Challenge: European caste system
- Thread starter Richard V
- Start date
The Germanic peoples of the migration period seemed to have a three tiered society, made up of a warrior elite, a secondary stratum of semi-free soldiers, and below them slaves. You could perhaps elaborate on this...?
It's not really the case. Every freeman was supposed to be in arms (critically during Migration Period, where german people were basically walking armies), being actually the very definition of free at this point (you had enslaved or semi-free peoples in fight, especially in Spain, but it's a bit particular : they were considered as part of the house of the freeman)
And while it didn't covered roman population in the first part of germanic establishments in Romania, it did eventually when both populations mixed up.
Futhermore, being a really proteiform and "open" group, when it comes to integration, I would tend to consider it as an anti-thesis of caste.
A first question would be about the existance of a rigid class system in India to begin with. For little I know on the subject, it's seem that British rule may have participated to a (already existing?) tendency to fossilisation and rigidification of a system that may have been more liberal before.
Assuming it was a ultra-stratified system before, the only equivalence I could find in Europe would be groups as Lepers and their descendents (as Cagots) where endogamy and many taboos and interdictions prevented them to mix with other social groups, eventually quite close to Pariah.
Morty Vicar
Banned
It's a hard one with the Romans, part of the reason for their success is the fact that they assimilated cultures easily, basically anyone who was conquered very quickly became the next Roman legion. I suppose you could apply a warrior caste thing, so that they can still recruit their armies, they could be more warlike and less democratic. But in the long term it's going to cause some unrest in the Empire. A lot of cultures accepted Roman Occupation because it actually made their lives better (as they say in the Life of Brian, what have the Romans ever done for us, except the roads, schools, literacy..). If they experrience an early equivalent of serfdom then you'll probably have an earlier peasants revolt, and the Roman Empire in the OTL had enough problems with revolts as it was.
How about if at a later stage, once the Empire was basically established, it makes it as far as India, never splits, and in a vaguely similar way to OTL christianity, they adopt Hinduism, and it spreads across Europe? After the fall into the 'dark ages' the OTL feudal system is compounded by the notions of caste, and survives for much longer.
Flocculencio
Donor
But even the Hindu caste system itself varied hugely from place to place and time to time- a system as rigid as what the stereotypical view of the Hindu caste system is wouldn't be particularly stable.
Doesn't the estate system of Medieval Europe accomplish this in all but name? We know, of course, how that fell.
No, as for Migration Period situation, it's not the case.
First, estates system isn't rigid and passing from an estate to another is relativly current.
Nobles going commoners, serves going clerics, free peasants turning into knights, bourgeois families going noble, etc.
Medieval estates was far too open to be considered as such.
Then, you don't have the religious undertones of class system. While upper class saw in their position sort of divine approval, it was never really understood as "God's will" entierly but rather as a mandate that could be lost.
Furthermore, religious and clerical features were probably the best way to move socially speaking : some important clerics and abbots were descendents of serves. And without going that way, it's important to notice that the first wave of serves liberation was issued by clercs trough, for exemple, salvetats.
Finally, endogamy was far less systematical. It's why your average Westerner have really good chances to have kings as ancestors (your servitor there while descending directly from a line of Montagne Noire peasants, have several Capetians, Carolingians, Visigoths, Umayyads, etc. as far ancestors and that's the most current case)
Again, at the exception of Lepers or Lepers-issued groups (as Cagots) that could probably be compared to Pariahs, I don't know of something really equivalent for the all system (and that's assuming that Indian caste system was as rigid that it was depicted by British rulers, and that they didn't actually rigidified it)
Could a caste system evolve with a permanent divide between the patrician/plebeian/freed slave/slave populations? The Romans also granted citizenship to conquered people, could this not evolve into a multi-class citizenship where new citizens have a lower status than those who trace their roots to Roman core territories?
Can't we use the medieval situation as a proto-caste system, that would during the middleages (and after) slowly grow into a more Indian like caste system?
That said, assuming we could, it would still not work with the original post, that wanted a Roman caste system.
OTL it almost happened (theoretically if not in practice) at least in France when around the An Mil several theologians, specially the bishops Gerard of Cambrai and Adalberon of Laon, resurrected the 3 'functional' classes of the Gallic society described by Caesar (druids, 'knights' / noble warriors, freemen, closely corresponding to the brahmins, kshatriyas and vaishyas) as the 3 'orders' structuring the society: Orantes, Pugnantes, Laborantes: 'those who pray', 'those who fight', 'those who work' (Duby, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined). While romanization had erased the 'trifunctional' division of the society -priesthood being in Rome just a step in the political career, and citizenship & military service being the 2 sides of the same coin- christianization (emergence of a sacertodal class isolated by taboos on meat, on sex...) and the invasions (creating a warrior aristocracy) potentially reintroduced it. There was a 4th category of those living 'outside the society' (the Jews & later the Roms, the various 'outlaws': escaped serfs, marauding deserters...) of 'untouchable'. As an ideological framework the 3 'orders' were quite influential, still defining in 1789 the electoral colleges of the Etats Généraux.
But in practice several factors prevented them from turning into closed castes -factors that have to be eliminated to answer the 'challenge' of the OP.
Chastity prevented the clergy to turn into an hereditary caste (and, while bishops and abbots were born in the nobility, most of lower and regular clergies were recruited in the working class). I'm not familiar with the history of Eastern European societies, but I'm not under the impression that where priests are allowed to marry clergy tends to become a closed caste?
There was a lot of social mobility within and through the military class. The archetypical warrior was the miles / man-at-arms / knight, wealthy enough to own a war horse and a full suit of armour. Battle reports and chansons de geste mention almost only the deeds of the 'noble' knights, but actually the majority of the soldiery was made of servientes, 'sergeants', either hired men of the knight's 'lance' or members of a mercenary company, serving as infantry (or poorly armoured cavalry riding cheap horses). Now any sergeant successful (and thus wealthy) enough to obtain a war horse and a full suit of armour in practice became a man-at-arms. Of course the majority of the soldiers would remain commoners, but it's only in the 18th C., when its privileges were threatened in the civilain world by the bourgeoisie, that nobility really fought to have a monopoly on the officers corps. How could warrior nobility be turned into a closed hereditary caste?
But in practice several factors prevented them from turning into closed castes -factors that have to be eliminated to answer the 'challenge' of the OP.
Chastity prevented the clergy to turn into an hereditary caste (and, while bishops and abbots were born in the nobility, most of lower and regular clergies were recruited in the working class). I'm not familiar with the history of Eastern European societies, but I'm not under the impression that where priests are allowed to marry clergy tends to become a closed caste?
There was a lot of social mobility within and through the military class. The archetypical warrior was the miles / man-at-arms / knight, wealthy enough to own a war horse and a full suit of armour. Battle reports and chansons de geste mention almost only the deeds of the 'noble' knights, but actually the majority of the soldiery was made of servientes, 'sergeants', either hired men of the knight's 'lance' or members of a mercenary company, serving as infantry (or poorly armoured cavalry riding cheap horses). Now any sergeant successful (and thus wealthy) enough to obtain a war horse and a full suit of armour in practice became a man-at-arms. Of course the majority of the soldiers would remain commoners, but it's only in the 18th C., when its privileges were threatened in the civilain world by the bourgeoisie, that nobility really fought to have a monopoly on the officers corps. How could warrior nobility be turned into a closed hereditary caste?
I doubt it : feudality social division was build on social mobility originally. Knights being issued from peasantry, social concurrence passing trough liberation of serves, inclusion of bourgeoisie, warring elite replacing landed elite, etc.
Basically, with a social rigidification, you won't probably have a feudal society to speak of.
1) Again, the division in three orders wasn't comparable to Indian.
I happen to own the book you quote, and there is the translation of the part were Duby mentionds that.
Page 14, P.U.F. edition.
You would argue that it's the proposition of Loyseau, at the end of Middle Ages rather than XIth. While Duby notices that it's in the continuity of Aldébaron and Gérard, granted.
But first some reflections.
What do we have there?
- A social division that is not rigidified, but mobile. We have enough medieval exemple of people going from an estate to another to support that.
- A social division where women doesn't fully belong. They do transmit a social link but far less than in previous times (The most obvious legacy would be the transmission of free or servile characteristic to its children rather than trough the husband).
An important part of the caste system is the more or less important endogamy. You can have a real endogamy when women aren't really considered part of a social group to begin with.
- A text written down by a cleric, pointing out that the most perfect role is the religious function? I'm truly shocked by the revelation. Remember that all these texts were written by people that had not only all the interest to put their functions at pinnacle, but were ideologically prone to genuinly consider as such.
At some point, you may wonder if it was really a social treaty, or more of a wishful thinking.
- Of course, the most obvious, the social mobility through the trifunctionality, that existed as well in Gallic society (Druids being from differents social orders before reaching their functon).
I would use that by pointing that, nowhere, Duby said the trifunctional model is only Gallic and foreign to Rome : the author mentions regularly Dumézil (up to the "trifunctional model" that is a dumezilian formulation) and does'nt go against the main point of Dumézil that is about an Indo-European social division.
So let's see other texts, some being mentioned in the very same book you quote.
There, nothing about the absence and impossiblity to change, but about an augustinian conception of the world's ordering. There's groups and functions that are established from all eternity, and the world should reflect that to be in cunjunction with God.
Now, let's see Adalbéron's poem directly. You'll excuse me to not translate it entierly, it's a relativly long text.
First, what does the bishop say? That the orders aren't respected.
When you begin a treaty about social order, by saying social order isn't respected in first place, you have to wonder how much the following isn't wishful thinking.
I won't translate all this passage, but roughly : he complains that monks go to battle, have spouses, etc. Basically that orders aren't cloistered.
It gets better, as the whole text must be understood as part of a fight against Clunisian order. You probably remember the passage with the man sent to Cluny as monk, and coming back as a soldier, swaring by Jupiter and Mars, despising the bishop and social order?
What's even funnier is that Cluny was what was dynamic then, supported by southern and northern nobility in search of spiritual needs.
Even in religious function, Adalbéron wasn't followed. At this point the credibily of the text as a dominant treaty of social order is really duvbious. (It doesn't help the whole poem is a discussion with Robert II that is hostile, if not more, to Adalbéron's ideas).
Let's take a look at how he descibes the orders.
Even inside orders, the social stratification along Adalbéron isn't really rigid.
Nowhere in the text is made an allusion on how all of that is inherited, or should be inherited automatically. The main accusation is about people unworthy of religious charges (again, it have to be understood as a problem with religious changes in XI, and not a genuine attempt to describe society) still have them.
So, I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see if you read both Duby's book and Adalbéron's poem how you can consider even a theoritical "quasi-caste" system in the XIth century.
Not that the text, and others, didn't were used later by a far more powerful royalty to promote its own views (organising society along fully hierarchical, while not endogamic/cloistered) is a thing. But that's happen in the XIIIth century, and the conceptions more used as a, to quote Duby, "ideal" than actual social reality.
Trifunctionality is present in classical Rome (I won't go into pre-classical Rome, that Dumézil analysed)
The equivalence, up to Caracalla, between citizen and soldier (citizenship being mandatory to have a right to rule or at least acceed honors or being considered honestior) point out that. The warrior function was the marker of the freeman, as in germanic or greek society (while, of course, in a different manner)
As for piresthood, I wholly disagree it was only a career path.
Look at the flamines taboos that are quite similar to other IE (or IE-zed) priesthood : not carrying weapons, special clothes, food taboos, and that's only for the "regular" flamine. Higher you get, more taboos there were.
It only gave up sacerdotal function with the rise of christianism, putting flamines into a strictly civilian role.
The isolation of priesthood on taboos is far earlier than christianism, and dare I say, Christian sacerdotal class taboos were far less important than their predecessors, being open to all social classes being an important factor there.
Not the case : conversions, or even geographical displacement allowed them to enter fully in medieval society.
And the characterisation of Jews, Heretical and such as wholly distinct and outside the society dates, roughly, from Lateran Council in 1215. Before that (while declining), the presence of Jews along Christian (and even inside Christian) society is well attested (as in the absence of cloistered Jewish neighbourhoods before the XIIth century in the north of Europe, later for the south).
The only real "untouchable" groups in Europe are Lepers or groups tought as descendents of Lepers and inheriting their disease (as Cagots). These groups weren't defined religiously or ethnically, but by an inner impurity (making them closer to pariah that groups you mention ever were).
Dirk
Banned
Interesting and compelling, but the Black Death and other devastating plagues would certainly have to be butterflied away. Oh, and what the traitor Catilina said.
p)
no the reason for the indian caste sytem was the fusion of the existing tribal structures and divisions in India with the three tiered indo european system. All indo european societies and Indo Iranian societies like the indo aryans had a warrior, priest, and worker class. in fact not just indo european societies but the egyptions too had such a class structue as did most ancient societies. Though because many of these societies lacked the existing tribal structures the caste sytem as in India did not develop. Even then it was difficult for say a farmer to become a scribe in ancient egyp or a slave become pharaoh tbh.
Finnally the aryans did not conquer anything. Its already been poven that geographical and climate change stuck the region duing the 2000-1800 b.c.e period which caused a mass migation of peoples. That was all, the
previous harrapan society collapsed because they relied on the irrigation and special climate conditions in the region before 2000 b,c,e, when that changed their society collapsed. In the collapse of the society you had the indo aryans migrating in and mixing with the local populace foming allainces etc. It would all culminate into the war beetneen Iranian pandavas who would migrate too south India and adopt the local customs and cultures allying with a yadava tribe in Gujarat to defeat an allaince of Noth indian kingdoms lead by the Kurus. And late having th upper classes decide to keep thei hold on power by cpnvincing the priets though donations etc to wite books such as tghe manusmiti. After all a temple needs money to un, and where does it get money from patronage and so you could say the upper classes and piests were in "bed" with each other keeping the sytem goign since it benefitted both groups and the priests could raise funds for their temples.
Anyway on the topic at hand, the best way for a european caste system would be for the aristocats to gain even moe power OTL for example in Byzantium only nobles by the 10th century were allowed to become generals and a concept was developing especially among the landed aristocacy of a sense that commoners had no right to be in positions of impotance. As for churches if one looks at the way the bishops and cardinals were appointed the vast majority came from well known families. True there were exceptions but that was that exceptions jst like in India you had exceptions to the caste rule even duing the puranic era.
Thus if you can get a landed aistocracy to view itself as being sepate from commoners and not mixing with them, a religous class that becomes even moe strict in who can each the higher anks then I see no eason why a caste system type structure could develop. Though with plagues and diseases it seems highly unlikely. After all onc industrization hits the days of the landed aristocrats are numbered.
Trifunctionality is more than just a social stratification in three class (with enough twist, you could argue that trifunctionality can be found everywhere, a classical strawman argument about it).
What's included is the ideological and social meaning of these functions, an important difference being the association between sovereignty and priestly roles, for exemple, while it is associated in other cultures with production and its redistribution.
Another important difference is the recurrent and global importance of this tri-function in most IE cultures (not all, granted : Greeks, for exemple, were quite particular on it while it seems that mycenian culture was more close of it, and Homeric texts are still interesting on this regard while mixed with other influences). The regular occurence of tripartie division of the society but also universe isn't found as easily elsewhere (you have exceptions, of course, as Japan) up to litterary tropes (as use of three qualificatives for a God, etc.)
I'm not a specialist of Indian history, far from it, but how does it prooves the absence of violent conquest at least partially (and as first cause of IEisation of North India?)
I think the rigidification of tri-functionality ask for several conditions.
- Clear identitary opposition between IE peoples and natives. What maybe had happened in India was the more difficult absorbtion of native people, already having an organised and stratified society, leading to this organisation (that didn't appeared overnight, and seems to have rigidified itself most recently)
- Clear social domination of an IE or IE-zed elite. Places as Greece were probably quite importantly influenced by africans (egyptians, but not only), asiatic (phenician, for exemple or mesopotamian trough Hittits) features, partially explaining their particularism.
I would tend to think that an IE conquest of Mesopotamia or even Egypt (it may be quite hard if possible at all, better ask NikoZate about it) could have lead to a caste system.
But due to the absence of such in Europe, you'll need first a cultural developement of pre-IE peoples (something that could butterfly IE invasions as they happened).
It mainly disproves violent conquest because of the situation. Throughout the rgveda the wars against the dasas by the indra worshipers are acctually inter feuds. You see evidence is present that the dasyus of the rgveda were smply the varuna water worshippers or asvin worshipers who arrived earlier than the rgvedic aryans into the region and integrated with the society. thus I am not saying their was no conflict just that it was on the scale of skirmishes or inter religious rivalry. Thus while conflict existed within the IE groups in india, their wasn't as much conflict with outside non IE groups unless some some of those non IE groups began supporting one group over the other.
By the time the indo aryans arrived in the more agriculturalist and heavily populated east you see them beginning to adopt local traditions and cultures and even their previous beliefs start to change after all how was it that the linga which was viewed as not vedic in the rgveda became the symbol for shiva or the whole use of the fish symbol with vishnu and his later stories that are derived from many dravidian beliefs.
Basically all im saying is that it was not an imposition of one culture onto another rather it was an absorption by one culture of the other and the fusion that occurred due to this mixture gave rise to the caste system and etc as we know it.
It fits completely with the nomadic-agriculutral model akin to how most nomadic groups from the saka-the early germanic tribes-slavs-magyars-etc settle down and adopt most of the local traditions. The vedic nomads were no different. The difference was that the area they controlled at the start was very depopulated and so it wasnt till they started moving east that influences from the agricultural locals began to seep in.
As for your thoughts on caste I believe those to be quite valid honestly. It would explain a lot as to why the hellenics, hittites, iranians, and indo aryans were so particularism about their own cultures..
By the way their was IE colonization of mespotamia the Mittani were an indo aryan group that ruled over the local hurrians though evidence of a caste system was not present. Thus its very strange really how only in India did the caste system begin developing and that while the IE were a small cause their must have been other factors because by the latter period when christians and muslims moved in they too adopted the caste system. Heck the buddhists in India folowed aste as well.
After all if caste system orignated with the indo aryans shouldnt the mittani have praticed a form of it. They did rule the region for many centuries? But they didnt and only in India was the caste system mainly practiced.
Though why the jains didnt im not very sure.Howeverr i think your on to something about the absorption and rigidity.
libbrit
Banned
Europe wide, im not sure, but England/Britain wise, start with the Norman conquest.
Top caste. Royal family/blood royal
Below that. Norman aristocracy and their descendants
Below that. Anglo saxon/ celtic aristocracy(well, that which survives the conquest, which isn't much).
Below that. Norman Merchant class.
Below that. Anglo Saxon/Celtic merchant class
Below that. Norman descended peasantry
Below that. Anglo Saxon peasantry
Below that. Welsh/ Irish peasantry (once the Normans push into Wales and Ireland)
Enforce it via such practice that DID happen in OTL. Laws on who could eat what, wear what, buy what, be in certain places at certain times. Add a religious element too. Only the Norman caste, at least to start with, can drink the wine at communion etc
Top caste. Royal family/blood royal
Below that. Norman aristocracy and their descendants
Below that. Anglo saxon/ celtic aristocracy(well, that which survives the conquest, which isn't much).
Below that. Norman Merchant class.
Below that. Anglo Saxon/Celtic merchant class
Below that. Norman descended peasantry
Below that. Anglo Saxon peasantry
Below that. Welsh/ Irish peasantry (once the Normans push into Wales and Ireland)
Enforce it via such practice that DID happen in OTL. Laws on who could eat what, wear what, buy what, be in certain places at certain times. Add a religious element too. Only the Norman caste, at least to start with, can drink the wine at communion etc
It didn't worked like that.
First, you had too far social mobility (even while medieval England knew quite a very hierarchised and cofidied feudality compared to continental ones) to call it a caste system, where social conservatism and edogamy are supposed not only to be majoritary but the written down rule.
The very existance of the clergy (both secular and regular) enters in contradiction with a caste conception, as whatever lavoratores or bellatores were supposed to become such, but as it was the only way to make it a thing in first place.
You simply can't have a caste system where one of the main parts of the society can't be self-perpetuating.
It doesn't help either that serfdom virtually disappeared by the XIVth century in England (roughly 75 years after it did in main part of France). One of the tools used to point this social mobility is the study of Normans and Saxon names.
As for ethnical division of nobility, indeed Normans monopolised the aristocratic nobility (while it's far less certain for the lower range) but it doesn't mean they kept themselves virgins of all mixing (Yes, I know, these were rants against it : but the simple fact they existed point that the situation they condamned did as well, and this sort of things, you had similar after the Albigensian Crusaded, was very badly applied, if at all).
It's why you see groups as Hiberno-Normans or Cambrio-Normans.
Eventually the very same process happened with England's Normans, even if they did kept a large part of identifying features as languages, to counter with their extreme minority (less than one percent of the population).
There was so much an interdiction about marrying other "ethnies" that Henry I married a descendent of Saxon kings.
Eventually the social rise of knights, that I mentioned above, are essentially coming from non-noble peasantry, happened as well in medieval England and in the same time than in continental Europe.
Even if such system existed in medieval England, and it didn't, you would still have to deal with continental influence that was huge (critically with a good part of Norman peerage having holdings in France as well) that would eventually really challenge it.
The simple fact Normans tried to set up an ideal feudal system, that didn't existed per se in continental Europe, with all its conceptions doesn't help to create a caste system.
Last edited:
But again, it doesn't proove the absence of violent conquest. Let's take the exemple of European Early Middle Ages. That Franks did eventually fused with Gallo-Roman populations, mixing cultural perceptions doesn't means that Franks didn't conquered Gaul in first place.
We tried to discuss it a bit there.
I think most people interested on the subject on this board agree that the previous model is outdated, but we shall see considered that IE peoples seems to had access to more warfare technology, and eventually more war-like.
Acculturation doesn't happen only by geographical proximity, but often by domination. Either military, economical, etc. (And giving the state of advencement of India, even in crisis, I would bet on the latter at least partially).
North Mesopotamia was a bit backwards when it comes to the mesopotamian civilisation, with less take on urban and palatial features (while it did existed) and the tribal structure of Amorites may have made the difference there.
Now, giving the IE superstrate over Hurrites, and considering that caste system in India didn't happened overnight, but was the result of a relativly slow fusion, I think we still have something that while distinct from what existed in northern India, could be compared to.
It would be really interesting to have a Mitanni survives (probably without Assyria, safe as vassal) TL. World would be eventually unrecognizable, but...
Last edited: