Quote Originally Posted by O'Callaghan View Post
I find this quite interesting, although I doubt that in the 21st century anyone here is planning on fighting in battle for his clan, which is what it is all truly about.
I think the best way to view a bond of manrent is to look at it in the same way one looks at assuming citizenship when moving to a different country. When one takes up citizenship in the USA, one renounces any other national allegiance and agrees to be bound to follow the laws of the United States. While in general terms military service may (or may not) be required of all citizens, there is nothing in the oath of allegiance that imposes a requirement to perform military service in order to gain citizenship.

The same is true of a bond of manrent; it gave an outsider (a stranger in blood) "citizenship" in the adopted clan. In accepting that "citizenship" the person entering into the bond of manrent agreed to follow the "laws" of the clan, as laid down by the chief. Now in all likelihood "sword service" may have been expected, but that requirement would have also been imposed in whatever clan our "bondman" may have previously belonged to.

Broadly speaking, most bonds of manrent existed to improve the quality of clan life-- to encourage smiths, carpenters, and the like, to settle on clan lands and provide an otherwise unavailable service to the clan. Bonds inevitably refer to "the advancement of the clan" and, at least as far as I am aware, none mention taking part in clan skirmishes, or lifting cattle, although I've no doubt that a bondman would have taken part in these expeditions along with his neighbors as this was often an ordinary feature of Highland life.