Re: A quiet start to the week's discussion
> does the term "burgher" status simply mean land-owner?A burgher is an inhabitant of a town. The reference to them in my
comment on Julie's observation concerned the 19th century.
> Was it the Hussite movement that sparked ideas [and fighting]Not in any straightforward sense. Such "dual" (from our contemporary
> for land reforms?
perspective) control over land was typical of the Kingdom at least
from the time when contractual villages began to emerge, meaning
centuries before the Hussites. The Kingdom did not have the English
or Russian system where vast numbers of those who worked the land had
the status of landless hired hands. Effectively, from our
contemporary perspective, the Kingdom's farmers had their own farms
and fields and the noblemen had their fields. The commoner farmers
were obligated to work in "their nobleman's" fields one day a week if
they came with a beast of burden, two days without it. The commoner
farmers worked for themselves on their own farms the rest of the time.
The Hussites leaned towards communal organization of society, so
communal ownership of land would simply be part of that drive, not a
strongly defined separate call for land reform. Moreover, the Hussite
movement contained several factions (that ultimately battled with each
other) representing a variety of views. The Slovak farmers might have
seen some appeal in suggestions that they should be given some of the
nobleman's land, but a "collectivization" of their own farms would
hardly have been a popular proposal.