Money Matters

In Message #12485 Annette Carson wrote

<<I think it's a great shame that so much popular history, both fiction and non-fiction (and the 'meeja') concentrate on blood and gore, emotional turmoil, bastardy, infidelity and assorted bodily functions, while swiftly passing over the crunchy stuff like the economy.......................................>>

My credentials for posting here are rather flimsy – being mostly that my wife, of many years, recently discovered herself to be a budding Ricardian, and I have since been chauffeuring her to various castles, battlefields etc, most recently the (very enjoyable) Towton 550th do.

My point takes off from the concluding comment of our enthusiastic guide to the Towton battlefield on that day – that the fundamental reason for Towton, and the nexus of events associated with it, remain a profound mystery.

Is my own viewpoint so very idiosyncratic? It seems to me very clear what the most fundamental reason for the Wars of the Roses was, and that can be clearly seen in the monetary history.

If we accept Spufford's figures, then in 1300 England had around 300 tons of coin in circulation, all in silver pennies. By 1450 (and assuming a 10:1 gold silver ratio) this had fallen to about 120 tons equivalent, of which only about 30 tons was actually silver. Add to that that most of the silver in 1450 would be heavy, valuable, groats rather than pennies, and we see that for the bulk of the population, coin use had greatly diminished, if not entirely disappeared, over that period.

If we accept Watson's account, silver started to be shipped out of Europe in exchange for gold from around 1250 onwards, and the silver coinage of the poor was sacrificed to promote the gold coinage of the rich. And this goes on against a backdrop (Spuf again) of there being around 400 great dynasties in Europe in the 13th century, to there being only 40 by the 15th cent.

Thus it seems to me almost all the people on the 15th century battlefields must have been tied by chains of credit to the leading individuals, and that explains the way the activities of the entire nation became so dominated by the blood feuds of individuals.

The gist of the argument seems to me rather securely founded on the hard facts of the period, the coinage, but at the same time seems to contradict most of the histories I see, and the preconceptions of those I have tried to discuss the matter with.

I realise such debate is not everybody's cup of tea, so crave the indulgence of any who dislike this line of argument, and ask if there is anyone with comments or criticism to add?

best

Rob Tye, York, UK

PS most facts from memory, citations available

Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money." In Rhoda Edwards'
brilliant historical fiction about the reign of Richard III, The Broken
Sword, she points out that by the time Tudor came to England to
challenge Richard and ultimately defeat him, the treasury was not in
good shape and Richard had to borrow money to pay his generals and feed
the troops. Edwards suggests that a significant reason Richard was so
eager to meet Henry on the battlefield was because he needed to minimize
his expenses and thus did not take the advice from his closest
associates to delay.

Henry VI was considerably in debt to Richard III's father and as time
dragged on, it appeared that Richard of York had no hope of recuperating
his expenses. It seems reasonable to me that this could have been a
major factor in York's decision to try to gain the crown.

Regardless of Gloucester's actual feelings for Anne Neville, I'm
convinced that he wanted to marry her to gain access to the vast estates
that her father had and that were now in Clarence's possession through
his marriage to Isabel Neville. Clarence, for his part, didn't want to
give up any of the estates, and hence power.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , "robtyenow"
<robtyenow@...> wrote:
>
> In Message #12485 Annette Carson wrote
>
> <<I think it's a great shame that so much popular history, both
fiction and non-fiction (and the 'meeja') concentrate on blood and gore,
emotional turmoil, bastardy, infidelity and assorted bodily functions,
while swiftly passing over the crunchy stuff like the
economy.......................................>>
>
> My credentials for posting here are rather flimsy – being mostly
that my wife, of many years, recently discovered herself to be a budding
Ricardian, and I have since been chauffeuring her to various castles,
battlefields etc, most recently the (very enjoyable) Towton 550th do.
>
> My point takes off from the concluding comment of our enthusiastic
guide to the Towton battlefield on that day – that the fundamental
reason for Towton, and the nexus of events associated with it, remain a
profound mystery.
>
> Is my own viewpoint so very idiosyncratic? It seems to me very clear
what the most fundamental reason for the Wars of the Roses was, and that
can be clearly seen in the monetary history.
>
> If we accept Spufford's figures, then in 1300 England had around 300
tons of coin in circulation, all in silver pennies. By 1450 (and
assuming a 10:1 gold silver ratio) this had fallen to about 120 tons
equivalent, of which only about 30 tons was actually silver. Add to
that that most of the silver in 1450 would be heavy, valuable, groats
rather than pennies, and we see that for the bulk of the population,
coin use had greatly diminished, if not entirely disappeared, over that
period.
>
> If we accept Watson's account, silver started to be shipped out of
Europe in exchange for gold from around 1250 onwards, and the silver
coinage of the poor was sacrificed to promote the gold coinage of the
rich. And this goes on against a backdrop (Spuf again) of there being
around 400 great dynasties in Europe in the 13th century, to there being
only 40 by the 15th cent.
>
> Thus it seems to me almost all the people on the 15th century
battlefields must have been tied by chains of credit to the leading
individuals, and that explains the way the activities of the entire
nation became so dominated by the blood feuds of individuals.
>
> The gist of the argument seems to me rather securely founded on the
hard facts of the period, the coinage, but at the same time seems to
contradict most of the histories I see, and the preconceptions of those
I have tried to discuss the matter with.
>
> I realise such debate is not everybody's cup of tea, so crave the
indulgence of any who dislike this line of argument, and ask if there is
anyone with comments or criticism to add?
>
> best
>
> Rob Tye, York, UK
>
> PS most facts from memory, citations available
>

Dear Annette,

I am taking the economy into account, though it must needs take a back seat to story. But I use it as the motivation for the haste of 22 August and was thrilled to have this affirmed by The Broken Sword, as told me by Joan S.

Warm regards,
Judy


________________________________
From: robtyenow <robtyenow@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Money Matters


 
In Message #12485 Annette Carson wrote

<<I think it's a great shame that so much popular history, both fiction and non-fiction (and the 'meeja') concentrate on blood and gore, emotional turmoil, bastardy, infidelity and assorted bodily functions, while swiftly passing over the crunchy stuff like the economy.......................................>>

My credentials for posting here are rather flimsy  being mostly that my wife, of many years, recently discovered herself to be a budding Ricardian, and I have since been chauffeuring her to various castles, battlefields etc, most recently the (very enjoyable) Towton 550th do.

My point takes off from the concluding comment of our enthusiastic guide to the Towton battlefield on that day  that the fundamental reason for Towton, and the nexus of events associated with it, remain a profound mystery.

Is my own viewpoint so very idiosyncratic? It seems to me very clear what the most fundamental reason for the Wars of the Roses was, and that can be clearly seen in the monetary history.

If we accept Spufford's figures, then in 1300 England had around 300 tons of coin in circulation, all in silver pennies. By 1450 (and assuming a 10:1 gold silver ratio) this had fallen to about 120 tons equivalent, of which only about 30 tons was actually silver. Add to that that most of the silver in 1450 would be heavy, valuable, groats rather than pennies, and we see that for the bulk of the population, coin use had greatly diminished, if not entirely disappeared, over that period.

If we accept Watson's account, silver started to be shipped out of Europe in exchange for gold from around 1250 onwards, and the silver coinage of the poor was sacrificed to promote the gold coinage of the rich. And this goes on against a backdrop (Spuf again) of there being around 400 great dynasties in Europe in the 13th century, to there being only 40 by the 15th cent.

Thus it seems to me almost all the people on the 15th century battlefields must have been tied by chains of credit to the leading individuals, and that explains the way the activities of the entire nation became so dominated by the blood feuds of individuals.

The gist of the argument seems to me rather securely founded on the hard facts of the period, the coinage, but at the same time seems to contradict most of the histories I see, and the preconceptions of those I have tried to discuss the matter with.

I realise such debate is not everybody's cup of tea, so crave the indulgence of any who dislike this line of argument, and ask if there is anyone with comments or criticism to add?

best

Rob Tye, York, UK

PS most facts from memory, citations available

Hello Joan

<<Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money.">>

Thanks :-)

Your facts seems to fit with Spufford's account of the monopolisation of economic wealth within a few major dynasties. My problem is here is "following the money" when it come to the population at large. It seems to have ended up stagnant in the treasure chests of the few, leaving the rest nothing to spend..

As a schoolboy I was taught that that the medieval period started out with most of the population being legally serfs, and that there was a gradual progress towards individual freedom. The slow but steady growth of the towns was one factor. Added to this was a kind of quantum leap with the black death around 1350 – which greatly enhanced the negotiating position of labourers.

This portrait of the 15th century as being the prosperous paradigm of merrie England seems to completely contradict the hard facts that the coinage points to.

There was a steady steep decline of the issue of low value coin from 1300 onwards, which hit near rock bottom around 1450-60. Logic dictates that freedom to be paid and quit for goods or labour must have been restricted by this, and that a kind of economic serfdom ought to have been growing over this period.

The two accounts flatly contradict each other, and I am rather perplexed as to what to conclude from this. From what I have read, some monarchs acted to exacerbate this monetary situation, some attempted vainly to stem the economic tide. But it seems as if they were dealing with matters too big to control.

The account that appeals to me is that, economically, the later medieval period became like a boil that was eventually lanced at Towton. After that the hoarding and deflationary mentality had run its course, and we started a new beginning

best

Rob

PS – I have big worried about electric money today – but that's another story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money." In Rhoda Edwards'
> brilliant historical fiction about the reign of Richard III, The Broken
> Sword, she points out that by the time Tudor came to England to
> challenge Richard and ultimately defeat him, the treasury was not in
> good shape and Richard had to borrow money to pay his generals and feed
> the troops. Edwards suggests that a significant reason Richard was so
> eager to meet Henry on the battlefield was because he needed to minimize
> his expenses and thus did not take the advice from his closest
> associates to delay.
>
> Henry VI was considerably in debt to Richard III's father and as time
> dragged on, it appeared that Richard of York had no hope of recuperating
> his expenses. It seems reasonable to me that this could have been a
> major factor in York's decision to try to gain the crown.
>
> Regardless of Gloucester's actual feelings for Anne Neville, I'm
> convinced that he wanted to marry her to gain access to the vast estates
> that her father had and that were now in Clarence's possession through
> his marriage to Isabel Neville. Clarence, for his part, didn't want to
> give up any of the estates, and hence power.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , "robtyenow"
> <robtyenow@> wrote:
> >
> > In Message #12485 Annette Carson wrote
> >
> > <<I think it's a great shame that so much popular history, both
> fiction and non-fiction (and the 'meeja') concentrate on blood and gore,
> emotional turmoil, bastardy, infidelity and assorted bodily functions,
> while swiftly passing over the crunchy stuff like the
> economy.......................................>>
> >
> > My credentials for posting here are rather flimsy – being mostly
> that my wife, of many years, recently discovered herself to be a budding
> Ricardian, and I have since been chauffeuring her to various castles,
> battlefields etc, most recently the (very enjoyable) Towton 550th do.
> >
> > My point takes off from the concluding comment of our enthusiastic
> guide to the Towton battlefield on that day – that the fundamental
> reason for Towton, and the nexus of events associated with it, remain a
> profound mystery.
> >
> > Is my own viewpoint so very idiosyncratic? It seems to me very clear
> what the most fundamental reason for the Wars of the Roses was, and that
> can be clearly seen in the monetary history.
> >
> > If we accept Spufford's figures, then in 1300 England had around 300
> tons of coin in circulation, all in silver pennies. By 1450 (and
> assuming a 10:1 gold silver ratio) this had fallen to about 120 tons
> equivalent, of which only about 30 tons was actually silver. Add to
> that that most of the silver in 1450 would be heavy, valuable, groats
> rather than pennies, and we see that for the bulk of the population,
> coin use had greatly diminished, if not entirely disappeared, over that
> period.
> >
> > If we accept Watson's account, silver started to be shipped out of
> Europe in exchange for gold from around 1250 onwards, and the silver
> coinage of the poor was sacrificed to promote the gold coinage of the
> rich. And this goes on against a backdrop (Spuf again) of there being
> around 400 great dynasties in Europe in the 13th century, to there being
> only 40 by the 15th cent.
> >
> > Thus it seems to me almost all the people on the 15th century
> battlefields must have been tied by chains of credit to the leading
> individuals, and that explains the way the activities of the entire
> nation became so dominated by the blood feuds of individuals.
> >
> > The gist of the argument seems to me rather securely founded on the
> hard facts of the period, the coinage, but at the same time seems to
> contradict most of the histories I see, and the preconceptions of those
> I have tried to discuss the matter with.
> >
> > I realise such debate is not everybody's cup of tea, so crave the
> indulgence of any who dislike this line of argument, and ask if there is
> anyone with comments or criticism to add?
> >
> > best
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > PS most facts from memory, citations available
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Joan
>
> <<Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money.">>
>
> Thanks :-)
>
> Your facts seems to fit with Spufford's account of the monopolisation of economic wealth within a few major dynasties. My problem is here is "following the money" when it come to the population at large. It seems to have ended up stagnant in the treasure chests of the few, leaving the rest nothing to spend..
>

It is certainly true that there were fewer noble (i.e. peerage class) people in England in the 15th century that there were in the 13th, or even the late 14th. This was brought about by a series of 'corporate takeovers' as a result of extinction in the male line and inheritance through marriages. Warwick the Kingmaker for example represented a merger of the Nevilles (part, but a big part), Beauchamp of Warwick (itself a massive 'brand' created by multiple 'mergers'), Despenser, Montagu/Montacute (Salisbury) and various other families, most if not all of which were represented by individual magnates at the courts of Edward III and Richard II.

However, following the Black Death and for many years after, land values fell in real terms, both in capital and revenue aspects. This was partly due the ultra-conservative rentals that tended to assume that a piece of land worth £1 in 1250 was still worth £1 in 1450. As a result, changes to agricultural practice such as sheep farming made huge profits chiefly for tenants, not the ultimate owners of land.

It was also connected with labour shortage. In his books about the Paston family Colin Richmond makes it clear that good tenants were at a premium, certainly in Norfolk - lords were very glad to secure them even at modest rentals. In addition, land and associated rights of lordship in Wales (an important element for many magnates including York and Warwick) had been devasted by the Glendower rising, and the Welsh economy didn't really recover until Tudor times. I doubt whether the incomes from Marcher Lordships *ever* recovered to the sky-high real-term figures of Richard II's later years. (To give one example, Henry IV as Duke of Hereford received £1500 clear from Brecon alone! More than enough in itself to support an English earldom.)

The net result was that the Warwicks and the Buckinghams and the Norfolks were as rich as any of their forbears (if not richer) but there were fewer Warwicks, Buckinghams and Norfolks about. Indeed both the Neville of Warwick and Mowbray of Norfolk families died out in the male line during Edward IV's reign; the merger process was by no means complete.

To balance this at a somewhat lower level, families like the Spencers were buying and leasing all the land they could, sacking off the tenants and running great herds of sheep. These were the English Clearances we never hear of; they continued right through to the 19th century as more and more ordinary people were effectively robbed of their land. One of the greatest examples of organised legal theft in history.

Nevertheless, if you gave me the choice of being an ordinary working man in 1450 or 1820, I'd pick 1450 every time. It was a time of relative plenty and certainly no shortage of work.

Brian W

Hello Brian

Thanks – the suggestion that by 1450 there were fewer nobles, on roughly the same incomes, as 1300, explains why the total amount of money in circulation servicing that class might fall.

Meanwhile, if John Munro is correct, then the physical wages of the poor remained static whilst prices fell in the 15th century, so it was the incomes of the poor (the buying power) which rose whilst the volume of cash servicing this activity could have remained static. Indeed so long as the population stayed lower a corresponding modest decrease in cash volume would fit this picture.

The problem is however that we are not looking at modest falls in volumes of pennies being issued. It looks to me that there were only 1/10th to 1/100th the number of pennies around in 1450 that there were in 1300.

I am not saying the Merrie England picture of the 15th century for your poore ploughman is false, but there have to be more elements to this story than is usually spelt out

best

Rob

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Joan
> >
> > <<Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money.">>
> >
> > Thanks :-)
> >
> > Your facts seems to fit with Spufford's account of the monopolisation of economic wealth within a few major dynasties. My problem is here is "following the money" when it come to the population at large. It seems to have ended up stagnant in the treasure chests of the few, leaving the rest nothing to spend..
> >
>
> It is certainly true that there were fewer noble (i.e. peerage class) people in England in the 15th century that there were in the 13th, or even the late 14th. This was brought about by a series of 'corporate takeovers' as a result of extinction in the male line and inheritance through marriages. Warwick the Kingmaker for example represented a merger of the Nevilles (part, but a big part), Beauchamp of Warwick (itself a massive 'brand' created by multiple 'mergers'), Despenser, Montagu/Montacute (Salisbury) and various other families, most if not all of which were represented by individual magnates at the courts of Edward III and Richard II.
>
> However, following the Black Death and for many years after, land values fell in real terms, both in capital and revenue aspects. This was partly due the ultra-conservative rentals that tended to assume that a piece of land worth £1 in 1250 was still worth £1 in 1450. As a result, changes to agricultural practice such as sheep farming made huge profits chiefly for tenants, not the ultimate owners of land.
>
> It was also connected with labour shortage. In his books about the Paston family Colin Richmond makes it clear that good tenants were at a premium, certainly in Norfolk - lords were very glad to secure them even at modest rentals. In addition, land and associated rights of lordship in Wales (an important element for many magnates including York and Warwick) had been devasted by the Glendower rising, and the Welsh economy didn't really recover until Tudor times. I doubt whether the incomes from Marcher Lordships *ever* recovered to the sky-high real-term figures of Richard II's later years. (To give one example, Henry IV as Duke of Hereford received £1500 clear from Brecon alone! More than enough in itself to support an English earldom.)
>
> The net result was that the Warwicks and the Buckinghams and the Norfolks were as rich as any of their forbears (if not richer) but there were fewer Warwicks, Buckinghams and Norfolks about. Indeed both the Neville of Warwick and Mowbray of Norfolk families died out in the male line during Edward IV's reign; the merger process was by no means complete.
>
> To balance this at a somewhat lower level, families like the Spencers were buying and leasing all the land they could, sacking off the tenants and running great herds of sheep. These were the English Clearances we never hear of; they continued right through to the 19th century as more and more ordinary people were effectively robbed of their land. One of the greatest examples of organised legal theft in history.
>
> Nevertheless, if you gave me the choice of being an ordinary working man in 1450 or 1820, I'd pick 1450 every time. It was a time of relative plenty and certainly no shortage of work.
>
> Brian W
>

Hello Brian W

I refer back to Message #12883

BW <<Nevertheless, if you gave me the choice of being an ordinary working man in 1450 or 1820, I'd pick 1450 every time. It was a time of relative plenty and certainly no shortage of work.>>

I did not really agree with this, but decided to let the matter lie. (Readers may recall I was addressing the apparent paradox of there being high wages in the mid 15th century, but no coinage (to speak of) to pay them with.)

However, I was at the Leeds Medieval do last week, sitting in on the coinage sessions, and got an opportunity to progress the matter.

The theme of the congress was "Rich and Poor", and you would think coin people would be able to bring quite a lot to that topic. However, I felt that only Prof Mayhew (tangentially) and Dr Allen (head on) actually did address the theme at all.

Martin Allen spoke specifically to the topic of the lack of small silver coin in the 15th century, and gave an interesting outline of the theories. But just when he got to the point where I expected him to unveil his own solution to the paradox, he sat down.

I took the opportunity during questions to press my own point, suggesting that there must be something wrong with the wage data they were relying on. Dr Allen seemed to me to duck the point, and pass it over to Prof Mayhew. Prof Mayhew then seemed to duck the point too, and that would have been the end of that, except another speaker chanced to be on the platform and took the matter up (a Dr Moore).

Moore referenced recent criticism of the traditional wage data in this paper by Prof Hatcher

http://www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference2011/Assets/HatcherFullPaper.doc

which agrees with and extends the sort of point I was trying to make myself earlier.

Basically, as I read it, after the black death there was a lot of land going spare, so many people got their own small farm. Such people are very unwilling to go work for other people at harvest time, when they have their own harvest to get in. On the big farms, permanent labour got board plus a small amount of cash extra. Nothing like the wages so often quoted in text books. Casual labour did get good wages at harvest time, but that was only for very few days a year.

So the basic story is that most ordinary folk did quite well in the 15th century because they owned their own farm, and paid low rents. But that is to say they lived a subsistence life style, and got to keep most of what they grew themselves. The talk about high wages is for the most part a misconceived anachronism

best

Rob

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian
>
> Thanks – the suggestion that by 1450 there were fewer nobles, on roughly the same incomes, as 1300, explains why the total amount of money in circulation servicing that class might fall.
>
> Meanwhile, if John Munro is correct, then the physical wages of the poor remained static whilst prices fell in the 15th century, so it was the incomes of the poor (the buying power) which rose whilst the volume of cash servicing this activity could have remained static. Indeed so long as the population stayed lower a corresponding modest decrease in cash volume would fit this picture.
>
> The problem is however that we are not looking at modest falls in volumes of pennies being issued. It looks to me that there were only 1/10th to 1/100th the number of pennies around in 1450 that there were in 1300.
>
> I am not saying the Merrie England picture of the 15th century for your poore ploughman is false, but there have to be more elements to this story than is usually spelt out
>
> best
>
> Rob
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Joan
> > >
> > > <<Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money.">>
> > >
> > > Thanks :-)
> > >
> > > Your facts seems to fit with Spufford's account of the monopolisation of economic wealth within a few major dynasties. My problem is here is "following the money" when it come to the population at large. It seems to have ended up stagnant in the treasure chests of the few, leaving the rest nothing to spend..
> > >
> >
> > It is certainly true that there were fewer noble (i.e. peerage class) people in England in the 15th century that there were in the 13th, or even the late 14th. This was brought about by a series of 'corporate takeovers' as a result of extinction in the male line and inheritance through marriages. Warwick the Kingmaker for example represented a merger of the Nevilles (part, but a big part), Beauchamp of Warwick (itself a massive 'brand' created by multiple 'mergers'), Despenser, Montagu/Montacute (Salisbury) and various other families, most if not all of which were represented by individual magnates at the courts of Edward III and Richard II.
> >
> > However, following the Black Death and for many years after, land values fell in real terms, both in capital and revenue aspects. This was partly due the ultra-conservative rentals that tended to assume that a piece of land worth £1 in 1250 was still worth £1 in 1450. As a result, changes to agricultural practice such as sheep farming made huge profits chiefly for tenants, not the ultimate owners of land.
> >
> > It was also connected with labour shortage. In his books about the Paston family Colin Richmond makes it clear that good tenants were at a premium, certainly in Norfolk - lords were very glad to secure them even at modest rentals. In addition, land and associated rights of lordship in Wales (an important element for many magnates including York and Warwick) had been devasted by the Glendower rising, and the Welsh economy didn't really recover until Tudor times. I doubt whether the incomes from Marcher Lordships *ever* recovered to the sky-high real-term figures of Richard II's later years. (To give one example, Henry IV as Duke of Hereford received £1500 clear from Brecon alone! More than enough in itself to support an English earldom.)
> >
> > The net result was that the Warwicks and the Buckinghams and the Norfolks were as rich as any of their forbears (if not richer) but there were fewer Warwicks, Buckinghams and Norfolks about. Indeed both the Neville of Warwick and Mowbray of Norfolk families died out in the male line during Edward IV's reign; the merger process was by no means complete.
> >
> > To balance this at a somewhat lower level, families like the Spencers were buying and leasing all the land they could, sacking off the tenants and running great herds of sheep. These were the English Clearances we never hear of; they continued right through to the 19th century as more and more ordinary people were effectively robbed of their land. One of the greatest examples of organised legal theft in history.
> >
> > Nevertheless, if you gave me the choice of being an ordinary working man in 1450 or 1820, I'd pick 1450 every time. It was a time of relative plenty and certainly no shortage of work.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
>

Rob, I stand by my choice.

The conditions ordinary people had to endure in early 19th century England were simply appalling. Many were treated like slaves. I am convinced the 15th Century would be a much nicer place to live - though obviously not an ideal world. The 21st century, superior to either in standard of living terms, is not ideal either.

On real wages check out this paper http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/long_march_of_history.pdf

The key part is Table 4, showing real wages for farm workers.

Brian W.

--- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian W
>
> I refer back to Message #12883
>
> BW <<Nevertheless, if you gave me the choice of being an ordinary working man in 1450 or 1820, I'd pick 1450 every time. It was a time of relative plenty and certainly no shortage of work.>>
>
> I did not really agree with this, but decided to let the matter lie. (Readers may recall I was addressing the apparent paradox of there being high wages in the mid 15th century, but no coinage (to speak of) to pay them with.)
>
> However, I was at the Leeds Medieval do last week, sitting in on the coinage sessions, and got an opportunity to progress the matter.
>
> The theme of the congress was "Rich and Poor", and you would think coin people would be able to bring quite a lot to that topic. However, I felt that only Prof Mayhew (tangentially) and Dr Allen (head on) actually did address the theme at all.
>
> Martin Allen spoke specifically to the topic of the lack of small silver coin in the 15th century, and gave an interesting outline of the theories. But just when he got to the point where I expected him to unveil his own solution to the paradox, he sat down.
>
> I took the opportunity during questions to press my own point, suggesting that there must be something wrong with the wage data they were relying on. Dr Allen seemed to me to duck the point, and pass it over to Prof Mayhew. Prof Mayhew then seemed to duck the point too, and that would have been the end of that, except another speaker chanced to be on the platform and took the matter up (a Dr Moore).
>
> Moore referenced recent criticism of the traditional wage data in this paper by Prof Hatcher
>
> http://www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference2011/Assets/HatcherFullPaper.doc
>
> which agrees with and extends the sort of point I was trying to make myself earlier.
>
> Basically, as I read it, after the black death there was a lot of land going spare, so many people got their own small farm. Such people are very unwilling to go work for other people at harvest time, when they have their own harvest to get in. On the big farms, permanent labour got board plus a small amount of cash extra. Nothing like the wages so often quoted in text books. Casual labour did get good wages at harvest time, but that was only for very few days a year.
>
> So the basic story is that most ordinary folk did quite well in the 15th century because they owned their own farm, and paid low rents. But that is to say they lived a subsistence life style, and got to keep most of what they grew themselves. The talk about high wages is for the most part a misconceived anachronism
>
> best
>
> Rob
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Brian
> >
> > Thanks – the suggestion that by 1450 there were fewer nobles, on roughly the same incomes, as 1300, explains why the total amount of money in circulation servicing that class might fall.
> >
> > Meanwhile, if John Munro is correct, then the physical wages of the poor remained static whilst prices fell in the 15th century, so it was the incomes of the poor (the buying power) which rose whilst the volume of cash servicing this activity could have remained static. Indeed so long as the population stayed lower a corresponding modest decrease in cash volume would fit this picture.
> >
> > The problem is however that we are not looking at modest falls in volumes of pennies being issued. It looks to me that there were only 1/10th to 1/100th the number of pennies around in 1450 that there were in 1300.
> >
> > I am not saying the Merrie England picture of the 15th century for your poore ploughman is false, but there have to be more elements to this story than is usually spelt out
> >
> > best
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Joan
> > > >
> > > > <<Rob, I agree with your assessment--"follow the money.">>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks :-)
> > > >
> > > > Your facts seems to fit with Spufford's account of the monopolisation of economic wealth within a few major dynasties. My problem is here is "following the money" when it come to the population at large. It seems to have ended up stagnant in the treasure chests of the few, leaving the rest nothing to spend..
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is certainly true that there were fewer noble (i.e. peerage class) people in England in the 15th century that there were in the 13th, or even the late 14th. This was brought about by a series of 'corporate takeovers' as a result of extinction in the male line and inheritance through marriages. Warwick the Kingmaker for example represented a merger of the Nevilles (part, but a big part), Beauchamp of Warwick (itself a massive 'brand' created by multiple 'mergers'), Despenser, Montagu/Montacute (Salisbury) and various other families, most if not all of which were represented by individual magnates at the courts of Edward III and Richard II.
> > >
> > > However, following the Black Death and for many years after, land values fell in real terms, both in capital and revenue aspects. This was partly due the ultra-conservative rentals that tended to assume that a piece of land worth £1 in 1250 was still worth £1 in 1450. As a result, changes to agricultural practice such as sheep farming made huge profits chiefly for tenants, not the ultimate owners of land.
> > >
> > > It was also connected with labour shortage. In his books about the Paston family Colin Richmond makes it clear that good tenants were at a premium, certainly in Norfolk - lords were very glad to secure them even at modest rentals. In addition, land and associated rights of lordship in Wales (an important element for many magnates including York and Warwick) had been devasted by the Glendower rising, and the Welsh economy didn't really recover until Tudor times. I doubt whether the incomes from Marcher Lordships *ever* recovered to the sky-high real-term figures of Richard II's later years. (To give one example, Henry IV as Duke of Hereford received £1500 clear from Brecon alone! More than enough in itself to support an English earldom.)
> > >
> > > The net result was that the Warwicks and the Buckinghams and the Norfolks were as rich as any of their forbears (if not richer) but there were fewer Warwicks, Buckinghams and Norfolks about. Indeed both the Neville of Warwick and Mowbray of Norfolk families died out in the male line during Edward IV's reign; the merger process was by no means complete.
> > >
> > > To balance this at a somewhat lower level, families like the Spencers were buying and leasing all the land they could, sacking off the tenants and running great herds of sheep. These were the English Clearances we never hear of; they continued right through to the 19th century as more and more ordinary people were effectively robbed of their land. One of the greatest examples of organised legal theft in history.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, if you gave me the choice of being an ordinary working man in 1450 or 1820, I'd pick 1450 every time. It was a time of relative plenty and certainly no shortage of work.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> >
>

Hello Brian

BW <<Rob, I stand by my choice. The conditions ordinary people had to endure in early 19th century England were simply appalling. Many were treated like slaves. I am convinced the 15th Century would be a much nicer place to live - though obviously not an ideal world. The 21st century, superior to either in standard of living terms, is not ideal either. On real wages check out this paper http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/long_march_of_history.pdf The key part is Table 4, showing real wages for farm workers.>>

I am not really disagreeing with the core matters that you lay out here, concerning the conditions ordinary people lived under. We seem to be at cross purposes on this.

But it seems to me that Hatcher very specifically rebuts, in the paper I cite, the claims made by Clark about wages, in the (earlier) paper you cite. That is the point are I disputing

Hatcher's analysis works for me because I am disputing that we should understand 15th century peasant well being in connection with them being paid cash wages in coin on the levels laid out in Clark's table 4.

The coin just did not exist to do it.

Wages paid in cash as we understand them today were not imo a major part of what went on in the 15th century, which was mostly about subsistence farming.

If you still think Hatcher's criticism of Clark fails, please explain how.

thanks

Rob

Hi Rob

I think we may well be talking at cross-purposes, and I'm quite happy to agree to disagree. I'll just mention a few points, not to rebut your theory but to support my own.

1. Wages must clearly have risen sharply in the late 14th century or Parliament would not have wasted its time passing (ineffective) statutes to stop the process. The main group represented in the Commons, from then right up to the 19th century, were landowners.

2. I don't doubt that there was some subsistence farming - in the sense of growing just enough to feed the family as per much of the Third World now - and especially in the poorer areas. However this cannot have been the whole of it. Nobles were increasingly leasing out their desmesne lands and they would not have been willing or able to do this had there not been a fully functioning market where they could buy agricultural produce for cash. Even a modest knightly household could easily amount to 30-50 persons. That's a lot of food to procure. (By the way, I accept that not every single noble dumped every yard of their desmesne, but the trend was there.)

3. Moreover, nobles now tended to live in one or two luxury locations, rather than peregrinating from manor to manor as their grandfathers had done. This again implies good access to markets. (They were no longer burning up their own produce as they went along.)

4. Serfdom, which when you think about it was a sort of (almost) cashless rental system, was dying on its feet. I'd guess there were still a fair few serfs under Henry IV (although not as many as under, say, Edward II) but by the time of Henry VII they were few and far between. These people must have been supported somehow - beggary or paid labour seem to me to be the likely options for ex-serfs. I suppose some may have simply rented the land they sat on, but this implies being able to get cash to pay rent.

5. The increasingly important sheep farming was not subsistence farming by any means. It made great fortunes for families like the Spencers - Lady Di's ancestors, not the Despensers - although I grant it employed fewer people per acre than arable.

How one squares this circle with the limited availability of small value coins I haven't a scooby. But certainly the population was moving towards a different paradigm compared to that of the 'traditional'
middle ages.

All the best
Brian

--- In , "robtyenow" <robtyenow@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian
>
>
> I am not really disagreeing with the core matters that you lay out here, concerning the conditions ordinary people lived under. We seem to be at cross purposes on this.
>
> But it seems to me that Hatcher very specifically rebuts, in the paper I cite, the claims made by Clark about wages, in the (earlier) paper you cite. That is the point are I disputing
>
> Hatcher's analysis works for me because I am disputing that we should understand 15th century peasant well being in connection with them being paid cash wages in coin on the levels laid out in Clark's table 4.
>
> The coin just did not exist to do it.
>
> Wages paid in cash as we understand them today were not imo a major part of what went on in the 15th century, which was mostly about subsistence farming.
>
> If you still think Hatcher's criticism of Clark fails, please explain how.
>
> thanks
>
> Rob
>

Hello Brian

Many thanks for the further comments. I will answer them as best I can.....

BW <<1. Wages must clearly have risen sharply in the late 14th century or Parliament would not have wasted its time passing (ineffective) statutes to stop the process. >>.

True, but I think Hatcher does answer this. AIUI he suggests that the sharp wage rise was for just a few days a year. Basically at harvest time, when farms had to buy in extra casual labour. Landed interests would have found this impertinent as well as an unwanted expense, hence the Statute etc. But Hatcher is suggesting that it would not have a big effect on the overall wage bill, contra previous authors.

BW <<2 Nobles were increasingly leasing out their desmesne lands and they would not have been willing or able to do this had there not been a fully functioning market where they could buy agricultural produce for cash. Even a modest knightly household could easily amount to 30-50 persons. That's a lot of food to procure.>>

Yes, but there were also big farming estates, etc, and large accounts could readily be settled in the 15th century in gold coin. There was no shortage of gold coin

BW <<3. Moreover, nobles now tended to live in one or two luxury locations, rather than peregrinating from manor to manor as their grandfathers had done. This again implies good access to markets. >>

Again, nobles would be credit worthy and would run up big accounts settled occasionally in gold. As far as I can discover shops existed in the 15th century, and would I suspect normally ran using tallies. These again could be settled at irregular intervals in gold. What was lacking was silver, especially small silver, and the commercial pinch points would be in connection with running peasant markets, and paying casual labour.

BW <<4. Serfdom, which when you think about it was a sort of (almost) cashless rental system, was dying on its feet. I'd guess there were still a fair few serfs under Henry IV (although not as many as under, say, Edward II) but by the time of Henry VII they were few and far between. These people must have been supported somehow - beggary or paid labour seem to me to be the likely options for ex-serfs.>>

I can only guess, but I would expect these folk to be hired for fairly long terms as live-in workers. Hatcher mentions their relatively low wages (in addition to keep) But I also recall parliament was already starting to legislate against trucking, and since parliament at that time did not much represent the small man, we must assume it was quite a big problem. The worker trapped in the truck system is often little better off than a serf or a slave in practice I suspect.

BW <<5. The increasingly important sheep farming was not subsistence farming by any means. >>

Sure, but the Lombardy merchants who bought the wool paid in gold and were in fact the guys who brought that gold into England. They seem quite likely to be responsible for shipping a lot of silver out of England too. These were the sort of chaps who were hunted down and taken out in 1381 (perhaps more Flemings at that time, but involved in the same practices). The bigger picture seems to be that Europe was shipping silver out to Islam, and importing gold from Islam in exchange. Islam experienced a silver driven commercial renaissance, and Europe declined into a sluggish gold driven economy dominated by Lady Fee and a small group of plutocrats

I do not want to seem dogmatic here. My central concern is that we can be relatively sure about the make up of the currency as a whole. On all the rest we seem to be involved in guessing the scale of the different components of the economy. That is the reason I am seeking out explanations which fit with the story the coins tell, and Hatcher's account fits very well with it

All the Best

Rob