I'm looking for something straightforward I could show my players, so that they'd have an idea of what kind of offenses are punishable in mid-15th century England.

Does anyone have any recommendations for websites which might have this kind of information?

On a related note, I have one particularly troublesome player who doesn't seem to get through his head just what constitutes disobedience to a noble lord and what kind of punishments a knight or lord can mete out to disobedient servants. Any link providing easy-to-understand information about that would be welcome too.

RPGPundit

I need to finish making dinner, but I do have some info, and I'll put them up.

As far as your troublesome player goes, it's simple.  Tell him to think of the meanest, most touchy relative, teacher or boss he's ever had.  Now tell him to imagine that said relative/teacher/boss could beat him nearly to death pretty much any time he wanted, for pretty much any rationale, no matter how flimsy or idiotic the premise.  Now tell him that talking back would likely earn him another beating, and let him know that his definition of what constitutes "talking back" would earn him another beating if he voiced it.

There.  That'll do.

The offenses could be about anything. Varied across Europe but some were also in use in England...

Dunking: A sort of winch-like swing the victem was placed in and then swung over a body of water and dunked into. Believe this was in use in England.

Public Stockades: Usually for minor offenses if I recall correctly.

Branding I am told was used in some areas. But I've not researched that area yet.

Beheading: The classical axeman.

Guillotine: Not sure of its advent so might be after your time frame. And not sure if it was used much in England.

Hanging: Various methods, some horrifically slow. Id guess this was most common.

Impalement: At least one famous country used that a-lot. And not just for wartime. Some horrifically show. Dont think was used in England though.

Drawn and Quartered: Pretty gruesome way to go. Not sure how extensively it was used in England though.

Dragging: Painful and potentially lethal depending on where the driver dragged the victem.

Simple incarceration: In the pitch black for possibly days, months or years.

Torture: Every insanely depraved nightmarish method imaginable.

And probably others. Some coming after the 1500s though but possibly in use even then to lesser degrees.

It's quite complex. Judgements might come from canon law, common law, or chancery law depending on various factors. Generally legal matters in the middle ages were a great deal more sophisticated, formal and developed than most would credit; here are some judgements from the courts in Paris at the time.

QuoteA suit was moved in our Court between Thomas of Uldale, English knight, on the one side, and Peter lord of Tournebu, Jacques de la Caudroie, Guillaume du Merle, Jean lord of Ferrieres, Guillaume de la Palu, Guillaume de la Burnache, knights, Jean Boulet, baillif of Alencon and Perche, and Colin de St-Denis, squires concerning the following:

Thomas said that during the wars many castles and fortifications in our kingdom were captured and occupied and many districts put to ransom, and that it has been legitimate for the subjects of one side to acquire rights over the subjects of the other side by feat of arms and to treat them as his acquisitions; that the duke of Lancaster by himself and his men captured the villages with their castles and towers of Domfront, Le-Bois-de- Maine, Messei, Cond=82-sur-Noireau, and the tower of Villiers- Charlemagne [all places in western Normandy and Maine] during the aforesaid wars; and that in consequence the territories around these castles were made subject to him and large ransoms imposed on them which were to be paid to the Duke and his men over a term of years; and that the Duke gave these to the aforesaid Thomas and to Thomas Fogg, English knight, his lieutenants; he said furthermore that in 1360, in March or thereabouts, it was agreed by Louis d'Harcourt, our father's lieutenant, and by John Chandos, lieutenant of our dear brother the King of England, in the presence of the said lieutenants of the Duke, that the Duke's men would surrender the aforesaid castles and ransoms, and for this and for the ransoms still due Louis d'Harcourt obligated himself to pay the Duke 20,000 gold =82cus of the coin of our said dear father Jean;

that this was to be paid in two terms, half at Pentecost the other on the feast of St. John the Baptist following; that certain persons were to obligate themselves to guarantee this payment and render themselves as hostages in the city of Calais within ten days of these due dates if the sums were not paid in full; and for this the said Chandos surrendered to Louis the castle of Le-Bois-de- Maine, and promised that when the aforesaid personal obligations were made he would surrender the remaining castles; and that all this is contained in the letters of the aforesaid lieutenants drawn up on March 11; he said in addition that the aforesaid knights and squires, the defendants, along with others obligated themselves personally to pay those 20,000 ecus to the Duke or to his attorneys, obligating themselves as a group along with their property both personal and real by their letters drawn up and sealed on March 12; and that, although after this obligation was delivered the castles were surrendered, and the greater part of the sum was raised on our subjects in the districts concerned to the amount of 20,000 ecus or more, only 6,800 ecus were paid in several installments and in part after the death of the aforesaid Duke, leaving 13,200 ecus to be paid;

Thomas said furthermore that the Duke in his last testament made dispositions of his personal property to pay his debts and to remunerate those who had served him, this to be accomplished by his executors, who were given the power to fulfil his testament or to interpret it for the usefulness of his soul; the three executors -- Robert of Mara, knight, John of Charnel, canon of Warwick, and John of Newmarket, squire -- granted the obligation of 20,000 ecus to the said Thomas, knowing that the Duke had given it in recognition of the good service he [Thomas] had given and the money he had loaned to him, as is contained in the letters bearing their seals and dated November 10, 1362, of which a copy is contained in letters of our brother.

For this debt the aforesaid defendants along with our dear cousins the archbishops of Rouen and Lyons were adjourned at the request of the said Thomas's proctor to recognize or deny their seals; and the proctors of the defendants said they did not recognize the seals; after which they were adjourned again to appear personally or by proctors sufficiently instructed; and when the proctors appeared they recognized the seals.

By virtue of this recognition, Thomas's proctor asked that execution be made of the said remaining debt of 13,200 ecus, and that the defendants not be allowed to oppose this execution until they place in escrow according to the rules of this Court the sum being demanded ....

The aforesaid defendants proposed on the contrary that by both canon and civil law and by the rules of our Court of Parlement Thomas is not legitimately founded to demand, prosecute or reqauire execution or any other conclusions that he might present, because the letters which he uses in his case are not to be given faith for they are not originals, one being an authenticated copy of the Duke's testament bearing the seal of an ecclesiastical court -- that of the bishop of London -- which by rule is not admitted in lay court, the others bearing seals that are unknown and from outside the kingdom; that obligations or promises made per metum qui cadere possit in constantem virum, vel ob turpem causam, per vim compulsivam seu per dolum vel fraudem causam dantem are ipso facto null [these phrases are references to provisions of Roman Law that declare null contracts made under threat of fear, fraud, or physical compulsion] and no execution may be made by virtue of them even if they are confirmed by oath;

and one so obligated may act against his own oath; that the defendants suppose it is notoriously true that in the year of Our Lord 1360 in the month of May a peace treaty was made between our lord father and the king of England, our brother, and us, then regent of the kingdom, and in the following month of October was confirmed in the city of Calais both by we three and by the aforesaid Duke, and fortified by oaths taken on the sacrament of our Lord Christ; in which peace treaty was contained, among other things, the provision that all fortifications and castles occupied by the English in Normandy were to be freely surrendered and liberated without payment of any money; and nevertheless the men then holding those castles refused to leave them but rather committed crimes on persons and goods even graver than before, which the people in the surrounding territories could not resist; and that they, the defendants, treated with them in order to forestall even greater afflictions inasmuch as they [the English] refused to depart unless first they [the defendants] obligated themselves to pay 20,000 =82cus to the Duke;

thus the obligation was extorted by force, fear, and base cause, which the Duke himself would not have been admitted to prosecute had he survived, especially considering his oath confirming the peace; even less should Thomas be admitted, especially since the aforesaid Duke ordered in his testament that the trespasses he had committed be repaired, as is contained in the copy of what is claimed to be his testament; and that, by reason and by the law of arms, and by the usages and customs notoriously observed in war, if he who has received an obligation by capturing castles or persons or ransoms dies, those who have obligated themselves are freed by his death, as it was declared in the case of Jean de Charny, knight, and in other cases by the court of the Constable and Marshal of France. For which reason they ask that Thomas of Uldale not be admitted .

The aforesaid Thomas on the contrary replied that the peace treaty alleged by the defendants should not stand against him ... because the articles of that treaty should not be considered notorious [i.e. well known by all] in this case, since the case at hand does not concern us who swore to the peace nor persons arguing our rights or our quarrels, but rather is between private persons by reason of their own actions and private obligations; and that the other allegations of the defendants touch other issues than those here being debated ... .

The defendants to this replied ... that the said letters of obligation were made null ipso jure by the aforesaid peace treaty, concerning which our Court as a Court could take cognizance ... .

The Court having heard all this and received from the parties their arguments in writing and all the documents and instruments and peace treaties ... it was declared by the Court that Thomas of Uldale is to be received and admitted to request that the defendants put in escrow the sum being demanded, in accordance with the rules of our Court; and, this being done, the parties shall than proceed.

5 December 1366

 
[In April 1367 Thomas settled with the defendants out of court, agreeing to accept 7000 gold francs. In 1368, Pierre de Tournebu not having paid his share, Thomas requested and received from the court an execution of the debt against Pierre's property. Thomas died soon afterwards, and his executors allowed Pierre's family to repurchase the property for 2,000 francs.]

 

A lot depends on the century you're talking about, crime and punishment changed enormously over the period. In the 13th century, trial by ordeal was the norm, a hundred years later trial by a jury of your peers took over. Generally though as Omega said, a noble could completely ruin a peasant without consequences.

Medieval History Geek
http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/

Internet Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook.asp

Medieval Life, Crime & Punishment
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Medieval_Life/crimeandpunishment.htm

Law in the Middle Ages
http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/middleages/law/law.html

England in the 15th Century
http://books.google.com/books?id=WHMENs-CiTAC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=law+enforcement+in+15th+century+England&source=bl&ots=q4LZm-inVk&sig=WSUxjpyAKVinO2OZe-ec6Xo88zM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJpoUvLeIorA2AXSg4DoDg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=law%20enforcement%20in%2015th%20century%20England&f=false

Poor Relief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_relief

Quote from: The Traveller;702411A lot depends on the century you're talking about, crime and punishment changed enormously over the period. In the 13th century, trial by ordeal was the norm, a hundred years later trial by a jury of your peers took over. Generally though as Omega said, a noble could completely ruin a peasant without consequences.

Actually Raven made the very good point about nobles.
Allmost certainly the constabulary could ruin someone too.

I have to wonder about the difference between England, which was essentially a conquered nation (by the Normans), vs say Germany, which was a lot more complex politically. You had an Emperor, but then a lot of free cities.

Or even Switzerland, which was a confederation of a bunch of very tiny states.

Quote from: JeremyR;702435I have to wonder about the difference between England, which was essentially a conquered nation (by the Normans), vs say Germany, which was a lot more complex politically. You had an Emperor, but then a lot of free cities.

Or even Switzerland, which was a confederation of a bunch of very tiny states.

Some of them likely looked much like the Colonies later. Neighbors might be fairly similar, or they could have a high variance in treatment of "criminals".

If I recall correctly the variances were sometimes due to shifting borders where you would get islands and pockets of one sort of culture in the midst of another as the borders rolled this way and that over time. Invaders or immigrants would bring along their system and possibly not fully intigrate into the locals afterwards.

Quote from: RPGPundit;702311I'm looking for something straightforward I could show my players, so that they'd have an idea of what kind of offenses are punishable in mid-15th century England.

Does anyone have any recommendations for websites which might have this kind of information?

On a related note, I have one particularly troublesome player who doesn't seem to get through his head just what constitutes disobedience to a noble lord and what kind of punishments a knight or lord can mete out to disobedient servants. Any link providing easy-to-understand information about that would be welcome too.

RPGPundit

Is the player a noble servant such as the son of a knight, or is he a peasant or freeman in a servile role?

Because frankly, especially in less inhabited areas, a knight could do damn near anything to a commoner including kill him, and suffer little to no ill effect.

Fief: A Look at Medieval Society from its Lower Rungs is a sourcebook that examines the Middle Ages from the viewpoint of the ordinary farmer, priest, and landholder - the inhabitants of a feudal manor. It's one of Cumberland's best-selling and most acclaimed titles.

Town: A City-Dweller's Look at 13th to 15th Century Europe is the all-new companion volume: a self-contained sourcebook examining medieval life from the perspective of the guild and merchant-house, through the lives of craftsmen, traders, students, thieves and mercenaries - dwellers in medieval europe's cities and towns.

http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/fief.htm

Contains "Sins, crimes, and the penalties for getting caught, including lists of fines, fees, and holy penances."

There are free samples of the books at the website. I have read them and they are very good system agnostic sourcebooks.

I use the following as a detailed explanation.

The feudal lords are first and foremost biker gangs with legal authority.  The law exists because feudal lords are not all mad-dogs and appreciate a more or less standard way of adjudicating disputes. The peasantry is more or less completely in their power. However because everything is so personal there are limits to how far a individual lord reach. Most acknowledge some sort of compromise that becomes local custom. Simply so they quite having to dealing with it personally every time.

The long-term interest of the sovereign (i.e. King, Emperor) is to move the whole mess to situation we would recognize not because it was "right" because it was proven to be more efficient in harnessing the wealth and power of the kingdom for the use of the sovereign.

Towns are a completely different story as their inhabitants are involved with a money economy compared to their feudal counterparts. Their situation is a bunch of small scale 19th century style robber barons who establish monopolies in a heartbeat. They tend to go at it with gang of thugs. Not necessarily street thugs but their own journeymen and apprentices willing to mix it up.

The Church for the most part takes a moral stance on the matter (at least compared to the other factions). Mixing the ideal of the Christianity with a rose colored view of how thing were under the Romans.

I don't know if the above is how they thought back then. It hard to figure it out due to the lack of records and the whole thing is shifting through the centuries. But it the best explanation I managed to come up with that is

1) Understandable to a 21st century gamer.
2) Playable.
3) Reasonably fits the facts of a medieval life.

For details I mostly rely on Harn which is largely based around England of the 12th to 14th century. In particular for the OP I rely on Harn Law as the most gamable presentation of medieval law.

Harn Law Print

Harn Law PDF

During this time period, don't use laws & punishment from the Continent.  English law was much different by this time.

Estar hit the nail on the head, and I wish I'd thought of biker gangs as an analogy.  It's a great one.

An observation that the historian Barbara Tuchman made in reference to 14th-century lifestyle has stuck with me: that the culture was, by our standards, amazingly cruel.  Bloodsports were routine, murders and tortures were commonplace enough to provoke questions of outright pathology, and executions were eagerly awaited spectator sports.

Quote from: Omega;702387Drawn and Quartered: Pretty gruesome way to go. Not sure how extensively it was used in England though.

This punishment shows up all the time in the lead up to the War of the Roses and through the Tudor era.  Some pretty notable people were killed this way, including William Wallace.  In the Stuart era things got a lot less brutal, so far as I can tell.  

Probably a bit too PG-14 for most gaming tables, though.

Quote from: Votan;702705This punishment shows up all the time in the lead up to the War of the Roses and through the Tudor era.  Some pretty notable people were killed this way, including William Wallace.  In the Stuart era things got a lot less brutal, so far as I can tell.  

Probably a bit too PG-14 for most gaming tables, though.

Interesting.

And considering how depraved some players get with their characters... Well...

Now the general populace players it is probably a bit much. But then so is quite a bit of the punishments.

Fantasy settings tend to have a wild west element to law. Disputes settled with steel.