Tag Archives: feudalism

Medieval Monday: Medieval Technology – Part Two: Farmville

One of the biggest misunderstandings in history is that the Middle Ages were a time of ignorance and deprivation, a time when life was nasty, brutish, and short.  The assumption is that because higher learning was restricted to monasteries, because civilization was more spread out, and because the Church was the greatest unifying factor in Europe that people were dirty and stupid.  The truth couldn’t be further from this.

The Middle Ages was, in fact, a time of discovery and advancement on many levels.  One of the reasons why people write it off as the “Dark Ages” is because so many of the advancements, especially in the early part of the Middle Ages, were rural and agrarian.  But because the common man isn’t as flashy as philosophers and scientists in huge urban centers they don’t get as much attention.  Without the quiet, steady advancement of agricultural technology, though, the big cities with their fancy architecture and science can’t grow and function.

The Roman Empire was very good at urban and military technology, but it wasn’t as good at the basics of rural technology.  The huge Roman plantations, or latifundia, were owned by a few wealthy citizens and run by legions of slaves.  Honestly, that’s not the most efficient system.  Slaves have no vested interest in their jobs or the land that they work.  The Romans also failed to take advantage of a few simple technological advances, from more effective horse harnesses to more efficient plows, that were available to them.

The first and perhaps best advancement in rural Medieval Europe, one that laid the groundwork for all the rest, was simply the feudal system.  No longer was the land worked by slaves.  As central Roman power broke down and barbarian tribes took over the countryside of Europe, manors owned by local lords, made up of small farms worked by peasants and serfs became the order of the day.  The beauty of the feudal system was that peasants worked a certain amount of hours and days on their lord’s land as service to him, but they also worked land for themselves.  And when someone has even a small sense of ownership over their land, their livelihood, and their life it inspires them with a whole different level of motivation to advance and produce.

The most important technological advancement of the early Middle Ages was the introduction of the horse as the go-to draft animal.  In Roman times oxen were used to plow fields and horses were ridden or used to pull chariots at most.  And yeah, this worked okay, but oxen were slow and the throat-and-girth harness used for horses choked the poor animals if they tried to pull anything larger than a chariot.

Then voila!  The padded horse collar was introduced from China by way of trade routes.  The padded horse collar sat much lower on a horse’s neck and pressed against their breastbone instead of their throat.  This allowed them to pull four times the weight of the old style harness.  Add to that the introduction of the iron horseshoe and suddenly Medieval farms had an animal that could pull a heavy plow longer distances at a faster speed.  This, of course, meant that more land could be cleared and cultivated.  Did the Romans have access to this Chinese technology.  Yes, they did.  Did they take advantage of it?  Nope.  Their loss.

The heavy plow went hand-in-hand with this advancement in agricultural technology.  To greatly over-simplify the tool, a heavy plow involved a metal-reinforced plowshare mounted on wheels so that it could be raised or lowered to suit the land being plowed which was attached to a harness for multiple animals.  A slightly later Medieval invention was the addition of a harrow, which broke up the clods of dirt churned up by the plowshare.  This was important because the whole process could be done at once instead of requiring someone else to come along and break up the clods.

The heavy plow was particularly important further north in Europe, where the dirt was more dense, and in previously forested areas that had been recently cleared.  Now add the newly effective horses to a better, stronger plow and suddenly you have vast areas of the landscape of Europe that were able to be cleared, settled, and farmed.  And of course more agricultural production means more food, and more food means greater health and a population increase.

But wait!  There’s more!

The old system of farming involved a two field system.  One year one field would be planted while the other was left fallow and the next year the second field would be planted while the first one was left to rest.  This changed with the introduction of the three field system.  Our good buddy Charlemagne is credited with coming up with this idea.  Land was divided into three fields.  Field one was planted in the Fall with winter wheat, rye, and other crops that grew in the colder part of the year.  In the Spring the second field was planted with crops like peas, lentils, and beans.  The third field was left fallow.  Each year the fields were rotated.  This meant two things.  First, more land could be in production at any given time.  Second, a greater variety of crops were able to be planted leading to a greater variety in the diet of Medieval people.  It was a win-win situation.

One other thing to mention is the introduction of the scythe.  Yes, the scythe was a Medieval invention.  More than just the tool of the Grim Reaper, it enabled farmers to harvest their crops much faster and with less manpower wasted than the handheld tools used before.  Which, once again, meant higher yield and greater abundance for the people of the Middle Ages.

So to recap, the dawn of the Middle Ages brought with it a closer sense of ownership of the land.  That, in turn, lead to a motivation on the part of lords and peasants alike to bring in the latest and most effective technology available.  Food was produced on a local, personal level instead of being something that you went to the market to buy like in Rome, like today.  The adoption of technology that had been hanging around unimplemented lead to the clearing of land and greater production and variety, which lead to healthier people and more of them.

I personally think that the reason these kinds of remarkable advances have been ignored by history is because they are so basic and quite literally dirty.  Farming isn’t glamorous work, but without it, without food, everything else falls apart.  Also, the things that enabled revolutionary advances in the Middle Ages are yesterday’s news to people today.  Modern people tend to forget that the simplest of things, things that we take for granted now, changed life drastically at the time they were invented.

So don’t knock Medieval agricultural technology!  It was the backbone on which an avalanche of even greater technological inventions came to be.  But more about that next week.

Medieval Monday – Charles Martel Saves The World

Western Europe at the dawn of the 6th century was a pitiful backwater on the verge of annihilation.  The collapse of the Roman empire had left it a disconnected scattering of tribal landholdings clinging to a fading Roman culture that they no longer understood.  Although one of the most fertile agrarian areas in the known world, its economic system was rudimentary … and its political systems were even worse.  Almost everyone in the region had accepted Christianity, but they were lukewarm about it.  The Church which we think of as being such an all-consuming and powerful entity in the Middle Ages was, at this point, unorganized and disconnected without much uniformity in practice from region to region.  To top it all off, the mighty Muslim empire, the Moors, had conquered Spain and had their eyes on the rest of Western Europe.

On paper it looked like the end for Western Europe.  And yet, if you look around today what do you see?  We’re not all speaking a variation of Arabic, we’re not all worshiping in mosques, and Western models of law, learning, culture, and commerce prevail and Christianity is the predominant religion.

So what happened?

The Carolingians happened.

Charles Martel

Back to the dawn of the 6th century.  Western Europe was a backwater.  The barbarian invasions of previous centuries had settled down into struggling kingdoms ruled by kings with a very small reach.  The Anglo-Saxons in Britain couldn’t get things together and were dealing with Viking invasions.  The Lombards in Northern Italy were hostile to the Pope in Rome.  The Germanic tribes of the east were little more than clans.  The only kingdom and people that had any sort of real power were the Franks.

The Franks were a mixture of the Gauls of the Roman era and the Germanic people they had integrated with them.  They had the advantage of remnants of Roman culture mingled with Germanic warrior strength.  Their kingdom spread through much of the area that is now France and a big portion of the Rhine valley.  But the big problem of the Frankish kingdom was that their hereditary line of kings was quite literally weak.  Many of them died while they were still young.

The salvation of the Franks came from what probably started in a totally pedestrian position: Mayor of the Palace.  It is thought that the position of Mayor of the Palace was probably nothing more than the manor steward at first.  (My character Simon from The Faithful Heart would be so proud)  Various members of the Carolingian family had held this position off and on for centuries.  But because the Frankish kings were so weak, the position of Mayor of the Palace became a very powerful one indeed.  Whoever held the position was the king’s chief advisor.  All policy and decisions came through and were issued from the Mayor.  The position can be likened to the modern Prime Minister.  It wasn’t necessarily an inherited position.  In fact, it was more often a prize given as spoils of war between battling regional lords.

Charles Martel was raised to the position of Mayor of the Palace in 717.  The world he faced was one of disorganization, infighting amongst the Frankish lords, and serious threats to the very existence of the Franks and the whole European way of life in the form of the Moors.  His first order of business was to take care of things at home.  In the years after 717 he subdued the rebellious leaders of the Germanic tribes and lands to the east and north of Paris (which was the center of the Frankish kingdom even back then).  He was incredibly successful at bringing them to heel by force and then holding them through religious persuasion and by making them swear fealty to him.  Hint: this was the beginning of the feudal system.

Then, in 721, the Moors attacked the Duchy of Aquitaine in the southwest.  Aquitaine’s ruler, Duke Odo defeated them at Toulouse, but that was not the end of things.  The threat was constantly there.  And Odo was not best buddies with Charles.  In fact, Charles had to turn the attention of his armies to Aquitaine to fight more than just the Moors.

So if Odo, Duke of Aquitaine defeated the Moors at Toulouse in 721 and Charles had to turn his attention to the region to keep Odo in check, how come we didn’t end up with a grand line of European kings named Odo?  Well, Charles was smarter.  He studied the situation with Odo and with the Moors and realized he needed to do something truly radical to face the challenge.  In those days soldiers were only available when they weren’t needed back home for planting or harvesting.  War was a seasonal thing and armies were temporary at best.  Charles saw that this wasn’t going to work.  He needed a full-time, year-round army that could be trained and train new recruits in turn.  And to have a full-time army he needed to pay them.  He took a huge risk in seizing money from the Church to pay for his army.  The Church was furious.  The good relationship they had had fell apart to the point where Charles was almost excommunicated.

And then the Moors invaded again in 732.  They were twice as strong and this time they fully intended to capture all of Europe.  They sacked Bordeaux and good old Odo fled in a panic to seek Charles’ help.  Charles was more than happy to bring his full-time, trained army to the rescue.  Then he did something that none of his contemporaries expected.  He enlisted Odo and his men to help fight the battle.  See, in those days it was unheard of for a ruler to include his enemy in his army.  It was seen as suicidal.  But Odo was in trouble, the Moors were serious, and Charles was thinking way, way ahead.  In exchange for coming to Odo’s defense he made him swear fealty and more or less give Aquitaine to the Frankish crown on a level it hadn’t been pledged before.  Odo agreed.

Charles met the forces of the invading Moors at the Battle of Tours in October of 732.  The Moors had vastly underestimated Charles’ strength.  The Franks crushed them.  They crushed them so badly that Charles was given the moniker “Martel” which means “The Hammer”.  The Muslim Moors were pushed through Aquitaine and back over the Pyrenees into Spain.  They would attempt a few more invasions in the next handful of years but they were easily defeated by then.

Charles Martel had stopped the spread of Islam into Europe.  Up until that point it was a real possibility that the Moors could have taken over, converted Europe, and Christianity could have been squelched as an also-ran religion.  The foresight and creative thinking of Charles, not to mention his highly trained army, put a stop to that.  But Charles’s victory meant much, much more than that.  In defeating the Moors he had rallied most of the duchies, territories, and minor kingdoms within the kingdom of the Franks under one banner.  He had required that the lords swear fealty in a whole new system that would set the benchmark for centuries to come.  He also began reforms within the Church that set the wheels in motion to create one organization that could unite all of the diverse kingdoms and peoples of Europe whose cultures were so different that nothing else could have given them a sense of unity.

There is a whole other element to the might of the Carolingians.  If Charles Martel had done all of this and then died without leaving a strong legacy things might have fallen apart.  But his son, Pippin, was just as strong and dedicated to the cause as he was.  And his grandson was so powerful and shared the vision with such clarity, and carried so many of his changes and improvements to their completion, that he became known as Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne.

But more about Pippin and Charlemagne next week.

Medieval Monday – Who’s In Charge Here?

June 15th, 1215.  A field in Runnymede.  After months of tense negotiations that went so far as to involve the Pope as arbiter, King John of England is forced by his barons to sign a charter that set out to severely curtail his rights as king.  Among other things this charter stated that all citizens of England had a right to be tried by the laws of the land and not to be punished arbitrarily at the whim of the king.  It set up a council of barons that declared they had the right to arrest the king and confiscate his lands if he failed to live up to the concessions made in the charter.  In essence, this charter declared that the king was not above the law.  This was Magna Carta.

I’m pretty sure that anyone who speaks English and has gone to school has heard of the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta was the foundation of constitutional government.  But taken within the context of the time in which it was enacted, it is a powerful sign of the constant struggle in the Middle Ages between monarchs and their vassals.

Something that I think modern people forget is that royal rule in the Middle Ages wasn’t always absolute.  In fact, it fluctuated wildly depending on who the monarch of any given kingdom was and how much power they wielded.  Time and again through the Middle Ages the nobility rose to eclipse the king in terms of wealth, power, and prestige.

I’ve been taking a look at topics that arise in my forthcoming novel The Faithful Heart these last few weeks.  The question of who was really in charge of the day to day life in a Medieval shire definitely plays a part in this book.  Several decisions are made at what we would consider to be a local level that have an enormous impact on the lives of the people of Derbyshire.  Readers may notice that a lot of power is wielded and armies are raised without the direct influence or say-so of the crown.  But how realistic is this?

Very realistic.

As I discussed way, way back months ago in my post The Truth About Feudalism, Medieval society was strictly hierarchical.  The king sat at the top of the hierarchy and the lords of the land swore their fealty to him.  The lords, in turn, had their own vassals, lesser freemen and peasants, who swore fealty to them.  Those at the top swore to protect and provide for those under them while those underneath provided their lord or king with money, labor, or military service.  Ideally it was a utopic situation where everyone got what they needed and everyone was taken care of.

Yeah.  Things are rarely ideal.

The reality was that like the children’s game “King of the Castle”, someone was always trying to knock the man at the top off his pedestal.  The Middle Ages were a cauldron of constant battle, as witnessed by the myriad of castles throughout Europe.  Someone was always fighting someone.  Most of these wars were personal wars, not international ones.  The power of the king could only extend so far and when any given lord became powerful enough to defeat his neighbors, he turned his sights on the king himself.

Strong kings had no problem holding onto their kingdoms.  Weak kings had serious problems on their hands.

Take, for example, an 11th century lord who was known as William the Bastard.  True, he was Duke of Normandy (and oh my gosh, it’s quite a story of how he got that position considering he was illegitimate!) but that wasn’t good enough for him.  He had a vague connection to the English king Edward the Confessor.  When Edward died childless and Harold Godwinson was raised to the throne in 1066, William pretty much said “to hell with that!” and raised his own army to jump across the Channel and invade.  Well, as we all know, William traded the tag “the Bastard” for “the Conqueror” and revolutionized the kingdom of England.

This is a classic case of a noble becoming more powerful than a monarch and overthrowing them.  William the Conqueror had a very good relationship with Edward the Confessor.  Edward himself was well-respected for his effectiveness as a monarch and his piety.  King Harold was a disaster.  He couldn’t hold his own nobles together.  William walked right in with his personal army and squashed the Anglo-Saxon king.  But then he laid down the law, building castles, instituting taxes, and more or less turning the English social order on its head.  He was able to maintain his position through the strength of his army and the effectiveness of his government.

Every English king from the Conqueror on faced rebellion of some sort or another.  After all, William had risen from the ranks of the nobles to take over an entire country, so what was to say someone else, someone with a shred of a claim to the throne, couldn’t do the same?  And guess what?  They did.  When William the Conqueror died his son William became king.  All right and good like it should have been.  When William II died his brother Henry came to the throne.  Still following legitimate lines of succession.  But when Henry I died, rather than his daughter Matilda becoming queen regent as was planned, his nephew, Stephen of Blois, snuck in and had himself crowned King Stephen, thus causing a messy civil war as Stephen and Matilda fought for the throne.  The country was divided.  Central government all but disappeared.  The barons took sides and rode the war out by doing whatever they wanted at home, including building castles and raising their own armies.

When Henry II, Matilda’s son, crossed the Channel with an army like his grandfather the Conqueror in 1153, he was strong enough to batter King Stephen into submission.  When Stephen died in  1154, Henry was pretty much king in everything but name anyhow.  Henry II was an awesome king, strong, smart, and effective.  As soon as he became king he flexed his royal muscles, tearing down the castles of his rival lords who had become too strong and re-imposing the scuttage tax, money paid in lieu of military service, so that he could hire an army to keep his nobles in line.  He was an intelligent, charismatic man who knew how to rule and how to demand that the nobles accept his authority.

Unfortunately for England, Henry II was followed by a king who wasn’t only weak, he was absent for most of his reign, our old friend King Richard the Lionheart.  Once again power shifted back to the lords, aka the barons, who got used to administrating their own lands and running their own show.  Which brings us back to where we started, King John and the Magna Carta.  King John tried to be a strong king like his father but the barons, used to things the way they had been under Richard I, wouldn’t have it.  Voila!  Magna Carta.

So why did I just run through 150+ years of English royal history in three seconds?  To point out that royal power in England during the time that The Loyal Heart and The Faithful Heart take place was far from absolute and assumed.  For someone to be raised to the position of earl, for example, was to give them the power to rule in miniature over the lives of all of the people in their area.  It gave them the potential to rise even higher if they had the guts to do it.

Medieval Monday – Occupy Medieval Europe!

As I mentioned last week, if you ever get a chance to travel back in time, DO NOT go to the 14th century!  If you were a noble you would have run into the mess that was the Hundred Years War between England and France.  The “flower of chivalry” was lost in one of the costliest wars in history.  But if you were a peasant you would have run into an entirely different set of problems.  And I’m not just talking about the Black Death here.

For the lower classes the 14th century was a time of drastic changes.  Change is good, yes, especially if you’re a peasant, but it comes at a price.  Attitudes were changing and with them life as the common man knew it.  But not everyone liked the changes.

The century before trouble began was one of prosperity and plenty.  People were doing well.  The weather was good, trade was increasing due to increased contact with the East, and everyone had enough.  The population grew as people could afford to have larger families.  But then the tipping point was reached.  Agrarian technology couldn’t keep up with the increased population.  There were widespread shortages.  These shortages were aggravated by several years of bad weather and poor harvests.  The overall temperature of Europe dropped suddenly by several degrees in the early 1300s (possibly because of a massive volcano that erupted in Indonesia, spitting ash into the sky that blanketed the Earth’s atmosphere for years).  England reported massive floods of Biblical proportion that wiped out crops.  There were also a series of plagues that effected livestock long before the Black Death killed off the human population.  It just wasn’t good.

These were all conditions that effected the common man.  Well, they effected everyone, but the blow fell much harder on the peasants.  Not only could they not feed themselves, they couldn’t feed their lords.  The lords needed not only food but the revenue from their lands so that they could keep up their lifestyle.  A fully outfitted warhorse, for example, cost more than a peasant made in a year.  So when the land wasn’t producing the lords and Parliament taxed the people to make up the difference.  Only the people didn’t have anything to give.  Yes, this is the era in which the Robin Hood legend first came into being.

And then the Black Death swooped in and made everything that much more miserable.  Vast numbers of people died.  Suddenly the equation was changed.  Things were still bad for the nobility.  They were still fighting a costly war, their lands still weren’t producing the amount they needed to keep up their lifestyle, and suddenly they didn’t have the manpower on their lands to make things work.  Entire villages and manors were wiped out or abandoned.  Records of the time in England indicated that hundreds of parishes just ceased to be after the catastrophe.

But if you were a peasant and you survived this was your lucky day.  Labor was in high demand.  If you were a laborer, especially a laborer with a skill, you were suddenly the most popular person in Europe.  Mobility amongst the peasants reached an all-time high.  And I’m talking in both senses of the word.  It’s funny how you can look at the laws that were passed in any given time period and judge what was really going on.  Parliament in England tried time and time again to pass laws limiting the amount of money peasants could earn for various jobs.  They tried but failed.  It is estimated that the wage of the common man tripled in the years after the Black Death.  Landowners were so desperate for workers that they would pay anything.  There were many other laws passed prohibiting peasants from leaving their hereditary estates and court records of the time are filled with cases of laborers being arrested and returned to their lord.

See, in Medieval Europe before the 14th century you, as a peasant, were tied to your land.  The system of serfdom said that you belonged to your lord like any other cow or sheep.  You didn’t have the legal right to move if your lord didn’t want you to.  And you owed your lord labor on his land.  But throughout the High Middle Ages, the 12th and 13th centuries, things had been so good that the rules were relaxed.  People moved a little and as fortunes rose so did the practice of serfs paying a fee to their lords instead of working the land themselves.  This became so common that by the 14th century, when labor was scarce and lords went back to demanding that their serfs stay right where they were and work their land free of charge, well, the newly empowered peasantry were not happy.  Not at all.

The situation worse in England than elsewhere in Europe.  In 1381 it came to a head.  Parliament had voted to issue a poll tax on the people directly.  This was the third such tax within a handful of years, only this one was triple the amount of the previous ones.  Parliament knew no one was going to like it and skipped out to Northampton from London to avoid the inevitable wrath the move would cause.  And it did cause wrath.  All across England peasants revolted, especially in the southern shires.  The south of England was on edge already from French invasions and rumors of French invasions due to the Hundred Years War.  Within a short time the peasants rose up in a full-scale revolt.

The leader of this peasant revolt was a man by the name of Wat Tyler.  Wat Tyler rallied his fellow common man under the idea that all men were created in God’s image and that no one was better than anyone else.  Therefore it was unjust for laborers to be taxed to a greater degree or to serve the upper classes without pay.  And yes, folks, this was the 14th century, not 1776, not 1917.  Wat Tyler gathered his supporters from across England and they marched on London.  Occupy London, 1381.  For three days in July they protested in the streets, raging, rightfully so, that 1% of the population of England controlled 99% of the wealth even though it was the peasants who made that wealth possible.

As you can imagine, it didn’t end well for Wat Tyler.  He was personally run-through by the Mayor of London.  The men who had come to London to support him were either killed or severely punished.  However, the end result would have made Wat proud.  The poll tax was dropped and the House of Commons was spurred to support legislation that would require the crown to live off of its own income instead of taxing the peasants any time they needed money.  It was a long way from modern equality, but it was a start.

The Death of Wat Tyler

On a grander scale, this was the end of the feudal system.  The hierarchy of the Middle Ages could no longer be strictly enforced.  Sure, there were laws and taxes and a lot of lords who were mighty upset about the state of things and it would take time to completely abolish serfdom, but the lower classes had seen how much power they had and would never again truly submit to the old order.

Of course the peasantry wasn’t the only segment of Medieval Society undergoing radical change in the 14th century.  Next week I’ll talk about the craziness that happened to the Church, how the seat of Papal authority was suddenly not Rome, and the days when there was not one, not two, but three Popes all claiming to be THE ONE.

Medieval Monday – The Truth About Feudalism

Twice this week I found myself in a conversation about the Middle Ages where I ended up defending the entire era against accusations that it was a miserable, barbaric, oppressive time period.  Grr!  If you’ve picked up on anything at all from reading my Medieval Monday posts then you know that nothing gets my goat faster than exactly those sorts of false assumptions.  What raised my hackles even more was when one of the other parties in these conversations asked, “Where are you getting this information from?”  *insert look of incredulity here*  They’re called books.  Some are commonly referred to as primary source material.  I had to read a lot of them when I earned my two bachelor’s degrees in History.  What interests me more is where these people who insist that the Middle Ages was dark, ignorant, and unfair got their information.  I’m worried their answer would be “it’s common knowledge”.  Friends, no knowledge is common.  It all comes from somewhere.  In the case of all this misinformation about the Middle Ages I blame the Victorians with their post-industrial, the-sun-never-sets-on-the-British-Empire sense of superiority.  With a little bit of the American spirit of independence as the root of everything good thrown in.  Because of course the enterprising spirit of the individual and the nationalistic impetus to convert everything to OUR way of doing things is far superior to the Feudal System, right?

Funny thing about that Feudal System.  Because the thing is, in a lot of ways it worked.  Really well.

Okay, I’m going to describe this in as over-simplified, generic terms as possible, because in reality there were so many different factors to Feudal Society and so many variations from country to country and manor to manor that moving from one specific set of organizational rules to another would be like moving from one planet to another.  But in a nutshell….

The term “Feudalism” is used to describe a series of duties and obligations within a hierarchy, usually military.  A lord is granted a parcel of land and in return for that land he must provide the king with military service or a cash payment to cover the costs of hiring a mercenary to take his place.  The king, in return, prevents the collection of his lords and their land, also known as vassals, from getting the crap kicked out of them by their neighbors and having their land confiscated by slathering barbarian hoards (sometimes referred to as the French).  The second half of this system is more correctly referred to as the Manorial System.  The lord parceled out his land to folks known as peasants or villeins or serfs.  They work a portion of the land for themselves as their own and in turn owe the lord labor on his land or a cash payment to cover the cost of hiring workers.  The lord has a responsibility to make sure laws are upheld, public buildings (which he technically owns) like mills, ovens, and wine-presses, are maintained.  It was totally a “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” system.

Here’s where it gets sketchy.  Depending on who your lord was (and in as much as 1/3 of manors it was the church) and what the economy was doing at the time, things were easier or harder.  There were a lot of ifs.  In a bad time serfs had very few freedoms, they didn’t own their own land or their own houses, they couldn’t marry without their lord’s consent, they definitely couldn’t move or abandon their land or choose their own profession, and they had to pay fees for the use of the lord’s mills, etc.  This was made extra sucky if you had a rat’s-ass as your lord.  He had the legal right to make your life miserable.  These are the kind of manors that give the rest of the Middle Ages a bad name.

But it wasn’t always as bad as this. ^^

So what did the good times look like?  A LOT different.

A manor was divided into three types of land.  The Demense was owned directly by the lord and worked exclusively for his benefit.  The Dependent land was still technically owned by the lord but had the appearance of belonging to the peasants that had an obligation to provide the lord with service or cash.  The third bit was the Free Peasant Land.  Yeah, you heard me, Free Peasant Land.  The proportion of these sorts of land varied from place to place, manor to manor, and so did the obligations that the peasants owed to their lord.  It was worked in the “Open-field System”, which I’m sure I’ll have a lot to say about later.  When life was good and things were going really well the size of the Demense was smaller and the peasants had plenty of time to work their own land.  As a result they had plenty of cash to pay to their lord in the form of rent.  And they had the money to pay the fees to leave or start some other trade.  Everyone had enough and law and order was maintained.  Some regions were known for their peasants having more freedoms depending on the regional specialties in farming or livestock and some areas were famous for having a lot of free peasants.  Some centuries saw economic booms and a greater abundance of liquid assets and other centuries ran into hard times, like famines, plagues, and wars, and peasants lost some of their freedoms to balance the budget, so to speak.  Plenty of manors were peaceful homes to fat, happy peasants who got along with their lords and they all lived happily ever after.  But this is boring.  That’s why you don’t hear about it in the same vivid detail as the horrible rotten manors where everyone was miserable.

But wait, you continue to frown, those poor peasants are still subject to the whims of a lord who was put in charge of them for no reason other than that he happened to be born a noble.  Yeah, but before you go getting all upset about the rights of individualism and self-determination and fall back into the same old game of bemoaning the Middle Ages as a cesspool of inequality and hardship and throwing tea into the harbor to protest taxation without representation, let’s make a little comparison.  I work in corporate America.  I am a cube-dweller, a corporate peasant.  I have my own cube decorated with all of my own things, but in fact I don’t own that space.  And I spend all day working for someone else.  My boss, a Vice President, tells me what to do.  I do it or I’ll lose my job.  She, in turn, does what her boss, the owner of the company, tells her to do.  Is it fair that the owner of my company has a house in the Bahamas where he spends half the year while I get paid just barely enough to keep a roof over my head and food in my cats’ bellies?  Well, in a way yeah, it is fair.  He worked long and hard to build the company and really he’s a good boss.  We have excellent benefits.  I paid $100 for a $6000 visit to the emergency room two years ago.  I am in no hurry to quit this job.  Same thing, I believe, with a Medieval manor.  If I was a peasant living under a good, honest lord I don’t think I’d mind working for him as long as he kept me from starving or being robbed or invaded by Vikings.  … Except that the Vikings were my ancestors.  But that’s another story.

Yep, there are a lot of things about the modern world that are just as “unfair” or “inequitable” or “unjust” as some people may think the Feudal or Manorial systems were.  But there are a lot of benefits that we fail to recognize as well.  Life on a good manor could have been a very happy place to live, what with its sense of community and camaraderie.  But more about that next week.