Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 3430725" data-attributes="member: 1645">The question is, how did a small number of people, enough to work 400 acres, seize land that should already be held by ten times as many people -- or that would attract ten times as many people.  Is this a New World scenario, where the land was just seized from hunter-gatherers?  Do all the neighbors have similar options before them?In real life, of course, farmers don't earn a particular amount per month; they earn nothing most months, then bring in the harvest, which is taxed, in kind.  A medieval farmer would be fortunate to have enough food, and much of his produce would go to his rent (via taxes to his lord).  He wouldn't get coins then spend them, month by month.Even a noble might not deal in coins much, since his wealth is in land and food derived from it, and he spends that wealth primarily on servants who are paid in fine food and a place to stay -- or who are important enough to be paid in land in return for their military service.I say all this to paint a picture of a pre-modern economy.  Only a tiny sliver of the population deals with modern transactional markets, where you buy what you want in return for money, with no long-term loyalties assumed or required.</blockquote>