User talk:Shenron/Battlemaster Realism

Objection

I agree with the titles, people do seem to forget them quite often (including myself, heh) or just ignorant of them.

However, I object to the behaviour you ascribe to the differing ranks. Admittedly, the power you say the monarchs had was real--but this was that of the absolute monarch...quite late in the middle ages, if not actually during the renaissance.

If I remember my history course correctly, the only reason those monarchs had such power was the widespread knowledge and production of gunpowder. Prior to this, kings were called kings solely because they had more power than the lords around them--but not enough to control them, only sway them. The reason they became absolute monarchs was that with their superior treasury and gunpowder, they could afford to finance and field large armies of arquebusiers and later musketeers, crushing the forces of any rebel lords. That situation is not present in BM, since gunpowder is rare, except for that used by special forces.

Before the advent of gunpowder, kings were kings--and remained kings--through their slightly larger armies and estates, yes, but most of all, because they enjoyed the support of their nobles. This was not because their nobles enjoyed some special social status, for we must remember that medieval society was organized under a feudal system: that of the warrior. Kings were made, and undone, by the support of their realm's warriors, which comprised the aristocracy.

Nobles were originally warriors who sometimes agreed to follow someone in the hope of loot, prestige and fame, in the tradition of the barbarian tribes of Western Europe, who prized heroic valour above all else. And may I remind you, the heroic valour of warriors; non-warriors were not worthy of consideration. Those who agreed to follow another were known as vassals, but still no less a noble.

As a warrior became more rich, powerful and reknown, he acquired lands, gold, better equipment and other warriors flocked to his side. He would grant these nobles 'fiefs'. Again, however, we must keep the feudal system in mind: the land itself was not the reward, rather, nor was it the income which the lands provided, but rather the equipment which the income from the lands provided. Swords, shields, mail, helmets, horses, to help equip the knight and his own followers. On a side note, I guess you could consider your own men as some even more minor noble. Anyway, the estate was there solely to better equip the knight for battle.

The feudal system was a warrior's paradise. Yes, it eventually changed as the period approached the late middle ages and the renaissance, but I must reiterate that until the development of gunpowder, a king's power rested on the support of his nobles. As such, a king could NOT afford to needlessly offend them by executing a noble for not saying "Your Majesty". He would punish the noble, certainly, but in some other manner--whisper to that noble's lord his displeasure, and have that lord reduce the noble's estate or somesuch. The point is, kings had to play their own internal diplomacy to maintain the support of their nobles. And with BM, that can be played beautifully. Piss off one of your nobles? He'll whisper and scheme with some others, and on the day of a great battle, you'll find less than half your army present (if not in outright rebellion). Just because a king is a king does NOT give him unlimited power over those in his realm.

As for the lords, it's pretty similar with the monarchs, although on a smaller scale. The power of those lords was composed of the number of men who supported them. If they lost that support, they lost their power (e.g., that of being able to control their lands from the invasion of a rival lord). As such, they couldn't afford to needlessly piss off their knights by acting too snobbish.

As for the IG term, "noble", meaning a character who hasn't sworn allegiance to any lord, I don't think there was any inherent stigma in this lack of allegiance. A warrior was a warrior, after all. However, there would undoubtedly be distrust by most others, since they couldn't be sure of that noble's loyalties, and probably contempt as well, since an un-aligned noble (in rl, at least, and maybe in BM as well with the new allegiance system) most likely have had an incredibly shabby set of armor and weapons, having no income to obtain better equipment.

Although most of the time I've been nattering about the importance of the land income for the sake of equipment, there were other uses which I left out since it didn't really apply to the argument. Salaries for menials (if they weren't outright serfs or slaves), building a manor/fort/castle, paying the warriors who have sworn their allegiance to you, etc.

In any case, to finish this off, I have to agree with you that although the questioning of the king may be appropriate in a medieval context, the players probably weren't thinking of that when they asked their question. You have to keep in mind that most people have ideas of modern day democracy, and also plenty of the "D&D adventurer", magic&dragons fantasy, etc to base their medieval character on. The problem is, although authors base their fantasy novels in a world of approximately medieval technology, they do not necessarily do so in a medieval society. Also, BM is medieval-based. It isn't a medieval simulation. So we can take a few liberties with the way our characters act--we are interacting with modern people, after all, with modern sensibilities. I doubt medieval kings said 'please' when they gave out commands, but we do, out of modern courtesy.

If you're interested in finding out where I learnt all that feudal stuff, give me a day or two and I'll get the title & author of the book I read it from--with any luck, it'll be available in your area. I could have gotten some of the ideas wrong, and I'm sure it'll be a lot more comprehensive than that short summary I gave there. There's quite a bit of interesting stuff you can find in the historical politics section of a library when you're bored...Machiavelli, Greek letters...heh

--RubyDragon 22:52, 20 February 2007 (CET)

Addendum

I must add, however, that feudal nobles became hereditary warriors. So BM's adventurers are considered outlaws, since they have no 'right' nor the 'skill' to wield weapons, not being of noble blood.

Also, BM takes stuff across the span of the medieval ages. So the behaviour of a king in one realm approaching that of an absolute monarch is acceptable; but saying that all monarchs should act like that is what I object to.

--RubyDragon 01:10, 21 February 2007 (CET)