Вопросы по средневековью в Европе

[T. Atkins]

2Недобитый Скальд

Так сначала норманны, а потом нормандцы - лет 30 с ними наследники Алана воевали.

[Недобитый Скальд]

Норманны очень скоро стали нормандцами - сиречь, типичными северными французами, лишь немногим отличавшимися от франков.

[T. Atkins]

2Недобитый Скальд

Норманны очень скоро стали нормандцами - сиречь, типичными северными французами, лишь немногим отличавшимися от франков.

Спасибо, в курсе

[Недобитый Скальд]

Не все. Иные идиоты и по сей день переводят как норманныИ даже книжки так издают.

[T. Atkins]

2Недобитый Скальд

А еще некоторые переводчики (перетолмачи, блин) своими "познаниями" усугубляют всю эту путаницу...

Хотя, например, в учебниках Англию завоевывают до сих пор норманны, а не нормандцы...

[Недобитый Скальд]

Ага. Наверное, не вылезая из драккаров и в шлемах с рогами.

[Eugene_Y]

Вообще хотелось бы получить и обобщить информацию справедливую для всех европейских феодальных государств перода 12-13 веков, т.к. целью этого является создание игровой концепции, правила которой можно было бы с определнной натяжкой применить и к Англии и к Франции и к остальным государствам.

 

Касательно налогов, я вдруг сам вспомнил про книжку Domesday Book Вильгельма завоевателя, в котрой он переписал всю собственность на завоеванных землях.

 

Получается, что каждый крестьянин в общем случае платил:

1. церковный налог

2. королевский налог

3. налог местно лорда (если таковой имелся)

 

Т.е. Король Англии от какого-нибудь там Эссекса имел не только войско (которое ему временно давали для войны), но и некий доход, размер которого он наверное мог устанавливать? Или граф Эссекса мог послать короля нафиг дабы его крестьяне не раззорялись и могли исправно платить ему (графу)?

[Игорь]

2T. Atkins

Англию завоевывают до сих пор норманны, а не нормандцы...

это от того,что 2 написания в латинском шрифте равноправно употребляются в отношении нормандского диалекта фр. языка - Norman и Normand.Так что все вопросы к источнникам - они сумятицу в умы внесли.

А детишкам пояснять разницу между норманнами и нормандцами бессмысленно - 95 % по барабану такие тонкости.

[Недобитый Скальд]

Ага. И Хлевову тоже. Бесполезно. Зато Горелову честь и хвала!

[Chernish]

2Eugene_Y

2. королевский налог

какой? Талью ввели веке в 16-м емнип

разовые освященные обычаем выплаты - причем подтверждленные сословными органами - вот что он платил.

[jvarg]

2badbug

Граф - обязательно чей-либо вассал? Или все же может быть независимым?

"Де Юре", или "Де Факто"?

 

Если "Де Юре", то обязательно "чей-либо вассал".

 

Если "Де Факто", то граф мог быть и помогущественней короля. До поры, до времени.

[Eugene_Y]

2Chernish

 

2Eugene_Y

 

Цитата

2. королевский налог

 

 

какой? Талью ввели веке в 16-м емнип

разовые освященные обычаем выплаты - причем подтверждленные сословными органами - вот что он платил.

 

А как же тогда Domesday Book ? Или это было на перспективу? ;-)

[Chernish]

2Eugene_Y

а что Думсдей? Это книга в которой записали феодальные владения и крестьян... приходы и феоды... обычаи и повинности.

впрочем для игровой модели такие тонкости не нужны. Оперируйте обобщенной суммой доходов...

[jvarg]

2Chernish

королевский налог

Какой? Талью ввели веке в 16-м емнип

разовые освященные обычаем выплаты - причем подтверждленные сословными органами - вот что он платил.

Да были четко определенные налоги и в средневековье, даже в раннем. Скажем, в Англии, законы Инэ четко определяли сколько должен керл уплатить с 10 гайд земли королю:

10 бочёнков мёда;

300 хлебов;

12 ведёр тёмного эля;

30 ведёр светлого эля;

2 быка или 10 баранов;

10 гусей;

20 кур;

10 кругов сыра;

1 бочёнок масла;

5 лососей;

20 фунтов фуража;

100 угрей.

[Недобитый Скальд]

The first serious explanation of Domesday was the work of a late Victorian scholar, John Horace Round. In 1895 Round argued that Domesday was the direct result of a geld inquest. The geld was the great land tax that the Anglo-Saxons had invented to raise protection money for the Danes. Round's case was based on a theory on how Domesday was made. He posited that the Normans had used the old hundredal framework to collect the required information from the villages. His evidence for this procedure was an early draft of Domesday for Cambridgeshire, a "satellite" in the parlance of Domesday studies. This text described the villages in Cambridgeshire hundred by hundred so that manors located in the same village appeared together even if they had different lords. The original returns of Domesday were, then, a great series of a hundred rolls.

Round further assumed that the royal clerks later rearranged this geographically structured information on an honorial format to produce the Domesday text we know.5

This argument was brilliant. His reconstruction of how the survey was made was consistent with the differences between his satellite and Domesday, and his conclusion about the purpose of Domesday seemed obvious. Hundreds were responsible for the collection of the geld from the villages within their bounds. If the clerks used the hundredal framework to conduct the inquest, the object must have been fiscal. Scholars were particularly ready to believe this conclusion because they were at this time uncovering the elegant assessment system based on artificially arranged groups of hides that lay upon the countryside. In any case, it was difficult to see any other purpose for the inquest. The barons had already had their honors for years so Domesday clearly was not connected with the distribution of estates. A feudal purpose was also inconceivable because the survey did not mention feudal obligations.

Round's theory that Domesday was a geld book was further elaborated by his greater contemporary, Frederic William Maitland. Round's explanation of the text rested on a picture of how it was made; Maitland's was based on its contents. Maitland wanted to use the information in the text to reconstruct the outlines of Anglo-Saxon society, and to do this he needed to understand why so many different types of information were present. His answer was radical: everything in Domesday was connected with the geld. The manor was the unit of description because in Domesday a "manor" was a house against which the geld was charged rather than a certain type of agrarian unit. Hides, of course, gave the tax assessment. Domesday enumerated peasants by status because free peasants were responsible for paying their own geld and the manorial lord pa for the less free. The clerks collected the different types of economic data because it was the basis for deciding a manor's tax liability. Even the boroughs fit into the scheme. They were fortresses rather than true towns in this period, and the manors within a shire subsidized the existence of the local borough according to their hides.6 This formulation was elegant. It unified the seemingly heterogeneous types of information in Domesday and, in so doing, explained why the commissioners asked the questions they did.

Maitland's explanation of Domesday may have been the most comprehensive ever attempted, but it was not a complete success. His definitions of the manor and the borough flew in the face of the common sense meaning of both terms and soon fell before criticism.7 The theory Domesday was a geld book, however, lasted for decades. It seemed to explain the survey; and, shorn of Maitland's textually based definitions, which had threatened scholars' understanding of two basic eleventh-century institutions, it raised no barriers to interpreting the data in a straightforward fashion. Indeed, the geld hypothesis survived down to the rise of administrative history. Starting in the 1940's, V.H. Galbraith destroyed the old theory with two main points. First, no one could have used Domesday as a guide for collecting the geld because it listed manors according to their lord rather than location. The force of this objection came from the few surviving geld rolls which surveyed the villages within hundreds seriatim While looking at these records, one can easily imagine oneself following around the collectors of the geld from village to village. Using Domesday as a guide, a collector might have had to retrace his steps two or three times in the case of divided villages. Second, Galbraith asserted that by the Norman period the geld did not bring in enough money to warrant the effort o making Domesday.8 These common sense points were devastating.

Galbraith later went on to replace Round's picture of how Domesday was made with a much more sophisticated theory. Simply put, Round's hundredal stage of the inquest was a myth. Domesday was not the product of inquests I each hundred; it owed little to the old order. Rather, the commissioners used the new feudal framework to gather data from the beginning. Galbraith's evidence for this new theory was a satellite survey (Exon Domesday) in which the information was arranged on an honorial basis (manors were grouped together by lord). He posited that the commissioners gathered much of their information directly from the barons in each shire, checked it in the shire court, and then combined these shire accounts in an ascending hierarchy of drafts that culminated in Domesday. The purpose of the inquest was implicit in its feudal structure: William wanted an account of each honor so that he could exercise his rights as feudal overlord. Detailed information about the honors would allow the king to collect the various charges and profits that were his due.9 Domesday was a feudal register. Its utility lay in feudal administration.

This answer looked like real progress, and it quickly won acceptance. At one and the same time Galbraith's theory seemed to answer all questions and to force anyone who disagreed to do battle on the grounds of the endless minutia on which Galbraith had built his case. His hypothesis, in fact, had weaknesses,10 but a real alternative did not appear until Sally Harvey's attempt to revive the geld hypothesis in the 1970's. Like Maitland, her theory depends on an interpretation of the contents of Domesday. What prompted the inquest in her view was a fall in the receipts of the geld (the barons had been lowering their assessments). The principal purpose of the inquest was to provide the basis of a reassessment. This conclusion is reminiscent of the Victorians, but a startling novelty follows. William proposed to raise the geld by introducing a new cadastral unit-the fiscal plowland rather than by multiplying hides. Harvey believes that the plowland was a new fiscal unit analogous to the late Roman yoke (a Late Antique fiscal unit that measured the fiscal capacity of all types of productive land in units of equal value). Needless to say, no explicit evidence supports this theory. Rather, its strength lies in its ability to explain why earlier scholars came to different conclusions about the nature of the plowland. The nature of this unit in fact varied by area. In some regions it was based on the number of teams; in others, on the number of hides; and in others, on nonarable sources of wealth.11 This explanation is highly ingenious. Unfortunately, believing it entails a number of difficulties. The most important is the fact that the hide remained the basis for the assessment of the geld.12

Indeed, the principal immediate result of Harvey's theory has been to provoke a rebuttal from J. C. Holt who modernized Galbraith by giving the inquest a political context. According to Holt, William wanted the information in the survey for Galbraith's reasons-in the long run. More immediately, he wanted the baron's homage. They provided both because they wanted tide to their lands, which Domesday could provide. This deal was consummated at Salisbury in 1086 when William received the written returns of the inquest, and the barons swore homage.13 This proposed political context would represent real progress. Unfortunately, William's motivation depends on the implausible assumption that the barons had not done homage before 1087.

 

Several scholars, however, have used this approach on particular subjects, and their results raise serious doubts about the current explanations of Domesday.

For example, how developed was the treasury? Some historians assume that the geld presupposed at least a simple treasury that functioned as a repository. Others can find no real evidence for such an institution before the time of Rufus.17 No real grounds for doubt exist, however. In 1971 Harvey published an excellent article on how Domesday was made. In this piece she demonstrated that some of the information in Domesday must have been derived from existing survey information. The names of the manors, their tax assessments, and the names of their holders in 1066 must all have been available to the Domesday commissioners before they began their work. The evidence for this theory consisted of several pre-Domesday surveys which scholars had confounded with Domesday satellites (surveys that were a by-product of the inquest). Harvey was able to uncover the true nature of a number of such surveys, and she concluded on their evidence that Domesday stood at the end of a series of surveys that identified place, holder, and hides and stretched back into Anglo-Saxon times.18 Although some of her evidence has been questioned, her conclusion is certainly correct, and it has significant implications.19 If the Anglo-Saxons were regularly making surveys of the countryside, their administrative sophistication was considerably greater than has been thought. Furthermore, if the commissioners got the core of the information in Domesday-the framework of place and holder-from an older survey, then the job they were faced with shrank considerably. They had only to bring the name of the holder up-to-date a'nd to add the economic data.20

 

The Victorian geld hypothesis has points in its favor, and the attractiveness of Galbraith's alternative declines upon inspection. As logical as the idea seems that the utility of Domesday lay in feudal administration, the idea is only a theory. No one has, in fact, demonstrated that the exchequer used Domesday's economic information to calculate the amount of relief a baron had to pay upon inheritance, to set the price for the marriage of a heiress, or to establish a farm for a barony. At most only a very small number of possible examples ever appear, and one is left to guess whether the paucity of examples is the result of the paucity of administrative evidence from before the beginning of the pipe rofls or a sign that Domesday was not used for this purpose.29

 

The rationale of Domesday might, then, have been connected with the fiscal system. One might theorize that the survey was to be the basis for restructuring it. Perhaps William intended to shift the basis for the collection of the geld from the hundred to the honor within shires. If so, the organization of information in Domesday mirrored the structure of the new fiscal framework, and honors had functions beyond the military and judicial roles normally attributed to them. The theory that early Norman honors were fiscal units is attractive. It might ultimately provide an escape from the conundrum of Domesday, yet several difficulties stand in the way of such a solution. First, pointing out the weakness in the theory that the geld was collected from hundreds after 1086 is easy; establishing how the geld was actually collected in this period is far more difficult. Second, one would still need to explain the presence of the economic information. Obviously, it might have been the basis for deciding how many hides a manor could bear. This possibility goes back to Maitland who posited that a manor worth £ 1 would typically bear an assessment of one hide.30 If the existence of such an assessment scheme could be established, the economic information in Domesday would lose all its mystery. However, even with Maitland's liberal allowances for the effects of beneficial hidation (the lowering of a manor's tax assessment as a favor), the proposed relationship has seemed elusive to his successors, and the most recent attempt to prove that it existed with quantitative methods is seriously flawed.31 Similarly, A.R. Bridbury's recent attempt to interpret Domesday as the result of an "income tax" investigation cannot be squared with the details of Domesday.32 Indeed, one can only conclude that the ability of a revived geld hypothesis to explain Domesday's interest in economical reality is problematical at best except on the level of Illinois Medieval Association 63 generalities. Both the geld and feudal administration as explanations seem to be similar in that they break down when one descends to details.

The difficulties with these explanations, of course, may only reflect imperfections in our current knowledge.

[Eugene_Y]

Ой! Такой текстамент я не осилю ;-(

 

Получается, что провинция, НЕ находящаяся в королевском домене все равно приносит доход в королевскую казну? Если да, то какова схема движения денег? Собирают ли их непосредственно королевские сборщики налогов или местный граф отсылает королю определенную долю из собранных им для себя налогов?

 

Мог ли король изменять сумму налогов?

 

Помимо постоянного налога я так понял были еще разовые выплаты, по случяю праздников, событий и войн. Первые 2 были "добровольными", а на войну король обязывал всех скидываться (тех кто не давал солдат??)?

 

Еще король мог взять денег "взаймы" у евреев или ломбардцев. Мне кажется что этот займ им не возвращали (в прямой форме).

[T. Atkins]

Не-а, не приносит

не очень-то и мог (кое-где совсем даже не мог)

везде по-разному

2Eugene_Y

Евгений, если у вас столько вопросов по таким нюансам, то, м/б, я дам вам свой аск? Я, конечно, не кандидат наук, но диплом по СВ защищал, и уйму лит-ры осилил...

А еще со Скальдом общайтесь поплотнее, он по СВ очень крупный спец - я знаю его по статьям о Шотландии.

[Недобитый Скальд]

А Вы меня с кем-то не путаете? Я про Шотландию вроде бы ничего не издавал.

[T. Atkins]

2Недобитый Скальд

А в Инете?

[Недобитый Скальд]

Только статьи на сайте Вадима о Столетке и обширные постинги об оружии и одежде скоттов на разных форумах - я ж не Федосов.

[T. Atkins]

2Недобитый Скальд

Сорри, тогда точно спутал с другим товарищем

[Недобитый Скальд]

А что за статьи о Шотландии, кайтесь?!

[T. Atkins]

БИТВА ПРИ ЛАУДОН-ХИЛЛЕ 1307 г.

[Недобитый Скальд]

Во млин память, я уже и забыл про нее. Да, это моя статья.

[T. Atkins]

2Недобитый Скальд

Ага! Значит, не ошибся