The feudal system was different in different parts of Europe. Germany and Italy never had a central state the way England and France did. Russia didn't adopt feudalism until it was falling apart in the rest of Europe.
The biggest difference as far as England is concerned is that there has never been a revolution which swept away the old structures and started afresh. So while feudalism had pretty much disappeared by the end of the 17th Century tithes weren't abolished until the 1920s.
>> 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.)
The smallest coin in English currency was the copper farthing. 1/4 of a penny or 1/48th of a shilling. Even in the early 20th Century most wages were between five and fifteen shillings a week, a medieval equivelent income would be less. Today the minimum wage is about 200 pounds a week so the equivelent of the smallest coin would be about a pound. That's why rents and tithes were due in produce, peasants didn't usually have or use coin much.
>> 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.)
I think it's more to do with the amount of centralisation in the church. As time went on the bishops demanded more and more from the parishes to support ever more extravagant lifestyles. Henry VIII cut a lot of that down to size in England. To fill his own pockets admittedly.
>> 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?)
This must be one of the later developments of feudalism as agriculture became more productive. At earlier times there wasn't enough surplus to support tax collectors as well as rent collectors and tithe collectors. Probably happened at the same time as kings started to employ armies rather than rely on the feudal levy.
In the same way originally town and city dwellers were taxed partially because they didn't pay tithes and weren't required to contribute to the levy.
It is like when income tax was introduced in Britain to pay for the Napoleonic Wars. It was payable on incomes of 2,000 pounds or more. Doesn't sound much these days but at the time it only affected the aristocracy and wealthest merchants and lawyers.
>> 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.
What you are seeing as a separate system I see as local variations and gradual breaking up of feudalism.
>> 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.)
Which is something which really stretches to fit into Glorantha. You would need a form of magic which equiped the average person to be quickly trained to be the equal of powerful heros. Maybe some Mostali arm the peasantry to take on the Kingdom of War.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail