Maximum tribute society could maintain

[Aldarion]

Apparently, Fomorians forced the

Nemedians to pay them annually on the eve of Samhain (Nov. 1st) two-thirds of their corn and milk and of the children born during the year.

The Religion of the Ancient Celts: Chapter IV. The Irish ... | Sacred Texts Archive

Legends & Sagas: THREE divine and heroic cycles of myths are known in Ireland, one telling of the Tuatha Dé Danann, the others of Cúchulai...

sacred-texts.com

But would any society be able to actually maintain such a tribute? In my world, I reduced it to 10% of children and one-third of grain and cattle, but even that appears too heavy.

 

[Finchbearer]

You put grain in your comment, so I assume you know that the term corn was more a catch-all term for grain such as barley and rye, rather than corn as in corn that crop didn’t arrive here until many years later - so maybe the tribute in terms of crops was more attainable with it not being reduced to just one crop.

Not so convinced on the children and milk side of things.

 

[Aldarion]

You put grain in your comment, so I assume you know that the term corn was more a catch-all term for grain such as barley and rye, rather than corn as in corn that crop didn’t arrive here until many years later - so maybe the tribute in terms of crops was more attainable with it not being reduced to just one crop.

Corn is basically seed of the crop, as in, grain.

If I thought it referred to corn as in type of plant I would have much less of an issue with it, since that would leave wheat etc. to feed the people!

But as it is, what it says is that two thirds of all grain, milk and newborn children are to be given to Fomorians. Seeing how in premodern agricultural society at least 70% of population has to be working land to support the overall population, that means that surplus is at most 30%. And most likely less than that, practically speaking.

So if a family needs 70% of grain to live... and Fomorians take 2/3 of all grain - that leaves family to support itself on 33% of the grain, or less than half of what it would actually need.

 

[pmmg]

I think the Nemedians needed to keep fighting.

 

[skip.knox]

But these are legends. So the numbers are not required to be realistic. I entirely agree that the numbers as given are unsustainable. But I doubt anyone around the hearth would interrupt the storyteller to make the point.

 

[Aldarion]

But these are legends. So the numbers are not required to be realistic. I entirely agree that the numbers as given are unsustainable. But I doubt anyone around the hearth would interrupt the storyteller to make the point.

I know. But in my setting, that tribute will be a fact of life, not just a legend. So I'd like numbers to be plausible.

 

[ThinkerX]

The Romans imposed crushing taxes on the provinces. Those unable to pay often became slaves - though there were buy-out options. Revolts against tax farmers were a thing.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think a variety of grain crop as tribute has less chance of being destroyed when stored over winter by the same pest.

You can also set the bar I think when it comes to what the Nemedians had in terms of assets, and how much the Fomorians want them to suffer. If 30% represents too much for them to all survive over winter, that’s one story arc. However if 30% of all grain still leaves them well enough to survive on then the story changes. Are the Nemedians voracious breeders? What are the childhood mortality rates like? Are they known to have vast pastures full of milking cattle? Or do they only have 1 cow per family? And so on and so on.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm sure you know this stuff, but in the interest of informing others who might not:

Before the 11thc or so, it was typical for a farmer to set aside 1/3 of the harvest for seed for next year. That was necessary, and no lord would demand so much that the seed corn would be depleted.

Of the remaining, a percentage gets lost to spoilage. Another percentage gets eaten. Both those percentages are highly variable, but together they're significant. Speaking *very* broadly, a lord might claim anywhere from 10% to 25% of the harvest. In places where taxation was regarded as onerous, that could rise to one-third, leaving only one-third of the harvest for the poor farmer.

Note that none of that was called or was regarded as tribute. But if the kingdom has been conquered, the conquerors might well demand a certain fixed amount as annual tribute. This could easily drive the king to raise his cut of the harvest (though kings rarely took proceeds directly, except on their own demesne lands), which he could sell in order to meet the tribute payment.

In story terms, a new tribute--either from a new conquest or threat, or just by a new demand--could well be the cause for new demands on the poor peasants. The king is desperate to avoid invasion and devastation, and so is driven to make demands on his own people that are unrealistic and cannot be met. Thus, conflict!

As for taking the children, that just seems peculiar. Children were taken from one society by another. In Western society I think of the sources for both Janissaries and Mamluks. But in both cases it was simply the ruling society coming into a village or town and scooping up what they wanted, rather than taking a fixed percentage. Taking 10%? How would that even work? It implies the ability to take an accurate census, first of all. Second, would the tribute be levied at a certain age? Would it entail male and female alike and indifferently? Would the tribute ignore health and fitness? What is the tribute for? Even if it's just an easy supply of slaves, not every kid is equally marketable. Suzanne Collins notwithstanding, societies do not easily give up their children.

 

[pmmg]

Yeah...perhaps I had to live in that time, but...IMO, if the deal is I give up my children to you, I think the war is not over.

 

[Aldarion]

Speaking *very* broadly, a lord might claim anywhere from 10% to 25% of the harvest. In places where taxation was regarded as onerous, that could rise to one-third, leaving only one-third of the harvest for the poor farmer.

Thanks! In Croatia traditionally 1/10 of harvest was earmarked for the lord and 1/10 for the Church. Of course, things varied with time and place...

Note that none of that was called or was regarded as tribute. But if the kingdom has been conquered, the conquerors might well demand a certain fixed amount as annual tribute. This could easily drive the king to raise his cut of the harvest (though kings rarely took proceeds directly, except on their own demesne lands), which he could sell in order to meet the tribute payment.

In story terms, a new tribute--either from a new conquest or threat, or just by a new demand--could well be the cause for new demands on the poor peasants. The king is desperate to avoid invasion and devastation, and so is driven to make demands on his own people that are unrealistic and cannot be met. Thus, conflict!

Note that in my story, and I suspect in the original myth as well, Fomorians rule the lands more-or-less directly. Old administration is either gone or repurposed for Fomorians' own needs, and they have established basically manorial system. So there is no "king" to raise his cut of the harvest; at most, you may have village chief which has to make sure that the nearest Fomorian warlord is satisfied enough not to come and burn the village.

Of course, Fomorians have their own kings...

As for taking the children, that just seems peculiar. Children were taken from one society by another. In Western society I think of the sources for both Janissaries and Mamluks. But in both cases it was simply the ruling society coming into a village or town and scooping up what they wanted, rather than taking a fixed percentage. Taking 10%? How would that even work? It implies the ability to take an accurate census, first of all. Second, would the tribute be levied at a certain age? Would it entail male and female alike and indifferently? Would the tribute ignore health and fitness? What is the tribute for? Even if it's just an easy supply of slaves, not every kid is equally marketable. Suzanne Collins notwithstanding, societies do not easily give up their children.

As far as the myth goes, I know only that Fomorians took the children - as noted, they require two-thirds of the children. That immediately brought Ottoman devsirme to my mind, but as you noted, Ottomans did not actually take a fixed percentage of children.

But a more-or-less accurate census would not be impossible I think. Roman and Ottoman empires both did it.

As for what it is for... well, servants, slaves and soldiers. Basically, what the Ottomans did with the devsirme: reinforce ranks of the state with people from conquered lands that would then help oppress their own countrymen.

Yeah...perhaps I had to live in that time, but...IMO, if the deal is I give up my children to you, I think the war is not over.

True... but that doesn't mean you aren't conquered. Ottomans regularly took children as a form of tribute - we called this the "blood tax" (danak u krvi):

Blood Tax (Devshirme) in Ottoman Empire

Blood tax or Devshirme was a system of slavery through which Ottoman Empire recruited its Janissary Corps. Janissary in fact comes from “Jeni Ceri”, or “new troops”. Slave s…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

 

[Gurkhal]

Apparently, Fomorians forced the

The Religion of the Ancient Celts: Chapter IV. The Irish ... | Sacred Texts Archive

Legends & Sagas: THREE divine and heroic cycles of myths are known in Ireland, one telling of the Tuatha Dé Danann, the others of Cúchulai...

sacred-texts.com

But would any society be able to actually maintain such a tribute? In my world, I reduced it to 10% of children and one-third of grain and cattle, but even that appears too heavy.

I would actually think that 10% of all the newborn and 30% of the harvest/grain as tribute could work pretty well for two main reasons.

For the first part, people who are well feed have more time and energy to plan and support rebellion. People who are halfway to starvation are more likely to spend time and energy to stay on the right side of starvation as opposed to plan rebellion or trouble.

A similar logic can be used with taking children, especially if the 10% is more of a guideline than quota is strictly controlled in its fullfillment with neither less nore more at any time or under any circumstance. If you cause trouble for the Fomorians, they take your children as punishment, if you stay obedient you are at far less risk and if you actively collaborate your children are safe.

The second part is that not all decisions and policies implemented are sustainable or won't blow up in the face of the ones implementing them. History is rife with examples of things people did that seems like, or even was, a pretty good idea at the time but blow up in their, or their descendents'/successors' faces further down the line. Just because this tribute isn't sustainable long term don't mean that it can't be implemented.

Maybe the Fomorians don't know enough of civilian matters to know its unstainable or maybe its intended to be done at this level for a shorter time until the targeted communities have been broken down and their will to resist is gone? After which the tribute can be softened.

 

[Aldarion]

I would actually think that 10% of all the newborn and 30% of the harvest/grain as tribute could work pretty well for two main reasons.

For the first part, people who are well feed have more time and energy to plan and support rebellion. People who are halfway to starvation are more likely to spend time and energy to stay on the right side of starvation as opposed to plan rebellion or trouble.

A similar logic can be used with taking children, especially if the 10% is more of a guideline than quota is strictly controlled in its fullfillment with neither less nore more at any time or under any circumstance. If you cause trouble for the Fomorians, they take your children as punishment, if you stay obedient you are at far less risk and if you actively collaborate your children are safe.

The second part is that not all decisions and policies implemented are sustainable or won't blow up in the face of the ones implementing them. History is rife with examples of things people did that seems like, or even was, a pretty good idea at the time but blow up in their, or their descendents'/successors' faces further down the line. Just because this tribute isn't sustainable long term don't mean that it can't be implemented.

Maybe the Fomorians don't know enough of civilian matters to know its unstainable or maybe its intended to be done at this level for a shorter time until the targeted communities have been broken down and their will to resist is gone? After which the tribute can be softened.

Thanks!

 

[Queshire]

Hmmm.... well, it might not help with numbers, but another example of kids taken from their communities would be the residential schools that some Native Americans were forced to attend way back when.