How much land for new Noble ?

[S'mon]

I have MMS:WE btw, it's a good book although not perfect.

 

[gizmo33]

"Baron" was the baseline noble title in England following the Norman conquest.

Rassilon's campaign world, if I had to guess, probably uses "Baron" as the lowest form of nobility. I"m reading between the lines as far as the PCs being giving parts of a land owned by a greater noble.

IMO the best/simplest thing to do is to get a total number of manors given to each PC.

450 peasants I think would support a late-medieval knight in platemail (not full plate) armour, plus his Lance of 3-5 light troops. about 1/200 is right for high medieval I reckon, but will vary depending on how wealthy the area is.

IMC I try not to worry too much about land-quality and that sort of thing. I assume that for the most part land-quality will determine population density, but if the economic unit is the manor, then it will be about the same. If per-capita income falls under a certain value, people starve and die, so I have to figure that whatever they're doing, it's enough to keep them alive.

IMC I reason that a peasant requires 1 sp/day to support self and one other dependant. That 1 sp/day of wealth is actually 2 sp/day being generated, but one of them is being taken by the lord. For a manor of 450, that means 225 sp/day to the lord. Regardless of the means of taxation (mills, boon work, etc.), it still means 50% of peasant effort goes to generating wealth for the lord. Does this square with your numbers? It's definitely FAR lower than what MMS has.

 

[S'mon]

I just looked at MMS:WE - their numbers are incredibly high for tax revenue (assuming those are _per month_?) - by those numbers every peasant could have his own War-1 bodyguard!

I use - a typical peasant family of 5 generates 5sp/day or 150 sp/month, = 15gp, and 1/6 goes on tax (mostly goods - wheat etc), so the lord gets 2.5gp per family per month, or 5sp/person/month. Wealthy areas with wealthy peasants and prosperous towns (medieval Germany*, maybe) produce twice as much (1gp/person/month), poor & unsettled areas (medieval Scottish highlands) produce only 2sp/person/month, but you can usually levy decent quality militia from those places as noted previously.

*Wrote France, but not really true for France until the 16th century. Too many English invading.

 

[S'mon]

Historically it took around 4 farmers to support 1 non-farmer, so if you taxed at 50% the peasants would starve.

 

[gizmo33]

Historically it took around 4 farmers to support 1 non-farmer, so if you taxed at 50% the peasants would starve.

It seems to be a reoccuring theme in a variety of places (going as far back as the 1E DMG IIRC) that a medieval peasant was taxed 50% of income (I'm assuming that's estimates for tolls, forced labor, etc.) - that's where I got my idea from. Do you have a source for the 4:1 ratio?

 

[Ourph]

It seems to be a reoccuring theme in a variety of places (going as far back as the 1E DMG IIRC) that a medieval peasant was taxed 50% of income (I'm assuming that's estimates for tolls, forced labor, etc.) - that's where I got my idea from. Do you have a source for the 4:1 ratio?

If you are talking about the basest villein (as opposed to a villein with special rights) and include week-work, boon-work, fees, fines and all the other niggling ways in which the medieval villager supported his lord, 50% isn't an entirely inaccurate number. However, the 4:1 ratio is accurate if you average the contributions of all the different levels of villeins and semi-freeholders known to exist within the manorial structure, since a villein with special rights who was allowed to retain some of his "support" for himself was obvioulsy providing less to his lord.

The ratio also depends upon what time period we're talking about and what agricultural methods are being employed. For example, the difference between a 2 and 3 field system in the period between 1200-1300 might have impacted the amount of "support" produced by the land very little, as it has been shown that while a 3 field system utilized more of the land each season, the increased usage reduced the crop yields in a way which, on average, almost offset the gains. Later however, when wool production and textiles started to become more important to the economy, the difference between 2 and 3 field systems became more pronounced because the systems differ in the number of sheep they can support with pasturage. Thus a certain amount of land and the people necessary to work it could provide differing amounts of support depending upon whether the use of the land was maximized for the production of crops or flocks.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The lands associated with a baron really depend on your setting. Barons in areas with few resources may have hundreds of square miles of barrens vs. baronies in the lush farmlands being only a dozen square miles. Of course, some barons end up far more powerful than pure rank would imply; think of the wealth that would come if you found mithral on your lands.

My general rule of thumb is three to six baronies per county, three to six counties per duchy, and rarely more than a dozen duchies per kingdom (imagine 432 barons, 72 counts, and a dozen dukes all clamoring at the king! Madness!). Take your kingdom's demigraphic and subdivide. I like small kingdoms, rarely more than a million people, but that's because I like the politics of having lots of nobility in close proximity.

 

[gizmo33]

If you are talking about the basest villein (as opposed to a villein with special rights) and include week-work, boon-work, fees, fines and all the other niggling ways in which the medieval villager supported his lord

Yes, I do count all of those. The difference in the form that "taxes" take IMO is largely a matter of the availability of coin, the feasibility of enforcement, custom, etc. Rather than keep track of all of the zillions of details, I choose to simplify by looking at the question in terms of the total value of output by a peasant, and what percentage of that is taxed (in whatever form). Labor can always be traded for coin, etc. And if it's not, I choose to deal with that on the macro side (ie. factor in a -10% due to inefficiency, or poor market forces, or whatever) rather than enumerate the seemingly hundreds of ways that lords had to wheedle money out of their subjects and figure out how campaign events impact each and every one.

..., 50% isn't an entirely inaccurate number. However, the 4:1 ratio is accurate if you average the contributions of all the different levels of villeins and semi-freeholders known to exist within the manorial structure, since a villein with special rights who was allowed to retain some of his "support" for himself was obvioulsy providing less to his lord.

That's not obvious to me, but I'm not 100% sure on what you're saying here. A wealthier person will probably provide far more to the lord than the poor. Are you saying that they'll provide less as a % of their total income? That's not obvious to me at all. If you factor in all of the hired help and such that wealthier persons would have - does the overall result per capita really change substantially? Whether the 4:1 ratio represents a yeoman with 16 hired hands vs. 17 poor peasants - does that matter?

It's not clear to me that your status as a free-person would affect the amount that you pay as a %. If I'm wealthier, for example, I can pay my 50% in money, which keeps me from having to toil in the lord's field like the serfs. But it still doesn't mean I'm not giving 50%.

The ratio also depends upon what time period we're talking about and what agricultural methods are being employed. For example, the difference between a 2 and 3 field system in the period between 1200-1300 might have impacted the amount of "support" produced by the land very little, as it has been shown that while a 3 field system utilized more of the land each season, the increased usage reduced the crop yields in a way which, on average, almost offset the gains. Later however, when wool production and textiles started to become more important to the economy, the difference between 2 and 3 field systems became more pronounced because the systems differ in the number of sheep they can support with pasturage. Thus a certain amount of land and the people necessary to work it could provide differing amounts of support depending upon whether the use of the land was maximized for the production of crops or flocks.

Ok, but are you sure that those details aren't obscuring a more basic, consistent economic picture? Do the details of whether or not it's sheep or grain really impact the gold piece total that the baron has at the end of the month? Especially in a game system where you're trying to create a model for wealth based on land-ownership. Someone could write a 300 page book on all of the details related to plate armor, but it doesn't make for a feasible game. So in DnD, as a result, we have AC, gp cost, movement restrictions, and a few other details. I'm looking for a manor system that takes that approach. So if a baron chooses to raise more sheep, then he gets an X% increase from the standard. The problem I have with most history books (that all pretty much sound just like your quote above) is that they wave their hands about discussing the various complications without getting down to the crunch that's going to be useable. (Although I suppose history books are not written for people playing DnD).

 

[Ourph]

Yes, I do count all of those.<snip>

I do too. I was agreeing with you.

That's not obvious to me, but I'm not 100% sure on what you're saying here. A wealthier person will probably provide far more to the lord than the poor. Are you saying that they'll provide less as a % of their total income?

No, I'm saying that most "wealthier" people in the manorial system achieved that status by somehow winning the right to contribute a smaller percentage of their overall work/wealth to the lord. For example, a villein might have been entitled to a certain plot of land that the lord wants to reassign for some reason. The villein might work out a deal where he takes another (perhaps less desireable) plot of land in trade for reducing his week-work. Now, instead of paying a 50% contribution of his work/wealth to the lord, he's only paying 40% and can use the extra 10% to build his own wealth. Many, many special-case contracts like this were entered into in the manor/village system (especially as villein's gained more rights in terms of having a long-term claim to the land they worked) and in a great many cases, the stipulations set forth were heritable. So eventually the system ended up with some workers who were base villeins (basically contributing the maximum) and many who had some level of extended rights toward smaller contributions (to varying degrees) or to a share of the profits from communal taxation. So the discussion of % taxes vs. number of peasants required to provide a certain amount of support needs to be informed by the fact that you could easily have two peasants living right next to each other on the same manor and paying completely different amounts in "taxes".

Whether the 4:1 ratio represents a yeoman with 16 hired hands vs. 17 poor peasants - does that matter?

The 4:1 ratio represents an average of what each peasant contributes. It might only take contributions from 3 base villeins (each giving 50% of his work/wealth) to match the contributions of 6 villeins with extended rights (each giving something less than 50%). So, in addition to the ratio changing based on the richness of the land and other factors, the average status of peasants on a particular manor has a significant impact on the ratio as well.

It's not clear to me that your status as a free-person would affect the amount that you pay as a %. If I'm wealthier, for example, I can pay my 50% in money, which keeps me from having to toil in the lord's field like the serfs. But it still doesn't mean I'm not giving 50%.

Again, this isn't a question of wealth. Free status indicates that you are free (or at least freer) of obligations that someone else must meet. Those obligations take the form of what we're refering to as taxes (work, fees, fines as well as monetary or produce contributions). But being free vs. being a serf isn't necessarily the same thing as being freer in terms of monetary/work obligations. In fact, many freeholders in the medieval manorial system were just as poor or poorer than some villeins (who technically "belonged" to the manor but had certain rights that alleviated their total burden to the point where they could prosper). So freedom and wealth were not always linked. It was sometimes better to be a villein with lots of extra rights and priveleges than to be a freeholder (who by definition had a much looser relationship with the manor and was much less likely to win exceptions to his tax obligations).

Ok, but are you sure that those details aren't obscuring a more basic, consistent economic picture? Do the details of whether or not it's sheep or grain really impact the gold piece total that the baron has at the end of the month?

Yes, depending on how the land is used and what the economic climate is, it can have a huge impact.

Especially in a game system where you're trying to create a model for wealth based on land-ownership. Someone could write a 300 page book on all of the details related to plate armor, but it doesn't make for a feasible game. So in DnD, as a result, we have AC, gp cost, movement restrictions, and a few other details. I'm looking for a manor system that takes that approach. So if a baron chooses to raise more sheep, then he gets an X% increase from the standard. The problem I have with most history books (that all pretty much sound just like your quote above) is that they wave their hands about discussing the various complications without getting down to the crunch that's going to be useable. (Although I suppose history books are not written for people playing DnD).

You're right, the discussion seemed to be getting sidetracked into a question of real-world facts and I'm afraid I contributed to that. From a purely gameplay perspective, all of these details aren't really important. While the details in the history books are important for understanding history, they don't really contribute to creating a workable gameplay solution, because the variables are so complex that anything remotely close to incorporating all of them is unusable.

What I can say is that, historically, the profitability of a plot of land had almost as much (if not more) to do with the ability of the person managing it as it did with any measurable physical aspect of the land or economy. If you're looking for a quick and dirty rules system, I would recommend assigning the lord's foreman or the peasant population as a whole a skill ranking (perhaps Profession: Agriculture) and base the quarterly or yearly income on that skill roll (modified, if you like, by weather/land/disease/economic factors). In this case, an average skill roll (DC=15 perhaps?) would allow the manor to produce just enough support to keep the peasants from starving and allow the lord to meet all of his obligations and keep food on the table. In addition, each point by which the roll misses or exceeds the set DC could indicate a 5% reduction or increase in the manor's overall production respectively. So for example, if you determine the manor requires a 100gp per month production to break even and the skill roll is 18, then the manor produces 115gp that month, a 15gp profit. Depending upon how detailed you want to get, a portion of that profit could represent a growth in the overall value of the manor (more animals, better tools, building upgrades, etc.) that would eventually allow increased ranks to the Profession: Agriculture skill.

 

[S'mon]

The 1/6 figure I use comes AIR from ancient Greece (I did ancient history in secondary school), it gives reasonable results. I'm assuming that 1sp/day for a lone adult really is a subsistence wage as in DMG, ie people at that wage are virtually untaxable because they'd starve. Having family of 5 produce 5sp/day 15gp/month and 2.5gp of that (5sp/person) go in tax I find works well as an average tax level in a presumably fairly contented realm, I'd allow crushing taxation of 1gp/person/month = 5gp/family, or 1/3 of all production, before it went into starvation. I'm a bit sceptical of the 50% taxation figure for villeins, I suspect it depends largely on how you quantify eg working on the lord's fields. I've pretty much excluded that sort of non-pecuniary feudal service from my model on the basis that at most it provides enough food to maintain the inhabitants of the castle, not a surplus that can be sold for new armour, weapons and the stuff players care about. The D&D Rules Companion/Cyclopedia suggests 2sp/person/month tax + typically 2-8 sp/month resource income plus 2gp/person/month 'service' income of this kind. I find this a bit high given how cheap it is to hire soldiers in D&D.