So with the Presidential Election less than a week away, it might be interesting to talk about the nature of Medieval America and electoral politics.
The first thing to talk about is Medieval America's relationship with elections and monarchies. Any longtime fans note the attempt, even in the feudal state, towards any monarchial nonclemature. The East Map, and the pages for the specific countries, gives the leaders names like President, Governor, and Colonel. As the Western U.S. gravitated towards absolutist states, and the East towards warlords and strongmen, they tried their best to keep up the illusion they had traditionally American titsles, and by the time people stopped caring that democracy was dead, there was probably little generational ambition to call themselves "king". Or perhaps it just remained a dirty word. The comparison bewteen the U.S. and Rome constantly abound, and Odoacer proclaiming himself king is considered by many to be the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire. But it's very interesting how "king" and "queen" have taken on an interesting, positive slang in today's culture. Particularly "Yass Queen!" Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if terms like "Queen" and "Princess" remained. The secondary status, and pageantry, of women in a medieval society probably means aa little pomp given to their soft power is harmless. And to some extent, those terms do have a contuinity on American traditions; The Voodoo Queens of course--it's actually very likely the term "queen" is used quite a lot in the Voodoo world. And the legend of Pocohantis has often played up the "princess" aspects, and of course, she is a Disney Princess. Nothing is as American as Disney, and perhaps no word is associated with "Princess" as much. But for the male royalists, it might be a little more complicated. "King" has been used more and more, both by the right-leaning pick-up artists, but even, perhaps semiironically, by those of a leftist persuasion (Who are from monarchists, but probably don't hold much esteem for intrisically American traditions, so it's all canclled out.) To be honest, Donald Trump has a niche but dedicated fanbase who like him not in spite of, but because of his royalist asthetic.
In terms of how people come to power? California has outright primogeniture, but Iowa and Desert are more in line with "elective monarchies", although it's possible that they generall follow straight successive lines (that's generally the point of monarchies, knowing who is going to rule), and may only be disrupted if the heir apparent is young or particularly unfit. There probably is an inordinate amount of civil wars. Interestingly, both California and Deseret have "Presidents" but Iowa has a "Colonel", so as far as we know these titles don't particularly correspond to how the transfer of power occurs.We know Red River has a "Colonel", (which means a Territory is something a Colonel rules), Georgia and the U.S. have "Presidents". (A part of me thinks Quebec, and Canada in general, should have old school royal titles)
Also, it might be interesting to tallk about the red and blue state aspects. They've retained a somewhat consistent continuity the last twenty years, with the fabled "swing states" making up the core of the Rust Belt (Which is probably the most recognizeably Medieval of Medieval America). Some of the biggest waves in terms of alignment has come from Ohio and Florida becoming more and more entrenched as "Red States", while the South (Particularly the Atlantic South) becoming more and more competitive as Blue States. A lot of this can probably be chalked up to racial groups forming into blocks that are more important than economic policy. I think this is worth thinking about, as the Gulf Coast, the regions of America that veer towards the Secretarial States, are probably the most "liberal" by our standards (though it's probably hard, even unfair, hold the modern axis to them.). To a large extent, I would say, and this is a very crude approximation, the Northeast would be socially conservative and economically liberal, much of the South would veer towards socially and economically liberal (As would the Cascadian city states), the Plains would be economically liberal and socially conservative, the Rust Belt would have a tendency to flip flop. The Desert States would probably be fiscally liberal (in the sense that that it is incredibly Statist) and social mores that it hews to very strictly, although somewhat bizarre to the sensibilities of outsiders. Like I said, you can't quite do a one-on-one comparison.
Friday, November 1, 2024
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Were-Creatures
The legend of the Werewolf is one of the oldest in Western civillization, trying to the wolf's status as an apex predator that haunted the wilds of Europe. It has gone on to reach the shores of America, with the creature being one of the core "classic" monsters in the horror genre. There's something of a wider variety of predators in America, and even further when you go in the Americas. Historically, the nature of nature of "were creatures" was a complete compartmentilzation between beast and man. A werewolf was either a man or a wolf, there was no bipedal but beastly intermediary. This was the case for European Werewolf stories, as well as found in the "skin-changer" stories from Indinginous Americans. For various reasons, American spins on these stories would veer towards a hybrid creature. I've mentioned before the nature of how "mutant" might become a catch-all name for animal human hybrids, although there probably should be distinction between humans who, through some kind of curse and sorcery, and one might say, a sub-species that combine human/animal attributes. (Though it should be said such categorization for the supernatural is a relatively recent human development. And the "were-jaguar" of Olmec motifs also blurs that line.
So what kind of other "were-creatures" would populate Medieval America, and would they supplant the Werewolf in this culture? Other canines in the America are the fox (Which are very common in Japanese folklore, but take on different connotations) and the coyote (Which may be somewhat less regarded than wolves) Were-bears would likely be extremely common in folklore, especially as their range in North America is more extensive (Though White has said wolves have since expanded since The Collapse). That they can stand upright may also evoke the link between bear and man, although in turn may make them less...evil than werewolves, the idea that a bear bridging that gap is somehow less unnatural. The ability to turn into cats is also extremely common throughout the world is quite common, even more common in world myths that have a wide variety of big cats. (Interestingly, there are very few cases of "were-lions", as if the western conception of the lion ahs made it too regal, even sacrosanct, to be the subject of unnatural transformations. The cougar, and as mentioned, jaguar are possible candidates, though bobcats are likely. It may be possible that, as in modern pop culture there's a tendency for feline transformations to be primarily female, that might find its way into the folklore.
There's various flying creatures, though through myth, the transformation into a bird is seen as more whimsical, and less sinister than other shapeshifting, although the owl might be an exception. (It should be said the so-called Mothman is actually more evocative of an owl than a moth. And then of course, there's vampires. Actual medieval stories of vampires could do no such thing--they were actually more akin to zombies. But as the connection with vampires and bats has come much more indelible (brought on the the vampire bat of the New World). Here, the lines between vampires and werewolves may become more blurry, or they might take on the rivalry that itself become part of the modern myth.
Perhaps the the most unqiue addition to folklore in the new Middle Ages is reptillian humanoids. They were not completely unhead of in myth and legend (For instance, the Naga), however for the most part the manifestation of our revuslion to reptiles is found in the dragon. Things like the works of Robert E. Howard, Sleestaks and the urban legend of "lizard people" (which should be said sometimes has xenophobic connotations) is a new interpretation. It's quite possible the idea of serpentine creatures taking human disguises is an ever-present fear, one the Non-Denominational Church may disavow (Much like how the Catholic Church actually discouraged the belief of witches until the early Modern Era.), but the the populace, these remnants of conspiracy theories and UFOlogy live and filtered in this new, more superstitious time. It should be said that in many of the above cases, a human that can transform into beasts was originally a human, but, in the popular imagination, the being was always a reptile first, and in fact, the human form is not a transformation, but a facade.
Sunday, September 1, 2024
Violently Midwestern
The addition of Tim Walz to the Democratic Presidential ticket, and the Minnesota Governor's sunsequent bump to the national stage, and the way he leans into his Midwestern persona, has many remarking about the various quirks of people who live in this part of the country. Hot dishes, Minnesota niceness, etc. In a lot of ways, the very defintion of what constitutes the Midwest has been exapansive and fluid. This map has people reasoning those in the Rocky Mountains might consider themselves Midwesterners. For his part, White seems to indicate, at least in the Mid-19th Century, the region counted among it Western Pennsylvania and even New York.
When we talk about the Midwest, and are serious about it, the absolutely proper roster is Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illiniois, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconisn, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, and the two Dakotas. The overall image of the Midwesterner is a somewhat placid, politically moderate wheat and meat disitillation of America. It's sometimes dimissed as bland, and almost having an anti-culture--whatever one might say disparagingly about Boston or New Jersey or the South, it's at least distinct. What defines a Medieval American Midwesterner is evidentally something very different.
On the history of Iowa page, it's explained that the culture of the Midwest was eradicated by the Hersdmen of the Great Plains, but slowly seeped back in. This infers to very promeninet points; 1) That there is a very distinct culture of the Midwest, to the extent burning down their cities and killing off their men can be considered "genocidal" and 2) The Plains tribes, is largely not that, even if they would likely live in places we would today consider the Midwest. What it is, we don't know, or if White would have ever elaborate what "culture of the Midwest" meant. It's very likely trying to worldbuild this society was perhaps a major source of writer's block. However, I have a few ideas. As Kansas is no longer part of this "zone", the idea of corn field and slightly dusty stretches of land will probably be dropped. In fact, the Great Lakes now make up a larger part of the real estate, as as such water a larger part of their headspace--in war, in mythology, in how they eat. In the modern era, the image of the Midwest is largely "rural" compared to the coast, and of course, that would be technically the case here, but as most people are farmers, it wouldn't be that much difference between it and say, California.
But most prominently of all, the Midwest, Ohio in particular, can be said to be the epicenter of Feudalism. The 20th Midwest is sort of characterized by its gentleness, but the Medival Midwest may in fact be the most war-torn place on the continent. It's probably where the arms race is at its fastest, where armor and weapons development are the most iconic. It would be very interesting if they developed a unique form of a chivarly--a code (which, if the Middle Ages of yore are an example, probably not followed that much) of valor that was put throught the filter of "Minnesota Nice".
On the history of Iowa page, it's explained that the culture of the Midwest was eradicated by the Hersdmen of the Great Plains, but slowly seeped back in. This infers to very promeninet points; 1) That there is a very distinct culture of the Midwest, to the extent burning down their cities and killing off their men can be considered "genocidal" and 2) The Plains tribes, is largely not that, even if they would likely live in places we would today consider the Midwest. What it is, we don't know, or if White would have ever elaborate what "culture of the Midwest" meant. It's very likely trying to worldbuild this society was perhaps a major source of writer's block. However, I have a few ideas. As Kansas is no longer part of this "zone", the idea of corn field and slightly dusty stretches of land will probably be dropped. In fact, the Great Lakes now make up a larger part of the real estate, as as such water a larger part of their headspace--in war, in mythology, in how they eat. In the modern era, the image of the Midwest is largely "rural" compared to the coast, and of course, that would be technically the case here, but as most people are farmers, it wouldn't be that much difference between it and say, California.
But most prominently of all, the Midwest, Ohio in particular, can be said to be the epicenter of Feudalism. The 20th Midwest is sort of characterized by its gentleness, but the Medival Midwest may in fact be the most war-torn place on the continent. It's probably where the arms race is at its fastest, where armor and weapons development are the most iconic. It would be very interesting if they developed a unique form of a chivarly--a code (which, if the Middle Ages of yore are an example, probably not followed that much) of valor that was put throught the filter of "Minnesota Nice".
Thursday, August 1, 2024
Twist and Turns
White never talked about this on the site, but it's possible one of the incentives for the Nomads of the Great Plains to not have settled communities is that it located smack dab in the middle of Tornado Alley. Tornadoes are an iconic, and all but unique aspect of America. (This is believed to be why the new Twisters movie is performing rather weakly overseas.) It is also of course, a major plot point of "The Wizard of Oz", the quintessential American fairy tale. They are not completely unknown to Europe, or the Middle Ages, but some reports were possibly not even tornadoes at all. In any case, over the wider old world continent, they generally pale in comparison to any of the central U.S. states. Texas, in particular is the one of the most populous states in the U.S., and even its Medieval incarnation boasts some three million inhabitants, and a few settled agricultural communities. (It's possible these farmers are kept under a heavy yoke by their Barbarian herder overlords, and are not wholly compassionate about the risks their vassals face by living in Tornado Alley. There's something of an urban myth that they're particularly attracted to trailer parks, but that's simply that trailers are more vulnerable to strong winds, and make for more vivid disaster photos. This may be signifigant, as it's quite possible that that the decline in civillization saw a lot more people living in trailer, or shacks, or other humble abodes. The routine devasatation brought on by these twisters possibly played a major part in the denizens throwing up their hands and declaring if the greatest natural disaster would roam unpredictably, so would they. The New Israelite doctrine may even frame them as God's wrath on those foolish enough to dig in the dirt and handle pigs. The Herdsmen regard tornadoes the way other cultures may regard great beasts, something to respect, feat, and point to as evidence that they are the strongest, because only they can survive and thrive among the most fearsome display of God's power
It should be said that the tornado belt is shifting eastwards. This may not be a major concern for Medieval Dixie per se, as they are also adjascent to the Hurricane belt, and their lifestyle and architecture probably works around that a lot (much of the American South may live lifestyles similar to the the typhoon-sundered Japan) but the Midwest, the core of the Feudal Core, the hub of population and perhaps the cornerstore of Americaqn chivalry, might have trouble adapting to this drift. That said, castles are probably a little more adapt to strong winds than glass skyscrapers, and in general Yankees might already have excelled in stonework for all but the most modest buildings, being they are well suited for the extremes of hot and cold they have to face. Also, the Medieval America project sort of handwaves the scenario has happening before humans could have permanantly messed up the climate. That said, the Old Northwest would still get the occasional tornadoes, and be adjescent to the epicenter, so it would still likely play a huge part in the culture--art, heraldry, and sobriquets of the most fearsome warriors.
It should be said that the tornado belt is shifting eastwards. This may not be a major concern for Medieval Dixie per se, as they are also adjascent to the Hurricane belt, and their lifestyle and architecture probably works around that a lot (much of the American South may live lifestyles similar to the the typhoon-sundered Japan) but the Midwest, the core of the Feudal Core, the hub of population and perhaps the cornerstore of Americaqn chivalry, might have trouble adapting to this drift. That said, castles are probably a little more adapt to strong winds than glass skyscrapers, and in general Yankees might already have excelled in stonework for all but the most modest buildings, being they are well suited for the extremes of hot and cold they have to face. Also, the Medieval America project sort of handwaves the scenario has happening before humans could have permanantly messed up the climate. That said, the Old Northwest would still get the occasional tornadoes, and be adjescent to the epicenter, so it would still likely play a huge part in the culture--art, heraldry, and sobriquets of the most fearsome warriors.
Monday, July 1, 2024
Going Ape
Last month saw the lates installment in the Planet of the Apes saga, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. Interestingly, one can very much trace my fascination and, I suppose, involvement with the Medieval America project to the series. The movies, particularly the opening for Battle, instilled in me the possiiblities for a reverted society, one that seemed closer to nature, as opposed to a decaying scavenger world (Although the film had some of that too).
Sussing out the actual civillization level for the Ape societies has always been a debate among fans. The original setting with its alien fashiion and archictecture probably obsfucates it a little, but things like guns, cameras, hoses and surgery makes it somewhat analagous to the mid 19th century. The 2001 Tim Burton movie largely presents Ape City as a distinctly pre-modern (If very opulent!) civillization although with odd elements like a Jazz band and a some kind of junior sports league, replete with matching jerseys. Such anarchronisms are probably to be expected, considering its origins (And White's Neo-Medieval world doubtless has a few), but the new Kingdom was the first to sort of explicitly go for a heroic fantasy quest vibe, and is perhaps the most adjacent to the Medieval American world.
Notably, the film has a scene where our heroes ecounter a herd of wild zebras. (actually, the term is supposed to be a "dazzle of zebras) Something that's always brought up is what kind of non-native animals would exist, escaping from zoos and private collections. (Like, Pablo's Escobar's hippos or the abslute mess that is the Everglades) White never really talked about that, simply that native fauna likes wolves could reclaim some of their territory. As I've mentioned in the past, and the last entry in particular, humans would probably never let too many exotic animals get that far, seeing them as pests or threats, or just resources to be harvested without culivating a sustainable population. Which brings us the to Great Apes themselves-this segment on Life After People (which likely inspired a lot of Kingom's lore) presents Chimps carving out a niche in Florida, but with these species already endangered on their home territory, could they last in Medieval America? Though perhaps in the more inpenetrable regions of the New World, they might do a little better. But it's also ingteresting to wonder, if they're around or not, how aware Medieval Americans are aware of the concept of apes. There is of course, the Bigfoot legend, and smaller monkeys are endemic to the Americas. (And the "ape vs monkey" distinction is a pretty amusing conversation, as great apes (which include humans) are actually a branch of monkey, and it should be said the two terms can be intelligible in many languages, particularly the romance languages (Of no small importance, as Planet of the Apes was originally a French novel, La Planète des singes.))
Overall I bring this up to sort of ponder how Planet of the Apes, if not something that would literally happen, would reoccur as a "piece of popular culture turned ancient legend" that's a recurring trope in post-apocalyptic fiction. It's something I try to use sparingly, but what's interesting about the Apes series is that is the franchise with the most pararells to the Medieval America concept (I don't think it could co-exist), with the most mmainstream penetration. Shannara and the Emberverse are still very niche, and the mad Max series, while a very iconic treatise on the reversion to Barbarism, still has a lot of industrial asthetics and resources that are esssential to the plot. So one is tempted to ask what kind of place it holds in the popular imagination; A cautionary tale, a looming threat, a belief that just as civillization could revert, humans could "de-evolve" (either into the dumb brutes of the series, or perhaps into apes themselves, similar to the stories of Conan the Barbarian.) Or perhaps, a "there but for the Grace of God" scenario, that things might be tough, but at least we're not game for killer Gorillas.
Sussing out the actual civillization level for the Ape societies has always been a debate among fans. The original setting with its alien fashiion and archictecture probably obsfucates it a little, but things like guns, cameras, hoses and surgery makes it somewhat analagous to the mid 19th century. The 2001 Tim Burton movie largely presents Ape City as a distinctly pre-modern (If very opulent!) civillization although with odd elements like a Jazz band and a some kind of junior sports league, replete with matching jerseys. Such anarchronisms are probably to be expected, considering its origins (And White's Neo-Medieval world doubtless has a few), but the new Kingdom was the first to sort of explicitly go for a heroic fantasy quest vibe, and is perhaps the most adjacent to the Medieval American world.
Notably, the film has a scene where our heroes ecounter a herd of wild zebras. (actually, the term is supposed to be a "dazzle of zebras) Something that's always brought up is what kind of non-native animals would exist, escaping from zoos and private collections. (Like, Pablo's Escobar's hippos or the abslute mess that is the Everglades) White never really talked about that, simply that native fauna likes wolves could reclaim some of their territory. As I've mentioned in the past, and the last entry in particular, humans would probably never let too many exotic animals get that far, seeing them as pests or threats, or just resources to be harvested without culivating a sustainable population. Which brings us the to Great Apes themselves-this segment on Life After People (which likely inspired a lot of Kingom's lore) presents Chimps carving out a niche in Florida, but with these species already endangered on their home territory, could they last in Medieval America? Though perhaps in the more inpenetrable regions of the New World, they might do a little better. But it's also ingteresting to wonder, if they're around or not, how aware Medieval Americans are aware of the concept of apes. There is of course, the Bigfoot legend, and smaller monkeys are endemic to the Americas. (And the "ape vs monkey" distinction is a pretty amusing conversation, as great apes (which include humans) are actually a branch of monkey, and it should be said the two terms can be intelligible in many languages, particularly the romance languages (Of no small importance, as Planet of the Apes was originally a French novel, La Planète des singes.))
Overall I bring this up to sort of ponder how Planet of the Apes, if not something that would literally happen, would reoccur as a "piece of popular culture turned ancient legend" that's a recurring trope in post-apocalyptic fiction. It's something I try to use sparingly, but what's interesting about the Apes series is that is the franchise with the most pararells to the Medieval America concept (I don't think it could co-exist), with the most mmainstream penetration. Shannara and the Emberverse are still very niche, and the mad Max series, while a very iconic treatise on the reversion to Barbarism, still has a lot of industrial asthetics and resources that are esssential to the plot. So one is tempted to ask what kind of place it holds in the popular imagination; A cautionary tale, a looming threat, a belief that just as civillization could revert, humans could "de-evolve" (either into the dumb brutes of the series, or perhaps into apes themselves, similar to the stories of Conan the Barbarian.) Or perhaps, a "there but for the Grace of God" scenario, that things might be tough, but at least we're not game for killer Gorillas.
Saturday, June 1, 2024
Livestock
Something that I was thinking about passing a farm, was how much more common horses would in Medieval America. Would we have "enough"? Granted a lot of this relies on the handwave inherent in the scenario and that we don't all destroy and gobble any available livestock, but it would be interesting to speculate whether we have a head start, or how much catching up to do.
The Medieval Demographics site states the livestock population for medieval society is something like 2 times the human population, two thirds being fowl, so that would be roughly 120 million plus animals, which would mean 80 million geese, chickens, maybe turkeys, with cows, sheep, goats and hogs being in the ranghe of 20 million. Cows would likely be inordinately small in that lineup, so maybe two million. On the other hand, there are large stretches of Medieval America that is occupied by pastoral tribes, (Who's model might not be covered under the MDME model) where the ratio might be as many as five cows to a person. However, these numbers refer to places which are maybe not as heavily industrialzed, but as still connected to the industrial world. So let's say there are three million herders in the heart of cow country, and give cut that ration in half. That would mean there are over ten million cows in Medieval America. Right now there are something like 90 million cows, so practically a literal decimation. However, this does mean we probably have a "pool" of cows to work with, we just don't need as many our modern age where we eat a lot more, especially beef. This is to say nothing of chickens whose numbers lay over a billion, and even the number of egg-laying hens (Which would be their primary purpose in a medieval society) almost matches this country, person for person. Pigs are slightly less numerous than cows, at roughly 60 million, although as it is there's a feral hog population that tends to get out of control, they probably don't need humans to keep a track on them for sustainability. The population of sheep is something like 5 million--it's actually been on a decline (supposedly most livestock numbers are down across the board). That's of course, relatively low, but still easily millions, and as they're also very popular pasture animals for somewhat scrappier terrains like New England and the American southwest, it's conceivable the number might be flat, or merely one half in the new Middle Ages. Goats are even scrappier, and they have the lowest population of the common barnyard animals, as their goods are relatively niche and they are not even particularly eaten as much as its literal stablemates. Medieval Americans would be much less picky (in turns because of the goat's lack of pickiness) and the goat population is almost certainly flat, maybe even greater than it is industrial times. I actually looked at more exotic pack animals: The llama and the camel. It seems the llama population is something like 40,000 and the camel population is something like 3,000. Those are perhaps good enough numbers for sustainability if one is willing and able to keep them, but it's a matter of novelty vs actual usefulness, as well as being occupied with surviving for a couple generations (After the fall of the Roman Empire, a lot of breeds were lost to time, and people had to start over, often with feral descendents of livestock. Llamas, being a little more numerous, and versatile, might still have a place, especially in Western America, but the camel might be too spread out, and have too few Americans specialized to working with them, to become one of the more common animals in civilization. However, they *did* originally once inhabit the continent, so it's not out of the question some wild herds wander here and there.
And of course, what about the horse, the animal that brohght us here? In the contemporary United States of America, there are seven million horses. They are very rarely used for utilitarian purposes, and almost never eaten, but tend to exist as pets or for hobbyists or entertainment. In the Middle Ages, they would return to being used for war and draft animals. They very, very expensive to keep, perhaps more akin to having a yacht than a car? So how many are in Medieval America? Well, there is not actual figure I could find (Assuming Medieval Demographics Made Easy does not count them, and it does not refer to horses in its livestock information.) But extrapolating, it's said that a knight on average had five horses, and I would say there are probably something half a million knights, and thus two and half million horses. We can possibly double that for farms, merchants, scribes and messengers, and few other miscellanous activties. And that's for the settled population. I've seen claims of Mongol Empire having as many as 60 million horses, definitely claims that each warrior had to have five. (That's about a million in Medieval America). Keep in mind they would have not have as many horses as the mongols, as cattle are just as important to their culture, but I still feel comfortable with a population of at least two million, and I think it could go as five. So overall, I would say there are ten million horses in Medieval America, about a 30% uptick, not too shabby, and maybe not as large an increase as one might think, quite possibly the largest in terms of livestock.
The Medieval Demographics site states the livestock population for medieval society is something like 2 times the human population, two thirds being fowl, so that would be roughly 120 million plus animals, which would mean 80 million geese, chickens, maybe turkeys, with cows, sheep, goats and hogs being in the ranghe of 20 million. Cows would likely be inordinately small in that lineup, so maybe two million. On the other hand, there are large stretches of Medieval America that is occupied by pastoral tribes, (Who's model might not be covered under the MDME model) where the ratio might be as many as five cows to a person. However, these numbers refer to places which are maybe not as heavily industrialzed, but as still connected to the industrial world. So let's say there are three million herders in the heart of cow country, and give cut that ration in half. That would mean there are over ten million cows in Medieval America. Right now there are something like 90 million cows, so practically a literal decimation. However, this does mean we probably have a "pool" of cows to work with, we just don't need as many our modern age where we eat a lot more, especially beef. This is to say nothing of chickens whose numbers lay over a billion, and even the number of egg-laying hens (Which would be their primary purpose in a medieval society) almost matches this country, person for person. Pigs are slightly less numerous than cows, at roughly 60 million, although as it is there's a feral hog population that tends to get out of control, they probably don't need humans to keep a track on them for sustainability. The population of sheep is something like 5 million--it's actually been on a decline (supposedly most livestock numbers are down across the board). That's of course, relatively low, but still easily millions, and as they're also very popular pasture animals for somewhat scrappier terrains like New England and the American southwest, it's conceivable the number might be flat, or merely one half in the new Middle Ages. Goats are even scrappier, and they have the lowest population of the common barnyard animals, as their goods are relatively niche and they are not even particularly eaten as much as its literal stablemates. Medieval Americans would be much less picky (in turns because of the goat's lack of pickiness) and the goat population is almost certainly flat, maybe even greater than it is industrial times. I actually looked at more exotic pack animals: The llama and the camel. It seems the llama population is something like 40,000 and the camel population is something like 3,000. Those are perhaps good enough numbers for sustainability if one is willing and able to keep them, but it's a matter of novelty vs actual usefulness, as well as being occupied with surviving for a couple generations (After the fall of the Roman Empire, a lot of breeds were lost to time, and people had to start over, often with feral descendents of livestock. Llamas, being a little more numerous, and versatile, might still have a place, especially in Western America, but the camel might be too spread out, and have too few Americans specialized to working with them, to become one of the more common animals in civilization. However, they *did* originally once inhabit the continent, so it's not out of the question some wild herds wander here and there.
And of course, what about the horse, the animal that brohght us here? In the contemporary United States of America, there are seven million horses. They are very rarely used for utilitarian purposes, and almost never eaten, but tend to exist as pets or for hobbyists or entertainment. In the Middle Ages, they would return to being used for war and draft animals. They very, very expensive to keep, perhaps more akin to having a yacht than a car? So how many are in Medieval America? Well, there is not actual figure I could find (Assuming Medieval Demographics Made Easy does not count them, and it does not refer to horses in its livestock information.) But extrapolating, it's said that a knight on average had five horses, and I would say there are probably something half a million knights, and thus two and half million horses. We can possibly double that for farms, merchants, scribes and messengers, and few other miscellanous activties. And that's for the settled population. I've seen claims of Mongol Empire having as many as 60 million horses, definitely claims that each warrior had to have five. (That's about a million in Medieval America). Keep in mind they would have not have as many horses as the mongols, as cattle are just as important to their culture, but I still feel comfortable with a population of at least two million, and I think it could go as five. So overall, I would say there are ten million horses in Medieval America, about a 30% uptick, not too shabby, and maybe not as large an increase as one might think, quite possibly the largest in terms of livestock.
Wednesday, May 1, 2024
War and Government Flips
Texas/Anderson Territory: While this region seems to be very much in line with the wider Nomadic Herdsman/New Israelite culture, it is a feudal state. White has mentioned that pastoralism is not only an incidental way of life, but very much a moral one, and farmers are looked down upon. This might mean the area is occupied by thralls: Farms and villages where the Herdsmen are either the leige lords, or come around every once and a while to collect tribute (Much like Russia during the Mongol occupation.) The Andersons somewhat hypocritically enjoy the benefits of civillization while leaving peasants to do their dirty work. It's unknown if they subeject fellow New Isratelites to a double indignity, or they're a population of Non-Denominationals, Catholics, etc who occupy this rung. If so, this would suggest the faiths of Medieval America are a lot more pluralistic, and White's map merely exhibit the relgion of the ruling class.
Iowa:By contrast, Iowa is a realm that is slowly moving away their nomadic ways, and trying the embrace the culture of the East, and the split between the two sides of the Mississippi is one of a realm still in transition. The ruling family still has to make concessions to the nomads that buffer to the Great Plains, and it's also likely that it's a harder way of life to break away from. (White has mentioned horse archery was a lot more common at the beginning of the collapse, and it's also true that horse archery is a form of combat with a longer history in America.) It remains to be seen if the knights and castles thing is an invetiability for Iowa.
The Apppalachians: I've definitely mentioned this before, but while it's true pikmen are something familair to cities, in medieval times they're not out of place in rugged mountain areas, like the Alps or Scottish Highlands. Really, a lot of Appalchian culture is infromed by immigrants from Scotland and Ireland, and while the maps do say these areas are feudal states, they probably run very similarly to clans found in that time and place. They're not great places to wage warefare with horses, and the soil is probably not great for feeding them, or raising big feudal manors to begin with.
New Jersey: This "discrepency" was in many ways the thing that had be asking questions and creating this very blog. Both northern coasts of the continent are occupied by city states, martime republics, or ecclestical fiefs, in general a very urbanized, town-based society. New Jersey is a little different in that it's clearly a feudal state, and it probably is a little more agrarian than the rest of the region. However, it does boast the largest city in the Northeast, (Phialdelphia), and the distance between it and Trenton looks to be the shortest distance between two cities. So I constantly wonder what New Jersey society is like, where it has a lot of leige lords, but relatively little knights. It's actually quite logical in a lot of ways, as Jersey is kind of compact and hemmed in, and probably fights more defensive, seige-based warfare. It's quite possible it just hires a lot of mercenaries from the rest of the region, people from the Appalachians or New Englands who have come to greener pastures to find their fortunes. I've actually also kicked around the idea of New Jersey resembling Ancient Sparta--many considered a little more feudal than the nearby Greek City states, and at times had to be prodded into improving its naval capabilities.
United States: Something I've mused on many times is why the Delmarva Pensisula is so heavily knight-based, even though the U.S. is a Republic, a thalassocracy, and the pensinsular itself being a little cut off. I've always wondered about the practical use for this as well as the logistics, but it certainly keeps the area defended. From an aesthetic point of view, it is kind of neat to imagine knights carrying the U.S. Federal banner to be something like a cross between the American Civil War and the Crusades.
In summation, I think all these sort of distinct, quirky units (Feudal Texas Archers, New Jersey Pikemen Lords, U.S. Federal Knights), all deserve their own sort of name, made up whatever new language arises in Medieval America. Also of note it that the secretarial states also have their own knights, though I'm not sure if they are particularly different from the rest of the nights found in the Deep South.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)