Land and Wealth

[Eosin]

Originally posted by GrimJesta

Oh yea, Eosin, whats the URL of the cartography website? The link in the map section is coming up dead for me, but its prolly my uber-crappy ISP. Cuz those maps are awesome...

 

-=Grim=-

 

 

Here you go. Chris West. He just changed his website so it is a dead link.

 

I did all the maps on the site but I used one of his maps to shape my "baja" area down south. The one I used is not on my website but it is on his.

[Outsider]

I would have to agree that land was most definitely -not- money in a feudal society. Lands were held as fiefs, not as possessions, at least by anyone -not- the king. Thus they could not be transferred from one person to another without royal consent. Even within towns, I dont think the land was owned by the townsmen, just the structures were. The land itself was still granted by the king, in this case to a municipal group under charter, rather than to an individual as a fief.

[Galadorn]

Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

 

Originally posted by assault

Actually it's dead wrong.

 

The whole point of feudal societies is that land is not a commodity. That is, it can not be exchanged - bartered or bought. It can not be bought with money. Therefore it is _not_ money.

 

Actually, your point is dead wrong. If you study the feudal economy, you would know that land was traded from one person to another in exchange for services and goods. Early in the Middle Ages, possession of land was common, Only in the later Feudal period, did Nobles possession of land become absolute in many cases.

 

Now, fealty to the king was required to take possession of the land, thats why we have "My Lord Bishop:" Lord and Bishop being two different titles. But there still was exchange of land, and for all intents and purposes, it was treated as property.

 

Of course we are talking about England, it seems, by the tone of your argument. In Papal lands things were quite different:

We have also learned that it sometimes happens that when tenants die their relatives are not allowed to succeed them, but their property is taken over for the use of the Church. In this matter we decree that the relatives of those who lived on the possessions of the Church should succeed them as their heirs. Nor should anything be taken from them that belonged to the deceased.-St. Pope Gregory the Great, AD 600.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/600Gregsucc.html

 

In The Holy Land, this tended to be the state of affairs:

It has pleased Master Viviano, sometimes called Guiducci, to pledge, grant, and concede to you, Hugh by the grace of God, Archpriest of the Holy Church of Volterra, receiving under that name, and by profession a Canon, for seven marks and five and a quarter ounces of good silver of the mark of Monterius (?) two pieces of land in the field of Martius...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1169landpldg.html

 

In England, this was what Henry II said about the Jews:

Chapter Concerning the Jews: All debts and pledges of Jews shall be written down, lands, houses, rents, and possessions. But a Jew who conceals any of these things shall be in forfeit to the lord king both in his person, in what he has concealed, and in all his goods and chattels*. Nor shall it be lawful for the Jew ever to recover what he has concealed.

 

*Chattels = Possessions.

 

Obviously, Jews owed land according to Henry II. Seems possession of land was more common than you want to think.

 

Secondly, land was bequethed by lords and others (Jews for example) to the Church. How can someone give to the Church what he does not himself own?

 

Case closed, nail driven into coffin lid.

[SleepyDrug]

Ghee...excellent site

 

Eosin....what do you mean by ghosttouched?

[assault]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

 

Sorry, Galadorn, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You seem to be confusing ownership of land with land being a commodity. These are two entirely different things.

 

Obviously people owned land. Duh!

 

And yes, its ownership was transferred. Sometimes money, rather than services, was involved. But not generally.

 

Land ownership was _generally_ tied up in a web of social interactions and committments. The modern pattern of "hand over the bucks and it's yours and I have no futher claim to it" was a rarity.

 

Unless you're dealing with diplomatic agreements, of course. Whole countries could be bought or sold in this manner.

[Eosin]

Originally posted by SleepyDrug

Ghee...excellent site

 

Eosin....what do you mean by ghosttouched?

 

 

Affects desolid [sX = ghostly desolid].

 

 

It is a hold over from the d20 game. I will still use it though. I like it that some metals have special properties.

[Galadorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

 

Originally posted by assault

Sorry, Galadorn, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You seem to be confusing ownership of land with land being a commodity. These are two entirely different things.

 

Obviously people owned land. Duh!

 

And yes, its ownership was transferred. Sometimes money, rather than services, was involved. But not generally.

 

Land ownership was _generally_ tied up in a web of social interactions and committments. The modern pattern of "hand over the bucks and it's yours and I have no futher claim to it" was a rarity.

 

Unless you're dealing with diplomatic agreements, of course. Whole countries could be bought or sold in this manner.

 

True, the acquistion of land was an elaborate set of affairs. Bit I think this begs the point.

 

It doesn't matter what scale of land exhange and trade we are taling about, nor what the law said, we are talking about the norm in society. And the norm was, to treat land as a commodity, no matter how involved the process was.

 

Bottom line is land was a commodity, and tended to be used by the owner, however the owner wanted. This is not an all or nothing affair - owning land was part commodity, and part social obligation.

Take care.

[Galadorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Land and Wealth

 

Originally posted by assault

Fundamentalism is Heresy

 

I agree.

[Markdoc]

>>>Bottom line is land was a commodity, and tended to be used by the owner, however the owner wanted. This is not an all or nothing affair - owning land was part commodity, and part social obligation.<<<

 

Not really. I think you are confusing the way land was obtained (often with a bribe) with the whole idea of feudalism which is that all land was a gift of the head honcho. In fact, what defined a king or prince was their ability to gift lands. A baron or noble family might hold lands larger and richer than the king's - but any fiefs that they passed out were held "in lieu" - in other words at the king's pleasure - at least in theory.

 

Likewise, even the most powerful baron could not sell or give away part of his domain: that lands was the king's. strictly speaking all he could give away was the income of the land, as long as he owned the rights to it. When he died, the right of gift reverted to the king: that's why heirs had to do homage to recieve their father's lands: in theory the king could say no and give it someone else - and strong monarchs often did so. Here in Denmark, it was common for the king to switch families around to curb or build their power: take away someone's desmene and give it to someone else, then move the deprived family somewhere else.

 

These rules of course really only apply to Middle Europe (Christian Spain, France, England, Little Germany) during the feudal and medieval periods and only where the rulers could enforce them (though the situation in medieval Japan bears many similarities). But within that context, land can't really be seen as a commodity - it could be neither traded, sold or converted, except by the monarch - and even then only within a fairly limited set of rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Not really. I think you are confusing the way land was obtained (often with a bribe) with the whole idea of feudalism which is that all land was a gift of the head honcho. In fact, what defined a king or prince was their ability to gift lands. A baron or noble family might hold lands larger and richer than the king's - but any fiefs that they passed out were held "in lieu" - in other words at the king's pleasure - at least in theory.

 

Mark, I suggest you read the Medieval Village in Digital Hero #14. Check out the references. I have studied this issue thoroughly. The idea that land was not a commodity at all, is a myth of the Middle Ages. Check out "The Medieval Village" by France Giles, the chapter on "The Villagers," I believe has information on the exchange of land amongst villagers.

 

If you don't understand basic economic theory, you won't even understand my points.

[Markdoc]

Originally posted by Galadorn

Mark, I suggest you read the Medieval Village in Digital Hero #14. Check out the references. I have studied this issue thoroughly. The idea that land was not a commodity at all, is a myth of the Middle Ages. Check out "The Medieval Village" by France Giles, the chapter on "The Villagers," I believe has information on the exchange of land amongst villagers.

 

If you don't understand basic economic theory, you won't even understand my points.

 

I have read the medieval village article - it has some nice ideas, but also some factual flaws. Nothing in it seems terribly relevant to this discussion, though. I must confess I have never heard of France Giles, although "Life in a Medieval Village" by Jean Gimpel covers land use in detail - and land use rights. The author also cautions against the idea of treating land as a commodity, or indeed the over application of modern concepts of ownership and property rights.

 

I have no problems with basic economc theory - or with understanding your points - it's merely that I feel you are wrong in this case. Pretended expertise is hardly convincing.

 

Anyway, if you are genuinely interested in the subject, i would suggest reading some of the work of Yoram Barzel, who is a specialist working at Berkeley (IIRC) in the field of medieval law and economics: he naturally has an interest in property rights as they did or did not exist at the time. A fair number of his essays can be found on the web, and unlike some of his colleagues, his writing style is easy to read.

 

cheers, Mark

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I have no problems with basic economc theory - or with understanding your points - it's merely that I feel you are wrong in this case. Pretended expertise is hardly convincing.

 

Pretended expertise indeed. Go on ignore.