>> Nor do I see land ownership in DH being anything like as complicated
>> as feudal Europe. Some will be owned by free peasants who work it
>> themselves while most will be owned by Leagues who use slaves. 4th
>> Century Roman practice if you want an analogy.
>
>Land ownership questions in DH may be much more complicated than you
>imagine. I imagine that land is held collectively by the Pelorian
>villagers but the village itself is owned by a Dara Happan city, noble,
>temple or other entity. Villagers cannot alienate land outside of their
>own community, but the village itself is freely transferable and
>divisible by its overlord.
>
>Frex, the village of Dershko (population 450 souls) is owned as follows:
>1/3 by the Temple of Ghevengus, 1/5 by the City of Yuthuppa, 1/5 by
>Seredentha of Red Fish who received it for her ancestor's devotion to
>Sedenya, 1/8 by Kerinserthus of Perkos who acquired his interest from
>Harissipus of Jillaro whose ancestors were awarded the interest during
>the wars against Sheng), 1/10 by the Clamoring Monks of Santhar, and
>another 1/10 by Khorvash of Henjarl (who received his interest as a
>gift for valor fighting barbarians at Boldhome). Note that the total
>of interests adds up to more than 100%. Complicating this yet more is
>a claim against the entire village by the Sultan of Karasal as a result
>of a dispute with the priests of Ghevengus.
>
>Meanwhile, as far as the peasants are concerned, life in the village
>goes on as it has for the last 100,000 years. They give the customary
>tribute to the overseers (whom they have no idea who they represent)
>and transfer fields and herds between their members with the approval
>of Ovoso the Headman, the real ruler of the village.
Pretty simple by comparison to feudal law. All the complexity is in the ownership of the village. By comparison a feudal village might go something like this:
The village is part of the Duchy of Ravenskeep which means the Duke owns all the land. The Duke is also the King. The Duke has granted Sir Randolph and his heirs manoral rights to the village and surounding area in perpetuity in return for providing three knights and ten men at arms. Sir Randolph has also been granted feudal rights to the village itself and certain fields. Other nearby farms are leased by the Duke directly to freemen on a ninty-nine year lease at various rents which can only be inherited by a legitimate son on payment of seven shillings. Sir Randolph rents out land to his feudal tennants in return for two days work per week plus one chicken every quarter day and a bushel of grain every harvest. The smith (a freeman) rents his house and workshop in the village from Sir Randolph. Meanwhile Sir Randolph has built a church and promised the church the income from certain land to maintain it. That land includes the mill so the miller pays his rent (in milled grain) to the church. The church also collects a tithe from all farmers (feudal or free) but not Sir Randolph or the craftsmen. In practice they regularly donate significant sums but there is no obligation.
Then there is the common land which all villagers have the right to use for grazing geese, cattle and donkeys but not pigs. Furthermore they may graze pigs and collect fallen timber from the local wood which remains the property of the Duke. They may not hunt or cut timber from the wood. The right to cut timber, hunt for food for his family only and live within the wood has been granted by the Duke to a forrester. This is for his life but may be subsequently granted to one of his sons provided they are a fit a proper person.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail