Discuss How the manor worked on the economic side?

Answer 1

First a definition- a manor is a feudal land holding. It is often a single village, but not always. Sometimes a manor may include several villages, or in rare cases a given village may be divided between two manors. While village and manor are sometimes synonymous, it is not always so.

Lets assume our manor comprises a single village. This village can range in size, but on average it is probably 200-300 people. Most of those people make their living from agriculture, but there may be a few specialists and professionals. There is probably a miller and a baker, who both hold a monopoly from the lord. It is actually illegal to grind one's own grain or make one's own oven for bread. (although one can eat all the porridge one can stand). There are probably a few craftsmen as well, the most common being a blacksmith and a carpenter, although it is possible that they farm as well as practice their trade. There may be a few other craftsmen in some villages, but not many. Most people spend most of their time farming.

The village is surrounded by three large areas of fields. Each year, one field is left fallow (meaning not planted with crops), one field is planted with a spring crop like barley, beans, or peas (probably a combination) and one field is planted with winter crops such as wheat or rye. A winter grain crop is planted in late fall after the harvest is in, it germinates before the worst of the cold weather sets in, lies dormant through the winter, and then continues to grow in the spring and is harvested the following fall. Each successive year the use of each given field rotates. This system is called the Three Field System, and it has several advantages. It avoids depleting the soil, keeps a greater amount of land under cultivation than a two field system, and by having a spring and winter crop helps divide the heavy labor such as plowing and harvesting over the course of the year.

These three large open fields are divided into areas called furlongs, and the furlongs are further divided into strips. Each strip is controlled by either the lord of the manor, who holds a significant amount of the property for his own use, or by one of the peasants of the village. Not all peasants have the same amount of land. The poorest actually have no land in the fields at all and support themselves with a large garden and by hiring out to other members of the community. A mid level peasant might control 10-12 acres, which would be enough for basic subsistence of a family. A few better off would control more land, 30 or 40 acres, in rare cases even more, and would be wealthy enough to have a greatly improved house compared to his neighbors (although not as grand as the manor house belonging to the lord) and even employ a servant or two.

Villagers were also divided into two groups regardless of how much land they held. Free holders, a minority, were free men and did not owe any labor to the lord of the manor, of if they did it was a token amount. They paid a yearly rent for the amount of farmland they held, and a tithe to the church (at the time a real tax, not a suggestion), but were otherwise free to run their own affairs. They could leave the village if they chose without the lord's permission or without paying him a fee for being absent.

The majority of the villagers were villeins, or serfs, although people of the period used the former term more than the latter. Villeins owned labor to the lord of the manor. The exact amount could differ, but was usually no more than two days per week, and in some places was less. The villeins worked the lords farmland as well as their own, under the supervision of a bailiff or reeve appointed by the lord. They were not free to move away from the village without the permission of the lord, although this was sometimes negotiated in exchange for an annual fee. In addition to labor, villeins also owed various rents, fees, and tithes, some in coin and some in goods.

One should not consider villeins slaves, however. Although they had certain restrictions, they had considerable legal rights. They could not be forced from their land or sold to other lords, thus they were certain of having access to a living. There were entitled to their own movable property, home, etc. They could bring cases and complaints to the court. There were also obligations on the part of the lord to his tenants. During certain work, like harvests, the lord was expected to supply food and drink for the workers. There are recorded cases of peasants refusing to work because they had been given what they considered inadequate rations.

Overall, you can divide the economic status of the villages in five groups. First, the cottagers, those who hold a house and croft, essentially a large garden area, but no farmland. Cottagers were the poorest of the village, and had to generate income any way they could, with day labor, with crafts such a spinning, by brewing ale, etc. It was likely a difficult hand to mouth existence.

Better off were villagers who controlled 10-12 acres. This was enough land to provide adequate food, wool, hides, etc, to support a family. Most of these goods were consumed by the villagers for their own needs, and the narrow surplus was sold in a nearby town, providing modest needed cash.

A few villagers were able to gain control of considerably more land, and had a much higher standard of living. They had a significant surplus to sell, and could afford a gander house, hired other peasants to help them work their holdings, and in some cases were doing well enough to have servants as well as field hands.

The fourth economic group in the village were the professionals who did no field work. The village miller was generally well off, and was often the object of suspicion or criticism from his neighbors. His monopoly on milling grain and his high standard of living likely generated a certain amount of resentment from his peers. Of similar class would be the village priest, who generally lived comfortably, and may have employed a household servant as well.

The final economic class would be the lord of the manor. The person or office receiving the benefit of the lord's holding could be one of many things. It might be a great feudal lord like a king or duke who held a large number of manors to generate income. It might be a lesser lord or even a knight who held the manor from a greater lord, who in turn owed military service or financial consideration to the greater lord. There was also a good chance that "lord" was an office of the church, a monastery, and abbey, etc. By the late middle ages as much as one third of the land was in the hands of the church which generated a vast income from it.

In some cases the lord lived on the manor in a manor house, actually a compound of buildings and facilities. There would have been a fine house of two stories ,often stone as a residence, but also barns, byres, storehouses, a kitchen or bakehouse, a brewhouse, etc. If there was not a lord in residence, either due to the lord controlling multiple manors or due to the manor being held by the church, a steward would be appoint to live at the manor and oversee the lord's interests. Between servants and full time agricultural workers in the lord's employ there might be a dozen employee's living and working in the manor compound. Obviously, the lord had the highest standard of living, the greatest agricultural surplus, and thus the highest income.