I like Kaldor but agricultural production is not limited to Kaldor so I prefer consistent generalities for Harn when dealing with broad topics like agriculture.

Not having done a study, my impression is that many canon bailiff manors seem to be 1,600+ acres possibly done to compensate for that 1/3 of income while supporting in style.

Kaldor seems pretty much about the Harnic "norm" for these things. The biggest exception is Chysbia, where the manors seem to average a larger size in addition to the higher than norm land quality.



Pretty much what I have seen as well, in Kaldor and other places. One area seemed to have smaller than average manor sizes, I forget if that was Kanday or Rethem.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I must add, that if the numbers above are not indeed the case, one or more of the following must be true:
1) Harnic manors have more arable land under plow than indicated under Harnmanor.
2) Harnic manors yield more net grain per acre than England in the middle ages.
3) The crop yields by type of crop are even more skewed towards grain than my skewing towards grain indicated.
4) Harnic Lifestock do not eat grain
5) I indicated I thought with a 2 field rotation system, the Harnic diet is less dependent upon grain than Harnplayer indicates. The above number would indicate the Harnic diet is less dependent upon grain than I suggest.
6) Harnic humans have a slower metabolism than Terran ones.

I'd rule 4,5, and 6 out. 1, 2, and 3 are possibilities.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

That jives with canon city sizes being limited by generally small kingdom sizes and population usually with some form of access to marine transport of goods by river, lake or sea.

What is the average Teamster load of grain bushels shipped overland?

IMO mostly a non issue with ship cargo capacity.

Have to feed yourself and your customers if you want repeat customers focus. Harn Player makes the point manors can exist independent of cities whom they sell their excess to so they can purchase other goods and luxuries but the cities need the rural manors to survive.

Remember reading somewhere making a profit was more important than maximizing profits (which I'm sure there were a few exceptions to).

Actually, this is consistent with city sizes being limited by some other factor, not lack of food. It sounds like the 6:1 ratio is the upper bound, but most Harnic kingdoms are closer to 10:1, rural:urban. This means that roughly half the manors are not closely tied to the urban market. Some will find a market in mines (a few, Azadmere) - which underscores the important of mines to the rural gentry.

For this discussion, the important takeaway is that for roughly half the manors (give or take 20%), the main goal of management is not to increase production but to decrease cost.

(This was true for many in the real world, as well. Which is why the numbers we have can be so contradictory. Often fields were planted sparsely and tended indifferently, not from ignorance or lack of seed, but from the desire to minimize the inputs. Or maybe they did it just to confuse future historians.)

I'm new to Harn, but love these threads. I see there's a HarnWiki but it doesn't seem to be utilized for organizing research that these threads are bringing up. Should we start using it? Its stated purpose is "to allow fans to develop and coordinate fan material for the world of Hârn" so seems relevant to me. I would think we would need to make sure to tag medieval Britain research as opposed to Harn standards, but I've love to see the relevant info organized into specific pages.

I've started grabbing internet and forum quotes and trying to organize it for personal use. It sounds like each of you already has done that on your own, or else you're super smart to remember everything. Here's the start of mine:

https://sites.google.com/site/kingticklecloud/home

Its generally uncited quotes from google searches, which led me here actually, so there's a chance I'm quoting you. Unfortunately its also now a mix of Harn/medieval/modern info so needs to be gone through more carefully. My stolen quotes do not specifically relate to Harn so of course could be incorrect in Harn World.

This was research for my own personal use, theoretically some grand rpg campaign, but really just pipe smoke. I recently got a copy of Harn Manor so am not familiar with Harn standards yet.

After considering whether to start with the pastoral or agrarian sector I decided to do what the book did and go with the pastoral sector since it was needed in a farming system that needed animal power.

Some areas where I think HarnManor falls short is that it assumes all pasture is basically fallow land. I get this from the following:

Although the maximum does give some lead way for land being just pasture, it is not the norm. As we will find, pasture consisted of many types of land.

Another feature HarnManor has wrong, IMHO, is that it has meadows under arable lands and not pasture. That was not the case, however, meadows were nothing but well managed pastures where the grass was allowed to grow so it could be mown and then grazed.

With that said, let’s see what the author has to say for starters on pastoral husbandry.

One aspect missing in HarnManor is the accounting for cart-horses and pack animals and their upkeep. This may be a small issue with a lord holding a single manor, but what about the larger landholders such as the earls, barons, constables, and church prelates?

Although a lord’s lands most likely would not satisfy all of his needs here, it was the produce from his lands that allowed him to generate cash so he could purchase the items that his lands could not provide him.

I was surprised about the mutton comment, but I also ran across this in another book about medieval food based on archaeological finds that said something similar. Personally, I love lamb but find mutton just too strong for my own tastes. Without the religious component what would be the driving force for a significant fish market on Harn? Would the Peonians have something similar to that of Christian religious orders with a restriction on meat in the diet?

It is quite apparent the pastoral element of Harn can be quite important. Although HarnManor tries to address it, IMHO it falls short in that it makes it too generalized and a one shape fits all aspect. In my next post we will look at how there were different types of pastoral husbandry that differed in their stock makeup and the soil and terrain they were situated on.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

First they were practical they used what they had and they did not have the variety we possess because of refrigeration and fast shipping from exotic locales.

Second All the Fresh Water.

Third variety and taste. Particularly if observing religious fasting or holidays. Fish was not considered a meat in some regions because of church influence since they lived in the water but did not crawl on the ground as I recall. Birds were a special category because they flew. As I recall Flying fish bridged two categories but were often considered a sea bird. Fish could be eaten on meat less religious days in many regions.

Ale Stout (liquid bread has a lot of nutrition) for fasting days for the some of the clergy like the friars. One can envision sever religious scholar arguing the finer points that it is simply a strong beer the opposite of a weak beer which is possibly healthier and tastier than drinking plain or boiled water.

Variety for the mutton and the fish because both can be cooked many different ways and in some wealthy households, (not all) they had multiple course after course "tasting" dinner banquet/feasts which are ascribed to Earl Curo just on a lesser scale or less frequent on a manor IMO. One aspect of being a connoisseur concerns food and possessing the wealth to be a gourmet. Just as plenty dined off of bread trenchers and enjoyed fowl and beef stew pottage while the commoners were making do with a vegetable soup (very light on any meat because of refrigeration and the livestock had other primary purposes for the most part). Poor cottar eating that rye bread and a turnip or onion while the Lord is dining on the finest wheat bread in various varieties probably cooked by his own baker or cook of course some might purchase loaves from the Miller for the household. I remember reading in the larger households that the different grades of bread and other foodstuffs would vary by social rank and personal standing in the household they, did not all eat the same grade of bread. Spices were valuable and locked up. Those of lower standing would utilize the common and blander spices compared to the lord utilizing the expensive and rare spices like sugar while middling station might use honey and lowest might get lucky and get some preserves or a little butter or salt which flavors the taste of food.

The only thing wasted is the waste land [Which I believe should be treated as marginally productive land with a few to several acres of good land scattered through out it].

A river, lake or sea is a source of food. We know some cottar and other families were often living on the edge of starvation due to limited land, family size or overabundance of labor creating a lack of demand locally. IMO this is something productive the young children could do if permitted by their lord (hook and line or "spear" fishing with a wooden sharpened pole or fish tickling in streams as long as the lord received his share).

One might only have a single fork or spoonful for a taste or possibly a few of an exotic or favorite dish which would complement or contrast a course.

Canon for the most part has the good wines located on the continent which need to be imported not the island with different climate, fruits and soils will produce different wines. I like that fanon article in Thornhexus on Lythia wines.

Laranians probably observe the odd dining restriction more than the Peonians since most are wealthier and gentle or martial types and many peonians observe a mealtless diet or light meat diet. If fish is not considered meat in a P-Harn many would eat it IMO.

Most martial types wanted meat in the diet to keep up the men's strength. One of the reasons the catholic church still exempts the military from meat less holidays affecting the laity which is not very well observed in the present by the majority.




I mostly agree but do not forget to factor Castle (Possibly some Keep like Army HQs) Towns into the equation which reduce some of the available agricultural production via local consumption from surrounding manors and transportation of the food to the towns and cities.

It doesn't do the city much good if excess is grown on a manor but never makes it to the town or city market for a variety of factors consumption, spoilage, theft locally, enroute and at the city (different measures). Farming was hard demanding physical labor without mechanization so their was some quality of life issues.

I like to think of communal collective and union production (Shirkers doing the minimum most doing average with a few hard working and first choice laborers when they are needed and available) which you receive your group share allotment versus private labor and personal production for working your own land and garden which tend to me more productive than the communal acreage. Main reason for renting that free acreage it was more productive.

Edit: Fish oil enzymes excellent for seasoning food.

This is something I plan on discussing soon. In the HM version of Manor rules waste was a part of the land calculation but was lumped in with woods in HarnManor.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Two very good points Ray that I fully agree with.

The only thing though as a counter to this - I have done some research on grazing animals in natural pasture, the amount of acreage required to graze is sometimes broken down as far as grass per acre, taking out moisture content, and allowing for regrowth. I have done my research on natural pasture primarily, modern pasture that is managed (seeded, fertilized, herbisized, etc. etc.) performs much better.

Looking at 3% of body weight in dry matter, the "going rate", the acreage Harn requires for Sheep, Cattle and Horses seem to be based upon animals of current size, and assuming all are adults. With cows as a for instance, we are looking at modern animals anywhere from 2-3 times the size of Middle Ages animals.

The other thing - Swine and Goats are a tough one to factor in here. Neither are really grazers, and do not need pasture lands, will actually fare better in non pasture, or at least equally as well. There should be a seperate way to figure these types of animals. My guess is they may take even more acreage than HM requires - but can feed in non pasture, possibly even "waste" land.



I would think noting would require fish, there seems to be nothing in the Peonian religion that does this. However, fishing would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor as a method of providing for a portion of the diet. It's transportation ability would seem good as well- fish air dried can keep forever without the additional cost of salt - so it keeps well and is of course near a waterway. This is in regards to lakes, rivers and sea - stream or pond fish are another matter, but overfishing in these small areas would quickly render them unproductive, which is likley why the lord forbade fishing in ponds, though licenses were given for a cost of course.

The article you quote also mentions fowl, which is overlooked by Harnmanor. Mostly Chickens and Geese, Geese being grazers like Cattle, chickens more adaptable, though I have read where chickens were also supplemented with grain, likely to increase egg production.

Just thinking about it, a bad grain harvest would effect more than just the people. Grain may not be fed (or at best in smaller amounts) to livestock, which means lower egg and milk production, less healthy livestock, probably then more livestock slaughtered in the fall both for food and due to the fact they were less healthy, and these would be lesser in poundage than if they were fed better, etc., etc., in all resulting in a decrease in animal head. Pigs might be one of the best famine proof animals, not requiring the grain.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

its only mentioned in this book on that page pretty much. The main reason is that they had no appreciable affect on arable or pastoral farming. The majority of birds back then were free range and not grain fed except for a brief period of fattening before being put in the pot. So the grain used would be negligible IMHO.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

I’m going to start talking about pastoral types. However, unlike how the author treated agrarian types, he does not talk of each pastoral type individually but spreads it out amongst the discussion on animals used in pastoral husbandry. Therefore, I will discuss each pastoral type by first showing an average breakdown of the animals used within that type, IAW a table from the book, and provide specific information from within the text as to how that particular pastoral type used the animals at its disposal, along with the environmental and geographical reasons, and to a lesser degree the agricultural type used, if appropriate.

So we’ll get started with pastoral types.

As can be seen there is a lot of variance in what each pastoral type may possess in the way of animals, how they use those animals and even the possibility of specialization in some areas of animal husbandry. By 1250 the horse was being used in certain regions not only for haulage but also for ploughing. We’ll discuss that in pastoral type 1.

PASTORAL TYPE 1 DISCUSSION

The above statements hold true for Harn or any world where animal power was paramount for agricultural work.

With that said, I start out by providing the average breakdown of animals for pastoral type 1 and then continue on with some details mentioned in the text about it.

As can be seen, pastoral type 1 has no or almost no oxen; the main source of animal power being provided by horses. As far as non-working animals, on average, cattle are the dominant resource; whereas sheep are abundant, but not dominant, and swine are a negligible. At 4% of the demesnes classified, this particular pastoral type is also very rare and as we will shall see shows up in very specific regions of historical England that had right soil and grazing conducive to prompt the inhabitants to adopt this system. Of course, the region was also known for adopting innovative ideas before other regions of the country. Using the above numbers and we will calculate how many animals 100 animal units will generate:

Working Animals Units: 30
Horses: 30

Non-working Animals Units: 70
Adult cattle: 18
Total cattle: 39
Sheep: 276
Swine: 28

Because this is a horse dominant pastoral type and the ratio of oxen to horses is less than 1, it is almost certain, as in this case, there are only horse available as working animals. Although the cattle number less than the sheep they are an import resource for a manor running this type of pastoral system.

Now we’ll take a look at some of the aspects of this pastoral type mentioned in the text.

As stated, pastoral type 1 is an all horse system. Therefore the number of animals in each team may realistically be between 9 and 5 animals, in addition to the above mentioned one or two animals used for harrowing, hauling, or riding. The tenants in such a pastoral system would also be using horses, but their teams may be as small as 3 working animals. See John Langdon, ‘The Economics of Horses and Oxen in Medieval England’.

This section is very specific to pastoral type 1 farming. It was in this type of pastoral husbandry that intensive arable farming took place, compared to the majority of regions that were extensive. Since HarnManor does have fodder crops, beans, peas and vetches, this can apply to a limited number of Harnic manors also.

Again, Norfolk is a good example of a pastoral type 1 farming region. Within this pastoral type, as stated above, pastoral resources are freed up for other animals on the farm; such as, non-working cattle or sheep.

Based on the above passage, pastoral type 1 will only occur on manors that have land-use type 6. The soils are light or medium and free draining; allowing plough teams composed of horses to easily till the land. In addition grassland was available in below average quantities and of inferior quality; this meant that it would be more difficult to keep oxen fed. Meadows were also in limited supply and also below average in value; in addition, woodland was also not that abundant. Overall, the land appears very open in this land-use type. Finally, it appears that things like warrens, peat pits, and rush marshes are often present; although important resources, they are only present in small amounts.

The farms of pastoral type 1, therefore, focused on both cattle and sheep.

Based on the above, this pastoral type is a secondary pastoral specialist in sheep-farming.

I found the last part of the first passage interesting because many people I know assume that if the lord has sheep then his tenants do. It seems history, again, shows us the error of our ways. Most of the pasture in these downlands and woldlands would be quite inferior also and not very conducive for grazing cattle.

The later passage makes it clear though, that where a lord was not actively engaged in sheep-farming it is quite possible his tenants were. Especially since most of their pastoral resources were inferior to those in the lord’s possession.

Earlier I said the following about this land type:

Based on what I have just said above, I think that is a better description of a land-use type 6. After looking at the fact that the pastoral lands are inferior I have to rethink the LQ mention in my previous post above. Instead, it should be more in the order of .080 to 1.00. The land is only productive because it is farmed more intensively; something we’ll look at when we examine arable types.

Pastoral type 2 coming next.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Interesting research. I'm assuming the 1350 date was based on England losing over 1/3 of its population due to the Black Death, which would have changed the face of demesnes dramatically. My understanding is that the Black Death also infected animals. Another significant date would be the Great Famine of 1315. Does the author touch on this? I'll have to do some poking around to see if there's any quantified change in animal populations because of the Black Death, and whether it infected all animals equally.

In general, the change to the all-horse team for "aim of raising ploughing speeds and reducing team sizes" seemed to be based on technology changes. This article has a lot of relevant information.

http://www.historytoday.com/john-langdo ... -1100-1500

A few quotes about the effect of the Black Death:

When both national and local epidemics are taken into account, England endured thirty plague years between 1351 and 1485.

After the black death the much reduced demand for grain lead to marginal arable land being converted to pasture or reverting to scrub, woodland and moor. Although the area of arable declined it did not shrink as much as the population collapse so that food supplies increased relatively, and grain prices began to fall back.

The immediate consequence of the collapse of the population was a withdrawal of agriculture from many marginal farming lands. Within a decade, scrub encroachment had replaced previously cultivated and grazed ground and new woodlands formed, many of which remain as ancient semi-natural woodland today.

Beyond reducing the demesne to a size commensurate with available labor, the lord could explore types of husbandry less labor—intensive than traditional grain agriculture. Greater domestic manufacture of woolen cloth and growing demand for meat enabled many English lords to reduce arable production in favor of sheep—raising, which required far less labor.

But in the two years 1348-1349, in other parts of England, another great plague allegedly attacked cattle, which perished by thousands.

Knyghton, however, who wrote up to 1394 refers to a plague of sheep, in one place more than 5,000 dying in one field and that the cattle died "in numbers beyond reckoning" not because of disease but because there was no one to look after them, the herdsmen having died of the Black Death.

Before the Black Death, a horse costed £2, but after, because there were lots of horses to share round, the price of horses dropped to an astonishing 33p!

Yes, for the most part. However, for this discussion I only include this because it was in this portion of the information. For the most part I want to avoid the period after 1349 because it does not apply to Harn circa 720.


Actually it was more of the people of that region adjusting to the lack of grass resources for oxen and adopting the horse that ate less grass and more oats. I have not mentioned it yet, but the all horse team also used a wheeled plough whereas the oxen and mixed teams did not use it. In addition, there is the way they worked their fields in this region, something we will discuss more when we get to the arable.

BTW, Walter of Henley believed that the advantaged of speed given by the horse was countered by the ploughmen who would not allow them to work at the higher rate.


Nice to know, but I am skipping this era of agricultural development because it is not germane to the Harnic milieu as of now.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Actually, there are some things with the period of after the Black Death that do coincide with Harn. Biggest factor of course is the lower population, where England had a manpower shortage as seems to be the case with Harn.

This was also after the warm period of Europe in the 11th-13th centuries. The climate during this warmer period seems to be warmer than Harn's climate TR720.

The period of the Barbarian wars on Harn may actually be closer to the climate Europe had in the 11-13th centuries.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I don't like using that period because a lot of the economic and demographic changes that occurred were brought about due to the drastic reduction in population and not a low population. In other words, wages went up because there were no longer the people available to do what they were doing previously, diet improved as a result of a better living standard when wages increased, etc.

I can't comment on the weather aspect because Robin never gave mean temperatures for Harn AFAIK and therefore its speculation on our part. Although you could be right.

If they had better records from the 12th through the 13th centuries I'd be loving it. However, they don't and evidence shows that medieval technological advances moved at a snails pace. So the period I am examining will do fine.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Yeah, there is a difference between low popualation and a drastic reduction - although some similarities as well. Prior to the Black Death the emphasis was on clearing more land to feed a rapidly growing population - after the plagues this was not the case.


Based on human height and changes in it, the period around the 11th-12th centuries was the best time for nutrition - after that it it went down, Europeans not reaching the size they were in the 11th-12th centuries until within the past 100 years or so.



Yeah, from a technology standpoint it should be pretty accurate. Only thing I'd guess - meat and dairy made up a greater portion of the common diet in the 7th-9th centuries - with more intensive agriculture resultign in a more grain based diet as time went by.

The early Saxons according to archaeological evidence ate a ton of pig meat, an ideal livestock for harvesting for meat/fat, as those are the only products for the most part.

Ever ran the numbers on an average Harnic manor as to how many expected harvests one would have of meat based on animal head? It would seem to come to well over 10% of the diet, perhaps even over 20% if dairy is added in.

Based on the lifespan of the livestock, useful age as to when working, dairy or wool producing animals were put down the amount of meat harvested from a manor would behuge. And that's not even counting things like fowl or other wild animals. And while the lord prohibited the hunting of deer, squirrels and such were fine for peasants to kill.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

For pastoral types 2-6 I’m going to repeat the following each time so you don’t have to go back to a previous post to see what it says.

As can be seen there is a lot of variance in what each pastoral type may possess in the way of animals, how they use those animals and even the possibility of specialization in some areas of animal husbandry. By 1250 the horse was being used in certain regions not only for haulage but also for ploughing.

PASTORAL TYPE 2 DISCUSSION

The above statements hold true for Harn or any world where animal power was paramount for agricultural work.

With that said, I start out by providing the average breakdown of animals for pastoral type 2 and then continue on with some details mentioned in the text about it.

As can be seen, pastoral type 2 has a large contingent oxen; the main source of animal power; with horses making up about a fourth of all working animals. As far as non-working animals, cattle are the dominant resource; whereas sheep and swine are only a minor resource. At 34% of the demesnes classified, this particular pastoral type is one of the more common system. Using the above numbers and we will calculate how many animals 100 animal units will generate:

Working Animals Units: 46
Horses: 11
Oxen: 29

Non-working Animals Units: 54
Adult cattle: 22
Total cattle: 76 (25 immature)
Sheep: 43
Swine: 35

Unlike pastoral type 1, this is not a horse dominant pastoral type and the ratio of oxen to horses is about 3:1. The cattle outnumber the sheep significantly, signifying that this pastoral system specializes in breeding and/or dairying activities.

Now we’ll take a look at some of the aspects of this pastoral type mentioned in the text. I repeat the following text because it explains why some change over to horses did occur.

Pastoral type 2 is a mixed working animal system. The number of animals in each team may realistically be around 7-8, in addition to the above mentioned one or two animals used for harrowing, hauling, or riding.

While this section is very specific to pastoral type 1 farming, it can also apply to pastoral type 2 to a lesser extent. However, for the most part, intensive arable farming was not as widespread and was actually more extensive. The farms of pastoral type 2 also tended to have more pasture available than type 1 and it was often of better quality; as a result, they tended to focus on dairying and/or cattle breeding.

Just like the regions that had a third of their teams composed of horses, as we can see from the table above, pastoral type 2 has the similar ratio, about 3:1.

The farms of pastoral type 2 tended to have more pasture available than type 1 and it was often of better quality; as a result, they tended to focus on dairying and/or cattle breeding. In those areas that lacked grassland, they usually converted over to all horse power, as in pastoral type 1, in order to save grassland resources for their cattle.

The farms of pastoral type 2, therefore, focused on both cattle and sheep.

Based on the above, this pastoral type is a secondary pastoral specialist in sheep-farming.

I found the last part of the first passage interesting because many people I know assume that if the lord has sheep then his tenants do. It seems history, again, shows us the error of our ways. Most of the pasture in these downlands and woldlands would be quite inferior also and not very conducive for grazing cattle.

The later passage makes it clear though, that where a lord was not actively engaged in sheep-farming it is quite possible his tenants were. Especially since most of their pastoral resources were inferior to those in the lord’s possession.

Pastoral type 2, based on the above, can be found in regions of type 2, 3, and 4 land-uses. It appears that land-use type 4 was the most common, with type 3 being almost as common. Type 2, however, is rarely used by this pastoral type.

Earlier I said the following about these land types:

Whereas land-use types 2 and 3 do show up in the counties mentioned above, its limited grassland is an issue for a pastoral type that focuses on cattle. However, since the other none-working animals are in such low numbers it is a feasible option. However, land-use type 4 not only has good pasturage, it’s normally held in severalty. This means that their held individually.

Latter on we’ll discuss dairying and breeding of cattle and horses.

Pastoral type 3 coming next.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Discounts population differences between the eras and the number of wineries accounted for then and now IMO since the Doomsday Book numbers are probably to low compared to actual and it is easy to accurately account for wineries in the present but still an interesting read.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... lish-wine/

Medieval warmth and English wine Filed under:

Climate Science
Paleoclimate

— gavin @ 12 July 2006

Never let it be said that we at RealClimate don’t work for our readers. Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I’ve been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a ‘Medieval Warm Period‘ was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you don’t get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. I’ll examine each of these propositions in turn (but I’ll admit the logic of the last step escapes me). I’ll use two principle sources, the excellent (and cheap) “Winelands of Britain” by geologist Richard C. Selley and the website of the English Wine Producers.

Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes – changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn’t a match for that!

However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that climate is actually the dominant control – so what does the history of English vineyards show?

The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) – an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively ‘frenchified’, the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb’s 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.

Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren’t many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it’s probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don’t necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in ‘Punch’ (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it – one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate…

Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one ‘rather improbably’ located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn’t count, it not being in England ‘n’ all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.

A few things Ray - How would you apply these things to a Harn Manor type of setup?

The variance in land qualities - first, would land quality apply equally to both crops and livestock?

IMO, I think it would be two seperate but realted issues. In general, better quality land helps both - but some lands might be fine for livestock but not as much use as arable land.

I'd think the "land quality" can also represent different things. For instance, "quality" of pasture is just as reflective of how much there is as well as the quality.

I'd think that two types of land quality would be generated for a manor - both the true land quality in the Harnic sense fo the term, and then a second "land quality" that applies to pasture and effects the number of grazers that can be pastured, which is averaged with land quality. For instance, Land might have an overall land quality of 1.1 - but a Pasture quality of .5, which gives a pasture rating of .8. Or perhaps this ".50" reflects that 50% of remaining pasture land can be sucessfully used by grazers.

I'm not sure which I prefer, pasture in a small area the size of a manor can vary from good pasture to medium to low to unacceptable.

Point here is you may have 300 acres of "good pasture", suitable for good grazing and harvesting hay. You may have another 300 acres of "medium pasture, where it takes twoce the creage to graze an animal upon. And you may have 300 acres of poor pasture, where it may have 1/10 the grazing ability of good pasture.

So you can increase animal head, but once the good and average pasture have been used up, you get very few animals per acres.

And of course there is the Goat and Pig question. From what I have read, goats do not graze well in pasture, the need a more shrubbery type of grazing area. and pigs can graze on pasture, but they often damage it for the short term, thugh beneficial in the long term. But Pigs can find forage in about every area, though they may again do short term damage to the area.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

We'll get to that issue latter. I am kind of using these discussions as a means of expressing what I find and hopefully getting some input from you all along the way. The final part will be how to apply what I have found to HarnManor in a meaningful way.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

The Miller's Guild fanon has nice information which could be useful:

http://www.lythia.com/index.php?s=millers+guild

I made a mistake on the type 2 total cattle numbers, forgot to include the oxen, it's fixed.

Also fixed the type 1 by showing the number of immature cattle.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

For pastoral types 2-6 I’m going to repeat the following each time so you don’t have to go back to a previous post to see what it says.

As can be seen there is a lot of variance in what each pastoral type may possess in the way of animals, how they use those animals and even the possibility of specialization in some areas of animal husbandry. By 1250 the horse was being used in certain regions not only for haulage but also for ploughing.

PASTORAL TYPE 3 DISCUSSION

The above statements hold true for Harn or any world where animal power was paramount for agricultural work.

With that said, I start out by providing the average breakdown of animals for pastoral type 3 and then continue on with some details mentioned in the text about it.

As can be seen, pastoral type 3 has a large contingent oxen; the main source of animal power; with horses making up about a fifth of all working animals. As far as non-working animals, cattle are not as dominant a resource as sheep; whereas swine are only a very minor resource. At 28% of the demesnes classified, this particular pastoral type is another of the more common system, like pastoral type 2. Using the above numbers and we will calculate how many animals 100 animal units will generate:

Working Animals Units: 36
Horses: 8
Oxen: 23

Non-working Animals Units: 64
Adult cattle: 16
Total cattle: 49 (10 immature)
Sheep: 332
Swine: 35

Just like pastoral type 2, this is not a horse dominant pastoral type and the ratio of oxen to horses is about 4:1. The sheep units outnumber the cattle units by about 10 points, signifying that this pastoral system focuses on cattle and sheep farming activities.

Now we’ll take a look at some of the aspects of this pastoral type mentioned in the text. I repeat the following text because it explains why some change over to horses did occur.

Pastoral type 3 is also a mixed working animal system. The number of animals in each team may realistically be around 7-8, in addition to the above mentioned one or two animals used for harrowing, hauling, or riding.

While this section is very specific to pastoral type 1 farming, it can also apply to pastoral type 3 to a lesser extent. However, for the most part, intensive arable farming was not as widespread and was actually more extensive. The farms of pastoral type 3 also tended to have more pasture available than type 1 and it was often of better quality; as a result, they tended to focus on dairying and/or cattle breeding.

Just like the regions that had a third of their teams composed of horses, as we can see from the table above, pastoral type 3 has a ratio of about 4:1.

The farms of pastoral type 3 tended to have more pasture available than type 1 or type 2 and it was often of better quality; as a result, they tended to focus on dairying and/or cattle breeding. In those areas that lacked grassland, they usually converted over to all horse power, as in pastoral type 1, in order to save grassland resources for their cattle.

The farms of pastoral type 3, therefore, focused on both cattle and sheep.

Based on the above, this pastoral type is a secondary pastoral specialist in sheep-farming.

I found the last part of the first passage interesting because many people I know assume that if the lord has sheep then his tenants do. It seems history, again, shows us the error of our ways. Most of the pasture in these downlands and woldlands would be quite inferior also and not very conducive for grazing cattle.

The later passage makes it clear though, that where a lord was not actively engaged in sheep-farming it is quite possible his tenants were. Especially since most of their pastoral resources were inferior to those in the lord’s possession.

Pastoral type 3, based on the above, can be found in regions of type 3 and 4 land-uses. It appears that land-use type 4 was the most common, with type 3 being almost as common.

Earlier I said the following about these land types:

Whereas land-use type 3 does show up in the counties mentioned above, their limited grassland is an issue for a pastoral type that focuses on cattle. However, since the sheep are the dominant none-working animals the good grassland and meadows are normally reserved for the cattle; whereas the sheep are grassed on lesser grasslands. However, land-use type 4 not only has good pasturage, it’s normally held in severalty and able to support both groups.

Latter on we’ll discuss dairying and breeding of cattle and horses.

So this is pastoral type 3, very similar to type 2 in that both had a small number of horses adapted to the working role and both focus on raising cattle and in the case of type 3, sheep also.

Next up, pastoral type 4.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

One interesting quote on the condition of the horses that might be used as the work-animals:

Even more important, horses often represented a much smaller capital investment than oxen, a matter of key importance for peasant cultivators in particular. This was because oxen always retained their value as meat, no matter how old they were, while elderly horses had little more value than their hides. A type of circular trade was in operation. This involved peasants breeding and rearing horses, selling them at relatively high prices when young to demesnes, and then buying them back cheaply some years later when they were old and decrepit but still capable of some useful work.