According to R. W. Southern, Medieval serfdom, which we moderns sometimes confuse with slavery, was
According to R. W. Southern, Medieval serfdom, which we moderns sometimes confuse with slavery, was more like a non-compete agreement, except serfdom bound the kids too. Land was plentiful: labourers were comparatively few. The greatest problem for an estate manager was to ensure full cultivation. Landlords were not above competing for labour. The condition of serfdom, though it did not take away a man’s property, prevented him from moving elsewhere. Probably most of those who came into this condition were already working on the land as tenants of the lord to whom they delivered their freedom; henceforth the lord was assured of their continued service—and would pay a price for this assurance. When the employee of a great industrial concern today accepts a substantial sum on condition that he will not move elsewhere, he is doing in a grand way what thousands of men, large and small, were doing in the eleventh century. The modern firm is not interested in securing the services of its tied-man’s children: and for good reason—they might be useless. The less selective eleventh-century landlord thought otherwise: the guarantee of service bound also the serf’s children.The securing of their labour was a vital part of the bargainR.W. Southern. The Making of the Middle Ages -- source link
#rw southern#serfdom#medieval europe#economics