Me>> Surely a Humakti would simply be content with a life as a Huscarl
>> in the service of his chief or king? What's the point of giving them
>> land if they are going to be utterly useless at working it?
>Prestige. The Humakti would get some cottars or carls to work his
>lands, and would thus have clients who would support him.
David Weihe was speaking in terms of feudalism which is different than the clan deciding that a Humakti within their clan has rights to till a certain steed. So simply remarking 'prestige' does not answer the question at all. Why would a clan alienate some of its own lands to give to a Humakti?
So what if the Humakti brings in tenant farmers? All they do is to prevent the clan's own members from working the land and allow strangers to work it. Before long, they be claiming the land as their's and ignoring the clan's title to them. So what if the Humakti swears an oath? They're not immortal and his heir may refuse to reswear the oath of loyalty or the famers will refuse to accept the new land-owner.
>Of course, as you point out, the Humakti is probably a weaponthane in
>service of a chief or king, and thus this is a sneaky way of the
>chief of king raising his own prestige.
You really are going to have to explain this one for I don't see how a clan could possibly get prestige from giving up its own land or why the act should be "sneaky"?
Powered by hypermail