"A Saxon man pays his in-laws a brideprice, equal
to his father-in-law’s wergild,"

- Saxons! Page 15

A Ceorl's Wergild is 10L in the Saxons! book, as it was historically under Mercian law. That's in the ballpark of 5-10 years income for a typical saxon farmer, how in the blazes does anyone ever get married?

It seems kind of nonsensical to me that the amount of money to murder someone and get off scot free is the same amount of money to marry a freeman's daughter.

I tried to do a little research into the subject. I found a paper for the 'Journal of Economic Perspectives' titled "The Economics of Dowry and Bride-price" link here: http://econ.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2013/05/pdf_paper_siwan-anderson-economics-dowry-brideprice.pdf

I found a chart of rough Bride-Price values on page 6. Note that this is in fact bride-price, and not Morning gift or dower.

"Germanic Tribes:
Visogoths (Spain) 9th century 1/10 husband’s wealth (Quale, 1988)
Lombards (Italy) 9th century 1/4 husband’s wealth (Quale, 1988)
Franks (France) 9th century 1/3 husband’s wealth (Quale, 1988)"

So it doesn't seem that the Wergild of Father = Brideprice rule is historical. Is it a mistake, or is there something I'm missing?

I can't speak as to where the equation of bride-price to the father-in-law's wergild comes from, but I do find the wergild amounts rather large. Too large, in fact, to be of any significant use in game: there is no way that a PK can get 120 libra together if he kills another thegn.

However, if you divide all wergilds by 5, then you get a serf's wergild at 1 librum, a ceorl's 2 libra and a thegn's 24 libra, which is much more agreeable to me (and more in line with the ransoms in the KAP rule book). Again, I don't look at this from historical perspective but from a game-play perspective. This would also address your complaint that the brideprice is too high; lower the wergild and the brideprice comes down, too.

I mean the Wergild for the Ceorl actually -is- historical, 200s (10L) was the wergild codified for a freeman under Mercian law, by Offa I think. At that time a shilling was valued at around 1 sheep in most of the country, or a cow in kent. A sheep in 5.1 is valued at 10d, so we're in the right ballpark.

But under that system, all noblemen, regardless of individual rank with the exception of a king, were assigned a wergild of 1200s (60L), not 2400 (120L!) just for the lowest rung of nobility, a thegn. In a way these values make sense as a vague "10 years income" compensation for the berieved families, if a thegn like a knight in 4e and 5.0 recieved 6L a year upkeep.

It's mentioned that in wergild a Hide has 12L value, so I think the idea of paying for a thegn's murder is that the offending thegn would have to yield over an equivalent portion of his land if he is convicted, or else face a blood feud, which in general I think was the more common outcome. Also, it seems that wergild was divided amongst the cynn, both when paying and when recieving. Depending on the size of possessions of one's family then, it's not impossible that such a burden could be borne with some difficulty.

Again, that's dependant on conviction. In order to be forced to pay wergild, a PK would have to stand trial, and Saxon trials can be fairly safe wagers for a PK Thegn unless they killed someone like an Ealdorman. Notionally, the other players would testify to his defense and add their considerable athfultum to his, as would the PK's Cynn. Even if this is trumped by the accuser, the player can undergo a trial by ordeal if he is confident in his CON and Valorous rolls, or Trial by Combat if he has trust in his sword arm, or that of a heorthgeneat. It would be virtually impossible for a Thegn PK to be convicted of a Ceorl's murder, unless it was in the middle of a town in broad daylight (he mightn't lose any voters) or in front of other Thegn's or high noblemen. Of course a Nobleman might pursue compensation if he is bothered, but that will not always be the case. The system appears to work.

A ceorl murdering a thegn couldn't possibly pay the Wergild, unless he was well off to begin with, sold all his land and thrown his family into slavery, and failure to pay results in a blood feud. In a blood feud, the accusing family is allowed to inflict damage on the offending Cynn equal to the Wergild that's short. On Equal terms, that's a life for a life. For a thegn's death, that's 6 ceorls before the debt is satisfied, or possibly mutilating and torturing the entire Ceorl's Cynn.

The problem here is Brideprice. I just can't find any historical evidence, or any logical reason, as to why it would cost such a ludicrously high amount of money to marry virtually anyone. The only thing I can think of, is that perhaps a Dowry is also provided to the Groom equal to HIS wergild, so that ordinary marriages cancel out and no payment is necessary, but a laet marrying the daughter of a ceorl, a ceorl marrying the daughter of a Thegn, or a Thegn marrying a Princess, would have difficulty and need to fork over the difference, as he'd be marrying up.

I mean the Wergild for the Ceorl actually -is- historical, 200s (10L) was the wergild codified for a freeman under Mercian law, by Offa I think. At that time a shilling was valued at around 1 sheep in most of the country, or a cow in kent. A sheep in 5.1 is valued at 10d, so we're in the right ballpark.

But under that system, all noblemen, regardless of individual rank with the exception of a king, were assigned a wergild of 1200s (60L), not 2400 (120L!) just for the lowest rung of nobility, a thegn. In a way these values make sense as a vague "10 years income" compensation for the berieved families, if a thegn like a knight in 4e and 5.0 recieved 6L a year upkeep.

It's mentioned that in wergild a Hide has 12L value...


I am not contesting the historical figures, but...

In Saxons!, a thegn is said to have at least 5 hides of land. Taking £12 per hide as historically correct, this is £60 in land, or six times what a Cymric knight has. Thus, it seems obvious to me that the Pendragon £ and the historical £ do not match up. A Saxon thegn should not be that much richer than a Cymric knight. If you divide by 5 you'd get a much more agreeable £12 (KAP) per thegn. It could even be argued that it should be divided by 10 for £6 for the thegn, since he doesn't have those god-awful expensive warhorses to take care of, and it would be enough: £4 for the thegn, family & a bodyguard, leaving another £2 for other stuff, although the heorthgeneat might be a bit more expensive. Thus, in KAP £, the Ceorl's wergild would be divided by 5 (or 10) as well, for £2 (or £1), and similarly for all the other wergilds.

I am not contesting the historical figures, but...

In Saxons!, a thegn is said to have at least 5 hides of land. Taking £12 per hide as historically correct, this is £60 in land, or six times what a Cymric knight has. Thus, it seems obvious to me that the Pendragon £ and the historical £ do not match up. A Saxon thegn should not be that much richer than a Cymric knight. If you divide by 5 you'd get a much more agreeable £12 (KAP) per thegn. It could even be argued that it should be divided by 10 for £6 for the thegn, since he doesn't have those god-awful expensive warhorses to take care of, and it would be enough: £4 for the thegn, family & a bodyguard, leaving another £2 for other stuff, although the heorthgeneat might be a bit more expensive. Thus, in KAP £, the Ceorl's wergild would be divided by 5 (or 10) as well, for £2 (or £1), and similarly for all the other wergilds.

Each Hide is supposed to be exchangeable at a rate of 1 for £12, lump sum. It's not a measure of Income, as the "£10 Manor" is, it's the 1 time land value for settling debts and such. A Cymric Knight wouldn't exchange his £10 manor for £10, any reasonable deal would be several years yields in advance. Thus, if a thegn killed a ceorl and he had to provide compensation, or he's just been married and needs to give his wife a suitable morning-gift, he could do it with a parcel of land rather than cash or chattel, at a rate of £12 per Hide.

OK, then that is different and more reasonable. If that £12 sale price is coming from the same source as the wergild, then they at least are in the same scale. However, we may still have a question about the scaling between KAP money and history.

I see in page 130 (now that I bothered to look) that the 5 hides of a thegn are supposed to be equivalent to a 1 POP domain in Lordly Domains, i.e. a manor. So taking that into account, the thegn's income from 5 hides should be the same as a knight's. This also implies that the sale price of land is 6 times the annual income (1 hide = £2 income or £12 sale), although you could argue for x10 since this is 4th edition (5 hides = £6, meaning 1 hide = £1.2 income or £12 sale).

In any case, I stick to my guns that I find the wergild to be so high that its imposition basically ruins the PK, leaving him no realistic chance of payment. All the more so since apparently you are supposed to pay wergild for deaths in a war, too (or accept a vendetta, of course).

Taking this back to your original question, I can't find a mention of a dowry anywhere in Saxons! book. But I agree that something needs to be done about the brideprice. Either reduce it (with or without a similar reduction to wergild) or balance it out with a dowry like you sugggested. I obviously prefer the former (with wergild), especially since there is no mention of a dowry in Saxons! and my personal preference for lower wergild amounts.

I did a quick googling (and while it is not a substitute to actual research, this is a hobby, not a career for me):



The morgengifu or 'morning gift' was a gift of money that the Groom gave to the Bride on the morning after the wedding. It was supposed to guarantee that the Bride had some independence of the Groom and would protect the future of herself and her children. This was hers to keep and use the entirety of her life.

The handgeld (or brydcéap or mund) was a financial or other gift to be passed to the bride's family at the wedding and was supposed to show that the groom could care for his future wife as well as symbolically make up or recompense to brides family for her leaving them. Daughters brought a certain spiritual luck to a family. They in many ways carried the sense of family and the clan spirit of a family.

The brýdgifu or the bride's dowry was to be paid by the brides family and again was to be long to her and to be untouchable by her husband. Like the morning gift it was to ensure, in event of the husband's death or divorce, that her and her children were provided for.


There is nothing said about a dowry being paid to the husband. I would be interested in finding out differently.

Christine Fell's Women in Anglo-Saxon England suggests that the only brideprice paid by a typical Saxon was the morgengifu given to his wife. The evidence she provides suggests that this could indeed have been a very substantial amount of wealth. She names one woman (I don't know how to do those weird d things or I would use her name) who sold an estate of five hides of land that she had received as her morgengifu. Also, this excerpt from a marriage contract from the early 11th century:

"Here is declared in this document the agreement which Godwine made with Brihtric when he wooed his daughter. In the first place he gave her a pound's weight of gold, to induce her to accept his suit, and he granted her the estate at Street with all that belongs to it, and 150 acres at Burmarsh and in addition 30 oxen and 20 cows and 10 horses and 10 slaves."

No mention of how wealthy said people were (I assume that it is not referring to the Godwin, as she never says such), but it clearly represents a substantial amount of money. Indeed, every gift she cites is comprised of land, at least in part. Of course, we would best have surviving records from important or wealthy people, so take that for what it's worth.

She makes no mention of the morgengifu being equal to anyone's wergild, though.