I don't see that'll make that much difference. Cottars are going to be the majority in all clans. In clans which have little ploughland an Orlanthi all farmers will be cottars.
After all everyone starts out as a cottar. Those who get a herd together themselves or more commonly are allocated cattle by their bloodline qualify as a carl or half-carl. Those who show an ability to lead get appointed thane. While most thanes are probably carls it isn't a requirement.
Given that most specialist skilled people (craftsmen and women) count as cottars I can't see those being attractive occupations if most farmers are carls.
I also have a feeling that carls being the majority would produce an unbalanced workforce although I can't put a finger on why. It may be that I can't think of a society which had more people in the middle layer than at the bottom.
>>You think that someone can get the status of carl by borrowing
>>enough cattle to support an ox team?
>
>Sure.
>
>>cattle loans will be much
>>more to do with allocation of labour between bloodlines. If a
>>bloodline has more cattle than they can manage they will lend
>>some to another.
>
>It's been a while since I read Nerys Patterson, Cattle Lords and
>Clansmen, but I think it's more political/social than economic.
>When you make a cattle loan, the borrower is beholden to you. But
>people seemed to think it was worth taking out a cattle loan. Maybe
>it's the bread/cabbage thing, but there's probably more.
It's also the fact that someone is prepared to trust you with their wealth. I can see situations where there are political reasons for making a loan but it has to make economic sense as well. However there is limited scope of political loans when most cattle are held at clan and bloodline level and a typical clan has about six bloodlines. I imagine there's a lot of haggling over who gets to look after the clan herd.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail