reading Wealth of Nations (volume 1) and come across the claim that "the occupiers of land were in every respect as dependent upon the great proprietor as his retainers" in chapter 4 of book 3, but I'm not sure what the difference, or even Smith's set definitions, of occupiers versus retainers are (especially retainers).
is there a difference here? did i miss where he clearly defines a retainer on the land of a great proprietor? my knowledge of feudal landlords is somewhat limited to South America and i learned about it in spanish. and 5 years ago.
if someone could explain why Smith differentiates dependents, occupiers, and retainers that would be great, thanks
edit: alright i'm starting to think that retainers are like servants in which they live in the proprietors house, while tenants and occupiers live on the land owned by the proprietor. both are fed/sustained by the proprietor but one functions like a landlord and their tenant and the other a master and their servant? maybe.
difference between occupiers and retainers in wealth of nations?
byu/palcoved inAskEconomics
Posted by palcoved
1 Comment
“Retainers” meant like servants, assistants, including military men who’d follow a lord. A powerful lord would have a large retinue of knights (and the knights own servants) following him. As you can imagine, the times were quite violent.
Incidentally, the idea of feudalism as a distinctive thing, that Adam Smith believed, historians now think is a false construct projected back in time by 15th/16th century scholars. Basically [feudalism didn’t exist](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/wdeJOjJYt6).