All makes sense to me. One additional thing is that they may have practice at ambushing attacking nomads (since they know their land better, and the nomads are used to the flat lands of prax). Probably each clan has their own traditions on this, with some who feel an obligation to set traps and ambushes while others simply feel it is best to fall back to a defensible position.
Note that unlike other raiders, the praxians don't have a high interest in driving off your herd animals. They might kill them just because they aren't llamaa/rhinos/bison/whatever, but they won't make a concerted effort to go after the animals unless they are really trying to drive you off of the land. Therefore part of the response in many cases might be for the herdsmen to drive the animals to traditional concealed or hard to reach places when they hear the alarm.
On the other hand, the nomads are probably very apt to loot mobile property, so clans may not be anxious to abandon their steads unless the danger is truly extreme. Of course, with enough warning they probably also have clever hiding places for a lot of their valuables, and can pack up much of the rest quickly. Still, I expect the nomads would be inclined to do things like burn down abandoned steads, loot and destroy food stores, and so on, so I suspect that people's willingness to stay and defend their livelyhood would be pretty high.
> 3. Tribal Centre: Each tribe seems to have a central place for the
King
> to live - or a least hold court. In this campaign I envisage it
being
> Jaldonkill Fort.
Hmmm, I think most of the forts are kept ready for use, but are usually only actively used in case of danger, and perhaps for certain tribal ceremonies. Forts tend not to be in the most convenient locations, after all. I would guess that the king's village would be near the fort, but more likely near fields, water, and roads.
However that is on the tula of one of the clans - who
> would probably want to use it for their meeting place. How to
reconcile
> this difference? What does a tribal capital (for want of a better
term)
> have in it? Tribal King's Hall, his weaponthanes barracks,
specialist
> industry, larger temples to Orlanth/Ernalda, specialist temples and
> shrines, market place?????
Clan tula's don't have to be regularly shaped, or even contiguous. No doubt the tribal chief's village and the fort are officially not part of any clan's land, although they may have wyter's of their own (at least the village would I'd think, and I'd presume Jadonkill Fort would have a potent anti-praxian wyter, although its level of support might be modest when the fort isn't needed).
Of course the extra temples, the craftsmen, the king's retainers, all need food and other support, so even if much of this is provided in tribute no doubt there are some farmers and hunters and such in the community, as well as more mundane crafter's supporting others, and of course cottar servants, stickpickers, and outright beggars trying to live off of the king's bounty. All told the king's village may typically have a population of a few hundred (although most of those would also belong to a specific clan).
> Do clan chiefs have a similar "capital"?
Some clans will. In some clans the chief's home stead will always become "the chief's stead" and they'll throw up a few extra buildings as necessary (and the king will use the clan to help perform improvements for his home stead, like improving fortification). I expect in many cases however that once one stead hosts the chief long enough it becomes the permanent chief's stead, and new chiefs just have to move there, because the temple is there, so many people live there and don't want to move, the protection is better there, the traders know to come to the market there, etc.
>
> But then again shouldn't some of these things be elsewhere - if a
clan
> has a strong link with Issaries - shouldn't they hold the tribal
market
> for example.
Sure. I'm sure the rule of thumb is that all the big important things tend to be at the king's stead, but there will always be exceptions to the rule. This is probably why some tribes have a tribal capital that is almost a noteworthy town, while others don't seem to have much of a capital at all. In the former most things are at the king's capital, in the latter tribal agreements have the main tribal functions permanently assigned to different tribes, and in these cases the king may live permanently with his own clan.
So looking at things from the other end, do you want a centralized tribe, a de-centralized tribe, or something in between? In the centralized you have the advantage that all the movers and shakers and important resources are in one place, which makes a lot of stories easier. In the de-centralized case there are lots of excuses to send heroes hither and yon, as they to the tribal market, go to the great temple to Orlanth, go to visit the king at his clan, etc. The in between case lets you tailor what you do and don't want central, which is great if you know ahead of time a lot of the stories that you want to tell ("I want most things to happen right here, in or near town. But it will be critical in one story that they have ride all night to the Orlanth temple, so I'd better locate that elsewhere.")
I hope this was of some help.
Bryan
Powered by hypermail