yo his, here is my thesis what ways can I expand?
Thesis: The events within the Hundred Years’ War allowed for the power over the means of production, land and agriculture in this case, to shift away from the nobles to the peasants, and start England on the path to capitalism.
I'm talking about the Black Death, failing economy and the rise of the yeoman. any ideas?
guys please help, I need you more than anything right now
>>969887
Sure you aren't plagiarizing?
Also:
Define capitalism
Define Peasant
>>969933
I'm using Paul Sweezy's definition of capitalism:
(1) ownership of the means of production by private capitalists; (2) separation of the total social capital into many competing or potentially competing units; and (3) production of the great bulk of commodities (both goods and services) by workers who, owning no means of production of their own, are obliged to sell their labor power to capitalists in order to acquire the means of subsistence.
and by peasant I mean anybody that works as a farmer under a manorial lord.
not plagiarism, but if you've read this somewhere before and know the source name that could help get me some ideas
>>969887
This literally is not the case. Abandon this immediately. The rise of truly capitalist political economy emerged at the earliest in the 1690s, with the establishment of Lloyd's insurance market in 1691, government bond issuance in 1693, and the creation of the bank of England in 1694. This has literally nothing to do with the 14th century Yeoman, and everything to do with the geopolitics of the 17th century, indeed resulting primarily from Dutch innovations of the mid 17th century in finance and capital allocation. The major players in establishing the foundations of capitalism in England were all genteel, rather than yeoman, overwhelmingly associated with the newly formed Whigs.
>>969967
that's what I use to think until I started to notice that the foundations of capitalism are apparent during the HYW
>>969967
you can see the black death destroy the population which gives the laborers the chance to negotiate terms of work with the lords, which allows them to start getting their own land and they slowly start to rise that way. Then the shit economy allows the peasant to buy land and and start to control the means of production while employing wage laborers on the land. The new land owners start to call themselves yeoman and it kinda just sticks. The landlords that sold/rented land to the yeoman are now making actual money and not just taking crops. the excess crop on the yeoman's harvest is then sold to the nobles. it is a proto-capitalism
>>970028
>chance to negotiate terms of work with the lords, which allows them to start getting their own land and they slowly start to rise that way.
Pretty sure owning land in England wasn't really a thing until the 19th and 20th century, renting it from landlords was still quite common waaaaaaaaay into the modern period. I don't have any numbers on it at the moment though.
>The new land owners start to call themselves yeoman and it kinda just sticks.
Medieval Yeoman were just those who had a yearly revenue of around 5 pounds or around 100 acres of land, typically midland villages had one or two of these per village at most.
>now making actual money and not just taking crops.
Renting out land and taking cash payment has been done on and off from the 12th century onward, depending mostly on whether labor was cheap or dear and what the produce of the land sold for.
>it is a proto-capitalism
Why? What's the difference between gentry or a yeoman renting out land? What if a yeoman acquired an entire manor and is now considered gentry, is it suddenly not a proto capitalistic village or something?
>>970019
>WAGE LABOR
>1100s
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>>969887
You're going to have to talk about serfdom and how it started to fall out of practice.
I would not say capitalism spawned directly after the 100 years war and Black Death pandemic.
Joseph Schumpeter would be a good start with his 1000 page book "History of Economic Analysis."
Also, look into Evolutionary Economics to benefit. Another starting point would be the "Crisis of the 14th Century"
>>970019
This is complete bullshit. Wage labor simply did not exist before the 1600s in England. Getting a share of goods is NOT a wage.
>>970094
honestly yeoman was such a loosely defined term and changed so much that it still isn't totally clear on what the term meant until the Statute of Additions of 1413 placed the yeoman between the husbandman and the gentleman
the cash payments had become more legit with with the creation of the royal mint and use of a standardized currency.
it's a proto-capitalism because we see the rise of many more yeoman that are competing in the market places. Even if the yeoman was made official gentry, it was still more capitalistic than feudal because the amount of people going into the market and hiring legit wage based labor to the people that had 0 land
>>970140
>wage is only tied to currency
Wut? Please explain more.
>>970139
thanks anon, I'll look into these
>>970133
>>970140
Apprentices and journeyman were paid by master craftsman. Outside of the artificer group the race of common unskilled laborers formed a significant part of any cities population.
In rural areas 40 to 50% of the tenants did not own any land or scarcely enough to grow food for the family, these typically worked as wage laborers on the land of other tenants or the land owned and directly exploited by the gentry. You're looking at one or two pennies for males and half that for women. Manor records and court rolls are full of people being in arrears on payment for all kinds of stuff.
>>970158
a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis, made by an employer to an employee, especially to a manual or unskilled worker
>>969887
all memes which ignore the overwhelming role of technology in the economy, but I'm sure your marxist professors will love it
>>970157
>honestly yeoman was such a loosely defined term and changed so much that it still isn't totally clear on what the term meant until the Statute of Additions of 1413 placed the yeoman between the husbandman and the gentleman
Well >>970094 gives an economic view on so called gentlemen
Husbandman in Leicestershire typically owned between 20 and 40 acres with yeoman between 80 and 100 or even more. In period literature a good yearly income for a yeoman was said to be 5 pounds which corresponds to that of said gentlemen, the Pastons themselves came from a yeoman family with no mention being made of gentleman, I honestly haven't come across it all that much when looking at 15th century England.
>the cash payments had become more legit with with the creation of the royal mint and use of a standardized currency.
What mint? England had standardized coins before the Norman conquest 12 - 20 - 1 ratio like all the rest of Europe, though silver quantity was quite debased over the course of the centuries.
OP are you actually aware what three methods a manor owner could use to exploit his lands?
>>970408
probably not
>>970417
Alright in the basic state of some early medieval society the king declared himself owner of all the land of Azeroth, he wanted to pay his loyal soldier Terry but couldn't really give him cold hard cash and Terry didn't feel like fighting for food alone. So the king in all his wisdom gave Terry the village of Knutvill (Fief, tenure whatever you name it).
Knutvill has like 1800 acres of land, now to derive an income from it Terry could simply tell everyone to pay rent to him in the form of whatever they produced but most guys like Terry chose a different approach, instead they rented out 2/3 of that 1800 acres and kept 1/3 or 600 acres to themselves. In this way they could exploit a good big chunk of land themselves and adapt to fluctuation in grain prices, labor scarcity, their own upkeep etc etc. At times for example it was more economically sound too run a vinyard or pasture rather than arable grain land.
Now with 2/3rd rented out he could demand rent from the local farmer tenants. Farmer Hank who has a wife and two healthy sons wants to rent 40 acres of land which is just about what he can farm with the help of his two sons, Terry would ask a rent for this of say one bushel of grain, two dozen eggs, one fat cock and 50 days of labor. So the rent payment for that 40 acres was paid not in money but in kind. Having rented out 2/3rds of all his land in this way Terry would have enough people owing labor to him to farm that 600 acres of land to his own discretion. He could utilize the labor for growing a number of different crops and the yield of his own land would support Terry his food, his armor, horse, household etc etc. Skip forward a bit and you find farmer tenants like farmer Hank's great great great grandson asking if he could simply pay the rent his great great great grandfather had agreed on in cold hard cash, say five shillings or something.
>>970598
ok, this makes way more sense than what I was reading. Are you a history major or teacher?
>>970598
Terry's great great great grandson is quite happy about this because he can now use the said cash to supply himself more easily and simply hire wage labor to work his 600 acres. Of course this all depended on the price of say grain relative to the price of hired labor. Post black death the price of labor rose enormously while grain didn't so smart landowners told them they didn't want this years rent in cold hard cash but in kind i.e. labor since the labor price was so high he could not possible use the rent to exploit his own lands. Of course many people who had been paying rent in cash for multiple generations by now and didn't feel like being forced to pay their rent in labor, because on a free market their labor was vastly more worth than the rent of their farms. (see English peasant revolt)
Sometimes Landlords like Terry's descendants turned their 600 acres into woodland, because wood was costly or vineyard to produce wine, in England pasture was favored for sheep raising at some points. At other points the market was different and it was more useful to just rent out those 600 acres to tenants for cash.
So essentially your landlord can:
Demand their tenants to pay their rents in labor to work on his own land and goods
Demand their tenants pay their rents in cash and use said cash to hire labor to work his own lands
Rent out his own lands to new or existing tenants
This shit basically differed from century to century and village to village. Often changing the way a landlord operated his manor to make a profit hit much resistance with his tenants because he had to buy back land or demand rents in labor rather than cash etc etc.
Eventually the first two methods more or less died out in England and landlords were stuck with renting out all their land to farmers for cash or of course selling their land to other people. If you happen to know Downton Abbey you'll have an idea what this looked like.
>>970238
And how does this not correlate to serfdom?
>>970641
Law major.
History is a hobby of mine. At one point I decided to look at the medieval landlord/tenant system for a bit to discover what part of it would still be legal today, turns out you could set up a system like it today with one or two exceptions. My Great grandfather still rented a farm from the Church in the 1920s, his rent of the farm was not perpetual or inheritable and he didn't have to pay his rent in labor though. Well not directly in labor...
>>970708
PS, Lease of farmland here still carries a mandatory 12 year minimum in which you cannot discontinue the contract barring unforeseen circumstances.
Medieval lease contracts were more or less for life or at least your working life with your sons typically inheriting the contract. This is the essence of serfdom, you had a lease contract you couldn't get out of at will. Of course in many cases a second or third son did not inherit the contract and in some cases this meant he was free to fuck off and go wherever he wanted. In Normandy the perpetual aspect of the contract binding you to the land was done away with around 970 AD. France more or less abolished this in Crown lands around the reign of Phillip the fair, England clung on way longer and I don't believe it was abolished until the 16th century, though the practice already started declining from the Black Death onward.
how about the rise of feudalism in england? were the late saxons truly feudal?
>>970845
Do you mean feudal government structure: King ruling part of his lands directly while letting the rest be managed to noble dukes, counts, earls (his vassals) etc.
or "feudal": Knights, dragons, princesses, serfs and robin hood.
