"In early times, an Oherran on a whole choth meant the end of it - enslavement of whoever had not been slaughtered, division of holdings among the victors." (p. 498)
Slaughter or enslavement of every member? I could not possibly regard that as morally acceptable, Ythrians doing it or no Ythrians doing it. However, the text continues:
"Later it might amount to as little as the arrest and exile of named leaders." (ibid.)
Much better and more appropriate! So Ythrian morality progressed just like that of human beings. You can find slaughter in "our" Old Testament.
However, Oherran remains a deathpride matter. If an Oherran is not accepted, then the Wyvan who cried it has no alternative to honorable suicide. They are like some Japanese. If I lived on Avalon, then I would want to join a choth but one that had rejected deathpride. The Wyvan could just resign.
Choths have varied:
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Totally unlikely, any choths rejecting death-pride, not if it was as instinctual and important to Ythrians as tribes/tribalism/nations are to humans.
IRRC, Anderson also noted some choths were monarchies.
Ad astra! Sean
Again, Ythrians would be at a severe disadvantage because of the limits on large-scale organization and cooperation of which are possible with humans. A good deal of the expansion of agriculture, for example, involved farmers just brushing hunter-gatherers aside in favorable environments -- not because they were individually more formidable, but because they were just so much more numerous and better-organized.
"Even Hercules can't fight two," as the ancient Greek saying went.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
The Domain was lucky the Empire was willing to settle for limited gains in their war. If Ythri had fought Merseia it would not have gotten off so lightly.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment