# Royal and noble courts?



## Jess A (Mar 6, 2012)

It seems odd for me to ask this, since I have read a lot of books where the King's or Queen's or Duke's (etc) court is described.

However, details elude me or I don't feel confident with what I know; my knowledge is like a pile of puzzle pieces - and there are pieces missing, so it does not quite connect.

Can anybody tell me some details (or offer resources) about a royal court in times between 1300s and 1600s (approx)? If there are big differences for different periods, please detail that too. 

The sort of information I want:

- The titles and duties of those in the royal court. Including King's council and religion.
- Daily life, where they reside, etc.
- Detail about, for example, the women who might serve the Queen and their duties.
- Intrigue and ranks.
- Whatever else...

It seems a broad topic. Just offer me what you can. I just want to make sure that assumptions I make are actually correct. I've been reading a bit of historical fiction about the Tudors and wanted to know a bit more, but with more variety. 

Information and comparisons on different countries is welcomed, too. Not just English.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 6, 2012)

Court (royal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This lays out a good basic list of court positions.

This one deals with the legal role of royal court.
LAW IN THE MIDDLE AGES

I was suprised I did not find more on Royal court, naybe someone else has better.


----------



## Devor (Mar 6, 2012)

Could go and look at some of the posts in the _Machiavel: Ambition_ forum.


----------



## Jess A (Mar 7, 2012)

Hello,

Cheers, guys. It at least gives me a starting point for further research. 

Devor: -Chuckle- I have had a nosy about those forums. I will return and see what others have written


----------



## Devor (Mar 7, 2012)

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Devor: -Chuckle- I have had a nosy about those forums. I will return and see what others have written



This thread in particular.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 8, 2012)

Devor said:


> Could go and look at some of the posts in the _Machiavel: Ambition_ forum.



LOL! I include explicit warnings, in a couple of places, that relying on the game material could lead one to embarrassment. But thanks. 

That having been said… yes, you could certainly get quite a few ideas for things to follow up on in terms of research. The names of offices (and to a lesser extent their functions—you'll come closer to accurate if you edit out my sardonic humor) are all drawn from historical example. Well, almost all. I'm pretty sure the Grandee of Imperial Sinecures is unique to the game. Though it was inspired by Byzantine court procedures, so.… 

One things that must be remembered when looking at my materials: in real practice, noble titles didn't follow a hierarchy. (Not in Western Europe, at least.) A duke ranked higher in precedence than a count or a baron, but that did _not_ mean he had counts or barons as subordinates… they just sat farther down along the table when they were all gathered together. 

As for "courts" themselves, a distinction needs to be made between (1) the aggregate of all the officers subordinate to the noble; (2) the "court" sitting in session; and (3) the court engaged in ceremony. 

How many officers, and which ones, constitute (1) will vary widely. There may not _be_ any "officers" _per se_: all the administrative functions could be combined in a single individual—and often were, for lesser nobility with smaller landholdings: in many cases, the feudal lord or knight was _it_. That was a large part of the point of the system—each fief provided support to _one guy_ who owned his horse and arms. (See Carolingian feudalism—the system Charlemagne established.) At the other extreme were systems [sic] such as the Byzantine, or Imperial Chinese, where there may be hundreds of different officers whose sole function is to make it more difficult and time-consuming to achieve access to anyone holding genuine authority.

For (2), in most cases below royal courts (and, in earlier times or smaller countries, even those), these were generally a noble sitting on his marginally-more-comfortable-than-everyone-else's chair (maybe: most I've seen lead me to suspect those seated on benches were better off), hearing whatever items of justice or administration were brought before him. Probably there would a relevant officer or two present, maybe a couple of guards for looks or in case the noble wasn't fully confident in the affections of his subjects, and not much else. For purely administrative matters (those not involving peasants), business would be just as likely conducted around a table, or even in a sitting room. It's worth having a look at the design of castles when considering this: most of them were far smaller than most people imagine, and the rooms within them smaller still. 

For (3), anything goes: everyone who is anyone (for that realm, of whatever size) will be there, to see and be seen. Those times will be rare… not least because elaborate ceremonial is _expensive_, and all (well, most) of those important people have jobs they're supposed to be doing. This is one of the reasons for royal progresses: the king goes out on tour, so that local nobles and officials don't need to travel quite as far to conduct their business with him… and so that the costs of supporting the court can be spread around. (You don't think the _king's_ gonna pay for all that stuff, do you?) Again, the size of available facilities needs to be kept in mind, too: royal castles may have been larger than others, but they still couldn't cram every noble and official of the realm into one space, if the realm was of any significant size.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 8, 2012)

Ravana said:


> One things that must be remembered when looking at my materials: in real practice, noble titles didn't follow a hierarchy. (Not in Western Europe, at least.) A duke ranked higher in precedence than a count or a baron, but that did _not_ mean he had counts or barons as subordinates… they just sat farther down along the table when they were all gathered together.



Do you think it's at all a problem if a fantasy story that otherwise resembles medieval England/Europe (at least, to the layman) has a different structure? In my novel, dukes _do_ have counts as subordinates, and counts have barons as subordinates. The kingdom is arranged into a hierarchical structure: dukedoms (each ruled by a duke) are made up of 4-6 counties (each ruled by a count), and within the counties barons are responsible for certain areas, although they aren't formally "baronies" or anything, just lands). And then there's plain "lords," either those raised to the nobility from commoners for some service to the realm, or the non-inheriting children of barons/counts/dukes, although such nobles are still considered of higher station than simple lords. Such lords aren't typically responsible for anything (except their own personal property) and so don't really report to anyone.

The king rules the whole shebang, and one of the "innovations" of an earlier king of the realm is that it has a standing army that reports directly to the king; lesser nobles are only allowed to maintain a small force, for personal protection, e.g. a duke might be allowed to have 30 or 40 guards total (to guard their manor house and family), but more than that and the king gets annoyed.

I realize the extreme cost involved in maintaining a standing army, and that's justified by way of saying that the realm is relatively isolated: ocean on three sides with no other countries in easy invasion distance, and high mountains in the north separating them from a tribal nation that occasionally sends raiding parties over to make trouble, and _very_ rarely sends something resembling an army over to wreak mass havoc. (And another, friendly nation to the northwest, connected by an isthmus.)

But in general, the realm is peaceful and stable, and as a result prosperous enough to be able to support a standing army. (In peacetime, soldiers in the army also work part-time at other tasks instead of just spending all their time in their garrisons training: they clear roads for trade, work as field hands for nearby farms, etc. so that they're not _just_ a drain on the economy.) The army isn't huge, either; each county has a garrison, which range in size from 50 to 500 men. There's around 50 counties in the realm meaning that at most the army is around 25,000 men, including support personnel. This is in a nation with a population of... well, it's flexible. A million or two or three, depending. The realm is about the size of England. (Not Great Britain, just England.)

I realize that mathematically this may not entirely work; it's possible there's just no way a medieval economy can support a standing army of that size, but that's what I've got in place for the story.


----------



## Devor (Mar 8, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Do you think it's at all a problem if a fantasy story that otherwise resembles medieval England/Europe (at least, to the layman) has a different structure? In my novel, dukes _do_ have counts as subordinates, and counts have barons as subordinates. The kingdom is arranged into a hierarchical structure: dukedoms (each ruled by a duke) are made up of 4-6 counties (each ruled by a count), and within the counties barons are responsible for certain areas, although they aren't formally "baronies" or anything, just lands). And then there's plain "lords," either those raised to the nobility from commoners for some service to the realm, or the non-inheriting children of barons/counts/dukes, although such nobles are still considered of higher station than simple lords. Such lords aren't typically responsible for anything (except their own personal property) and so don't really report to anyone.



It's all in how you present it, but Barons reporting to Counts and not having a barony would confuse me a little.  I don't think I'd be bothered by the Count and Duke thing though.  I can't speak for anyone else.

I don't see anything wrong with the standing army.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 8, 2012)

Devor said:


> It's all in how you present it, but Barons reporting to Counts and not having a barony would confuse me a little.



It's mostly just to avoid having to structure and name 500 baronies. (Or even just the small percentage that are seen in the story.) For all practical purposes the barons rule a barony (where a "barony" is "an area of lands ruled by a baron"), they just aren't really called that in the context of the story. Partly because I don't want to confuse readers, with more information about various jurisdictions and the names and such.


----------



## Devor (Mar 8, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It's mostly just to avoid having to structure and name 500 baronies. (Or even just the small percentage that are seen in the story.) For all practical purposes the barons rule a barony (where a "barony" is "an area of lands ruled by a baron"), they just aren't really called that in the context of the story. Partly because I don't want to confuse readers, with more information about various jurisdictions and the names and such.



I might be a little jaded by Count of Monte Cristo, which was all about this stuff.  The Baron in that story was richer than the count because he also did banking.  The difference between Barony and County is pretty small, while Duchies reflected power and were often given to princes and royal family.  I can't really comment on whether you should change anything, as it is all in presentation and context, but I'm sure I would be confused by a Baron being so minor as to actually report to a Count.  It just doesn't reflect the political dynamic I would expect to see pass between them.  On the other hand, if it's put in context _before_ such an exchange happens, it's a pretty easy thing to get over.

Either of those figures reporting to a Duke would seem normal, though, because a Duke was often just that much bigger.

((edit))  I could probably note, in my own settings this is the sort of thing for which I invent my own terms because I don't want readers to have preconceptions about how things work.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 8, 2012)

Yeah, it's explained fairly early on that the counts report to the dukes, and the barons report to the counts. Like, chapter 2. So it should be okay.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 10, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Do you think it's at all a problem if a fantasy story that otherwise resembles medieval England/Europe (at least, to the layman) has a different structure? In my novel, dukes _do_ have counts as subordinates, and counts have barons as subordinates. The kingdom is arranged into a hierarchical structure: dukedoms (each ruled by a duke) are made up of 4-6 counties (each ruled by a count), and within the counties barons are responsible for certain areas, although they aren't formally "baronies" or anything, just lands). And then there's plain "lords," either those raised to the nobility from commoners for some service to the realm, or the non-inheriting children of barons/counts/dukes, although such nobles are still considered of higher station than simple lords. Such lords aren't typically responsible for anything (except their own personal property) and so don't really report to anyone.
> 
> The king rules the whole shebang, and one of the "innovations" of an earlier king of the realm is that it has a standing army that reports directly to the king; lesser nobles are only allowed to maintain a small force, for personal protection, e.g. a duke might be allowed to have 30 or 40 guards total (to guard their manor house and family), but more than that and the king gets annoyed. …
> 
> ...



I don't think having a hierarchical system of nobility is a problem, no. I think it makes considerably more sense than actual Western European history, in fact (part of why I use such a system in Machiavel)… though "sense" wasn't always one of our ancestors' strong points, especially where politics was concerned. 

I'd actually have a bigger problem with the other part: no one in his right mind would keep a large standing army in the _absence_ of significant external—or at least internal—threats. (Your monarch may not be in his right mind, of course.) Rome managed to control an empire more than thirty times the size of what you're talking about geographically, and perhaps forty times the population, depending on what numbers you settle on, with only five times as many legionaries, along with roughly the same number of auxiliaries (which included their entire complement of cavalry and archers). And their borders were considerably less secure than yours. During the Roman Empire period, the legions _were_ standing troops—as opposed to up to at least mid-Republic times, where the majority would not be called to duty unless needed, and then normally only during the campaigning season; and while, yes, the Roman legions would perform some other tasks (military construction, and planting crops around their permanent garrison points… important when you can't always rely on the locals to fill your supply needs), they were definitely soldiers first. 

In post-Roman Western Europe, it turned completely the opposite direction, in every detail. Armies consisted of a noble and his household, plus any vassals he had and their households… and the king's was no different, other than him being theoretically able to call upon the nobles of his realm to serve him loyally (heh) when required. Entire wars were sometimes fought where the combined forces of both sides were smaller than a single Roman legion. And, except for those times, _nobody_ was "standing": the nobles might get marginally less dirt under their fingernails, but they would be supervising out in their fields even if not plowing them personally… for the least well-off nobles, perhaps even that. This didn't change until at least the 15th century, in Spain; most of the rest of Europe still didn't have standing armies when they were plunged into a three-decade-long holocaust at the beginning of the 17th century. ("Hey, everyone! I've got an idea! Let's all get together and have a war in Germany!") After that point, they started to catch on again… but only after it.

And—this may come as a surprise to many—Germany was one of the last places of all to have one. The problem there was… well, the nobles. Pretty much everywhere else, the nobles were progressively subordinated to increasingly centralized states, but the Holy Roman Emperor didn't have a standing army because he wasn't _allowed_ to have one. In spite of being expected to keep the HRE's borders secure—no small task considering it was under assault from the Ottomans for five centuries, plus just about every other neighbor it had at some point in time. He wasn't allowed to have one… because it made the nobles nervous. Anything even _hinting_ at one was promptly met by opposition, ranging in form from refusal of tax money to outright rebellion. He couldn't even punish rebels after they were put down—well, not the nobles: their mercenaries and conscripts could be slaughtered—because the Emperor being allowed to punish nobles for any reason would have set a bad precedent, so all the other nobles (_including_ ones who'd just been fighting alongside their Emperor) wouldn't permit it… otherwise, they figured (probably correctly), he'd just pick them off one at a time. Of all those factors, the most important was the ability to deny the Emperor the funds he needed to support an army in the first place… but having a couple thousand independent noble vassals, all of them reluctant to give up even the least of their privileges, made it a lot harder for him. 

Of course, the rest of Europe _did_ become centralized over time, so it certainly wouldn't be an unprecedented circumstance if you country were too. In Spain, this was largely a result of the Reconquista: new lands were added a bit at a time as comparatively large states drove back the Moors, and new titles to those lands were handed out by the kings who led them; in essence, the army preceded and was the main cause of the centralization. (This was also why Spanish soldiery was considered the finest in Europe until the mid-17th century: they were the only ones who _were_ a professional, standing army.) In England, it happened because of the Puritans… who also, no coincidence, created their first standing army, and then disposed of both the king _and_ most of the nobles. In France, it happened because of a single man—who _wasn't_ the king. Had first France and then all of Europe not been embroiled in divisive, religion-fueled wars, Richelieu could never have pulled it off… but he did, and France went on to eclipse Spain and dominate Europe for the next century and a half.

Assuming you have some reason for the king to be able to acquire the necessary power in the first place (such as having picked them off one at a time…), I'd say your standing army is probably at least twice what he'd need—perhaps as much as five times that. No single noble, or even a decent-sized group of them, would be able to raise the size forces necessary to resist him, and the realm would be too small for them to be able to do so without him catching wind of it and collecting sufficient of his own forces to put them down. In the meantime, let them handle the dirty work of local enforcement. It's cheaper for him; it's also cheaper in the long run for them to work that way than to maintain their own forces _and_ pay the taxes required for the king to maintain his.


----------



## Jess A (Mar 10, 2012)

Wow; I haven't been able to get on for a bit and am very pleased to see so many replies - and such quality, including some debates!

I am just passing through but I will give all of this a huge read tomorrow and I am sure that I will have further questions.

For example, the hierarchy thing has always confused me. I have a King presiding over 4 duchies and within those duchies, there are earls and such which answer to the Duke. Similar to Benjamin's counts, I suppose, with their own lands. It is more complex than I ever imagined :|


----------



## Devor (Mar 10, 2012)

Ravana said:


> And their borders were considerably less secure than yours.



Those are all good points Ravana.  It might be worth considering, though, that stable borders would go a long way towards helping the government coalesce and establish its internal controls.  It might be more feasible for an isolated country to raise a standing army, if not as necessary.

As Storm Cloud seems happy for us to share, in one of the stories I'm working on, there's a peninsula about the size of Rhode Island with a standing army of just over 5,000, including the soldiers but not the crews of a navy of 30-50 ships.

Also, the regional political system is very different and a little modern.  Although the army is spread throughout the country, they have an internal structure which directs loyalty to the king and not the local leaders.  And when a local leader needs to be selected, the King sends an envoy to determine the "best" candidates, and then holds a town hall-type meeting to elect one of them.  Sort of a single-party democracy.

Since the topic is raised, I could use some advice about how large the population should be, how many local districts you might expect to see, how many ships might be "too many," and anything else that comes to mind from the above.  I should probably note, although the borders are isolated and the country is internally unified, the threats are numerous.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 10, 2012)

Ravana said:


> I'd actually have a bigger problem with the other part: no one in his right mind would keep a large standing army in the _absence_ of significant external–or at least internal–threats. (Your monarch may not be in his right mind, of course.)



The idea is that the standing army was an innovation of an earlier king, around a century before the story begins, and it's persisted to this day. But there's no reason it has to be as large as it is, as long as the king can conscript additional forces when needed for larger situations. Garrisons of 50-100 men scattered throughout the realm (rather than the 50-500 I listed before) would still be enough to remind local nobles to keep in line, since the king could at any moment gather together the forces from half a dozen garrisons and descend upon someone rebellious.

Additionally, the army has now existed long enough to have built up traditions and culture; everyone in the realm takes for granted that the army reports directly to the king, and it would not really occur to anyone that things could work otherwise, because for every person currently living in the realm, it has been this way since before they were born. (Nothing's _impossible_, of course, but it is unlikely.)

That said, the barbaric nation north of this realm is an irregular threat, and it would make sense (historically within the story) if the garrisons closer to the border were a bit stronger.



> Assuming you have some reason for the king to be able to acquire the necessary power in the first place (such as having picked them off one at a time…)



I'm not really planning to delve into how the king who started the army managed to assemble it and bring all the nobles in line; it happened a century ago and the particulars of it don't have any bearing on the story. For the purposes of the story, all that matters is that the king has a standing army, individual nobles can't possibly stand against him, and there are garrisons scattered all over the realm that (for various reasons introduced during the story) present a threat to the protagonists.



> In the meantime, let them handle the dirty work of local enforcement. It's cheaper for him; it's also cheaper in the long run for them to work that way than to maintain their own forces _and_ pay the taxes required for the king to maintain his.



The idea there is that the nobles can call upon the garrisons to deal with problems, but even though the soldiers are doing something at the behest of the noble, the noble isn't in their chain of command -- sort of like as if the nobles were clients of the army, requesting assistance in dealing with (say) bandits.

In addition to the army soldiers, individual towns/cities/villages have their own magistrate (who is sort of like the mayor) and constabulary. Really small villages don't have permanent constables; the magistrate can deputize them at need (if for example they need to arrest a thief, or resolve some local issue, or put a stop to a brawl). Larger villages might have one full-time constable; bigger towns would have multiple, and large cities have an entire constabulary force responsible for keeping order in the city. Constables end up being responsible for law enforcement in villages/towns/cities; the army is brought in for dealing with issues between jurisdictions, or out in the wilderness. Kinda like city cops and county sheriffs (or maybe the National Guard).

Again, the whole justification provided for this is that the realm is isolated enough to have had a long period of (relative) peace and prosperity. As a result, there's enough of an economic surplus to support a relatively small number of permanent peacekeepers. The number doesn't need to be huge; just big enough that no noble could successfully rebel, and that the protagonists need to avoid them.

I'm not _really_ worried that someone's going to read the novel and do a detailed economic analysis to try to prove that it couldn't work, or that it will seem absurd even to those (like you ) who are already familiar with the real-world circumstances. To a degree, I'm hoping people will just accept it as the way the world works.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Again, the whole justification provided for this is that the realm is isolated enough to have had a long period of (relative) peace and prosperity. As a result, there's enough of an economic surplus to support a relatively small number of permanent peacekeepers. The number doesn't need to be huge; just big enough that no noble could successfully rebel, and that the protagonists need to avoid them.



Exactly.



> I'm not _really_ worried that someone's going to read the novel and do a detailed economic analysis to try to prove that it couldn't work, or that it will seem absurd even to those (like you ) who are already familiar with the real-world circumstances. To a degree, I'm hoping people will just accept it as the way the world works.



Nah. Not "absurd": just more than the realm would likely need, on the initial numbers given. After all, few monarchs are going to want to put forth great expenses on something that rarely gets used. (It was similar considerations–minus the monarch–that found the U.S. so ill-prepared for both World Wars… even after those wars had already been in progress for a couple of years and the country's inevitable entry into them was increasingly obvious to most people.) And even if the monarch is keen on the idea, his funds still come from somewhere, and those sources won't be keen on paying them. More likely, I think, would be the smaller level of standing forces plus a trained reserve pool, especially along that one border area, with a few strategically-placed forts with armories storing the weaponry until it was needed… much less expensive (the weapons cost the same whether they're in someone's hands or not).

Another great way to keep the nobles in line (and the needed force sizes down) is to prohibit the building of private fortifications. Most countries in Western Europe eventually did this. A castle can hold out against siege for months, sometimes even years; a chateau… not so much. 

As for the history: no special reason to explain it within the story–just suggesting you might want to have some notion of the explanation yourself. I always prefer to have those things at hand, as they often help give me notions concerning other aspects of the world.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 11, 2012)

I recently watched a thing on England's royal family, and one thing I thought was really interesting was about the division of land that has existed for a really long time and still exists today.  I know you are researching something different, but it might be somewhat related to your hierarchy question... so I'll post it and let you decide.  

Duchy of Cornwall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a little about how a duchy works, and until I watched that program, I had never really asked what the various noble lands DID.  I hope you find it helps you in your research, I know it helped me to create a more authentic feel by causing me to answer questions I had not thought to ask before.


----------



## Jess A (Mar 11, 2012)

Devor said:


> As Storm Cloud seems happy for us to share, in one of the stories I'm working on, there's a peninsula about the size of Rhode Island with a standing army of just over 5,000, including the soldiers but not the crews of a navy of 30-50 ships.
> 
> Since the topic is raised, I could use some advice about how large the population should be, how many local districts you might expect to see, how many ships might be "too many," and anything else that comes to mind from the above.  I should probably note, although the borders are isolated and the country is internally unified, the threats are numerous.



I could also do with that advice. Although I do think too many ships would cost too much money. I can't offer a lot of amazing advice on the subject and would welcome any debate on this also.

I am happy for us to share. This is invaluable to me and this page is bookmarked so that I can make reference to it repeatedly.

I should note that I still haven't had quality time to go through it all, but keep posting, keep it coming. My eyeballs are bleeding from reading an e-book on the Black Death for Uni. :|

Re: The game thread - I can see why that is useful, as it lists all the titles and the duties. I can always use it as a basic source and get more information if I need to.  It is a very good start.

Anihow - Which program are you referring to? Is it called 'Monarchy'? I have been watching that also but I still need to get the third part. It's not very detailed but it's a great starting point. And yes I do need to know how duchies are run.

Back on the point of courts and duchies and such:

I have my four duchies. All are of the royal line (some more distantly than others) and non-inheriting sons are usually gifted with other land. The Kings have given out the duchies pretty sparingly over time, particularly when new areas of land are discovered/taken over/conquered. Within the duchies, there are earls and other landholders and such. It will probably be based on the feudal system. To raise an army, the King has his own 'knights', but he also uses conscription of the peasants (he prefers to use incentives before force, though), mercenaries and the duchies know well that they will muster their own armies and hand over their own 'knights' when called upon. 

Does this sound realistic?

I have no idea how to go about assessing population just yet - I'm still working on it all. I enjoy being thorough, even if I don't mention everything in my story. I need to write within a known context and a well-imagined world.

The Kingdom is fairly large and the duchies are therefore also large. There are 'wild' lords on the outskirts of the Kingdom, but the King certainly pays them favours because they are the first line of defense on the border. 

As was said above regarding the 'Royal Court' - are there people who permanently live in the King's court - the King's favoured servants, the Queen's (there is currently no Queen, however) Ladies-in-Waiting? It is indeed very far for the Dukes and their households to travel, but the King and his eldest son and heir are lovers of travel (and battle) and they are still young and fit. I suppose the King could travel through the country to visit as well, so that the duchies can pay for festivities and the King doesn't have to foot the cost all the time. 

Does this sound realistic?

Also, I note that sometimes people have several titles and lands. Obviously, they cannot be in two places at once. What are the duties and titles of those managing the lands in their absence? I assume all the owned lands, if successful, would give the landholder quite a bit of lovely income (as with the Duchy of Cornwall).

My eyes hurt so I apologise for my scribble.


----------



## Jess A (Mar 16, 2012)

Seems a lot of 'thank yous' are in order. Including to Benjamin who inspired some other useful conversations.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 16, 2012)

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Anihow - Which program are you referring to? Is it called 'Monarchy'? I have been watching that also but I still need to get the third part. It's not very detailed but it's a great starting point. And yes I do need to know how duchies are run.



That sounds familiar.  I was more interested in the content than the title and have forgotten, sorry.



Little Storm Cloud said:


> I have my four duchies. All are of the royal line (some more distantly than others) and non-inheriting sons are usually gifted with other land. The Kings have given out the duchies pretty sparingly over time, particularly when new areas of land are discovered/taken over/conquered. Within the duchies, there are earls and other landholders and such. It will probably be based on the feudal system. To raise an army, the King has his own 'knights', but he also uses conscription of the peasants (he prefers to use incentives before force, though), mercenaries and the duchies know well that they will muster their own armies and hand over their own 'knights' when called upon.
> 
> Does this sound realistic?



Yes.  The beauty of it is that you can take some artistic license here because it is your system, but if you are asking if it all sounds plausible and will a reader accept the system as you've laid it out... well I think it's just fine, and you will be able to go into greater detail or leave it vague as you please because it isn't weird (therefore forcing you to get into the details).




Little Storm Cloud said:


> I have no idea how to go about assessing population just yet - I'm still working on it all. I enjoy being thorough, even if I don't mention everything in my story. I need to write within a known context and a well-imagined world.


Just a suggestion, my dad once told me that it takes 50 peasants to support one equipped mounted knight.  Though I cannot attest to the accuracy of such a statement, I use a similar system in determining the number of soldiers a city can have, etc.





Little Storm Cloud said:


> As was said above regarding the 'Royal Court' - are there people who permanently live in the King's court - the King's favoured servants, the Queen's (there is currently no Queen, however) Ladies-in-Waiting? It is indeed very far for the Dukes and their households to travel, but the King and his eldest son and heir are lovers of travel (and battle) and they are still young and fit. I suppose the King could travel through the country to visit as well, so that the duchies can pay for festivities and the King doesn't have to foot the cost all the time.
> 
> Does this sound realistic?



Okay, I'm trying to understand exactly what you are asking.  Ravana would most certainly be a better source for this than I am, but I'll try....  There are a number of men and women in the royal household who hold offices.  Court (royal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this isn't a perfect source, but it's sufficient to illustrate.  Each rung up the social ladder one climbs, the bigger his household gets.  A minor lord might have a few servants, some men at arms, a groom, valet, cook, whatever, you can make it up however you see it.  A Duke will have someone who runs each aspect of his estate, and then all the servants under that person.... and the duke himself will hunt and visit court and check in with his steward or whatever.  Fosters join households (cousins, younger sons, etc.  go to live with a wealthier relative, even a distant one, to learn how to be a little lord or lady) and also the children of household members.  Households, whether small or large have a hierarchy, and one might be born in a household and strive to be the head cook, but then their child might one day become something better.  It's all about bettering your station.  Also, I mentioned in a previous post that households wore livery, whether a garment or a patch (and of course you can change that as you want) and they enjoy some immunity from the law, being such http://mythicscribes.com/forums/research/2478-executioners-2.html#post30813 .  
Anyways, as to your question, I don't understand whether you are asking who lives in the castle, or who is there in the court.  
Nobles of the court would have a house nearby, and if they didn't they might stay with a relative or rent a house.  People who lived in the duke's (or kings?) house would not have their own rooms usually, they would sleep in a hall with other servants.  Women servants were usually locked up together for their own protection, because though it was a finable offense to sleep with a lord's maid, her children were absorbed into the household, and no one needs more mouths to feed.  I'm trying not to go on and on, and I realize I am speaking about several different times in our own history, but it's just hard to stay concise when it's a big part of society for a long time.
As for travel, when Norfolk visited London in the mid-sixteenth century, he was the richest man in the realm.  He brought 500 retainers on horseback, and could summon an army of 1200 men from among his own tenants.  His holdings were 600 square miles, several mansions in the countryside, and a house near London.

As for Kings traveling..... well Queen Elizabeth was famous for her long progresses, where she and her court would visit various nobles in the countryside.  The host houses could be bankrupted after all the feasts and entertainment were paid for.



Little Storm Cloud said:


> Also, I note that sometimes people have several titles and lands. Obviously, they cannot be in two places at once. What are the duties and titles of those managing the lands in their absence? I assume all the owned lands, if successful, would give the landholder quite a bit of lovely income (as with the Duchy of Cornwall).



Yes, titles and lands can be a little confusing.  I have written quite a lot on these forums about post-plague Europe, and If you want more info about that, send me a PM.  In short, life changed from little value placed on the individual before the 1350's, to a thresher being paid 18 times his normal wage after 1350.  People became valuable commodities, and peasants became land-owners farming for themselves.  There were still nobles, of course, and they paid people to work their lands, but after the plague, people could afford dowries for their daughters and apprenticeships for their sons.  There was a rising middle-class which pre-plague was unheard of.  By the 1500's merchant families held more power than many nobles.  

A duke would have all sorts of people he employed; their wages paid by the estate.  The estate was like a modern company, with upper and middle management type of structuring.  So like if your duchy was big into wool production, you would have shepherds, and people overseeing breeding, slaughtering, and losses.  You would also have people who did shearing, combing, spinning, dying, and weaving.  I don't know how much of the process would be contained on the estate, but an industry such as wool  would also require loads of other people, to transport the products, to collect urine for the dying process, to make soap to clean the wool, to make the dye.  Again, I don't know what would be taken care of where exactly, but it's something to think about when you are setting up your duchies. 

I hope some of that helps.  If you need any more help, send me a PM.  I have done tons of research and have many books I could look something up for you in (or give you the info to get it from a library).  Good luck with your research.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 16, 2012)

man that got really big.  Sorry.  I should have answered one at a time.


----------



## Jess A (Mar 17, 2012)

Anihow - sure, I will read through what you just wrote tomorrow (whilst I'm writing a history essay on the printing press, oddly enough - hehe) because I want to absorb it properly (and I'm brain dead from work). No worries about posting a lot; you've seen Ravana's essays, right?  Love essays. A quick scan shows me that I will find everything of use!


----------



## Ravana (Mar 18, 2012)

Heh. 

You want to know what's frightening? I go back and _reread_ my posts from time to time. You'd think one time through would be enough even for _me_ to tire of them.… 

(Actually, it's usually because I need to check what I already said… so I don't end up repeating myself and making things even longer.  )


----------



## Jess A (Mar 19, 2012)

Ravana: -chuckle- If you have compiled all of your wonderful ideas into a miniature 'essay', then I think that is valuable and worth referring back to indeed! 

Anihow - I have read your wonderful information (finally; I finished my essay) and I thank you again! I will certainly request some books. I can get them from my University's library. I found some wonderful history books on early modern European culture (one is cleverly named 'Early modern European culture').

We discussed post-plague Europe last week and the week before, so I understand what you are saying. I find post-plague Europe very interesting and I will probably use elements of that period to structure my work. I originally liked the feudal-system idea, but I also like the thought of having a middle class and I do love those wealthy merchants! The more I understand these things, the more I can play with the rules (and break some if realistic enough). 

Thanks again guys.


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 21, 2012)

I also like rich merchants, a good source of annoyance and of charity in a story.

Did the rich merchants mark the end of the feudal system or was it just modified? 

I guess my system would be a modified feudal system, land grants and ownership is possible, and royalty are in control of the military and justice, and of course taxes must be paid to support the goverment.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 22, 2012)

While this is a considerable oversimplification: rich merchants were the antithesis of the feudal system. Though you have to be talking about "feudalism" correctly in the first place for this to be so. (Not saying you aren't; just using that as a lead-in.) I suspect that many people confuse "feudalism," which is a specific approach to economics, with "monarchialism," rule by kings and nobles. The two are far from synonymous. In fact, strong central monarchies were another antithesis of feudalism, since feudalism distributed power across thousands of pairs of hands; the rise of strong centralized states required taking it back. 

Feudalism was premised on land ownership, which in turn was premised on the assumption that controlling land equaled controlling production. This is one of the biggest reasons the populations of cities plunged following the Roman period, and remained low in Western Europe until the Renaissance: a city of 5,000 was considered quite sizable, and 30,000 was immense. Large urban areas weren't _good_ for anything, as far as the powers that be were concerned, since a peasant can only be expected to walk so far to a field to provide a day's work. They were, in fact, downright inconvenient in most cases. Upwards of 90% of the population of Europe was spread out in tiny hamlets and individual farmhouses, pursuing agriculture on behalf of whatever noble happened to own that particular stretch. 

Merchants, on the other hand, rely on trade–and barter never made anyone "rich." So it had to be cash trade, which means selling to people who actually have the surplus cash to spend. Trade also benefits from scale: the more of an item you can purchase or sell at a single point, the lower your transportation costs. The former, in most cases, requires concentration of production–i.e. towns and cities; the latter requires concentration of consumers–i.e. towns and cities. Or, in either case, a concentration of the _flow_ of goods through a single point, with markets where those goods can be exchanged and then traded farther up or down the line… which, while it doesn't _require_ a town or city, is guaranteed to cause one to spring up. So, for merchants, large urban areas are not only convenient, they're all but vital, and in the long run vigorous trade makes them all but inevitable.

This _is_ an oversimplification: it's also not necessarily the way a world would _have_ to be. It's conceivable for large urban areas to exist side-by-side with a feudal system of land ownership in the rural areas. And they did, to a certain extent, during the periods of transition away from feudalism… though in Europe, at least, the rise of urban areas was invariably fatal to feudalism in the long run. You can all but map feudalism's death simply by mapping out the increase in towns and cities, and populations residing in them, over time. You can also map out the fortunes of many noble families by mapping out how rapidly they adapted to the notion of cash-based economies, or the notion that "production" does not always equal "tillage."

Outside of Western Europe, processes differed slightly. There were immense cities in China and Japan even during their feudal periods; in contrast, Eastern Europe had very few large cities even up to the time of its passing. What killed it in all these cases was centralization–the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, the imposition of centralized nation-states following WWI in Eastern Europe, the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China.

So, no, feudalism didn't get modified. In Western Europe, what we usually are thinking of when discussing "feudalism," it got strangled; in Eastern Europe and Asia, it got axed.


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 26, 2012)

Makes since, if all you want is agriculture and sustaining occupations, small spread out population was productive.

So my system of goverment would be more of a sub-nobles ruling as mayors, nobles ruling as governors, with one main ruler, have not ued it, but probably a house of commons or such, to make the lowly citizen feel like they have some input.  

So did most of Europe change from Feudalism to monarchialism? I assume nobility still had privlege in the monarch's realm.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 27, 2012)

Sometimes rather too much privilege. 

Feudalism is technically a subcategory of monarchialism–there's still a monarch at the top in either case: what matters is how much power those below the top held, and for what reasons. (I suppose it would be possible for feudalism to exist without a monarch, though I'm having a bit of trouble imagining it… especially in the long term.) The privileges of nobles were eroded over time in most cases–a process that generally involved centuries, except for the later ones where the whole system was replaced at one go due to revolution. 

As an economic system, feudalism comes down to two factors: (1) means of production and who controls it… which, as mentioned, in the traditional view meant land ownership; (2) the distribution of military power, and responsibility to pay for providing it, among those _same_ people. So, conceivably, if all a society's military were provided by a number of wealthy merchants and/or manufacturers answerable to a single higher authority, it could still be regarded as a form of feudalism.

Control over production, in feudal terms, has broader implications, though. For starters, in order to control production, you also need to control all the factors that go into production. For agriculture, this pretty much comes down to two things again: land and labor (and consider all the things that might factor into "controlling" labor… for feudalism, it could mean controlling every aspect of the laborers' lives, not merely the administration of justice but, by extension, who could marry whom, move where, build what, buy from or sell to whom, and so on; in later periods, what religion was practiced). Which is why the system started breaking down as cities rose–the landowners no longer controlled that sector of the labor; worse, there was some very important production going on that did not directly involve land use. Which in turn meant that a great deal of a nation's money was suddenly following channels other than that which the feudal nobles controlled… and of course the monarch, always happy for extra funds–especially to pay for his military–was tapping into sources that had nothing to do with traditional hierarchies, and which were _not_ in the business of providing him with the elite, heavily-armored and highly expensive troops that formed the core of that military. 

On the other hand, the members of that wealthy mercantile class didn't much care for providing the bulk of the king's ready cash if they were going to be treated as second-class citizens… which meant that if the king wanted to keep the money coming in, he had to do something about restraining–you guessed it–feudal privileges.

It isn't possible to generalize about which privileges were eliminated when, as this was different (and took place in different orders) from one country to another. England regularized its (common) justice and taxation systems fairly early on; in France, justice fell increasingly to a central system over time, but the taxation system wasn't even addressed until the 1600s, and wasn't entirely regularized until the Revolution (it was in fact one of the main causes of it); in the HRE, local princes retained most of their privileges–including, in the cases of the most important princes, that of choosing who the monarch would be–up to the time the Napoleonic Wars swept them away (and were, in fact, re-established to a certain extent during the half century following them, prior to Prussia uniting Germany into a single country… and even _then_ they weren't completely done with them). 

Of course, even after those times, the nobility still retained several more or less important privileges. Apart from being allowed to wear shiny hats, in most cases the nobility still owned nearly all the land: the common folk–even those who had money–only got title to their own bits of it gradually. Justice could still be rather less than "equal" for nobles and non-nobles, regardless of what the laws said: this tended to be one of the biggest ongoing gripes of the newly-formed middle classes. Often, it was only the nobles who had a direct say in how the country was run–though increasingly one finds that the wealthy managed to work around this obstacle through creative mechanisms (i.e. they bribed people). Even post-reform, offices tended to go overwhelmingly to nobles… and where they didn't, they generally went to other wealthy citizens (i.e. they bought them). Within most militaries, the officer corps consisted exclusively of those who could trace noble lineage–in a way, the last holdout of the concept underlying feudalism, once it had disappeared from other aspect of life… and the few exceptions went to other wealthy citizens (i.e. they bought them). Religious appointments… I'm sure you can figure out the rest of that sentence by now.

Not saying that nobles didn't buy a lot of those offices and appointments anyway. If you're selling, you'll probably sell to whoever can pony up the coin. Nor am I saying that these issues have vanished completely to this day, even in Western democracies, though at least nowadays your ancestry tends not to matter nearly as much as your wealth… which I guess is an improvement.


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 27, 2012)

I understand most, but this one: "who could marry whom".
Except noble marrying commoner, why would a ruler care who married whom? (I understand marrying in your same area)
I understand to control the people, you have to restrict their movement, if you let them move freely, they would move to a nicer noble, and leave you with no workers.

My military does have noble leaders, but some are bascially warrant officers of equal title.  The higher up the more likely to be of noble blood. I could see a general-warrant officer if he was extremely gifted in controlling troops and earning their respect and the respect of fellow officers, it would of course be an extreme rarity.


----------



## Jess A (Mar 28, 2012)

SeverinR: (Edit: Re-read your post and realised I misinterpreted it)

On marriage - if you were a ruler in feudal times, you would probably want healthy children produced to become laborers as well. 

I suppose it depends on your novel, though. I think it is plausible to have commoners who are military leaders but who have risen up in the ranks and are perhaps almost like nobility. It depends how your world and laws are structured. Some monarchs might place such a high importance on military (and perhaps religious priests as well) that their birth doesn't matter. Alternatively, perhaps only nobles are allowed to train or rise in the ranks.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 28, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> Except noble marrying commoner, why would a ruler care who married whom? (I understand marrying in your same area)
> I understand to control the people, you have to restrict their movement, if you let them move freely, they would move to a nicer noble, and leave you with no workers.



Right–you wanted your subjects to stay on your lands, which meant marrying another of your subjects. Though control over marriage is also a logical consequence of some of the other controls… laws and religion being the obvious ones. Control over land was another. If the noble's land was already as heavily cultivated as he wished to allow it to become (keeping in mind that many of them liked to keep forests around for hunting), he may actually prefer a subject to marry _outside_ his borders, rather than try to find a place for the new couple to farm and raise their own family; similarly, he might forbid marrying someone from another fief even if that person would be moving _onto_ his lands, if he felt that the outsider would be problematic in some way or other… loyalty, for instance. He might have some reason to wish to control the lines of inheritance of a certain piece of land, keeping it in some family's hands: even prior to the private ownership of land, most tracts descended from parent to child. Or keep it out of someone's hands, if he wanted the land for some other purpose and felt this was an easier (read: safer) way to do it than simply running the present tenants off of it–keep in mind that in a society where owning land equaled status, the most obvious way to reward service was to give someone land. (The Roman perfected this, as their "retirement benefit" for legionaries, with the result of constantly expanding the areas inhabited by loyal, experienced, enculturated ex-soldiers, and thus of their own control. I suspect this practice–minus the cultural part–may have been one of the things that inspired the feudal system in the first place, though it ultimately had more to do with the social structures of the Germanic tribes, which were based foremost on personal loyalties.) Or the noble might want to keep a tract from being subdivided among the tenant's current and prospective heirs, a process that led in the long run to no single farmstead being large enough to support a family… which happened a _lot_ as time went by and populations started to grow.

The noble might wish to impose ethnic restrictions–no intermarriage with Jews being the most common, though hardly the only one, especially in the earlier periods, when there were still great migrations of peoples and tribes taking place. ("You're a Dane, she's a Saxon: forget about it.") He might want to impose class separation at some level other than noble/commoner: there were often "unfree" or "half-free" classes… and the noble may also want to discourage the growth of craft and merchant classes (foolish as that may sound in hindsight). He might allow a marriage as a favor to a vassal–or prohibit one as a favor to a vassal who wanted a particular spouse who planned on a different union. He very often would require payment of a fee to permit a marriage to take place–today we call that a "marriage license." He might even, gods forbid, take a genuine interest in the well-being of his subjects, and disallow or at least delay a marriage on the grounds of an insufficient dowry or other factors that seemed likely to lead to economic disaster for the prospective couple. Along the same lines, he might compel a marriage in cases where it was obvious the bride-to-be would be requiring the support of a husband soon… regardless of who swore what about who the father was or wasn't.

Or the noble might just be a petty, arrogant, meddlesome git who enjoyed making his subjects miserable… or at least making them crawl.

So, yeah: complete control over the vassals' lives meant _complete_ control. In most cases, permission to marry wold have been granted perfunctorily (once any financial obligations were met, at least, and barring any obvious disqualifier that would normally prevent anyone from raising the question in the first place). But there are plenty of reasons why it might not be: none of the above is speculative. And I probably missed a few somewhere in there.



> My military does have noble leaders, but some are bascially warrant officers of equal title.  The higher up the more likely to be of noble blood. I could see a general-warrant officer if he was extremely gifted in controlling troops and earning their respect and the respect of fellow officers, it would of course be an extreme rarity.



It was possible, in most times and places, for exceptional persons to find their way to the top (generally getting ennobled in the process: if not, that person would always find _some_ subordinates too stuck up to accept orders), though this would seldom have been anything even approaching normal. Still, sometimes, excellence–or something similar to it–will out. The King of France once turned his entire army over to a schizophrenic teenage peasant girl, after all.…


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 28, 2012)

Ravana said:


> Still, sometimes, excellence–or something similar to it–will out. The King of France once turned his entire army over to a schizophrenic teenage peasant girl, after all.…



With some of the officers and NCO's I worked with in the military, she might have been a better leader.


----------

