Career men and office titles

[SaberHRE]

One thing that did not reflect in CK1 was the importance of office titles such as chancellor, exchequer(steward), marshal.

In reality these titles were of great importance serving as extensions of royal rule, and arms with which a monarch exerted his power.

One misconception was that these men were usually appointed from already powerful members of nobility which isn't true, and therefore is well represented in CK1(by inability to appoint dukes or counts to office titles).

I want to know how CK2 will handle office titles in meaningful way so that the men appointed to these offices can actually make a career out of it, earn some big money, prestige and perhaps even land grants.

 

[Woody Man]

I think this is very country dependent, most of the time in England these positions were held by the nobility.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

As Woody Man says, the Earl Marshal of England would disagree with you about the position not being held by nobles : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Marshal and so in fact would the Scottish equivalent : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Marischal

 

[Caranorn]

What Saber said was "appointed from already powerful members of nobility" (misconception). That does not mean the appointees were not members of the nobility, but indeed that they were usually not of upper nobility. While I can't say how this was in the British Isles, this is indeed correct for France and the HRE where offices were usually handed out to members of the lesser nobility or even knighthood (including very obviously ministerialis). This was largely done to counter the already powerful upper nobility, but also because originally the upper nobility was uninterested in such un-prestigious positions. Overtime of course matters changed and offices fell into the hands of the upper nobility...

And yes, offices could mean career openings and great profit for previously poor and powerless people, often the offices would also become hereditary (and sometimes a hereditary officer would coexist with an appointed one)...

But anyhow, these issues were already discussed here a while back...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I'd disagree about the "poor and powerless" part of your statement. If it wasn't a position which was hereditary, then you'd often be expected to buy the position from the crown - especially if there were any tax revenues associated with it. You'd need to be a) rich enough to afford the fee/bribe, and well enough connected to have access to the right person to pay the fee/bribe to. In addition, you'd probably want to have enough connections to block other people from seeking the same position.

As well as that, if you grant the marshal a reasonable amount of land, then he would be a count/earl would he not? Why then should you be unable to give the title to an already exisiting count/earl or duke, especially when it was the custom of some of the major countries in Europe?
At various points, the Earl Marshal would have been at least the second most powerful man in England, sometimes having more de facto power than the king. Come to think of it the title of Earl Marshal is currently held by a Duke, but he is more often known by the Earl Marshal title! This has been the case at various points since the late CK period (1397-). Between 1135-1397 it was mostly held by Earls.

I feel you should be able to award such titles to your Dukes and Earls, and possibly even pass a law making them hereditary. Of course, this could cause problems as they gather prestige and power, and could see them challenging for the throne if you are weak and have low relationships with them. It also risks your Marshal being weak and incompetent, but to recall the title would cause unrest and drop his family's loyalty to you; if you don't, your country could suffer militarily in some fashion, at best simply not having the best candidate for the job in place.

 

[SaberHRE]

I'd disagree about the "poor and powerless" part of your statement. If it wasn't a position which was hereditary, then you'd often be expected to buy the position from the crown - especially if there were any tax revenues associated with it. You'd need to be a) rich enough to afford the fee/bribe, and well enough connected to have access to the right person to pay the fee/bribe to. In addition, you'd probably want to have enough connections to block other people from seeking the same position.

As well as that, if you grant the marshal a reasonable amount of land, then he would be a count/earl would he not? Why then should you be unable to give the title to an already exisiting count/earl or duke, especially when it was the custom of some of the major countries in Europe?
At various points, the Earl Marshal would have been at least the second most powerful man in England, sometimes having more de facto power than the king. Come to think of it the title of Earl Marshal is currently held by a Duke, but he is more often known by the Earl Marshal title! This has been the case at various points since the late CK period (1397-). Between 1135-1397 it was mostly held by Earls.

I feel you should be able to award such titles to your Dukes and Earls, and possibly even pass a law making them hereditary. Of course, this could cause problems as they gather prestige and power, and could see them challenging for the throne if you are weak and have low relationships with them. It also risks your Marshal being weak and incompetent, but to recall the title would cause unrest and drop his family's loyalty to you; if you don't, your country could suffer militarily in some fashion, at best simply not having the best candidate for the job in place.

No Caranorn is right, the office titles where usually given to nobility of lesser status, mainly because they were thought to be more loyal this way. As he mentioned many office titles where given to members of lesser nobility or even non-nobles. The HRE emperors relied on ministerialis while the french kings also adopted this model relying on non-noble lawyers and administrators.

Another popular measure was giving office titles to clergy members because they couldn't inherit.

People mention Earl marshal as an example but truth is, once the title became hereditary(given to William) it lost its office meaning, in the way how many hereditary cupbearer, majordomo, palatine titles lost their office meanings. And fact: William marshal was elevated to earl marshal partially to allow him to marry Isabelle de Clare(and it was her vast inheritance that made him such a "powerful" man).

I'm not opposed to giving office titles to your dukes or counts or earls(although this was a practice of later period), I think these offices titles should be an important way for any character to advance his political career.

 

[aylo1]

CK 2 wise, why not have the Duke for example have the option to appoint their marshal, chancellor from their vassal Counts & Bishops whilst the King can appoint any vassal of their realm (regardless if a direct vassal or not) to high office. At the same time retain the courtier system of appointments maybe to a provincial level instead.

Further I'd like to see an expansion on the 'fosterling' command - but for adult members of your dynasty. Something that allows your younger kids\siblings to enter the service of another noble family & maybe get rewarded with a husband\wife, office, lands through the host noble's patronage. At the moment all you can do in CK 1 to simulate this is destroy their loyalty so they depart for another court.

 

[RedRooster81]

CK 2 wise, why not have the Duke for example have the option to appoint their marshal, chancellor from their vassal Counts & Bishops whilst the King can appoint any vassal of their realm (regardless if a direct vassal or not) to high office. At the same time retain the courtier system of appointments maybe to a provincial level instead.

Further I'd like to see an expansion on the 'fosterling' command - but for adult members of your dynasty. Something that allows your younger kids\siblings to enter the service of another noble family & maybe get rewarded with a husband\wife, office, lands through the host noble's patronage. At the moment all you can do in CK 1 to simulate this is destroy their loyalty so they depart for another court.

I like the idea of sending adults to other courts. I would also like a decision or dyplomatic option (at this stage, probably the former) to recall members of your dynasty to your own court. E.g., poor second-cousin Alfonso is languishing in Prague. Why not send him a letter inviting to come home to Toledo?

Edit: I think it says in a DD that you can only appoint your vassals, not the vassals of vassals.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I'm tempted by the possibility of nominating the king's heir to one of the big titles, and doing this as a consistent thing. I think it might make for an interesting game.

Mind you, I think it would be interesting to have the option to ask for bribes for the major offices from any interested nobles, whether or not these are dressed up as gifts, or seen as outright attempts to buy the office. Tax collector was often done this way, and I could see some of the sheriff/regional judge type titles being done this way too.

If the office of Earl Marshal lost it's meaning, why was it confirmed so often, and seen as one of the appointments in the realm? Why didn't another position with overlapping jurisdiction arise?

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

One thing that did not reflect in CK1 was the importance of office titles such as chancellor, exchequer(steward), marshal.

In reality these titles were of great importance serving as extensions of royal rule, and arms with which a monarch exerted his power.

One misconception was that these men were usually appointed from already powerful members of nobility which isn't true, and therefore is well represented in CK1(by inability to appoint dukes or counts to office titles).

I want to know how CK2 will handle office titles in meaningful way so that the men appointed to these offices can actually make a career out of it, earn some big money, prestige and perhaps even land grants.

You're both right and wrong. Petty nobility rose serving the sovereign, while great nobility rose because they held great duchies, counties, estates, whatever.

Great nobility declined while petty nobility became stronger as the king became stronger. Then, two things happened: this petty nobility became big nobility in the place of the old gib nobility (Case in Castille and Aragon), or they kept on being petty nobility, because the king did it right earlier (case of France), being able to rely on big nobility or wiping it out, replaing it by royal offsprings.

Anyway, CK1 was right about giving places in your "arministration" to local noblemen, but it was wrong because they didn't let us handle the Great Offices, honorific already in the XIIIth Century, but prestigious, to our dukes and counts.

Every single marshallship, stewardship or Great Office tended to be hereditary. Save France. But look at the Earl Marshall, or at the Seneschals of Barcelona, the House of Montcada, who still held this title in the XVth Century.

Both things should be represented. And the second thing, the Great Offices, could be part of that system we debated some time ago, about knightly orders, etc.

 

[SaberHRE]

Every single marshallship, stewardship or Great Office tended to be hereditary. Save France. But look at the Earl Marshall, or at the Seneschals of Barcelona, the House of Montcada, who still held this title in the XVth Century.

Both things should be represented. And the second thing, the Great Offices, could be part of that system we debated some time ago, about knightly orders, etc.

I disagree that every Great office was hereditary

The only examples of regions that had a hereditary system of offices where like you mentioned England, Scotland and parts of Spain.

In Central and Eastern Europe moves to make such offices hereditary were usually forbidden by kings or even violently opposed by the nobility. In Poland and Hungary there were titles of palatines, which where of extreme power, a palatine being almost a second-in-command behind the king. Because of great power they wielded, and they're rather humble origins, they were often brutal struggles against them many suffering horrible fates (for some reason in the 11th century Eastern Europe eye gouging was a very common punishment.)

Please also notice how the some of the offices did indeed become hereditary whilst others didn't. The military offices such as marshal or constable became hereditary and lost their importance(i.e executive powers) because of the frequent baron rebellions in England. To leave such powerful positions still open would be suicide for English kings.

IIRC however once the Tudors came to throne, in their efforts to centralize their power, they reestablished appointing of Constables.

But my point is in terms of the game:
Retaining status quo of office titles and hereditary titles, they way it was in CK1. However the powers and importance of these offices should greatly increase, and appointment and retirement of these positions should have some weight.

If you have a vastly incompetent commander/general/captain there should be certain legal or factor influenced consequences of appointing or discharging such a officer. If he wields much prestige, money and allies(in the CK2 rival and friend system) it should cost the liege much prestige to take away his position. Worse if the character has disloyal trait.

 

[Caranorn]

Note that in the HRE at least at the lower levels (duchies and counties in CK terms) many offices also became hereditary, sometimes leading to what I mentionned before both a hereditary and appointed office of the same title existing paralelly. In such cases the hereditary office would tend to be prestige (and maybe monetary) only, but no real function (except at corronation or such ceremonies); while the appointed one would be less prestigious but involve actual duties...

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

In Central and Eastern Europe moves to make such offices hereditary were usually forbidden by kings or even violently opposed by the nobility.

That's not true. In the Holy Roman Empire, great offices were privalitzed too. Look at the Margraves of Brandenburg, they were hereditary Arch-chamberlains of the Empire.

The Archbishops of Trier, Mainz and Köln were all Arch-chancellors of Burgundy, Germany and Italy respectively.

The Duke of Saxony was Arch-marshal, the king of Bohemia was Arch-butler, etc.

Most of them were honorific when already given (contrary to what happened usually, given funcional and lost its function eventually).

But still, their legal capacity remained, many times. The House of Montcada kept on being the leader of any army raised in Catalonia, second only to the King, thanks to their office of Seneschals.

In Poland and Hungary there were titles of palatines, which where of extreme power, a palatine being almost a second-in-command behind the king. Because of great power they wielded, and they're rather humble origins, they were often brutal struggles against them many suffering horrible fates (for some reason in the 11th century Eastern Europe eye gouging was a very common punishment.)

The Palatines in Poland and Hungary were not of humble origins, as far as I know, they were middle nobility. It's natural: the king is against the great landed nobility, so he relies on the lower strata, in this case the middle nobility and the towns.

Please also notice how the some of the offices did indeed become hereditary whilst others didn't. The military offices such as marshal or constable became hereditary and lost their importance

That's true, you're right.

IIRC however once the Tudors came to throne, in their efforts to centralize their power, they reestablished appointing of Constables.

But my point is in terms of the game:
Retaining status quo of office titles and hereditary titles, they way it was in CK1. However the powers and importance of these offices should greatly increase, and appointment and retirement of these positions should have some weight.

Sounds good to me. Still, I'd like to give away honorific titles as well.

 

[SaberHRE]

Yes your right, HRE gained these honorific titles as result of the Golden bull, and the titles where given to the members as a way to upkeep the facade of Imperial diets. It was a complicated situation, however I wouldn't compare it to "usual" European standards of hereditary offices.

I believe that seneschal of Barcelona retained their executive duties, and I'm not saying that wasn't the case with many hereditary offices. A common yet slightly obscure title was the cupbearer, which was prominent among many european families. The Stauffenbergs(one of whom tried assassinating Hitler) for many years retained their honorific AND executive duties as cupbearers for Swabian Hohenzollerns.

Concerning High titles such as Palatine(which in particular cases of Poland and Hungary) the titles where given to very obscure nobles.

The most famous Palatine of poland was one Sieciech, who was said to be of very obscure background. Poland at that time did not have a set caste of Nobility yet, with the true Nobles(read: Magnates) being usually related to the royal family, while the "knightly" classes were still members of the Druzyna. Mind you this is still 1080s.

Sieciech became so powerful he minted his own coins, and became the guardian of royal princes, moves that angered the great magnates because of his obscure backgrounds.

Saint Laszlo born in Poland, before he became King of Hungary had great struggles, including with his Palatine of his Duchy, Tercia Pars.

Of course after these "incidents" both kingdoms abolished the title of palatine due to its great powers, and replaced it with voivodes, who were themselves appointed nonhereditary governors(who in their own rights also at times possessed immense powers, but through position rather than prestige of their dynasty).

But before I go OT. The system in terms of offices I want to see can be recycled at least partially from EU: Rome, where IIRC a powerful and wealthy courtier who was disbanded from command could refuse and revolt.