But 'stickpicker' is an _occupation_, not a class or legal status of person. I agree these appear to overlap to the point of confusion, especially in the case of carls, but they're not by any means identical. I'm not saying a stead will be anything like monolithic in bloodline terms, but I equally don't see there being three or four social 'layers' in a stead, each characterised by a different bloodline, all pretty much of the same social class. More likely one bloodline is numerically dominant, with odds and sods from elsewhere. Stickpickers probably are people with little immediate kin, or those whose kin are mightily disenchanted with them, rather than coming from a long and proud line of stickpickers before them.
> >If you agree that such changes can occur in _one_ generation,
> >then a bloodline, which at a practical minimum will contain four,
> >and often IMO (and indeed IMG, I think five is pretty commonplace)
> >will contain allsorts, surely. Five generations from sceptre to
> >shovel, to coin a phrase.
>
> I presume you're including children to get five generations. Four
> generations of adults gives you 30 people assuming just two sons
> from each marriage. Of course the oldest generation is probably
> dead.
Right; I mean possibly four or five generations 'horizontally', not necessarily vertically from a live ancestor. I'm not counting young children, though, as I was counting back from the PCs, who all belong to the same largeish bloodline (which I'd guess had someplace north of 100 warm bodies, but is pretty geographically diffuse).
> While I accept that it is possible to be the forth son of
> the forth son of the forth son of a Carl and therefore have little
> more than your clothes I would contend this is rare. If it were
> common the clan involved would be in serious trouble as it would
> mean they were breeding more children than the land could support.
Not that rare. It'd be in the nature of things that the wealthier types expand fastest (becoming well wealthy per capita in the process). Obviously the same thing doesn't happen clan-wide, for the reasons you mention.
> >> I don't quite see Orlanthi putting up with micro-managing though.
> >
> >Well, obviously good politics would be to couch it as 'micro-suggesting',
> >of course.
>
> Even that would have to be very tactfully done. "My family have been
> growing wheat on this land for six generations and you want me to
> start growing maize!" beving a not untypical response.
_Ought_ to be done tactfully, sure. But what's wise, and what actually happens, may not be especially close cousins in Orlanthi politics. The sort of micro-management I meant though, is more to do with the sort of not-formal-trade 'exchange' we were discussing; you might have it 'made known' to you that a certain amount of generosity was expected, or would go down well with the clan, even if you don't especially like the intended recipient.
> >I don't see how it's reasonably, or even geometrically, possible to
> >arrange 25 steads on a typical tula such that they're a day's journey
> >apart. A quarter-hour walk would be rather more like it, IMO.
>
> That's a mile on a decent road, probably half a mile on a hill track
> with a wagon or pack mule taking twice as long. It depends on the
> size of the steads and the layout of the good arable land but that
> would seem the minimum for steads supporting one or two carls. OK,
> I was probably overestimating but conversely if there are daily
> inter-stead transfers of produce why not make a single rather bigger
> stead.
You don't need to 'trade' every day, though; an annual gift of grain is more likely than regular consignments of bread, but with the same net effect, that not everyone has to be an equal generalist.
> I've done some of it now, but it needs some more work before I put it
> up on the web - it's already a bit large to post to the digest but I'll
> email you a copy and post a pointer. It certainly won't cover all
> possibilites - it's more an idea which is economically workable.
Please do. I'll be gentle with you. ;-)
> Looking at that bit in KoS, it doesn't seem to distinguish between
> disputes at between clans or between individuals within a clan
> apart from who is accepted as the court.
Well, it states the the case of feuding clans is 'typical', in the description of lawsuit procedure, and in contrast, 'normal justice occurs within a clan, and concerns only its members', which sounds different to me.
> Presumably whether the clan cheif or ring gets to decide depends
> on who the parties ask - more room for arguments before the case
> starts.
Good point.
> Then it is a property right enshrined in custom if not law (precisely
> where _that_ line is drawn in Heortling society is another issue). I
> appreciate this is not property in a modern sense but it is enough
> for an Orlanthi to say "this is ours". It may be a case that these
> cattle are owned by the clan but a particular person or group has the
> right to the milk, meat and hides subject to a tithe to the clan
> chief.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. 'Property' is just such a loaded word that I'd prefer to avoid, or at least explicitly qualify what we mean by it when we use it. There's a sense in which you can say of 'formally odal' property "this is ours", but there's an at least as important sense in which the chief can say "no it ain't".
> That is a property right which could be removed from that
> person and given to another, e.g. to pay a fine.
That's misleading; the point is that it can be removed _at the chief's discretion_, not solely through 'due process', which I contend is meaningless or illusory at this 'level'. Of course, a political debate among the Orlanthi will often sound like a legal argument (precedents are cited and counter-cited), and a law suit will often sound like a political debate (our side is vainly boasted about, yours is slandered and baited, threats and promises are trundled out shamelessly), so certainly the line is very blurry in practice, that I agree on.
Powered by hypermail