Lenard and his prisoners argue the morality of warfare. Savages attack the barbarian Lann who attack the Dalesmen. Lenard talks about the experience of hunger and adds:
"'And you haven't seen the sleek- fur-clad trader from the southern tribes pass you by because you've nothing to barter for his meat and grain!'" (p. 117)
That struck a chord. I have some sympathy with starving barbarians robbing, although not killing, rich traders but only as a temporary emergency measure.
Lenard suggests that, instead of fighting the Lann, the Dalesmen should "'...attack some other, weaker tribe and win new lands.'" (p. 118) No way. The Dalesmen are right to try to parley but otherwise fight the Lann.
2 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I dunno, even barbarians enduring hard times MIGHT be able to find goods foreign merchants would be willing to buy. After all, that was generally the case in our real history. And killing "sleek merchants" was not only wrong but also counterproductive. Because such people will simply stop coming at all if they had to fear for their safety.
Sean
Poul was basing this sequence on the Volkerwanderung, where the Huns hit the Goths and the other Germanics, and it ends up with billiard-ball invasions, desperate 'warriors from nowhere' storming in and eventually things like the Vandals starting out in Poland and ending up in Tunisia.
Post a Comment