Death and taxes are
life’s only certainties.
In the UK today there
are many taxes, but the big three are income tax, VAT (a sales tax
that is widely but not universally applied), and National Insurance
(effectively extra income tax, but I think pensioners don’t pay
it).
None of these existed
in the medieval world. Income tax was only brought in by Pitt the
Younger as a temporary measure (ahem) to ensure we had sufficient
funds to fight Napoleon.
How did medieval
monarchs get the money necessary just to fund the day-to-day expenses
of the state, as well as the huge sums essential for castle-building,
going on crusade or that age old expense of war with France?
The king was the
greatest landowner in the country, which meant he had, on a personal
level, a vast income from rents and the like. However, this was not
enough to cover significant expenditure. There were a range of
smaller taxes and tolls (not all going to him directly) which I’ll
mention below, but the quickest way to raise cash was a general levy
on wealth.
This might be levied at
a rate of a tenth of a man’s total assets. So, if you had £100 of
goods, it’d be £10. Needless to say, this was not a popular thing.
In fact, it could often be very, very difficult to get such a levy
approved by the nobility and clergy (the degree to which their
consent was legally required varied over the medieval period, but
given how many rebellions there were it was never a good thing to
repeatedly piss off your own nobles).
One of the reasons King
John was and is so reviled is the amount he taxed. John, when not
starving prisoners to death, was a devious taxman and worked out he
could make a lot of cash without needing to curry favour with the
nobility simply by hiking the fines for various transgressions. He
did this to punitive levels, and mulcted huge sums from his people.
He got a lot of money, and resentment, this way.
Edward I, the grandson
of John, had a rather clever idea which worked very well for a number
of years. The big export of England was wool, and Edward arranged for
the customs to be handled by Italian bankers who, in return, ensured
the king always had access to credit. It was mutually beneficial, as
the bankers got steady income from a guaranteed source and the king
could get ready cash very quickly whenever he needed it (until the
bankers over-stretched themselves elsewhere and the arrangement
collapsed, but that was hardly Edward’s fault).
Knighthood could be a
punishment. This sounds odd, but knights were sometimes defined by
wealth (an order might go out commanding every man worth £40 or more
to turn up at a given time and place to be knighted). As knights,
they’d be expected to fight for the king when required, for a
certain length of time, and perhaps furnish a few soldiers
themselves. Needless to say, many men were not taken with this idea.
Scutage was a way around this problem. From the Latin ‘scutum’
(shield), the term means cash given in lieu of fighting, enabling the
king to hire mercenaries and enabling the reluctant knight to avoid
going to war. Once again, John got quite a lot of money this way (and
yet more resentment).
There were also a
number of tolls applied to pay for various things. Pontage was a toll
for the repair and maintenance of bridges, stallage was a toll for
stallholders in the market, pavage for roads, murage for walls and
wharfage for, er, wharves.
It’s interesting that
the medieval form of taxes focused on assets and specific actions.
There was no attempt to tax income, and it’d be hundreds of years
before income tax, now the mainstay of the tax system, came into
being. The overall tax burden on people was generally low, but their
overall prosperity also wasn’t great, healthcare was often actively
harmful, and a bad harvest would see thousands die.
Of the two certainties,
taxes were lower than today, but death was eminently more
commonplace.
Thaddeus
Death more common place? Well yes, but then again no. In the millennia before antibiotics diseases which we now pretty much shrug off could cause massive fatalities (e.g. bubonic plague) and life expectancy in the middle ages is often quoted as being something like 30-40 years. However, dig a little deeper into those figures and a somewhat different picture emerges.
ReplyDeleteIf one strips out the deaths of infants and children than actually life expectancy was not much less than it has been until the last seventy years. Essentially if he/she could survive to the age of about five then the medieval person (of whatever station in life) had as good a chance of living to 70 as someone born in the late 19th century.
You're right that the bulk of the difference is infant mortality and pestilence... but those figures still count.
ReplyDeleteFrom the early 1200s to 1377, we only had four kings, and three of them had great longevity (the other one might have too, had he not been such an oaf).