Final answer:
Historically, counts and other officials were indeed rewarded for their service and could face punishment if they failed to perform their duties. This reflects a common practice in governance to maintain control and incentivize desired behavior.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that counts who did their jobs well were rewarded and those who didn't were punished can be aligned with historical practices of governance, where rulers or governing authorities often implemented systems of rewards and punishments to maintain control and encourage desired behaviors.
This is evident across various historical contexts, whether it be within feudal systems, military structures, or other forms of administration.
For example, during the Revolutionary War, it's noted that soldiers were not always well rewarded for their service, as indicated by the reference stating that the claim is false. In the context of feudal systems, counts or lords were typically granted land and titles for their service or could face penalties if they failed to fulfill their duties.
Philosophers like Davis and Moore suggest that societies function on systems where rewards are distributed based on the perceived importance of work, which correlates with historical practices of compensating effort, contribution, and the costs incurred by individuals in their professional roles.
Moreover, culturally and historically, rewards and punishments have been used as a means to control and direct behavior, as seen in the reference which implies that not reporting criminal activity could result in severe consequences, contrasting with rewards for those who complied with the law.