Talk:Slavery in Poland

Untitled
I'm pretty positive that the opening section of the article is total nonsense. Slavery didn't transition into serfdom until the 20th century? What? People have numbers assigned to them based on "importance" to this day? Who wrote this nonsense?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:EE41:81:C2F0:5808:BD21:E064:AF42 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminology
It's great that the article starts with a clarification of terminology. I find it not clear enough, however. What does ludzie mean? The Latin words are contrasted, but should be explained, as well. Ben T/C 09:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ludzie" means people. I would think that the sentence is clear - "ludzie niewolni" translates, roughly, as "unfree people". Latin terms are cited per source which does not discuss them further, and I don't speak Latin to be able to make any clarifications here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I moved the translation. I think the sentence is now more readily understood. Ben T/C 02:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

History
The section starts out with giving a historical context (nice) and an idea of the impact and importance of slavery. This could be extended a bit, maybe. Then, it is said that the number of slaves rose significantly with the establishment of the Polish state. It would be nice to have some statistics at that point. Non-free people were emancipated in Poland in 1347 under the Statutes of Casimir the Great. What did this imply for them? What did these statutes stipulate with respect to the lives of non-free people? From the last sentence I don't understand when serfdom was abolished. Additionally, I find the comma confusing. What are the differences between serfs and slaves (legally, practically)? Ben T/C 10:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have stats, but so far I have not found any. The 1347 date is a bit dubious, to be frank, I tried to find another source to verify it and so far, nothing, this is why Mitchell is cited (according to...). This is why there is no discussion of what it did imply for them, because he does not have it, and nobody else even mentions it. That said, the other source do agree that slavery transformed into serfdom around that time. I assume when you say "From the last sentence I don't understand when serfdom was abolished." you meant to say slavery, not serfdom. I am not sure about the comma, can  you be more specific? For differences between slaves and serfs in Poland, I tried to put all that I could find into the two applicable articles (this one and serfdom in Poland). If I could find a more clear definition, particularly one answering your question directly, I'd certainly add it. Perhaps one of the further readings I found would help, but I don't think they are online. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The comma is often to separate a concept and its description. In the sentence here this was not the case, which I found confusing. The sentence with the Polish partitions, particularly with the provided link, is now clearer. I discovered that you are also behind other articles around slavery in Poland. I am very impressed by the work you did. Ben T/C 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Features
Not sure if "features" is a good term for the section header. Did royal jurisdiction imply a legal protection for the niewolni? Ben T/C 10:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, through it's hard to tell the specifics. Cited source discusses the royal justice, and notes that unfree people were not under it, as their lords (owners) had a total control over their justice (or lack of it). I'd also assume that the unfree people owned by the king would have the right to it (just like the serfs later), but again the source does not clarify that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. My guess is that the jurisdiction didn't make much difference, but would be interesting to get more information. Again: great work! I did several rather minor changes to improve readability. Please, feel free to remove them again if I changed the meaning somewhere. Ben T/C 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a continous transition from slavery to serfdom
One thing - as far as I understand the matter, there wasn't a continuous evolution which linked slavery of the early middle ages to the serfdom of the late Jagiellonian/early elective period. In between 1300's and 1500's the peasants actually enjoyed quite a bit of freedom and even prosperity. Even during the slavery period most peasants were free (kmiecie) and slaves were mostly war captives (i.e. small % of population). So it wasn't that slavery transformed into serfdom. It was more like first slavery gradually died out (it wasn't that significant to begin with), then few hundred years later, the free peasants got progressively enserfed.

Since this is the "slavery" article, I'll comment on emergence of serfdom on the Serfdom in Poland article. Volunteer Marek 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)