Book of Medb hErenn

 
This is the week for big announcements. We have commissioned a portrait of Medb hErenn from John Lotshaw, the creator and artist of The Accidental Centaurs, one of Kevin L. O'Brien's favorite webcomics. He is an excellent artist and we are eager to see what he does with Medb.

If you would like to see the other portraits we previously commissioned, please go to the Graphic Portraits page.
 

 
We are pleased to announce that we have commissioned Morghan Leigh Peressini of Pink Pigtails Studio to create a portrait of Eile, Sunny, and Snowshoe Kitty. She is a Canadian Animation student whose illustration work shows a distinctive style that we find quite appealing. We believe it will mesh well with Team Girl. After this portrait is complete, we hope to commission more artwork from her for the Team Girl! website we are designing.

We will post a link to the finished portrait in this blog.
 

 
Just a quick message to let everyone know, we are in the process of redesigning the site to take advantage of the fact that the minimum display resolution used by computer users has shifted from 800 pixels wide to 1024 pixels wide. However, in addition to simply increasing the width of the site, we are also using the opportunity to revamp the site to make it better. We hope to begin coding out the new design in a couple of weeks.
 

 
In science fiction, the term sentience is often used to indicate that an entity has various human qualities such as intelligence, personality, creativity, and morality. While this was meant to be a simple term to convey a complex concept for the sake of convenience, it has been misappropriated.

Even in the Medb hErenn universe, the mind is still a major mystery. It is generally accepted to be an emergent property of the brain that manifests aspects of the intellect and consciousness as combinations of thought, perception, experience, memory, emotion, will and imagination.

Thought, or cognition, is a catchall concept that includes any type of mental form, process, and ability. Perception is the ability to be aware of and understand sensory information. Experience, or empirical knowledge, is the acquisition of knowledge about a thing or event through interaction with that thing or event using perception. Memory is the ability to store, retain, and recall knowledge.

Emotion is a subjective experience based on feelings and involving an individual's thoughts and personality. Will is defined as self-direction and self-governance. Imagination is the ability to create concepts and experiences that are not perceived through the senses, but by cognitive means.

The intellect, or intelligence, describes cognitive abilities such as experience, reasoning, planning, problem solving, abstraction, comprehension, communication, and learning. It touches on wisdom, which is accepted to be the ability to use knowledge well. Reasoning is the acquisition of knowledge about a thing or event using thought, imagination, and insight. Insight is seen as the ability to derive a rule that links cause with effect; to take seemingly unrelated experiences and bits of information, and links them together to create a model of how something works. Abstraction is the ability to derive general ideas from specific objects and events.

Consciousness is understood to be self-awareness, the ability to distinguish between one's self and all other things and events. This in turn allows for Intentionality, which is the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are about something.

In this context, sentience is the cognitive ability to have subjective perceptual experiences. This can be as simple as being able to feel pleasure or pain and react to it, or as complex as being able to understand pleasure or pain and to make conscious choices based on it. Even so, it is considered to be fundamentally different from intelligence, will, and imagination. Sentience is entirely subjective, being based on feelings, whether sensory feelings or emotional and cognitive feelings. Each being will feel or understand an experience differently, based on its own unique personality.

Many of the ideas implicit in the science fiction definition of sentience are better reflected by the concept of sapience. Sapience is connoted with wisdom and is defined as the ability to exercise appropriate judgment. Implicit in this concept is more than just intelligence, but also will and imagination. However, sapience itself would not work as a science fiction substitute for sentience, because it does not imply consciousness.

This leaves us with a conundrum. Being separate, if interactive, aspects of the mind, sentience, sapience, and consciousness may be sufficient qualities of being "human", but they are not necessary. There are many creatures on Earth that demonstrate sentience but not sapience or consciousness, and there are many others that demonstrate the first two but not the third. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that there cannot be beings that demonstrate sapience and consciousness, but not sentience, or beings that are sentient but have no empathy. There could even be entities that are conscious but not sapient or sentient.

So what term can we use in place of sentience? Person could be the best choice, but it has its own set of problems. Human isn't much better and is anthropocentric. A made-up word such as Daonnacht (based on the Irish adjective for human), would be a good compromise, but would be too simple for the complex nature of the concept it represents. Exactly what would make a being Daonnacht? Too specific a definition would exclude many entities that should be included, while too broad a definition would include many entities that should not.

In the end, we can only acknowledge that no single term is possible. As such, many people may continue to use sentience as a convenience, or makes distinctions based on sentience, sapience, and consciousness. The only alternative would be to invent a complex system that attempts to categorize beings on the basis of the degree of sentience, sapience, consciousness, empathy, technology, etc., they display. Even then, the question of what constitutes the basic nature of "humanity" would still probably go unanswered.
 

 
A reader wrote to inform me that he believed Medb hErenn, and in fact any Iron Age Irish Celt, could be considered a Noble Savage. Intrigued by the suggestion, I did some research, but I have come to the conclusion that this is probably incorrect.

The term 'noble savage' was used by Romantic Primitivism to indicate an individual unspoiled by civilization, who had virtue and honor despite being untamed. In fact, the word 'savage' in this context did not mean bloodthirsty and cruel, but simply wild, as in a wild flower. Other terms often used for this person was 'nature's gentleman' and 'good savage'.

Though the concept can be traced as far back as the Roman historian Tacitus in the first century C.E., the term did not come into widespread use until the nineteenth century, when the figure of the Noble Savage became a stock character like the Virtuous Milkmaid and the Wise Chinaman. These characters share one characteristic in common: that the low-born can be more virtuous than their social betters. In fact, for much of its history, the concept of the Noble Savage was used to attack the idea that civilization was a benefit to mankind. The claim was that mankind had been corrupted by civilization, and that so-called civilized people were in fact far more barbaric and savage (in the sense of cruelty) than any wild man. It is therefore ironic that in the latter half of the twentieth century, the term Noble Savage came to be used as a derogatory term to criticize anyone who tried to present uncivilized people in a positive light. This was done by apologists for colonialism and scientific racism, but in time even professional anthropologists would use it to discredit and intimidate colleagues who questioned the prevailing belief that uncivilized cultures were inherently inferior.

To determine if Medb is a Noble Savage, however, we have to compare her characterization with the attributes of Romantic Primitivism:

Living in harmony with Nature — While this is open to interpretation, in the context of the Noble Savage this means living in the wild like an animal. He can still have shelter, clothes, and tools, but he does not take more than he needs, and he gives back as much as he takes. Though Medb has lived this way, this is not her style. She does not see harmony in nature, only a balance created by the fact that no living thing other than man has the intelligence or technology to fully exploit his resources without consequences. She knows that when animals can, they will eat themselves out of house and home, and pollute their environment with their own waste. The only difference being that their population will crash as a result and restore the balance. Only man can exceed his resource base by using technology, and she sees nothing wrong with that. In fact, she would rather live in civilized comfort than in a pristine natural setting.

Generosity and selflessness — The idea here is that man is by nature generous and selfless, from birth, and that it is civilization which corrupts him and turns him greedy and selfish. Medb believes this view is ludicrous. She believes people are born amoral, and need to be taught right and wrong. This is done by instilling a sense of honor in a person, which can be done to wild men and civilized men alike. Medb acknowledges that she is selfish, but her code of personal honor requires that she be generous and selfless under certain circumstances.

Innocence — This means free of sin. The Noble Savage can be violent, and can steal and kill, but does not murder or rape, and he is free of the vices of greed, envy, cowardice, hate, prejudice, sloth, lust, pride, etc. Once again, it is civilization that corrupts people and tempts them to these major sins. Medb also considers this ridiculous. She believes that anyone can be corrupted by anything, that it takes will to resist temptation, and that the presence or absence of civilization has no bearing on the ability to resist.

Inability to lie, fidelity — Again, the idea is that the Noble Savage doesn't know how to lie or be disloyal, until he is taught by civilized man to do so. And again, Medb believes this to be false. She has found that all people can lie, and that all people know when they lie. At best, some people may not know lying is unacceptable, but they still know when they do not tell the truth, and they can tell when doing so hurts someone else. The same is true for disloyalty.

Physical health — The assumption here is that wild men are inherently healthier than civilized men, because they must be continually active and they live in a cleaner environment. Medb, however, believes that this is a matter of semantics. Wild men may be stronger and fitter, but they don't live as long, and they are more prone to accidents and disease. Civilized men may be exposed to pollution and are less active, but they also have access to more and better food, better shelter, better clothes, and medicine. Both lifestyles have trade offs that only technology can alleviate.

Disdain of luxury — This belief came about because wild men did not appear to possess the luxuries that civilized men had, and it was assumed they didn't want them otherwise they would make them. Yet it is Medb's experience that wild men love luxury just as much as civilized men if not more, and they will go to great lengths to acquire as much as they can when the opportunity presents itself. And she would note that all austerity philosophies were invented by civilized men.

Moral courage — As before, the belief is that, being uncorrupted by civilization, the Noble Savage is a more moral person, and more willing to act in a correct moral fashion. Medb, however, has encountered moral and immoral wild and civilized men, and sees morality as a feature of the human heart, not lifestyle.

"Natural" intelligence or innate, untutored wisdom — Finally, this belief stems from the assumption that formal eduction, being an aspect of civilization, can actually degrade native intelligence and wisdom. Medb understands that intelligence is a complex phenomenon, with natural and cultural aspects that must be melded together properly for someone to be truly intelligent. While she accepts that people can be born with enhanced natural aspects and that wisdom comes in part from experience, she also believes that knowledge is power, and takes every opportunity to learn as much as she can about any subject.

The conclusion would be that, while Medb does possess characteristics that are attributes of Romantic Primitivism — generosity, truthfulness, physical health, and moral courage — they stem from a completely different source than that of the Noble Savage, and other characteristics, such as her selfishness, avarice, deceitfulness, and love of comfort, put her at odds with the classical picture of the Noble Savage.
 

 
Lately, I have become interested in webcomics, particularly Crossworlds, created by Thomas F. Revor, Jr. and Darin Brown. It makes me wish I was an artist, because I believe the adventures of Medb hErenn would lend themselves well to the comic and graphic novel media.

But, I'm not an artist, I'm a writer, and the closest literary equivalent to a serial webcomic is a serial story. I have resisted this idea mostly because posting to the Internet is considered to be a form of self-publication, and up until now I had no intention of publishing my works myself. I want to be a commercially successful writer, and for better or worse, that means being published by commercial publishing houses.

After much soul-searching, however, I have decided to begin posting serial stories to the official Medb hErenn website. Since I had always planned to post excerpts from finished stories and complete stories that have gone out of print, this will compliment that effort. It will also help to generate more traffic to the site. It may also help me to finish more stories in a timely fashion. The first will begin the first weekend after New Year's Day, 2009, and I plan to update it every weekend. I do not plan to have more than one finished unpublished story on the site at any one time, but I will leave the previous finished story up as I start the new one, and I will remove the previous story only when I finish the new one.

This was not an easy decision. Posting to the Internet is considered to be a form of self-publication, and professional writing organizations like the Horror Writer's Association (HWA), as well as commercial publishers, frown on any form of self-publication. The attitude of the latter is understandable, since self-publication can cut into their business. The attitude of the former, however, is based on the desire to promote writing as a business and a profession, as opposed to being merely a hobby or an art form. This is a worthy undertaking, but it can lead to problems if taken to unwarranted extremes.

For example, as a member of the HWA, I had been a participant of its discussion board, which was set up to help aspiring and beginning writers to improve their craft and become "professionally" published, as defined by the HWA membership rules. After being on it for about a year and a half, however, I finally resigned. The main problem was that I was constantly under attack for voicing unconventional ideas, including the idea that Affiliate members were professional writers even though they do not receive a minimum payment of 5 cents a word for their writing. (The HWA defines a professional rate of pay as being at least 5 cents a word. This is the basis for determining who qualifies for Active membership. However, despite the fact that the HWA does not define what constitutes a professional writer, many members believe that only writers who receive 5 cents a word are true professionals, despite the fact that this belief is a logical fallacy.)

Another point of contention was my defense of the right of any writer to sell to a non-paying publication. A few members considered this so abominable that they would viciously attack anyone who even just mentioned non-paying publications without condemning them. They lumped non-paying publications in with subsidy publications as being not just un-professional, but in fact anti-professional. In fact, the rules of conduct for the discussion board actually forbid any mention of non-paying or subsidy publications. (Interestingly enough, the rules used to just forbid discussing subsidy publishers, but they were quietly changed to include non-paying markets after I pointed out one day that they did not forbid discussing free markets on the board.)

Now, I strongly oppose submitting to subsidy publishers, since I do not believe any writer should have to pay to have his or her works published. However, I draw the line at witch hunts. It is laudable for the HWA to encourage its members to submit to paying publications, especially those that pay a professional rate. It is also reasonable to expect that the HWA would try to discourage it members from submitting to non-paying markets. But it also allows members to persecute other members who choose to submit to non-paying venues. And considering the escalation of the criticism of publishers and venues that only pay 1 or 2 cents a word that I saw in the months before I resigned, it appears the witch hunt is broadening the range of its targets.

In the hierarchy of heretical actions condemned by the self-appointed hierophants of the HWA discussion board, self-publication is only marginally better than subsidy publishing: at least you didn't pay to have your writing published, but you still did not submit to a real publisher, even one that pays no fee. In many ways, self-publication is considered to be way worse than being published by a no-pay publisher, because it is considered the epitome of fan or hobby writing. It hearkens back to the days before the Internet, when anyone with access to a mimeograph machine or a photocopier could "publish" his own periodical; these became known as "fanzines". The Internet just makes this easier, and has the potential of reaching far more people. Members of the HWA have attacked and ridiculed self-published stories and novels as being exceptionally bad without allowing for even the possibility of occasional exceptions. It's become a reflex action: This story was self-published? Then it must be terrible, and I won't read it. As such, self-publication can stain a writer's reputation and make becoming "professionally" published more difficult. Or so the hierophants claim.

In the end, there were three reasons why I decided to begin posting serial stories on the Medb hErenn website:

First and foremost, the raison d'etre for being a writer is for people to read your work. It doesn't matter how good you are, if no one reads your stuff then you are not a real writer.

Secondly, self-publication has a long and venerable history. Before the rise of the large commercial publishing houses that came to dominate all aspects of the publishing industry, everything was self-published. Before printing, you wrote the book yourself; after printing, you either printed it yourself, if you were a printer, or you paid a printer to print it. Publishing houses took over the business of publishing because they could market and distribute books and periodicals to far more people than any one person or printing shop, but in doing so they also created the attitude that only they represented true, professional publication.

The Internet has changed all of that. We are back to where we were after printing became widely available, only now it's much easier to get your stuff in front of a much larger audience. And while the publishing houses consider posting to the Internet to be a form of publication, there is no legal precedent establishing this. In fact, it can be argued that posting to the Internet is just a way to publicly display one's work, and according to copyright law, public display is not a form of publication, since material copies of the work are not available for people to take and keep.

Thirdly and finally, the general condemnation of self-publishing by some members of the HWA underscores an inherent double standard prevalent on the message board. It goes beyond the fact that many successful commercial writers either started out self-publishing, or engage in self-publishing later in their careers. Members of the message board have also condemned many practices that are considered to be important, even vital, in the general business and professional world.

In fact, one need only compare professional writing with professional illustration and web design to see this double standard clearly. Being an illustrator or a web designer is analogous to being a writer (and in fact I am a web designer as well as a writer, so I know this for a fact); they only differ in degree, not kind. All three can do work-for-hire, commissions, or freelance projects they hope to sell. All three create forms of art they want to be seen and enjoyed by others. All three have to find some way of getting their work before their audience. All three can have their work commercially published, self-published, or published by subsidy. And all three can copyright their works.

But only in writing is self-publishing or subsidy publishing condemned as antithetical to a professional career. In fact, in web design and illustration, self-publishing is not only considered acceptable, it is recognized as a good career move, because it gets the work out where people can see it, which in turn can generate commissions. At the very least, it gets the designer or illustrator recognized, which can help when submitting freelance work.

And this comparison also demonstrates how the arguments made by certain HWA members as to why self-publication is a career-breaker simply don't hold water. One is that the story editor will use the quality of the publication a story appeared in as a way to judge the ability of the writer. Yet art editors and design directors don't care where an illustration or a website was published, all they care about is the quality of the work itself. Another argument is that story editors will think badly about a writer who allowed his work to be published without proper editorial correction and enhancement. Yet art editors and design directors are able to look past the lack of editing to judge the potential of the work in question.

So why do story editors act in such a contrary manner? In reality, they don't, at least the professional ones do not, the ones who made a career of editing, who were taught by other professional editors, who have gained much experience in editing over their long years of work. For the most part, the story editors who act the way the HWA members claim all editors do are not themselves professional editors. They are writers who decided or were asked to edit books or magazines; they are people who start a publishing venture with sufficient capital to offer professional rates and have the good fortune to make a go of it; or they work for small or specialty presses who are unable to adequately train them to be editors.

The point being, that since what certain members of the HWA message board swore were the facts of life for writing, are in fact contradicted by the real world, I have to question their veracity.

A final reason, which was not part of my decision-making process, but has a bearing on this issue nonetheless, is the fact that after I resigned from the message board, I found I was banned from it retroactively. It is possible for HWA members who are not members of the board itself to read the messages posted there; they just cannot post replies or new messages. When I tried to access the board, however, I received a message saying I was banned. What this means for me is that, since the board was tauted as the best way by which a member can improve his or her craft and become "professionally" published, the HWA is attempting to cut me off from this way, in the hope that I will ultimately fail as a writer and so vindicate their worldview. If that is the case, then not only am I forced to develop my own way to become commercially successful, I am also free to use whatever method I deem fit as part of that way, without fear of censure from the HWA itself.
 

 
Ever since The Way of the Barbarian page was published last month (November 2008), I have received a few messages chastising me for glorifying barbarianism, especially its treatment towards women. One fan was particularly nasty (and I have edited his or her saltier comments): "[How dare you] make heroes out of [murderers and pillagers]! Anyone who would [condone] the rape and enslavement of women is a [monster]. I [will never] read any of your . . . stories again!"

Well, you can't please everyone.

It is certainly true that historically, people we have labeled as barbarians have killed, raped, and plundered their weaker neighbors. But putting aside for the moment that the Medb hErenn stories are fiction, and fantasy fiction at that, the barbarian philosophy is an ideal that condemns such actions as improper. Though Medb, by her own admission, has not lived up to this ideal all the time, she would be the first to condemn murder, wanton destruction, and rapine as acts that serve no purpose. This is how she explains it to Röthgâr the Reaver in a sequel to "Barbarians R Us":

"Where’s the respect in wenching?"

"That is part of what you will learn from experience. For now, keep in mind that a barbarian wenches because he loves and honors women."

"What about all those barbarians who kidnap women and make sex-slaves out of them?"

"Like any philosophy, barbarianism is an ideal and a recommendation; it is not an immutable law that cannot be broken. There are always people who decide to reject its teachings, and there are always circumstances in which the teachings can be, even should be, ignored. Even I have done the latter, and on numerous occasions."

"Why bother then?"

"Why do people set ethical standards and create moral codes? They provide guideposts and establish limits, to help us determine right from wrong. We are free to disregard those guideposts and go beyond the limits if we wish, but we have no excuse if we do. We cannot say we were ignorant of them, and thus we cannot escape the consequences of our actions."

In other words, the philosophy is not to blame when people do not follow it. It's like blaming Christianity for acts committed by evil men who call themselves Christians. A true Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, and since Christ did not condone their actions, and in many cases condemned them, they are not true Christians. Similarly, a man who attacks and rapes a woman in the name of barbarianism is not a true barbarian, because the barbarian philosophy not only does not condone such acts, it condemns them as well. And the same is true of murder and pillaging.
 

 
Darin Brown, who draws the comic Crossworlds, has agreed to create a portrait of Medb hErenn. If it turns out well, I will commission him to do portraits of other characters, such as her friends.

A sampling of Darin's artwork can be found at The Naga's Den and Studio Mythos.
 

 
Faerie lore is ubiquitous; nearly every culture throughout human history and around the globe, including Amerindian and African tribes, have some form of Faerie traditions. Some people who believe in the existence of Faeries have used this as evidence supporting their claim: if Faeries are not real, why is their lore so widespread? Creationists often use the same argument for a global flood: if it never occurred, why do so many cultures have a flood myth?

Unfortunately, there is a serious flaw in this argument, and it can be demonstrated quite easily. Most cultures have some form of Cinderella and Puss-in-Boots folktale; are we to assume they also are based in fact? The point is, the ubiquitous nature of certain myths, legends, and folktales is not evidence that they have a factual basis, but rather it is evidence that they speak to a powerful ideal in the human collective unconscious.

But if Faeries are not real, why is their lore so common? What could be the source that triggered the development of folk traditions about them? There are a fair number of theories explaining the origin of Faerie lore, but I think the most intriguing is what we could call the lost race theory. It assumes that before modern humans moved into an area, it was occupied by a more primitive race, usually tribes of hunter-gatherers. The modern humans were farmers, and when they came in they displaced the hunter-gatherers by taking their hunting grounds and turning them into farms. The old race retreated into the wilderness on the fringe of civilization, into areas the farmers could not go: dense, old-growth forests; marshes and bogs; wasteland; the seashore; and hilly or mountainous regions. There they continued to live hidden from the new race, which soon forgot who and what they originally were.

At first, the old race would avoid the new race, except for capturing or killing people who trespassed into their territory. After a number of generations, however, the old race would begin to trickle back into their former range. They would begin by observing the new race, and sometimes people would encounter them by accident, perhaps even capture them on occasion. After awhile they would begin stealing things from the new race: food, such as grain and animals; tools and implements; ornaments; even weapons. Eventually, they would start to kidnap people as well: babies and children mostly, to replenish their dwindling numbers, but also girls and young, unmarried women to be mates, or nursing mothers to provide milk for their own babies. Young men might also be taken, to serve as slaves, or craftsmen, or even lovers. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that this old race is not some form of bestial, sub-human species, but is fully human like the new race, just as bright, articulate, and innovative, but with a lower-level technology. They would be quick to see the advantage of the food, tools, and crafts of the new race, they would comprehend that their blood (i.e., genetic material) was compatible with that of the new race, and they could become enamored with comely members of the new race, particularly if inbreeding had reduced the physical attractiveness of their own people. However, their morality as hunter-gatherers would prompt them to take what they wanted rather than try to trade for it.

In time, though, some of the old race might start interacting with members of the new race, particularly those who lived away from the main group. They could begin by borrowing food and items they want, giving items of their own in return, including things they might value for being pretty but which the new race valued as money, like precious stones, raw gems, and trinkets of gold and silver. That might lead to the old race helping the new race slaughter animals and collect the harvest, or perform chores around the farm and in the house, in exchange for food. This could lead to them becoming semi-permanent residents, but they would still be suspicious of the new race and so refuse to wear clothes given to them, so as to maintain their independence. Men of the new race might even take women of the old race as wives, either for an advantage, because they could not attract new race wives, or because they found old race girls attractive. However, each would have to live by the woman's standards of correct behavior or religious taboos, which would undoubtedly conflict with his own and could lead to her leaving him if he offended her in some way.

Over time, the old race would gradually creep into the new race's folklore, as mysterious beings with magical powers who could influence nature, give good or bad fortune, pass unseen, and steal whatever they wished. Long after the old race had either died out or been assimilated into the new race, the stories would continue, eventually becoming Faerie lore.
 

 
Throughout the legendary Iron Age in Ireland, kingship was very different from what it would become in post-Roman Britain or Medieval Europe. Though it began to change into a more absolute monarchy during the Christian Era, it wasn't until the invasion of the Anglo-Normans in the twelfth century that true European-style kingship was introduced.

Until then, kings were essentially glorified clan or tribal chieftains, even those who ruled minor kingdoms and whole provinces. This is because ultimate political authority rested not with the warrior elite, but with the clan or tribe as a whole. While only a warrior could be chief, a chiefship was not dynastic, and often a chief did not rule for life. Instead, the clan or tribe elected its chief at least once a year, and either reaffirmed their decision the next year or selected a new chief. As such, a chief could rule only with the consent of the clan or tribe, and he would lose his rule if he lost the support of the people.

This was true even of the kingdom and provincial kings. Each kingdom was a collection of tribes and clans, with one tribe paramount over the others. The chief of that tribe became the king of the kingdom, but his rule derived not only from his own tribe, but also from the consent of the other tribes as well. If the other tribes became discontent with his rule, and his tribe did not choose a new king, they could depose him and select another tribal chief to be king, thereby making his tribe paramount. Provincial kings ruled with the consent of the other clan and tribal chiefs and kings rather than that of the tribes themselves, but it amounted to the same thing.

Politically, this meant that the chiefs and kings were not absolute rulers. They could command only their own tribes, yet even so the tribes could depose their kings at will. Otherwise they ruled by example and suggestion and respect. In a crisis they could take personal command, yet no tribal member or subordinate chief was required to obey their orders. As such, it was not unusual for a king to take the field with little more than his personal retinue, but as king he had the resources and authority to create as large a force as he could maintain. Otherwise, a king would have to persuade his subordinates to join him, usually by bribing them with a promise of rich booty. Of course, the subordinate chiefs would have to do the same thing with their clan or tribal warriors, so it was an expected part of society. But considering that booty was the right of every warrior, and the warrior code demanded they participate in war, it generally wasn't difficult to recruit soldiers for battle. Even so, there was nothing to prevent warriors, clans, tribes, kingdoms, or even whole provinces from opting out and staying home, if they felt it was to their advantage.

In essence, Iron Age Irish kingship was a form of charismatic leadership, especially in the modern sense of the king using his personality and powers of persuasion to convince others to obey him. Often, kings were inaugurated in religious ceremonies that required ritual marriage to or mating with a local fertility or sovereignty goddess, thereby not only endowing them with divine blessings, but also demonstrating their own prowess at stimulating tribal prosperity. Then too, if a crisis occurred that the king could not deal with, he risked being sacrificed to appease the bloodthirsty Irish gods.

More importantly, however, Irish kings were perceived as servants of the tribe and its members, as opposed to the Medieval concept of the people being servants of the king. The duty of the king was to protect the tribe, its land, and its wealth; to insure justice and keep the peace; and to increase the tribe's possessions and power. He could take no more than his fair share of booty; in fact, he was expected to sacrifice his own wealth to provide largess to his tribe. Unlike Medieval kings, he did not create laws — the tribe as a whole was responsible for that — nor was he above the law; in fact, he was required to see that the laws were fairly applied to everyone. And he was required to protect the slaves, squatters, and other dependents who lived on tribal land but were not themselves members of the tribe.