Byzantines....

[unmerged(18269)]

Cant get into the beta forum for now so....


Will Byzantium be modeled properly ? Surely it was not = France or England or any other fuedal state in Western Europe. right ?

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Will Byzantium be modeled properly ? Surely it was not = France or England or any other fuedal state in Western Europe. right ?

So what should it be equivalent to, and how should it be different?

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
So what should it be equivalent to, and how should it be different?

Well, I'm not sure feudalism is the best model for the Byzantine Empire. I'd say the Byzantine Emperor had much more direct control over his entire realm than did the average western king. The western king would have only had direct control over his much-smaller demense (sp?) and would have had to rely on his vassals to enforce his will in his other lands. The Emperor, on the other hand, would still need the support of his nobles throughout the empire if he didn't want to get himself blinded and sent to a monastery, but there really weren't any "vassals" within the Empire, and by analogy with the west, all lands would be counted as his demense.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
Well, I'm not sure feudalism is the best model for the Byzantine Empire. I'd say the Byzantine Emperor had much more direct control over his entire realm than did the average western king. The western king would have only had direct control over his much-smaller demense (sp?) and would have had to rely on his vassals to enforce his will in his other lands. The Emperor, on the other hand, would still need the support of his nobles throughout the empire if he didn't want to get himself blinded and sent to a monastery, but there really weren't any "vassals" within the Empire, and by analogy with the west, all lands would be counted as his demense.

Mmm. I hope it can be reflected without unbalancing the game, anyway.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by snuggs
Mmm. I hope it can be reflected without unbalancing the game, anyway.

Perhaps the struggle of a western King to retain the loyalty of his vassals could somehow be reflected in the struggle of the Byzantine Emperor to retain the loyalty of his nobles, within the Empire. Maybe if he doesn't keep them happy enough, he gets assassinated/deposed. I don't know if some version of this could be workably adapted into the game, but it would probably be a better model for the Byzantine Empire than feudalism.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
Perhaps the struggle of a western King to retain the loyalty of his vassals could somehow be reflected in the struggle of the Byzantine Emperor to retain the loyalty of his nobles, within the Empire. Maybe if he doesn't keep them happy enough, he gets assassinated/deposed. I don't know if some version of this could be workably adapted into the game, but it would probably be a better model for the Byzantine Empire than feudalism.

Well since being deposed or assasinated would mean GAME OVER for the unlucky family most likely this may be the way to go. However having a Byzantine Empire without anybody getting assasinated or deposed seems pretty unhistorical to me.

 

[saskganesh]

but didn't the Byzantine empire have a semi-feudal structure?

one of the main internal problems was the rivalry between landed aristocrats and the imperial buraucracy...

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Originally posted by saskganesh
but didn't the Byzantine empire have a semi-feudal structure?

one of the main internal problems was the rivalry between landed aristocrats and the imperial buraucracy...

Thats a misconception of the meaning of feudal. Feudal order (which is nothing like the Imperial societies of Rome, Byzantium, or the Renaissance monarchies) was based on personal agreements and community tradition. Land in a feudal agreement only figured in as a right of usage, based on tradition. The vary fact that you used the term "landed aristocrat" should answers my point. In the western feudal societies their was NO imperial bureaucracy for the so called “landed aristocrats” to deal with. The concentration of political & legal authority in the palace of Constantinople was the vary thing that separated the imperial state of the Eastern Roman Empire from the feudal societies of the west; which by contrast were strongly communitarian, at lest until about the time of the fall of Constantinople. By then, most of the monarchies of the west begin to resemble the autocratic imperial order of Byzantium, and that was only because of the rediscovery of Roman Law i.e. the Code of Justinian.

What constituted the foundation of the two societies was radically different. On the one hand you have an imperial authority, founded on law. On the other you have an ordered society based agreement and oath.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by The Leper King
On the other you have an ordered society based agreement and oath.

Sorry, but English law evolved from custom to code beginning in the mid 11th century and had no dependence whatsoever on Roman Law.

Not only Land, but Contract, Company/Partnership, Evidence, Family, Criminal, Inheritance and Constitutional. As well as legal evolution of feudal tennancy, this period also saw the evolution in defining how a King could rule; from feudal power to lawful rights and responsibilities.

Glanvill was written in 1188, and parts therein remained part of English Law for centuries.

If you wish to claim that Byzantine society was organized differently fine, but please don't stereotype all western Europe as a barbarous region waiting for the rennaisance to define her laws.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Sorry, but English law evolved from custom to code beginning in the mid 11th century and had no dependence whatsoever on Roman Law.

Not only Land, but Contract, Company/Partnership, Evidence, Family, Criminal, Inheritance and Constitutional. As well as legal evolution of feudal tennancy, this period also saw the evolution in defining how a King could rule; from feudal power to lawful rights and responsibilities.

The English *common law* didnt depend on Roman Law. But canon law was very important in England as well and the canon law was of course very much influenced by Roman Law. The canon law over time had siginificant influence on the overall development of English law.

Also the effects of the Norman conquest were extremely significant; especially on the evolution of courts and rules of jurisdiction. Writers like Bracton and Coke that emphasized continuity of English common law with old Anglo-Saxon custom cant be taken serious as historical documents (this is long before reliable histioriographic methods); this is essentially propaganda to reassue people that the legal usages they describe were grounded in ancient custom. In fact there were siginificant variations deriving from continental practice and/or Roman influenced canon law.

Re Leper King,

I think you are right so far as it goes but the dichotomy is too bright. Feudalism as you decribe it didnt really exist in western Europe anymore by mid 12 century; every decent sized Kingdom had at least a rudimentary bureaucracy, and institutions like royal courts; the entire period covered by CK is one of return of the money economy and consequent erosion of traditional feudal system of government based on reciprocal personal pledges cemented by usufruct land grants

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Keynes
The English *common law* didnt depend on Roman Law. But canon law was very important in England as well and the canon law was of course very much influenced by Roman Law. The canon law over time had siginificant influence on the overall development of English law.

Of course, but my points were directed at the claim that law in the west waited for the Rennaisance, or for Roman Law before evolving.

Also the effects of the Norman conquest were extremely significant;

I'd say more than significant, absolutely vital. When I wrote "English" it should really have been Norman. Without the conquest I very much doubt that "English" law would have evolved either as quickly, or retained such longevity.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Originally posted by Keynes
I think you are right so far as it goes but the dichotomy is too bright. Feudalism as you decribe it didnt really exist in western Europe anymore by mid 12 century; every decent sized Kingdom had at least a rudimentary bureaucracy, and institutions like royal courts; the entire period covered by CK is one of return of the money economy and consequent erosion of traditional feudal system of government based on reciprocal personal pledges cemented by usufruct land grants

Feudalism "as I described" doesn't preclude royal courts, or even laws. You both misunderstand me. I did not claim that laws did NOT exist in the feudal age (11th-13th century), but that it in principal didn't have the same power as it later would have by the high middle ages and the Renaissance. Western European society WAS based primarily on 'feudal custom.' This feudal custom didn't just disappear with the the rise of the Plantagenet's.

I agree that the period of this game deals with the change from one system to the other, but feudal society and custom were still present at the end of this period (In fact some feudal customs wouldn't be completely ended until our own time in the 20th century). Feudal comes from fief which implies a right of usage, not ownership by our standards. And it was not based on law but agreement sanctified by oath. It was simply a custom formed out of the necessity of the times, and that is the point I was trying to make: the difference between "custom" and "law." They both played a role in medieval society. But, 'law,' because it wasn't universal and changed from city to city, and farm to farm was subservient to 'feudal custom.' This is way the first question asked of a person brought up on charges in a medieval court was "what is your law?"

(edit sp.)

 

[Damocles]

Actually, Byzantium was quite feudal indeed. Which is why I'm surprised there is only a single Greek dynasty to play. There should at least be 2-3!

 

[unmerged(11620)]

quote:Originally posted by The Leper King
On the other you have an ordered society based agreement and oath.

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Sorry, but English law evolved from custom to code beginning in the mid 11th century and had no dependence whatsoever on Roman Law... If you wish to claim that Byzantine society was organized differently fine, but please don't stereotype all western Europe as a barbarous region waiting for the renaissance to define her laws.

But you admit it started as custom. Understand I'm not claiming that all Europe was barbarous. I thank feudal custom was more advanced than older Roman law. Under that caveat the English tradition of codifying feudal custom into law is an advance superior to the rediscovery of the older Roman law. Lets not forget that it was the renaissance of that same Roman law that allowed slavery. That renaissance in my view isn't all that great an advancement, like the historian Toynbee to me it represents only a resurrection of a system that wasn't all that great to begin with. I find it arrogant to assume that, just because the humanist and lawyers of the renaissance preferred Roman society to their own, that we should today. In other words I'm an arch-Medievalist and far from a believer in the supposed barbarity of the feudal system

Originally posted by Damocles
Actually, Byzantium was quite feudal indeed.

So the Emperor was just another noble in his empire like St. Louis was in his?

 

[Damocles]

There were a number of powerful Greek families who were maneuvering and positioning themselves to take control of the Imperial throne at this time. The Cantacuzacs (sp) the Comnenus (sp) and a couple other ones with badly mispelled archaic Greek names, I would need to look up. Afterall....In later scenarios the fall of Constantinople in 1204, there were three separate 'kingdoms'. The Despotae of Morea, Nicea and the Empire of Trabzon.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Originally posted by Damocles
There were a number of powerful Greek families who were maneuvering and positioning themselves to take control of the Imperial throne at this time. The Cantacuzacs (sp) the Comnenus (sp) and a couple other ones with badly mispelled archaic Greek names, I would need to look up. Afterall....In later scenarios the fall of Constantinople in 1204, there were three separate 'kingdoms'. The Despotae of Morea, Nicea and the Empire of Trabzon.

You are confusing feudalism with dynastic struggle. One does not necessarily entail the other, though both the imperial society and the feudal were at times subject to dynastic conflicts. I'm curious as to what your definition of feudalism, admittedly a somewhat imponderable term, is. Remember that the old empire also had dynasties, does that mean that the old empire was also feudal?

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by The Leper King
You are confusing feudalism with dynastic struggle. One does not necessarily entail the other, though both the imperial society and the feudal were at times subject to dynastic conflicts. I'm curious as to what your definition of feudalism, admittedly a somewhat imponderable term, is. Remember that the old empire also had dynasties, does that mean that the old empire was also feudal?

Feudal, as in Greek magnates, often styling themselves with titles akin to 'Dukes', with lesser ranked Greek 'nobility' underneath them. With independent resources and the responsibility for recruiting their own troops when called to war, based on certain districts they held authority in.

Yes. It wasn't exactly Anglo-Saxon feaudalism, but it had bastardized similarities.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
Feudal, as in Greek magnates, often styling themselves with titles akin to 'Dukes', with lesser ranked Greek 'nobility' underneath them. With independent resources and the responsibility for recruiting their own troops when called to war, based on certain districts they held authority in.

Yes. It wasn't exactly Anglo-Saxon feaudalism, but it had bastardized similarities.

Or to correct myself...

Feudal enough in their characteristics, to entail more then a SINGLE family for the ENTIRE Byzantine empire.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Originally posted by Damocles
Yes. It wasn't exactly Anglo-Saxon feaudalism, but it had bastardized similarities. ....


Or to correct myself...

Feudal enough in their characteristics, to entail more then a SINGLE family for the ENTIRE Byzantine empire.

In other words Byzantium was also evolving, tho slower then the western empire, out of a centralized system into a more feudal system at the time. I'll concede to that .

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by The Leper King
but that it in principal didn't have the same power as it later would have by the high middle ages and the Renaissance. Western European society WAS based primarily on 'feudal custom.' This feudal custom didn't just disappear with the the rise of the Plantagenet's

Correct, it's a slow evolution, though accelerated by the Norman dynasties. Feudal custom was replaced by both common and codified law, and I would argue that the principles of a lawful state were in place long before the rennaisance.

Of course there are periods where those laws are ignored, but they are there in principle; is that so different from the Byzantine state?

What I always find amazing is that during a period where remarkably modern laws of evidence were being codified, there was still trial by ordeal