StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ahoy there, SDN historians! As part of my upcoming tribal setting, I've got some questions to be asked that didn't seem to have answers here, and questionable ones in the other spots I checked (admittedly, spotty checks).

The first is on the matter of wergild and related payments,:
What was the lowest one could reasonably expect to pay for the dishonourable murder of a freeman, non-culture specific?

The second is on the matter of horses and other equine mounts,:
In the Iron Age, how much would a good horse potentially be worth, both as a general thing and in horse-rich cultures like the Mongols? Would it exceed the cost of a freeman's wergild, or be lower than it, in most cases?

The third, and for now, final such question, regards slavery and farming,:
How large a population could feasibly be maintained in an environment similar to Northern England with fertile soils, assuming that 90% of all farming was done by forcibly captured slaves or purchased thralls and utilized a high yield form of grain capable of growing even with poor nutrition? Outside hostile influence isn't a factor, and cannibalism is practiced by these people on a routine basis, so the slaves themselves would also be part of feeding the population.

cannibalism is practiced by these people on a routine basis, so the slaves themselves would also be part of feeding the population.

Bad idea, though admittedly it depends on culture of the slaves (if they see nothing wrong with eating people then meh) though raising cattle which can plot and eventually rebel against you is probably a bad idea no matter the culture

It's completely retarded. Just think about the vast quantity of calories required to feed a slave for decades. Livestock has a much better return on investment.

This thread better shape up soon...otherwise it is a lock.

loomer wrote:The first is on the matter of wergild and related payments,:
What was the lowest one could reasonably expect to pay for the dishonourable murder of a freeman, non-culture specific?

Highly culture specific, I should imagine.

This website gives the price for a ceorl (freeman) as 100 shillings, or the equivilent of 100 oxen, whereas this site says 200 shillings, but nothing about what a shilling will get you. However, neither source their statements.

The Wikipedia article gives 200 shillings for a ceorl and does have some cites. They also describe a shilling as being the equivilent of an cow or a sheep.

The second is on the matter of horses and other equine mounts,:
In the Iron Age, how much would a good horse potentially be worth, both as a general thing and in horse-rich cultures like the Mongols? Would it exceed the cost of a freeman's wergild, or be lower than it, in most cases?

A good horse, while pricey, is probably not exceeding the worth of 200 cows or sheep.

The third, and for now, final such question, regards slavery and farming,:
How large a population could feasibly be maintained in an environment similar to Northern England with fertile soils, assuming that 90% of all farming was done by forcibly captured slaves or purchased thralls and utilized a high yield form of grain capable of growing even with poor nutrition? Outside hostile influence isn't a factor, and cannibalism is practiced by these people on a routine basis, so the slaves themselves would also be part of feeding the population.

Slaves and their masters are probably going to be eating similar food. It is therefore better to raise livestock that can live on stuff that people can't live on. Pigs eat a lot of trash that humans don't, plus stuff that humans have a hard time eating, like acorns; ruminants can eat grass, which is functionally inedible for humans; chickens eat small bugs, which usually aren't worth the trouble to gather; etc. While slaves can make for the occasional ceremonial meal, it would really be better to practice cannibalism on the recent dead or on war prisoners (similar to how the Aztecs practiced their sacrifices).

Thanks Aklhut. The wergild is pretty high, but that shouldn't be a surprise really.

In regards to the cannibalism, I'd like to clarify that statement.

They don't eat only slaves, they happily eat anyone who dies, in addition to raising livestock. It really depends on what season it is and how much of one species they have compared to another. They raise pigs, oxen, chickens, and a variety of miscelleaneous other critters, and supplement that by hunting as well as by 'oh look, Dave's dead. Doesn't look diseased. Quick, start a fire' methods.

With that said, does anyone have a ballpark sustainable population figure?

loomer wrote:With that said, does anyone have a ballpark sustainable population figure?

You never said how large an area you were talking about, and you're pretty vague about some important particulars. Medieval population was variable and mainly dependent on agricultural production. The medieval sourcebook hosted at Fordham has Josiah Russel's "Population in Europe" saying that in 1000 AD the British Isles had a population of 2 million, while by 1340 improvements in agricultural technology (like the horse collar) and environmental conditions (land reclaimed from forests or bogs, a historical period of warmer climates, etc.) allowed a population of 5 million. So if England is your baseline, how large a land area are you talking about, and are the conditions more like 1000 or 1340?

Also, here is a website that is designed to help people with questions like yours.

Sorry for the delay, had to deal with a nasty fucking virus and couldn't come online. Thanks for the links, but unfortunately they're not quite what I need since the setting is iron age equivalent in technology (which I seem to have forgotten to mention). They are, however, sufficiently close to let me fudge the figures, and in this case the somewhat more primitive tools and techniques are probably countered by the high yield of the local grain.