What was socially unjust about the middle ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
What was socially unjust about the middle ages, that is, Christendom?

I know that a lot of people, including me, admire it but I wonder what was wrong about it?
  1. the kings fought the popes too much ( to the point of imprisonment)
  2. feudal society was not able to adequately defend nations against vikings/danes (no professional army).
  3. a temptation to religious intolerance and superstition.
Those are my hypothesis about what was wrong, but I’m sure others have more substantive ones.
 
You’re forgetting that it was also next to impossible for someone to rise up through the social rankings. If you were born a peasant you were subject to be at the service to your liege lord. You had a very low standard of living and very little chance of moving up in society.
 
It would be hard–and inappropriate–to generalize about an era which covered the period between A.D. 476 and A.D. 1453. That’s a long time span, and conditions varied from country to country and from century to century. For a look at the best part of the Middle Ages, one might want to read “The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, by James J. Walsh.”
 
Agree with JimG.
Extremely hard to generalize.
Also there is a tendency to impose our view of “socially just” onto a bygone era and it seems we have enough trouble discerning that for OUR times - let alone times long past.

Having said that, I think that perhaps the biggest problem with “Christendom” was the politicization of the Church hierarchy which resulted in what you refer to in you OP as kings fighting the pope too much. It also resulted in the Pope having to act too much like a secular monarch instead of the spiritual head of the Church.

Peace
James
 
JimG said:
It would be hard–and inappropriate–to generalize about an era which covered the period between A.D. 476 and A.D. 1453. That’s a long time span, and conditions varied from country to country and from century to century. For a look at the best part of the Middle Ages, one might want to read “The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, by James J. Walsh.”
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some times and places were better than others. It’s not really helpful to paint the whole Middle Ages with the same broad brush strokes.
 
freethinker83 said:
You’re forgetting that it was also next to impossible for someone to rise up through the social rankings. If you were born a peasant you were subject to be at the service to your liege lord. You had a very low standard of living and very little chance of moving up in society.
Click to expand...
I Think even this depends on when and where. The social rankings under feudalism were fundamentally military. If you were a valued military man, your ranking could increase. If not, you could descend to the bottom again.

We always think in terms of feudal knights when we think about the military of the time. But for every mounted knight, there was always a group of relatively well-armed commoners. The knight was the “tank” who would break up an enemy’s formations and the ordinary fighters would follow in with sword and axe. Even as a “ground-pounder” there was always the possibility of capturing some wealthy individual from the other side, keeping his valuable trappings and ransoming him, or simply looting the enemy’s territory.

So, some common people did rise through the ranks.

But it also has to be remembered that some of the upper ranks didn’t live too well themselves. Many had nothing but a horse, a suit of armor of indifferent quality, a nasty, dirty, cold and drafty “castle” which might not have been more than a thrown-together minor fort or tower, and a diet that, in the absence of refrigeration, wasn’t a whole lot better than that of the peasants.

On the other hand, there were places like Venice that were mostly industrial/trading cities, and to be a commoner was not to be a peasant but a craftsman or sailor.
 
Socially unjust? Well, if you were a peasant or “low born” you were pretty much forced to live in poverty and filth with virtually no chance of improving your lot in life. No workers comp or benefits. You were to work from sun up to sun down, 6 days a week…breaking only on Sundays IF your land lord was in a good mood. Life was brutish and short for the common man.

As previously stated, the middle ages as a VERY long period of time, so its pretty much impossible to generalize…but the above statements I’ve made were pretty typical in most areas. In terms of Christendom, it was a refuge of sorts for the poor and marginalized, but this was not universal either. In the upper echelons there was plenty of corruption and nepotism among bishops and even the papal court from time to time…but not at all times and all places. These were also very pious times with many holy men and women representing Christ as well. You’d have to get in to particulars if you want to be accurate.

Oh the whole, I would say that Christendom was a positive influence in the middle ages in terms of social justice. Social justice in those days was abhorrent, and the Church was not immune to this characterization. At the same time, it was the only source of charity and refuge for the poor, marginalized, crippled and ill that existed at all in the area for a long, long time.
 
NOTHING! 😃
Compared to the evil that is running a muck in the world now, the so called dark ages
were a time of spiritual enlightenment as Christianity spread, great cathedrals were begun
and some were finished The new world was discovered again, The Holy Roman Catholic in spite of its faults could not stop what Jesus had founded. Sure,🙂 there were plumbing issues,
and Edison had not yet corrupted so many people, as he would one day be able to do:eek:.
But, the church did continue to grow and children continued to be born, and because of the grace of God, you and I are here now, to try our best to carry on…your children, my grandchildren are all here because the human race came through the middle and all other ages, 👍
PAX
MERRY CHRISTMAS
ROESHAMBOW
 
Women certainly were regarded as second-class citizens or less, with no rights and owned by their father, and later their husband. They couldn’t own their own property, their wishes were circumvented by the men in their lives, their medical care was directed by their father/husband, etc. They were regarded as children and baby-makers.

Though, you have to be careful to separate fact from fiction. There’s the thought that women weren’t “allowed” to be educated, and some books and movies portray this notion that women were forbidden to read and write, and that it was even evil for a woman to do so. Of course, that would depend on where one lived. I’m sure it was forbidden in some obscure town. But, as far as I know, generally speaking, and the Church never forbade women from getting an education, or from reading and writing that I know of. Women of nobility, as well as nuns, were afforded an education – so it couldn’t have been forbidden. Education of women was a cost factor, and of course, in the lower classes was considered a waste of time, but surely not forbidden.

Both men and women, as it was mentioned before, were unable to do better for themelves. If they were born into servitude, it was near impossible for them to do better. If they were born poor, it was near impossible for them to earn more money to climb out of poverty. The nobility assured it…
 
Rence said:
Women certainly were regarded as second-class citizens or less, with no rights and owned by their father, and later their husband. They couldn’t own their own property, their wishes were circumvented by the men in their lives, their medical care was directed by their father/husband, etc. They were regarded as children and baby-makers.

Though, you have to be careful to separate fact from fiction. There’s the thought that women weren’t “allowed” to be educated, and some books and movies portray this notion that women were forbidden to read and write, and that it was even evil for a woman to do so. Of course, that would depend on where one lived. I’m sure it was forbidden in some obscure town. But, as far as I know, generally speaking, and the Church never forbade women from getting an education, or from reading and writing that I know of. Women of nobility, as well as nuns, were afforded an education – so it couldn’t have been forbidden. Education of women was a cost factor, and of course, in the lower classes was considered a waste of time, but surely not forbidden.

But it was also possible to circumvent a husband’s acquisition over his wife’s lands, and people did.

Both men and women, as it was mentioned before, were unable to do better for themelves. If they were born into servitude, it was near impossible for them to do better. If they were born poor, it was near impossible for them to earn more money to climb out of poverty. The nobility assured it…
Click to expand...
I agree in part, disagree in part. Again, time and place determined a woman’s status more than gender did. At the worst, medieval womens’ property reverted to their husbands’ control if they married. If they did not marry, it was their own, period. Of course, for a long time and in many places, few people owned land anyway. Theoretically, it all belonged to one’s “liege lord” who, in the final instance, was the king, and everybody else only held land as long as he was able to provide military service to his lord.

But women weren’t as badly off as many think. This is of some interest. medieval-period.com/medievalwomen.html
 
JRKH said:
Agree with JimG.
Extremely hard to generalize.
Also there is a tendency to impose our view of “socially just” onto a bygone era and it seems we have enough trouble discerning that for OUR times - let alone times long past.

Having said that, I think that perhaps the biggest problem with “Christendom” was the politicization of the Church hierarchy which resulted in what you refer to in you OP as kings fighting the pope too much. It also resulted in the Pope having to act too much like a secular monarch instead of the spiritual head of the Church.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Agree with this. 👍👍
 
Rence said:
Women certainly were regarded as second-class citizens or less, with no rights and owned by their father, and later their husband. They couldn’t own their own property, their wishes were circumvented by the men in their lives, their medical care was directed by their father/husband, etc. They were regarded as children and baby-makers.

Though, you have to be careful to separate fact from fiction. There’s the thought that women weren’t “allowed” to be educated, and some books and movies portray this notion that women were forbidden to read and write, and that it was even evil for a woman to do so. Of course, that would depend on where one lived. I’m sure it was forbidden in some obscure town. But, as far as I know, generally speaking, and the Church never forbade women from getting an education, or from reading and writing that I know of. Women of nobility, as well as nuns, were afforded an education – so it couldn’t have been forbidden. Education of women was a cost factor, and of course, in the lower classes was considered a waste of time, but surely not forbidden.

Both men and women, as it was mentioned before, were unable to do better for themelves. If they were born into servitude, it was near impossible for them to do better. If they were born poor, it was near impossible for them to earn more money to climb out of poverty. The nobility assured it…
Click to expand...
Much like women living in the Islamic world today.
Though such ideas about women persisted in the area formerly known as Christendom for much longer than we Westerners like to remember (at least until the early 20th century).
 
Um - the risk of execution for holding particular religious beliefs was certainly a disadvantage, as was the total absence of any concept of human rights, and the need to accept rulers with no right to challenge or change then. Oh, and the power of the church over people’s lives, whether they were believers or not.
 
Well, due to my hobby, my particular interest is the period 1000-1300, sometimes called the High Middle Ages.

During this more specific period in Western Europe I would characterize the rigid stratification of society as unjust.

During this period the different classes were thought to be nearly different “types” of people from one another to the extent that different diet was prescribed for different classes as they believed different classes bodies’ worked differently.

Level of physical attractiveness waere thought to relate with personal virtue for instance disfigurement was thought to be a sign of sin or intemperance.

With the rising authority of the guilds and urban living around 1300 the classes are just beginning to blur a bit.

But, yes, it is hard to generalize, even within this more specific time period.
 
fakename said:
What was socially unjust about the middle ages, that is, Christendom?

I know that a lot of people, including me, admire it but I wonder what was wrong about it?
  1. the kings fought the popes too much ( to the point of imprisonment)
  2. feudal society was not able to adequately defend nations against vikings/danes (no professional army).
  3. a temptation to religious intolerance and superstition.
Those are my hypothesis about what was wrong, but I’m sure others have more substantive ones.
Click to expand...
A lot of things were unjust in medieval times, exactly what differs depending on the place and the century, the middle ages is a period of 1000 years after all. But the middle ages have an undeserved bad reputation so it is important to point out that things were also unjust both before and after this period too. But an example of something socially unjust is the situation of the Serfs, but I bet that the slaves during the antiquity who had to work in the mines would trade their life for the life of a medieval serf anytime.
 
Hello,
In some areas serfs were actually considered part of the land (and not humans). However, if a serf or a slave could escape his master (and avoid the hunters hired to bring him/ her back) for a year and a day, he would change social class to freeman.
 
  1. Because they commonly thought they were the heads of the Church. that was one problem, and I think it is why some bishops were prince-bishops.
  2. Actually, it did quite well at defending each small nation. The problem was a lot of small internal battles. It encouraged class collaboration instead of a class struggle (which is a good thing), but in a bad way (bad thing).
  3. Because the kings thought the people were stupid and wouldn’t know how to defend themselves against heresies, and by persecuting heresies they thought they were doing the Church a favor.
Keep in mind I’m generalizing about a 1000 years.

but, on the positive side of things, the Church was an important part of everyone’s everyday life, there weren’t many people without jobs (although there were many with bad jobs as we all know), and cool cathedrals and castles got built with great architecture. the Cathedrals help you appreciate the treasure of the Church, and the castles are just cool to look at. I’m sure building both of them provided many job opportunities. 😃
 
👍 To The Swiss Guy
The Church buildings are an inspiration to me the society was different than now.
God spread his grace then, as he does now. We all have our troubles now as people had then.
Being an American, I was astonished at these beautiful Cathedrals, so empty of the local folks.
Not to say that our Roman Catholic churches are overflowing here but, there seems to be more
American bodies inside on Sunday at least. I have spent much of time in Europe. I was always struck by this unfortunate impression,
I last left there with in my heart. I do not wish to imply that the wonders of the middle age building in Europe was wasted on a future
population, because I know it was not. To have the gift of faith the Grander of the churches overwhelmed me I also saw many archeology digs
in progress around some of the Cathedrals along with the restoration work in progress.
There seems to be a dark age descending upon America in regards as to what truth is not. I doubt that better masonry skills would help us.
🙂 PAX
ROESHAMBOW
 
Rence said:
If they were born poor, it was near impossible for them to earn more money to climb out of poverty. The nobility assured it…
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. There simply was not enough money to earn. Money was “real specie” ei, gold, silver, copper and bronze. That is a fundamentally limited commodity, and there was only so much in existence in Europe 1000 years ago.

The floating currency dependent on the amount of permissible credit from federal banks and international money houses had not been invented.

But their pennies were worth a penny. Our dollars are intrinsically worthless. When China at last decides to collect the debt, this will become evident.

But people could, and did, improve their standard of living. They could enlarge the house, improve their fields, devise a better method of agricultural production, breed more productive animals.

Westerners have a high standard of living in large measure because of the economic resourcefulness of our medieval forefathers and mothers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top