The Clan - How does it work?

[Water Bob]

Here's something you guys can help me with. In my campaign, I'm trying to decide how fast a PC can accrue wealth.

For those that don't know, my campaign centers around a clan of Cimmerians. They're hillmen who claim territory at the base of the Eiglophian mountains in northern Cimmeria. The clanholme is a smallish village on a plateau overlooking the Hoath Plain. Besides the village, the clan consists of 9 homesteads spread out over clan territory.

The entire clan totals 336 clansmen. This is a total of 24 families, with an average family size of 14 persons.

140 clansmen live in the village while the other 196 live among the 9 homesteads.

This clan can normally field a force of 53 warriors. This force can be increased to 77 warriors in times of strife. There is a small contingent of full-time warriors (the clan war-chief plus 8 warriors), but most are clansmen with other careers. Each clansmen spends a quarter of the year as part of the standing military force (they refer to this as going "on the watch") that patrols clan territory and trails), while the rest of the year, they spend at their normal "jobs". Thus, a trapper will volunteer for the watch at the time of year when trapping yields the least results. A weaponsmith may serve his time on watch never leaving his forge, but working entirely on watch weapons.





Now that you know a bit of background, here are some questions I'm trying to decide upon. Arguments one way or the other are helpful to me in reasoning these questions out, putting some logic behind them.

I'm trying to consider....



Just how "socialistic" is the clan? Cimmerians traditionally have few possessions, but do the hunters feed everyone? Do they hunt, then bring the kill into the town butcher, where the women cook the food, then the entire town eats?

Or does each family fend for itself? How was this done among the ancient Celts? The Ancient Irish? The American Indians?

If a family has a bad day at the hunt, how would it get food? From a friend?









I assume that the clan is not a capitalistic society, but rather more socialistic (just how much will be determined by the answer to the first question above). Each person's "job" is needed for the entire clan to survive. So, if someone needs some nails, do they have to pay the blacksmith for the nails? Or, does the blacksmith just make the nails and give them to who needs them?

When the hunter returns with a kill, does he give it all to the clan? Does he keep some for himself? How does he interact with the trader, the furrier, the leatherworker, the cook, the butcher, the tanner, etc? Does he make trades? Or does he just give the stuff away, and in return, he gets his needs taken care of?









When a weaponsmith makes weapons, is he paid for them? How does he interact with those that need nails, door hinges, rakes, knives, broadswords, and the like? How does he pay for the iron-ore?

And, how can the weaponsmith prosper? Where does "clan wealth" separate from "personal wealth".





If you've got some comments on how a clan will operate socially and economically, I'd like to hear it. I'm trying to decide all these types of questions for my game, and I'm just not sure what direction to take yet.

Call it one of the hazards (actually, it's a "joy") of creating a sandbox.

 

[S'mon]

It's most likely to be a barter economy - the smith trades nails for chickens, or a sword for a couple cows. It won't be socialist in the Marxist sense "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the smith won't give away stuff on the basis of need; he will get back stuff in exchange for the stuff he produces, and will often be the wealthiest man in the village in consequence. If he's not the clan chief then he may rival the chief in wealth and influence.

However, while it will not be a truly socialist economy, there may be strong elements of a 'gift' economy, where eg the smith 'gives' a sword to the chief or a noted warrior, then later the recipient 'gives' the smith cows, slaves etc of at least equivalent value. It's important to realise that this 'giving' is carefully tracked both by giver, givee and the rest of the village, and that social status depends on giving back goods of at least equal, and preferably higher, value. In such societies it's perfectly possible to ruin someone socially by giving them gifts for which they cannot reciprocate. Eg a smith who showered a poor chief with weapons and armour for which the chief could not reciprocate could destroy the chief's standing in the village and potentially replace him as chief - a potentially dangerous course of action of course.

 

[Bluenose]

Here's something you guys can help me with. In my campaign, I'm trying to decide how fast a PC can accrue wealth.

For those that don't know, my campaign centers around a clan of Cimmerians. They're hillmen who claim territory at the base of the Eiglophian mountains in northern Cimmeria. The clanholme is a smallish village on a plateau overlooking the Hoath Plain. Besides the village, the clan consists of 9 homesteads spread out over clan territory.

The entire clan totals 336 clansmen. This is a total of 24 families, with an average family size of 14 persons.

140 clansmen live in the village while the other 196 live among the 9 homesteads.

This clan can normally field a force of 53 warriors. This force can be increased to 77 warriors in times of strife. There is a small contingent of full-time warriors (the clan war-chief plus 8 warriors), but most are clansmen with other careers. Each clansmen spends a quarter of the year as part of the standing military force (they refer to this as going "on the watch") that patrols clan territory and trails), while the rest of the year, they spend at their normal "jobs". Thus, a trapper will volunteer for the watch at the time of year when trapping yields the least results. A weaponsmith may serve his time on watch never leaving his forge, but working entirely on watch weapons.

Starting here, it seems apparent that this is a settled people. If they regularly move their village, some of what I'm suggesting won't apply. Also, here is a site which might give you better answers that I can, though it is dealing on a larger scale. Still, taking the low end estimate for population density, not unreasonable for the region you describe, the clan needs around 11 square miles to support itself.

Now that you know a bit of background, here are some questions I'm trying to decide upon. Arguments one way or the other are helpful to me in reasoning these questions out, putting some logic behind them.

I'm trying to consider....



Just how "socialistic" is the clan? Cimmerians traditionally have few possessions, but do the hunters feed everyone? Do they hunt, then bring the kill into the town butcher, where the women cook the food, then the entire town eats?

Most of what they eat is going to be from agriculture. They'll have fields, likely up on the plateau, which may or may not be worked communally. There's probably pasture somewhere for the clan's animals. Likely every family-group has it's own fields, growing particular specialised crops, and a few chickens or other small animals that don't need large amounts of space.

One unsuccessful hunt won't hurt a family's food supply. Now, it's likely there are communal hunts to gather as much as possible to preserve for the winter season, and if those are a major failure for some reason then the clan is likely to face hard times.

Or does each family fend for itself? How was this done among the ancient Celts? The Ancient Irish? The American Indians?

Which group of Celts? Which group of Indians? There are significant differences.

At least the ancient Irish I can answer. The structure has leader, (druid), warrior, freeman, serf. Communal agriculture, mostly done by the lower classes, with a central food store in which msot of the grain would be stored after harvest. Lots of cattle (cattle-raiding being a popular sport), owned by individuals, motsly providing milk/cheese with older animals being slaughtered either to eat immediately or in the autumn because they're not worth keeping through the winter and can be salted to preserve them. Archaeology suggests most families had their own storage pots for beans/peas, kept in or under their home, but that cereals were pretty much a communal thing. So you could always get your porridge from the village granary. And note that since owning cattle is prestigious, people often pay for things in cows - a cow being worth about the same as five female serfs.

If a family has a bad day at the hunt, how would it get food? From a friend?

Most likely they shrug and go without meat that particular day.

I assume that the clan is not a capitalistic society, but rather more socialistic (just how much will be determined by the answer to the first question above). Each person's "job" is needed for the entire clan to survive. So, if someone needs some nails, do they have to pay the blacksmith for the nails? Or, does the blacksmith just make the nails and give them to who needs them?

Barter, most likely. If someone needs some nails, they likely go to the smith who makes some. They then owe him something of equivalent value. Perhaps they offer him a chicken, or some of the meat next time they slaughter a cow or have a successful hunt, or someone has to work for him for a couple of days... There are lots of possiblities.

When the hunter returns with a kill, does he give it all to the clan? Does he keep some for himself? How does he interact with the trader, the furrier, the leatherworker, the cook, the butcher, the tanner, etc? Does he make trades? Or does he just give the stuff away, and in return, he gets his needs taken care of?

If it's a hunt of his own, then he likely shares it with his family. If it's a group hunt then it likely goes to the clan, since they'll need/want some reserves of food. Unless he's quite exceptionally good at hunting he'll be bartering with people for what he wants/needs, either getting something now or a promise of something in the future. Even if tey make something he doesn't want, he might take it in trade since someone else probably does. Or of course he might be hunting because he's already made the promise. Now, if someone is exceptionally good at hunting it's possible people might pay him to take others with him and teach them his tricks. That's likely to make his like easier, since people will rely on his word when he wants things.

When a weaponsmith makes weapons, is he paid for them? How does he interact with those that need nails, door hinges, rakes, knives, broadswords, and the like? How does he pay for the iron-ore?

Barter. And he probably gets the ore himself, since he likely knows where the reachable deposits are. If he has to trade for it, that's going to be more of a problem. It's likely that he has to charge more for all his services, so he can afford to trade.

And, how can the weaponsmith prosper? Where does "clan wealth" separate from "personal wealth".

Personal wealth is perfectly well recognised in clan societies. It is worth noting that most put expectations on the more specialised members of society. If the smith is refusing to provide things at a reasonable price, he likely finds people demanding more off him every time he wants something.

If you've got some comments on how a clan will operate socially and economically, I'd like to hear it. I'm trying to decide all these types of questions for my game, and I'm just not sure what direction to take yet.

Call it one of the hazards (actually, it's a "joy") of creating a sandbox.

Hope this gives you some useful ideas.

 

[Bluenose]

However, while it will not be a truly socialist economy, there may be strong elements of a 'gift' economy, where eg the smith 'gives' a sword to the chief or a noted warrior, then later the recipient 'gives' the smith cows, slaves etc of at least equivalent value. It's important to realise that this 'giving' is carefully tracked both by giver, givee and the rest of the village, and that social status depends on giving back goods of at least equal, and preferably higher, value. In such societies it's perfectly possible to ruin someone socially by giving them gifts for which they cannot reciprocate. Eg a smith who showered a poor chief with weapons and armour for which the chief could not reciprocate could destroy the chief's standing in the village and potentially replace him as chief - a potentially dangerous course of action of course.

In Ireland, it was possible to refuse a gift. Simply acknowledge that you couldn't match it's value. This raises the stature of the original giver, and shows that they're superior to the person who couldn't match it.

 

[S'mon]

In Ireland, it was possible to refuse a gift. Simply acknowledge that you couldn't match it's value. This raises the stature of the original giver, and shows that they're superior to the person who couldn't match it.

Interesting - same result for the giver, but at least it doesn't hurt the status of the giftee.

Anyway, this is the kind of thing to be thinking about in regards to pre-capitalist, small scale agricultural societies. At a higher level, Tolkien/Lord of the Rings is a useful source for seeing how gift-giving can work within a fantasy context, the 'PCs' don't negotiate for pay from the quest-giver high-status NPCs but are always receiving valuable elven cloaks, weapons and such from them.

 

[S'mon]

Still, taking the low end estimate for population density, not unreasonable for the region you describe, the clan needs around 11 square miles to support itself.

30 people/square mile is given as the average population density of medieval Britain. Ireland, which was boggy and flat, may have had a population density similar to the British average AIR, whereas south-east England would be higher and north-west Scotland lower. If the Cimmerian clan live in an area of windswept hills with poor productivity similar to the Scottish Highlands, they may need more territory - I tend to go with a density of around 10 per square mile, or something close to a 4-mile radius of the village for this group. Most of this will not be farmland though, around 1 square mile of barley & wheat growing land per 50 people, say 6 square miles, would be about right if the land is fairly poor, depending on how rich the hunting is this could be lower (extreme case of Amerindian villages in coastal north-west America that lived enirely off the salmon runs & hunting, no farming). If it's as rich as the fields of much of France or south-east England (eg Kent) then up to 200 people per square mile of farmland, I'd use that for central Aquilonia.

 

[Bluenose]

Interesting - same result for the giver, but at least it doesn't hurt the status of the giftee.

Anyway, this is the kind of thing to be thinking about in regards to pre-capitalist, small scale agricultural societies. At a higher level, Tolkien/Lord of the Rings is a useful source for seeing how gift-giving can work within a fantasy context, the 'PCs' don't negotiate for pay from the quest-giver high-status NPCs but are always receiving valuable elven cloaks, weapons and such from them.

There's some interesting variations on gift giving. The Irish example, where gifts are a way to show off your wealth and can show that you're superior to someone. Welsh gifts usually are a reward for doing something, very similar to the Tolkein example. And there are other cases where you give a gift to someone to acknowledge them as your superior.

30 people/square mile is given as the average population density of medieval Britain. Ireland, which was boggy and flat, may have had a population density similar to the British average AIR, whereas south-east England would be higher and north-west Scotland lower. If the Cimmerian clan live in an area of windswept hills with poor productivity similar to the Scottish Highlands, they may need more territory - I tend to go with a density of around 10 per square mile, or something close to a 4-mile radius of the village for this group. Most of this will not be farmland though, around 1 square mile of barley & wheat growing land per 50 people, say 6 square miles, would be about right if the land is fairly poor, depending on how rich the hunting is this could be lower (extreme case of Amerindian villages in coastal north-west America that lived enirely off the salmon runs & hunting, no farming). If it's as rich as the fields of much of France or south-east England (eg Kent) then up to 200 people per square mile of farmland, I'd use that for central Aquilonia.

Population estimates for medieval times aren't easy to get, but they've been made.

England has a land area of about 50000 square miles. Roman Britain at it's peak in the 3rd century admittedly includes Wales, but it's not less than 3 million. Domesday Book suggests 2 million or so. Pre Black Death England has been estimated at 4 million. Ireland may have had about 1-1.5 million at the same period, on a land area of a bit over 30,000 square miles. Scandinavia, which might be a better model, seems to have had a poulation density of a bit under 10 in the 13th century, but that includes areas within the arctic circle. The southern parts like Denmark would have been higher.

 

[S'mon]

Roman Britain at it's peak in the 3rd century admittedly includes Wales, but it's not less than 3 million.

That seems a lot higher than prior estimates I've seen for Roman Britain (more like 1-1.5 million AFAICR, below Domesday numbers), and would indicate that the post-Roman collapse was even more severe than historians have previously thought - though it wouldn't entirely surprise me. Do you have a source for that? The usual claim I've seen is that before the invention of the mouldboard plough, most of Britain was untillable, which kept the population well below medieval numbers.

Your other numbers look the same as what I've seen.

 

[Bluenose]

That seems a lot higher than prior estimates I've seen for Roman Britain (more like 1-1.5 million AFAICR, below Domesday numbers), and would indicate that the post-Roman collapse was even more severe than historians have previously thought - though it wouldn't entirely surprise me. Do you have a source for that? The usual claim I've seen is that before the invention of the mouldboard plough, most of Britain was untillable, which kept the population well below medieval numbers.

Your other numbers look the same as what I've seen.

Well, the Roman figure is one I've seen in British Archaeology, and I heard it on a Radio 4 programme. Where they got it from I don't know. One reason for the decline was the major plague outbreak whcih we know took place in the reign of Justinian, and which affected western Europe too.

Edit: I had a look at lunch, and Hoobs & Jackson, Roman Britain, British Museum Publications, London 2010 says estimating population is hard but puts the best estimate as between 2.5 and 3.5 milliion. So the low end is less than my estimate.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Always had the feeling that Cimmerians were raiders and hunters. So, wealth is what they bring back. But never looked into their culture.

• Slaves - farm hands and mine workers: Odds are slaves would have a good life under Cimmerians. They would not have weapons but as long as they supplied goods would have a good bit of freedom. The clan would protect them for the services they supplied.

What they bring back, mmmm. There seems to be a period where all Cimmerians seem to go out raiding. This could be at a point of 'coming of age', where young clan members win the right to join a raiding/war party and then leave the clan for the season. Gifts they bring back would then be to purchase a place in the clan and from the clan, things like:

• Right to name - comming of age
• Right to raid - proof you are ready for combat
• Right to land - show you can provide to the clan
• Right to build a house - start you own long house and work up to clan hall
• Right to marry - to build a family

Once a clan member has those, his standing within the clan can start to go up.