Talk:Sirion (Realm)/Constitution

I summarize here the critiques that were made until now:

Meristenzio

- b. noble merit coming from the ordinary people. -

This is not true. We do not accept ordinary people in our ranks. Only those who can prove their noble blood would be accepted.

- I - The rights inherent to the titles, regardless of this: and II - The duties attaching to titles, regardless of this: -

These paragraphs make little sense in my opinion. What should be stated in the constitution is the right of the lords to dispose of their resources as they prefer, the fact that they are directly responsible for the well being and actions of their knights and the fact that they must obey the feudal hierarchy when necessary. The fact that they are responsible for the status of their region and that they keep no right of reappointment should they be considered guilty of a rebellion or similar. The rest is not really meaningful, such as requesting to send the resources to those in need. That's not a duty.

Art 1 - Is the noble duty to found a new army and provide sustenance for his war chest (under the approval of the appropriate Councils);

I do not understand this. I am aware that the issue of new armies created a lot of troubles, but writing once that for the creation of it the approval of the council is needed should be enough.

Broadly speaking I feel this draft to be too imposing but vague at the same time. It does not address hierarchy, it does not address the proper behavior nobles should have, it does not address crimes and such. It just tries to list the duties and rights of every titled position in an attempt to organize by categories our life. Do we really need this? I don't see any freedom coming from it. Ordinary knights are not even mentioned.

Ecthelion

c. reimburse the expenses of the Knights involved in the expansion of the states;

d. send resources, when requested, to the territories in misery;

For C, this shouldn't be something mandatory or in our constitution. While it's a standard practice to reimburse, it shouldn't be a law. An example would be a Lord of a region that we just took over, who receives nearly no gold from it but must still recruit knights to their region. They may have to severely undercut their share as Lord to attract a knight, as well as damage to the region itself will prevent this. And regions such as Skezard that it would probably take a Lord 2 weeks to a month to even accumulate enough to pay a knight for a full estate enlargement.

Also, the vagueness of D is concerning. It doesn't need to be in there either. There is no specification of who requests said aid. We're also forgetting that by definition of the hierarchical system, the resources from a Lord's region is theirs by right. All of us contribute everything we get from our regions to the war effort because we can't afford not to, and it's within all of our benefits and mutual defense to do so. But Sirion is not a socialist society. Those resources and their use are at the full discretion of the Lord. So any part of the constitution stepping on that is a violation of the Lords' rights, rights that have been brought up here many times and protected very aggressively. To do the opposite in this case would be a hypocrisy.

Ryu

Judge Erik,

I would like you to add in the constitution a side note about the armies. I had to deal with lords that didnt knew the RD method to join nobles to their ranks. Currently the RD has no spy inside which let us for example move among Fontan with freedom, performing all kind of trick to deceive them.

It shouldnt be a long sentence but just something to remind the lords on how it is done.

Also, there should be sentence, where if there are no Marshal or Vice Marshal ordering on an army, they must follow the General's orders. In case the Marshal decides to issue different orders then this ones overlaps the General's ones.

Echtelion's answer

The one for armies is not appropriate. In the scheme of things, we may not always have the armies we currently do. Placing them into the constitution would actually make the document obsolete at such a time when we would reform our army make-up.

Ryu's answer

Can we place something in the constitution for armies? What Ecthelion says is true but at least we could state that each army has their own purpose and this mechanics. Maybe Lords can ask the General before placing a new knight. The General can see the status of each army and fill the demands with more efficiency, that way we save the problem of having knights in wrong armies.

Ecthelion's answer

Again, I don't see a place for this in the constitution. Make it official policy or maybe a law.

Alexander's answer

I believe that there should be something in the constitution about the make up of the armies being in control of General and to a lesser degree the Council, who must approve creation/alteration of said army. That way everyone knows the basic rules and that the General and Council must agree to any proposed changes. Leave it to the General's bulletin to tell specifics of what armies do which job, how do you join a specific army, etc.

Ecthelion 2

Which brings up a good point. We need procedures for establishing and revoking laws in the constitution.