It does not however by any means follow that the total defeat of a hostile tribe resulted in the immediate and direct enslaving of all the survivors: as in the example just cited, the blood-feud no doubt frequently led to the murder of the captive chiefs and nobles, even if less justifiable motives did not counsel the same miserable means of removing dangerous competitors[329]; but the heavy doom of death must have been one of the melancholy privileges of the noble class: and even though many of the common freemen may have been sold or retained as slaves at the caprice of the captors, still we cannot suppose this to have been the lot of any but those who had actually taken part in combat; no natural or national law could extend these harsh provisions to the freemen who remained quiet at home. Nevertheless even these were liable to be indirectly affected by the hostile triumph, inasmuch as the conquerors appear invariably to have taken a portion, more or less great, of the territory occupied by the conquered[330]: and wherever this is the case to the extent of depriving the cultivator of means sufficient for his support, he has no resource but to place himself in dependence upon some wealthier man, and lose, together with his lot or κληρος, the right to form an integral part of the state: the degree of his dependence, and the consequent comparative suffering to himself, may vary with a multitude of circumstances; but the one fact still remains, viz. that he is in the mund or hand of another, represented in the state by that other, and consequently, in the most emphatic sense of the word, _unfree_. ----- Footnote 329: After a battle between Ragnachari and Chlodowich, in which the former was taken prisoner, the victor thus addressed him: “Cui dixit Chlodoveus, Cur humiliasti gentem nostram, ut te vinciri permitteres? Nonne melius tibi fuerit mori? Et elevata bipenne, in caput eius defixit, et mortuus est. Conversusque ad fratrem eius, ait: Si tu solatium fratri tuo praebuisses, ille ligatus non fuisset! Similiter et ipsum in capite percussum interfecit, et mortuus est.” Gest. Reg. Franc. (Script. Rer. Gall. et Francic. ii. 555.) It was the interest of Chlodowich to put these princes to death, but there must still have been some _right_ acknowledged in him to do so. He seems however to rest it upon the disgrace which they had brought upon the mǽgburh, _gens_ or family, by suffering themselves to be captured and bound. Footnote 330: “Quod Ariovistus ... in eorum finibus consedisset, tertiamque partem agri Sequani qui esset optimus totius Galliae, occupavisset; et nunc de altera parte tertia Sequanos decedere iuberet.” Cæs. Bell. Gall. i. 32. The same proportion of a _third_, sometimes however in produce, not land, occurs in other cases: Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsges. i. 161 _seq._ § 23, with the accompanying quotations. -----