Comparing Imperial Nobility with medieval/fantasy Nobility

[Rick]

I'm sorry for mentioning it now, it does seem to have gone off at a tangent.

To get somewhere back on track, Custer wasn't a noble, neither were a great many of the contemporary British military officers. The 'gentleman's code of conduct' I mentioned earlier had been successfully transplanted into the US military before Custer and some form of it was used by most militaries of the time, enshrined in the concept of "an officer and a gentleman" - an ideal still in use in some militaries today. Both nobles and gentlemen of more modest birth adhered to the code if they wanted to be part of 'polite society'.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I'm sorry for mentioning it now, it does seem to have gone off at a tangent.

To get somewhere back on track, Custer wasn't a noble, neither were a great many of the contemporary British military officers. The 'gentleman's code of conduct' I mentioned earlier had been successfully transplanted into the US military before Custer and some form of it was used by most militaries of the time, enshrined in the concept of "an officer and a gentleman" - an ideal still in use in some militaries today. Both nobles and gentlemen of more modest birth adhered to the code if they wanted to be part of 'polite society'.

I think Nobility was originally a medieval form of rank, it was the way the late Emperors of Rome organized their military, Rome didn't have coin to pay its soldiers, due to tax evasion, so it paid them in land instead. This system created a decentralized form of government called feudalism. As the Nation state evolved these Nobles became aristocrats, which is pretty much what Traveller Nobles are. Custer was a cavalry officer, so he was analogous to the mounted knight, whether the foppish aristocrats scoffed at this is another matter, I bet they all weren't cavalry officers though. The Feudal System was originally centered on the knight on horseback and evolved into the power-wigged gentlemen with snuffboxes.

 

[Condottiere]

I believe he was a West Point graduate, which serves the same function as an order of knighthood.

The Roosevelts were aristocrats, and Teddy had something to prove in Cuba.

 

[Rick]

The incredibly camp powder-bewigged foppish gentleman with snuffbox was simply a fashionable affectation of the time, originating in France and reaching even America. It also coincided with the popular 'code duello' coming over from Italy, with the result that the vast majority of those camped-up fops were equally able to use a sword or pistol and willing to kill with them. Polite Society in the 18th century could be a dangerous place; someone could pick a fight with you for very little reason one evening and bury you before the next, despite the appearance, the C18th fops were as dangerous as a comparable noble from other periods.
In the Roman Empire and Republic there had always been a 2-tier system going back to when Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings; the plebeian order were the lower class citizenry and the equestrian order were the upper class 'nobility' - senators and the rulers of Rome were from the equestrian order families without exception. Legion Tribunes, Legates and Generals were all of the equestrian order, as were all of the Governors and Tax collectors. A plebeian could marry into the equestrian order, but it was a bit of a scandal if they did.
So, yes, even the Roman Republic had a nobility, which lasted through into the Late Roman Empire when the rank of Dux (Duke) was awarded to high ranking equestrians in charge of military provinces.

 

[Condottiere]

I think you overlooked slaves, freemen and patricians, who sort of rounded up Rome society. Not counting immigrants.

The Emperors trusted Equestrians pretty much for the same reasons monarchs that were at loggerheads with their nobility trusted the bourgeoisie, they were more beholden to the crown.

 

[Rick]

I think you overlooked slaves, freemen and patricians, who sort of rounded up Rome society. Not counting immigrants.

The Emperors trusted Equestrians pretty much for the same reasons monarchs that were at loggerheads with their nobility trusted the bourgeoisie, they were more beholden to the crown.

I was simply trying to illustrate that nobility was even around in the Roman Republic. I believe, though, that freemen could be plebeians, patricians were of the equestrian class (probably heads of equestrian families) and slaves were not included in the 2-tier system at all, being chattels or items of property. Immigrants could be plebeians if they had been granted citizenry (usually as a result of auxiliary military service by themselves or an ancestor).

Arguably, the feudal system has its roots in the Bronze Age or late Neolithic, with the beginnings of a military elite segment of a society, sort of an 'I'll protect you if you feed me and work for me' arrangement.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think you overlooked slaves, freemen and patricians, who sort of rounded up Rome society. Not counting immigrants.

The Emperors trusted Equestrians pretty much for the same reasons monarchs that were at loggerheads with their nobility trusted the bourgeoisie, they were more beholden to the crown.

I was simply trying to illustrate that nobility was even around in the Roman Republic. I believe, though, that freemen could be plebeians, patricians were of the equestrian class (probably heads of equestrian families) and slaves were not included in the 2-tier system at all, being chattels or items of property. Immigrants could be plebeians if they had been granted citizenry (usually as a result of auxiliary military service by themselves or an ancestor).

Arguably, the feudal system has its roots in the Bronze Age or late Neolithic, with the beginnings of a military elite segment of a society, sort of an 'I'll protect you if you feed me and work for me' arrangement.

Feudalism was a substitute for taxation, people paid rent in produce in exchange for using the lord's land and for his protection from the bandits outside. Rome was more currency oriented, problem was that its economy was based on an expanding empire, when the empire stopped expanding, no more slaves or tribute, taxes increased, citizens fell behind their payments and were enslaved to pay off their debt. The slavery system broke down when the empire fell, because the border became a lot closer one could simply travel to the neighboring polity and those out to recapture slaves would be out of their jurisdiction.

 

[Rick]

Feudalism was a substitute for taxation, people paid rent in produce in exchange for using the lord's land and for his protection from the bandits outside. Rome was more currency oriented, problem was that its economy was based on an expanding empire, when the empire stopped expanding, no more slaves or tribute, taxes increased, citizens fell behind their payments and were enslaved to pay off their debt. The slavery system broke down when the empire fell, because the border became a lot closer one could simply travel to the neighboring polity and those out to recapture slaves would be out of their jurisdiction.

No. You are very, very wrong on this.
Feudalism and taxation are 2 very different things, and in most feudal societies you had a feudal tithe and taxes to pay, and whether you paid in currency or goods had no bearing on what you paid. Usually your status in the feudal system determined what you paid - a serf would give most of what he produced (less what he and his family needed to live on) to his lord, and the lord paid taxes for his family and all of his serf's working his land to the crown; but his serf's had no rights of movement to go and work for another lord - whereas a free man, working his own land, would pay a (smaller) tithe to the local lord and taxes to the crown, but could then keep his profits and had the right to sell his own land and go where he wanted.
Slavery didn't end as you say, unfortunately; slaves became serf's and, although having a lot more rights and freedoms than slaves, were nowhere near the status of free men.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Feudalism was a substitute for taxation, people paid rent in produce in exchange for using the lord's land and for his protection from the bandits outside. Rome was more currency oriented, problem was that its economy was based on an expanding empire, when the empire stopped expanding, no more slaves or tribute, taxes increased, citizens fell behind their payments and were enslaved to pay off their debt. The slavery system broke down when the empire fell, because the border became a lot closer one could simply travel to the neighboring polity and those out to recapture slaves would be out of their jurisdiction.

No. You are very, very wrong on this.
Feudalism and taxation are 2 very different things, and in most feudal societies you had a feudal tithe and taxes to pay, and whether you paid in currency or goods had no bearing on what you paid. Usually your status in the feudal system determined what you paid - a serf would give most of what he produced (less what he and his family needed to live on) to his lord, and the lord paid taxes for his family and all of his serf's working his land to the crown; but his serf's had no rights of movement to go and work for another lord - whereas a free man, working his own land, would pay a (smaller) tithe to the local lord and taxes to the crown, but could then keep his profits and had the right to sell his own land and go where he wanted.
Slavery didn't end as you say, unfortunately; slaves became serf's and, although having a lot more rights and freedoms than slaves, were nowhere near the status of free men.

However if you were a lord, and somebody else's serfs appeared on your territory, whether you returned those serfs depended a great deal on your relationship with that other lord, and the demesne he escaped from could be a long way away, and might not be worth the trouble of sending a knight to return him, and if he is willing to work on your land why not keep him? You see there were very weak national governments in the dark ages, they could hardly be called countries at all, the king held power due to the mutual oblicgations lords owed him

 

[Rick]

However if you were a lord, and somebody else's serfs appeared on your territory, whether you returned those serfs depended a great deal on your relationship with that other lord, and the demesne he escaped from could be a long way away, and might not be worth the trouble of sending a knight to return him, and if he is willing to work on your land why not keep him? You see there were very weak national governments in the dark ages, they could hardly be called countries at all, the king held power due to the mutual obligations lords owed him.

2 points here - yes and some lords even went so far as to try to 'poach' serf's from other lords. Theoretically, such grievances would be put before the local Baron or High Sheriff and, if serious enough, before the king himself as he made the court circuit around the country. In reality, the lord who'd ended up with the serf's usually paid a token amount of money to the other and business went on as usual.
All feudal kings, no matter how weak or strong, held power due to the mutual obligations lords owed him. A strong king could play off some of the lords against each other to make sure that he was always more powerful than the groups of lords were; a weak king might not and things like the Wars of the Roses might ensue, or worse - the Magna Carta (a triumph for the lords and, eventually, the common people but a bit of a disaster for the king).

 

[Rick]

However if you were a lord, and somebody else's serfs appeared on your territory, whether you returned those serfs depended a great deal on your relationship with that other lord, and the demesne he escaped from could be a long way away, and might not be worth the trouble of sending a knight to return him, and if he is willing to work on your land why not keep him? You see there were very weak national governments in the dark ages, they could hardly be called countries at all, the king held power due to the mutual obligations lords owed him.

2 points here - yes and some lords even went so far as to try to 'poach' serf's from other lords. Theoretically, such grievances would be put before the local Baron or High Sheriff and, if serious enough, before the king himself as he made the court circuit around the country. In reality, the lord who'd ended up with the serf's usually paid a token amount of money to the other and business went on as usual.
All feudal kings, no matter how weak or strong, held power due to the mutual obligations lords owed him. A strong king could play off some of the lords against each other to make sure that he was always more powerful than the groups of lords were; a weak king might not and things like the Wars of the Roses might ensue, or worse - the Magna Carta (a triumph for the lords and, eventually, the common people but a bit of a disaster for the king).

 

[dragoner]

2 more points: Not all of Europe ran like England, it was often an odd man, in south central Europe, the manor system survived until the 19th century. When Kaiser Joseph II HRR tried to liberalize the manors and ecclesiastical lands, there were peasant uprisings; though to note the tragedy of the commons was mostly under the protestant rulers.

When the Romans used the word "Family", it usually included all people of a "house", including slaves and freedmen, which included women too.

 

[Rick]

Oh, I agree - most of Europe that was outside of the area covered by the old Roman Empire never used a feudal system, it was more like a direct vassal-lord relationship. I think the reason that feudalism was prevalent in the areas of the Roman Empire was because it was a fusion of a culture with a slave-owning tradition with one that hadn't (the migrating groups from outside the empire). The areas beyond the boundaries of the old Roman Empire never had a tradition of slave ownership, so developed a slightly different system of free men owning the land they worked and paying taxes to a local lord.

 

[dragoner]

The Slavic lands had the influence of Constantinople through the Church. But say in the core territories of the HRR, entailments could not be split up or sold; peasants, had rights as well as duties, which the Church enforced. Esp since peasants often maintained arms for summer campaigns vs the Turks & Mongols, for which even the Church maintained military establishments, such as the Black Knights or Teutonic Order.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

The Slavic lands had the influence of Constantinople through the Church. But say in the core territories of the HRR, entailments could not be split up or sold; peasants, had rights as well as duties, which the Church enforced. Esp since peasants often maintained arms for summer campaigns vs the Turks & Mongols, for which even the Church maintained military establishments, such as the Black Knights or Teutonic Order.

You need a large state to maintain slavery, a small feudal manor is not up to the task of tracking down and returning escaped slaves. Slaves converted to Serfs and Serfs converted to peasants. Basically the peasants were there for protection, the lord takes a certain amount of their produce but that amount is predictable, quite unlike a brigand who will take everything if he can. The randomness and lawlessness outside of the feudal manor persuaded people to work as peasants under the protection of a lord with a bunch of knights at his disposal, and in return the lord and the knights got surplus crops from the peasants from which to feed themselves and trade.

 

[Condottiere]

Feudalism is a method of governance, with reciprocal perquisites, responsibilities and duties. Like jus primae noctis.

Generally, if the serf could hop it to a chartered town, and live there for a year and a day, he becomes a freeman.

 

[Rick]

Serfs worked the land belonging to the local Lord. They were tied to the land, but had a lot more freedoms than slaves did. Peasants were free men, owned their own land (or rented land) and profited from that. The feudal set-up that existed between serfs and their lord was completely different from that of a free man and his lord and the 2 should not be mixed up. What finished the feudal serf was one simple fact - a free man makes a much better soldier than a serf and you can trust him with weapons.

 

[Condottiere]

Serfdom survived in Russia.

What killed it off in England was the Black Death.

 

[dragoner]

The longbow is what killed off the serf in England. :mrgreen:

But, no, really it did with the rise of the Yeoman.

 

[Anonymous]

Glad to see a thread so pertinent to Traveller...

Not

:roll:

...