Scarburg Meadhall Discussion Thread

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I am so very pleased to be the originator of the distinct displeasure of all of Athanar's biological children.

Now why isn't there an evil smiley?

[Loslote]

I considered posting for Lilige, going down to the kitchens, finding out the news, getting all confused again...but I decided that she would have had food sent up for herself and Aedre. She can get confused tomorrow. She just went to bed tonight.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Degas has too much food for thought. It's bed time. He'll have his Very Important Conversation in the morning.

[Groin Redbeard]

Alright, in the course of my browsing through books I found quite a few cases where Medieval law was put into practice. A lot of it is considered cruel to our modern minds; therefore, I don't know if we would use any of these punishments on Lithor or even Javan. *evil smile* Since ya'll know about the medieval world I am posting what I have found.

In England, those in charge of law and order believed that people would only learn how to behave properly if they feared what would happen to them if they broke the law. Even the ‘smallest’ offences had serious punishments. The authorities feared the poor simply because there were many more poor than rich and any revolt could be potentially damaging - as the Peasants Revolt of 1381 proved.

By the time of Henry II, the system of law in England had been improved because Henry sent out his own judges from London to listen to cases throughout all England’s counties. Each accused person had to go through an ordeal. There were three ordeals:

Here are some interesting superstitions I found. The first is called ordeal by fire. An accused person held a red hot iron bar and walked three paces. His hand was then bandaged and left for three days. If the wound was getting better after three days, you were innocent. If the wound had clearly not got any better, you were guilty. Ordeal by water. An accused person was tied up and thrown into water. If you floated you were guilty of the crime you were accused of (this I found particularly interesting because I know that they used this method in the 17th century all over the, then, thirteen colonies for Witch Trials). Ordeal by combat. This was used by noblemen who had been accused of something. They would fight in combat with their accuser. Whereas, the other options might prove ridiculous to our "sophisticated" modern minds, this one might prove interesting. Whoever won was right. Whoever lost was usually dead at the end of the fight.

In 1215, the Pope decided that priests in England must not help with ordeals. As a result, ordeals were replaced by trials by juries. To start with, these were not popular with the people as they felt that their neighbours might have a grudge against them and use the opportunity of a trial to get their revenge. After 1275, a law was introduced which allowed people to be tortured if they refused to go to trial before a jury.

If you were found guilty of a crime you would expect to face a severe punishment. Thieves had their hands cut off. Women who committed murder were strangled and then burnt. People who illegally hunted in royal parks had their ears cut off and high treason was punishable by being hung, drawn and quartered. There were very few prisons as they cost money and local communities were not prepared to pay for their upkeep. It was cheaper to execute someone for bad crimes or mutilate them and then let them go.

Most towns had a gibbet just outside of it. People were hung on these and their bodies left to rot over the weeks as a warning to others. However, such violent punishments clearly did not put off people. In 1202, the city of Lincoln had 114 murders, 89 violent robberies and 65 people were wounded in fights. Only 2 people were executed for these crimes and it can be concluded that many in Lincoln got away with their crime.

[Nogrod]

Groin, we're in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, not in the Christian Middle-Ages of Europe...

Even the Vikings were more civil.

And the "ordeal by combat" (I'm not sure what the actual historical term actually is as in Finnish it's called "God's verdict") was only between even persons by class... eg. two noblemen, two knights etc. and the winner was winner by God's favour - so if an "oldtimer" and a young "bodybuilder" met in a challenge (probably not initiated by the gaffer ) it was God's will the muscle-hero was more pleasing to him and had right on the issue.

But fear not, lord Athanar is not going to suggest to burn Lithor on the stake, mutilate him, or anything like that. Actually he's planning an overall deal between the nobles for all that happened- and Lithor will bear some blunt of it. But he will also have a chance to talk openly against W & W of the late evening's happenings...

[Groin Redbeard]

That is a fun idea Formy, Nogrod. Will Nain be invited to the council to watch, or is this strictly a human matter?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Even the Vikings were more civil.

I'll bite my tongue with that remark.

But since you brought up Vikings, they used a method called Jernbyrd 'carrying of (hot) iron' (Old Norse: Járnburdr). The Christian church introduced the Vikings to ordeal by fire. The most common method was to grab a piece of iron from boiling water and walk 9 paces with it carrying it in ones hands. This way of deciding the truth outlived the Viking Age. Inga from Varteig in 1218 'carried iron' to prove her son Håkon Håkonsson (king of Norway 1217 - 1263) was the rightful heir to the throne of Norway. In a way it makes sense. Why would a dishonest man risk burning his hand in a boiling water? A man with the truth on his side will always be more willing to endure hardship than a lier. But this is somewhat irrelevant, unless this is used as a way to ensure who is right when two conflicting views come up.

Another punishment, however, which involves no physical punishment (in a way) is a temporary outlawment of the offender. Eric the Red was an outlaw (twice I think it was) for his crimes. I am just thinking out loud now. Do what you like.

Anyway, looking forward to Nogrod's post.

P.S. Thanks for you defence of the Middle-Ages, Gwathagor.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

That is a fun idea Formy, Nogrod. Will Nain be invited to the council to watch, or is this strictly a human matter?

If by "council" you mean Athanar's court of justice in the morning, I doubt Náin would be specifically invited to attend. The only people mandated to be there would be the accused, and anyone involved in the carrying out of justice. However, as a court is a public act of justice on the part of the eorl, I figure anyone in Scarburg could turn up, and given the way things are going, I think a lot might out of curiosity. Whether Náin will, I'm not sure. He might think it a good idea to have another balanced head present, in case the punishment is severe and the old Scarburgians decide to get hotheaded--on the other hand, he might avoid it for that reason.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Word up, Groin.

While I'm perfectly happy to be historically accurate, I feel like maybe our kids can temper their violence a bit?

I'm all for putting people in the stocks for days at a time, forcing them to fast as punishment, whipping, caning, hard labor...

A sentence to haul stone for masonry, for instance.

Or if we want brutality-lite, perhaps the hand that struck the girl might be broken? Then again, I feel like our characters are too pragmatic to cripple a valuable worker in a poor holding.

So I'd envision something more like a whipping (pain + humiliation) coupled with some hard labor (at least the Hall gets something out of all the trouble), rather than tossing Javan and Lithor into the Scar.

[Nogrod]

Great idea Form!

That friendship between Náin and Aedre would be an interesting thing to read - and it would make Aedre into something quite special!

[Folwren]

I, too, like your idea, Formy.

I do NOT like the mideival way of punishing people. It is so brutal and unfair and unjust. I think that in Rohan, the people might understand that punishment must be dealt out with some good end in mind, otherwise....it'd really be pointless. Thanks for your research, though, Groin.

k, I'm off to bed. I won't be back on until Sunday.

-- Foley

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Only 2 people were executed for these crimes and it can be concluded that many in Lincoln got away with their crime.

I may as well mention that since (it sounds like) these laws were prescriptive rather than descriptive, it's also likely that they were not put into practice as consistently and formally as history textbooks might suggest. It's not as if every medieval authority figure was iron-fisted, stone-hearted, and blood-thirsty. They were humans and liable to be complex.