Building a medieval village, or, being overly detailed and ridiculous

[WarKitty]

So i'm building my players a little medieval village (don't worry we're all this ridiculous). I determined the size at 89 people. Low-level D&D healing magic is available, but that is really the main thing. Area is high on bandits. Has a waterfall and large river and a mill, some farmland, and some hunting. Cold hill area, think sort of like scotland. Animals currently are llamas and a few ponies, as well as some small animals like rabbits and chickens. Agriculture probably focuses on rye, as well as carrots and leeks and maybe a bit of cabbage. The river is fishable. Hunting is likely negligible and focuses on trapping small animals; farm animal population is stunted by the presence of bandits, which is why cows and pigs are not present.

Now, here's my questions:
(1) How many people could I reasonably expect to feed off of each full-time fisher, and how many could I use without causing overfishing?
(2) Assuming somewhat rocky soil, how much land would I need on average to feed a family of four?
(3) Assuming attempting to keep the herd somewhat stable, and taking both milk and meat, how much could you get from a herd of five llamas (4 female, 1 male), with keeping one baby from each year?

[Dienekes]

Well how well stocked is the river and what fishing techniques are being used? Depending on the answers given, a boat of fishers could feed only their families, or an entire city. For example, a few (ok a bit more than a few but bare with me) designated fishing villages essentially fed the entire Roman empire.

The same with agriculture. We talking extensive or intensive farming? Do they rotate their crops? Have they figured out they can use crap as fertilizer, including human crap? The small population implies an extensive farming method, but doesn't necessarily require it. With modern techniques it's about 1 acre to feed 1 person. Intensive medieval techniques says it's about 2 acres per person. I do not have the numbers on extensive farming methods but it would be much more than that, maybe 5 acres a person (pulled number out of my arse to be honest, but agriculture techniques make a big difference)

I suggest adding pigs. Medieval period, pigs weren't really farm animals they were just everywhere and they were awesome. They eat whatever junk is on the street, can just be left out in the town all night and no one really cares, and you can then slaughter however many you want for food. Incredibly little costs. The only downside is the smell and they have a minor tendency to trample people who get in their way, and the ****. Though most villages just ignored the **** really, or sold it to the farmers as fertilizer. Pigs were great, cleaned the city, fertilized the farms, and turned trash into bacon.

Anyway, no idea on the llama thing though.

[WarKitty]

The main problem with pigs is that pigs+bandits tend to result in no pigs and fed bandits. Which is why there are no pigs. This would also motivate the shift to fishing for a lot of sustenance, as it's more reliable if someone decided to come through and help themselves to part of your field.

Overall I'm aiming for late medieval techniques in a fall of the roman empire climate. Technology itself is at late medieval standards but much of it has become unavailable due to a high amount of banditry and general lawlessness in the region. Hence there are fewer animals and quickly moveable ones are favored, or small ones that can be kept indoors.

Fishing is probably pretty well stocked and you're likely seeing a combination of nets and traps. For agriculture, you're seeing intercropping and maybe a little rotation, but not much. Likely seeing combinations like oats and winter rye to get multiple harvest seasons, perhaps mixed with things like snow peas.

Oh, and we're talking something like a shetland pony, not a little show pony. Small but you can still hitch a plow to them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
Animals currently are llamas and a few ponies, as well as some small animals like rabbits and chickens.

You have llamas, but no guinea pigs? Guinea pigs would be perfect. :smalltongue:

Also, wouldn't the bandits go straight for the ponies? If they're severe enough to preclude cows, I'd think they'd ride off with the ponies first thing, especially if these are working farm animals.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Has a waterfall and large river and a mill….

Mill might involve a millpond, which might be a good place for fish.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Now, here's my questions….

I applaud your degree of ridiculous; I like this level of historical accuracy.

However…if you want historical accuracy, you might do better to find a good book or two on medieval villages, possibly starting with Voices of Morebath (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0300098251/) or something similar. You may have a rather wide range of reliability on some of the responses you receive here.

For instance:


Originally Posted by Dienekes
For example, a few (ok a bit more than a few but with me) designated fishing villages essentially fed the entire Roman empire.

I think he means Egypt fed the Roman empire. With grain barges.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
How many people could I reasonably expect to feed off of each full-time fisher, and how many could I use without causing overfishing?

That said, I'll note that you mentioned a large river, and if this is the only village nearby the river should be teeming, or at least productive enough not to worry about overfishing from 89 people.

The rocky soil issue, my first instinct would be to find a book on medieval agriculture--or, again, Voices of Morebath, which had roughly your target population surviving on "difficult land." That's where I'd start.



EDIT:


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Hence there are fewer animals and quickly moveable ones are favored, or [B]small ones that can be kept indoors.

Guinea pigs. This is guinea pigs to a T.

If you have llamas, you can have guinea pigs. Nom nom nom.

:smalltongue:

[WarKitty]

I'm presuming there's a lot of effort going into keeping track of the ponies. The way I did it there's actually a little back door into the basement of the old castle and it's been turned into a nice secure stable, at least for night-time. They horses and llamas not spending much time just pastured, and if they are let out it's going to be with riders and lookouts ready to turn the herd if there's even a hint of threat. Ride the llamas, not the ponies, big fat mountain ponies are hard to ride. Village itself would have a basic wall on it, nothing that would stand up to a concentrated attack, but enough to encourage most bandits to go somewhere else. There's small gardens within the walls too, with carrots and onions and cabbages and other such things tucked wherever they can be fit.

Guinea pigs is an idea but it might also break my players. Fishing, yes you can presume that there aren't many villages along the river. So it would be more of a question of, given appropriate division of labor, how many workers would be needed.

For desperate times there's always acorn bread, too. Got a nice stand of oak trees nearby. In old times back when there were cattle and pigs it was famous for leatherwork, and a few of the villagers keep up the old ways.

(Oh hey look my school library has a free ebook of Voices of Morebath)

[Dienekes]

The main problem with pigs is that pigs+bandits tend to result in no pigs and fed bandits. Which is why there are no pigs. This would also motivate the shift to fishing for a lot of sustenance, as it's more reliable if someone decided to come through and help themselves to part of your field.

That was my point. Even in territories of heavy raiding and theft, pigs were just freaking everywhere. If someone came and took some, no worries, there are dozens left. Think of them less as herded farm animals and more of insanely useful rats. They weren't controlled, often (not always) weren't owned by any one person, and just wandered around the villages, towns, and even cities being delicious and useful. During the declining years of Rome and after its fall when raiding was thought to have reached its height (some scholars suggest anyway, its hard to know for sure and the evidence is inconclusive), the use of pigs in the diet of Europe shot up for exactly this reason.


Overall I'm aiming for late medieval techniques in a fall of the roman empire climate. Technology itself is at late medieval standards but much of it has become unavailable due to a high amount of banditry and general lawlessness in the region. Hence there are fewer animals and quickly moveable ones are favored, or small ones that can be kept indoors.

Alright, then the 2 acres per person number would be the starting point. But the rocky terrain can be problematic. I'm sorry I don't have numbers on how that works.


Fishing is probably pretty well stocked and you're likely seeing a combination of nets and traps. For agriculture, you're seeing intercropping and maybe a little rotation, but not much. Likely seeing combinations like oats and winter rye to get multiple harvest seasons, perhaps mixed with things like snow peas.


Honestly, if the fishing is using late medieval techniques with a well stocked river one or two boats with scrapping nets and a crew of roughly 7 can feed all of 80 people. This could take a lot of the burden off the farming.

If I can ask a different question, since you're going for realism. Why are the bandits there? This village doesn't seem to have anything worth stealing. Bandits don't just pop up twirling their mustaches and making plans to rob the poor peasant farmers. Why bother? Peasant farmers don't have anything worth stealing. They head for trade lines and hang around just outside the reach of large cities, or they attack monasteries. Now during the fall of Rome, evidence suggests that raiding was pretty high, and we see survival raiding, where places were raided not for wealth, but for food. But even then, the targets are agricultural centers, trade lines, and cities. People would have to be beyond desperate to try and make their living off of raiding a place whose greatest asset seems to be 4 llamas. It would be easier to just hire yourself off to a fishing boat. That way at least, you'll never go hungry.


I think he means Egypt fed the Roman empire. With grain barges.

That too, at different times Egypt did fall out off the trade route though. The 3rd century crisis and after the Vandals conquered it the Roman empire still did live on (though much diminished). And fish was a major reason, the Romans used fish for everything. Some sort of fish oil seems to have been used as a preservative. And that was not as centralized as an import from Egypt.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
Ride the llamas, not the ponies, big fat mountain ponies are hard to ride.

Llamas can't carry an adult human's weight for any distance; they're too small and not bred for riding. The village kids might be able to do it for short spells, but even their weight would be a strain on the llamas.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Guinea pigs is an idea but it might also break my players.

Not sure what you mean here, not following this use of "break."

You know the setting and atmosphere you want, but I still think guinea pigs are perfect for an easily tended and protected food supply, especially one that can be raised indoors.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
For desperate times there's always acorn bread, too. Got a nice stand of oak trees nearby.

Why would this be for desperate times only? Acorns were a staple for many Native American groups, especially in California, as detailed here (http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1055).

The one trick with acorns is the mast crop isn't equally abundant from year to year; there's usually a strong pulse every two or three years, with weaker yield in the off-years. But even in off-years acorns can be a valuable supplement. If you have a reliable stand of oaks near your village, no one will be too hungry except in the very worst of years.

Assuming they can reach the oaks and harvest the mast without interference--and that there aren't any oak-fey who might object.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
So it would be more of a question of, given appropriate division of labor, how many workers would be needed [for fishing].

This in turn depends on what species of fish are present, and whether the villagers are using nets, stone weirs, or other methods of harvesting.

If this isn't just a large river, but a grand and lovely river, you might look at the River Shannon in Ireland as an example. If you wanted a more modest river, the Severn where it wraps around Shrewsbury in western England could work--or something like the River Tweed in Scotland, if you wanted to stay strictly close to the climate you indicated.

You might also keep in mind eels, which are catadromous, living in rivers and returning to the open oceans to spawn and die. (This is the opposite of anadromous fish like salmon and shad, which live in the oceans and spawn in freshwater streams.) Your villagers won't know anything about the larval leptocephali in faraway oceans, but they'll likely be aware of the mysterious comings and goings of mature eels in their river. So eel traps are something else they might use--and eels would be a potential market item, if there are markets anywhere around.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Village itself would have a basic wall on it, nothing that would stand up to a concentrated attack, but enough to encourage most bandits to go somewhere else.

Unless this wall is vigorously defended, I don't think it'll have much deterrent effect, especially if bandits are as rife as you say. It might be enough to put off vagabonds and the like, but determined raiders will find a way around or over it.

You mentioned there's low-level healing magic; is there also someone who could provide an alarm spell? A mystic ranger could cast that at second level, and it would last long enough to cover the wee hours of the morning.

A second-level mystic ranger might not fit for what you had in mind, just thought I'd mention the option. Could be the leader of whatever ragtag "militia" the village can turn out--someone who rides out into the hills during the day and handles perimeter security at night.




Originally Posted by Dienekes
Even in territories of heavy raiding and theft, pigs were just freaking everywhere.

Some sort of textual reference is needed here. Otherwise WarKitty's point about "no pigs and fed bandits" rings much too true.


Originally Posted by Dienekes
People would have to be beyond desperate to try and make their living off of raiding a place whose greatest asset seems to be 4 llamas.

Yes, they would--and in the societal conditions WarKitty has described, there's no shortage of people who are beyond desperate. When bandits are everywhere, there's a ton of competition for all the richest targets--which are defended one way or another, and only viable for the stronger raiding parties, leaving a surplus of small desperate bands to rove and take what they can.

Also, I'd expect some clandestine raiding back and forth between villages, especially if there are other small settlements nearby without the advantages of WarKitty's village.


Originally Posted by Dienekes
Some sort of fish oil seems to have been used as a preservative.

You may be referring to garum, which was a widely-used condiment in the Greco-Roman world.

[Excession]

There's small gardens within the walls too, with carrots and onions and cabbages and other such things tucked wherever they can be fit.
If you've got new-world animals like llamas, don't forget plants as well. Tomatoes and potatoes at least. From personal experience tomatoes grow well in courtyard gardens. Some way of preserving them would be valuable too; see Italian cuisine.

[Templarkommando]

One thing that I do know, is that a single farmer could provide for about 2.2ish people before the invention of the iron plow and more advanced farming methods and implements. This basically meant that everyone was a farmer, and craftsmen were extremely rare. This state of affairs is what made feudal systems possible. A single lord would ready himself for war, while all of his peasants worked to provide food for themselves. A portion of this food would be taxed and given to the Lord of the estate to provide food for him and his family. Any excess would be sold and used by the Lord to buy whatever he wanted/needed. This would include weapons and fortifications, but it could also be spent on frivolous imports such as sugar, musicians, spices, and other things. All this to say that you might consider the character of the feudal overlord of the village (a knight, baron, count, etc. - or if the village even has a feudal overlord. In a case like that, the town may be protected by a town sheriff or a mayor. Depending on the level of the feudal lord, he might also possess other estates - another town, a mill, a church, or a keep/castle.

[Jeff the Green]

Not sure what you mean here, not following this use of "break."

I think she means "break down crying" (or similar). Very few people outside of the Andes see guinea pigs as anything but pets, and people usually object to eating pets.


Why would this be for desperate times only? Acorns were a staple for many Native American groups, especially in California, as detailed here (http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1055).

It was a staple in North America because the grains available were crap, with maize and amaranth (not actually a cereal, but used like one) the only ones with any substantial production. While the Yuma grew crops, many groups never did for various reasons, and from what I know and can find, Acorns weren't widely used by agricultural societies and were indeed famine food. In Europe they were famine food and used to feed hogs.

[WarKitty]

Ok so we're probably looking at primarily a fish-based diet, though farming would certainly be in evidence too.

As far as bandits...without going too much into the politics, there's a lot of scrabbling by different petty warlords and other such things. So we're dealing with some mix of desperate bandits, perhaps stragglers or deserters. Of course some of these deserters are more honest (presume most of these men were impressed into the latest army), which provides a small complement of war-trained individuals. But many of the lords are of the strip the land of what you can find and move on type. The stable is pretty well hidden by now and of course everyone has their bolt-hole for food. The locals aren't above stealing back from those lords if they think they can get away with it either.

Local lord is subject to frequent change; it's eventually going to be the players so what happens with that is their problem.

You do have a smith and iron implements like a good plow.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
Ok so we're probably looking at primarily a fish-based diet, though farming would certainly be in evidence too.

One thing that occurred to me about the size of the river: if it's a large lowland river, and close enough for the villagers to fish from, then the village would likely be in the floodplain of the river and blessed with relatively fertile soils. Since you indicated more of a hardscrabble farming environment, a smaller river, in rocky terrain and closer to the highlands, would probably be a closer match.

Note that even a smaller river will have abundant fish stocks, and smaller tributaries are just as inviting to eels, so the villagers' subsistence-level fishing won't be much changed.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Of course some of these deserters are more honest (presume most of these men were impressed into the latest army), which provides a small complement of war-trained individuals.

Not sure if the deserters are forming part of the village or part of the local banditry. Or both?


Originally Posted by Jeff the Green
While the Yuma grew crops, many groups never did for various reasons….

Apart from all the Mississippian cultures for whom corn was the centerpiece of their agriculture. I'm more familiar with the societies in the Southeast, so it may have been much different in the West or Southwest.


Originally Posted by Jeff the Green
…Acorns weren't widely used by agricultural societies and were indeed famine food.

I can't speak for your side of the continent, but here in Virginia the Powhatans used acorns right alongside their maize cultivation. They preferred chestnuts and chinquapins, but acorns were part of the regular diet.

In Florida, the Alachuans cultivated corn and also gathered acorns, while the Apalachees (also corn-intensive) harvested acorns and processed them for vegetable oils. I doubt the pattern would be much different for most other Mississippian cultures in the Southeast.

[Jeff the Green]

Apart from all the Mississippian cultures for whom corn was the centerpiece of their agriculture. I'm more familiar with the societies in the Southeast, so it may have been much different in the West or Southwest.

There was definitely maize cultivation in California, but its migration northward was likely even more difficult and slow than along the Mississippi because of highly variable climate. Though I believe we know far less about West Coast peoples than the East Coast (excepting the SW) because by the time Europeans came smallpox had already gotten here and seriously disrupted


I can't speak for your side of the continent, but here in Virginia the Powhatans used acorns right alongside their maize cultivation. They preferred chestnuts and chinquapins, but acorns were part of the regular diet.

In Florida, the Alachuans cultivated corn and also gathered acorns, while the Apalachees (also corn-intensive) harvested acorns and processed them for vegetable oils. I doubt the pattern would be much different for most other Mississippian cultures in the Southeast.

It's possible; my education in ethnobotany was cursory and highly focused on the Pacific Northwest. The forests on this side of the Rockies are somewhat different from those on the East Coast and the interior, though. They don't get along well with agriculture. Along much of the East Coast natives used controlled burns to produce the meadows considered typical of Northeastern US forests. That's not really advisable here in Oregon, at least, where you basically have two kinds of forest: the kind that won't burn until you get a 100-year drought and then it scours the earth clean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillamook_Burn) (we're due for one of those, and got a taste near Portland this summer), and the kind where there are regular burns anyway and the trees don't care. It's why the primary agriculture I know about among the tribes of the state was sunflowers in the Great Basin.

[WarKitty]

One thing that occurred to me about the size of the river: if it's a large lowland river, and close enough for the villagers to fish from, then the village would likely be in the floodplain of the river and blessed with relatively fertile soils. Since you indicated more of a hardscrabble farming environment, a smaller river, in rocky terrain and closer to the highlands, would probably be a closer match.

Fair point, you might have some floodplains. But you're definitely up near a highland type area. And of course a millpond would be nice, and it would be fairly easy even at that tech to have some primitive aquaculture.



Not sure if the deserters are forming part of the village or part of the local banditry. Or both?

Both. Basically, you're getting some stragglers and deserters who take up banditry and end up stealing whatever they can grab that's running around. You get others who decide they'd rather clean fish and teach archery to village boys for their supper.




Apart from all the Mississippian cultures for whom corn was the centerpiece of their agriculture. I'm more familiar with the societies in the Southeast, so it may have been much different in the West or Southwest.



I can't speak for your side of the continent, but here in Virginia the Powhatans used acorns right alongside their maize cultivation. They preferred chestnuts and chinquapins, but acorns were part of the regular diet.

In Florida, the Alachuans cultivated corn and also gathered acorns, while the Apalachees (also corn-intensive) harvested acorns and processed them for vegetable oils. I doubt the pattern would be much different for most other Mississippian cultures in the Southeast.


You're a tad far north for crops like corn or tomatoes - hence the use of things like rye and oats.

[Jeff the Green]

You're a tad far north for crops like corn or tomatoes - hence the use of things like rye and oats.

If you feel like running with the South American agriculture theme, you could sub in squash, beans, peppers, and quinoa. Quinoa in particularly is useful here because it helps compensate for the lower supply of animal protein.

[WarKitty]

If you feel like running with the South American agriculture theme, you could sub in squash, beans, peppers, and quinoa. Quinoa in particularly is useful here because it helps compensate for the lower supply of animal protein.

I think we're going for more of a screw theme I put plants and animals where I want them, whether or not they go together. It does sound like we've got plenty of animal protein though.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, if you're going for "rule of cool" in livestock choices, maybe the edible dormouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_dormouse)? Yes, that's seriously what it's called, and yes it's named for exactly the reason its name implies. They were stuffed with nuts, glazed with honey, rolled in poppy seeds, and then cooked in a skillet.

That's the food you use to break your players, not cavies. But you have to prime them by showing them this picture first. :smallamused:
http://cutepics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cute-dormouse1.jpg

The photographer was able to get that picture because the dormouse hibernates (hence the name—from dormire, Latin 'to sleep' or dar Old Norse 'benumbed'), during which time you can pose it as you wish. There are photographers with less concern for the dignity of their models who dress them up.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
The way I did it there's actually a little back door into the basement of the old castle and it's been turned into a nice secure stable, at least for night-time.

…Local lord is subject to frequent change; it's eventually going to be the players so what happens with that is their problem.

So, I'm getting the sense that there's a small village, and nearby is an abandoned castle, which they've turned into makeshift stables. Or is the village inside the old castle?

In either case, where is the local lord? Is there a larger, better-kept castle somewhere nearby, over the next hill or the like?

Also, what level are the players starting at? And will this be a commoner campaign? What you're describing so far certainly feels like it.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Fair point, you might have some floodplains. But you're definitely up near a highland type area.

Floodplains with a large river, but not with a smaller river running down from the highlands. In the situation you're describing, the river runs fast and clear and won't meander much, so no real floodplains to speak of.

I mentioned floodplains because, on reflection, my earlier suggestion about the Shannon seemed out of place compared with what you'd described earlier. A smaller river from rocky highlands should do fine for your location.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
I think we're going for more of a screw theme I put plants and animals where I want them, whether or not they go together.

You use a lot of phrases I've never seen before.

But if you're dropping species in willy-nilly, then as Excession mentioned above, potatoes would be an obvious choice.


Originally Posted by Jeff the Green
Well, if you're going for "rule of cool" in livestock choices, maybe the edible dormouse?

Wait, wait. You say players wouldn't want to think about eating guinea pigs because they're thought of as pets…and then you go posting adorable photos of dormice and recommend them for food?

[veti]

When you say "medieval", are you talking solely about the tech level, or is there actually some sort of society out there beyond the village? Is there a church, and if so, how important is it? Is there a local lord (if not, why not? - and if so, why doesn't he do anything about the bandits who are stealing his goods)? How far is the next village? Are there peddlars and minstrels and other wandering ne'er-do-wells, or just these economically-questionable bandits?

Presumably clothes are mostly made from llama wool? In that case, I don't know, but intuitively it seems to me that the yield of 4-5 llamas isn't going to go very far between 89 people. The people who get to card and knit the wool are going to be high-status.

Wikipedia says that llamas don't give very much milk, and an adult llama weighs 130-200kg. Since you're slaughtering them fairly young, and the environment is not exactly rich, let's put them at the bottom end of that range. Let's further assume that 40% of the weight is edible meat and offal. That's about 50kg of meat per year. So these people are going to be eating meat precisely once a year, then it's back to fish for the next 364 days (assuming length of year...). I guess this is going to be a major annual celebration, a la Christmas.

Do they have chickens? What do they make alcohol from?

[Jeff the Green]

Wait, wait. You say players wouldn't want to think about eating guinea pigs because they're thought of as pets…and then you go posting adorable photos of dormice and recommend them for food?

Well, yes. Isn't the point of being DM to scar your players forever?

[WarKitty]

Medieval is mostly the tech level.

For the society itself I'm sort of imagining what would have happened if feudal europe had been united under a giant empire and then collapsed. Most of the peasants are going on about their lives as normal, but the rulership above them is chaotic and unstable, and it's very rare that there's an actual "Lord" just living comfortably in the village. This is the state of the region rather than something unique to this particular town.

You're going to see some peddlers but travel is pretty dangerous

The 5 llamas was supposed to be used as a unit measure to figure out how many people could be fed and clothed per llama, not a statement of how many they actually own.

Alcohol...any grain is suitable for turning into alcohol, really, though maybe you could grow up some barley too. Might also be some smokeables around.

As far as religion, having a two-level system where the locals primarily worship local cthonic entities. This being D&D these entities are entirely real, though not super-powerful. They could very well contribute to the safety and sustenance of the village, however. Your local cleric is represented by the druid class (and a modified adept), with part of their job being to deal with these creatures. So you might be seeing something like, say, the villagers are required to re-plant and tend to a certain number of new oak trees every year. In return the dryad allows controlled harvesting of various resources. This sort of thing could also serve as a very good alarm system - the local fey aren't any fonder of bandits and warfare than the villagers are.

Spoilered in case of players:
Players are intended to encounter this around level 6. I've been prepping them for hostile encounters with the current lord of the place. There's also going to be some magics in the ruined castle and the local woods that are of interest to them, especially as one of them is the son of the current lord (he's just figuring this out) and inherited a particular curse from him. At that level they'll find themselves automatically regarded as "lords" by the local populace, and assuming they continue their current behavior likely begged to help keep the village safe. So the idea is essentially the PC's will step into the lord role.

[ddude987]

Awesome thread, got a lot of ideas for my campaign setting in terms of detailing.

I really don't have anything amazing to point out or suggest (sorry) but I will say New England (NE USA) is known for its rocky soil and yet has been a very popular farmland for centuries. That said, I would think the rocky soil really isn't a problem so long as it is tilled.

In terms of technology, do they know about rotating fields and what not? Else they may use up the nutrients in the soil (soon, future, maybe in some places already).

edit: Also, giant guinea pigs that pull the plows instead of ponies or llamas! Or maybe along with llamas. Would be sweet.

[Jeff the Green]

In terms of technology, do they know about rotating fields and what not? Else they may use up the nutrients in the soil (soon, future, maybe in some places already).

Almost certainly. We've been rotating crops for 8000 years, even if we didn't know why it helped.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
You're going to see some peddlers but travel is pretty dangerous....

Yeah, we got that part. Something about desperate bandits and deserters everywhere. :smalltongue:

Seriously, this sounds like a really cool setup, and I like this kind of historical detail. I'm assuming the campaign is already underway...is anyone keeping a campaign journal? I'd love to read that if it's available.

.

[IslandDog]

As someone who just wrote a university essay on food processing in the Roman and Greek eras....

By the Roman times, food processing was really complex. Now, I don't know how much was lost in the 'fall' you mentioned, but Romans definitely used iron implements when they could afford them. They used animal and/or human power to crush grain, and when possible water power. You mentioned a waterfall? They might have set up an overshot waterwheel to crush the oats, and make breads and/or alcohol. Alcohol was a great source if liquid because it was less likely to be spoiled (alcohol kills bacteria).

Just some thoughts!

[WarKitty]

Crop rotation - if we use the Norfolk system, which seems to have been successful in Scotland (which is close to the sort of land we're using), we get a rotation near as I can tell of
(1) Wheat or rye
(2) Turnips
(3) Barley or Oats
(4) Clover or ryegrass

Historically it's a little later than the medieval system but it will suit well enough, especially since we're in a fall of the empire scenario and you're seeing industrialization in other parts of the continent. For the land and climate rye and barley are more tolerant of sharp winters and cold springs, and we'll have clover because ryegrass would confuse people.

As far as clothing, llamas produce about 2 or 3 pounds of wool in a year. If we have maybe 40 of the critters we're looking at a very tight system. They probably buy clothing from the caravans and supplement with furs in the winter. Rabbits are looking like a really good idea; not only can they be raised for meat but for furs. Still, clothing is going to be in short supply and likely something they're buying.

When it comes to tools: Iron is really rare. They have the technology but there's practically a monopoly on metals south of them. Wood or bone or other materials are going to be substituted where possible in order to reserve iron for where it's strictly needed. Iron is one thing that simply can't be obtained without trading and due to various local conditions it is quite expensive.

The way I'm picturing the fall is technology itself hasn't suffered too much loss yet. What's really been disrupted is the rule of law and order. Trade has slowed to the point where a village might see one halfling caravan a year, maybe less, and travel between villages is dangerous. Livestock is down, clothing is scarce, medical care that can't be obtained locally is practically non-existent, metal and even good stone are scarce. And the empire relied on a lot of shipping, so there's a good chance no one local knows how to do much when it comes to certain skills. Sort of a, we always got the metal parts of our ploughs shipped in from the south, the local smith never knew how to put one together!

Edit: Will have to post a homebrew thread. This is the third area I've gotten detailed development on, as well as some additions to the D&D magic system in the form of rituals.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

You've also got aquatic plants, plus food sources like freshwater shrimps and mussels, all of which could potentially be farmed.

There might be migratory periods, where birds pass through the area, or species of fish travel up river to spawn, which may give a tremendous temporary surplus that needs to be dried, salted or otherwise preserved for the rest of the year.

The bandits probably wouldn't prey on that one village - they'd have either wiped it out, been wiped out by bounty hunters or starved. More likely they'd roam around the area, preying on all the settlements semi-randomly, accosting travellers and staying one step ahead of anyone looking to hunt them down.

They might even be the descendants of the collapsed empire's army, who actually protect the area from threats, but are also bandits because they take what they need to survive from the settlements, as an informal form of taxation.

Clothing could potentially last for years, and be handed down and repaired, even to the point where it's more repairs than original garment. There might be enough wool, leather etc to make those repairs and replace things that are totally worn out or destroyed, but little more than that.

[veti]

The bandits probably wouldn't prey on that one village - they'd have either wiped it out, been wiped out by bounty hunters or starved. More likely they'd roam around the area, preying on all the settlements semi-randomly, accosting travellers and staying one step ahead of anyone looking to hunt them down.

Yeah, the more I read, the more I worry about these poor bandits. There's this tiny village with only the most marginal surplus of food, clothing and other stuff. What do the bandits actually, y'know, eat?

If they actually have to grow and hunt their own food, then they're not so much "bandits" as "the next village", but not on friendly terms with this one. If they prey on civilians, then there have to be enough civilians within their catchment area to support their lifestyle. And the further afield they look, the greater chance of drawing the attention of someone who's capable of doing something about them.

[WarKitty]

You're almost certainly smoking meat to preserve it. Given the distance from the ocean salt is most likely a luxury item. You're also far enough north that things like migratory birds could possibly just be packed into a cellar and frozen

As far as bandits go...what you're seeing is probably closer in feel to wandering outlaw groups than settled bandits preying on a specific area. They're certainly armed and dangerous but banditry is largely an opportunistic crime - if it's there someone will take it but they're as likely if there isn't to just shoot a deer instead.

[NecroRebel]

You're almost certainly smoking meat to preserve it. Given the distance from the ocean salt is most likely a luxury item.

Hasn't salt historically been mostly mined, though? Distance from the ocean isn't really significant for salt availability, just where there used to be seas that have since dried up. Your village probably wouldn't have a salt mine nearby, since that would be a very valuable commodity, but being inland doesn't mean they have no salt.

[Jeff the Green]

Hasn't salt historically been mostly mined, though? Distance from the ocean isn't really significant for salt availability, just where there used to be seas that have since dried up. Your village probably wouldn't have a salt mine nearby, since that would be a very valuable commodity, but being inland doesn't mean they have no salt.

Not until the 19th century, at least according to Wikipedia. With disruption of trade they are unlikely to have access to it.

There are other ways to preserve meat, though. It can be pickled (e.g. corned beef), saponified (literally, "turned into soap"; e.g. lutefisk), jellied (e.g. aspic; eels will naturally gel when cooked, and they could very well have eels in the river), fermented (e.g. salami), jugged (cooked in a stew in a tightly closed vessel), or my favorite: made into confit (poaching in a spiced animal fat, usually duck, and then letting the fat solidify around the meat).

[Spiryt]

Salt haven't been mined (as in, deep underground, need mines) on large scale trough most of the history, but it was still commonly produced by evaporation method.

It would still be usually mostly bought from places specialized in it, and expensive of course.

But acquiring large amount of salt didn't require neither mine nor sea.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

As far as bandits go...what you're seeing is probably closer in feel to wandering outlaw groups than settled bandits preying on a specific area. They're certainly armed and dangerous but banditry is largely an opportunistic crime - if it's there someone will take it but they're as likely if there isn't to just shoot a deer instead.
In which case, the groups are probably fighting amongst themselves or else going to areas that are richer pickings, so they're not that much of a threat to the villages. :smallsmile:

For what you've described, any bandits in the area are probably small, weak group(s) that can't hang onto anywhere more valuable (maybe they're an old group that's coming to the end and have either been evicted from their old territory or had it reduced to the last few square miles, or they're a faction from a much larger group that's splintered - maybe the old leader was killed and their lieutenants are are now fighting amongst themselves for control, or they're a new group that's starting to take over territory), or they have other reasons to be there (maybe there's an old mine that's been abandoned and forgotten about in the collapse of the empire that they're trying to restart - which may mean they go on slave raids later, maybe they're the "protectors" I mentioned, maybe they're searching for some artefact, a tomb or something else that's supposed to be in the area, maybe they're trying to create their own nation state.

For food, I guess you could potentially encase food in clay, then fire it to turn the clay into a ceramic "can". Maybe as part of the cooking process so you've killed off microbes in it as well.

[Valefor Rathan]

Maybe I missed it but the "Three Sisters" (corn, beans, squash) would be good in this set up. They can be grown together in the same plot, they provide essential amino acids together, they increase each others' utility (both planting and consumption).

Instead of guinea pigs, what about rabbits?

[WarKitty]

<<snip>>

Yeah the bandits were meant to be enough of a threat that you don't see lots of traders or spend large amounts of time outside the village by yourself or leave stuff lying around, not really an organized threat. They're endemic to the whole northern region, not just that specific village. The combination of the terrain and the southern dwarven empire keep them from going farther south really.

(Before anyone asks, the dwarves think selling weapons to the stupid lesser races is more interesting than conquering a bunch of useless barbarians that can barely make a proper horseshoe.)

Though part of the idea is that someone tries the "make your own nation state" about every 20 years or so.


Maybe I missed it but the "Three Sisters" (corn, beans, squash) would be good in this set up. They can be grown together in the same plot, they provide essential amino acids together, they increase each others' utility (both planting and consumption).

Instead of guinea pigs, what about rabbits?

The three sisters aren't really suited for a far northern climate. Corn especially, but beans aren't really great in this sort of soil either.

Yes to rabbits though - especially as pelts would be valuable in the cold weather. I imagine they've got a rabbit fur vest thing going.

[Jeff the Green]

Yes to rabbits though - especially as pelts would be valuable in the cold weather. I imagine they've got a rabbit fur vest thing going.

I thought you didn't want to damage your players psyches.

http://hdwpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cute-Bunny-Pictures.jpg

http://hdwpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cute-bunny-standing.jpg

http://www.clickreadshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2338.jpg

http://i3.asn.im/Cute-bunny-_t3qv.jpg

http://www.thatcutesite.com/uploads/2010/01/cute_floppy_eared_bunny.jpg

http://theshadowcongress.com/sc_files/pics/hasenpfeffer.jpg

[Valefor Rathan]

The three sisters aren't really suited for a far northern climate. Corn especially, but beans aren't really great in this sort of soil either.

Yes to rabbits though - especially as pelts would be valuable in the cold weather. I imagine they've got a rabbit fur vest thing going.

My bad. Didn't catch the climate.

You could also just invent something that fills a similar role for your world.

E.E. Knight's "Vampire Earth" series has some kind of fungus that fits. Grows underground, subsists on waste, but it's near tasteless. They dry it out to use to make a kind of "flour".

[Valefor Rathan]

I thought you didn't want to damage your players psyches.

http://hdwpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cute-Bunny-Pictures.jpg

http://hdwpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/cute-bunny-standing.jpg

http://www.clickreadshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2338.jpg

http://i3.asn.im/Cute-bunny-_t3qv.jpg

http://www.thatcutesite.com/uploads/2010/01/cute_floppy_eared_bunny.jpg

http://theshadowcongress.com/sc_files/pics/hasenpfeffer.jpg

Look at all those cute little mitten and slipper liners...

[Beleriphon]

Not sure what you mean here, not following this use of "break."

You know the setting and atmosphere you want, but I still think guinea pigs are perfect for an easily tended and protected food supply, especially one that can be raised indoors.

I think he means that it would make the players cry. Guinea pigs are by and large cute little pets to many people, not a viable source of food.

As for rabbits, keep in mind that fur rabbits are probably going to be the larger European variety rather than North American cotton tails (which tend to be what people think of as rabbits, since its what Bugs Bunny looks most like).

[WarKitty]

I think he means that it would make the players cry. Guinea pigs are by and large cute little pets to many people, not a viable source of food.

As for rabbits, keep in mind that fur rabbits are probably going to be the larger European variety rather than North American cotton tails (which tend to be what people think of as rabbits, since its what Bugs Bunny looks most like).

Yeah, it looks like even older domesticated breeds grow up to about 10 pounds per bunny.

[Beleriphon]

Yeah, it looks like even older domesticated breeds grow up to about 10 pounds per bunny.

Especially since fur rabbits now are Flemish Giants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Giant_rabbit), which can get up to the size of a sheltie and weigh upwards to 20 pounds.

[VincentTakeda]

Dug into this a bit for a colonization campaign I ran 6 months ago... My notes indicate that I'd researched it and found that a half hectare per person is enough land to sustain a 'healthy modern american diet' including both fruit, vegetable and livestock. So thats a square of land 232 feet per side per person if you ignored the fishing completely.

[Spiryt]

Dug into this a bit for a colonization campaign I ran 6 months ago... My notes indicate that I'd researched it and found that a half hectare per person is enough land to sustain a 'healthy modern american diet' including both fruit, vegetable and livestock. So thats a square of land 232 feet per side per person if you ignored the fishing completely.

Where and when though?

Even in 19th century in many 'Western' places agriculture had efficiency that would be considered wondrous in say, 14th century France.

Of course such intensive methods have downsides too, but numerous output from hectare would be bigger without doubt.

[VincentTakeda]

No doubt there is a bit of fiat and finagling with this approximate number when you factor in things like location/weather/irrigation/technological level of the people. Didn't really go into Age of Empires levels of granularity. The example I gave presumes a person without 'tractors'... Manual labor or beast of burden. Thats still a pretty wide possible sweep in technology or circumstance.

[WarKitty]

Hmmm...wikipedia says an Irish Cotter in the 18th century would have had maybe an acre to acre and a half of land. If you assume rent was paid in labor rather than goods (not uncommon), that gives you about an acre to feed a family of likely 4-6. With significant supplementing, and if I haven't done my math wrong somewhere, we can probably give our village about 20 acres and be good.

[Spiryt]

Hmmm...wikipedia says an Irish Cotter in the 18th century would have had maybe an acre to acre and a half of land. If you assume rent was paid in labor rather than goods (not uncommon), that gives you about an acre to feed a family of likely 4-6. With significant supplementing, and if I haven't done my math wrong somewhere, we can probably give our village about 20 acres and be good.

In 18th century Ireland, pretty much whole land would be already long time divided, separated hedged by the way of different laws, feudal and post feudal property etc.

Plenty of people wouldn't be able to 'live' of their land in the slightest, they would b therefore working for people with sufficient wealth.

This is not very comparable to something (I think) you're trying to picture - situation where there's still plenty of 'no mans land'.

And I don't think it's really possible to feed such family with 2 acres of land... Bit of earlier, in 16-17th Central Europe, peasant would need at least some ~ 3 hectares (about 7-8 acres) of field to feed his family and poorer peasants helping him with work.

In more primal conditions, peasants with tiny, less than 1ha fields would either live in extremely humble conditions and/or need to supplement themselves with hunting, gathering, herding a lot.

[VincentTakeda]

Yep. California statistics and modern science have proven 5 people per acre is possible in ideal circumstances in an ideal environment (scientific total environmental control), with 0% crop loss, , and an all vegetarian diet. (no cattle. no bunnies. no ducks, sheep, goats, whatever... no grazing/herd animals).

Worst record california has documented has 1 person fed on 12.5 acres, so that kinda shows how bad it can get in a less than ideal arid environment. If each person in the village had to 'forage' for his daily meal across 13 american football fields each day... and each *other* villager had to do his own foraging across a *separate* 13 football fields each day... thats... uh... not really a village.

Thus my .5 hectares per person is 1.2 acres per person, or about 5 acres for a family of 4 is a bit of a comfortable middle.

It is also said that a person can, on the top end 'work' between 1 and 2 acres with hand tools. 2 acres per person with hand tools should be outright exhausting, so thats another easy way to think about limits. A person with hand tools for the most part is physically unable to work more than 2 acres without tech.

Most of the web pages i'm checking out today agree that about an acre per person is good, so my '.5 hectare or 1.2 acres per person' assessment allows for some crop loss and pathways and access...

Like I say. Just depends on how granular you want to get with it. If your people want livestock, that .5 hectare/ 1.2 acres per person is a safe conservative call, and without machines, 2 acres per person is more than they could actually handle.

Rough numbers means your population of 90 with livestock could easily farm a square territory thats a half mile per side, or a 'crop circle' (pun intended) thats a half mile across (1223 foot radius). Not bad. Now you just gotta figure out the layout of the housing ^_^. We're talking about every man woman and child getting their own american football field's worth of farmland to work.

If they chose a square plot of land 3070 feet wide and tall, or a crop circle 3470 feet wide (1730 foot radius) it would be more than they could handle without machines, because each man woman and child would be responsible for maintaining 2 football fields worth of farmland on their own.

That might not be overdetailed and rediculous, but there you go... If we were talking about pathfinder I'd invest in 7 rods of splendor... Using 1 per day of the week you have a continuous revolving feast for 100 people using no land whatsoever... Not a cheap trick to afford 7 rods of splendor though... Each person in the village would have to chip in 1750 gold out of the gate, but once that's done, food for everyone until the village gets lynched and they steal our rods!

[WarKitty]

I'm wondering about some of these statistics...I'm seeing a lot of cases where subsistence agriculture did seem to happen with one family on less, even in marginal soil. A cottar would have worked for someone, for instance, but what he worked for was the right to grow and harvest his own food on someone else's land. It wasn't a good living but it worked well enough that people raised families. For most of history that's what working for someone else looked like - you didn't receive pay in any form we'd recognize.

Now I am assuming that a good amount of fish was being supplemented. I want to get granular enough to be able to assign numbers to each profession, and I'm just not seeing much useful info.

I just want to be clear - I'm talking per person as per every person, not per worker. So I'm assuming for a family of 4 you maybe have 2-3 workers. 2 adults, one child old enough to help somewhat and one small child.

[VincentTakeda]

Yep. Per person is how these numbers pan out. You figure a home with 2 parents 2 kids gets 4 football fields to work. But the kids might be too young to help. The 2 parents working 2 football fields apiece are going to be totally tapped out, but there's good odds that with crop loss and less than ideal climate controlled scientifically engineered seed, thats going to, on a good year, be plenty, and on a bad year, be barely enough, no matter what particular crop or combination of crops they choose. Nature being what it is.

Even presuming a collective where 90 people all went to work on one of their 90 football fields per day, each field is only going to be taken care of once every 3 months... So factoring in things like 'grazing rotation' is built into the estimate already.

Every farm even if it produces more than an individual family would need is still barely producing enough for the community as a whole to survive. One family is doing cattle while another does bees while another does sheep or alpacas for wool... It seems like a lot of space because while a beekeper may not need much space for the 'livestock' portion of his contribution to the community, the other kinds of livestock requires a lot of space to eat. This land also needs to be used to feed your cows and your chickens and your pot bellied pigs.

This is a pretty general rule to cover the complete spectrum of possible crops in a non scientific, non environmentally controlled scenario... factoring in things like 'supplementing/supplanting' is fiatting any shortcomings of the actual numbers, making the actual scientific reality pretty much just as much of a fiat, so accuracy becomes irrelevant. 1.2 acres per person is a reliable number to take in account the notion that the villagers will want to have both fruits, vegetables and livestock in both good years and bad without any outside help.

Any kind of fiat you do that helps them out (motorized tools/magical assistance) changes these numers in such a way that their accuracy becomes pretty inconsequential. While its undeniably true that a ten acre environmentally controlled greenhouse full of fruits and vegetables can provide a vegetarian village with enough food to feel full on leafy greens, roughage and colon cleansing apple juice, if you want a balanced diet in a legitimate farming community with farm animals... 1.2 acres per person... less than that and a bad year could cause some folks in the community to die of starvation or other low nutrition style health issues.

Every acre that gets burned by dragons or infested by locusts or eaten by wildlife is another villager that goes hungry... Survival means overplanning. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

[Jay R]

I tend to hand-wave a lot of details away by having an indeterminate number of outlying farms, plus professional hunters and fishers, because economic details do not improve the game.

[VincentTakeda]

Yep. If on the other hand we were building a farming community on the notion that they were going to focus on one crop, then sell/trade their bounty to neighboring villages, then of course in the real world we'd go with strawberries. Easily $60,000 per acre for strawberries.

You get 100 healty adult villagers picking 200 acres of strawberries or cashews or garlic or lavender for 12 million dollars a year presuming you could only get one batch of strawberries out of the field per year... and that you're in a climate where it's pretty much strawberry season year round... again... better than possible ideal circumstances... but thats a 'how much do we need to survive' question on an economics scale, not on an agricultural scale...

I simply commented here because the question that appeared to have been asked was one i'd taken delight in digging into previously and gone to great lengths to properly resolve for my own campaigns, thought I'd save others the work...

I wont deny it was a fun thought experiment last time I explored it. Of course my 'village' was 10000 people (the minimum commonly thought necessary to reseed a human population) on a giant technologically advanced spacecraft sent to colonize a new world and I wanted to map out a landing zone of sufficient agricultural size to support them all, with the presupposition that most of the technology would not survive the landing, forcing the villagers to attack the scenario in a more 1700's kind of way.

It ended up being a landing of a more 'pandorum' nature, half the passengers died and the players had a hard time wrapping their mind around the kinds of interesting things they should be doing to set up a colony. Sometimes ludicrous attention to detail goes unappreciated... Such is the nature of gm'ing. It was still fun to research.

[Spiryt]

I'm wondering about some of these statistics...I'm seeing a lot of cases where subsistence agriculture did seem to happen with one family on less, even in marginal soil.

Well, examples?

Irish cottars worked on such small fields because they had to - in your case there's no real reason to not use more land, if conditions are pretty 'primal'.

Not to mention that I doubt that it was complete 'subsistence', in whole 18th century landscape they still likely had some systems on falling down on community when times were tough.

Potatoes also were changing things quite a bit, they are very efficient source of food on small area, even if not healthy.

Either use way more fields if it's possible, or use burn-down methods of small fields, swapping them rather often.

In short, acre or acre and half field is really tiny and probably not realistic, especially since you're describing climate as rather cold and inhospitable.

[WarKitty]

I tend to hand-wave a lot of details away by having an indeterminate number of outlying farms, plus professional hunters and fishers, because economic details do not improve the game.

Depends on the game. If you have players who are going to be in charge and would enjoy the prospect of spending part of their time playing governor, a well-fitted economic system does improve the game.

[Beleriphon]

This references Domesday Book commisioned by William the Conquerer in 1085. Suggestions indicate a typical family in Englad worked 12 to 15 acres of land, although as few as 5 acres could be worked with. Feeding one person with wheat required roughly 2 acres of land, while today we could feed three people per acre using wheat. So we're looking at a 5/6 loss compared to mdoern farming.

http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2013%20Society.htm

[WarKitty]

I made a map!

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt79/Jese_Cabron/villagecopy_zps5cebb4c8.gif (http://s599.photobucket.com/user/Jese_Cabron/media/villagecopy_zps5cebb4c8.gif.html)

Squares are 25 feet a side

Notes:

The tavern is pretty much just a big building with tables inside. Travelers can sleep on the floor if they like and will be offered a decent supper. Really though it's mostly a place to hang out and drink and dance.

The temple is not currently in use and most people prefer to avoid it - it's said that going to the temple attracts the notice of war. The common people practice a largely nature and home based religion that doesn't lend itself to separate buildings. So a sample ritual might be, say, that you must burn a handful of flour in your fireplace after the grain is in, to feed the hearth spirit for winter.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
The temple is not currently in use and most people prefer to avoid it - it's said that going to the temple attracts the notice of war.

Ordinarily a castle would have a church or chapel within the walls, rather than outside them, and often within the ground plan of the keep itself.


Originally Posted by Jay R
I tend to hand-wave a lot of details away by having an indeterminate number of outlying farms, plus professional hunters and fishers, because economic details do not improve the game.

Better to have something worked out ahead of time, especially if the players will be involved in the village economy.

Also, see thread title. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by Beleriphon
This references Domesday Book commisioned by William the Conquerer in 1085.

Good on yer for posting a link to something written by an actual historian.

:smallbiggrin:

[WarKitty]

Ordinarily a castle would have a church or chapel within the walls, rather than outside them, and often within the ground plan of the keep itself.

Oh that's the thing I forgot to mention. The current walls are much newer than the keep itself. So you can presume that the original walled area was much bigger and probably surrounded the temple and a fair bit more land. The keep is just sort of the only thing that hasn't been completely pillaged for its stone.


Better to have something worked out ahead of time, especially if the players will be involved in the village economy.

Also, see thread title. :smalltongue:

Actually this thread was brought on by mentioning my plans to a player, who immediately began trying to figure out how much land they would need.


Good on yer for posting a link to something written by an actual historian.

:smallbiggrin:

Good sources are good!

Other stuff:


Of the population of 89, 15 are of ages 0-8; these are not counted in the work force at all.

Another 11 are ages 8-13, and a further 6 13-16. These contribute, but not on the same level as others.

We have 4 people in the elderly category, ages 50+, who aren't contributors to physical labor. Due to the nature of warfare in the area these are all women.

Specialists are going to be:
Smithing
Brewing
Tanning
Cheesemaking
Woodworking

Other labors such as spinning, weaving, bonecarving, and such are done at home and lack specialists, so this is only a list of what would have a full-time specialist.

There's also several military (PC class) specialists who are not currently practicing.

Given the terrain and other concerns, it looks like you'd be shifting to a higher protein diet than would otherwise be common for the era. Fish is easy and smoked fish probably shows up twice a day. From what I'm seeing fish is more suitable to this sort of thing than land animals are. Supplement that with grains twice a day and various vegetables maybe once, and toss in some rabbit meat as well. Fruits and llama meat are most likely feast food, as are mead and proper beer. Something akin to small beer is probably the more common drink.



You're going to have a semi-communal approach to farming. The combination of a low number of draft animals and a higher number of men who may have military skills instead of farming skills tends to make that a necessity. (Mr. Fighter may not know a lot about farming, but he can still shovel manure and chop wood.)

[LongVin]

A village of 89 people probably wouldn't have anything approaching the size or strength of a castle. If there is some sort of feudal lord here, he would be on the level of a landed knight and would live in similar conditions as the rest of the villagers and unless he is basically a bandit himself would also need to maintain his own farm to a degree.

[WarKitty]

A village of 89 people probably wouldn't have anything approaching the size or strength of a castle. If there is some sort of feudal lord here, he would be on the level of a landed knight and would live in similar conditions as the rest of the villagers and unless he is basically a bandit himself would also need to maintain his own farm to a degree.

That came up in the thread earlier (it's getting long so I should probably re-summarize some stuff). The keep at this point is basically just a giant barn that's been stripped of pretty much everything useful. It's been many many years since it was a functional castle, back when this was a prosperous town. The old women remember their grandmothers talking about that time, when even in the last days of the empire every noble had to have his boots and bags done in the village, and a child could make extra coin gathering acorns and oak bark for the workers. Only the villagers could go in the grove, or the lady of the grove would get mad.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by WarKitty
The current walls are much newer than the keep itself. So you can presume that the original walled area was much bigger and probably surrounded the temple and a fair bit more land. The keep is just sort of the only thing that hasn't been completely pillaged for its stone.

Okay, that makes sense. Very well thunk-out. :smalltongue:

My other comment would have been about the village homes inside the bailey, but you've accounted for that as well--they're using the keep for cover (and stables) and rebuilt their homes in its shadow.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
Of the population of 89, 15 are of ages 0-8; these are not counted in the work force at all.

Actually, if you have a couple of girls who are seven or eight, they'll be helping take care of the toddlers. This relieves some of the childcare burden from the mothers and lets them focus on their own work, which is a real benefit.

Interesting age distribution; I'm assuming the past few years have been reasonably good. The all-female nature of the elderly rings very true, and not just on account of warfare.


Originally Posted by WarKitty
The combination of a low number of draft animals and a higher number of men who may have military skills instead of farming skills tends to make that a necessity.

A strong fighting man could shoulder the harness for a plow himself, plus manage a lot of the other hard physical labor as you've pointed out. Just because someone is trained in fighting doesn't mean they can't contribute on the farm--and if they're mainly in the village anyway, rather than off campaigning, they'll likely be engaged on a daily basis.

Also, unless they were raised by noble families, many fighting men probably grew up on farms anyway, and were conscripted for one local war or another. They'll more than likely know their way around a patch of peas from childhood.

[WarKitty]

Okay, that makes sense. Very well thunk-out. :smalltongue:

My other comment would have been about the village homes inside the bailey, but you've accounted for that as well--they're using the keep for cover (and stables) and rebuilt their homes in its shadow.

Yeah, the whole feel is supposed to be that it was at one point a thriving town with a healthy cottage industry - the locating made it perfect for tanning and there were skilled leatherworkers who sold fancy carved and dyed products at high prices.


Actually, if you have a couple of girls who are seven or eight, they'll be helping take care of the toddlers. This relieves some of the childcare burden from the mothers and lets them focus on their own work, which is a real benefit.

Yeah I'm kind of balancing things out by also not counting them against the workforce. Figure at the busiest times one old woman and a couple of little girls can pretty much manage smaller kids.


Interesting age distribution; I'm assuming the past few years have been reasonably good. The all-female nature of the elderly rings very true, and not just on account of warfare.

Reasonably good; there's still a big theft problem but they've gotten pretty good at managing things.


A strong fighting man could shoulder the harness for a plow himself, plus manage a lot of the other hard physical labor as you've pointed out. Just because someone is trained in fighting doesn't mean they can't contribute on the farm--and if they're mainly in the village anyway, rather than off campaigning, they'll likely be engaged on a daily basis.

Also, unless they were raised by noble families, many fighting men probably grew up on farms anyway, and were conscripted for one local war or another. They'll more than likely know their way around a patch of peas from childhood.

Yeah that was my idea - some of the fighter types might be more than capable of contributing and knowing stuff, but they'd still be happy to have someone tell them when to get the winter rye out. Plus with a village that size it's just more efficient to share a lot of work. Plus with the sex ratios tilted a bit, a strong young man could very well come in and work for a while, hoping that he could find a young woman with a good field in her dowry.

[veti]

It is also said that a person can, on the top end 'work' between 1 and 2 acres with hand tools. 2 acres per person with hand tools should be outright exhausting, so thats another easy way to think about limits. A person with hand tools for the most part is physically unable to work more than 2 acres without tech.

That - assumes no co-operation between people, which seems unnecessarily pessimistic.

The reason an acre is the size it is, is because in medieval times that was reckoned to be the amount of land that one person, with one draft animal, could plough in a day. That remained a pretty good reckoning well into industrial times. Hence the 1865 formula "forty acres and a mule".

Without a draft animal, of course, it's a lot harder. But if you can get a couple of strong mates in to do the work of a ploughhorse, you should be able to work considerably more than two acres in a season, even with iron-age technology.

If the core village has a belt of farmland around it, about two miles in radius ('cuz you've gotta walk all the way out there, work the land, then walk back in the evening...), then the total land available for farming would be in the region of 12 square miles, or 7680 acres. That's way more than people could actually work - but then, only a fraction of that land will be suitable anyway. Even if only one-tenth of the land is fertile and farmable, there would be almost nine acres per person (including non-working population). Call it 15-20 acres per able-bodied adult. In that case, they could actually be eating pretty well, and I'll stop worrying about the poor bandits...


I made a map!

Nice. Two questions:
1. Where's the mill? And the smithy? Those are going to be important focal points.

2. A wall, really? Who built it, and why? (When would the villagers have had time to build such a thing? And why bother, when there's a castle right next door to take refuge in when threatened?)

[WarKitty]

That - assumes no co-operation between people, which seems unnecessarily pessimistic.

The reason an acre is the size it is, is because in medieval times that was reckoned to be the amount of land that one person, with one draft animal, could plough in a day. That remained a pretty good reckoning well into industrial times. Hence the 1865 formula "forty acres and a mule".

Without a draft animal, of course, it's a lot harder. But if you can get a couple of strong mates in to do the work of a ploughhorse, you should be able to work considerably more than two acres in a season, even with iron-age technology.

If the core village has a belt of farmland around it, about two miles in radius ('cuz you've gotta walk all the way out there, work the land, then walk back in the evening...), then the total land available for farming would be in the region of 12 square miles, or 7680 acres. That's way more than people could actually work - but then, only a fraction of that land will be suitable anyway. Even if only one-tenth of the land is fertile and farmable, there would be almost nine acres per person (including non-working population). Call it 15-20 acres per able-bodied adult. In that case, they could actually be eating pretty well, and I'll stop worrying about the poor bandits...



Nice. Two questions:
1. Where's the mill? And the smithy? Those are going to be important focal points.

2. A wall, really? Who built it, and why? (When would the villagers have had time to build such a thing? And why bother, when there's a castle right next door to take refuge in when threatened?)

Smithy is where the smithy color block is. Mill is the purple block by the river that isn't labelled

And as I mentioned a few posts back, there's the problem that the castle isn't in that great a shape, not to mention doesn't protect your stuff. A wall's the thing you want if you're dealing with low-level bandits who are more interested in waltzing off with whatever's easiest to take than anything else. It's not solid enough to take on an attacking army, but it's at least enough to make it harder to get in and out of the village without being noticed and to deal with attackers lacking siege equipment.

Not to mention, this being a fantasy world after all, there's a good chance of other things being out there.

[veti]

Smithy is where the smithy color block is. Mill is the purple block by the river that isn't labelled

And as I mentioned a few posts back, there's the problem that the castle isn't in that great a shape, not to mention doesn't protect your stuff. A wall's the thing you want if you're dealing with low-level bandits who are more interested in waltzing off with whatever's easiest to take than anything else. It's not solid enough to take on an attacking army, but it's at least enough to make it harder to get in and out of the village without being noticed and to deal with attackers lacking siege equipment.

Not to mention, this being a fantasy world after all, there's a good chance of other things being out there.

Oops, didn't notice the smithy label, sorry.

I'm guessing, then, the wall is just a palisade, or possibly earthworks, optionally with a ditch outside to make it harder to scale from that side.

Are there visible remnants of other buildings, outside the wall, left over from more prosperous days? Or have they all been razed and/or cannibalised for building materials?

[Wardog]

Even presuming a collective where 90 people all went to work on one of their 90 football fields per day, each field is only going to be taken care of once every 3 months... So factoring in things like 'grazing rotation' is built into the estimate already.





In medieval England at least, farming was done communally, but it wasn't a case of "everyone has one big field each, and everyone works each field in turn". It was done by having a two or three (depending on the system) great big fields, that were sub-divided into lots of small plots, with each household owning several plots spread each field (so everyone got a mix of good and bad land). Each field would be planted with one crop, and everyone would work together on that field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_field_system

A big portion of the produce would have to be paid to the lord of the manor as tax - and the serfs were also obliged to spend a number of days working on their lords land rather than their own. So if your village doesn't have a lord, then you will either need a lot less land to support it, or have much wealthier peasants with the same amount of land. (Which may be why the bandits are interested in them).



Speaking of bandits, the situation described sounds a bit like a much longer-running version of the "Anarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy)" that afflicted England during the "reign" of "King" Stephen and "Empress" Matilda. In which case the bandits and the lords/former lords may well be the same thing.

When the traitors saw that Stephen was a good-humoured, kindly, and easy-going man who inflicted no punishment, then they committed all manner of horrible crimes…For every great man built him castles and held them against the king; and they filled the whole land with these castles. They sorely burdened the unhappy people of the country with forced labour on the castles; and when the castles were built, they filled them up with devils and wicked men. By night and by day they seized those whom they believed to have any wealth, whether they were men or women; and in order to get their gold and silver, they put them into prison and tortured them with unspeakable tortures... And men said openly that Christ and His saints slept.

The Laud (Peterborough) Chronicle, annal for 1137.

[Palanan]

And the last phrase from that quote serves as the title for a historical novel (http://www.amazon.com/When-Christ-His-Saints-Slept/dp/0345396685/) on just that period. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but Sharon Kay Penman is one of my favorite historical novelists, and it could really help set the wider tone.

Also of note, the Cadfael novels are set during that same time, and they give a sense of how life continued despite the terrifying uncertainties of the time, from the perspective of one small town and monastery. The books are quietly wonderful on their own, and each one is a quick and delightful read.