Jaroth Winson, on 22 July 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:
When the culture was established does not negate the fact that it
was established. Samurai > everybody else. It happened & as you also seem to be a fan of the samurai culture (
) I did not have to give you the details.
Japanese culture as pertains specifically to the feudal society in question stretched back for centuries upon centuries before the Edo-jidai. The samurai were not limited to those in that one period, and what occurred in a snapshot in time that was not representative of the whole history cannot be used to justify something else completely unrelated to said society. Clan society being a totalitarian oligarchy is not negated because many samurai became ritualistic and brutal over the course of less than three centuries. As I have said, the same thing occurred in Europe, but the ritualistic and foppish nobles of the Renaissance were not representative of the whole history.
Jaroth Winson, on 22 July 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:
Warfare changed over time & nobody wanted the slug-it-out-in-the-mud where two sides hammered each other. As always there were disagreements but they were settled with individual duels. An offense would be dealt with in the same manner as a Trial of Grievance, where two knights would battle each other, or in the case of lords, they selected a champion to fight in their stead. As I showed in the example of The Cid, Trials of Possession were also fought this way. They have major families & minor ones. (Bloodhouses). Did they work the exact same way as other minor families regarding being vassals to major ones? No, but the major Bloodhouses exerted their influence in the Clan as other major families in a kingdom/empire.
And again you keep bringing up the marriage bit, when I told you before, this was done way before a trueborn came out of an iron womb.
First, the Clans are not a feudalistic society. There may be limited similarities here and there, but the Clans are oligarchies based on a caste system. In
Warriors of Kerensky, we are told that there are only 110,000 warriors out of 1,150,000,000 people. That means that less than 0.0096% of the population votes on issues, and the other 99.9904% of the population typically just has to accept it. The overwhelming majority of the Clans' populace are little more than slaves to the system, and they have no upward mobility or say in their lives. They are told their occupations, who to marry, and so on, which has nothing to do with feudalism.
On a more basic level, the Clans are not a feudalistic society as there is no lord-vassal relationship and thus land is not held in fee. Feudalism requires that the primary lord provides land to his immediate vassals in exchange for services, but the land still belongs to the primary lord. Those vassals then divide their land among their own vassals and so on from royalty to the peasantry. The kingdom still belongs to the king, but the various levels of vassals offer some sort of service or goods in exchange for benefiting from a given tract of land. The Clans are not feudalistic regardless of whether or not the warrior caste has similarities to noble houses.
The Clans combine an oligarchy with totalitarianism and a bigoted caste system. None of those things are actually popular with anyone except for the people in charge. Just ask anyone that was ruled under such systems.
Second, the marriage issue is important because it gets to the heart of the totalitarian nature of the Clans, and it is not negated by removing the trueborn-freeborn relationship. Being told what your occupation will be, who you will marry, where you will live, and so on has nothing to do with feudalism. There is no upward mobility as can be found in most feudalistic societies as a person cannot simply choose to change their caste, and that is the only way to truly move up in society. Even freeborns that make their way into the supreme caste are still second-class citizens.