Medieval subaltern groups could ally upward while classical slaves could not

Evidence

The only group excluded from any organised collective life of its own was that of the slaves (and such proletarians as were not slaves) in the classical world, and is that of the proletarians, the serfs and the peasants in the mediaeval world. However, even though, from many points of view, the slaves of the ancient world and the mediaeval proletariat were in the same conditions, their situation was not identical: the attempted revolt by the Ciompi [in Florence in 1378] certainly did not have the impact that a similar attempt by the slaves of antiquity would have produced (Spartacus demanding to be taken into the government in collaboration with the plebs, etc.). While in the Middle Ages an alliance between proletarians and people, and even more so the support of the proletarians for the dictatorship of a prince, was possible, nothing similar was possible for the slaves of the classical world. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1867

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: why exactly does Gramsci tie medial subalterns’ alliance-capacity to their inclusion in the medieval Christian order versus slaves’ total exclusion? This could clarify the mechanism behind his racio-cultural exclusion claims.
• XREF: connects to: Medieval proletarians could ally with rulers while ancient slaves could not; Mediaeval proletarians could ally and rebel but classical slaves could not; Medieval societies recognized multiple overlapping bonds and authorities.

Broader Connections

• Mediaeval proletarians could ally and rebel but classical slaves could not #corroborates (0.98)
• Medieval proletarians could ally with rulers while ancient slaves could not #corroborates (0.97)
• Medieval societies recognized multiple overlapping bonds and authorities. #qualifies (0.75)