERS, not slaves) in the 15th century or thereabout.
And the big slavers in the high middle ages were the germans. The franks were well renowned for having the biggest slave markets in Europe, and the vikings routinely practiced slave trading. Shit mostly stopped with christianity, because they made the enslavement of correligionaries a mortal sin. At that point, it only continued in the med countries who had access to muslims slaves. The Septimania for example was slave central during the reconquista. Venice was a big trader, but the only domestic slave usage was for brothels.
