Have you read the article? I can tell you it's a correct summary of an established views on medieval society, such as it is.
A common misconception is to view medieval serfs, free peasants and wage laborers as "oppressed masses" from a modern perspective, colored with romantic glasses from 19th century tales such as Robin Hood or Ivan Hoe. That's just incorrect.
Sure, there were plenty of peasant revolts (Jacquerie - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie) against the nobility. Both those were generally not against the foundations of the societal system from which manor lords derived their authority, but rather prompted by the precarious living conditions these groups found themselves in.
People didn't revolt because they felt "oppressed or terrorized", they would revolt when they got too hungry or felt unprotected.
The Jacquerie happened against the backdrop of the 100 years war. Warbands consisting of unemployed English, German and Spanish mercenaries roamed the French countryside. French nobility was pretty much powerless to do anything at the time. That's what prompted the lower classes, who felt unprotected, to engage in a violent uprising.
Most of the times, the legal framework which governed the relationship with a manor lord wasn't questioned since that's what provided a sense of stability and order.
Also, the "medieval age" spans 1.000 years if you use commonly accepted termini ab quo / ad quem (476 - 1453). But manorialism itself extended well into the pre-modern age up to the French Revolution and, depending on where you lived, well into the 19th century (Russia, serfdom was abolished in 1861). It certainly wasn't a catch all system: there were many variations and adaptations.
Because the same argument could be made about literally any authority. Whether it's an autocratic rule, a modern democratic state, a feudal lord or a mob boss.
What makes all the difference is how "good" gets defined. You, I and the next person will likely have differing opinions on that. And I'm pretty sure that the medieval precariat and nobility will have an entirely different perspective on that as well.
Medieval times weren't lawless times either. The legal framework at the time was based on customary laws which eventually evolved and coalesced into the formal legal systems we know today. Common Law as it first originated in England is rooted in such customary laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_court
As far as "terror" is concerned: the notion of "human rights" is quite modern and only started to become widespread during the late 18th century. Torture, corporal and capital punishment were par for the course in severe criminal cases.
These weren't times where one enjoyed the same freedoms as one does today either. But that doesn't mean people were constantly and randomly subjected to horrible fates at the slightest perceived transgression either.
Moreover, rather inhumane methods of asserting and delivering justice rooted in Frankish, Germanic, Saxon or Nordic traditions were rooted out rather early. Trial by ordeal was abolished by the Church in the early 13th century, for instance.
As I said, we're discussing over 1.000 years of history. And depending on the time and location, you'd be more or less at risk of finding yourself at the tentative mercy of authority such as it ruled.
Also it's worth pointing out that literacy rates across Europe plummeted as the Roman empire fell apart. I read that even Charlemagne "struggled with his letters".
Feudalism was largely rooted in the Late Roman fiscal system that incentivized industrialized agriculture with large estates and self-sufficient villas in Gaul and Britain. When imperial authority failed they became political forces, and the regional military forces started acting out as peace-breaker and eventually became sovereign polities (the so-called barbarian kingdoms).
Nowadays historians have become increasingly suspicious of Late Roman land-owners, as there are quite a few known cases of families switching from seemingly Latin names to seemingly Germanic ones.
The Medieval castle's just a villa with a military streak. The purpose isn't as much pillaging the direct surroundings as it is to protect your assets from the next land-owner over.
I would also bet that if the peasants had a sufficiently thorough history, they would probably hate first peasants to have entered into serfdom for protection. While that might have seemed like a good idea right after the fall of Rome, it probably looked less good a few centuries later.
I believe the main offering was pain. Submission was a good way to avoid it, and peasants were not stupid enough to pass on it.
On the other hand, our definition makes it look like the relation was consensual, and a good deal for everyone involved.
The purpose of the article, as I read it, is to identify that this claim was written into history by the nobility.
Peasants did not had all that much say in that choice.
And I’m sure the first peasants had some choice. Later ones ... not so much.
Peasants weren't exactly property like for example in the US, but in practice were bought and sold with the land (number of people living on a land was a large part of valuation) and could be mistreated or killed with no legal recourse.
Peasants, as opposed to slaves, were integrated into the civil society, although on very disadvantageous terms. Even on private land, they had their own judicial "councils" (look up 'sąd dominialny'), of course entirely on the mercy of the lord in practice. (There was also the state/crown land with marginally better conditions.)
All this didn't stray qualitatively from the broad Eastern European baseline. A Russian, Prussian or Hungarian noble wouldn't get punished for killing his peasant either, unless he'd seriously screw up his relations with the local regime. A French one pre-1789 would have to play his cards right. PLC got much flak in the period for peasant oppression because 1. it often didn't have raw political power to distract from it 2. there was the perceived hypocrisy in its political system, very loud about liberty, equality etc.
Except as I told, they did not made that choice. People who could raise the castle decided by themselves where they want castles. Castles were military and administrative buildings for actual powers.
You get to rule that land in exchange for set days of military service for king and in exchange of ensuring taxes are collected. Peasants opinions were not important.
> And I’m sure the first peasants had some choice. Later ones ... not so much.
Why are you sure?
Not to mention, (modern) states offer much more than military security. They offer healthcare, food, care for the disabled, infrastructure, education, and many other services. And, especially in smaller nations or at local levels (think town, not US state), there is quite a lot of real democratic power, certainly incomparable to the realities of serfdom.
Okay yeah that’s not de jure feudalism. Inching closer and closer to de facto, though.
Edit: to say this again, because apparently it’s needed. I am not in favor of feudalism.
I disagree. We overestimate the freedom we have and underestimate theirs.
For example they had much more free time than we do today. We on the other hand are still "free" to choose where to work (as long as we aren't in poverty, which is unfortunately untrue for too many, with no prospect of future change), but the workplace is as undemocratic as it gets.
Forget our (tech) golden workplaces. Most people spend 2/3 of their lives in authoritarian workplaces that they can't leave because they need their shit job to survive.
Where is the practical difference with being a serf?
Even in the west, most of us don't live a democracy, except for the minority of their time.
I can’t believe I need to explain this, but democracy is nothing like feudalism.
In all areas they had fewer rights and more obligations than freemen; there’s a reason why being reduced to serfdom was often done out of economic need, and why freedom often had to be bought.
0 - Some types of serfs were literally slaves and could be traded as such. See Russian Kholops.
There are better ways to critique our current system without such hamfisted comparisons.
Of course late feudalism became extra intolerable once kings stopped protecting peasants and started pulling them into new wars instead.