This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
How do we know it was a team of eight oxen? There aren't eight in the picture! Is it not likely that soil-type and weather and availablity of oxen were determining factors? Is it likely that there was a national standard for carucage across the whole country? What I'm suggesting is that the apparent consistencies recorded in 1086 are open to a lot more variation than this entry allows. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the explanation usually given. This series of measures certainly varied in terms of statute acres. A carucate was 4 virgates in some parts of the country or 8 bovates (or oxgangs) in others. The source for this is Seebohm, The Customary Acre. I have not put the citation in as it is many years since I looked a the book. More pertinent is to ask, 'which is an acre?' For the customary acre was a very variable measure, and that is where the variation with the soil type may have made the difference. However, there is another use of the term -- an estate of 120 acres. These were usually freehold, but ratehr smaller than the normal manor. This occurs in (for example) 14th century Inquisitions post mortem. The Carucate in the Danelaw is the equivalent of the Hide in most of the rest of the country. This was a fiscal assessmetn of the estate for tax purposes (well - military and other sevice to Saxon kings then for Danegeld) and needed to be consistent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so the Scots ploughgang is exactly the same idea as the English carucate and there's no reason for separate articles pending much more (sourced) information on the subtle distinctions between them. But what is the difference between the carucate and the hide? Shouldn't those two pages be merged as well? — LlywelynII 03:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Mainly because the sources treat them separately. The sources do not equate them, so we should not either. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)