Re: Lands of the Barbarian Kings
Very generally speaking I'd say kind of yes. However, from what I have learned, the american colonization had a very strong image of expansion and taming the land, and it would always go further west until you reach the goal of the Pacific.
Which in this case wouldn't apply. There is just not nearly enough people to completely control just small parts of the region. There is no goal to be completed and expansion itself is not much of a concern. It's difficult enough to keep population levels and the number of settlements stable. Instead, progress would clearly be quality over quantity. Better defensen than the last village in the spot, better growth of crops, and better coordination and exchange with other settlements in the area. When in one spot a village failed and some decades later someone tries to build a new one in the same place, the idea is to make this one last much longer and offer more safety and comfort to the people.
- d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting
<dbzfanover9000> Monocles and eye patches= king of the universe