To recapitulate, a class of "yeomen", or richer peasants, evolved in England because some members of the English peasantry underwent comparatively short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. As with any sociological classification, the notion of a yeoman-class does traverse several economic definitions. But at least three important identities are useful.
First, a proven and hard-working ploughman was often selected to farm his lord's private land as a capitalist tenant-at-will. Second, many serfs had commuted their obligation to work for several days each month under their lord, by 'swapping' to other forms of payment. By Tudor times, servile dues had almost everywhere been replaced by hard cash-rent. Many peasants then produced enough agricultural …show more content…
Therefore, if called to arms, foreign rustics never had time to acquire the skill to master the taut strings of such a mighty bow. Here was a lesson in social contract. If a nation does not leave space for its working men to grow free and strong, the military will be at a disadvantage when calling upon them in event of war. Nor does the conscripted serf fight so well for a society from which he feels he is denied fullness of political life. Enemy occupation could always prove the better …show more content…
This distinction - which lives on today in such spectacles as the Trooping of the Colours, in London - can similarly be traced to the warfare of the longbow. Medieval European armies employed crossbowmen. The crossbow required time to arm, yet was fairly accurate over short distances. Therefore crossbowmen fired as individuals. The longbow was less accurate. By firing as an individual the longbowman was more likely to miss his target. But if whole "platoons" of English longbowmen fired rapidly as a body, the result was devastating. A blizzard of arrows rained down on the enemy. Theoretically, a body of longbowmen that was 10,000 strong - such as the yeoman armies of Edward I - could loose a million arrows in ten minutes of fighting. To achieve this, coordination was needed amongst the archers to prevent them from wasting arrows. Hence, traditions of organisation and discipline arose amongst England's
First, a proven and hard-working ploughman was often selected to farm his lord's private land as a capitalist tenant-at-will. Second, many serfs had commuted their obligation to work for several days each month under their lord, by 'swapping' to other forms of payment. By Tudor times, servile dues had almost everywhere been replaced by hard cash-rent. Many peasants then produced enough agricultural …show more content…
Therefore, if called to arms, foreign rustics never had time to acquire the skill to master the taut strings of such a mighty bow. Here was a lesson in social contract. If a nation does not leave space for its working men to grow free and strong, the military will be at a disadvantage when calling upon them in event of war. Nor does the conscripted serf fight so well for a society from which he feels he is denied fullness of political life. Enemy occupation could always prove the better …show more content…
This distinction - which lives on today in such spectacles as the Trooping of the Colours, in London - can similarly be traced to the warfare of the longbow. Medieval European armies employed crossbowmen. The crossbow required time to arm, yet was fairly accurate over short distances. Therefore crossbowmen fired as individuals. The longbow was less accurate. By firing as an individual the longbowman was more likely to miss his target. But if whole "platoons" of English longbowmen fired rapidly as a body, the result was devastating. A blizzard of arrows rained down on the enemy. Theoretically, a body of longbowmen that was 10,000 strong - such as the yeoman armies of Edward I - could loose a million arrows in ten minutes of fighting. To achieve this, coordination was needed amongst the archers to prevent them from wasting arrows. Hence, traditions of organisation and discipline arose amongst England's