Hmm, interesting prognostications - but with a few questions in the historical, economical and political spheres, I think. First off, the assumption:
Not really. If you think of the average cow producing ~ 5 gallons/day. That comes out to around 5 lbs of butter and 3 lbs of cheese with a gallon of milk to spare. A half dozen hens can lay eggs for the day, and all of these goods could be traded for other needs. Combine this with the ability to raise on a small plot around your home and the average villager is doing quite well supporting themselves... But will still need money for basic items throughout the year. As an average it works pretty solidly figuring replacement costs for various animals over their life cycle (if breeding fails).
This seems to relate to modern-style cattle with modern stock management methods. I guess a magical society might have developed analogues, but if you want a (pseudo-)medieval milieu, with largely rural population (85-95%, typically), then it's way over the top. Medieval cattle were smaller, less genetically developed for specific purposes (like milk yield) and nowhere near as intensively managed. Milk was typically yielded only between around Easter and Michaelmas, the cow having calved in the due season of the year. A while back I estimated ~96 gallons of (full) milk per year as a reasonable estimate - all coming in the spring and summer months (see Walter of Henley
here or
here for a reference - a "wey" is defined
here). Hens likewise will lay roughly 4 dozen eggs per year each.
The second point is that generating a "realistic"
monetary economy in a world with "adventurers" is somewhat problematic, even though it can be an interesting thought exercise. The problem is that influxes of "treasure" will cause untoward inflation. This will debase currency, but isn't necessarily a problem for the economy as a whole since it likely depends on money to a far lesser extent than we tend to assume from our own (modern) experience. Most transactions will be "in kind"; money will likely seldom change hands. The 'soldier' who is "hired" by the lord is likely retained on one of two bases:
1) In household. The soldier lives in the lord's household and is fed, clothed, armed and equipped by the household staff and incomes. The peasants pay their taxes in grain, livestock, dairy produce, wool, flax, fruit and so on - and the lords household process these to make meals and clothing and so on for the household members. The lord may even have an armourer who makes and maintains weapons and armour for the lord and all his men. The only money the soldier sees is if, as a special treat, he is given some to spend when the fair comes to town, or when he ventures out "on campaign" - likely with his lord.
2) By holding. The soldier holds some land, rights or priviledges that allow him to harvest either goods or some sort of income for himself. He doesn't "own" these lands or rights - he "holds" them from the lord (who he may rely upon to uphold them, if they are threatened). Peasants hold their land in a similar way - by (verbal) contract with the lord.
By the way, the word "farming", in medieval Europe, has another meaning to that we commonly use today. It means, essentially, "to rent". The "farmer" pays a set sum to the land (or rights) owner to have the use of the farmed land or rights and priviledges for a set period of time. A "farmer" is thus, strictly speaking, only someone who holds land or rights in this restricted sense. Most peasants are not "farmers", since they hold the land for labour services, not for money or goods rent, in medieval Europe. I mention this because it may help understand parts of the Walter of Henley text I referenced above. Sheriffs were sometimes "farmers", in the sense that they paid an annual sum to the king for the right to enact the king's law in a shire; any fines, taxes, fees and such that they could wring out of the inhabitants was then theirs to keep. This may well explain some of the "evil sheriff" tropes we see in such stories as "Robin Hood".
Next we have the idea of earning "interest" on the estate in order to assure future ressurrection. An intriguing idea, but it relies on two slightly bothersome aspects (that might even point up good adventure ideas...)
The idea of "rates of return" was certainly known in medieval times - the monestaries seem to have had rules of thumb that effectively amounted to a ~10% discounted cash flow rate of return policy.The issue is likely to be that this is limited, both by technology and by demographics. Capital, in economic terms, is broadly the gainful employment of an investment made by the younger generation in return for their upkeep while they are old. Eschewing ones "elder days" to die, to "sleep" a while might sound attractive in the abstract, but it has a couple of serious drawbacks. First is that investment return from ones own progeny is both safe and practical; the degree of capital leverage is small and the closeness of the individuals with whom it is "in trust" ensures that the debt is likely to be honoured. Stretch the term to generations, however, and I think both of these are in danger of breaking down - viz:
1) There is a danger that the amount of capital available, being more than that normally associated with the "pension" investment normally generated between generations, exceeds the capacity of the available technology to increase the productivity of the (younger) workers, and
2) The dead "Elders" would need to find ultimately trustworthy caretakers for their estates. This assumes either remarkable ancestral loyalty (it only takes one "bad egg"...) or an incredible degree of the "rule of law" in terms of property rights and so on.
Finally, on the "settlement in the wilds" situation, here are some "rules of thumb":
- Agriculturalists who know basically what they are doing can be taxed up to ~50% and still subsist with medieval-level technology.
- Much of the "tax" will be foodstuffs and such like - highly perishable - that is good for upkeep of servants and household locally, but likely to lose ~50% of its value if exported.
- Roughly 10% of what is produced would be the "normal" level of export to towns and such like.
- A household of, on average, 5 people (including children and old folk) can cultivate roughly 40 acres of arable land - or 16 households per square mile. Such a household will also prepare and cook their own food, make their own clothes and so on.
- The main thing such people will contract with a lord for is protection. We take law and order in the form of property rights for granted, but in a world with "monsters" - many of them human - this will not be so clear. The peasants can survive quite well on their land -
if they are assured of their own safety and of their rights to the use of the land. They are generally quite well aware that the lord's own household seldom cultivates any land with its own people; if the lord fails to protect them, then their own part of the bargain (providing labour for the demesne fields and produce taxes) is naturally forfeit. In the extreme, they can just run away.
Interesting thread - to which I hope I have added interest and ideas. I don't mean the issues I raise as criticism, just some challenges to be overcome.
