> Most of this is typical of a feudal society.
I disagree. Most of my undergrad degree was in western economic history, with a heavy focus on the feudal period to the beginning of the industrial revolution. The French seigneurial system is not feudal. It's a crazy, baroque outgrowth of it. That's what made it appeal to me as a game setting. It's like insame feudalism on steroids.
> There are odd bits and pieces of it still surviving in
> English law and probably elsewhere in Europe.
England evolved very differently. The "agricultural entrepreneurs" noted below were much more significant in England, and at a much earlier time. To oversimplify, the French nobility gave away permanent seigneurial rights for cash, where the English leased the land temporarily for cash.
> The proliferation of meaningless titles is a sign of decadence.
More specifically, a sign of conspicuous consumption and a signal for attracting an appropriate mate. (All good motivations for our Gloranthans.)
> Feudal land law is probably the most complex legal structure ever
> to have developed. The base is a local warlord agreeing to protect
> the farmers from enemies and bandits in return for various goods
> and services since coins were rare and valuable.
That's generally a myth. The origin was primarily Roman land law and customs. The problem with coinage is truly complex -- the Empire steadily devalued it, taxation in kind of the countryside concentrated coinage in the cities, etc. (But, since we're talking about Glorantha, the myth is nearly as interesting as the history.)
> I am a bit surprised at there being nothing in writing with
> land and related obligations being so important. Certainly
> in England if it wasn't written down it wasn't enforceable.
There was immense regional variation. In much of the Midi, the rule was "no lord without title" -- meaning that "immemorial custom" wasn't good enough to prove a seigneurial right. The opposite was true in the north of what became France. (I like the "immemorial custom option for Glorantha, because it makes for better arguments.)
> The main purpose of the parishes is to collect the tithes
> to support the local priest and church with the surplus
> being passed on to the bishoprics. Originally those
> surpluses were retained locally to be distributed to
> the farmers if there was a bad harvest.
Again, more true in England than in France, if I read it right. Many of the tithes were paid directly to religious institutions without regard to whether it left the parish enough to pay the parish preist for the year. Apparently, some parishes were so constantly underfunded that the successful farmers were forcibly appointed to the parish councils and made personally responsible for its finances. (So, you didn't take Orate or Fastalk? I guess you're on the parish council. Sucker.)
> Taxes aren't really an issue for the majority of the population.
Sorry, you're just wrong about this. For example, the salt tax (the gabelle) was enforced by making "every" person purchase a minimum amount of salt, on which the tax was then collected. (The tax collector cometh would be a recurring event in Glorantha. Options: pay, borrow, rebel, ambush, bribe, beg, etc.)
> It just isn't economic to collect small amounts from everyone so
> in practice most peasant farmers are exempt.
No, the peasant farmers were exactly the ones who bore 95% of the tax burden. The nobles managed to get out of it almost entirely. Typically, it was assessed by pays (province, more or less), then passed down division by division until it hit the local council, who then divvied it up amongst the peasants. (Did I mention you're on the council? You must be rich if you're on the council. So you'll need to be paying your "fair" share.)
> The taxes mainly target merchants and craftsmen.
Nope. In the south of France, the biggest tax (the taille) was collected on land. Most merchants and craftsmen didn't have to pay it much because their cities had purchased exemption or, in any case, they didn't own much land. (Did I mention your fair share might be a touch higher?)
> Mind you after paying their rent to the landowner and tithe
> to the church the typical peasant is on a subsistance level
> income in a typical year.
There's a wide variance. But I agree that the typical peasant in a normal year would be just above subsistence level. And all of the interests that other people had in the peasant's land meant that he'd be unlikely to reinvest it in increasing production from his land. Besides, he probably still had to pay back the loan he got in the bad year a couple years back. (The loan shark cometh is also a frequent event. Might be the same guy as the tax farmer.)
> This is a sign of the break up of feudalism.
True in England, less so in France. In France, feudalism had pretty much given way to the seigneurial system.
> It often involved the eviction of the serfs who had
> previously farmed the land.
In fairness, mainmorte was mostly abolished in France. So, they weren't serfs. They were "free" peasants. Usually the only difference is whether they lose all their personal possessions if evicted. But its continuance in a few places was a constant aggravation in a lot of peasants' minds. (And is a rallying point for our intrepid Gloranthans.)
> Feudal kings relied on the support of the nobility because
> their obligations to the monarch was mostly to supply
> troops. No support meant only the soldiers the king
> could raise from his own lands and the mercenaries he
> could afford to hire.
The French monarchy was not dependent on the nobility for troops in this period. The King has fought enough wars against his own nobles to know not to rely on them. This is the age of the musket, not the age of the knight. (Presumably magic would need to have the same effect for our Gloranthans as military technology had for the Europeans.)
> The idea of an absolute monarch comes from the Middle East
> and was never really achieved in Western Europe despite the claims.
I agree with this . . . wait for it . . . absolutely.
Chris Lemens
Powered by hypermail