Cutlass for the Marines

[salochin999]

In mtu The Feudal Lords Have direct control over the systems in their fief and can restrict all interplanetary and interstellar travel.

I'm always tempted by this idea. In particular if I was to create a naval war game type campaign I'd set it at some point during the Long Night -> Pacification period with each cluster having their own Ducal fleet and each sector's politics being a bit like the War of the Roses / Game of Thrones as each Duke tries to become the Archduke.

 

[salochin999]

That pattern can by feudal, but need not be. Indeed, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire wasn't, nor were the post-medieval European kingdoms.


Hans

I'd call the pattern feudal. You seem to be saying that it's not feudal if it's not hereditary.

My definition of a feudal pattern is where an individual is given viceroy like powers over a fiefdom too far away to be administered from the center in exchange for loyalty to the center in which case Persian Satraps, Roman Duces and medieval Dukes fit the pattern but if your definition requires heredity then it would be different.

 

[salochin999]

If you make that "The question is why do marines get an automatic cutlass skill in OTUif it doesn't immediately make sense in the OTU." Then it makes the point I have been trying to: if skill with the weapon is just ceremonial, or makes no sense because the Marines do no not actually use them in combat, then why is this an automatic skill for them in canon? Why isn't it the automatic skill for officers, when officers instead get a gun?

Obviously, someone thinks the cutlass is a viable weapon or Marines wouldn't be trained in them, they'd just get one for dress uniform wear and not get the skill.

Yes, I was meaning if YTU was the OTU. If you were using Traveller for John Carter on Mars for example it might not be a problem.

The answers I've got from this thread that gel best with me so far are:

1) shipboard security - although it seems a bit too lethal for that
2) physical exercise and zero-g training
3) upgraded vibro cutlass / chainsword

" Why isn't it the automatic skill for officers, when officers instead get a gun?"

Don't officers get both, cutlass when they enlist, revolver when they get commissioned?

 

[rancke]

I'd call the pattern feudal. You seem to be saying that it's not feudal if it's not hereditary.

No, I'm saying that it's not feudal if it's not feudal.

Republican Roman governors: Not feudal. Imperial Roman governors: not feudal. European royal governors: not feudal. And from what I can gather from a brief skim of the article you linked to, Persian satraps weren't feudal either.

My definition of a feudal pattern is where an individual is given viceroy like powers over a fiefdom too far away to be administered from the center in exchange for loyalty to the center...

Your definition is wrong. Viceroyalties and lesser govenorships weren't feudal appointments.

...in which case Persian Satraps, Roman Duces and medieval Dukes fit the pattern but if your definition requires heredity then it would be different.

The one thing that makes Imperial high dukes arguably feudal is the hereditary aspect. For many years I explained high dukes as "hereditary governors".


Hans

 

[salochin999]

No, I'm saying that it's not feudal if it's not feudal.

Republican Roman governors: Not feudal. Imperial Roman governors: not feudal. European royal governors: not feudal. And from what I can gather from a brief skim of the article you linked to, Persian satraps weren't feudal either.


Your definition is wrong. Viceroyalties and lesser govenorships weren't feudal appointments.


The one thing that makes Imperial high dukes arguably feudal is the hereditary aspect. For many years I explained high dukes as "hereditary governors".


Hans

I disagree.

edit: The article you cite as evidence disagrees with you.

"There is no commonly accepted modern definition of feudalism"

"This page is primarily about the classic, or medieval, European form of feudalism. For feudalism as practiced in other societies, as well as that of the Europeans, see Examples of feudalism."

Although the link to other examples of feudalism is potentially useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_feudalism

Some other examples where land was given in exchange for military service are Macedon and the Greek successor states.

There's a lot of examples because it's a standard - though varied - pattern whenever communication times are high which I'd say was the key defining quality.

 

[rancke]

The article you cite as evidence disagrees with you.

"There is no commonly accepted modern definition of feudalism"

No, it doesn't. Just because there are ambiguous cases, doesn't mean that all cases are ambiguous. And none of the cases you've cited so far are feudal.

"This page is primarily about the classic, or medieval, European form of feudalism. For feudalism as practiced in other societies, as well as that of the Europeans, see Examples of feudalism."

Although the link to other examples of feudalism is potentially useful.

It is useful. It does not include any of the counterexamples I have listed. Not Roman governors, not royal governors, and not Persian satraps for that matter. And some of the examples have nothing whatsoever to do with governing of far-off provinces.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the term 'governor' was never applied to a vassal. I could be wrong, but I can't think of a single example.

Some other examples where land was given in exchange for military service are Macedon and the Greek successor states.

But were those examples of feudal arrangements? The Romans handed out land as payment for military service, but not in a feudal arrangement; ex-legionaires were free to turn and sell off their land grants. (It might have been better for the state if it had been a feudal arrangement).

There's a lot of examples because it's a standard - though varied - pattern whenever communication times are high which I'd say was the key defining quality.

And it remains wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. The key defining quality af a feudal relationship was the lending out of land in return for service. It had absolutely nothing to do with the distance between lord and vassal (Although, the longer the distance, the harder it was for the lord to enforce his rights). Nor with the use of land to pay for services rendered.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

No, it doesn't. Just because there are ambiguous cases, doesn't mean that all cases are ambiguous. And none of the cases you've cited so far are feudal.


It is useful. It does not include any of the counterexamples I have listed. Not Roman governors, not royal governors, and not Persian satraps for that matter. And some of the examples have nothing whatsoever to do with governing of far-off provinces.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the term 'governor' was never applied to a vassal. I could be wrong, but I can't think of a single example.

But were those examples of feudal arrangements? The Romans handed out land as payment for military service, but not in a feudal arrangement; ex-legionaires were free to turn and sell off their land grants. (It might have been better for the state if it had been a feudal arrangement).


And it remains wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. The key defining quality af a feudal relationship was the lending out of land in return for service. It had absolutely nothing to do with the distance between lord and vassal (Although, the longer the distance, the harder it was for the lord to enforce his rights). Nor with the use of land to pay for services rendered.


Hans

I'm going to ignore you.

 

[Carlobrand]

In mtu The Feudal Lords Have direct control over the systems in their fief and can restrict all interplanetary and interstellar travel.

As far as the Code Duello goes there is a Marquesa who when another noble challenges her they had best ensure that their heir is ready to take up the reins as they won't be leaving the field alive.
She is also an Imperial Navy Admiral.
Here she is in what she typically wears to court.

And in her Navy Dress Uniform.

Not taking her seriously in those heels, sorry. Maybe that's a handy ruse to make her duel challengers take her less seriously, but in my mind someone who invites a duel by making their opponents take them less seriously is a little too eager to duel. IMHO, an active duty admiral needs to dress to be taken seriously at all times, which means sensible footwear that you can run or fight in should circumstances require you to run or fight while wearing your court fineries. She's dangerous, sure, but she's starting off with some deficits in the winning-respect department. And then there's the hair.

 

[aramis]

That pattern can by feudal, but need not be. Indeed, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire wasn't, nor were the post-medieval European kingdoms.


Hans

The Roman Empire meets the vaguer definitions of feudalism... a web of personal loyalty and affiliation amongst a hereditary leadership, with most of the leadership being removed from direct relationship to the head of state...

 

[rancke]

The Roman Empire meets the vaguer definitions of feudalism... a web of personal loyalty and affiliation amongst a hereditary leadership, with most of the leadership being removed from direct relationship to the head of state...

Where can I find that vaguer definition of feudalism? Sounds like one that is vague enough to be applied to almost any entrenched autocracy.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Where can I find that vaguer definition of feudalism? Sounds like one that is vague enough to be applied to almost any entrenched autocracy.


Hans

It was used by one of my history professors. Feudal has multiple definitions, mostly involving the fealty oaths - the promise of service for authority and (usually) land.

three things you've asserted as requisite in the pase aren't listed as requisite in the history nor poli-sci courses I've taken:
Hereditary inheritance
Subinfeudation
Lack of non-martial reasons for enfeofment.

The requisites are:
Holding of land from the Landlord in exchange for service (usually military)
Land granted prior to service
bidirectional obligation - Lord to Vassal and Vassal to Lord
Obligation of the recipient is personal, not corporate.

In the case of Rome...

Roman governors functionally are in a feudal relationship to the Roman Senate; it wasn't perpetual, but that's not actually a requirement for use of a feudal oath. The senate had duties to them as well. While subinfeudation was rare, governors had plenty of authority and established patronage relationships with underlings routinely. (Noting that some Governors were also local kings in their own right... eg Herodian Dynasty...)

 

[rancke]

It was used by one of my history professors. Feudal has multiple definitions, mostly involving the fealty oaths - the promise of service for authority and (usually) land.

I suggest we stick to definitions that can be verified. After all, we don't want to risk any fallacies by arguing by authority, do we?

three things you've asserted as requisite in the pase aren't listed as requisite in the history nor poli-sci courses I've taken:
Hereditary inheritance
Subinfeudation
Lack of non-martial reasons for enfeofment.

I don't think I've asserted the first, though I have said (quite recently) that what makes it arguable that dukes are feudal vassals of the emperor (rather than mere governors) is the hereditary nature of the relationship.

I consider the lack of subinfeudation evidence of Imperial nobles not being feudal type vassals. The fact that the Emperor doesn't hold title to most of the territory he appoints his high nobles to is another (and much stronger) bit of evidence.

I've asserted that a feudal relationship involves a quid pro quo. The owing of loyalty because of the granted fief is characteristic. As opposed to the loyalty owed to a king by a governor appointed by him to manage one of his provinces, which exists with or without the appointment.

The requisites are:
Holding of land from the Landlord in exchange for service (usually military)
Land granted prior to service
bidirectional obligation - Lord to Vassal and Vassal to Lord
Obligation of the recipient is personal, not corporate.

So if any of those four requisites do not apply, the relationship is not feudal? I think I can work with that.

In the case of Rome...

Roman governors functionally are in a feudal relationship to the Roman Senate; it wasn't perpetual, but that's not actually a requirement for use of a feudal oath. The senate had duties to them as well.

Never seen any such assertion in my readings about Rome. You have a reference, of course? Because otherwise I shall have to contradict you.

While subinfeudation was rare, governors had plenty of authority and established patronage relationships with underlings routinely. (Noting that some Governors were also local kings in their own right... eg Herodian Dynasty...)

Except it would not be SUBinfeudation, because the governor was not a vassal of the Senate. He was an official appointed by the senate (well, elected to a labor pool by the Roman people and appointed to a specific post by the Senate).


Hans

 

[Leitz]

I think some people need a life.

 

[Carlobrand]

I think some people need a life.

If you let them have their run and pay attention, you'll usually learn something you hadn't known before.

 

[aramis]

Except it would not be SUBinfeudation, because the governor was not a vassal of the Senate. He was an official appointed by the senate (well, elected to a labor pool by the Roman people and appointed to a specific post by the Senate).


Hans

The roman governors were bordering on petty kings during the empire, disposing of land to various parties... and answerable to the Senate and the Emperor. Either of whom can revoke it at a whim.

Rome's about as far as one can push Feudalism.

 

[rancke]

The roman governors were bordering on petty kings during the empire, disposing of land to various parties... and answerable to the Senate and the Emperor. Either of whom can revoke it at a whim.

Rome's about as far as one can push Feudalism.

OK, let's take a historical example: In 1810, Robert Farquhar was appointed Governor of Mauritus.

1) Was he a vassal of King or Parliament?

2) If not, what was the difference between him and those Roman Imperial governors that made them vassals of the Emperor/Senate (rather than magistrates, state officials) but not him a vassal of the king/parliament?

Oh, and please provide a reference to those Roman governors being in a feudal relationship to the Senate. Otherwise your assertation must be considered unsupported hearsay at best.


Hans
Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

In mtu The Feudal Lords Have direct control over the systems in their fief and can restrict all interplanetary and interstellar travel.

As far as the Code Duello goes there is a Marquesa who when another noble challenges her they had best ensure that their heir is ready to take up the reins as they won't be leaving the field alive.
She is also an Imperial Navy Admiral.
Here she is in what she typically wears to court.

And in her Navy Dress Uniform.

Not taking her seriously in those heels, sorry. Maybe that's a handy ruse to make her duel challengers take her less seriously, but in my mind someone who invites a duel by making their opponents take them less seriously is a little too eager to duel. IMHO, an active duty admiral needs to dress to be taken seriously at all times, which means sensible footwear that you can run or fight in should circumstances require you to run or fight while wearing your court fineries. She's dangerous, sure, but she's starting off with some deficits in the winning-respect department. And then there's the hair.

That's because this is a "fan-service" "admiral" - as shown by the sexy side-slit skirt (and the near-floor-length hair).

This is a sexualized fantasy caricature, not a serious character.

 

[Carlobrand]

That's because this is a "fan-service" "admiral" - as shown by the sexy side-slit skirt (and the near-floor-length hair). ...

My bad then, sorry. I don't tend to encounter much fan-service stuff, not being a fan of it (for reasons that are not germane to the topic at hand, so I'll leave that part unsaid).

 

[aramis]

OK, let's take a historical example: In 1810, Robert Farquhar was appointed Governor of Mauritus.

1) Was he a vassal of King or Parliament?

2) If not, what was the difference between him and those Roman Imperial governors that made them vassals of the Emperor/Senate (rather than magistrates, state officials) but not him a vassal of the king/parliament?

Oh, and please provide a reference to those Roman governors being in a feudal relationship to the Senate. Otherwise your assertation must be considered unsupported hearsay at best.


Hans
Hans

Who appointed said governor?
Does the title come with personal use lands to support oneself and/or the right to a share of the taxes (versus a salary) of the governed region?
If the answer to the second is yes, then it's a feudal relationship with whomever granted it.

Feudalism is not a well defined term; all the online definitions I find (other than what you're spouting in various boards) boil down to "medieval european government" as a reference standard... which means little more than "The Crown gives title and governing authority, and expects service in return."

But I'll point out that, historically, almost no system of feudalism in europe was more than a handful of levels deep. The Deepest I have ever seen documented (mentioned by AC Fox-Davies) was the knight-tennant of a Knight-bannerette of a Great Baron (Baron, Viscount, Count/Earl, Margrave, or Duke); we can infer the crown and peasants safely. Total, 5 layers inclusive from Crown to peon. One could be thoroughly AR, and add the members of the household of the peasant, too, and argue for 6... But counting peasants, typically, it limits to Crown — Great baron — Knight Vassal — Peasant, and in some cases Crown — Baron or Knight Vassal — Peasant.

Doesn't look unlike Traveller to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Just re-watched Avatar for the first time since I saw it at the movies. In the climatic fight, the Colonel in the combat walker...uses a big knife! It's a secondary weapon used after he loses his slug thrower.