Eorling Mead Hall Planning/Discussion Thread

[Folwren]

I really dislike double posting, but I've done it here and in the Golden Perch now. . .

I have two things to say about what I just posted in the Mead Hall:

1. I've no idea which grains are planted in early spring. I stuck in oats because I like oats, but I don't know if that's quite right. If someone else knows better about what is planted in the spring, then let me know and I'll go back and change it.

2. Elempi, I used Eodwine and made up that case to make it interesting. If you don't like what Eodwine said or did, then I can change it, of course. If you're completely appalled with it, I can take it out. If you have a decision that you want him to make immediately, I can edit it, or you can go ahead and write it yourself, or let me write it for later in the day, or whatever.

That's all, folks.

-- Folwren

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Folwren

1. I've no idea which grains are planted in early spring. I stuck in oats because I like oats, but I don't know if that's quite right. If someone else knows better about what is planted in the spring, then let me know and I'll go back and change it.

Wheat or spelt would sound more right, but I'm not a farmer myself either, so I'm not sure if you should trust me here...

And just to make an announcement. I'll be away until Sunday at least - and Lommy will be having scarce net-time on the following two-three weeks. I hope she can post our characters conversing before she goes (she has that post somewhat ready)...

And just to avoid any confusion: Cnebba, who seems to be the fastest of us is our common character - so we both will write for him.

[littlemanpoet]

Hmmm...! My...! A find little pickle you've handed me. So just to summarize, Freeholder A owns the field but hasn't been using it, and Freeholder B doesn't own it but has been using it without A's leave. Right?

How did B plant it without A noticing? Did B plant it in secret at night (that would be very strange)? Was A gone? Did A know B was planting and not try to stop him? Or did he try to stop him and was there some threatening, whether of bodily harm or legal recourse? These are the questions that Eodwine will be asking before making a decision. Folwren, I'd love it if you could provide answers to put in the mouths of A & B so I can use them in a post. Sound good?

Uh,.... there may be more questions after these are asked, but we'll see about that later. Anyway, Eodwine's likely settlement is that B is going to have to pay A for the use of the land, whether in fee or in kind, and will, if having planted without permission, probably have to pay a fine to Eodwine besides for having caused the problem in the first place. I'd be interested in others' opinions as to how they see this case. Kinda fun.

[Celuien]

My thoughts:

Non-use of land to the 'best' purpose it could be given does not constitute abandonment of the land. Nor does it give a neighbor who does have what he considers a good use for the land the right to move onto the land without permission. Arrgh. Eminent domain cases. A pet peeve of mine. Anyone curious and up for hearing a rant can PM me after my exams are over this Friday.

So my list of questions for the arguers in the case would be the same as Eodwine's. I would be strongly inclined to make the squatting party pay rent. And maybe a fine...

[Formendacil]

Whew... that IS a legal tangle there, Folwren...

I agree with Celuien: the planting farmer is a squatter- at least by modern definition. I'm unsure how Anglo-Saxon (or Rohirric, for that matter) law would have dealt with the issue... My belief would be that, in a feudal system, the land technically all belongs to the King, and under him to the local lord. In this case, that would be Eodwine.

In a medieval society, it seems LIKELY to me that the Lord would want as much land as possible to be cultivated. And the typical scheme of things was two years planted, one year fallow. By leaving the land fallow, Farmer Owner was not fulfilling his obligation as a vassal of the Middle Emnet.

And, if was accept Farmer Planter's statement that he had a very narrow window in which to plant, then what he did was justifiable, and not to be harshly punished.

Anyway, that's MY reading of the matter, but as Eodwine is Eorl and not Náin, I'll leave that kettle of fist for Littlemanpoet.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Whew... that IS a legal tangle there, Folwren...

I agree with Celuien: the planting farmer is a squatter- at least by modern definition. I'm unsure how Anglo-Saxon (or Rohirric, for that matter) law would have dealt with the issue... My belief would be that, in a feudal system, the land technically all belongs to the King, and under him to the local lord. In this case, that would be Eodwine.

In a medieval society, it seems LIKELY to me that the Lord would want as much land as possible to be cultivated. And the typical scheme of things was two years planted, one year fallow. By leaving the land fallow, Farmer Owner was not fulfilling his obligation as a vassal of the Middle Emnet.

And, if was accept Farmer Planter's statement that he had a very narrow window in which to plant, then what he did was justifiable, and not to be harshly punished.

Anyway, that's MY reading of the matter, but as Eodwine is Eorl and not Náin, I'll leave that kettle of fist for Littlemanpoet.

Very insightful! So Farmer A has also been remiss! That does not, however, mitigate the wrongful deed of Farmer B. Eodwine might just be seeing some cashflow for a change!

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Hmmm...! My...! A find little pickle you've handed me. So just to summarize, Freeholder A owns the field but hasn't been using it, and Freeholder B doesn't own it but has been using it without A's leave. Right?

Correct.

How did B plant it without A noticing? Did B plant it in secret at night (that would be very strange)? Was A gone? Did A know B was planting and not try to stop him? Or did he try to stop him and was there some threatening, whether of bodily harm or legal recourse? These are the questions that Eodwine will be asking before making a decision. Folwren, I'd love it if you could provide answers to put in the mouths of A & B so I can use them in a post. Sound good?

What I had in mind while writing it was A knew B was planting and did not try to stop him. He knew the land was his, and figured that if he waited until the field was planted before interrupting the work and claiming the fruit as his, he'd have a lot of free work done for him.

Anyway, Eodwine's likely settlement is that B is going to have to pay A for the use of the land, whether in fee or in kind, and will, if having planted without permission, probably have to pay a fine to Eodwine besides for having caused the problem in the first place.

That seems somewhat harsh, though, doesn't it? If a land lies fallow for two years as B claims it has, then surely the land should go to someone else. Eodwine rightfully asked Farmer B why he didn't come to him before planting, but B gave his reasoning (not enough time). It's not a very good reason, perhaps, for if he had thought ahead at all, he could have come to him before planting started, but it's still a reason.

Eodwine had not been Eorl very long, understand, so he really doesn't know what land is being well used and what land isn't. That's another job that you should send Thornden on maybe. Eodwine could not have fixed this problem for the settlers. The Eorl who owned the land before him should have (technically) had tabs on everything and seen that the field wasn't in good use.

Eodwine might consider asking A why he never used the good land.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In a medieval society, it seems LIKELY to me that the Lord would want as much land as possible to be cultivated. And the typical scheme of things was two years planted, one year fallow. By leaving the land fallow, Farmer Owner was not fulfilling his obligation as a vassal of the Middle Emnet.

And, if was accept Farmer Planter's statement that he had a very narrow window in which to plant, then what he did was justifiable, and not to be harshly punished.

That's just it. Not only in the midieval society was land not generally allowed to stay fallow for longer a year, but even in more recent times, early American settler times, when they cleared a piece of land, they were expected to do something on it, and if they didn't, the law would sometimes come and take it away from them to give to another man who would use it for better purposes.

But, that brings us back to the problem of - it was not in B's rights to go and plant the land without having some sort of permission from Eodwine.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'd be interested in others' opinions as to how they see this case. Kinda fun.

I'm glad you think it's fun. I myself love cases like this, but I was worried that you might not. If I were smarter and planned on getting into a long term profession, I'd be very interested in going into law.

If you've any more questions, I can try to answer them. I could also ask my dad what would happen now adays in such a case - he's a lawyer (a good one, if you'll believe me). Actually, he's just recently had a case much like this.

-- Folwren

[JennyHallu]

I would like to see an example of American law denying the rights of ownership, no matter how early in our history.

[Celuien]

If A was aware of B's actions, that puts a slightly different slant on the matter. A is then guilty of implictly giving permission, then attempting to steal free labor.

But still, I don't like B's actions. Who knows? Maybe the land had been overworked by high nutrient demanding crops and A thought it needed more than a year to lie fallow. Maybe A planned to build something there. Or maybe A was just lazy. The point is that B needed to check before taking any action, both with A and with Eodwine. The worst A has done is been neglectful of the land, which would deserve a lecture from Eodwine. B has attempted squatting, and so theft, which I find worse.

*shrugs*

[Firefoot]

To me it comes down to these few things:

B is definitely guilty to some extent; he had no right to be using the land without some sort of permission.
But:
Why wasn't A using the land?
Did A know B was using the land? (I don't think there's really any way to get around a 'yes' answer to this... I would think it would be fairly obvious.)
If so, did A say anything to B? If he did, then A should not be counted guilty except perhaps for not using the land in the first place. If not... A is certainly to blame as well.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And just to make an announcement. I'll be away until Sunday at least - and Lommy will be having scarce net-time on the following two-three weeks. I hope she can post our characters conversing before she goes (she has that post somewhat ready)...

I've been awfully lazy with this and occupied with amusing my sister...

I promise to write a post on Modtryth and Stigend and put it up before I leave to countryside, in a few days, that is.

And if Cnebba needs more writing and I have time I can do that too if Noggie's in the summer cottage...