A question on hierarchy

[pirt]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I would like to know, both in terms of real history and in game terms in CK1 and possibly in CK2; who is in a better position in hierarchy; a courtier in your court, say with a post like a chancellor or steward, or a vassal of yours? When they meet each other at the halls, which one would be thinking "I wish I was in your place"?

 

[LordofSaxony]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I would like to know, both in terms of real history and in game terms in CK1 and possibly in CK2; who is in a better position in hierarchy; a courtier in your court, say with a post like a chancellor or steward, or a vassal of yours? When they meet each other at the halls, which one would be thinking "I wish I was in your place"?

Well, probably a vassal, since the vassal would be a Count or a Duke, and that is hereditary, while being a Chancellor or Steward, is not.

 

[pirt]

Well, probably a vassal, since the vassal would be a Count or a Duke, and that is hereditary, while being a Chancellor or Steward, is not.

That's also what I thought. But then isn't it a flaw in CK design? Maybe I was wrong, but I always tended to keep those nice, intelligent and successful people with high stats in my court, because the bonus they gave as advisors seemed better than granting them titles. The game encouraged me to deny those nice people the promotion they deserved. Is that a noble way for a prince to go?

 

[Hawkeye1489]

My problem with that is that those courtiers you appoint as chancellor et. al. represent the minor nobles of in your land come to court to be in the presence of their liege. However, I find it wrong that an improper set up for the higher ranks. The King of France wouldn't necessarily appoint Robert of the Isle, Lord of Backwaterville as the Lord Chancellor of All France, nor would Lord Robert probably be a regular at the King's court. Instead, the King would be surrounded by his closest advisors and the ambitious upper nobility such that the King would be more pressured to appoint Lord William, Duc de Provence as the Lord Chancellor.

 

[Caranorn]

My problem with that is that those courtiers you appoint as chancellor et. al. represent the minor nobles of in your land come to court to be in the presence of their liege. However, I find it wrong that an improper set up for the higher ranks. The King of France wouldn't necessarily appoint Robert of the Isle, Lord of Backwaterville as the Lord Chancellor of All France, nor would Lord Robert probably be a regular at the King's court. Instead, the King would be surrounded by his closest advisors and the ambitious upper nobility such that the King would be more pressured to appoint Lord William, Duc de Provence as the Lord Chancellor.

It's been a while since I looked at french medieval history, but I think even at the royal level it was members of the lwoer nobility holding the royal offices...

Just quickly looking at a couple of osprey books I find:

Charles de Montmorency as Constable of France (equivalent to the marshal) at Crecy. The de Montmorency were originally of the lesser nobility (they only became dukes in the 16th century, before that they were lords, than barons) from Isle de France. Looking at their wikipedia article I find that 6 marshals, 12 constables and 4 admirals (another office we need) of France were of this family...

Eustace de Ribeaumont was standard bearer at Poitiers, he was just a simple knight (not sure we should include that office in CK-II, though many down to the countly courts had such an office)...

Geoffrey de Chargny was oriflamme bearer at Poitiers (this office I expect should be excluded from CK-II as it's too close to the standard bearer and unique to France)...

John le Meingre (Boucicaut) was marshal of France from 1356 to his death in 1367, he seems to have been a minor knight originally, his son John II would be marshal in turn...

Looking at the list of marshals and constables of France on wikipedia I find that early on the constables were always held by members of the lesser nobility (occasionaly simple knights not even lords), later as they gained prestige and I assume power by members of the upper nobility (counts or even dukes in their own right), the marshals were throughout almost always lesser nobility (near the end of the 15th century exceptions start to appear), the office of chancelor was almost exclusivbely held by members of the clergy roughly half of them bishops (so land owning in CK-II I assume)...

I didn't look at any more offices, but I think I've already disproven the point I originally wanted to make. Originally these royal offices were held by minor (in CK-II terms landless) nobles, later on as the power and prestige of the offices grew more powerful characters sought out such positions. So people ruling land in their own name should be possible to be nominated for offices...

 

[philios82]

That's also what I thought. But then isn't it a flaw in CK design? Maybe I was wrong, but I always tended to keep those nice, intelligent and successful people with high stats in my court, because the bonus they gave as advisors seemed better than granting them titles. The game encouraged me to deny those nice people the promotion they deserved. Is that a noble way for a prince to go?

Thats something that I have found strange as well, I can have a military genius for a marshall who conquers countless territory for me and never gets rewarded because if I make him a count he wont be my Marshall anymore. Meanwhile my backwards cousin becomes a duke simply because I can't use him for anything else.

My problem with that is that those courtiers you appoint as chancellor et. al. represent the minor nobles of in your land come to court to be in the presence of their liege. However, I find it wrong that an improper set up for the higher ranks. The King of France wouldn't necessarily appoint Robert of the Isle, Lord of Backwaterville as the Lord Chancellor of All France, nor would Lord Robert probably be a regular at the King's court. Instead, the King would be surrounded by his closest advisors and the ambitious upper nobility such that the King would be more pressured to appoint Lord William, Duc de Provence as the Lord Chancellor.

This is a good point. If your vassals could be given the different roles it would open up quite a bit of tactical gameplay, the different posts could give benefits to the loyalty and stats of the holders. It would also add to gameplay for the player when they're a vassal. There are lots of little bonuses this could make to the game.

 

[Hawkeye1489]

@Caranorn - I'm not saying that it should be exclusively vassals fill those positions, just that the option should be there. For example, if you look at your courtiers to appoint a marshal and of your choices, the best candidate has a martial rating of 4, you think to yourself that there has got to be someone better. So, instead you look to your vassals and you find the Comte d'Artois has a martial rating of 15, thinking to yourself this guy is Julius Caesar reincarnate. In CK1, you are stuck with Lord Martial-Rating-4 where I would hope in CK2 you could then appoint the good Comte as the Constable of France in your service. But likewise, if a landless knight from Germany flees to your court, and Sir Werner von Military-Genius has a martial rating of 11, I would definitely see appointing him as Constable.

 

[Caranorn]

@Caranorn - I'm not saying that it should be exclusively vassals fill those positions, just that the option should be there. For example, if you look at your courtiers to appoint a marshal and of your choices, the best candidate has a martial rating of 4, you think to yourself that there has got to be someone better. So, instead you look to your vassals and you find the Comte d'Artois has a martial rating of 15, thinking to yourself this guy is Julius Caesar reincarnate. In CK1, you are stuck with Lord Martial-Rating-4 where I would hope in CK2 you could then appoint the good Comte as the Constable of France in your service. But likewise, if a landless knight from Germany flees to your court, and Sir Werner von Military-Genius has a martial rating of 11, I would definitely see appointing him as Constable.

Agreed. I originally wanted to argue that vassals should not be officers as I thought most historic officers had been of the lesser nobility. But as I superficially researched that I realised I was wrong and offices had been held by both the lesser and the upper nobility. So yes, in CK-II game terms vassals should be able to hold office...

 

[RedRooster81]

My problem with that is that those courtiers you appoint as chancellor et. al. represent the minor nobles of in your land come to court to be in the presence of their liege. However, I find it wrong that an improper set up for the higher ranks. The King of France wouldn't necessarily appoint Robert of the Isle, Lord of Backwaterville as the Lord Chancellor of All France, nor would Lord Robert probably be a regular at the King's court. Instead, the King would be surrounded by his closest advisors and the ambitious upper nobility such that the King would be more pressured to appoint Lord William, Duc de Provence as the Lord Chancellor.

I might be wrong here, but if I were king of France in 1300, I would be more willing to go with Sieur Robert, because he is of the lesser nobility. His greatest title would be from me, not inherited from his forefathers and thus probably more loyal and a counterweight. Even with the prestige loss to the king (which is another way to say that the nobility is peeved). We then get into the realm of the court favorites, who tended to be lower gentry or even peasants, one way or another outsiders to the world of the high nobility. The king's real friends, maybe his bastard or adoptive son by whatever means, maybe just someone he feels has fewer ulterior motives.

 

[pirt]

Thats something that I have found strange as well, I can have a military genius for a marshall who conquers countless territory for me and never gets rewarded because if I make him a count he wont be my Marshall anymore. Meanwhile my backwards cousin becomes a duke simply because I can't use him for anything else.




This is a good point. If your vassals could be given the different roles it would open up quite a bit of tactical gameplay, the different posts could give benefits to the loyalty and stats of the holders. It would also add to gameplay for the player when they're a vassal. There are lots of little bonuses this could make to the game.

Still, I'm not saying that this should be "fixed". This also sounds like a dilemma that any leader has from time to time, regardless of the time period. You tend to keep people where they function well, but this may not be in those people's interests. All successful teams can produce promotion based conflicts.
Gameplay-wise, would be nice if vassals could be given other functional duties and successful courtiers should expect promotion. But maybe with a penalty, stemming from having different duties in various places, if location/presence will matter in the game as was discussed in other threads.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Still, I'm not saying that this should be "fixed". This also sounds like a dilemma that any leader has from time to time, regardless of the time period. You tend to keep people where they function well, but this may not be in those people's interests. All successful teams can produce promotion based conflicts.
Gameplay-wise, would be nice if vassals could be given other functional duties and successful courtiers should expect promotion. But maybe with a penalty, stemming from having different duties in various places, if location/presence will matter in the game as was discussed in other threads.

I agree. The difference may not be historically accurate and in this case gameplay > reality.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Well, probably a vassal, since the vassal would be a Count or a Duke, and that is hereditary, while being a Chancellor or Steward, is not.

Well, historically it was. William Marshal had the office of Marshal from his father, and he from his father, and so on.

Usually, courtly offices were made hereditary by the nobles excercising them. The family of William Marshal did it with the Marshal title Except in France, where the true nature of those offices remained more or less healthy.

 

[Caranorn]

Well, historically it was. William Marshal had the office of Marshal from his father, and he from his father, and so on.

Usually, courtly offices were made hereditary by the nobles excercising them. The family of William Marshal did it with the Marshal title Except in France, where the true nature of those offices remained more or less healthy.

Quite a few offices indeed became hereditary, but at the start of the game I don't think this was yet the case. Rather as the offices became more prestigious noble families refused to relinquish those positions, thereby gradually making them hereditary. Then again, that led to conflict between rivaling houses and/or their ruler...

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Quite a few offices indeed became hereditary, but at the start of the game I don't think this was yet the case. Rather as the offices became more prestigious noble families refused to relinquish those positions, thereby gradually making them hereditary. Then again, that led to conflict between rivaling houses and/or their ruler...

They were not only prestigious they also gave a nice income and other benefits