Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: Regulatory burdens in Midievel
-
02-12-1998, 09:55 PM #1James RuhlandGuest
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).
-
02-12-1998, 11:43 PM #2c558382@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
-
02-13-1998, 02:41 AM #3GeniverGuest
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
-
02-13-1998, 07:08 AM #4c558382@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
-
02-13-1998, 12:47 PM #5Neil BarnesGuest
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
-
02-13-1998, 07:37 PM #6James RuhlandGuest
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).
-
02-13-1998, 08:01 PM #7James RuhlandGuest
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.
-
02-13-1998, 08:07 PM #8James RuhlandGuest
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)
Bookmarks