Hi all,
in the recent discussion of feudalism and feudal technocracy it seems
there has been some talking at cross-purposes.
Some relevant powers of a feudal king which have not been mentioned
are the powers to grant new titles and existing unheld titles and the
administration of disputes between vassals( and hence law). This power is
significant when it comes to the sharing-out of newly obtained resources,
whether from conquest, purchase or legal skulduggery.
The feudal system is inherently unstable, especially in times of transition
when there may be no clear heir or successor. (this sounds familiar...oops
:-) ). It involves a continual struggle for power between the king and the
vassals and between the vassals, as the king attempts to safeguard his
position by centralising power, and the vassals attempt to strengthen
their positions, and reduce the king's power (consciously or otherwise).
David Johnson has been alluding to the "strong barons" version of
feudalism where the vassals are in a position to pick and choose their
king(IMHO). Hans Rancke has written about a "strong king" version of
feudalism where the vassals are due to circumstances stuck with the
current king, like it or not. Both these versions are historically
recorded examples of the feudal system in action.
In the first version the king's power is limited to what the vassals
will accept. This may even go so far as to the king being relegated to a
figurehead. The vassals are most definitely the owners of their feifs and will
strenuously resist interference in them by the king( or anyone else for that
matter). Here the vassals may form a united block behind a figurehead king
(oligarchy-like) or may squabble disastrously as an ineffectual king's calls
for peace and unity are ignored. In the latter case the king may fall and
total balkanisation may ensue if no resolution is reached.
In the second version the king is most definitely boss, with overwhelming
support from the majority of his vassals. In this position the king is
very powerful, and effectively does control 'everything'. He can introduce
laws strengthening his rule, declare rebellious vassals to be outlaws and
strip them of their holding,(to be awarded to loyal followers), and pretty much
do as he likes. If this continues for long enough the government may change
to another type, such as a dictatorship. (In this version of feudalism all
land WAS ultimately ruled by the king, and doled out to his loyal vassals).
The normal feudal position is between these two extremes. The king is
powerful and has significant latitude of action, but must listen to his
vassals and be careful not to upset the majority of them too much.
The vassals wish stability and will follow the king unless he becomes
too unreasonable or overbearing in his rulings.
David wishes to prove that Sacnoth should rule the Sword Worlds by virtue of
its TL advantage over the official ruling planet, Gram. While is certainly
possible for this change to occur, it is by no means automatic. There are
many other relevant factors which are not specified and which would affect
the outcome. It is possible to set up a campaign to justify almost any
prejudice a referee has. Maybe Sacnoth has a policy of appeasement so they
are not the ones bombed by an attacking force. Maybe there is something in
the atmosphere or soil of Sacnoth that makes the inhabitants less aggressive,
or conversely the inhabitants of Gram are more aggressive. Maybe the Zhodani
are mind-controlling the Sacnothians into acquiescence etc, etc. Anything can
be justified, nothing is automatic.
Hope my contribution to this thread makes sense,
Tom
Tom O'Neill | [email removed] [email removed]
- ---------------!--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact is stranger than fiction