Something that's fascinated me for as long as I can remember is history and archeology. Our small school didn't offer history as an exam option, so their approach to teaching it was a bit different to most schools and rather than mostly just trying to commit dates to memory we got to hear the stories from Norse and Egyptian mythologies. We covered other topics as well, but those were the ones that captivated me the most.
In my teens I developed an interest in the Tudors, namely Henry VIII and his children. It started with a book about Henry and his wives and while I never committed specific dates to memory, I just knew they lived roughly in the period of 16th century ending early 17th, I did find an urge to commit all his wives names to memory. The first 3 I can recall the easiest, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour. They each had children who went on to reign. Then Anne of Cleves was the political marriage that never really went anywhere. Catherine Howard was the unfortunate cousin of Anne Boleyn and met the same fate as her, then Catherine Parr is the fourth one who sticks in my mind as she practically nursed Henry in his later years and got him to reinstate his daughters to the line of succession.
Recently I've been listening to podcasts on other periods and places in history and what strikes me is that you can learn a lot about human psychology (another topic that fascinates me) from how events have unfolded throughout history, often repeating in different times and places. Empires have risen and fallen countless times and when they fall it's interesting to see how we fall back into communities to support one another. This co-operative nature is not only one of the good aspects of human nature, it's an aspect that has contributed to the survival of the species likely since caveman times.
People develop systems and societies in order to work together on a large scale. Today these systems often get blamed for being detrimental to the common people, whether it's capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy or whatever else is in place somewhere. Yet the irony is that these systems are nearly always started in order to improve life for the majority as a response to a system that has become corrupt. Take, for example, feudalism. It's generally viewed as something better left in the past, but it started out as an opportunity to survive and thrive in Europe as the western Roman empire fell into shambles. It was, in effect, a return to working together in communities when the systems and infrastructure could no longer allow the city dwellers to continue to trade as they once had.
The Roman empire was an impressive and prosperous time, connecting countries and economies together in such a way as to become dependant on one another for certain goods. Both internal and external factors brought it to an end, but many of the external factors likely wouldn't have been too big a problem if not for the corruption within the governing systems.
As the cities became more dangerous places to be even some of the wealthy sold all they owned and took that money to monastic communities where they turned to helping the poor. Local land owners realised that rather than relying on a crumbling empire and it's debased currency they could produce everything they needed on their lands. They invited people to farm the land and the craft men and women to join them to continue to apply their skills while being housed, fed and protected. In return they swore fealty to the lord and gave a contribution/tax. It was a win for everyone involved.
This system worked well and feudalism lasted for centuries. The western Roman empire ended in the mid to late 5th century and feudalism ended around the early 16th century for the most part. Like any system created by people there will come a point where people in the position where they are able to do so will do what they can to benefit themselves to the detriment of the majority who aren't in that position. Over time the serfs working on the land were seen as the property of the land holder, whether it be the lord or the church.
Ironically the periodic plagues and wars of the medieval period keeping populations low are likely what kept the serfs in a good position to negotiate reasonable conditions. It was as the population increased, and with it inflation, that the land owners began to make things more and more intolerable for the serfs. They demanded the same amount in payment, but gave them less land to use so they could put more serfs onto their land, thus increasing the amount of people paying tax in order to keep themselves in the comfortable lifestyles they were accustomed to. They demanded more other work from the peasants, essentially extra jobs or overtime, without any extra compensation. This, among other things, led to increased protests/revolts and ultimately what became known as the peasants' war from 1524-25 in the region that is now Germany.
The circumstances that led to the peasants' war actually remind me a bit of this last 100 years for the developed world. We started out with the depression, lost many lives in the second world war then had lots of growth and rebuilding after the war. Employment was easy to come by because there were more jobs than workers. Women stepped into the workforce to make up the shortages which was a step forward for the emancipation of women, but there was a benefit from a tax revenue income perspective as well. As the population grew there was now a second tax income stream coming in. It also meant that mortgages could now be calculated on two income streams allowing the banks to provide larger mortgage loans which pushed up property prices leading to bigger tax margins on properties.
The baby boomer generation stepped into this employment and growth boom, but as more of them did so and as the rebuilding growth slowed things started to change. Now employers had plenty of workers to choose from, even more so when their children came of working age. Employers could start making more demands of their employees and paying them less because they were easily replaced if they didn't agree to that. As the population continued to grow, so too did inflation and younger generations are coming to resent the generation who seemed to benefit the most from that growth period and blame them for what they see as the decline in their own standard of living. The serfs back in their day would also have seen that decline in their living standards compared to their parents and grandparents, but it was probably easier to see where the immediate blame lay back then.
As I read articles which suggest we need to implement inheritance or death taxes I'm again reminded of the death taxes from these feudal times when widows and their children were often further impoverished after losing their main provider by the lord taking their most valuable item which might have helped them through this period. Some countries already have inheritance taxes, which probably weren't so problematic when the economy was a bit more robust, but when many of the younger generation can't afford to buy a house it feels harsh that they are then forced to sell their parent's home in order to cover taxes when that might have been their only opportunity to have their own home. Still, it's hard to deny we're still far better off today than the serfs would have been 500 years ago, at least as long as our just in time trading systems hold up.
Have you seen similarities from events in history that you think are repeating today?
