Some Questions on Property and Status in Sartarite society

[Broadsmile]

So I’ve been reading about Property and Status in Sartarite society and its left me with a number of questions which i'd love answers to. Bar that i'd appreciate all educated speculation. 

1.     If the Earth Temple owns the land but defers it to Ernaldas, husband protector who actually determines who gets what land?

a.     The Head Ernalda Priestess

b.     The Chief (Head Orlanth Priest)

c.     The Inner Ring (My opinion)

d.     The Outer Ring (Imagine the Squabbles)

2.     Is the usage right to a hide of land inherited or does it revert back to the Ring?

a.     Yes the right is inherited.

b.     Generally the heir of a landholder is permitted to continue but it falls under review of the clan ring. The Ring is expected to let the heir continue unless they are supremely unsatisfactory.

c.     When somebody dies the land they’ve held is up for grabs given by the ring to the most Deserving, Needing etc etc.

 

3.     Is grazing land divided in the manner as farmland or is something more like a commons system practiced. Does Sartar contain enough wilderness that it’s not too much of a problem?

 

4.     Are buildings and other land improvements. Fences, ditches, wells, etc. Earth property or chattel property? If the Clan Ring takes away somebody’s land do they also lose their home? Are they entitled to compensation for improvements they’ve constructed?

 

“I’ve spent five years ditching, clearing fencing this land but now all of that goes to the Chief’s cousin because I’m not trusted enough by the ring.” (That’s life I guess).

 

 

5.     When we talk about “semi-free” tenants. Are we talking about some sort of feudalism? In what sense are they only “semi-free” Are they not permitted to move or choose to work for somebody else? Is it because they don’t belong to the outer ring i.e. are not party to clan affairs?

 

6.     Most real world historical farms employed farmhands, dairy maids etc. People who are part of the household but of a lower status and separate from the family. Would they fall under the same social class as semi free-tenants (Cottars) or would they be in a class of their own. Or maybe they’d be considered Stickpickers? Will most adult Sartarites have a household of their own?

[John Biles]

My take on the questions

.     If the Earth Temple owns the land but defers it to Ernaldas, husband protector who actually determines who gets what land?

The Inner Ring allots between 1/3 to 1/4  of the clan's land to the temples of Ernalda and Orlanth, who rent it out by the hide to tenants; they get half the revenue, the tenants get half.  In a typical clan, this means 80 renting famiies on 80 hides of land.

2.     Is the usage right to a hide of land inherited or does it revert back to the Ring?

b.     Generally the heir of a landholder is permitted to continue but it falls under review of the clan ring. The Ring is expected to let the heir continue unless they are supremely unsatisfactory.

Stripping people of their parents' lands is usually only as a punishment; Bad Kings strip lands right and left.

3.     Is grazing land divided in the manner as farmland or is something more like a commons system practiced. Does Sartar contain enough wilderness that it’s not too much of a problem?

 Common; the Inner Ring determines how much of the tula is farmland, pasture, and wild lands for hunting.

4.     Are buildings and other land improvements. Fences, ditches, wells, etc. Earth property or chattel property? If the Clan Ring takes away somebody’s land do they also lose their home? Are they entitled to compensation for improvements they’ve constructed?

 If your land is taken away, you may lose your home and any improvements, but remember, this is generally either a punishment or someone's arbitrary action.  If you feel cheated, that's what lawsuits are for, along with getting ghosts out our your house.

5.     When we talk about “semi-free” tenants. Are we talking about some sort of feudalism? In what sense are they only “semi-free” Are they not permitted to move or choose to work for somebody else? Is it because they don’t belong to the outer ring i.e. are not party to clan affairs?

 Not sure here.

6.     Most real world historical farms employed farmhands, dairy maids etc. People who are part of the household but of a lower status and separate from the family. Would they fall under the same social class as semi free-tenants (Cottars) or would they be in a class of their own. Or maybe they’d be considered Stickpickers? Will most adult Sartarites have a household of their own?

They're probably either members of a Cottar family picking up income or else they're stickpickers, but probably better off than the average one.

 

[Kloster]

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

When we talk about “semi-free” tenants. Are we talking about some sort of feudalism? In what sense are they only “semi-free” Are they not permitted to move or choose to work for somebody else? Is it because they don’t belong to the outer ring i.e. are not party to clan affairs?

As far as I have understood, semi-free tenants are free to leave whenever they want.

[Broadsmile]

18 minutes ago, Kloster said:

As far as I have understood, semi-free tenants are free to leave whenever they want.

Right in my view it dosen't make much sense for the freedom loving Orlanthi to have serfs but the "lower class" of clans is often described as "Semi-free". And Im curious as to how their freedom is limited.

[Malin]

5 minutes ago, Broadsmile said:

Right in my view it dosen't make much sense for the freedom loving Orlanthi to have serfs but the "lower class" of clans is often described as "Semi-free". And Im curious as to how their freedom is limited.

In my view, they are seen/categorized as semi-free because they don't control the land they farm. One might argue that technically, nobody "owns" land, but it does matter if you are the one that has been assigned five hides of land by the ring, or if you are one of the tenant-farmers who farm one of those hides. Nobody will stop the tenant-farmer from leaving, but they are in a position where it would be much easier to slip down to be a stick picker than go the other way, so I suspect they are held by fear as well as obligations. They might have a choice, but it's not really a choice at all.

[Broadsmile]

6 minutes ago, Malin said:

In my view, they are seen/categorized as semi-free because they don't control the land they farm. One might argue that technically, nobody "owns" land, but it does matter if you are the one that has been assigned five hides of land by the ring, or if you are one of the tenant-farmers who farm one of those hides. Nobody will stop the tenant-farmer from leaving, but they are in a position where it would be much easier to slip down to be a stick picker than go the other way, so I suspect they are held by fear as well as obligations. They might have a choice, but it's not really a choice at all.

This makes a lot of sense and fits how the Sartarites are typically depicted but I can't shake the notion that the semi-free ougth to have some sort of technical meaning. I mean why not call them "unlanded", "dependents", "tenants" or something of that sort.  

[Malin]

6 minutes ago, Broadsmile said:

semi-free

It's a term used in academia and history books, so it's not based on any rules, but on how certain things are talked about today. It's a blurred term, because the lines between free and unfree are seldom clear.

Edited Thursday at 12:26 PM by Malin

[Broadsmile]

8 minutes ago, Malin said:

It's a term used in academia and history books, so it's not based on any rules, but on how certain things are talked about today. It's a blurred term intentionally.

Right because academics don't want to get stuck in the swamp of trying to distingush between serfs, villeins, yeomen, thralls, etc etc. Which all mean diffrent things in diffrent places and times.

But i've always assumed Semi-free meant some legal restrictions on ability to own property, ability to leave or change employer/trade

Edited Thursday at 12:30 PM by Broadsmile

[radmonger]

I would suggest everyone in orlanthi society, even thralls, have the 'right' to leave the clan and become a bandit or wilderness hunter. This is not a very useful right for the unskilled.

The distinction between semi-free and thrall (where it exists) is that the latter has no voice in choosing the chieftain.

[Squaredeal Sten]

8 minutes ago, Broadsmile said:

Right because academics don't want to get stuck in the swamp of trying to distingush between serfs, villeins, yeomen, thralls, etc etc. Which all mean diffrent things in diffrent places and times.

But i've always assumed Semi-free meant some restrictions on ability to own property, ability to leave or change employer/trade

IMHO they are semi free only because they are dependent on someone else and have a labor obligation.  If they decide  decide not to farm that land or not farm much,  but hunt instead and it produces little or no crop, the primary person or temple is going to eject them and temple and ring may punish them.

 

Edited Thursday at 12:37 PM by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling / typing

[Malin]

I honestly think semi-free might even mean different things in Sartar vs Dara Happa, for example.

For me, in Sartar, semi-free is not something you are stuck with forever. It's more a description of your current state. If you work someone else's lands in return for a part of the harvest for yourself, then the freedom you might have to leave and go somewhere else is mostly imaginary. But there is nothing to stop someone from gifting you a hide of land as your own, and then you would be properly free and control your own labor. Some might call that a serf, or a villein, or whatever.

While in a country with a large slave population, like Dara Happa, being semi-free might very well be a former slave who now can work for themselves but is still bound to their former master by duty and obligation.

Some might call parts of our own work-for-wages as being semi-free, especially during the days of company towns, company script, and the dependence on your employer for things like health insurance and pension in the US. Sure, you can quit, but then your life collapses unless you have a new employer.

[Joerg]

The earth temples acknowledge or deny clan claims (and thereby tribal claims) on land. Mainly arable land, with upland pasture and semi-wilds further away from the actively maintained fields less firmly acknowledged.

Clan border markers are a thing, and are supposed to result in a tesselation of the available land. For agricultural land (already under the plow, or at least ready for plowing) there are long-established claims that are rarely challenged. Establishing new agricultural land requires the blessing of the Earth temples (both local and regional) and a pre-existing claim by clan borders, and also a recompensation for the herders previously using this land for pasture.

Clearing new pasture from undergrowth, forest, or possibly rocks also involves the Earth temples. Pasture close to the permanent homes is largely reserved for making hay (or other such winter fodder), as transporting this high volume bulk stuff over longer distances is a lot less practical than transporting dairy or beasts selected for slaughter over that distance. These close-to-home resources will also see coppicing for fuel, wicker and staves (being used as spear shafts, tool handles, fence posts etc.) and possibly marl pits, clay pits for pottery... again, stuff you don't want to transport over too long distances, although they are fine beyond the hay-making belt.

High pasture is different - this is usually lightly forested or even clear terrain with enough grazing available without having to remove undergrowth. The herds do their part in keeping the bushes out. Access to the high meadows might be limited to very few paths, not necessarily near the agricultural lands, at least for the herds. Once the herds are up on the softer ridges, clan border markers might sit in the middle of a grazing area, and herds will stray. It is unclear whether the clan wyter is able to perceive what is going on at those distant border markers or whether its perception is limited to more permanently inhabited portions of the clan land.

The clan chief decides which household works on which portion of the clan's arable land. In theory.

Practically, there are bloodlines who have long been claiming their traditional portions of the land, and land holders will defend other land holders' rights to their land unless these other land holders have been criminally negligent or there has been a significant shake-up in land holding (e.g. due to loss of land as consequence of confiscation, e.g. by the Lunars, or regaining land confiscated by the Lunars).

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

1.     If the Earth Temple owns the land but defers it to Ernaldas, husband protector who actually determines who gets what land?

a.     The Head Ernalda Priestess

b.     The Chief (Head Orlanth Priest)

c.     The Inner Ring (My opinion)

d.     The Outer Ring (Imagine the Squabbles)

All of the above, with the final say with the chief but a veto power by the Earth temples (both clan and tribal) and political clout both by the inner and the outer ring, the latter possibly more so. A chief needs to demonstrate the justice of his decision or face a new election where he needs the majority of the clan behind him.

 

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

2.     Is the usage right to a hide of land inherited or does it revert back to the Ring?

a.     Yes the right is inherited.

b.     Generally the heir of a landholder is permitted to continue but it falls under review of the clan ring. The Ring is expected to let the heir continue unless they are supremely unsatisfactory.

c.     When somebody dies the land they’ve held is up for grabs given by the ring to the most Deserving, Needing etc etc.

Land is not held by individuals but by households, with the household head responsible for doing justice to the wealth allocated to the household. That means that the clan expects its share of the harvest, enough seedstock, and other profits resulting from the title to the land (or a portion of the commons). A household head dying or retiring only means that a new household head steps forward. There are cases where a household dissipate, dies out, or leaves the clan (e.g. for a city), in which case the land reverts to the clan to be re-assigned by the chief advised by the earth priestess and the rings.

There may be cases where the death of the household head may result in the remaining household unable to manage the land. This may be tolerated for a bit while the clan attempts to find e.g. a suitable marriage partner fit to replace that abillty, or fast-track one of the household members to acquire that ability. Possibly a member from a different household of the blood line will step up to administrate that household whlie grooming a successor, and failing that to inherit the household with its dependents and new marriage partners.

 

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

3.     Is grazing land divided in the manner as farmland or is something more like a commons system practiced. Does Sartar contain enough wilderness that it’s not too much of a problem?

Different types of pasture or grazing are handled differently. Typically, the pasture around a "settlement" (which could be a full village, a hamlet, or just a stead with one to three households)  is held in common by the inhabitants, and hay making is an activity where everybody not on the high pastures contributes. Harvest of agricultural crops has priority, though.

A small portion of the nearby land is given to grazing for the oxen and some dairy cows providing for the settlement, which often may include arable land left fallow for a few seasons, with the manure ameliorating the land.

 

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

4.     Are buildings and other land improvements. Fences, ditches, wells, etc. Earth property or chattel property? If the Clan Ring takes away somebody’s land do they also lose their home? Are they entitled to compensation for improvements they’ve constructed?

“I’ve spent five years ditching, clearing fencing this land but now all of that goes to the Chief’s cousin because I’m not trusted enough by the ring.” (That’s life I guess).

Improvements apply to the plot of land or the household. Plots of land further away from the house might be re-assigned. Plots directly adjacent to a stead are less likely to be re-assigned or rotated. In the further agrarian belt around the settlement, plot assignments might shift annually.

Good work may be rewarded with more of the same - the developed plot may be partially assigned to another household, with more land that needs to be developed assigned to the successful cultivator. And possibly some more cattle to the household, to be taken care of by the communal herders out in the far pastures.

 

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

5.     When we talk about “semi-free” tenants. Are we talking about some sort of feudalism? In what sense are they only “semi-free” Are they not permitted to move or choose to work for somebody else? Is it because they don’t belong to the outer ring i.e. are not party to clan affairs?

Proto-feudalism. Their household gets assigned only a fraction of the resources assigned to a free household. Much of their means of production goes to the land-holder entitled to half of their harvest etc. and is planted/herded etc. on their behalf. They receive a cottage, which might be an already existing building, or something newly built by the settlement community. This will come with a garden plot and the right to graze their assigned settlement lifestock on the settlement commons, and the rest with the communally herded herds on the farther pastures. If their work requires a plow and a team of oxen, most of that will be provided by the land-holder (or lease-holder).

Many semi-free individuals end up as full-time herders on the farther pastures, herding the clan herds including a few animals assigned to themselves. More valuable herds will be herded by free individuals, which is why the semi-free cottars also are know as sheep-men.

As mentioned above, the people themselves may move, but the property assigned to their household remains with the clan. There may be some remuneration if they choose to move to a city or into a distant land (say Pavis County), to give them an equivalent start there.

The semi-free don't have a vote from their household, although they can achieve one individually by providing a specialized service to the clan such as being the holy person and shrine keeper for a rather obscure cult, or being a specialized crafter, or a foreman in a clan mining or road building endeavor. After a while, such an individual elevation may result in freeman status for the entire household if the benefit for the clan warrants it. (In all of this, think -man as person of any sex or gender.)

Semi-free can expect their clan to find them marriage partners of equivalent status. If they are lucky, they might marry up outside of their birth (or in-law live-in) clan.

What I find more tricky is when does excess population of a freeman household get demoted to semi-free status? Is there a generational divide to the household head that at some point will tell the second or third cousins that they are no longer considered members of the same households but welcome to remain as semi-free live-in servants? Can a household that is dying out invite second or third cousins to become part of their household, in the reverse?

 

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

6.     Most real world historical farms employed farmhands, dairy maids etc. People who are part of the household but of a lower status and separate from the family. Would they fall under the same social class as semi free-tenants (Cottars) or would they be in a class of their own. Or maybe they’d be considered Stickpickers? Will most adult Sartarites have a household of their own?

These would be live-in servants, joining the welfare of the household but not the status. Individuals without much of a core family might be housed on the lower banks in the common household living area, while more sizable servant core families (possibly multi-generational) might have an accommodation separated from the main household, becoming a tenant household with some clan support (a cow, some fowl, a garden plot), and possibly their own housing on the compound.

 

Most adult rural Sartarites will not have a household (meaning: a clan-based assignment of clan wealth) of their own (as head of the household or their spouse). Take for instance Harmast, the Issaries-worshipping companion of Vasana. He benefits from his father's thane status rather than heading a (freeman?) household of his own. The same goes for many a freeman who lives as the sibling, grandchild, nephew or uncle (change gender as appropriate, add grand- as required), cousin of the household head.

Letting these people decide the household income roll at the end of the year is fairly ironic given that they have little input on the household decisions and activities, but may be desired as player agency. The rules remain silent about the income rolls of married couples, siblings sharing a household, etc.

 

7 minutes ago, radmonger said:

I would suggest everyone in orlanthi society, even thralls, have the 'right' to leave the clan and become a bandit or wilderness hunter. This is not a very useful right for the unskilled.

The distinction between semi-free and thrall (where it exists) is that the latter has no voice in choosing the chieftain.

The unfree (formerly officially known as thralls) do not have the right to pack up and go, while the semi-free (tenant farmers, formerly known as cottars) do.

In (Heortling) Orlanthi society, the unfree status is acquired individually, whether as unransomable prisoner of war or as punishment for a crime. This also goes for slaves you buy e.g. from the Praxians or the Wolf Pirates. The unfree has a sales value to the owner(s), which may be individuals, households, or the clan as a whole. On the demise of the owner without any will, the unfree will pass from individual to household property.

An escaped thrall becomes an outlaw, while a household of tenant farmers who give up "their" assigned land (and lifestock) feeding a thane might remain as cottager crafters or stickpickers, or live-in servants in a free or thane household. (An escaped thrall gone outlaw might be able to earn enough wealth to both pay their own price and some to be determined fine for dereliction and return to the owning clan as a freedman stickpicker if a return to their original society is not feasible.)

Any individual who can amass enough personal wealth for the next higher social class and any household that can amass enough household wealth for the next higher social class can transform this personal wealth into clan wealth in exchange for the corresponding assignment of the clan herd or clan land - usually a mix of both. Some land development may well come their way. Typically, such wealth is ammassed from gifts received for eytraordinary service or as spoils of war.

[Joerg]

Unlike Sartar or Heortland, the Orlanthi land of Esrolia recognizes the unfree status as something you can be born into. Much like Sartar has hereditary cottar (semi-free) households, Esrolia has hereditary unfree households alongside semi-free households indebted to their land-holder Houses (or rather the Grandmother of said House). Both semi-free and unfree households will be members of Houses, and there might be Houses who are headed by a semi-free Grandmother with mostly unfree members owned by other Houses. A lot of the unfree households may have become so for defaulting on debts. The defaulters might be just indentured, but if their indenture doesn't pay off the debt, their offspring may be born unfree.

The unfree may still buy their freedom or find a buyer willing to release them into freedom, usually for some service already rendered or a major client relationship (say as a bodyguard or as an arena fighter, as a spy, or similar).

Tarsh may have similar customs, both Old Tarsh and Lunar Tarsh, and possibly some of the Far Point tribes, too. Even among the Quivini, there are tribes or clans who maintain a population of unfree, or who engage in the slave trade (which amounts to pretty much the same). Non-Heortling unfree might be found even in clans that have their roots in pre-Belintar Hendrikiland, but should they produce offspring (generally out of wedlock, thus we are speaking about the offspring of unfree able to give birth) that offspring will be accorded semi-free or stickpicker status.

In non-slave holder societies, the unfree are usually prohibited from owning and wielding single-purpose weapons (whether for hunting or war). Slave-holder societies might be used to armed slaves fighting or hunting for their owners. Multi-purpose items that can be used as a weapon (hatchets, sickles, scythes, tridents, pitchforks, hammers) can be used by unfree.

Sartarite semi-free individuals might even individually possess protective clothing ("a hard hat") and a bladed weapon that makes them eligible to participate in a tribal wapentake, or get loaned such items as clients to bolster a vote.

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Malin said:

I honestly think semi-free might even mean different things in Sartar vs Dara Happa, for example.

For me, in Sartar, semi-free is not something you are stuck with forever. It's more a description of your current state. If you work someone else's lands in return for a part of the harvest for yourself, then the freedom you might have to leave and go somewhere else is mostly imaginary. But there is nothing to stop someone from gifting you a hide of land as your own, and then you would be properly free and control your own labor. Some might call that a serf, or a villein, or whatever.

Especially since "hide of land" may easily translate into "herd of cattle" in Sartar.

IMG' Sartar you cannot own land as a property, although you may own the title to work the land or have it worked on for you by tenants. That title is usually assigned by the clan claiming the area, but might instead be assigned by the tribe the clan belongs to, by the Prince of the land, or by a greater temple, and whoever entitled you or your househole (or the successors of who entitled you) might revoke that title. Also, you may give up that entitlement, as Gringle Goodsell did for Gringlestead when he packed up around the incidents that led to the demise of Thane Dronlan of Apple Lane.

The Lunar occupators of Sartar claimed that imperial law (implying that all the Empire belongs to the Emperor) trumped quaint local practices, and gave out property assignments to Dara Happan households (or household branches), like the slave farms in Colymar lands.

Lunar Tarsh might lean on Imperial laws and customs while mostly respecting Orlanthi customs of friendly groups. The area of Furthest was annected using imperial power, though, with the former residents offered to lease their land from the Lunar royal family. No idea whether already Hon-eel razed the old Tarshite town or whether this was Phargentes upon his victory over Palashee.

 

Cottar status (semi-free Heortling Orlanti) comes with benefits from the clan - some housing, at the minimum some garden plots, some few lifestock - as well as duties to the lease-holder. These might be farmer's duties as outlined in W&E, these might be dependent herder duties rather than agriculture, these might be work in a clan-owned business like a mine, a clay pit or a marl pit, or (like Harmast Barefoot during his stay with the hidden Hendriki tribe) as a cabbage gardener and holy person rain maker. The status dictates your clan household stipend, your household's duties to the clan, and your weregeld. The alternative is the stickpicker, a full clan member with few obligations to the clan in exchange for hardly any economic obligations by the clan.

As for wealth, a well-to-do semi-free household and a struggling freeman household are hard to distinguish, except for the frayed finery the freeman household might desperately display to a well-knowing audience, while a struggling semi-free household and a household-less stickpicker may be equally dependent on bare minimum charity of better-off neighbors.

 

I don't see how urban semi-free household status would work. Individual semi-free status as an apprentice or a tribal servant should work, though, although with different benefits than in rural society. Otherwise, you are part of a freeman (or thane) household, however impoverished, or you are a stickpicker resident of the city surviving from day job to day's charity.

[Malin]

5 minutes ago, Joerg said:

I don't see how urban semi-free household status would work. Individual semi-free status as an apprentice or a tribal servant should work, though, although with different benefits than in rural society.

Yeah, something similar to how Donandar apprentices are treated might work. If you want to learn a specialist trade, you've better be prepared to work for it.

[radmonger]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

n escaped thrall becomes an outlaw, while a household of tenant farmers who give up "their" assigned land (and lifestock) feeding a thane might remain as cottager crafters or stickpickers, or live-in servants in a free or thane household.

I think this is creating a firmer distinction between 'outlaw' and 'person with no clan or other form of citizenship' than is really supportable. 'Outlaw' is a verb, not a noun.

 

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 6/25/2024 at 11:26 PM, Broadsmile said:

5.     When we talk about “semi-free” tenants. Are we talking about some sort of feudalism? In what sense are they only “semi-free” Are they not permitted to move or choose to work for somebody else? Is it because they don’t belong to the outer ring i.e. are not party to clan affairs?

for me, not real feodalism (semi free different of serf) much more like farm workers  / factory workers before XX century. You work on a land (or a workshop, a mine, ...) and you do what your "managers", the free guys, order you . But if you find a better job, and are accepted by the owner/manager, that's fine for you

That means, in my opinion that you may five "free" tenants too. In that case you are free to decide the how.

 

Another dimension is your war gear. Are you able to come with your own armor / weapon (free) or the clan must equip you (semi free)

And the last dimension is your political role, "shut up and let those who are able to care for themselves make the decision, #]@!!# " seems to me the semi free "citizenship"

[French Desperate WindChild]

Just now, French Desperate WindChild said:

before XX century.

just because the labour law was very low then

[Akhôrahil]

In my opinion/estimation:

1: b. It's just a legal fiction that the temple owns the land. The chief should ask his ring for advice, but they can't overrule him.

2: b. It happens routinely but not automatically.

3: Commons, but with the inevitable conflicts adjudicated by the clan. Certain villages or household may well have traditional grazing lands, and grazing lands can likely be assigned. And amount of grazing land depends on the clan and tribe.

4: Belongs to the piece of land. It makes no sense that you would lose the land but retain the house that stands on it. I think you have to screw up significantly to lose your land, though.

5: It's not actually feudalism, but sure, they pay a portion in rent but are supported through security and assistance by the thane or other landholder. They are not serfs and are free to move away (to where?), but they also have reduced rights (like a lower wergild and no voting rights).

6: Unclear. Cottars surely have a higher social status than servants and mere agricultural workers, but the latter would still count as semi-free (if we assume they're not thralls). Stickpickers are (I think) those that don't have even those kinds of regular work. The internal status system within the semi-free class isn't strongly defined, I believe, and will probably match a mix of actual income and access to farmland. Also, the cottars are likely seen to have their own households, while someone working in the house would be seen as part of the dominant family's household, so there'd be less freedom there.

[Akhôrahil]

On 6/27/2024 at 2:05 PM, Malin said:

In my view, they are seen/categorized as semi-free because they don't control the land they farm.

I agree. The idea is that when you have a piece of land, the plow and oxen to use it, and your personal armor and weapons, you're a properly free man because you're not beholden to anyone and can in principle subsist independently of anyone else. If you don't, then you're not independent and someone else is in charge of you.

[Akhôrahil]

On 6/27/2024 at 2:28 PM, Broadsmile said:

Right because academics don't want to get stuck in the swamp of trying to distingush between serfs, villeins, yeomen, thralls, etc etc. Which all mean diffrent things in diffrent places and times.

But i've always assumed Semi-free meant some legal restrictions on ability to own property, ability to leave or change employer/trade

We should not think of the semi-free as serfs. They're semi-free as in not having an independent economy and reduced rights, not as in being tied to their land or occupation. Of course, in practice leaving the clan might make it tricky to earn a living, so there's an element of indirect force that way. There's also going to be prejudice against them, but not legal restrictions - the cottar who proves himself one hell of a warrior, an expert farmer that the clan can make better use of as a full carl, or particularly holy, might well receive an elevated new job. They just have to work twice as hard for it in the first place.

The non-free would be thralls, people in some kind of debt-bondage, prisoners who may have to stay for seasons or even years in the clan and can be put to work, and so on.

The Sartarites don't have serfs. Other peoples - even other Orlanthi peoples - might.

Edited Friday at 05:53 PM by Akhôrahil

[Akhôrahil]

On 6/27/2024 at 4:46 PM, Joerg said:

Cottar status (semi-free Heortling Orlanti) comes with benefits from the clan - some housing, at the minimum some garden plots, some few lifestock - as well as duties to the lease-holder.

In my interpretation, they're also provided with seed, which is important as the Carls are expected to take care of that on their own. You can be a cottar even if you're only a mediocre farmer - what's expected from you is your workforce.

(I personally also don't think the full 80 acre allotment to cottars makes a shred of sense, but that's the canon.)

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

We should think of the semi-free as serfs.

I don't know what meaning you put behind the word 'serf', but for a frenchman, this design somebody that is part of the property of the land. A serf didn't have the right to leave the land he was working, and was sold, exchanged or given with the land when said land changed property. The only differences with a full slave are that he could not be sold without the land and that his owner had the (theoretical) obligation to protect him as much as he protect the land he owns.

In comparison, Glorantha's semi-free have much more right because, if I have understood well, they can go away whenever they want it (and lose house, work, ...) and try to find somebody else to work for, without becoming an outlaw just for going away.

A french feudal landlord had the right to kill a serf that leaves the land he is working.

[Akhôrahil]

47 minutes ago, Kloster said:

I don't know what meaning you put behind the word 'serf',

What I meant was "should NOT" 🙂 Editing

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

In my interpretation, they're also provided with seed, which is important as the Carls are expected to take care of that on their own. You can be a cottar even if you're only a mediocre farmer - what's expected from you is your workforce.

(I personally also don't think the full 80 acre allotment to cottars makes a shred of sense, but that's the canon.)

I am inclined to disagree somewhat about seedstock. Sure, there will be individual granaries or at least grain silos (jars) in the households, but the farmers around the central village are expected to deliver the vast majority of their grain harvests to the clan temple granary.

My research on ancient and medieval grain yields tells me that a major portion of the grain harvested needs to be sown again for the next harvest. Winter grain will be sowed after the summer harvest, reducing the amount of grain that needs to be conserved over the winter for the spring seeding for the summer grain. This staggered harvest also helps with the worker assignment for grain harvests.

Spoiler

Depending on climate and latitude, the grain harvest could be between 70% and 400% of the grain seeded. But even the 70% harvest is about equivalent to the amount of spoilage grain could undergo over the winter, with vermin and molds the main culprits.

Asrelia magic might counteract this spoilage somewhat, and from what we have been told, most of the agricultural land in the valley bottoms is closer to the 300% to 400% harvest range after Bless Crops. While the pass region does experience real winters, the overall climate is rather friendly to agriculture.

On isolated steads, local granaries might be the norm for food storage and summer grain seed stock, but they too are expected to deliver a significant amount of their harvest to the temple granaries - both clan temple and regional and/or city temples.

Distributed grain storage may attract plunderers, and Asrelia magic might not be available for conservation of stored grain.

 

There are other harvests besides grain - oilseeds, legumes, cabbage, flax, and other cash crops like woad. Apples and wine grapes are known in the region, other fruit and nuts are likely to be harvested or at least gathered at some volume.

Animal products play a great dietary role - dairy, eggs, meat, blood, and tallow/lard. Wool, hides, feathers and animal fat also go into craft production.