Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    > individual, and made laws to that end. Nevertheless, the Byzantines
    could
    > did in their back yard, drain swamps on private land, kill rare birds.
    > Look at the size of government as well. The Byzantines had specific
    laws,
    > but we have specific laws covering everything. Consider food labeling.
    > We live in a more complex society and complexity demands regulation. We
    > have more regualtion by far.
    >
    I may quible as to the level of regulation our society "demands" (as
    opposed to the level it experiences, which is, I agree, very high and
    always increasing, because regulating lives=power over them). But this
    isn't the forum for that. What the "Byzantines" (Romans) could and did do
    tended to vary. In the City of Constantinople itself, things could be (at
    times & depending on enfourcement) highly regulated, especially with
    regards to trade/employment matters (most trades of any significance were
    organized into tightly structured guilds, and watched over by the Eparch of
    the city/Urban Prefect). What could and couldn't be sold and to whom
    (especially with regards to silk, I.E. see Luitprand of Cremona's
    complaints. . .but then that fop whined about everything). How things could
    be produced, who could do what, what prices they could charge, etc. were
    all tightly regulated. Which is one reason why cities that had loose
    affiliations, but were not directly controled, by the Romans; I.E. early on
    Amalfi, Venice, etc) tended to do better, over time, economically, than
    thouse that were part of the Empire; they benifited from the (relatively)
    greater economic development & prosperity of the Empire, while avoiding the
    onerous regulations. For a modern comparison, compair the different
    economic fates of Postwar Hong Kong and Great Britain, and the different
    regulatory policies that were pursued in the heartland as opposed to the
    city-state dependancy (which started in '48 with nothing but impoverished
    refugees, while Britain was the 1st nation to industrialize).

  2. #2
    c558382@showme.missouri.
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    James Ruhland,

    My point was that what I do as a twentith century American (or resident of
    any industrialized country) is no basis of comparison for BR lawful
    behavior. We live in a fundamentaly different society.

    It is prudent to point out that most regulation does have an inhibiting
    effect economicaly, and it is intended to. Rather than just emphasize
    growth, most societies favor some kind of balance (different in different
    times and places) between production (growth), sustainability, equity,
    and stability. While Hong Kong may be a "better" economy, its only better
    if you're an investor.

    More useful to BR players, the Manorial System consistantly emphasized the
    sustainablility of the system, equity and stability were secondary goals,
    and productivity was always sacrificed to these other goals. The closer a
    society is to bare subsistance the less it can afford to take the risks of
    growth because error means hunger.

    Did you really intend to support the idea that Byzantium at its most
    regulatory comapres to the 20th cen? Or were you just pointing out that
    pre-industrial socities (one might profitably add Imperial China) could be
    far more regulatory than the late middle ages in Europe?

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@showme.missouri.edu

  3. #3
    Geniver
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    I apologize for veering the discussion in this direction. I was only trying to
    point out that the more law isn't neccesarily good. I also suggested that the
    level of law in BR isn't neccesarily related to fairness of the justice
    system, the severity of punishment, or any other indicator one might want to use.

    James Ruhland wrote:
    >
    > I may quible as to the level of regulation our society "demands".... But this isn't the forum for that. y

  4. #4
    c558382@showme.missouri.
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Geniver wrote:

    > I apologize for veering the discussion in this direction. I was only trying to
    > point out that the more law isn't neccesarily good. I also suggested that the
    > level of law in BR isn't neccesarily related to fairness of the justice
    > system, the severity of punishment, or any other indicator one might want to use.

    Oh, most certainly! There is a difference between good law and bad law.
    I was discussing the Chaos/Law question. Good law/bad law is a completely
    legitimate topic.

    That's what proficencies in Law, Administration, Stewardship, Politics, &c
    are for. I have NW proficenies worked out into tables for race (Rjurik,
    Dwarf, Khinasi, &c) and when I do a work up on a realm, I dice up their
    court. Sometimes I have a specialist in mind and make some choices.
    Othertimes I let the dice to the work, and I use the results and explain
    them.

    Law: I presume better laws come with understanding.
    Administration: More punch per pound.
    Stewardship: a combination of law, politics, and adminstration for
    a level way below "realm", its designed for managing a single estate. I
    give credit for being well rounded, otherwise its inferior to the
    specialist proficenies.
    Statecraft: a combination of politics, administration, and diplomacy,
    usable only for big picture situations. Otherwise inferior to the
    specialist proficencies.
    Politics: Laws are politique, in accordance with the wishes of the
    constituents.

    The more of these proficencies I see in a regent and the court, the more I
    think good law, good order, happy realm.

    If, instead, all they can offer is Hunting, Siegecraft, Intimidation,
    Artistics Ability, or Dancing, I think either bad law, poor order, unhappy
    realm; or neglect, no order, very unhappy realm; depending on alignment.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@showme.missouri.edu

  5. #5
    Neil Barnes
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:
    > More useful to BR players, the Manorial System consistantly emphasized the
    > sustainablility of the system, equity and stability were secondary goals,
    > and productivity was always sacrificed to these other goals. The closer a
    > society is to bare subsistance the less it can afford to take the risks of
    > growth because error means hunger.

    As an example of this, the amount of native Oak forest in England didn't
    change significantly between the 11th century (data from the Doomsday
    book) and the 19th despite his being the period in which England (and
    later Britain :) maintained a large fleet of ships built from oak -
    since it was a valuable resource it was carefully managed to ensure that
    it would still be around.

    neil

  6. #6
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    >
    > I apologize for veering the discussion in this direction. I was only
    trying to
    > point out that the more law isn't neccesarily good. I also suggested that
    the
    > level of law in BR isn't neccesarily related to fairness of the justice
    > system, the severity of punishment, or any other indicator one might want
    to use.
    >
    Oh, no no no; I'm sorry, I guess I didn't make that clear: I meant by what
    I wrote that I'd try to refrain from making my social commentary on
    present-day stuff, which could turn into a rather extensive rant which has
    no real place in a game forum. I, myself, vastly enjoy these kinds of
    discussions (which is why I had to hold myself back to a dull roar).

  7. #7
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    >
    > My point was that what I do as a twentith century American (or resident
    of
    > any industrialized country) is no basis of comparison for BR lawful
    > behavior. We live in a fundamentaly different society.
    >
    However, many people run their games using, shall we say, modern mores. For
    example, unlike the members of the 4th crusade, most players who sack a
    city (even ones with evil characters) won't smash the heads of baby's
    against walls, tear open the belly's of pregnant women, or engage in mass
    rape of nuns and the like.
    Also, in BR especially, regulations like ones against the draining of
    swamps or clear cutting of forests might be more common, if for diferent
    reasons (I.E. preservation of Sources). The Taline Sourcebook, for example,
    has quite a "Environmentalist" tone to it (I.E. struggle against the
    rapacious timber and mining companys). I didn't write and publish that, TSR
    did.

    > It is prudent to point out that most regulation does have an inhibiting
    > effect economicaly, and it is intended to. Rather than just emphasize
    > growth, most societies favor some kind of balance (different in different
    > times and places) between production (growth), sustainability, equity,
    > and stability. While Hong Kong may be a "better" economy, its only
    better
    > if you're an investor.
    >
    I could quible as to whether Hong Kong is better only for investors than
    neighboring China (both started from the same basic position in '48). I
    could also quible as to wether regulation is primarily intended to achieve
    "balance" or to achieve "control" in most cases. But again, I dk if this is
    the forum for our philio-political views.

    > and productivity was always sacrificed to these other goals. The closer
    a
    > society is to bare subsistance the less it can afford to take the risks
    of
    > growth because error means hunger.
    >
    Of course, zero-growth, "subsistance" societies are always vearing off into
    famine and catastrophy anyhow on a periodic basis, so the risks may be
    worth it. However, one thing is certainly true: pre-modern societies had no
    concept of growth in the economic sense.

    > Did you really intend to support the idea that Byzantium at its most
    > regulatory comapres to the 20th cen? Or were you just pointing out that
    > pre-industrial socities (one might profitably add Imperial China) could
    be
    > far more regulatory than the late middle ages in Europe?
    >
    What I meant to show, intended to show, was just as Luitprand (a wealthy
    dignitary) of Cremona found Constantinople's regulations restrictive, so
    too might players find restrictive regulations in some of the "advanced"
    societies of BR. The Later Roman "ideal", economically, was
    quasi-socialistic. You'd be surprised how heavily even peasant's were
    regulated as far as who could clear & farm what plots, who got what, how
    taxes were paid & who was responsible for them. But that's beside the
    point. Point is, players are likely to be concerned with the same types of
    things Luitprand was: I.E. not regulations on pigs, but on silk, who can
    buy and wear what, and what can be exported and imported, and by whom.
    Does that mean it "compares to the 20th century"? No, but it's the closest
    thing, IMO to a comparison to the 20th century that players are likely to
    find, at least in the capital (things were looser-run in the provinces than
    in the capital). Also, if you think today's bureocracy can be rough, don't
    forget why the word "Byzantine" often is used to refer to increadibly
    compicated, controvluted things.
    Also, ponder this: in an era of pre-modern communications, and during a
    time (mid-late 12th Century) when the Empire was in decline, it was still
    capable of, on the same day, arresting and deporting all the Venitian trade
    Factors in the empire (I.E. destroying their Guild holdings. .
    .temporarily. Revenge came later). All without the Veniceans (who had a
    good spy. . .er, information network) finding out in advance.
    Hint: don't try to out-debate me with regards to "Byzantine" history. I
    may be ignorant about a great many things, but I'm fairly well versed on
    this topic.

  8. #8
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Regulatory burdens in Midievel

    >
    > As an example of this, the amount of native Oak forest in England didn't
    > change significantly between the 11th century (data from the Doomsday
    > book) and the 19th despite his being the period in which England (and
    > later Britain :) maintained a large fleet of ships built from oak -
    > since it was a valuable resource it was carefully managed to ensure that
    > it would still be around.
    >
    Which, IMO, supports my point; "regulations" (be they national ones, local
    ones, or "just" traditions) have been present long before modern times,
    even with regards to "environmental regulations" which we tend to think of
    as a modern thing. Stewardship of the land & it's resources goes back a
    long ways. . .

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.