Knights aren't soldiers, they're nobles who happen to be useful in war.
Killing a noble is a serious offense.
Feuds happened. Probably why "feudal" and "fief" are cognates of a modern word for petty infighting, actually.
Feud =/= Sending out your soldiers to slaughter the other guy.
Except...you know...we're more well-known than a random knight, because of our unique history and unique governing strategies and new minerals. And, you know, our friends would make a stink, because they already suspect the Count of plotting to murder us
Our unique commoner history really resonates with established noble families. They love it when upjumped fieldhands access their exclusive world. These people would lay down their lives for us, because they are entranced at the good example that we set for other peasants, namely, that ruling a land is not a blood-right and can be done ably by a baseborn.
I mean, our listed friends consist of two neighbor knights, but just think of all that tacit support that naturally accumulates around peasants that get uppity.
...I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
6. The Count doesn't have anything to gain by killing us so blatantly.
Except keeping his dirt secret. Dirt that can really undo him, no doubt in his mind. That guy probably has more secrets that just ours.
The fact that he's trying so hard to prevent the merchant from being captured speaks volumes.
Okay, first off, you didn't answer the actual question. I asked how police officers transport criminals, not how they capture them.
In cars. Guess we need to double down on research and tech advancement. The point with my criticizing overland travel is you've got a squirming captive doubling up on someone's horse.
1. There are inventions called "ropes" and "unconsciousness" that I'm not adverse to using if we have to.
2. Boats, anyone?
And fast cavalry on your heels.
Again, I find this doubtful.
Second off, the "nice" thing about the middle ages is that random people are much less likely to have lethal weapons.
Plenty. Robin Hood is just the most obvious. No one can pinpoint who he is, because there's such a wealth of outlaws and robbers in medieval English history to potentially be the inspiration. When you travel, especially through the lands of your enemies who are scared, bandits can pop up out of nowhere and leave no trace.
Those aren't "random people," those are outlaws and bandits. Also, while longbows
are deadly weapons, a bow that a peasant might be able to afford is farther behind what a knight or whatnot has in killing/nor-being-killed potential than a pistol or other firearm an average American citizen might be able to afford (and probably could, if so desired [and allowed in his/her municipality]) is from what a police officer carries.
If the count could afford to disappear us and a piece of paper, not to mention the men we're bringing with us to help restrain the prisoner and whatnot, why wouldn't he have disappeared us before?
He did. He failed. We were on our own lands and not his, so surviving was much easier.
Um...kill =/= disappear.
And it's also harder to do so when awake and with wakeful soldiers.
Perhaps, but the spy talking and revealing everything (including his dealings with the Count) are lower than the chance of the king reacting to the death of a noble.
Wouldn't even notice. You saved his life and it earned you "vaguely remembered" whereas it would earn you "blood brothers" from most other men.
On the other hand...we
are a noble, and the king
does have good reasons to enforce the law, which you haven't touched that I can see.
Actually, it just means the merchant broke a law. For all that anyone not fairly familiar with the case knows, it could just be that the merchant forgot to pay taxes.
Taxes... and we're just the person to execute that writ.
What, the Duke is supposed to march to town to bring in every person who hasn't paid their taxes? It might be unusual, but certainly not impossible. Certainly more likely to anyone not in the Count's inner circle than "That merchant is doing some sort of treasonous thingy, and the Count is part of it!"...until, of course, the Count violates various laws by killing the knight who brings in the merchant.
Not to mention the merchant should only be taxed by his own lord, which is the Count, who gives a percentage to his lord, the duke.
Well, I still doubt anyone but the Count or others in his trust--and possibly not even them--would guess at the truth from us coming in with a warrant.
And this is a nutshell is what I'm trying to drive home. All laws are a smattering of local customs at this point in time, and the Duke does not have jurisdiction in the Count's land if the count has a quo warranto writ to hold a court. That was changing, but not quickly.
Of course, you have to bear in mind that the Count has goals other than killing us. In fact, killing us is a means rather than an ends--and the ends to which he may kill us is likely hindered by doing so in the open.
That "weak central authority" has access to a much larger army than the Count...
Does it? Count Theobald of Troyes gave the King of France a good run for his money. Kept his lands after the war, too. Must not have killed any recently-elevated peasant knights in the various battles and sieges, I suppose. That would have gone too far.
I can't imagine that was a typical case.
Anyways, didn't we see the Count's forces a while back, when attacking those rebels? Wouldn't that be a bit puny for an entire royal army?
The King's forces are a small familia regis and... troops from other noble families. They won't be dragged from their homes to attack a noble who may possibly have killed a commonborn, rather than a band of bandits in the countryside.
But the commonborn is a noble, who is engaged to the duke's daughter. And that duke, at least, will want vengeance, even if he forgets somehow that the Count likely tried to kill us before. And the Duke has plenty of troops, allies, and power due to his high position (barring archdukes, the highest in the land after the King).
And if the Count is stupid and/or powerful enough to attack us...what would we do about it?
What amuse me greatly is that, if you are to be believed, snatching the merchant illegally isn't even remotely dangerous, but doing it with the Duke's official legal back-up is equivalent to a game over.
Bah, consistency. Who needs it?
