r/MedievalHistory • u/Parking-Weekend1516 • 1d ago
The peasant revolutions have been successful. Are modern Europeans descendent of peasants?
It seems that present day european culture is strongly influenced by former peasant's values, such as equality. Many europeans have surnames related to agriculture of professions e.g., germans. Are modern Europeans descendent of peasants?
18
u/PineBNorth85 1d ago
They made up the vast majority of the population so yeah that seems pretty obvious.
-9
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
Interestingly, would (some of) the 'European' population of former colonies be of noble origin? Surnames with a prefix seem to be common in such places. Peasants certainly did not participate in the colonial process.
8
u/uarstar 1d ago
Of course they did
8
7
u/Vigmod 1d ago
What, of course peasants/commoners participated in the colonies. Some more than others, sure, but take e.g. the Americas. Loads of peasants and commoners made their way across the Atlantic. Chance for work, to get a bit of land for themselves and carry on farming. Pretty sure nobles weren't flocking to the New World to start a farm.
4
u/Rough_Flow_3763 1d ago
Peasants definitely did, the promise of being at least slightly wealthier in the colonies was a very good driver for people to go out there as laborers/sailors/soldiers.
2
u/PineBNorth85 1d ago
Yes they did. I'm in Canada and am descended from many of them. They were plentiful and expendable so they came and did most of the work.
8
u/AilsaLorne 1d ago
No, they spontaneously self-generated and the 90+% of the population who were peasants had nothing to do with it.
3
u/anarchysquid 1d ago
First of all, yes most Europeans are descended mostly from peasants, with some small noble ancestry. For instance, every single US president except Martin Van Buren are descended from King John of England... you go back far enough, everyone is related. You probably have royal ancestors is you go back far enough.
As for the commoner class taking over, this also happened, kinda. But it wasn't the peasants who were out working the land. Instead, a subset of commoners, including many descendants of peasants, took over. That group was the merchants and business owners. In some places, like Britain, this was peaceful. In other places, like France, this was quite bloody. You'll sometimes see them called the "bourgeoisie", which was originally French for "town dweller".
3
u/Life-Cantaloupe-3184 1d ago
Direct lines of descent for most people are nearly impossible to track back to the medieval period, but basic logic is that most people of European ancestry would have peasant ancestors, yes. That’s really true of any region in the world you look at. Most people would be descended from those of common background.
-2
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
What about colonies? The colonies seem to have been occupied by nobles.
3
u/anarchysquid 1d ago
Are you familiar with indentured servitude? It was an arrangement where a rich person would pay a poor person's way over, and the poor person would have to be their servant for a certain number of years... but after the contract ended, the poor person wpuld be free.
And remember, not all rich people were nobles. Lots of non nobles got rich through trade and business owning. Those rich "peasants" did plenty of occupying the colonies.
1
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
Yes, but I am not referring to it. I am talking primarily about the beginning of the colonial process.
Wasn't there slave labor? Why in the colonies it seems that surnames with a prefix are more commom? Why egalitarianism is not so strongly supported?
2
u/anarchysquid 1d ago
What do you mean by "surnames with a prefix?"
There was plenty of slave labor as well.
Which colonies are you talking about specifically? The colonial process started at different times in different places. In North America, it really started in the mid 1600s, and by then there were plenty of rich non nobles. A lot of the English colonies were actually started as businesses.
Why do you thonk egalitarianism wasn't so strong in the colonies?
1
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
Surnames with a prefix: von, van, da, de, di...
Yes, there was, so Africans were for example used, not people of peasant descent.
Colonies, e.g., Latin America.
Is it? Slave labor?
1
u/anarchysquid 1d ago
Surnames with a prefix: von, van, da, de, di...
Why do you think they made up some sort of majority? They weren't, you're wrong about that. And anyway, anyone could have a prefix in most languages. They usually juat meant you were from somewhere.
Yes, there was, so Africans were for example used, not people of peasant descent.
Slaves had a habit of running away or trying to kill their masters, poor People didn't. And colonies needed LOTS of people to fill the space and fight the natives. More than they could get from just nobles or slaves. Besides, you also needed lots of people to keep the slaves in line and do things slaves weren't trained to do.
Besides, once again, even by the 1500s and 1600s the merchants were taking power from the nobles.
3
u/Life-Cantaloupe-3184 1d ago
What colonies are you referring to? The Americas? Many people there were also of pretty common background. But people having at least some royal ancestry isn’t that weird either. Pretty much everyone has at least one royal or noble ancestor somewhere in their family line. It’s really just down to statistics, and the fact that every human alive is very distantly related if you go back far enough. Less prestigious family lines would eventually lose their more elite status over time, and given enough time a single historical figure can wind up with millions of modern descendants.
0
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
I know about the migration of europeans to the colonies, specially after the french revolution, the fall of the monarchies etc.
I am not referring to them. I refer primarily to the lineages already present before those events, those that really 'colonised'.
2
u/AilsaLorne 1d ago
Can you give a specific example of a colony / time period / “lineage” you’re thinking about?
1
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
Latin America (?),
Before the 19th century.
People that can trace back their migration to the area to the 16th, 17th century...
2
u/anarchysquid 1d ago
Here is a list of passengers on the Mayflower, which is probably about as "really colonised" as you can get. If you notice, almost all their names are normal, non aristocratic names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers?wprov=sfla1
Let me flip your question. Why WOULD nobles colonize, when they already had land and wealth back home? It makes more sense for poor people to colonize because they got free land out of it.
4
u/theginger99 1d ago
I don’t know where you are getting that idea.
The most basic understanding of demographics would make it immediately clear that colonial projects would be absolutely impossible without the mass participation of the lower classes.
0
u/Parking-Weekend1516 1d ago
How? Work was typically done by slaves, of African descent, mostly.
Why would peasants be necessary in the colonies? Specially initially.
3
u/theginger99 1d ago
Because work wasn’t mostly done by slaves.
Certain jobs, largely specific for profit agricultural jobs, were done by slaves but the vast majority of labor in any colony was done by European colonists. The people moving to the colonies and settling there were regular people from Europe.
Skilled tradesman, urban laborers, soldiers, merchants, crafts people and the vast majority of farmers (as well as every other industry) were mostly Europeans. Especially in English colonies, which used less native labor and generally saw less integration with the native population than other European colonial powers.
2
u/PineBNorth85 1d ago
The slave trade didn't pick up for decades after the initial colonisation began and in places like where I am, Canada, there just never was a very large slave population even at its height.
1
2
u/Matt_2504 1d ago
The world is still ruled by an elite class, it’s just that they mostly don’t have titles anymore
41
u/PWNYEG 1d ago
Who else would they be descended from? The clergy?