Question about medieval law

[UngainlyTitan]

Reality is surprising. There are lots of English medieval cases (13c+) with serfs suing their lords for alleged failure to meet the lords' legal obligations! And it was nothing to do with "rebellions against the feudal system" - the serfs were asserting their rights under English common Law within the feudal system. The medieval feudal system is a system of mutual obligations, and was seen as such by everyone. "Peasants' revolts" were usually (a) Assertions of breach of duties under the Law, not a revolt against the Law* and (b) were actually revolts by armed yeomen and artisans, not by actual peasants or serfs.

*Although Watt Tyler & co did sack the Inns of Court, AIR.

Edit: The French Revolution & then Marxism have resulted in a very distorted view of actual medieval history, IMO; projecting 18th & 19th century class conflicts back into the medieval era.

Are thse cases post the creation of courts independant of the local barons?

 

[Tonguez]

English Peasant Revolt occured in 1380. It was a uprising against Poll Tax, was lead by wealthy landowners and led to the end of Serfdom...

 

[Kzach]

This might be the case de facto in some times and places, but was never the case de jure (IAAL).

Reality is surprising.

Was there a lot of these types of situation? Where the law may have given a right to a lower class citizen but where the reality was more about personal power and status over-ruling morality and justice?

I often confuse myself with the ages and their quirks. I prefer the viking age of roughly 800-1100 AD to base my 'medieval sensibilities' for campaigns but always forget a lot of the distinctions or advents that occurred after this time and so blend them together.

Using the term "medieval" is a bit of a misnomer for our purposes since it spanned about a thousand years of history in which a lot changed. Really we, as armchair historians (talking of myself and what many other DM's amount to), should be more precise with our terms and use early, mid, late, etc. to properly define our questions.

With that said, were these 'medieval' laws that give such power and rights to common people, around during the 800's or did they only come into being in late medieval, around 1300c?

 

[jasper]

I think the op needs to give a tighter time frame than just medieval. Because that would include Medieval Times (TM) some times.
For example Aethelred the Unready had laws about money and coin purity standards. That was in 978.
And remember just because you were a high mucky muck noble did not mean you were above the law. Just as Good King John Lack Land.

 

[S'mon]

With that said, were these 'medieval' laws that give such power and rights to common people, around during the 800's or did they only come into being in late medieval, around 1300c?

I was thinking of English Common Law after it emerged as a defined system out of the Norman occupation period, in the early 13th century. For the 800s you're dealing with Germanic customary Law in a basically pre-medieval context, especially in England (Saxons et al), but even Charlemagne's Carolingian empire is basically still a Frankish tribal empire; the West has largely been cut off from Byzantine civilisation by the Islamic invasions & massive Islamic piracy which brings sea trade almost to a halt. Roman Civil Law is only rediscovered in the late 11th century when the Codex of Justinian is uncovered at the University of Bologna, thereafter spreading rapidly through western Europe.

For Germanic customary Law ca AD 800, a lot is unknown, and is assumed from surviving records of what eg Icelandic Law was like much later. From what I personally can tell though (and I do not claim to be an expert here) the main distinction is between (a) free man/warrior - typically, though not always, descended from the Germanic invaders and (b) serf/slave, typically descended from the conquered Roman peoples. Relations among (a) are quite modern in some respects, while (b) are initially property.

But AFAICT at this time there is no class of Nobles set over and above Free Men, with special rights and privileges.

 

[S'mon]

Are thse cases post the creation of courts independant of the local barons?

No, peasants would bring suit against the baron in his own court, with the baron as judge!

 

[S'mon]

English Peasant Revolt occured in 1380. It was a uprising against Poll Tax, was lead by wealthy landowners and led to the end of Serfdom...

Wikipedia says:
In England, the end of serfdom began with Tyler’s Rebellion and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574.[3] There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had been freed before this time. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It persisted in Austria-Hungary till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[5] In Finland, Norway and Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist. But serfdom-like institutions did exist in both Denmark (the stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788) and its colony Iceland (the much more restrictive vistarband, from 1490 until the late 19th century).
According to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs in Russia was 23.1 million.

 

[Bluenose]

Lots of medieval laws.

Regardless of whether there will be an investigation into the claims (and it's not unlikely there would be, medieval monarchs being jealous of their prerogatives and not inclined to giving 'benefit of the doubt' to criminals noble or otherwise), anyone who 'arrests' someone else probably has to prove that they did so either during or immediately after a crime was committed. Exceptions exist for people whose actual job is law enforcement - rangers, for example.

 

[Janx]

We might be needing to back the truck up on this whole premise.

laying hands on a nobleman is probably a class offense
trying to arrest anybody by yourself is plain dangerous
why didn't the commoner just report it to the authorities

Since this is basically a D&D forum, and though its inspired by medieval things, it has no obligation to be historically accurate.

So, assuming a PC is either the Commoner or the Noble, how can we make this situation appear authentic and generate some interesting game drama?

I have no doubt a PC could physically arrest somebody, odds are good they are better at it. So let's leave that part alone.

a pseudo medieval legal system would probably not be exactly like a modern system, but could share elements.

The witness (and that's what you really have here in this case) would take the claim to the authorities. If there is other evidence, then there could be a case. If its just one man's word, the station of that man would probably have some bearing on its merit.

I see 2 styles of courts: Noble run, and appointed judge run. Noble run basically means the noble has nothing better to do than preside over cases/complaints. I assume, at some later point in history, dedicated judges were given this job, freeing up the nobles time.

While real law probably has some historical conflict of interests, you could probably rule that cases get tried at the authority level above the station of both parties. Thus, local small noble would get tried at his boss's court. He wouldn't be trying it himself.

That still leaves room for corruption (his boss might like him), but sets up the semblance of "fair" trial. This would seem a logical extension of even 2 commoners having a disagreement. They go to the Noble and have him decide it. In this situation, since the noble is part of the dispute, you go a level up.

That's just setting up the premise of how the case would be decided (which further details could be worked out for flavor, maybe each side puts stones representing facts on a scale).

 

[Noir le Lotus]

A commoner can't arrest a noble and bring him to justice.

Because :
a/ on his land, the noble is master and can't be arrested.
b/ on the land of another noble, he is a guest and has then some privileges.

The only way for a commoner to have a noble bring to justice and punished is to refer to the noble's suzerain and hope that the political situation won't make the suzerain ignore his request.

Noble Lords regularly organized public meetings where anyone could come to complain about something, ask an arbiter about conflict or ask help.