> FWIW, isn't the 50% figure the usual guesstimate for
> dependants, that is children and elderly. In addition,
> Checking with current US census statistics
Nope, the infirm and incapable are explicitly included as a separate category. TR's example is of a "typical" 1200-person stead having 600 children and 600 adults; 100 of the adults are infirm. (I don't have the book in front of me as I write, so don't stretch my wording -- look it up for yourself!).
A MODEST PROPOSAL One minimalist "happy solution" would be for us to state that the players come from a "typical" 1200-adult clan, which also has 600 children. 200 of those 1200 adults are infirm. Any takers?
[Ian also wonders whether]
> Roman population figures represent a level of civilization that
> exceeds the culture we are talking about.
Certainly. But the Gloranthan "fact" of lower-than-historic infant mortality rates cuts against this, as does my personal inclination to accentuate the familiar (rather than, say, inventing a 100%-pregnant society to paper over an error in Thunder Rebels).
> Nick, any clues why the percentage figure should have
> remainded static to the 20C - higher infant mortality
> rates absorbing the increased number of births?
'fraid not -- I'm a historian, not really a specialist in demographic analysis (which is how the Heortling Infant Bulge slipped past me).
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail