Steadholders and their Armsmen oddities

Somtaaw wrote:This is true, however I think it was either Miranda LaFollet, or Abigail, in one or another conversations that mentioned something about (paraphrased) "Steadholders are highly respected, and their actions are generally above judgement." Because of the paraphrasing, I know it's hard to find the exact conversation where this came up, unless someone else happens to remember that general concept coming up.

But, short of outright treason, which Burdette did but Mueller sort of skirted it's edges, then Armsmen would seem to follow a "he's my Steadholder, and I shouldn't judge his actions or choices" mentality. Especially with that other legal standing, which is how Honor snuck her Armsman through Peep capture as "Marines". That's in regards to how Armsmen received commissions in the Grayson Army, with the theory being the Protector could "call to duty" a rebellious Steadholders Armsmen and deprive him of their service. Except a 'rebellious' Steadholder isn't far from "breaking the law", unless it's the Protector breaking the law, in either case one side or another has Armsmen following the illegal orders of authority.


With that much precedent, only the extreme treason, such as what Burdette did when he tried to assassinate Honor, or when Mueller was finally blackmailed into sneaking the IFF beacon 'memory stones' to Elizabeth and Cromarty, might have triggered an Armsman to start thinking 'maybe I should not be doing this'. Anything less, and they'd simply close their eyes and ears, and simply think their Steadholder knows best.

Considering how many rulers have been killed by their own bodyguards over human history a smart ruler knows their are limits to what they can get away with when dealing with their loyal bodyguards.

munroburton wrote:Having a number of zero for assassination attempts, Mueller could get away without a close protection detail, especially in the heart of his steading.

Honor certainly can't claim a zero for that. And there have been occasions when Andrew let her have a room to herself and a guest. Usually Hamish.

In addition to personal time with Hamish, I seem to recall that Honor sent all the armsmen away when she wanted a private talk with Emily.
However; I also agree with this post that pointed out that no one had tried to assassinate Muller to that point and will add that he did not meet his visitors alone, even in the heart of his steading

.

My belief that the places she was able to ask them to leave are considered secure enough that any one who could get to her to successfully kill her would have not been able to be stopped by them anyway.

kzt wrote:IIRC, Armsmen were not liable for actions taken per direct orders.

Yep, took me a moment to find it, but I think you were thinking of this passage from Ashes of Victory (which may also have been partly what Somtaaw was thinking of_

Ashes of Victory: Ch 2 wrote:this was one point on which the Constitution was totally unforgiving. Every armsman in the service of Harrington Steading answered to Honor in one way or another, but most did so only indirectly, through the administrative machinery of her steading's police forces. Only fifty were her personal liege men, sworn to her service, and not the steading's. Any order she gave those fifty men had the force of law, so long as it did not violate the Constitution, and the fact that she'd given it shielded them from any consequences for having obeyed even if it did. She could be held responsible for it; they could not, but those fifty were the only personal force Steadholder Harrington was permitted.

I'm assuming that even if murder is handled by a lower level law I'm assuming that overstepping the authority of another Steadholder by preempting their rights to high, medium, or low justice within their own Steading would also be against the Constitution. (And actually even within a Steadholder's own Steading ordering someone killed without due process of law is probably a different form of Constitutional violation; even if it's not technically murder)


However munroburton has a point as well. Just because an Armsman can't be legally punished for carrying out an unconstitutional order doesn't mean that they have to carry it out. An Armsman could, presumably, refuse such an order without being legally guilty of anything.
Though I don't know how the concept of privilege works between a Steadholder and his 50 directly sworn Armsmen. If they know the Steadholder is breaking the law can they legally disclose or testify to that fact? Or is it like how spousal privilege works in many US states? (Where, unless the case is between the spouses, a one spouse can be prohibited from testifying against the other).

So if an Armsman was given an illegal order, or one that violated his conscience, he can refuse to carry it out, I'm reasonably sure he shouldn't suffer legal ramifications for doing so (though likely can and will be dismissed), but don't know if he's allowed to report or testify about being given the illegal order...

Interesting question.

I had always assumed that the reason armsmen were not 'mentioned' with regards to other steadholders was a writing trick to show that they were not 'noticed', contrary to those hanging around Honor and Abigail. Playing on contrast, more or less. References to armsmen around Honor seem to have been fading as the story progressed, to be replaced with references to their hanging around Alison and the children.

So basically armsmen aren't mentioned unless someone is annoyed with them. With this kind of treatment, they might sue RFC for abuse of authority ...

By the way, did you notice ? If we combine the two laws, armsmen are not liable for obeying their steadholder's order to leave him alone.

niethil wrote:Interesting question.

snip

By the way, did you notice ? If we combine the two laws, armsmen are not liable for obeying their steadholder's order to leave him alone.

I love it! And it explains how Honor was able to get a bit of privacy when needed