Re: Consequence when breaking the caste taboo's in rokari society

From: Grimmund <grimmund_at_jTNaZK7KrjqARX8jz1YqTgXA9m96pyTjGj8-Vw2CvOmPX4anU68iEqKxYwmWuu39gDB>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:37:41 -0600

On Jan 12, 2008 9:56 PM, Peter Metcalfe <> wrote:
> The King likes it as fighting on distant fields gives
> the nobles less time to plot against the king.

Not to mention the expansion of the borders. And a place to send your more annoying nobles, where they may just get themselves killed, with no blame attaching to you.

>The Nobles also
> like this because the acquired glory of foreign conquest makes
> it less likely that the King will move against them.

And, if it's anything like historic contexts, the potential income from looting, and from ransoming captured opposing nobles.

Swords and rebellion:

Don't go too macro-scale on this. Lack of *swords* or other specific weapons is not a bar to rebellion.

Likewise, a rebellion needs a lot more than *swords* for it to work. Leadership for the rebellion, widespread social support, an issue that drives people to rebel, and civilian leadership that fails to deal with whatever the issues are that drives people to rebel. Weapons are fairly low on the list, until you have all the other components in place, and if you can't get swords, there are many other workable alternatives.

Contented peasants don't rebel, regardless of their level of armament, and unhappy ones who see rebellion as a viable alternative won't be stopped because they lack specific types of weapons.

Even then, most revolts tend to be local, rather than 'national'. With imperial Russia, there were peasant revolts in the holdings of individual nobles, in response to things like a tax hike, a bad harvest, or just a charismatic leader taking advantage of general unrest over the grinding poverty of peasant life. While some of those revolts occasionally spread to neighboring noble estates, or even went regional, there was never an *overall* peasant revolt. (1917 being driven more by urban workers than rural peasants...)

Back to the micro scale...

If swords are a marker of social rank, than those entitled to wear them probably tend to do so, most of the time, at least when out in public. Particularly in a caste society, those with rank have a social interest in keeping those of lower castes in their places, even if there is no *practical* advantage. This tends to be true of all rank markers and all castes.

For example, if a particular color is restricted to nobles, then the nobles will tend to a) wear that color often, and b) work to ensure non-nobles are not allowed to wear that color. Both actions enforce the social structure that generates their status.

The most practical reason to prevent a particular class of people from from carrying things that are specifically weapons (swords, maces) as opposed to tools that can be used as weapons (axes), or 'hunting' equipment like spears or bows, is to help prevent *individual* members of the targeted class from taking a swing at their social superiors (or police) when they feel they've been wronged, or at least, help ensure that a peasant picking a fight with a noble is starting at an apparent disadvantage against the person with the sword.



"A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need
the advice."  -Bill Cosby


Powered by hypermail