On 03Jul2023 1301, Jim Vassilakos - jim.vassilakos at gmail.com (via tml
list) wrote:
> There's another rationale having to do with the decentralization of
> authority caused by such long communication & travel delays (but
> communication primarily). The Emperor cannot be reached on the phone.
> Decisions have to be made by local authorities, and the people have to
> obey those authorities or there will be anarchy. So the local authority
> will want to be named in the pledge, but the greater distant authority
> will insist on being there as well. So it may simply be a rule that if
> people are made to pledge loyalty to local authority due to some local
> law or custom, they must also pledge loyalty to the Emperor as well, but
> not merely as an afterthought or addendum. No, the Emperor must come
> first. The greater authority must come before the lesser, regardless of
> how distant it may be. So if a planetary governor wants people to pledge
> their loyalty to him, he must, by Imperial edict, first have them pledge
> their loyalty to the Emperor. Likewise, the Archduke will demand his
> due. And so will the Duke, and the Count, and so and so forth. The
> planetary governor can have people pledge their loyalty, yes, but he's
> last on the list. Not to say this is always the case, but it sort of
> makes sense. It provides a rationale that seems to fit with human
> nature. Let me know if you think I'm missing anything important.

It means that, unless the whole thing is quite pro forma and not
considered to mean much, that a person's allegiance is going to be
forced to be very divided in the event of any conflict. Also, that's a
lot of people to have to re-swear to every time one of them dies or is
otherwise replaced.

While it seems like the sort of thing higher nobles would like, it's not
the way feudal structures have worked historically, and it rather goes
against the idea of a personal relationship between the liege and their
vassal. How can I, a noble of the Imperium, swear allegiance to the
sector duke, when I've never met him, and he's not present to take that
oath and to swear to uphold his end of the bargain?

Swearing an oath to the Emperor when you join the IN or Marines is one
thing - there's a commissioned officer there as the Emperor's delegated
representative to take that oath, and the rights and obligations each
party is taking on are fixed, so there's no need for the Emperor to attend.

For some knight swearing personal allegiance to a border baron,
including the Emperor (as much signifying the whole Empire as the person
on the throne themselves), adding everyone in the chain seems excessive
and unreasonable to me. However, if they are in some kind of chain of
allegiances and authority from the Emperor down to the baron taking the
oath they should have some authority derived from the Emperor anyway. If
they don't, it's because they're not in your direct 'chain of command'
(not that there's anything so clear-cut or explicit in the civilian
noble hierarchy most of the time, to my mind), and/or because the
Emperor (or their representative) hasn't seen fit to delegate such
authority to that person, and if the Emperor doesn't trust them with
that power, why should you pay any heed to them?

Also, a chain of sworn allegiances is not something an Emperor would
want - it puts all those people between them and their lesser nobles.
There'll be enough of that going on anyway, so why add weight to it?

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>