Economics & Small Urban Settings

[Andor]

And, did you see my earlier remark about Scythes? A Scythe costs more than a Long Sword?!

Something worth noting is that peasants didn't buy a lot of their gear. Feudal contracts were actually pretty complicated affairs and they went both ways. A feudal lord had to provide specific amounts of gear to his peasants (and serf, cottars, tenants, what-have-you) each year.

Try doing a websearch on boxing day.

 

[Imperialus]

I'll just comment on the 'armed peasant' phenomena that's being discussed as I recently read an article in the English Historical Review that asked that very question. Unfortunatly I don't have the journal handy so I can't cite it properly.

The author examined Anglo-Saxon England just prior to the Norman invasion and he basically came to the conclusion that everyone and their dog was armed, generally with a spear or axe, and owned (at least) a shield, with more specialized equipment like helmets, swords and bodyarmour being the mark of a professional warrior. That was just how their society worked and it carried through Englands history and even into America's with the concept of an armed yeomanry on call for emergencies and eventually morphed into America's second amendment.

These fyrd soldiers would be raised as a militia for a set period of time (I believe it was 40 days and nights) per year when necessary. They were trained to fight in formation, typically with other men from their village and would form a shield wall.

More interestingly the author said to forget the idea of huge shield walls crashing together on the battlefield. That's a romantic notion. Instead what would happen is the fyrd soldiers would line up, lock their shields and stand there making a lot of noise. The professional soldiers would sortie in and out of the shieldwall alternating between attacking the enemy shieldwall and skirmishing with other professional soldiers between the lines. The peasant soldiers were there to use their weight of numbers to push back attackers and provide a safe jumping off point for the professionals. Shieldwalls were a very effective defensive formation, even against early 'knights' and didn't require a lot of training to become competent at.

Really if even a modest thorp or hamlet had any kind of notice it would not be terribly difficult to get the men (aged 15-60) into the village, armed and ready to hold off all but the most determined attackers. If the village is caught completely unawares then there is a problem, since individually the peasants would be less than useless. However, there are accounts in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle of peasants in areas that suffered from frequent Norse attacks going about their daily business armed and in groups.

Most hamlets would likely be able to support a half dozen to a dozen professional warriors (say level 2-3 with a shield, sword and chainmail) without much of a problem. Between a shieldwall for defense and a handful of professionals to carry the fight to the enemy I expect most hamlets could put up fairly stiff resistance.

Of course this becomes problematic in D&D land where shields are less than useless by themselves. GoO's Song of Ice and Fire dealt with it, but it's a remarkably clunky system requiring you to track both AC and Damage Reduction. AC is provided by Dex, Shields (which have insane bonus') and an opposed D20 roll and DR is provided by any armour you are wearing.

 

[taliesin15]

first, let me briefly say I generally agree with most of what you've been saying--cheese as peasant food, for example--5 acres seems like quite a bit to me for the lowest strata of commoners, that would be my only quibble...

gizmo writes:

Yea, if by "scythe" you mean the farming tool, then it's completely weird. My reasoning for 3E was to create a set of iron non-military scythes and axes sold for more reasonable prices. Then I described the Scythe in the PHB as a superior steel one used for war by the druids, not by peasants for their fields - at least IMC.

Since its the only one mentioned in the PHB, and the visual representation of a Commoner in the NPC Class chapter has one holding a Scythe, I'm under the assumption that it must be one and the same. In my case, I've simply given it a more reasonable price. There are other odd things in there too, like 75 gp for a Falchion, which is supposedly one of the favored weapons of Orcs. Odd, since there's several much cheaper Large weapons doing 2d4 damage. Don't even get me started on Spears...

I would equate the Mongols with the Roman legions and not really class them as a "bandit threat". Then again I might be being unfair to the vikings - obvious examples of their settlement (Danelaw, Normandy, Dublin etc.) noted.

Good point. I do think technologically speaking, the longships were quite an advantage. Moreso even than larger type cannons Henry VIII started deploying on ships like the Mary Rose, or the arrival of Damascus steel, or even the first iron weapons.

IMC a mid level party would pretty easily destroy a thorpe. Then again, they'd get an uninspiring amount of treasure for their efforts. What I'd really concentrate on is the follow-up. A region on hightened alert would be extremely wary of strangers (and would be normally wary historically) and bands of armed persons spotted wandering through the fields would raise an alarm. It may take several days of tracking but I would expect the real confrontation with the evil PCs would occur several days after the burning of their first thorpe.

Probably in most situations, you are right. In this one, however, there's a very likely scapegoat, the Slavers, and surely the NPC Evil party will be aware of that and make it look like Slavers did it (especially since some of the bodies are missing)

Also, since you appear to have been a 1E gamer at some point, then I would also point out Village of Hommlet (which you probably own and have already thought of).

I did own that module, and ran it years ago. I am kind of curious about the Hackmaster parody of it.

 

[taliesin15]

treebore writes

You know why chickens were kept as pets in so much of Europe, including Russia?They ate bugs from almost invisible to the naked eye up to huge beetles. They eat young mice. They laid eggs. Eggs.
Personally I prefer Ducks. I am talking like I raise, and what was raised in the old days. Live stock that primarily feeds itself and is only provided grains when the insects are in short supply, IE the winter months.BTW, in the old days people in the cities kept chickens too. IT wasn't just a farm thing.

Indeed. In fact, I believe contemporary "commoners" or "peasants" in many parts of the world raise various kinds of fowl. Geese make efficient composters/alarm systems. And there are other sorts of fowl too.

I do agree that the poor were very poor. I do agree a big percentage survived on "gruel". Now as to what the gruel was, that I think is largely open to a wide range of things.

I looked into this question over the weekend and found that there's a stunning array of types of gruel out there. Many simply involve a watery soup with some sort of locally grown grains. In some parts of the world, it is considered a treat (Korea, for example). In Central America, corn is the common grain, and there are versions of gruel loaded with chillis. In Pre-Columbian times, I know that the use of insects was widespread. I understand that ants, grasshoppers and spiders can be delicious.

 

[taliesin15]

heavenshallburn writes

And gizmo is closer to the right track on demographics and the condition of rural peasantry. Urban commoners were generally worse of in living conditions and diet than their rural counterparts during the time period in question.

Considering gizmo and I have both made that point...

Take a good long look at the domesday book if you want to get some better ideas of exact figures.

Case in point. There's quite a bit of debate over the Domesday Book. Some point to farmers with livestock, land and large families as prosperous Commoners. First of all, as most of these people are non-Normans, they are largely in that culture going to be regarded as "villains" or "villeins." Secondly, by definition, are such people really the poorest of the poor? What was the point of the Domesday Book? Were they all that concerned about listing the meagre property of the dirt poor?

 

[taliesin15]

Andor writes:

Something worth noting is that peasants didn't buy a lot of their gear. Feudal contracts were actually pretty complicated affairs and they went both ways. A feudal lord had to provide specific amounts of gear to his peasants (and serf, cottars, tenants, what-have-you) each year.

Right, well, if one's running a feudal type campaign (mine's not, strictly speaking, though it has some elements). In such a milieu, many commoners would "own" nothing, as the Lord of the Manor owns everything, including the maidenhead of all the virgins.

 

[taliesin15]

Imperialus writes:

The author examined Anglo-Saxon England just prior to the Norman invasion and he basically came to the conclusion that everyone and their dog was armed, generally with a spear or axe, and owned (at least) a shield, with more specialized equipment like helmets, swords and bodyarmour being the mark of a professional warrior.

That sounds reasonable to me. I seem to recall that bows were commonly owned weapons, that there were practice ranges set up so peasants would practice archery on their days off, instead of engaging in drunken games of football. Football, if memory serves, was banned by Parliament at some point in the 13th-14th century. Then again, they tried to ban gambling, pre-marital sex, and even drinking...

Really if even a modest thorp or hamlet had any kind of notice it would not be terribly difficult to get the men (aged 15-60) into the village, armed and ready to hold off all but the most determined attackers. If the village is caught completely unawares then there is a problem, since individually the peasants would be less than useless. However, there are accounts in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle of peasants in areas that suffered from frequent Norse attacks going about their daily business armed and in groups.

Outstanding. This is the kind of new information this thread needs.

Most hamlets would likely be able to support a half dozen to a dozen professional warriors (say level 2-3 with a shield, sword and chainmail) without much of a problem. Between a shieldwall for defense and a handful of professionals to carry the fight to the enemy I expect most hamlets could put up fairly stiff resistance.

I certainly concur. Surely a smart attacking party would rely on guile first. They would clearly try to take out the professional soldiers and the like through other means, such as poison or a dagger to the throat by the comely young Rogue woman who has just slept with the highest lvl NPC in the settlement.

 

[gizmo33]

Secondly, by definition, are such people really the poorest of the poor? What was the point of the Domesday Book? Were they all that concerned about listing the meagre property of the dirt poor?

So where is this thread going? The OP was concerned about 900 gp/commoner. My first suggestion was to take the EL of the likely encounters in the thorpe, and make the available treasure correspond to this. A little bit of versimiltude could be managed by dividing up the treasure according to the social classes of peasants historically, if your campaign has such divisions.

Beyond that I'm not sure what the details provide that's useful. Why are we concerned with the poorest of the poor? Why would the evil PCs loot them? I think it's very unlikely that a thorpe would consist entirely of these people - persons with no possessions by definition wouldn't consititute the entire population of a thorpe. The Domesday book AFAIK was interested in property ownership - which would be the same thing that the evil PCs would be interested in. Therefore I would think that the view that the Domesday book presents of the society would be adequate for our purposes (assuming you're interested in such detail.)

Lastly, we talked about defenses. I think that, as a general guage, the fact that a village full of peasants could generate excess wealth sufficient to support a knight and his household in style would be a good measure of what surplus wealth is available. Any other organization of persons charged with the defense of the area (eg. the band of rangers example) all you'd need to do is figure out the necessary wealth to support the band, and match that up against the wealth that the village generates. Some number of peasants would also be armed - whether in the style of an Anglo-Saxon fyrd, or something later Medieval like the richest 5% of the population who would have a feudal obligation for defense - I suppose that depends on the campaign/culture.

In summary, I think this is sufficient to establish the framework for the campaign that you're describing. I'm not sure what outstanding issues remain to be resolved.

 

[RabidBob]

I have seen several scholars openly mock as "quaintly romantic" the notion that you seem to believe, that most common people, especially those in larger urban areas, didn't live in abject poverty and squalor. As far as I'm concerned, the onus is more on you to prove that most Commoners lived on better than fare such as gruel and beer soup. I notice, for example, you don't dispute the assertion that most Commoners only had meat on a few particular religious feast days.

Medieval man on average ate quite well. Also worth noting is that lots of men in England of that time period were expected to be skilled longbow users ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_bow ).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7148534.stm


Medieval diets 'far more healthy'
BBC's Robin Hood
The 'Robin Hood' generation did not go in for refined sugar
If they managed to survive plague and pestilence, medieval humans may have enjoyed healthier lifestyles than their descendants today, it has been claimed.

Their low-fat, vegetable-rich diet - washed down by weak ale - was far better for the heart than today's starchy, processed foods, one GP says.

And while they consumed more they burnt off calories in a workout of 12 hours' labour, Dr Roger Henderson concludes.

But the Shropshire GP accepts that life for even prosperous peasants was tough.

But after examining the available records, Dr Henderson suggests that medieval meals were perhaps even better than the much touted "Mediterranean" diet enjoyed by the Romans.

While this would have involved fish, fruit, whole grains and olive oil - as well as red wine - the rich often overindulged, while the poor may not always have been able to obtain them.

The average medieval peasant however would have eaten nearly two loaves of bread each day, and 8oz of meat or fish, the size of an average steak.


MEDIEVAL LIFESTYLE
Calories: 3,500 - 4,000
Nearly two loaves of bread
Three pints of ale
Up to 12 hours labour each day

This would have been accompanied by liberal quantities of vegetables, including beans, turnips and parsnips, and washed down by three pints of ale.

Crucially, there was little refined sugar in their food, while modern eating habits are dominated by biscuits, cake and sweets.

"If you put this together with the incredible work load, medieval man was at much less risk of coronary heart disease and diabetes than we are today," said Dr Henderson.


MODERN LIFESTYLE
Calories: 2,700
Fat intake exceeds recommendations
Less than 20 minutes exercise each day
Greater risk of heart disease and diabetes

However, he did acknowledge that people today did have one advantage over their ancestors when it came to staying alive.

"If you got to 30 in those days you were doing well, past 40 and you were distinctly long in the tooth," he concedes.

Anna Denny of the British Nutrition Foundation said: "This research highlights how much lifestyles have changed over the centuries.

"Today, the majority of adults in the UK are overweight or obese, but energy intakes have actually been decreasing for several decades."

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

It's worth noting that 30 is mostly the average cause so many kids die.

That said, once you made it to 30 you had very good chances of making it to 60. 40 isn't long in the tooth, it's just statistically lucky.