TFT snippet #6

Kael,

Both the sargeant and the corporal that are acting as rebellion leaders are free peasants according to their introduction in Snippet 3. Being technically free men didn't stop them from being drafted into the Mighty Host or their being forbidden from returning home.

jtg452 wrote:Kael,

Both the sargeant and the corporal that are acting as rebellion leaders are free peasants according to their introduction in Snippet 3. Being technically free men didn't stop them from being drafted into the Mighty Host or their being forbidden from returning home.

See also the Safehold FAQ on "How is the Harchongese army organized?" at the top of the page. There are free peasants, they normally side with the Aristocracy and the serfs burn them out during insurrections too.

It's been pointed out by Merlin a couple of times, if only in his own thoughts, that the only thing close to ugly as a religious war is a slave rebellion. That true in both when they fail (the Romans were very fond of crucifixion and it worked...for about thirty years a pop), and when Haiti succeeded the first thing Dessalines ordered was that the remaining French and French-creoles were to be massacred. As I recall at least one person in his government advocated using the skin of a white man for the parchment of their new constitution and have it written in blood.

There is a difference, though admittedly perhaps not one apparent from the perspective of one on the receiving end, between a freeman drafted into military service, a feudal levy (which is what most serfs would be considered), and and a slave whose owner says "you're going off to war."

That the ones leading the revolt came from the mighty hosts makes them essentially outside agents at this point. My comment was more towards whether or not those slaves/serfs who are still living in thrall will recognize the distinction of 'freemen' who are also living under the Empire's authority when the knives come out. Historically, no but...history changes, at least it does when it isn't busy repeating itself.

Kael Posavatz wrote:It's been pointed out by Merlin a couple of times, if only in his own thoughts, that the only thing close to ugly as a religious war is a slave rebellion. That true in both when they fail (the Romans were very fond of crucifixion and it worked...for about thirty years a pop), and when Haiti succeeded the first thing Dessalines ordered was that the remaining French and French-creoles were to be massacred. As I recall at least one person in his government advocated using the skin of a white man for the parchment of their new constitution and have it written in blood.

There is a difference, though admittedly perhaps not one apparent from the perspective of one on the receiving end, between a freeman drafted into military service, a feudal levy (which is what most serfs would be considered), and and a slave whose owner says "you're going off to war."

That the ones leading the revolt came from the mighty hosts makes them essentially outside agents at this point. My comment was more towards whether or not those slaves/serfs who are still living in thrall will recognize the distinction of 'freemen' who are also living under the Empire's authority when the knives come out. Historically, no but...history changes, at least it does when it isn't busy repeating itself.

The revolutions that you're drawing from were from periods where there was a difference in 'privilege' between the freed and the unfree. However, while we know that the sergeant-major is technically free, he's been drafted into the Mighty Host, his family starved to death, and his daughter was taken and raped by the local Count.

So it may be that the only difference between a 'free peasant' and a serf is that the peasants can change masters. Village peasants and village serfs might see themselves as part of the same class.