5 ms·

and in addition let him be punished by whipping according to the law, except in the case of murder or arson, for which a fine may be exacted. Punishment for ki

and in addition let him be punished by whipping according to the law, except in the case of murder or arson, for which a fine may be exacted. Punishment for killing someone was only a fine? Dark Ages indeed.

Muromec 6y ago
Sending people to prison to do nothing is kinda self-defeating if it’s your people. And in this context fine is arguably worse than being whipped.
- neaden 6y ago
  Prison in this time period wasn't really a punishment thing, it's what you did when you were trying to ransom someone you captured in battle mostly. Punishments would have mostly been fines, with some corporal punishment and of course capital punishment.
  - why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
    That applied to aristocracy only, didn't it? Peasants were considered as slightly more intelligent livestock, their lives nearly worthless.
    - neaden 6y ago
      No, peasants had rights which varied immensely depending on their exact status and where they were. Still the aristocracy couldn't just kill them or take their stuff, and one of the primary responsibilities of the aristocracy or other landholders was adjudicating disputes between peasants. So if we were two free peasants who got in a fight, we might end up in court with the lord or their representative deciding between us, with one or both of us possibly facing fines.
    - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
      Serfs had a lower maximum tax rate (33%) than we have in the USA. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-022058-4275r/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-0220...
      - neaden 6y ago
        I don't think that is a good metric, in a couple different ways. First you can't universalize the tax rate of serfs like that, and serfs don't represent all peasants/lower classes. We are talking about hundreds of years across a huge area. Different social classes also paid different taxes, a villein's obligation to their lord in a village would be different than a free peasants. Much of what a peasant paid was also in kind, either in the form of crops or work for their lords estate. The "history" in the linked article in uncited, so I am not sure where the author is getting that figure from but at best it represents the lives of a specific group of people, not some statement across centuries and countries.
wtdo 6y ago
I'm not sure, but it may be referencing the old Germanic weregild. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
- why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
  Interesting, I've never heard about that. Thank you for the link.
dmckeon 6y ago
Serfs (“our” people) were beaten, free folk were fined. In the US, think W2 employees versus 1099 workers. :-)

Muromec 6y ago

Sending people to prison to do nothing is kinda self-defeating if it’s your people. And in this context fine is arguably worse than being whipped.

neaden 6y ago
Prison in this time period wasn't really a punishment thing, it's what you did when you were trying to ransom someone you captured in battle mostly. Punishments would have mostly been fines, with some corporal punishment and of course capital punishment.
- why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
  That applied to aristocracy only, didn't it? Peasants were considered as slightly more intelligent livestock, their lives nearly worthless.
  - neaden 6y ago
    No, peasants had rights which varied immensely depending on their exact status and where they were. Still the aristocracy couldn't just kill them or take their stuff, and one of the primary responsibilities of the aristocracy or other landholders was adjudicating disputes between peasants. So if we were two free peasants who got in a fight, we might end up in court with the lord or their representative deciding between us, with one or both of us possibly facing fines.
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    Serfs had a lower maximum tax rate (33%) than we have in the USA. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-022058-4275r/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-0220...
    - neaden 6y ago
      I don't think that is a good metric, in a couple different ways. First you can't universalize the tax rate of serfs like that, and serfs don't represent all peasants/lower classes. We are talking about hundreds of years across a huge area. Different social classes also paid different taxes, a villein's obligation to their lord in a village would be different than a free peasants. Much of what a peasant paid was also in kind, either in the form of crops or work for their lords estate. The "history" in the linked article in uncited, so I am not sure where the author is getting that figure from but at best it represents the lives of a specific group of people, not some statement across centuries and countries.

wtdo 6y ago

I'm not sure, but it may be referencing the old Germanic weregild. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
Interesting, I've never heard about that. Thank you for the link.

dmckeon 6y ago

Serfs (“our” people) were beaten, free folk were fined. In the US, think W2 employees versus 1099 workers. :-)