Steads and social mobility

[DrGoth]

I've been trying to get my head around some aspects of Orlanthi society. 

Specifically, stead organisation and the difference between what used to be called carls and cottars.

I have looked at https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/world-building-glorantha/ where it says terms 'carls' and 'cottars' are no longer used.  They did come with some particular baggage, so I can see that.

My understanding is that (at least in Sartar) for Orlanthi living on the clan lands, most of them live in a stead.  Which is centred on a longhouse. That is, shared accommodation for multiple nuclear families, who are related by blood. The head of a stead (used to be called a thane. is that gone with carl and cottar?) is an important person, maybe a member of the clan's outer ring.  Within the clan there are those who (or whose head of family) own an ox-team (or half an ox-team) and are allocated land to plow and those that aren't.  My understanding is that there are far more of the former (plow-men) than the latter (herders, stickpickers, crafters etc)

If I'm wrong about any of that, happy to be corrected.

My questions revolve around numbers, how they live and what social mobility there is.

Let's take the social mobility first. Here's a (hopefully extreme) way to read some of the material:

The owners of ox-teams (and their spouses and children) live in the steads, sharing the longhouse.  The others live in (much more humble) cottages, separate from the steads.  Membership of these groups is hereditary.  I really hope that's not how it works, as that would rapidly lead to a heavily stratified society, with the lower levels perpetually locked out of any chance of improvement, effectively exiled from the steads, eking out an existence in small cottages, their children doomed to follow in their footsteps. It would be self-perpetuating.  What plowman would want his daughter marrying one of them? So marriages would be within strata.  It would almost be a caste-based society, with all that implies.

Not what I think of when I consider "freedom loving Orlanthi". 

Another alternative is that it's not hereditary.  You don't automatically follow in your parent's footsteps.  Back in Sartar, Kingdom of Heroes, carls (I know, term gone) "own some military equipment". The implication I draw from that is that lower ranks don't. They are not part of the fighting force of the clan. So the situation could be more of a meritocracy, and that those that can fight and plow would be given land, regardless of their parents' rank.  Similarly, the son of a plowman might find himself herding sheep if he couldn't fulfil the duties and obligations that went with holding land.

The next area is about numbers. Clans in Sartar can number 1000-1200 or even more (adults plus children). If a typical stead numbers 20-25 people, that's lot of steads (up to 60 or more). That makes for a large outer ring.  A stead might be larger - but that then makes for more people living under the one roof. How big are the longhouses and how many people do they hold? The other way to look at this is that 'stead' and 'longhouse' are not quite synonymous. That is, a stead might have more than one longhouse and/or residences in addition to the longhouse.

So, to my actual questions:

• how many people live in each stead? and what does that mean for number of steads in a typical clan?
• how many people does a typical longhouse in Sartar hold?
• can there be more than one longhouse in a stead?
• are there residences in a stead separate to the longhouse(s)?
• if people live outside the longhouse, are they part of the stead or separate to it?
• if the social ranks of "owns a plow" and "doesn't own a plow" still hold, how is membership of those ranks determined? Is it hereditary, merit-based or something else?
• Is it only the "owns a plow" families who live in the stead/longhouse and the others live in cottages? (I know that's not either or, and could be a mix, but see the question about whether these extra residences are part of a stead or separate from it)
• if the "doesn't own a plow" rank is hereditary and those families don't live in the stead, does this mean we have a perpetual underclass in Orlanthi society?

Anyway, if I have it all mixed up, happy to be corrected.

[Akhôrahil]

22 minutes ago, DrGoth said:

The owners of ox-teams (and their spouses and children) live in the steads, sharing the longhouse.  The others live in (much more humble) cottages, separate from the steads.  Membership of these groups is hereditary.  I really hope that's not how it works, as that would rapidly lead to a heavily stratified society, with the lower levels perpetually locked out of any chance of improvement, effectively exiled from the steads, eking out an existence in small cottages, their children doomed to follow in their footsteps. It would be self-perpetuating. 

I think social status is highly hereditary, but not completely so (as that would go against the tenets of Orlanthi society, which doesn't aim to achieve stasis). You wouldn't marry outside your social rank unless there was some particular reason for it, so it will tend to be self-perpetuating. But at the same time, successfully raiding, being heroic in war, doing something outstanding with magic or religion, and soo on certainly seems like the kinds of things that might elevate you. I could also imagine various situations where a cottar gains a better land right - for instance, the chief might say "if you clear that piece of land, you get it", and the population shortfall after the Windstop might improve the rights of peasants (as the Black Death did in Western Europe). A herder looks after other people's animals, but could potentially build up a personal herd until it provides enough wealth to qualify for Free/Carl and get formally elevated (in my game, we call this job "rancher" as opposed to "herder").

So I think we do have a hereditary underclass, but it's not fully ossified, and social mobility does exist (unlike in Dara Happan society, where it's at least supposed to be total). The same way, it's difficult to get into the Orlanthi nobility, which is also mostly hereditary (but at the same time, you could be proclaimed Thane of Apple Lane or be so good that they can't help but make you a priest).

22 minutes ago, DrGoth said:

Not what I think of when I consider "freedom loving Orlanthi". 

You do have that freedom... if you can manage it, somehow. Although I am reminded about the parody "I worship the God of Freedom, come buy my slaves" (from Six Ages, IIRC?). And a fair number of Orlanthi clans keep thralls, which would presumably be even worse but still practiced here and there.

Thunder Rebels has more details about steads than any other publication, although some might not apply any longer (it has the incorrect number of oxen per plow, for instance).

In my game, cottars mostly live in huts close to their fields, but move to the PC:s stead in winter (this is Talastar - the winters are rough), where it's much safer (I mean, it has PCs around for one thing!) and everyone's body heat helps. My rule of thumb is 50 people for a longhouse (that might be 10 x 50 m).

Edited July 6, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[mfbrandi]

If you think of the Hero Wars as like the English Civil War (our bourgeois revolution, perhaps) — The World Turned Upside Down — then even if “normal” Orlanthi society is not agreeable to you, there is surely room for utopian sects and experimental socialist societies amid the chaos of war, the Diggers and all the rest. Make some up.

[Squaredeal Sten]

My own interpretation includes:

All this is fir Heortlings.  Members of other societies such as Pelorians get different rules and statuses.

Free vs semi-free (cottar or tenant farmer) status is based on land tenure and possession of equipment.  The Earth temple decides on land tenure, and considerations include

* Noble status and services to the clan and the temple.  Nobles don't work themselves or only plow when they want to, and are free (or are voluntold) to carry out clan and temple business, that is to Adventure in game terms. That is why they are given multiple hides of land, which they will hire tenant farmers to farm.  So who gets land?     Social ties count.  Heredity counts.  But performance in service to the clan, and talent, also count.  There is no canon scoresheet or algorithm for this.  So kiss up to the Ernakda priestess and the clan ring if you want land either to farm or to graze.

* Possession of a plow and ox team.  Anyone who has these is almost certain to get primary land tenure of at least one hide of farmland. Because the temple wants crop production.  It's not hereditary but obviously wealth is heritable: If you inherit Dad's ox team you have an ox team. 

Farmers without a plow and land will be cottars, tenant farmers on someone else's land.

* Possession of the equipment necessary to stand in the fyrd battle line is what gives men and Vingans the electoral franchise.  At the most basic level this is a medium or large shield,  spear, and some kind of helmet.  Obviously body armor helps one survive so it is highly advisable though not compulsory.  Anyone who can afford to and does buy these, is in. They can vote.  It's not hereditary.  Anyone who does not have these is not going to be assigned land.

Note that adults who don't own this equipment are not exempt from military service.  They will serve as archers, slingers, maybe scouts.

Note that Heortling wonen get their electoral franchise from possession of the equipment for stereotypical female roles.  That is in RQiG.

Anyone who does not have primary land tenure and farms someone else's land is a cottar or tenant farmer.  Herders without assigned grazing will have cottar status.

 Crafters who only have tenure of the land their house/shop stands on, will still be of free status.  But they are not Carls unless they also have the ag assets. And males will presumably normally be voting members of the fyrd.  Note that a crafter might alternatively be a member of a longhouse dwelling family.

Now about steads and longhouses: A stead can include more than one longhouse.  Whether it does depends on the size of the extended family and tenure of enough land to support everyone.  And maybe on whether an older daughter is fed up with Mom and wants some space of her own.

Cottars or tenant farmers will live in their own cottages.  They are not members of the stead owner's extended family.  

The family patriarch of a stead will be in the outer ring.  Other adults in the household will have free status based on that even though they are not assigned land.  They share the household's Standard Of Living. That is pretty clear from the SOL section of RQiG.  In game you handwave the question of affording their military equipment, even though at book prices it is a major expense for the family.

So back to social mobility: it is partly clan service and social ties and and job based, partly economic, partly who you marry.  The child of a noble will not necessarily be a noble on adulthood when he or she leaves home.  But does have a leg up from training and family wealth.  The child of a free farmer may become a cottar.

That's long enough.  🙂

Edited July 6, 2023 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling / typing. Added paragraph on crsfters.

[g33k]

It's also worth noting that many of these questions will vary from clan to clan.  "Falling in love" is a thing the Orlanthi recognize, and thus marrying above/below ones "station" is an acknowledged phenomenon (if not the most common).

Some are more matrilneal, but more of them lean patrilneal, and some are in the "it's more complicated" category; because they see women as "more practical / more calculating" and men as "more-impulsive," I'd expect to see more "political" and "practical" marriages in the matriarchal clans.

Some Sartarite clans keep slaves, and buying/selling slaves is entirely legit.  Some absolutely will not, and slave-taking in their lands -- even captured bandits/etc -- is a forbidden, criminal activity.

Some clans are more known for one thing than another -- Red Cow is obviously a herding clan, and likely has fewer farmers.  The Enjossi are noted fisher-folk, and likely have fewer folk working herds or fields.  There are lots of vineyards near Clearwine, and thus fewer herds, and less grain.  Etc etc etc.

[Hellhound Havoc]

I can't remember where I've read it, but I remember reading something about this being related to succession.

Suppose you have a chief with 3 sons, and he owns personally 10 hides of land. He himself can only work 1 hide, so he keeps 5 to himself, distributes 3 to his sucessor (as in, the one who will inherit his property, not necessarily the next chief) and 1 for each of his other sons.

Suppose his son with just 1 hide of land has 3 sons, though. What will happen to them? They'll become tenants. Maybe they'll become tenants for their grandfather, working his land and eventually proving themselves to the next chieftain (which may or may not be one of his uncles) so they receive a bit of it.

So you can see that, while yes, the tenants are of lower status, they can still be proud and have something to prove. It's not entirely hereditary, but that's just my understanding of it of course.

As to the logistics of longhouses:

• how many people live in each stead? and what does that mean for number of steads in a typical clan? This is pretty broad. Sartar - Kingdom of Heroes says that it can be anywhere from 6 to 40. In Six Seasons in Sartar there are 12 for a very small clan.
• how many people does a typical longhouse in Sartar hold? I don't think there's a satisfying answer for this one. It's like asking "how many people can an apartment hold" - I imagine there will be different sizes of longhouses for different sized families, but I wouldn't doubt the 6-to-40 figure might still hold true. Maybe 3-to-20.
• can there be more than one longhouse in a stead? Yes, it says so in Sartar - Kingdom of Heroes.
• are there residences in a stead separate to the longhouse(s)? There can be. Tenants may live in cottages out in the field, but I don't think freemen would, since they typically own their own longhouse.
• if people live outside the longhouse, are they part of the stead or separate to it? Part of the stead. The stead is more of a social distinction. Like, even if you work on the fields herding sheep for half the year, living on a cottage, and only coming to the longhouse during winter, those sheep still belong to the owner of the stead.
• if the social ranks of "owns a plow" and "doesn't own a plow" still hold, how is membership of those ranks determined? Is it hereditary, merit-based or something else? See above, I imagine it's partly hereditary in the sense that people in power will prioritise their family when gift-giving.
• Is it only the "owns a plow" families who live in the stead/longhouse and the others live in cottages? (I know that's not either or, and could be a mix, but see the question about whether these extra residences are part of a stead or separate from it) Not necessarily. The distinction here is more "who has their own room in the longhouse and who sleeps in the main hall" rather than "who lives and doesn't inide the longhouse." The son of a freeman who doesn't own land yet is a tenant, but he'd still probably have his own room.
• if the "doesn't own a plow" rank is hereditary and those families don't live in the stead, does this mean we have a perpetual underclass in Orlanthi society? No, because they aren't necessarily undesirable for marriage.

I think the confusion here stems from seeing these classes as castes, when I personally believe they should be more descriptive. "Carl" describes the person who owns a hide of land, and this person is generally richer, therefore they'll be treated differently, but it's not really a station of society because that would mean the society is feudal (that is, if the son of the owner of land is treated differently than the son of the tenant, yet none of them own land, then you have gentry).

Meanwhile, with the Orlanthi, I personally imagine that if you have the eldest son of a freeman, and he doesn't own land (his father only has 1 hide of land), that means he'll be a tenant. But he's not undesirable for marriage because of his father's position, so folks from other clans would still be interested in keeping his bloodline close.

And suppose he turns out to be a strong man with a promising future who might distinguish himself during a raid and come to own cattle? A woman from a neighboring clan would be interested in marrying him maybe even more than a cattle-owning carl who's weak in body and magic and might have his cattle stolen or scammed from him.

[Ormi Phengaria]

(All as I understand it.) The basic economic unit of rural Orlanthi life in Dragon Pass is the household (the "stead"). This is a small cluster of larger homes, fields, gardens, pasturage, cottages, whatever other features or improvements. The important thing to emphasize is that this is again a single economic unit of people who have mixed social statuses and roles. It may not be completely self-sufficient in meeting all of its members' needs, but it's usually the most significant contributor to their material well-being. The household is where you will tend to get your food, clothing, shelter, and basic mutual assistance.

Traditionally, social status and mobility within this unit (and within the clan itself) cleaves closely to age. Younger people are more often half-free, mostly just producing enough for themselves and trying to build their personal wealth. They might actually seek out tenancies, because they add new calves into their own herds. The free members have at least enough to be able to plow the fields of their household and feed themselves off of that while ideally producing a surplus. The half-nobles/thanes/horsemen have farming tenants, using the half-noble's plows and oxen and managing their herds.

Nobody owns land in this arrangement. The clan owns the land together, and parcels it out in the perceived collective interest. Free people are parceled land on the basis of being able to farm it, and half-nobles are parceled land to support them in their services to the clan. On its own, this system doesn't produce much inequality, and that which is there tends to not be transgenerational. The institutional problems really start when the household economy begins to lose its interdependent quality, when the half-nobles can take their product in kind, sell it, and support themselves by the commercial economy instead. This is a big hit to the bargaining power of everyone else, and over time the proportion of people who can only possess their land in tenancy will grow. I suspect that process is well underway in Sartar, and so would be quite mature in Tarsh.

[Richard S.]

I don't have anything to add myself, but I've trawled up some stuff from the Well that might be useful: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/some-notes-on-sartarite-land-ownership/

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/orlanthi-ownership/

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/sartar-communities/

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/hiording-clan/

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/ernaldori-clan/

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/varmandi-clan/

[Jeff]

Let's start with a clarification. Around half of the rural Sartarites live in villages not isolated steads. Let's take the Hiording Clan, a pretty average clan. Their main settlement is the village of Swan with about 100 adult residents divided into 5 households, including the households of the chief and chief priestess. 

Apple Lane is a market hamlet shared with the Varmandi clan. It has a Uleria Temple (actually a shrine), an inn, a scribe, a horsemaster, and a weaponsmaster guild hall. Apple Lane has about 20 adult inhabitants and is surrounded by apple orchards. About 5 households live in and around Apple Lane.  

Asborn’s Stead is fortified farmstead at the base of the Big Starfire Ridge. Another 3 households live in or around Asborn's Stead.

Seven more households are scattered around the Swanvale.

The ultimate "owner" of the land is the Earth Goddess, and the clan is a "tenant" with most of the bundle of rights.  Individual families, members, temples, etc., are given rights by the clan - but they cannot alienate the land without the approval of the clan. The system seems complicated, but it becomes simpler if you remember that for the individual clan members we are looking at a relatively small network of tenants, while for outsiders the clan is the tenant. 

[Jeff]

As for social mobility, the Orlanthi have a few well-recognised social classes. The default is Free. That means you are a full member of your clan and tribe, control your own livelihood, and are recognised as such by your community. You have the full right to participate in assemblies of the clan and tribe. Let's say that is about two-thirds of the community. Within this group, you can be Wealthy or Common. 

Above the Free are the Nobles. These are people who belong to families that hold some sacred leadership position - the chiefs, the priests, tribal leaders, etc. Less than one in ten people fall into this category. You achieve this status by some member of your immediate family becoming a Rune master, a chief, an initiate of Orlanth Rex, etc.

Below the Free are the Semifree. These are people who are not full members of the community and do not have the right to participate in assemblies of the clan and tribe (but may get asked to by the leaders). They have no land or herd assigned to them or their families but must work for some other household, or are itinerate labourers (stickpickers). Maybe one in six people fall into this community.

Finally you have the Unfree. Captives, slaves, prisoners, etc. You aren't considered a member of the clan at all. Maybe one in ten people fall into this category - many only temporarily (until they are ransomed by their kin). 

[JRE]

Just a comment on the military equipment. Most of it will be inherited, so the cost for the household is low, unless there is a catastrophe and the militia is crushed and pushed out of the battlefield, so weapons and armor cannot be recovered. 

Bronze is easy to repair and much more resistant to corrosion and the passage of time than iron, so it is typical for a sword, spear heads or pieces of armor to be passed through several generations. That is why so many Greek citizens or Romans could afford the whole metal armor heavy infantry equipment, because the one who inherits the land also inherits the equipment, and the position in the militia.

Those are family heirlooms, and why it is important to retirn with your shield (and implicit your armor and weapons) or on it (supposing your body is recovered and you return also with them).

Except for very rich people, or religious donations, armor is rare in burials because it was needed for the following generation. That is why we know much more about weapons than ancient armor.

[Jeff]

Beyond this, there is tremendous variety. A household might have worked a stretch of land for two centuries (which is time immemorial), clearing woods, building improvements, and have been successful enough that adults have armor, good weapons, and mounts, and their voice is greatly heeded in the assemblies - and are still considered the same social rank as most everyone else. Another household might have been assigned land a generation or so ago, lost members in the wars, has great trouble making ends meet and are considering just becoming the dependents of someone else (or flat out leave the land and move to the city). 

One thing in general - become a Rune master and not only does your social class go up, but typically your resources go up. Temples own a lot of land, herds, get stuff from sacrifices, etc., and the Rune masters of the temple treat that as their own. So impress those Examiners!

[DrGoth]

Thanks Jeff (and all)

A slight clarification on my part - when I was saying 'stead' I wasn't just thinking isolated farmhouses. I was thinking of small villages as well, made up of a few residences. Sorry.  Is the longhouse a thing in Sartar? If so, is it only for the more isolated steads, or do they appear in the villages as well?

What am I seeing (maybe only in my head 😉) is the the semi-free are still kin.  Take an Orlanthi with three sons.  The first may inherit the father's land and team. The family may have scrimped up enough to buy a team for the second son and have enough political capital to get him some land as well.  But the third isn't so lucky, so has to either work for his brothers or someone else. Now, maybe his brothers really value kin, and scrimp up enough to eventually get a team for the third brother as well, allowing him to move up in the world. Does that sound plausible? 

Other ways I see people moving up are if they distinguish themselves in war (or even raiding).

I am actually wondering how many isolated farmhouses there are.  That isn't very good defensively.  It would have to pose an easy target for raiders from other clans, non-humans or even broo (and other wandering chaos). It probably depends just how exposed you are.  For the Colymar, who have a relatively safe area, spreading out might make enough economic sense (closer to where they need to be to work the fields) that the risk is worth it. Somewhere else (like, say the Princeros bordering Snakepipe) defensive considerations may outweigh economic.  Their steads and villages might not just be larger on average but fortified as well. Actually, given all the non-humans around there, I wonder if that's generally true of the Far Place versus the rest of Sartar.

A larger grouping, possibly even fortified, is much more defensible. I'm not talking huge, say 60 people.  But there's a lot more warriors in that than in 20-25 people.  If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_long_house (yes, I know, wikipedia, okay?)  "Twenty or thirty people could have lived in each house, with villages composed typically of five to eight houses."  Maybe a stead is a slightly smaller number. Again, I'm assuming longhouses are the thing, and about the same size as the neolithic ones. Even if not, the number of people in settlements still works. If the groupings are slightly larger it keeps the outer ring at a manageable size. Even in a 1200 person clan, if your steads/ villages run at 60-100 people you have maybe 20 in the outer ring.  I'm assuming that the outer ring is composed of heads of 'families' which might mean about 60 people.

But , again, that may vary even if different parts of Sartar. Regardless of that, I find it much more plausible that everyone lives in a stead or village as opposed to some of the semi-free in isolated cottages.  Isolated cottages seem to be too easy for raiders ( see above) and harder to manage social transitions. Let alone the social isolation of those away from the steads/villages.

So my take now is this. Everyone who lives rural lives in a stead or village. Maybe it's YGWV just what the minimum size of a stead is.  That 'everyone' includes free and semifree. It's possible to move between classes, but it doesn't matter where you are on that scale, you're clan - you're kin.

I do still wonder about the outer ring - if its based on heads of household and a household is 20-25, that's a lot of people in the outer ring in a 1000-1200 people clan.

[DrGoth]

RQG (p.101) has "A village is a small settlement, usually with fewer than 100 inhabitants." I doubt there's real gap between steads and villages, with settlements of any size up to 100-120 found in rural areas.  it does say 'usually' for that 100.

So if (for sake of argument) we take things in multiplles of 20 (for ease) and take a village as being 80-120 and steads being less than that, we could have something like the following for a 1200 person clan.

Half of them (600) live in villages. The main village, where the chief lives, has about 120 people.  That leaves 480 for the other villages, probably 5-6 villages in the range of 80-100 people each. The remaining 600 live in steads, say 20-60 (average 40) people each. That would give about 15 steads.  So for a 1200 person clan we have 6-7 villages, 15 steads.  Hmm. I wonder if its the head of each settlement on the outer ring. 

Jeff - thanks for the information but there's one piece that I'm having trouble understanding.  Unfree "Maybe one in ten people fall into this category". That's higher than I expected.  

Are those 10% all (or Orlanthi 'all' 😀) Sartarites?  And is that 10% average tilted by the clans/tribes that keep thralls?

If I assume yes to both questions, then maybe for clans that don't have thralls its 5%.  But even that seems high to me. Because if my clan has 5% of its number as prisoners/captives/hostages, then so does every other clan - and they come from somewhere, including my clan.  It would mean that, on an ongoing basis, 5% of the clan are elsewhere, held captive. Out of a 20 person household, it would be one member held that way all the time (on a rotating basis).  if we assume that people get ransomed after at most (say) one year then in a 20 year period everyone on average gets captured. An Orlanthi could look forward to being held hostage roughly three times in their life.  And spending three years of their life as a hostage.  Of course, averages are misleading, and its more likely groups are taken together rather than one from each household. But then we get the following "Yes, grey bird stead has been empty for a year. Those rotten <insert enemy clan name here> captured them all in the raid last dark season. We're still getting the money together to pay the ransom. Now as soon as those useless <insert other enemy clan name here> pay the ransom for their people we took in fire season we'll be able to pay it."  Of course, that would fit in with the constantly raiding and feuding Orlanthi, but I've never pictured clans as permanently having 5% or more of their members held as captives.

Of course, the 10% might not be Sartarites. Praxians, Grazelanders and even Lunars (post 1625) are possible. But harder to get for those away from the borders and I've also never pictured 5-10% of the people in rural Sartar as non-Sartarite captives.

Could I ask for some more clarification here?

[Squaredeal Sten]

Let's not get too far Into quibbling about the difference between a small town and a big village.  And let's remember central place theory: in undifferentiated terrain we should see a pattern of a central clan settlement *town"? surrounded by a hexagon of six villages.  All of a clan's settlements will not be the. same size.  Instead in a clan of about 800, the central one will be much larger, with about 300-400 people, as the outer ones will have 100-200 people.  

The usual situation in the world is to have hills and watercourses and swamps, so differentiation of terrain will break up the geometric pattern.  But the pattern of settlement sizes will endure despite that.  

In clans with a security problem, we will see more concentration of population Into walled places.  A better security situation will show more outlying steads.  The ability to farm more land without a long walk to get there, will.motivate wider spread steads.  

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling / typing

[Joerg]

5 hours ago, DrGoth said:

Unfree "Maybe one in ten people fall into this category". That's higher than I expected.  

I read that as "less than 10%" rather than "an average of 10%".

Whether a clan keeps unfree at all varies in Sartar. A lot of clans have Hendriki ancestry and refuse to keep unfree, possibly even a higher proportion than in their ancestral lands in Heortland, but about half of the clans do keep unfree as part of their social and economic make-up.

I hesitate to count people surrendering for a ransom as part of the unfree population - these people become oath-guests with a somewhat different set of rights and obligations. Captors are more likely to accept a high ransom, and may refuse it for people whose ransom is a pittance or whose background is not known for quick payment of ransom. In such cases, captives may become unfree.

Oath guests are supposed to participate in the same everyday clan activities their captors do, although not necessarily in the same leading role as their captors. This will include harvesting, droving herds, maintenance of infrastructure, but also feasting and (social) hunting, at a reduced but still recognized original status. They may spar with the locals, too, and would even be expected to join them in driving off enemies of the clan. Which can (and should) result in conflicting loyalties in case their own kin raid to free other captives not receiving the benefit of becoming oath guests - that's the stuff roleplaying scenarios are made of.

Captive bandit outlaws rarely have the means to pay a ransom (although they might have a stash of wealth deposited with a supra-clan-level temple to draw from, but in that case why live as a bandit?) and will end up in the worst jobs for unfree - hazardous or unhealthy work conditions.

Mining and quarries or naval service (whether fishing/whaling or military) have greater lethality than other occupations, but often require at least some professional skills. The other health risks for unfree are malnutrition and exposure, and those may take the greater toll. (Unless you fall into the hands of priesthoods requiring human sacrifices, like the temples of the Reaching Moons, Shaker Temple, or similar.)

 

5 hours ago, DrGoth said:

Of course, the 10% might not be Sartarites. Praxians, Grazelanders and even Lunars (post 1625) are possible. But harder to get for those away from the borders and I've also never pictured 5-10% of the people in rural Sartar as non-Sartarite captives.

There is a use for semi-free or unfree live-in workers in well-to-do or personnel-deprived households. Unfree or semi-free doing field work for their patron household do the same amount of work and may get similar provisions and accommodation, with first pick going to the semi-free.

There are no hereditary unfree in Sartarite culture. Offspring of (usually female) unfree will join the pool of semi-free household members. (Male unfree impregnating non-unfree mothers of whichever gender may not even be recognized as biological fathers.)

Captives may be outlaws caught in banditry. While it has no legal consequences to slay an outlaw, setting them to work will be more lucrative.

In Esrolia, debt slavery seems to be a thing, with low status Houses (or rather their grandmothers) selling off part of their population as indented workforce or as actual slaves. It is not clear whether indenture as a means to work of debts is practiced among the Sartarite clans - a person's work force is part of the capital of a clan (and one of the reasons behind the weregeld system). Except where cash crops with different harvesting times are in play, all harvesting activity will be more or less simultaneous in the valleys of Sartar, leaving little space for poorer folk earning some extra upkeep as migratory workers. Orchards or vineyards might be an exception to this basic rule, but Apple Lane appears to work without hired help for the harvest. More typically, people working in different areas (herding, crafting) will serve as additional hands for work-intensive farming activities.

[John Biles]

A few thoughts on why Orlanthi class systems don't calcify:

There's no such thing as entailment and status isn't hereditary automatically.  Accumulating more land is hard and so there is no permanent upper class.  Especially since too much bad behavior could get you stripped of land or even exiled.

If it's anything like other agricultural societies, most leading families rise out of the depths, hit the top, then go back downhill in a century or less. 

Further, sufficient heroism and skill at raiding can let you build up land and status.

And of course, if you are wealthy with a nice longhouse and a big herd, you're high on the 'get murdered and robbed by your neighbors' list.

 

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, John Biles said:

A few thoughts on why Orlanthi class systems don't calcify:

There's no such thing as entailment and status isn't hereditary automatically.  Accumulating more land is hard and so there is no permanent upper class.  Especially since too much bad behavior could get you stripped of land or even exiled.

Accumulation of more land per household depends on the favor of the chief (and on the available amount of arable and potentially arable land, or land fit for pasture or cash crops) and the favor of the Earth Priestess(es) on clan level and ultimately in the great Earth temple(s) responsible for the lands claimed by the clan. A good part of the expenditures to develop a hide will be in recompensation of the work force.

(Pasture is mainly hay-making land near the stead, with access to transhumant high pastures slightly less of an issue. Harvesting hay or equivalent winter fodder is a major activity for herder households, and will draw in grain farmers when their work load is at a lull. Grain harvest still has priority, but live-stock fodder is a major economic factor that decides on sustainable herd size.)

 

 

1 hour ago, John Biles said:

If it's anything like other agricultural societies, most leading families rise out of the depths, hit the top, then go back downhill in a century or less. 

The Colymar lineages tell a different tale for the various branches of Colymar's descendants. While some branches may dip into obscurity, these cousins will have an easier time to become associates of current leaders than stickpickers with less of a name among their ancestors.

Ancestral fame is inheritable, as the RQG character creation demonstrates.

Marriage politics support the ossification of nobility by creating matches where the offspring will inherit from both father and mother. This may be intra-tribal (like Beneva Chan marrying Kallai, merging the Colymar-descended royal bloodline of the Taralings with the Colymar-descended lineage of priestesses at Clearwine) or even cross tribal or confederation borders.

This pattern can be found in the genetics of wealthy Bronze Age (Urnfield culture) farmers of the Lech Valley, too, with patrilocal males and brides being brought in (with wealth and status) from all over Germany, e.g. the Unetice culture.

https://www.mpg.de/13979712/1009-wisy-052382-social-inequality-in-bronze-age-households

1 hour ago, John Biles said:

Further, sufficient heroism and skill at raiding can let you build up land and status.

True, but you still require the "Make it so!" from some person in authority to maintain community support. The principle of "Follow Chosen Leaders" allows you to make your fame with adventurous nobility as patron, or some temple leadership, or a successful mercenary leader.

Rarely (possibly typically for adventurers), an individual leading a group of like-minded adventurers troubleshooters will obtain enough recognition in their own right to rise beyond tribal or confederation nobility (i.e. dependence on a patron) into becoming the equivalent of a Sea-King, a future ruler with the military and magical power and potential to take over a significant domain for themselves.

At the height of their successes, Londra of Londros and her Temple of the Wooden Sword had such a status, and even in retirement she is relatively free of pressure from her Stormwalker associates. Her associate Alebard has inherited most of the disbanded temple's warriors and manages his domain (Alebard's Tower) as a Colymar tribal thane roughly equivalent to a clan leader in status, with special privileges though no greater role in tribal politics (unlike Asborn Thrice-Born who acts as a tribal thane with huge political influence).

 

1 hour ago, John Biles said:

And of course, if you are wealthy with a nice longhouse and a big herd, you're high on the 'get murdered and robbed by your neighbors' list.

Robbed, sure. Murdered, only if you meddle with the Lunars (not that the Occupation gave you any choice in that) whose idea of Dart Competitions (aka state-sanctioned secret murder among oligarchs) goes counter to the weregeld culture of the Orlanthi.

Stead-burnings are possible, creating huge amount of weregeld damages to the in-laws even if you manage to eradicate your target community. Most of the time you don't, resulting in unexpected reappearances of vengeful foes thwarting your greater schemes. Lokamayadon learned that last lesson.

Assassination does exist in Orlanthi culture, both openly as in the Humakti Death Squad assault on Termertain and as deniable (and culturally chaotic) late escalation of conflicts. The House of Sartar used covert strikes against House Norinel and its associates in the wake of the death of Sarotar, giving rise to two of their rival houses before Hendira reclaimed the top position in Nochet.

[Akhôrahil]

On 7/8/2023 at 9:10 AM, Joerg said:

I read that as "less than 10%" rather than "an average of 10%".

In the (probably simplified) model where every noble is supported by five tenants, by necessity the ratio of nobles to tenants can't be higher than one to five, so that puts a cap on things - you can only get more nobles by having more tenants. 10% nobility would also be a huge number (what do 80 nobles in a clan of 800 even do?). So I agree that the percentage of nobles is lower than 10%. In the extremely useful sample clan on p. 406 of the rulebook,  40% of the land (80 out of 200 hides) is worked by tenants, which puts a cap of 8% Nobles. If you have 80 tenant families, that could support up to 16 noble families (assuming same family size for simplicity), perhaps a bit less (the Chief runs at a higher cost, and this is also the funds that support professional warriors, so it's not all available to the personal consumption of nobles). Say 10-16 Noble households - this seems like a reasonable pool for manning religious and social leadership positions (a chief, a few priests, a few Rune Lords, some thanes, their families - and most members of the Inner Ring would be recruited from this very limited pool).   

Also, and I might be wrong here, but there seems to have been some shifting of the model about Free status? It used to be that you're a Carl if you you possess a hide of land (yesyes, it's not property, but the point is that you don't pay rent), a plow team and the equipment of a fyrdman, while you're a Cottar if you're a tenant (and then there are stickpickers and the like even below that). But the new model seems to include plenty of (even all?) tenants among the Free (presumably in the poorer section, but still), while Semi-free (as described by Jeff above) means that you're not assigned land (or herds)  at all (even as a tenant), so that you're a stickpicker or a landless agricultural laborer? 

The semi-free status seems socially really useful in practice - in my game, the players scattered a significant bandit gang that was settled enough to have a fair number of women and children among them, and decided they shouldn't just scatter them in the hostile wilds of Benksland, and instead took them in in semi-free status.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[DrGoth]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:39 PM, Squaredeal Sten said:

Let's not get too far Into quibbling about the difference between a small town and a big village.  And let's remember central place theory: in undifferentiated terrain we should see a pattern of a central clan settlement *town"? surrounded by a hexagon of six villages.  All of a clan's settlements will not be the. same size.  Instead in a clan of about 800, the central one will be much larger, with about 300-400 people, as the outer ones will have 100-200 people.  

I'm just running off the RQG definitions (p101)

Villager - usually fewer than 100

Town - larger than a village, 300-1000

Obviously there are settlements in the range 100-300.  But if you have a settlement of 300-400 that's a town. And most clans don't have those.  In rural clans you have half in villages, half in steads (that's what Jeff said, it looks right to me, and I'm happy tog with it). So that means a clan of 800 would have 400 people in all of its villages.  I;d see it as maybe 150 in the central village, than the remaining 250 split between 2 or 3 other villages.

[DrGoth]

On 7/8/2023 at 5:10 PM, Joerg said:

I read that as "less than 10%" rather than "an average of 10%".

That makes sense to me.

On 7/8/2023 at 5:10 PM, Joerg said:

I hesitate to count people surrendering for a ransom as part of the unfree population - these people become oath-guests with a somewhat different set of rights and obligations. Captors are more likely to accept a high ransom, and may refuse it for people whose ransom is a pittance or whose background is not known for quick payment of ransom. In such cases, captives may become unfree.

Jeff listed the unfree as "Captives, slaves, prisoners, etc".  I was interpreting hostages from raiding as captives (as I'm not sure what else 'captives' would be as they are not slaves or prisoners). 

[DrGoth]

27 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

In the (probably simplified) model where every noble is supported by five tenants, by necessity the ratio of nobles to tenants can't be higher than one to five, so that puts a cap on things - you can only get more nobles by having more tenants. 10% nobility would also be a huge number (what do 80 nobles in a clan of 800 even do?). So I agree that the percentage of nobles is lower than 10%. In the extremely useful sample clan on p. 406 of the rulebook,  40% of the land (80 out of 200 hides) is worked by tenants, which puts a cap of 8% Nobles. If you have 80 tenant families, that could support up to 16 noble families (assuming same family size for simplicity), perhaps a bit less (the Chief runs at a higher cost, and this is also the funds that support professional warriors, so it's not all available to the personal consumption of nobles). Say 10-16 Noble households - this seems like a reasonable pool for manning religious and social leadership positions (a chief, a few priests, a few Rune Lords, some thanes, their families - and most members of the Inner Ring would be recruited from this very limited pool).  

I understood that 10% nobility to be "nobles and their spouses and children)  So it means noble households. In the example you give (80 tenant households, 16 noble households), that's actually 16% nobility.  So it's not 80 'nobles' in a clan of 800. It's more like 16.  Some of those 10% nobles wouldn't have families (Humakti rune lords would be just one example). So it's not a a straight "take 10% and divide be five to give actual number".

[Akhôrahil]

11 minutes ago, DrGoth said:

I understood that 10% nobility to be "nobles and their spouses and children)  So it means noble households. In the example you give (80 tenant households, 16 noble households), that's actually 16% nobility. 

It's not, as there are also 120 "landowning" (yes, I know - I mean non-tenant) households.

In this model, the makeup is 16/120/80, which makes sense to me.

11 minutes ago, DrGoth said:

I understood that 10% nobility to be "nobles and their spouses and children)  So it means noble households. In the example you give (80 tenant households, 16 noble households), that's actually 16% nobility.  So it's not 80 'nobles' in a clan of 800. It's more like 16.

This about the ambiguity of the word "noble" here - as a social class, the members of these families are nobles, but that applies to spouses and children as well, so far fewer (like the 16 you suggest, and that I also wrote about) are the ones doing a noble-type job (chief, priest, thane, runelord). 

11 minutes ago, DrGoth said:

Some of those 10% nobles wouldn't have families (Humakti rune lords would be just one example). So it's not a a straight "take 10% and divide be five to give actual number".

No, but as some would also have larger families (due to more funds and lower child mortality), this could potentially balance up. It's not like we have anything better to go by, so it's an assumption that seems meaningful to me. 

Also, see the argument about how Tenant no longer means not-fully-free, and instead tenants seem to be counted among the Free (the way they weren't with Carls) and only the truly landless poor are semi-free.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Squaredeal Sten]

12 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

 ........

Also, see the argument about how Tenant no longer means not-fully-free, and instead tenants seem to be counted among the Free (the way they weren't with Carls) and only the truly landless poor are semi-free.

I don't see anything in what Jeff wrote indicating that "Tenant" no longer means not fully free.  The last that I saw "half free" was pretty clear.

The only thing that i can see leading to such an interpretation is the discussion of family members, where someone wrote that the sons of the primary land holder would be tenants.  But I don't accept that, because social status and free status belong to the household as well as to the individual.  The primary social and economic unit is the household.  Not the individual and not even the nuclear family, given that the longhouse will typically  include more than one nuclear family.  The whole household is a Carl family. Not one Carl and a bunch of tenant sons, wives, and daughters.

And that economic unit, by the way. Is how I believe we can justify some socially attached  Adventurers having the opportunity to Adventure.  The land and the herd do not go untended when they leave for a week or two.  The other members of the family pick up the slack.  Of course in this model when they return most or all of the loot is expected to be given to the head of the extended family and will benefit the family as a whole including those who were plowing and hoeing while the Adventurer was away.  The Adventurer will be returned a "fair share", vague as that may be.  

 

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I don't see anything in what Jeff wrote indicating that "Tenant" no longer means not fully free.  The last that I saw "half free" was pretty clear.

Two parts to this.

First:

"They have no land or herd assigned to them or their families but must work for some other household, or are itinerate labourers (stickpickers)"

But tenants do have land assigned to them (it's just that they have a very high rent to pay). They don't work for others as laborers (they're assigned 80 acres which is a lot and won't leave much spare time, so this is unlike say Roman tenants that were assigned perhaps 10-20 acres and hence had a lot of extra time to do agricultural work with)

Second:

The math doesn't add up if you assume tenant = semi-free. If tenants count as semi-free, and there's maybe 17% semi-free, then they can't (by the discussion I had above) support more than maybe 3% Nobles. Further, the example clan in the RQG rules have about 40% tenants, that do support a decent amount of nobles (up to 8% there). 

There's also nothing strange about having tenants and "landowning" peasants in the same social class, while having a lower one for unlanded agricultural laborers - quite the opposite. 

Note that this set-up is a bit confusing though, as the RQG rulebook would have tenants at Poor standard of living and hence not Free (the old Carl/Cottar system) - this is why I think it's quite new, and it doesn't seem to quite mesh.  

Edited July 9, 2023 by Akhôrahil