>But if each weaponthane has the "Four Storms" followers who are
>perhaps better than the average clan warrior the weaponthanes should
>be a very small proportion of the better warriors, eg 40 weaponthanes
>with four followers each is 160 followers. IMO there are more likely
>to be extra followers than weaponthanes with fewer followers.
I think followers are more of a HW game mechanic than representing Orlanthi organisation. Gunter, his three brothers and their cousin can all be weaponthanes of varying abilities because they are full time warriors supported by a clan chief. Equally Broyan and his three mates could be fyrdmen who are better than average warriors but have yet to prove themselves sufficently to be accepted as warriors. You could even have a situation where Broyan is a better warrior than Gunter but Gunter is a weaponthane because he is trusted to train and lead the fyrd. Alternatively you could look at a clan's fyrdmen as followers of one of the clan weaponthanes. So a tribal fyrd is made up of a couple of dozen weaponthanes with between 20 and 60 fyrdmen followers each and the tribal chief with 15 to 30 weaponthane followers.
>Would Orlanthi farmers necessarily be worse in combat than the
>warriors (not weaponthanes). Surely the young unattached men are
>going to make up most of the warriors, and be Orlanth Adventurous
>types. When they get a bit older and settle down they may not be as
>active but the warrior skills they learnt when young are surely still
>there.
To maintain weapon skills to a high level requires a lot of practice, something a farmer doesn't have time for. There is also a matter of attitude, the reckless bravery of OA is replaced by the farmer's pragmatism which make the fyrd more likely to retire from the battlefield if things are going badly.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail