Is it allowed for peasants, free landholders and so on to use forests for gathering firewood and food...

the right to die.

The guy on the right looks like the typical guy in every movie who leeches off the bad guy solely to be a super creep

fuck off back to /tv/

The Irish loved their dairy
youtu.be/-65edQHvrUE

what exactly would a lord gain by refusing his peasants from gathering firewood?
A warm peasant is a healthy peasant, and come spring that healthy peasant is gonna start producing crops the taxation of which he gets his income of.
Fucking overtly with the people who earn you money is not exactly smart if theres no wide pool of replacements

If might want to mandate that peasants is freely allowed to chop stuff in the area that is to be cleared.
But realistically, if you clear land, and cut it, and got some alright way to store or dry it, you basically got more firewood than you need, so its irrelevant.

I thought about it once. The idea that came to my head was that it was preferred to have a specialized peasant gather the wood and sell it to the others, with the Lord getting a cut of the profits.

>tfw you will be working the land with your best friends and wife
>tfw you will never got to the local inn that night and spend your hard earned coin in a night of merryment with friends.
>tfw you will never be working or living in your small village with the same friends you were mischievous with in childhood.
>Sure you're poor but so are your friends and wife
>tfw no comfy peasant life
>tfw not a peasant
>tfw have to live in this shitty age,

>tfw you will never be working in an air conditioned office with your best friends and wife
>tfw you will never go to the local bar that night and spend your hard earned dollars in a night of merriment with friends
>tfw you will never be working or living in a small city with the same friends you were mischievous with in childhood
>sure, you're lower middle class but so are your friends and wife
>tfw no comfy suburban life
>tfw not a citizen
>tfw have to live in this shitty age

>tfw you will never be working in a factory with your best friends and wife
>tfw you will never go to the local distillery that night and spend your hard earned dollar in a night of merriment with friends
>tfw you will never be working or living in a small ghetto with the same friends you were mischievous with in childhood in the old country
>sure, you're an immigrant but so are your friends and wife
>tfw no comfy urban life
>tfw not a union worker
>tfw have to live in this shitty age

Since when are peasants allowed to post in my noble board?

Don't spoonfeed the PLEBEIANB&.

But they were malnourished and starved once in a while.

>tfw you will never be working in a athenian republic with your best friends, excluding your wife
>tfw you will never go to the local gymnasium that night and spend your hard earned tetradrachm in a night of merriment with friends
>tfw you will never be working or living in a small polis with the same friends you were naughty with in childhood in the old Gumanstike days.
>sure, you're about to have your polis in scrambles, but so are your friends and wife
>tfw no comfy ancient greek life
>tfw not a member of the aristocratic class of ancient athens
>tfw have to live in this shitty age,

I can't imagine the type of pathetic person you must be to actually idealize peasant life.

...

>Is it allowed for peasants, free landholders and so on to use forests for gathering firewood and food?
The usage of forests and non cultivated areas varied from feud to feud, you can't really make generalization. Generally the folks did have some rights to usage of the lands, mostly relative to firewood, peat, wild fruit and mushrooms. Stuff that almost invariably was not allowed was hunting, mining, and cutting down trees.

depends on what your lord decided and more importantly whether or not the woods next to your house were considered royal woods or not

>more importantly whether or not the woods next to your house were considered royal woods or not
Royal woods weren't really any different than any other forest, the only difference was that the king owned it rather than the local lords, so it was under the customs of the king's demesne rather than what local folks were used to.

Youre the guy on the right! hahaha

>not allowed was hunting
Depends on, certain small game and fowl was legit for peasants, sometimes even deer and boar was ok for common freemen, and only hunting from horseback and with distance weapons was a privilege of the nobility.

afaik, in the HRE it was ususally part of the serf's obligation to provide lumber and firewood to the lord, in the same manner the serf would work the mines or fields, depending on the fief. Since the lord would want to keep his assets (the serfs bound to the land) intact, he would of course provide them with a share of the wood or let them forage for themselves. As far as berries or mushrooms go, why would the lord give a fuck? Meat was the staple of nobility.

and the right to be taxed

>hunting, mining, and cutting down trees
Why those specifically?

The customary rights of the commons were related to sustenance. Activities like mining, logging and poaching were mostly profit related.
Not all hunting was prohibited necessarily. Some kinds of small game and birds mostly hunted for food could be fair game.

Peasants were often malnourished and they starved if harvests weren't great.

Everybody did that at the time.

>Everybody did that at the time.

It was very unusual for royals or wealthy nobility to starve even if the harvests weren't great because noble diets weren't so highly dependent on the harvests themselves. Peasants--and depending on the country this continued up until the 19th century--had diets which were extremely reliant on grain from harvests and certain vegetables, so if the harvest was bad, they had shit to eat. Whereas the nobles still had other food sources to turn to, like expensive meats, imported foods, etc.

Mate, even upper class guys would suffer during famines, sometimes great famines would wipe entire landscapes clean of humans, including low and mid nobility, rich city folks and just about everybody else.

Not him but I think he set the exceptions there to Royalty and Wealthy nobility who could in most centuries have access to food to eat both through trade, from their private game and from a access to a granary.

This, eggs are probably the best thing you can eat considering all the nutritious shit in it.

so for 99.98% of the population famine was just another season and the rest had it great? Wow, big deal, like you guys seem to forget how primitive and strange the medieval age was in parts. Like the medieval climate change meant no fat chicks in town for 200 years straight in most of Europe.

>Medieval people ate a lot of bread, mainly.
This is not generally true, there where times when cattle was way more productive, leading to impressive meat based diets, even for lower social classes. At times during the medieval average grain fertility rate was down to 1:2 meaning for one grain sowed you could expect 2 in the harvest. You see you have this large climate spikes over the medieval period in Europe and depending on climate agriculture changed.

I didn't say that never happened, I said it was very unusual. As a general rule, royalty and wealthy nobility did not starve.

Yes, but that was a handfull of people, all others did starve, it was the fucking norm.

>99.98%
It depends on the country we are discussing. In Russia where the Serfs vastly outnumbered the wealthy Nobles you would get mass starvation. But if this was a country like Spain, Polish-Lithuania or Castile where the Nobility were actually quite large and where there was a significant access to trade then starvation would not have been so traumatic to the population.

Prot tip, famines did not depend on countries, but on weather, and so every country has their fair share of famines during the medieval time period.

You're being quite too much autistic about this, m8. About as much as a real peasant would've been about this.
Got any real sources, facts or experiences to tell? I kinda want to believe this.

Nothing is free user. Everything has a price.

It does depend on countries in as much as it depends on the weather as the countries have specific social structures that determine the flow of wealth and goods along with the climatic conditions that differ from regions of Europe and as well as larger global climate patterns. An example of the regional differences would be say to compare Spain to Russia. Spain was more arid than Moscovite Russia but it had a larger merchant class and aristocracies as well as access to seaborne trade which gave them access to greater wealth and alternative options for sustenance in times of famine.

Not an argument

Mostly they were allowed to collect fallen firewood but forbidden to cut down healthy trees

>HURR DUURRRRRR NUT A LE ARGUMENT

> It's clear that hunting is only for the nobility
U wot mate

Citation needed

>he doesn't know

I can recommend "Hungersnöte im Mittelalter" by Fritz Curschmann for general study.
Also "The Great Famine: Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth Century" by William Chester Jordan

clim-past.net/12/2107/2016/cp-12-2107-2016.pdf is a nice article about the 1430's-1440's freak weather episode and resulting famine and war in parts of Europe. This is a nice example because it shows that even without external trigger (Volcano etc.) freak weather episodes can strike and completely devastate a region, in this case 50%-70% of the regional population perished simply because a couple winters in a row where cold and the summers wet.

not in the forrest of the lord, that is nobility property

allowed in the common forrest the village or community owned, ofcourse it the relation the serfs and the noble varied alot so while some were benevolent some were straight out sadistic

ppl have it mixed up it seems, not all serfs were landless

Great famine of 1315-1317 for example destroyed many villages in the English country side completely and is seen the single most deadly catastrophe next to the Plague. That one went as far as that Edward II had problems finding bread for himself and his entourage. It's not every day the King of England goes hungry.

Starvation and famine where widespread in medieval Europe, partially because the low grain fertility rate and little developed agriculture and on the other hand because food preservation was very limited and long distance trade of basic food was practically non existent. One bad harvest /long winter would mean people would go hungry, two bad harvests in a row meant that people start dying and only the strong survive. This was a normal part of life for like the 95% of people that where self sufficient farmers/peasants during the high medieval.