| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I just popped into the Settlements thread on the General Discussion board and learned that the CRB has some solid numbers on guards per city. I'm wondering if anyone has similar numbers for things like how many nobles for a kingdom, how many soldiers per noble or kingdom, and a good way to divide up the political titles?
I never could get a handle on nobles in real life. So in feudal societies, you had nobles based on the right to own land, but how much land made you one kind of noble or another? Like why would someone be a baron instead of a knight, or a count?
As for military I ask that because I've got a couple players wanting to take Profession: Soldier in a new campaign and they want to dive into the minutia of how big the armies are and how they're divvied up throughout the kingdom. They want to be able to use the skill as they level up to work with said military and perhaps at mid or higher levels even call upon favors from the rank and file.
The new player's guide for Hell's Vengeance actually has some useful information for this, at least with regard to titles and what they mean.
Such as you have kingdoms divided into parcels of lands, such as Duchys, Baronrys, and Counties. These were controlled by Dukes, Barons, and Counts. You also had non-landed and non-hereditary versions of each of these. The difference in authority or their role within a kinddom isn't particularly clear.
Knights were generally the lowest level of nobility, being non-landed nobles typically.
|
Well, the first issue regarding nobles is that most of Golarion isn't actually feudal. Hell, the majority of areas aren't even monarchies.
So...what country are you talking about specifically?
As for land making you noble in a feudal society, the King actually owned all the land in some sense. So high ranking nobles would generally hold title (and thus land) directly from the King, while lower nobles held land from those higher nobles. So a knight holds his land from a Baron who holds it from an Earl who holds it from a Duke who holds it from the King (or whatever). The chain of fealty is more important than the amount of land in terms of rank, at least usually.
There are lots of exceptions to that general rule of course, with especially trusted Barons or Knights holding directly from the King.
Armies will depend a lot on the available technology and prevailing social system, so again we're down to what country we're talking about.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never could get a handle on nobles in real life. So in feudal societies, you had nobles based on the right to own land, but how much land made you one kind of noble or another? Like why would someone be a baron instead of a knight, or a count?
HIstorically, this kind of thing broke down really fast because of things like marriages and inheritances. For example, the most powerful man in England in the Wars of the Roses was a "mere" Earl (Warwick the Kingmaker), who was more powerful than the various dukes and marquises, despite being "outranked" by them. He had, however, managed to benefit from a few generations of skillfully arranged marriages and whatnot that advanced his power. For example, if the Duke of Blaaaaarg had one daughter and no sons, there was a good chance that the person who married that daughter got most of the land as a dowry (but not the title, which would go to a cousin or something).
It was also within the king's perogative to "adjust" the size of a family's holdings at any time, but usually when the old earl/duke/whatever died and his young heir tried to inherit the holdings.
There was also a lot of room for the king to create new nobles (or promote existing ones) without adjusting holdings, so if I did the king a really big favor, I might find myself granted the title of Duke of Chutney but still live out of the baron's manor I held as Baron Fitzroy. (Historical example -- the first son of the Earl of Mornington, Richard Wellesley, become Marquis Wellesley for his colonial service; his brother, Arthur, became Duke of Wellington for service on the battlefield. I don't think either of them got new lands out of the deal, but that's a hell of a promotion from untitled-second-son to full-on Duke.)
Things got even worse outside of England, because outside of England the king didn't own all the land, so (for example), the Duke of Burgundy technically owed the King of France fealty, but also owned his own land allodially, which is to say, outright, and had tenants of his own over which he exercised kingly authority.
So the actual answer is "however it works for your story." If you want the Earl of Warwick to be richer and more powerful than the Duke of Sussex,.... well, so does he.
As for military I ask that because I've got a couple players wanting to take Profession: Soldier in a new campaign and they want to dive into the minutia of how big the armies are and how they're divvied up throughout the kingdom. They want to be able to use the skill as they level up to work with said military and perhaps at mid or higher levels even call upon favors from the rank and file.
Same answer. Medieval armies were generally not raised or commanded by the king, and so Baron Fortinbras' First Regiment of Foot was as large as Baron Fortinbras wanted it to be (and could afford). Serjeants were generally professional soldiers who knew what they were doing, but the officers generally owned -- literally, it was a form of property they had paid for -- their ranks and positions, and so often were more wealthy than they were skilled. On the other hand, if the regimental lieutenant died, Baron Fortinbras might be willing to lend or give a highly skilled subaltern the money to buy the lieutenancy because he wants his army not to suck raccoon testicles.
So again the answer is "however it works for your story." The Duke of Arglebargle may make money by selling commissions and his army consists of two hundred colonels and six corporals. The Marquis of Kingsbury may have a modern battalion structure of elite troops commanded by highly skilled soldiers because he actually wants to fight and win a war.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further to previous. The historical King of France (and most of his major nobles) were notorious for granting titles of nobility without land, because being able to claim nobility gave you various social privileges (sumptuary laws and such like), so wealthy merchants and whatnot were begging for the right to wear silk shirts and carry a sword. Similarly, down-on-their-luck actual nobility would try to make sure they had additional titles to pass down to their various children -- even if only the first son of the Baron d'Iamant was able to inherit the actual barony, he would want to make sure that his second son had the title of Marquis Topaz and his third the Baron Emeraude.
This was a great way to get money into the Duke of Burgundy's coffers, but it also meant that by 1700 something like 10-20% of the population of France was technically and legally "noble," despite not having anything like an estate or income.
Dot.
Of course...all this discussion of feudal structure mostly works when you have the land to go feudal with.
At some point, you start getting enough nobles that there is a disconnect between them and the land that can be managed.
Sometimes, nobility was less of a matter of land, and more of social status and maybe a stipend. This might occur when you are talking about individuals that get nobility due to rising up the ranks of the military. They are still in their role as soldier being moved about for...whatever... but you still have to reward them for their achievements (or you end up with a benedict arnold situation, where your good soldiers join the other side because you never recognized their work).
Of course, this isn't just a gold star and going to fancier parties. There is often a yearly fund attached so the title has some material value to attract people. But at the same time...you could make the kingdom in your setting give titles with no value attached. That is usually used to show a kingdom in decline. Again- too many nobles, and not enough to give to all of them. The value of nobility from different kingdoms has different values just like their coins have different values. Some have pure gold, others have a thin gild over copper.
Note that, depending on the area and era, titles gained through achievement may only end with you, and might not get inherited. The general idea is that you gain a title, raise a son to follow in your footsteps, and eventually you build up enough wealth and small land parcels in order to make a proper house, which may then get recognized and allowed to continue on its own. As far as I am aware, that is the more typical path from lowly foot soldier to grand noble house, occurring over generations.
Of course, take all of my discussion with a grain of salt. I only have a very lay understanding of this issue, pieced together through lots of disparate sources. But this generally seems to be how the system works.
I love history lessons and that's partly what I was looking for, which is why I went here instead of Rules. I was kind of hoping someone's search-fu was better than mine when it comes to the armies though and numbers specific to Pathfinder. I also checked UC under the Kingdom Building but didn't see it either.
One thing though that helped clarify nobles is a point that both DM Dubs and Questor hit on. So you start at the king, who owns everything. he doles out land and titles to his children, extended family, and trusted vassals. He does this not 'cuz he's awesome, but because then his kids and family hold most of the lands and keep the line of succession going, and then the trusted vassals hopefully continue toeing the family line and don't revolt.
I sort of understood this, but then I could never rationalize landless nobles or noble-on-noble skirmishing. Now I'm starting to understand.
The point these 2 astute posters make is that sometimes in real life nobles get a title without land simply to give them legal and social rights not normally afforded, like being able to have commoners duel for them or not being persecuted for loitering or something.
Landed nobles might fight among themselves for like honor or something, but most of their disputes could be settled by marriages, shady deals or money. Why would any noble ever fight to acquire land though, if said land was doled out by a higher noble?
Well perhaps the landless noble chafes against the foolish count who got his lofty position and lands from just being born, but the landless baron saved the king's niece and an entire town from siege through brilliant tactics and bloody battle.
So knowing the king is ruthless and will honor him if he can pull it off, the baron uses his title's legal advantage to hire a mercenary army from the town he saved. He then storms the count's keep, manages to siege it and takes out the count. The king, in like fashion, hands over the former count's lands. However legally the count's hereditary title COULD go to the baron, or it COULD pass to the count's infant son who the nursemaid managed to escape with (potential plot hook?)
The reason none of this ever made sense to me was... WHO CARES about legal and social rights in a medieval fantasy roleplaying game? I just figured nobles equaled land in some way because when playing an RPG I'm looking at a giant hex map of sparsely populated land plagued by slavering hordes of pure evil.
Oh sure, when world building I'd pay lip service to legal issues like noting which court would prosecute and hang a PC for murder or whatever. It never occurred to me that nobles would care more about such courts and their rights than, say, a goblin horde working for an evil witch that can raise and command the dead.
In my games I'm a fan of non-hereditary merchant barons; folks with lots of money that buy their way into nobility and a chip on their shoulder because they don't hold land and can't pass the title on to their kin. I always just said though that they already built up a big business, made tons of money, and THEN bought the title.
It never occurred to me that I might have it backwards. Perhaps they scraped together just enough gold to dump it all on a title, that then afforded them the rights to OWN a business instead of just working for someone else. Then they re-built their fortunes steadily and might even own other side businesses.
As for the military numbers, I'll have to just wing it. There's a 1-100 ratio I use for guards INSIDE settlements, so I suppose I could just as easily guesstimate using that ratio applied to the relative size of a political area. Then I'll just toy with the numbers, like Baron Von Irongate is a war-monger so even though there's 5000 people in his lands he actually has like 750 soldiers, but the Earl of Gloomynmere is very poor and his lands are plagued by fey, so even with 6000 population he only commands 450 soldiers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Landed nobles might fight among themselves for like honor or something, but most of their disputes could be settled by marriages, shady deals or money. Why would any noble ever fight to acquire land though, if said land was doled out by a higher noble?
That's a very perceptive question. In general, fighting to acquire land was rare between vassals of the same lord. King Thruppeny IV did not want his barons squabbling among themselves, because that weakened the kingdom as a whole. But on the other hand, if Baron Archriddle was a vassal of Thruppenny, and Count de Money was a vassal of Louis the Confused, then both Lord Archriddle and his lord would be interested in stealing land from the Count.
In the English-speaking world, we tend (understandably) to focus on English feudal history -- if nothing else, we can pronounce the names. England, however, was a very unusual case in that there were no competing allodial holdings -- ever since William the Bastard decided to change his name, all the land was held ultimately from the king. For this reason, England saw very little warfare among the barons. But on the Continent, as well as in Scotland and Ireland, freeholds or independent holdings were relatively common. (Especially in Germany and Italy, where a "baron" might be sovereign in his own right, allying himself on Tuesdays and Thursdays with the king of Bavaria and on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays with the duke of Bohemia. He spent weekends with France because the food is better. All that sauerkraut.)
You can think of it like the Five (Mafia) Families in New York. If you were a member of Fat Tony's crew with the Gambino family, you could lean all you like on the independent and unaffiliated businesses. You may or may not have wanted to lean on someone mobbed up with the Bonnano family, though, since that could result in a very expensive sit-down between your boss and their boss. But you sure as hell did not want to mess with someone else mobbed up with the Gambinos, because that would just get you a bullet in the ear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I know, following up to my own post. But I took a few minutes to look up Warwick and show exactly how this stuff turned out:
So, from Wikipedia:
HIstorically, this kind of thing broke down really fast because of things like marriages and inheritances. For example, the most powerful man in England in the Wars of the Roses was a "mere" Earl (Warwick the Kingmaker), who was more powerful than the various dukes and marquises, despite being "outranked" by them. He had, however, managed to benefit from a few generations of skillfully arranged marriages and whatnot that advanced his power.
The Nevilles, an ancient Durham family, came to prominence in England's fourteenth-century wars against the Scots. In 1397 King Richard II made Ralph Neville Earl of Westmorland. Ralph's son Richard, the later Earl of Warwick's father, was a younger son by a second marriage, and not heir to the earldom. He received a favourable settlement, however, and became jure uxoris Earl of Salisbury through his marriage to Alice, daughter and heiress of Thomas Montacute, 4th Earl of Salisbury.
Salisbury's son Richard, the later Earl of Warwick, was born on 22 November 1428; little is known of his childhood. At the age of six, Richard was betrothed to Anne Beauchamp, daughter of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, and of his wife Isabel Despenser. This made him heir not only to the earldom of Salisbury, but also to a substantial part of the Montague, Beauchamp, and Despenser inheritance.
Circumstances would, however, increase his fortune even further. Beauchamp's son Henry, who had married Richard's sister Cecily, died in 1446. When Henry's daughter Anne died in 1449, Richard also found himself jure uxoris Earl of Warwick. Richard's succession to the estates did not go undisputed, however. A protracted battle over parts of the inheritance ensued, particularly with Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, who had married a daughter from Richard Beauchamp's first marriage. The dispute centred on land, not on the Warwick title, as Henry's half-sisters were excluded from the succession.
"Kings and battles history." Blarg. But the path is fairly clear.
* Richard, son of Ralph, has nothing but marries the Earl of Salisbury's daughter and gets both the lands and title. (Good job, Dick.)
* Richard, son of Richard, marries the daughter of the Earl of Warwick and gets three additional estates. ("I hear they've picked a bride for me; I hope she's pretty.")
* Richard, son of Richard, then learns that his cousin-by-marriage died and the Earldom of Warwick is his as well. The Warwick estates are tied up in court, but this is where the King's decisions come in, and HM backs Dick, Jr.
* Doing the math, it's easy to see how Dick, Jr., a "mere" earl, could be wealthier than Eddie, the full-fledged Duke of Somerset.
|
Further to previous. The historical King of France (and most of his major nobles) were notorious for granting titles of nobility without land, because being able to claim nobility gave you various social privileges (sumptuary laws and such like), so wealthy merchants and whatnot were begging for the right to wear silk shirts and carry a sword.
It wasn't just France either - though you're right that they were the most notorious for it. I know that Prussia did so as well.
Further to previous. The historical King of France (and most of his major nobles) were notorious for granting titles of nobility without land, because being able to claim nobility gave you various social privileges (sumptuary laws and such like), so wealthy merchants and whatnot were begging for the right to wear silk shirts and carry a sword.It wasn't just France either - though you're right that they were the most notorious for it. I know that Prussia did so as well.
And so did a lot of the Italian city states --- Tuscany in particular was [in]famous for it (the eponymous Count of Monte Cristo was described as a "Tuscan count" and everyone knew exactly what that meant. "`Well, we must put up with that,' said the countess, who was herself from one of the oldest Venetian families.").
This thread is explaining things about my life I hadn't realized; it all makes so much more sense now!
|
|
The other issue with this in Golarion is that, as I mentioned in my first post, almost nowhere in Golarion is feudal per se. And I've seldom run or played in a game in a truly feudal society.
Which makes the whole discussion a bit weird in some ways.
You certainly can run a game in a primarily feudal world...but it's not exactly the default assumption of any published world I've played in regularly.
Ultimate Campaign left out the rank of the ruler based on the size of the domain from Kingmaker.
In KM, 1-20 hexes is a Barony, 21-80 a Duchy, and 81+ a Kingdom.
Ultimate Rulership expands on that, and includes domains for Landed Knights, Baronets, Viscounts, Earls, Margravates, Marquisates, Principalities, and Empires.
Or if you don't want pseudo-European, there are Ecclesiastical, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Greco-Roman lands and titles.
It also includes how claiming titles above your station affects your Fame and Infamy scores.
Great thread! I'm gonna try add some additional information that hasn't been stated yet. I'm no expert, but I've picked up a fact or two that I believe holds up to at least some scrutiny ;)
_________________
It's fairly accepted that for any pre-modern society, a ratio of 1 noble per 100 individuals is at least in the ballpark. This has less to do with actual noble titles and more about who is privileged enough to afford a life in relative luxury. Same goes for professional soldiers, 1 for every 100.
Working with this, I use the following for the bottom end of the feudal scale: A landed knight is a noble, so is his immediate family (because they enjoy the same lifestyle). Maybe four to six persons. That would mean that there would be one noble family, and one knight, for every 500 commoner. And if everyone in the kingdom is governed by a feudal lord, the average feudal lord, knight, is going to govern 500 commoners.
And, because one in every 500 is a professional soldiers, the knight would have himself and an additional 4 as a military force.
This is, obviously, very rough numbers. And they don't take into account a whole range of issues, one of them being that there will be landless nobility who doesn’t govern any commoners. But I think it at least gives some sort of answer to the question »will this village in my game world include a local knight«. The answer is, yes, if the society is feudal in nature and the village and it's outlying farms has a population of more than 500.
_________________
As for the noble infighting, certain earls being more powerful than dukes and allegiance: the continent; France, present-day Germany and Italy, was way more complex and ridiculously feudal than England. Two French earls of the same duke wouldn't fight against their lord or in-between them self, and would probably answer their dukes call for aid against another duke. But one of the earls might also hold another earl title under the second duke. And the other earl might be a knight in Italy, as well as a sovereign baron in Germany. And so it goes on, like fractals, and a nobles actual allegiances get very hard to establish.
_________________
The clergy held noble titles and acted as feudal lords. Like, alot. Bishops waged wars in their own right and names. An abbey was a landowning institution.
_________________
Being noble meant, at least initially, that you where exempt from taxes. For this, you where supposed to serve your lord as a mounted warrior - a knight. In order to support your self, the warhorse and armour costing a small fortune, you were given land. An estate. This was basically a big farm. You'd have people working for you, but such a knight was still at the end of the day just a well-of farmer who knew a bit about tilting a lance.
The idea of the knight being a feudal lord, governing commoners, was a later concept. I think, at least in some places, it just grew "organically". Peasants generally owned their own land, but if they ended up in debt they could sell the land to someone with money, i.e. a noble. They would continue to farm the same land, but now as serfs. Serfdom was fairly uncommon in England, existed in Western continental Europe but was the norm in eastern Europe.
Of course the numbers will change somewhat in a fantasy society. If your only threat is a similar barony with similar numbers of similar knights and soldiers, you can make do with a few professional soldiers and a bunch of levies as required. OTOH, if you're regularly threatened by marauding mobs of goblins, ogres, manticores and whatnot, you'll need more full-time professionals. It's probably comparable to a low-level wartime economy, but less predictable.
This probably won't help much on the numbers front, but for structure the official random background generator does have a table for nobility with a little infomation on ranks, privileges, and responsibilities:
- Gentry: You are the child of a minor lord, lady, or noble with an income, hereditary land such as a manor, and titles. You likely grew up in a manor and your parents were paid tribute by peasants. Your parents serve a higher baron, count, or duke.
- Knight: You are the child of a knight, a noble with estates, titles, and lands who serves a lord. Your family has sworn an oath of fealty to a liege—such as a baron, count, or duke—and commits to military service in his or her name. As the child of a knight, you may serve as a squire to another knight while pursuing your own path to knighthood.
- Baron: You are the child of a baron or baroness, a noble responsible for a land encompassing several smaller manors that pay tribute. Your parents receive orders directly from the monarch, and you're expected to attend the royal court. You are entitled to hereditary estates, titles, and land.
- Count: You are the noble child of a count or countess. Your family members receive hereditary titles, land, and estates, and are among the most wealthy nobles in your domain. Knights and minor lords pay tribute to your family, and your parents attend directly to the monarch. You're expected to attend the royal court.
- Duke: You are the child of a duke or duchess, the most powerful noble in the realm apart from the royal family. Your parents attend directly to the monarch and have the highest place at court. Your lands, titles, and estates are significant, and many lords and knights serve under your parents' command.
- Minor Prince: You are the child of a prince or princess, and part of the royal family. You aren't the next in succession, but your power and wealth are grand indeed.
- Regent: You are a prince or princess, the son or daughter of the monarch. You owe fealty directly to your parents, and to no one else. Few command the power and wealth you do, and your presence inspires great respect, if not total awe, among those who kneel before the crown.