The Price of Land

[Kristopher]

Doing some research on medieval-era prices, wages, etc, and the one thing I can't seem to find is value of land. Anyone have any thoughts or resources that might help?

[Outsider]

Re: The Price of Land

 

I dont think land was actually bought and sold much. It tended to stay with the titles, which were inherited, right? Maybe some lots in towns, but farms, not so much, I am thinking.

 

 

If you want to make a guesstimate, I'd look at how much the the land could produce in profits for its lord per year, then compare that to how big of a safe loan would return a similar profit.

 

Ie

A 1000 acre estate generates an average income of 1000 FeudalBucks per year.

 

1000 FeudalBucks a year is also the interest on a safe loan of 20,000 FeudalBucks.

 

Ergo, a 1000 acre estate is worth 20,000 FeudalBucks. Plus or minus the perceived value of any other benefits, such as income from estates being higher prestige than income from moneylending.

[Edsel]

Re: The Price of Land

 

I think that the monarch and nobles really owned all of the land. The serf (the vast majority of the population) were akin to tenant farmers who worked the land of their lord for a living. They were granted protection and a means to make a living. Most freemen (non-serfs) were merchants who rarely owned land, they owned a business.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: The Price of Land

 

The Nobles owned the Land by the hand of the king. They did Rent however, but I am not sure how much?

 

 

Hmmm...

 

 

QM

[L. Marcus]

Re: The Price of Land

 

A suggestion could be to just ballpark it, and look at the difference between a free farmer and a serf. If they live off the equivalent farms, a free farmer could be called of Normal Wealth, and a serf would be Poor. The difference would be the worth of the farm.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: The Price of Land

 

The thing about the middle ages is that the only theoretical system is that there is no system. Law of property did exist, and I am not aware of any that excluded anyone from owning land. I know that medieval theologians specifically considered and rejected such laws. I'd watch out for "there's some lovely filth over here, Dennis" stories.

 

Anyway, the rule of thumb for land prices is that price of sale is regulated by the common rate of interest. In a society of high risk, high-capital investments, land might go for as little as 5 years of rent, while in Adam Smith's time the rule of thumb in Britain was 30 years, 20 in France with its higher government deficit. Rent might be fixed by some kind of sharecropping arrangement, so figure out the value of one third of the crop, and you're done.

That's easier said than done, but assume 60 bushels of wheat/acre for prime farmland and use this to "regulate" the rent of other land. (This prescription of classical economics makes projecting easy; pity that it is wrong.) I'm sure you can run up a price series for wheat somewhere. i thought I was going to pull one out of my handy copy of Wealth of Nations, but it's not jumping out of the index at me.

[Kristopher]

Re: The Price of Land

 

A suggestion could be to just ballpark it' date=' and look at the difference between a free farmer and a serf. If they live off the equivalent farms, a free farmer could be called of Normal Wealth, and a serf would be Poor. The difference would be the worth of the farm.[/quote']

 

Don't really know what the monetary difference between Normal Wealth and Poor would be, though. In a way, that's part of what I'm trying to figure out.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Ask Markdoc. If any one of us would know, I bet its him.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Well, I realize this isn't entirely realistic, but I've stolen an idea that I've seen used in several games...equating fantasy money to modern money, and fantasy equipment to a modern analogue. If a gold piece equals $1000, then an acre of pasturage or unimproved wilderness would go for 1 gp per acre, an acre of land smack in the middle of a city would be worth 200 gp or so, and, more in line with your purposes, good farmland would go for anywhere between 4 and 40 gp, depending on how close it was to market.

 

This may not work for you, especially if you've already got an extensive list of equipment based on historical prices, but I've found it works really well.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: The Price of Land

 

In medieval times land was wealth, and also power. Kings would not allow just anyobdy with some gold to have it. The way for adventurers to become landowners in such a setting would be for them to be awarded fiefs by a monarch, binding them to his service but at the same time giving them entrance into the ruling class (or at least the petit sort). This also gives the player the responsibility of administering the land and settling disputes among the people who lived there and worked for him.

 

Most kings who could have any say in the matter would propbably prefer to bind people of ability and power to themselves in this manner, where he could keep an eye on them. But being Lord of the Manor restricts your ability to wander around slaying nasties; you can hire a seneschal to manage your demense, but you would then have to trust to his integrity not to fleece you dry.

 

As for gold, large sums of gold may look nice, especially piled in your basement vault, but in mundane terms there isn't really all that m uch to buy with it. You could buy a well-crafted suit of plate armor, for example, but the armorsmiths would want to be paid in silver, a coin they could actually use. Most practical things (a meal and a night's lodging, for example) are cheap enough that the innkeeper wouldn't be able to make change for a gold coin. Remember, gold represents money only because everyone agrees it represents money. It's really no different from a fiat currency like the dollar. One reason adventurers who haul off a dragon's hoard are taxed so heavily by the local kings is to keep that gold out of general circulation and prop up the currency's value. Otherwise, the government loses control of the valkue of money, which is never a good thing for an economy.

[Kristopher]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Assume for the purposes of this discussion that "the crown" does not have sole, by-fiat control of all land, and that it might be used in trade or bought/sold by the families/clans that hold it.

[Gadodel]

Re: The Price of Land

 

What kind of land? Barren? Fertile? Does it have lakes or rivers? Is it ocean-front property? Are there mountains? Is it low-lying marsh land? Et al.

 

Barren land might be used as a rock-quarry, thus valuable to those who want to build castles.

 

Fertile land obviously very valuable...but are folks willing to work it and share the fruits of their labor?

 

Lakes and rivers have obvious values, but sometimes subtle values. Perhaps they make a border or in fact a reason for a border dispute. Drinking water is one of those hidden reasons for war. Example: Tigris-Euphrates. Has that part of the world ever seen a long period of peace?

 

Ocean front property has all sorts of obvious values. Fishing, shipping etcetera. However, it offers something every land owner craves: a natural border and thus, security. Though, mother-nature might dispel that notion from time to time.

 

Once you've picked the sort of land you really want to discuss the value of, then consider these three factors:

1. Level of commerce and technology.

2. Political stability or lack thereof.

3. What niche the area of land will fill in your campaign and how you really plan to use it.

[Gadodel]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Assume for the purposes of this discussion that "the crown" does not have sole' date=' by-fiat control of all land, and that it might be used in trade or bought/sold by the families/clans that hold it.[/quote']

I used a really simple system.

 

Take a family, they own land, work it etcetera. The land is worth a character's 'starting funds'. If more than one family, consider each family a 'character' and add subsequent funds. If the area becomes noteworthy in some way, excellent crops, vineyards, great livestock, figure out just how much they produce and use the selling prices as a benchmark. Example: Family 'A' raises 20 cows a year for market: 20x Price of Cow. That amount is added to the 'starting funds' amount to determine the value of the land.

 

It was a simple method and I didn't needlessly punish myself over the bookkeeping.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Assume for the purposes of this discussion that "the crown" does not have sole' date=' by-fiat control of all land, and that it might be used in trade or bought/sold by the families/clans that hold it.[/quote']

 

"Realistic" land pricing involves a lot of issues already raised. What does the land produce? Is land ownership a status symbol? Does it provide benefits (eg. only land owners may vote; only land owners may hold political office)? What's the demand like for land in this area? Real-world real estate prices bounce around depending on dozens of different factors.

 

How is the land taxed? If there's an annual property tax, this reduces the production value from the land, so reduces its value. The United States' tax deduction for mortgage interest is believed to enhance the value of residential real estate by somewhere between 25% and 33%.

 

What options are available to the populace? If characters can get, say, 5% interest by salting their money away safely and securely, the land value won't be more than about 20x its annual production. If there's risk to that production, or work required to produce it, that multiple will fall. Note that this also means land values fall if interest rates rise, and vice versa.

 

If there's perceived possibility of the value/production appreciating, this might increase the multiplier. If land is the only investment possible, that will push the value up as wealth seeks a home. If few people have that level of wealth, the price goes down since demand falls.

 

In the real world, rising interest rates also hurt land prices because it's more expensive to finance a real estate purchase. Is borrowing an option in your hypothetical world structure? What kind of interest needs to be paid? if the land produces 20 cows a year, I'm foolish to borrow at an interest rate equal to the value of 20 cows a year in order to purchase it.

 

Just eliminating "the ruler controls the land" in isolation won't much help you determine how land should be valued.

[Markdoc]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Well, the short answer is that there is no accurate answer. Because much of the land was not freely transferrable and because it was often given for services instead of actual money, prices fluctuated wildly. Also, land prices could go down as well as up - in the English famine of 1315-17 land was being sold to buy food and pay debts, but the price of land fell dramatically: no-one wanted to buy unproductive land and speculators were few and far between.

 

Also there were laws governing sale of land. Have you ever wondered why we call property "real estate"? It's because English law (from which US law is derived) differentiated between your estate (ie: your stuff - your dogs, your horses, your clothes, your CD collection, etc) and your "real estate" - your land and property. This was true from the 13th century when the laws started to firm up until the 19th century. The plot of several of Jane Austen's novels is driven by the fact that beloved daughters face poverty when their father dies because he cannot just will them his estate - the law dictated that it go to a more distant - but male - relative.

 

But (you knew I was going say that, didn't you?) I can give some hints. We do have land prices recorded, for example through lawsuits, heriots (death taxes) sales and "feet of fines" - that's fake lawsuits designed to generate a legal document proving who actually owned land, to the rest of us.

 

I'll use numbers from England, because those are what I am most familiar with, but they are not actually typical: England in the high medieval period had an unusually stable economy (compared to most of its neighbours) and also an unusually diversified economy - meaning more land transfers, since people could move, earn money in different ways, etc. In Scandinavia of the same era, for example, there were far fewer sales of land (and less than 5% of land sales were outside the family) even though inheritance laws were less restrictive. High-medieval England however, is more like most fantasy realms, so that'll work.

 

Having said that, information is relatively light. To give some examples, around 1250 there were several sales of good agricultural land by debtors, or by jews forced to sell land (they could not legally own it) the prices ranged by about 50% but are close to 1 mark per acre (that's about 13 shillings 4 pence or 160 pence - or copper pieces if you prefer - per acre). That's actually pretty cheap - a knight/heavy cavalryman serving for pay at the time would expect about 8d a day, so that's wages for 20 days, or half his annual service. A bushel of wheat, by comparison was 3-4d so you could buy enough food for a couple of people a year for the price of an acre. Or - maybe more useful for a GM - it's about the same price as a mail shirt at the time. Finally, it is estimated that a "knight's fee" - ie: the amount of land to provide a knight with enough money to buy his arms, his horses and provide for him, his family and a few servants was about 6 hides or 720 acres - ie worth about 720 marks, or 115200 copper pieces

 

Take all these numbers with a grain of salt: there were very few fixed prices back then - to take one example, I've averaged the estimates of a typical knight's fee at 6 hides but it's commonly estimated at 2-10 and could be as many as 27.

 

Still, it gives you some rough figures to play with, which are not completely unreliable. Hope that helps.

 

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Re: The Price of Land

 

...so that's wages for 20 days' date=' or half his annual service. [/quote']

 

These guys only worked 40 days a year? Where do I sign up?

[Kristopher]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Well' date=' the short answer is that there is no accurate answer. Because much of the land was not freely transferrable and because it was often given for services instead of actual money, prices fluctuated [b']wildly[/b]. Also, land prices could go down as well as up - in the English famine of 1315-17 land was being sold to buy food and pay debts, but the price of land fell dramatically: no-one wanted to buy unproductive land and speculators were few and far between.

 

Also there were laws governing sale of land. Have you ever wondered why we call property "real estate"? It's because English law (from which US law is derived) differentiated between your estate (ie: your stuff - your dogs, your horses, your clothes, your CD collection, etc) and your "real estate" - your land and property. This was true from the 13th century when the laws started to firm up until the 19th century. The plot of several of Jane Austen's novels is driven by the fact that beloved daughters face poverty when their father dies because he cannot just will them his estate - the law dictated that it go to a more distant - but male - relative.

 

But (you knew I was going say that, didn't you?) I can give some hints. We do have land prices recorded, for example through lawsuits, heriots (death taxes) sales and "feet of fines" - that's fake lawsuits designed to generate a legal document proving who actually owned land, to the rest of us.

 

I'll use numbers from England, because those are what I am most familiar with, but they are not actually typical: England in the high medieval period had an unusually stable economy (compared to most of its neighbours) and also an unusually diversified economy - meaning more land transfers, since people could move, earn money in different ways, etc. In Scandinavia of the same era, for example, there were far fewer sales of land (and less than 5% of land sales were outside the family) even though inheritance laws were less restrictive. High-medieval England however, is more like most fantasy realms, so that'll work.

 

Having said that, information is relatively light. To give some examples, around 1250 there were several sales of good agricultural land by debtors, or by jews forced to sell land (they could not legally own it) the prices ranged by about 50% but are close to 1 mark per acre (that's about 13 shillings 4 pence or 160 pence - or copper pieces if you prefer - per acre). That's actually pretty cheap - a knight/heavy cavalryman serving for pay at the time would expect about 8d a day, so that's wages for 20 days, or half his annual service. A bushel of wheat, by comparison was 3-4d so you could buy enough food for a couple of people a year for the price of an acre. Or - maybe more useful for a GM - it's about the same price as a mail shirt at the time. Finally, it is estimated that a "knight's fee" - ie: the amount of land to provide a knight with enough money to buy his arms, his horses and provide for him, his family and a few servants was about 6 hides or 720 acres - ie worth about 720 marks, or 115200 copper pieces

 

Take all these numbers with a grain of salt: there were very few fixed prices back then - to take one example, I've averaged the estimates of a typical knight's fee at 6 hides but it's commonly estimated at 2-10 and could be as many as 27.

 

Still, it gives you some rough figures to play with, which are not completely unreliable. Hope that helps.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Thank you.

 

(And everyone else, too.)

[Outsider]

Re: The Price of Land

 

These guys only worked 40 days a year? Where do I sign up?

 

He only worked directly for his lord 40 days a year. Kind of a tax paid in labor sort of deal. The other 325 days/year he worked to support himself.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: The Price of Land

 

He only worked directly for his lord 40 days a year. Kind of a tax paid in labor sort of deal. The other 325 days/year he worked to support himself.

 

Self employed 89% of the year? I'm still down with that.

[Outsider]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Well, another 40 days (about) went to the church as a tithe, too. So now you're down to 78% self employed. Still somewhat lower than the average tax burden imposed by current day governments (who've largely subsumed a lot of the charity functions of the church), but then, the level of services provided back then wasn't very extensive either.

[Curufea]

Re: The Price of Land

 

I'd like to point out that "self employed" means working your own land, or managing your estate/manor. It wasn't "go off and do mercenary work".

[ghost-angel]

Re: The Price of Land

 

I thought "Self Employed" meant "Independently Wealthy" .... or is that just in today's parlance?

[assault]

Re: The Price of Land

 

I thought "Self Employed" meant "Independently Wealthy" .... or is that just in today's parlance?

 

"It depends."

 

We are dealing with a lot of different places over a long time.

 

Some knights were very wealthy. Others were dirt-poor.

 

The 40 days thing varied too. In some places, the required period of service was greater or less. Sometimes it could be commuted by a cash payment (scutage). Eventually, in fact, that became the most common practice.

[Curufea]

Re: The Price of Land

 

Wealth was defined differently too - usually not with money, but goods and lands (ie fine spun clothing with gold trim compared to rough wool and so on)