What was the British class system all about ?

[DarkAngelBGE]

What classes are there and why ?

[Klaas]

I'm not really familiar with this, so you'll get the correct answer from Matteo

What I think is that it's a feudal society, though different compared to the French, German or Italian.

Basicly you have three classes:

nobility, religious and worker's class (the common people).

The king is the most powerful person (well it's argueable in some cases). He basicly owns all the land, and gives it in loan to the lords (dukes, counts, barons). There's also land in the hands of the Catholic Church, which is in most cases not owned by the king (that changed after the reign of Henry VIII).

Going a step lower than the king: the dukes, counts and barons:

They don't really own the land but received it in loan from the king. That's how the system works in theory, in reality powerful dukes and counts could do with their land what they wanted and ruled over it like monarchs.

The common people living on that land (farmers) worked on it. A percentage they had to give to their lord, in some cases they were just slaves, the only thing they owned was their body. I'm not sure, but I've read somewhere that the king had his own tax inners who traveled through the land at some point.

I don't know if it was the case in Britain, but in the Low Countries the peasants had to pay a percantage to the Church too (differs from region to region and time to time).

The lords (this is the difference with France) could also have a seat in the House of Lords, a parliament which advices the king. So you could speak of a partially democracy, although it was only reserved to the nobility and the king still had a lot to say.

Why there is such a class system is a very long story. It originated from the Germanic tribes, and was influenced by Roman centralisation. The origins of nobility is some kind of body guards of their lord. So it was an exclusively military class, reserved for those who fought best.

Later on, during the early Medieval period, the feudal society developed from this system. For the military help and courage a person gave to his king he would receive land in loan. In return he had to give military help to the king.

So, basicly the reason why there was such a class system is evolution. The reason for such an evolution is of course finding a good way that the king can rule his country. It was needed to divide the country like that, because it was impossible to control everything like for example the Romans did; there was no real centralization.

[DarkAngelBGE]

Could one say that the Norman Conquest was the beginning of the British class system ?

[DarkAngelBGE]

Or better yet Feudalism ? He brought his nobles (William) from Normandy and gave them land. Feudalism started and there were these "serfs" working on the land of the nobles. So we have the classes already there.

So maybe feudalism is the beginning of the class system?

[Klaas]

No, it's the other way around: the class system is the beginning of feudalism, in particular the Germanic class system.

In the classical Germanic societies you can't speak of kings or real nobility as we know it now. Essential to know is that Germanics did not live in towns; they built farms or houses spread over big areas. Exeptions are for example the Goths who were semi-nomads and did build some towns, but that's another discussion (who were the Germanics, how do you define a Germanic people, etc.)

So, the Germanics did not have kings, since it's quite impossible to have a policy of centralisation if people are spread over a huge area without any big concentrations of houses. However, in times of war, several tribes formed alliances and a leader was chosen for such an alliance.

During the time of the Germanic migration such alliances were formed too. The difference here is that the political structure stayed after the migration, so the king remained as the leader.

Also, in classical Germanic society, those who fought also had most political power. This system remained after the fall of the Roman Empire, so those who fought best became nobles.

This system was brought to Britain by the Anglo-Saxons (which was also an alliance of several Germanic tribes). So, this the class system in its most primitive form was aready there, before the Normans conquered the island.

The Normans originate from Scandinavia. They got Normandy in loan from the French king. So, they also were a Germanic people (Scandinavians were Germanics too), though you can't compare the Scaninavian class system to the classical Germanic society, but rather to the post-migration society (kings and military nobility).

The Normans took over the feudal system (this system originates basicly from the Frankish empire), and brought it to Britain.

So conclusion: the Normans imported the feudal system (as Matteo previously stated), but the basic class system was already there.

btw, you also have to keep in mind that the Celts also had a similar class system. In fact you'll find this back in most more advanced civilisations.

[rohirwine]

Sidenote: after the stabilization of the Norman reign, new classes emerged from the towns. The bugeoises. Not intended in the modern sense, they were free people, who quite often were free from feudal obliges (but owed a tribute and some form of military service to the king) and practiced artisan activities. Not much important in the beginning, but with a growing influence over the years.

Nice summing up Klaas!

[Klaas]

Thx Matteo

Yep, Flanders went through the same evolution, although a bit earlier (late 11th century). The cities of Bruges and Ghent were the most powerful (Ghent being the largest north-European city apart from Paris). The people in the towns had other and a lot more rights than the peasants, and were mostly artisans (especially in the cloth industry). This is mainly reflected by all the belfries that have been built here (unique to the southern Netherlands), which symbolise the power of the people and were the home of the charters on which their privilidges were written.

The French king Filips tried to break the power of those cities in 1302, but his huge army for that time was defeated by a smaller army of peasants and artisans; known as the Battle of the Golden Spurs.

[rohirwine]

The French king Filips tried to break the power of those cities in 1302, but his huge army for that time was defeated by a smaller army of peasants and artisans; known as the Battle of the Golden Spurs.

Well said, the battle was so called because the Flemish captured (or pillaged, form the deads) so many spurs that they had them hung in a cathedral (Burge's or Ghent's one?, can't remember).

According to Kelly DeVries's Infantry warfare in the early XIV cent. (who treated also other battles like Arcs, Bannockburn or Halidon Hill), the Flemish won because they prepared the field, stayed firm and compact against the cavalry charge, and because the french did not recognize the danger of retreating in a terrain crossed by dikes, and trenches purposedly excavated by the Flemish. Basically, after the first wave was blocked, the second wave charged in without letting their comrades to retreat, thus ending in a total chaos and loosing the momentum...

...it seems that after that (and some other victories achieved in the same manner) the Flemish did not realize exactly that to stop a cavalry charge, things had to be arranged in the same way, and subsequently lost some important if not decisive fights.