Iyfjky

Question

So, in my story, the entire world has just went to absolute crap. The largest war in human history, WW3 in October 1962, has just caused destruction in most of America and the Soviet Union, along with Europe and populated sections of China.

About half a millennium later, in the year 2468, America is a twisted land. Especially the Great Plains of North America. In a 100 miles stretch of land, from North Dakota to Iowa, there is a horrific treat: the Buffalo Men.

The Buffalo Men are a tribe of cow herders who ride on horseback across the Plains. They are pagans, who believe the Mother Earth and Father Sky punished mankind for their arrogance and misuse of technology. They often go on raids, burning down cities, killing and enslaving people, and other nasty things. They are important to my plot.

But I canÃ¢Â€Â™t wrap my head around one fact. The Buffalo Men live in the Great Plains, where farming land is abundant and useful. It would make more sense for them to settle down and farm, to get more resources. So, my question is, what is a logical explanation for why the Buffalo Men donÃ¢Â€Â™t start farming?

To my knowledge, the main thing stopping people from starting agriculture usually stems from the lack of a consistent food source. If your Buffalo Men are herding cows, it's likely because they need to keep moving to find more food for the cows to eat. I get the feeling you envision the Great Plains as being vast swathes of farmland, but I'm sure you could invent some reason for that to not be the case. — 1 hour ago

score 3 · Answer 1 · 2018-09-24 04:24:14Z

Sedentary Lifestyles aren't Necessarily Easier

The problem with being a sedentary farmer is that once you get your seeds in the ground you now have a long standing commitment to care for that plot of land. Folks don't really know now days because all our food comes from the grocery store, but pre-industrial farming ain't easy. Its 12 hour work days 7 days a week for months on end, followed by a frenzy of panicked activity. THis burst of frenetic labor will hopefully, weather, pests, crop choice, soil chemistry, and water availability permitting results in a harvest. If just one of those variables goes wrong guess what? You better be ready to heavily reduce or quit that whole eating habit until next year. Contrary to popular belief, people did not always experience famines in the dead of winter unless that year was REALLY bad. They starved in the summer because that's the period farthest from the last harvest. Imagine the maddening feeling of starving to death while luxurious green lush plants that aren't bearing fruit yet are growing from the soil. Pre-industrial farming was not fun. It was a ton of work, sometimes for little to no return on investment.

The other problem in a situation where social cohesion has broken down is that you are stuck defending that plot of land. Those lush green crops coming in perfectly (thanks in no small part to your and your entire clan or tribe's slavish back breaking labor) are a huge billboard that says "You could probably pillage the crap out of us." So on top of the grueling labor you also need to figure out how to defend a vary large plot of land. In summary, the reasons why farming sucks are back breaking labor, predatory neighbors, and no guarantee that you will even get fed once its all done. Last but not least, if things don't go your way you are stuck there suffering through it. You cannot just pack up an entire farm and move it to some place where conditions are better and attackers are farther away right?

Or could you....

Yes You Can

Nomadic Herdsmen are in the simplest terms, mobile farmers. They are simply raising animals instead of crops. If the rain is bad and there isn't enough water for the herd, pack it up and move it. Not enough grasslands to graze? Pack it up and move it. Hostile neighbors you don't think you can fight and win against? Pack it all up and move it. Your options for handling crisis are a lot wider than that of a sedentary farmer. The attributes of this lifestyle have throughout history been attractive enough for entire cultures to form around nomadic herding, many of which have been quite successful and prosperous. When there is enough unoccupied land and there are suitable domesticated species to herd you will always find herdsmen moving from place to place with their animals.

Nomadic Herdsmen Have Historically Been Violent

There is a major downside to being nomadic, and its that you can't really specialize in anything. Those finer things in life that require complex manufacture are not going to be made by nomadic people. See, sedentary farming has it's drawbacks, but once it has gotten up and running it tends to produce enough surplus for people to not always have to be farming. These people use this free time to specialize in stuff like making complex goods, selling rare and exotic goods, soldiery and weapons making and then trade thier services or wealth with the farmers for food (or declare yourself leader and tax everybody for it). To be sure, tribesmen are usually perfectly willing to trade for things they can't make. But the other problem is that when sedentary agricultural societies begin to do well they tend to explode in population requiring more land, more water, and more space.

After a while the combination of shrinking pastures, lack of complex resources and wealth, and a general tough and mobile unattached lifestyle makes raiding the dirt farmers for things you want more and more attractive. They are rich, you are poor, they are fat, you are scrappy, and just look at em, sitting there with all that cool stuff so much more than they could ever possible carry. just growing food on all that land they and not even raising one cow! They're basically begging to be raided!

After a while nomadic herdsmen figure out that following a bunch of dumb animals everywhere Isn't as cool as it used to be compared to how profitable jacking a bunch of farmer's stuff is. They still do the nomadic herd thing, they can't be raiding all the time. But come raiding season (usually late summer and early fall) its time to go get some cool new goodies, free coin, and maybe try out some different women who don't smell like horses and cow paddies. Believe it or not entire nations were (pardon the very distateful pun) sacked by nomadic raiders because they had exceptionally pretty women. It is an unfortunate fact of history that rape was a very major motivating force for raids.

But wait, what about people who didnÃ¢Â€Â™t farm? Barons, knights, kings, craftsmen, traders? How did they get feed? — 24 mins ago
See the whole "people can begin specializing in different fields and trade their services for food" portion of the answer. — 20 mins ago
Ã¢Â€ÂœPeople can begin specializing in different fields and trade their services for foodÃ¢Â€Â IsnÃ¢Â€Â™t that just what we do nowadays though? I though back in the Middle Ages, everyone either made food or stole it? — 16 mins ago
By our cultural standards we would consider it theft, because we live in a fairly egalitarian society. In the middle ages Knights, barons, and lords and such were providing valuable services, and paid themselves in the form of tithes and taxation. The nobility's primary concern was organizing military defense, and to do that you need money, food, and men who are learning how to fight instead of how to farm (who need to be paid). — 2 mins ago

score 1 · Answer 2 · 2018-09-24 03:50:37Z

Twentieth century farming relied on industry to achieve its fantastic yields. Hybrid seeds, combine harvesters, tractors, and irrigation pumps are not tools that a society that has reverted to barbarism will be able to re-generate easily. In our world, they took centuries to develop. The profits from vast markets were used to build the factories that made them.

Without the aid of these technologies, crop yields are much lower. (Like 90% to 97% lower.) As shown repeatedly in the Little House on the Prairie series, the Great Plains are prone to natural disasters that make it hard to make a living as a subsistence farmer. The winters are harsh; the summers are hot; sometimes there are droughts; and plagues of locusts cannot be ruled out.

Furthermore, even if a majority of the Buffalo Men decided to settle down and farm, they would likely be wiped out be the remainder. Without the backing of a great power's army, isolated settlers would be at great risk from the violent nomads.

L.Dutchâ™¦ 64.1k20151301 · Answer 3 · 2018-09-24 03:31:41Z

Intensive agriculture requires machine to cultivate large fields with low effort and chemistry to fertilize the ground and remove bugs from the crops.

Chemistry and mechanization are likely to be among the hardest thing to find in a post nuclear war world with collapsed society and knowledge. Better let grass grow and go after the herbivores feeding on that grass.

Tim B II 21.3k44790 · Answer 4 · 2018-09-24 03:34:55Z

The American Great Plains may contain abundant and useful farming land now, but that doesn't mean that it always has, or that it'll stay that way. A strong part of why that land is useful is because it has regular rainfall. VERY regular rainfall by comparison to many other regions of the globe. The consistency of weather is its real value, but you have to remember is that weather patterns change.

The Sahara is currently one of the most barren deserts on the planet, but seems to go through a regular 30k year or so cycle of greening, then back to desert.

Several South American civilisations crumbled almost overnight due to drought in previous millennia, and the need for the inhabitants to migrate to find water.

On geological timescales, even Antarctica was a verdant rainforest.

Sure, we're only talking about 500 years but you have to remember that we've just converted these plains to wasteland through nuclear weapons at the beginning of that time. There just isn't enough science (thank goodness) on what would happen to the plains as a result of the nuclear winter, or if other changes to the environment as a result of the war would have cumulative effects on that land over a 500 year period.

Finally, if the farmland is useful for crops, it's also useful for pasturing, meaning that being herders may also be a lifestyle choice. Admittedly, this is less likely from an efficiency perspective; it takes a lot more energy (and water) to herd meat than it does to grow crops, but there could also be a safety factor involved, especially from early on after the war; a static patch of land with your crops on it has to be defended at all costs from raiders and the like, but with a herd you at least have the option to run instead if the odds are not in your favour.

Between ecological change, no access to modern farming technology, and emergent culture, there's probably some plausible reasons for them to do this but ultimately the impact of a nuclear war on farmland is likely to be devastating for at least a generation or two who try to subsist off the land. This would be especially so given the sudden disappearance of modern fertlisers, insecticides, GM seeds, etc.

That might be enough to get people out of the habit.

score 3 · Answer 5 · 2018-09-24 04:24:14Z

Sedentary Lifestyles aren't Necessarily Easier

The problem with being a sedentary farmer is that once you get your seeds in the ground you now have a long standing commitment to care for that plot of land. Folks don't really know now days because all our food comes from the grocery store, but pre-industrial farming ain't easy. Its 12 hour work days 7 days a week for months on end, followed by a frenzy of panicked activity. THis burst of frenetic labor will hopefully, weather, pests, crop choice, soil chemistry, and water availability permitting results in a harvest. If just one of those variables goes wrong guess what? You better be ready to heavily reduce or quit that whole eating habit until next year. Contrary to popular belief, people did not always experience famines in the dead of winter unless that year was REALLY bad. They starved in the summer because that's the period farthest from the last harvest. Imagine the maddening feeling of starving to death while luxurious green lush plants that aren't bearing fruit yet are growing from the soil. Pre-industrial farming was not fun. It was a ton of work, sometimes for little to no return on investment.

The other problem in a situation where social cohesion has broken down is that you are stuck defending that plot of land. Those lush green crops coming in perfectly (thanks in no small part to your and your entire clan or tribe's slavish back breaking labor) are a huge billboard that says "You could probably pillage the crap out of us." So on top of the grueling labor you also need to figure out how to defend a vary large plot of land. In summary, the reasons why farming sucks are back breaking labor, predatory neighbors, and no guarantee that you will even get fed once its all done. Last but not least, if things don't go your way you are stuck there suffering through it. You cannot just pack up an entire farm and move it to some place where conditions are better and attackers are farther away right?

Or could you....

Yes You Can

Nomadic Herdsmen are in the simplest terms, mobile farmers. They are simply raising animals instead of crops. If the rain is bad and there isn't enough water for the herd, pack it up and move it. Not enough grasslands to graze? Pack it up and move it. Hostile neighbors you don't think you can fight and win against? Pack it all up and move it. Your options for handling crisis are a lot wider than that of a sedentary farmer. The attributes of this lifestyle have throughout history been attractive enough for entire cultures to form around nomadic herding, many of which have been quite successful and prosperous. When there is enough unoccupied land and there are suitable domesticated species to herd you will always find herdsmen moving from place to place with their animals.

Nomadic Herdsmen Have Historically Been Violent

There is a major downside to being nomadic, and its that you can't really specialize in anything. Those finer things in life that require complex manufacture are not going to be made by nomadic people. See, sedentary farming has it's drawbacks, but once it has gotten up and running it tends to produce enough surplus for people to not always have to be farming. These people use this free time to specialize in stuff like making complex goods, selling rare and exotic goods, soldiery and weapons making and then trade thier services or wealth with the farmers for food (or declare yourself leader and tax everybody for it). To be sure, tribesmen are usually perfectly willing to trade for things they can't make. But the other problem is that when sedentary agricultural societies begin to do well they tend to explode in population requiring more land, more water, and more space.

After a while the combination of shrinking pastures, lack of complex resources and wealth, and a general tough and mobile unattached lifestyle makes raiding the dirt farmers for things you want more and more attractive. They are rich, you are poor, they are fat, you are scrappy, and just look at em, sitting there with all that cool stuff so much more than they could ever possible carry. just growing food on all that land they and not even raising one cow! They're basically begging to be raided!

After a while nomadic herdsmen figure out that following a bunch of dumb animals everywhere Isn't as cool as it used to be compared to how profitable jacking a bunch of farmer's stuff is. They still do the nomadic herd thing, they can't be raiding all the time. But come raiding season (usually late summer and early fall) its time to go get some cool new goodies, free coin, and maybe try out some different women who don't smell like horses and cow paddies. Believe it or not entire nations were (pardon the very distateful pun) sacked by nomadic raiders because they had exceptionally pretty women. It is an unfortunate fact of history that rape was a very major motivating force for raids.

But wait, what about people who didnÃ¢Â€Â™t farm? Barons, knights, kings, craftsmen, traders? How did they get feed? — 24 mins ago
See the whole "people can begin specializing in different fields and trade their services for food" portion of the answer. — 20 mins ago
Ã¢Â€ÂœPeople can begin specializing in different fields and trade their services for foodÃ¢Â€Â IsnÃ¢Â€Â™t that just what we do nowadays though? I though back in the Middle Ages, everyone either made food or stole it? — 16 mins ago
By our cultural standards we would consider it theft, because we live in a fairly egalitarian society. In the middle ages Knights, barons, and lords and such were providing valuable services, and paid themselves in the form of tithes and taxation. The nobility's primary concern was organizing military defense, and to do that you need money, food, and men who are learning how to fight instead of how to farm (who need to be paid). — 2 mins ago

score 1 · Answer 6 · 2018-09-24 03:50:37Z

Twentieth century farming relied on industry to achieve its fantastic yields. Hybrid seeds, combine harvesters, tractors, and irrigation pumps are not tools that a society that has reverted to barbarism will be able to re-generate easily. In our world, they took centuries to develop. The profits from vast markets were used to build the factories that made them.

Without the aid of these technologies, crop yields are much lower. (Like 90% to 97% lower.) As shown repeatedly in the Little House on the Prairie series, the Great Plains are prone to natural disasters that make it hard to make a living as a subsistence farmer. The winters are harsh; the summers are hot; sometimes there are droughts; and plagues of locusts cannot be ruled out.

Furthermore, even if a majority of the Buffalo Men decided to settle down and farm, they would likely be wiped out be the remainder. Without the backing of a great power's army, isolated settlers would be at great risk from the violent nomads.

L.Dutchâ™¦ 64.1k20151301 · Answer 7 · 2018-09-24 03:31:41Z

Intensive agriculture requires machine to cultivate large fields with low effort and chemistry to fertilize the ground and remove bugs from the crops.

Chemistry and mechanization are likely to be among the hardest thing to find in a post nuclear war world with collapsed society and knowledge. Better let grass grow and go after the herbivores feeding on that grass.

Tim B II 21.3k44790 · Answer 8 · 2018-09-24 03:34:55Z

The American Great Plains may contain abundant and useful farming land now, but that doesn't mean that it always has, or that it'll stay that way. A strong part of why that land is useful is because it has regular rainfall. VERY regular rainfall by comparison to many other regions of the globe. The consistency of weather is its real value, but you have to remember is that weather patterns change.

The Sahara is currently one of the most barren deserts on the planet, but seems to go through a regular 30k year or so cycle of greening, then back to desert.

Several South American civilisations crumbled almost overnight due to drought in previous millennia, and the need for the inhabitants to migrate to find water.

On geological timescales, even Antarctica was a verdant rainforest.

Sure, we're only talking about 500 years but you have to remember that we've just converted these plains to wasteland through nuclear weapons at the beginning of that time. There just isn't enough science (thank goodness) on what would happen to the plains as a result of the nuclear winter, or if other changes to the environment as a result of the war would have cumulative effects on that land over a 500 year period.

Finally, if the farmland is useful for crops, it's also useful for pasturing, meaning that being herders may also be a lifestyle choice. Admittedly, this is less likely from an efficiency perspective; it takes a lot more energy (and water) to herd meat than it does to grow crops, but there could also be a safety factor involved, especially from early on after the war; a static patch of land with your crops on it has to be defended at all costs from raiders and the like, but with a herd you at least have the option to run instead if the odds are not in your favour.

Between ecological change, no access to modern farming technology, and emergent culture, there's probably some plausible reasons for them to do this but ultimately the impact of a nuclear war on farmland is likely to be devastating for at least a generation or two who try to subsist off the land. This would be especially so given the sudden disappearance of modern fertlisers, insecticides, GM seeds, etc.

That might be enough to get people out of the habit.

Search This Blog

Iyfjky

Why would the tribes choose herding instead of agriculture, in the Great Plains?

4 Answers
4

Your Answer

Post as a guest

4 Answers
4

4 Answers
4

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being â€œbabysatâ€ by supervisor

What does second last employer means? [closed]

One-line joke

Category

Random preview

Why would the tribes choose herding instead of agriculture, in the Great Plains?

4 Answers 4

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

4 Answers 4

4 Answers 4

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being â€œbabysatâ€ by supervisor

What does second last employer means? [closed]

One-line joke

4 Answers
4

4 Answers
4

4 Answers
4

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being â€œbabysatâ€ by supervisor