Ten Minute English and British History #14 - Richard II, The Black Death and the Peasants' Revolt
video description
Serfs couldn't leave their lands without special exception (which was basically never granted. They couldn't marry outside of their class and the only pathway out of an endless toil in the fields for your entire life and the lifetimes of your children and children's children was an extremely low chance possibility that still always sucked. If you were a woman, a noble might rape you and then have a succession crisis such that your kid is the only heir and thus bring his mother up with them when they inherited noble lands. If a man, then you could get pressed into war service, figure out how to not die, somehow turn out to be an excellent warrior despite not being trained your whole life for war like a noble would have been, then perform beyond admirably in the field of battle, so much so you end up knighted during the war. That might elevate you into a landless knight status, which if you then played politics really well despite having limited to no education, you could maybe marry into a family of minor nobility, but more likely you'd just become a mercenary and spent the rest of your life at war until you died.
So yeah. It's land-based slavery with a shitty lottery ticket escape clause.
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 12
James
Serfs were not slaves, they didn't cost anything and replaced themselves so you didn't have to feed them. Slaves had value but if what they were doing was profitable enough it might be reasonable to just work them until they died and get new ones. Some had much more value than others and of course were treated better but they were still slaves but they had a much better chance of getting free. Serfs could only work on a lord's land, not much chance of advancement. If the lord went to war serfs could be taken along to do any work that didn't include killing people. When 2 lords decided to fight and one hid in his castle a favorite tactic for the other was to kill serfs until the first lord saw reason. Generally you just stole slaves and if some had been your people you could set them free, win/win.
reply
Serfs were not slaves, they didn't cost anything and replaced themselves so you didn't have to feed them. Slaves had value but if what they were doing was profitable enough it might be reasonable to just work them until they died and get new ones. Some had much more value than others and of course were treated better but they were still slaves but they had a much better chance of getting free. Serfs could only work on a lord's land, not much chance of advancement. If the lord went to war serfs could be taken along to do any work that didn't include killing people. When 2 lords decided to fight and one hid in his castle a favorite tactic for the other was to kill serfs until the first lord saw reason. Generally you just stole slaves and if some had been your people you could set them free, win/win.
reply
Just
Henry mightve burned the Lollards, but Wycliffes writing were able to reach Bohemia where a man by the name of Jan Hus who gained such notoriety that he was condemned and burned at the Council of Constanze. At the same time, Wycliffes bones were exhumed and also burned. 102 years later, a man by the name of Martin Luther followed Huss example and began to teach the plain truth of Scripture in opposition to the one that he and his predecessors called the antichrist.
reply
Henry mightve burned the Lollards, but Wycliffes writing were able to reach Bohemia where a man by the name of Jan Hus who gained such notoriety that he was condemned and burned at the Council of Constanze. At the same time, Wycliffes bones were exhumed and also burned. 102 years later, a man by the name of Martin Luther followed Huss example and began to teach the plain truth of Scripture in opposition to the one that he and his predecessors called the antichrist.
reply
history_matters
Serfdom has always been in that weird category of slavery and not slavery at the same time. Serfdom was a form of forced labor, but Serfs weren't property (albeit a low class member of society. If I'm not mistaken, you were tied to the land in Serfdom whereas a slave was tied to his or her owner. Make no mistake, both were forms of forced labor, but being a Serf was a little bit ahead of being a slave.
reply
Serfdom has always been in that weird category of slavery and not slavery at the same time. Serfdom was a form of forced labor, but Serfs weren't property (albeit a low class member of society. If I'm not mistaken, you were tied to the land in Serfdom whereas a slave was tied to his or her owner. Make no mistake, both were forms of forced labor, but being a Serf was a little bit ahead of being a slave.
reply
Andrew
Ok. Ok. I found the pattern: be born King with jealous peers. Provoke jealousies, wars, heirs and suppression to create enough friends (enemies of enemies) to keep doing that for long enough for enough friends of enemies to support your heir. Repeat for 800 years.
reply
Ok. Ok. I found the pattern: be born King with jealous peers. Provoke jealousies, wars, heirs and suppression to create enough friends (enemies of enemies) to keep doing that for long enough for enough friends of enemies to support your heir. Repeat for 800 years.
reply
Paul
The supposed difference between slaves and serfs is so neglegible as to be non existent. More European arrogance and pride so they can convince themselves and others that there were no slaves in Europe.
reply
The supposed difference between slaves and serfs is so neglegible as to be non existent. More European arrogance and pride so they can convince themselves and others that there were no slaves in Europe.
reply
Anon
Serfs were not slaves? They didn't have freedom of movement. They didn't have voting rights. They couldn't inherit.
Sounds like slavery to me.
reply
Serfs were not slaves? They didn't have freedom of movement. They didn't have voting rights. They couldn't inherit.
Sounds like slavery to me.
reply
Chakraborty
Never laugh out so early in a video like this one when Edward the second appears with a puppy face and the banner everything's terrible
reply
Never laugh out so early in a video like this one when Edward the second appears with a puppy face and the banner everything's terrible
reply
FutbolVinotinto21
Anytime I see one of the characters on screen walking but slowing down, I am 99% sure they're about to kick the bucket
reply
Anytime I see one of the characters on screen walking but slowing down, I am 99% sure they're about to kick the bucket
reply
intergalactic92
Mysterious? Wasnt Edward II to one who had the red hot poker shoved up his Or is that yet another Shakespeareism?
reply
Mysterious? Wasnt Edward II to one who had the red hot poker shoved up his Or is that yet another Shakespeareism?
reply
why
i laughed so hard at the scottish thought it was punnishing the english so raided some villages and then they got the plague
reply
i laughed so hard at the scottish thought it was punnishing the english so raided some villages and then they got the plague
reply
jigi
1326: one more French invasion changing the reigning English king I did not hear about (beside 1470 and 1485)
reply
1326: one more French invasion changing the reigning English king I did not hear about (beside 1470 and 1485)
reply
Ragael
So with Edward now in charge, he did the only thing fitting an english king: Invade Scotland. Bwahahahahaha
reply
So with Edward now in charge, he did the only thing fitting an english king: Invade Scotland. Bwahahahahaha
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
10:0
10:0
