Tribute within communities

From: Joerg Baumgartner <jorganos_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:03:59 CET


David Dunham replied to my
>> Extracting a tribute from foreigners is perfectly ok, but can >>
extracting a tribute within your own civitas be an Orlanthi
>> thing? Isn't this more like foul taxes to be paid to a chieftain
>> or king (or emperor)?

>As a matter of fact, I happened to discuss this with Greg Stafford
>yesterday. And the answer is yes, you may have a >tribute-paying clan
within a tribe.

In rural regions, those aren't the people living next door, though, who share your daily access to temple, market, etc. And besides, what makes these tribute-raising enterprises akin to crime is that the tribute is raised in addition to the dues to the ruling powers and the temples. In effect, these activities are purely parasitic and not even remotely symbiotic. The "benefit" of foreign thieves being persecuted by the local branch doesn't really pay (after all, their loot won't be given back to the owner), and where there are two rivalling quasi-clans of thieves (who have more of a warband organisation than a clan, really) the "protection dues" don't protect your establishment from being made an example, not even if you pay to both groups.

>Unfortunately, some local players seem to make "shameful >tribute" into
one word [...].

Whether shameful or not, a tribute is harmful to the clan economy.

>It's not. Nobody really *likes* paying tribute, but the act
>itself isn't shameful -- it may well be cheaper than being raided,
>result in less loss of like that would be difficult to avenge, etc.

But surely you have to be a peace clan to live with a tribute for a significant time without taking measures against it.

(It may be good style to pay the tribute with cattle recently raided from the people who collect it, though...)

>Besides, tribute may well be symbolic, a small payment as a
>reminder of subordinate status.

Sure, but the kind of tribute taken by extortionists in cities isn't that insubstantial, or they wouldn't care to collect it. These groups don't have much means besides their anti-social activities, so their tribute has to feed the group.

>And there may be a blurring between gifts and tribute -- if a
>subordinate clan chief gives many gifts to a king, the king might >be
less inclined to demand tribute.

Well, the Finnskatt - the tribute/taxes taken by the Halogaland local Viking kings from the Lapp hunters - originated from the Lapps' custom to give gifts at the beginning of trading sessions. Within a few generations, these gifts had become the due tribute, and later became an official tax.

Too lavish gifts without concrete counter-offers will lead to this vassalage.

>And being a tributary is far better than being forced to be a >vassal,
or being conquered.

It's rarely a stable state, though - either the tributary clan can shake off the tribute somehow, or it becomes the vassal. (If the shaking off fails, being conquered is the logical consequence...)

Protection from raids should be paid in gifts, not in tribute - even if the prospective raider is the recipient of the gift. Unlike tribute, with a gift it won't do to give the prospective raider cattle taken from his side...

>Tribute paid to foreigners who established their right to collect it
>before you were born, that might well be shameful.

Shameful is whatever gets rubbed in, I suppose, so if some hothead from a neighbouring clan derides clanmembers for labouring for other lords, there may be some shame in it.

And a tributary clan always stands in danger to be compared to the Vendref...

Joerg Baumgartner (via Hotmail)
mailto:joe_at_toppoint.de



Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #494


Powered by hypermail