howard at brazee.net
Mon Feb 13 01:41:33 GMT 2012
On Feb 12, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Tel wrote:
> By Miles, the lord has some obligation to provide food, clothing,
> shelter, and armament and also there's some stuff regarding family he
> doesn't go into.
> And, uh, that's about it. Aside from the weapons, these things were
> normally provided to slaves (and even the weapons, sometimes...).
> Notably, it's stated more than once an armsman does -not- have the
> right to unilaterally resign.
> In balance to that is the obligations, which Miles also doesn't fully
> detail but describes elsewhere as "the dubious privilege of following
> my orders to the letter", and the rights the lord has over the
> armsman, which Miles describes as including but not remotely limited
> to the right to prevent him from getting married and the right to
> instantly execute the armsman for disobeying orders in combat.
> And maybe the other sheaf of rights over the armsman's person are also
> limited to x situation where y circumstance applies. But (key point)
> who decides -whether- you're in x situation where y circumstance
> applies? Well, the lord. If you're in disagreement with the lord on
> whether that's true, you're SOL.
> The thing about instant execution is that there's no appeal. (But
> there doesn't seem to be an appeal anyway...)
> Societies less feudal than Barrayar usually make a strong effort to
> put disputes like that under the jurisdiction of an unrelated third
> party. One of the really major problems with Barrayaran jurisprudence
> is that it -doesn't do that- for disputes involving the elite. They're
> either (usually) immune from prosecution, judging their own case, or
> judged solely by their peers in the high nobility.
I'm not sure those are necessarily feudal characteristics. Lots of states have similar issues without the feudal system of property control.
More information about the Lois-Bujold