[Wytwwww]

> "the middle class"

I assume small landholders, yeomen etc. and such would be the equivalent of the middle class in such a society.

> slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church

I'm not sure that's strictly true. It of course varied by time and place and the Church tried to somewhat limit the worst abuse.

Also a clear workaround was to enslave infidels. Muslims enslaved Christians (and basically depopulate many coastal areas across the Mediterranean), in turn Christians were fine with enslaving Muslims (all though they didn't necessarily have that many opportunities) and East European pagans were fair game to everyone.

[paganel]

As an Eastern-European, I can definitely say that after year 1000 we were not pagans, but Christian-Ortodox, but it’s true that the Genoese and the Venetians trading us around the Black Sea called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans.

[Wytwwww]

> called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans.

I guess technically it was a "hack" though, the Genoese bought anyone the Mongols were selling and shipped them to Egypt and other Muslim states without anyone back at home asking too many questions..

Until of course the Ottomans got right of the middle men and took over the slave trade themselves.

[Ichthypresbyter]

Depends which Eastern Europeans- Lithuania stayed pagan until the late 14th century, with some areas not being Christianised until the early 15th century.

Of course, the Lithuanians themselves might well say they're not Eastern European...

[aguaviva]

Why would they? They're Balts, and quite homogenously so. Their ancestors were likely centered a bit further East, but not that far out. And their language appears to have split off from a common ancestor of the the Slavic languages.

[paganel]

Wanted to add an aside about the Lithuanians and them not becoming Christian until the 1300s, but, as you said, some Lithuanians themselves might have said that they're not Eastern-Europeans :)