Class, caste and nobility

[ray243]

Historically, how a society organise its social hierarchy matters a great deal for many pre-modern cultures. But while societies might differ on how its social classes of people is divided, there is still a sense that different classes can have different attitudes and rivalries with each other.

Say you offer a government office to someone of a non-noble class, the nobility will likely be in uproar over it because they are being excluded from office. If you offer too many of the high-ranking offices to your noble, there is a danger that it might be used to legitimise their position as a rival candidate to your throne.

Class should matter in CK3, and the background of the people you employ for certain council positions or political offices should matter in the game.

 

[Orkonkel]

Historically, how a society organise its social hierarchy matters a great deal for many pre-modern cultures. But while societies might differ on how its social classes of people is divided, there is still a sense that different classes can have different attitudes and rivalries with each other.

Say you offer a government office to someone of a non-noble class, the nobility will likely be in uproar over it because they are being excluded from office. If you offer too many of the high-ranking offices to your noble, there is a danger that it might be used to legitimise their position as a rival candidate to your throne.

Class should matter in CK3, and the background of the people you employ for certain council positions or political offices should matter in the game.

Did you write this up because it made sense in your head or is there any sort of historical backing for this? In particular, the whole reason of giving privileges to the nobility (e.g all of the high-ranking offices) was because they would legitimise your position on the throne, rather than rival candidates. It just seems like a counter-intuitive suggestion.

 

[halbort]

I think appointing nobility should always be better that appointing commoners. The only downside is that they might not be good at their job.

I think what he means is that giving too much power to one member of the nobility should have downsides.

 

[aono]

In particular, the whole reason of giving privileges to the nobility (e.g all of the high-ranking offices) was because they would legitimise your position on the throne, rather than rival candidates.

Actually, it's not true. The whole reason of giving privileges to the nobility was that nobility would riot if you would not. Nobility - powerful men - were supposed to get more positions and privileges to placate them (and more, and more, and more, and then the king stays without anything, and tries to restore his power, and, well, feudal squabbles are fun!).
Still, for sure it could be a bargaining chip in dynastic fights. "If I would be a king, I'd appoint you a marshal!".

 

[Serenity84]

Nobles should also be mad if you gave too much land to commoners

 

[ray243]

Did you write this up because it made sense in your head or is there any sort of historical backing for this? In particular, the whole reason of giving privileges to the nobility (e.g all of the high-ranking offices) was because they would legitimise your position on the throne, rather than rival candidates. It just seems like a counter-intuitive suggestion.

The Romans tend to give lower rank nobles or non-nobles important military commands in the late empire to ensure they won't launch a rebellion easily.

 

[Cruxador]

I feel like you guys are talking about very different periods of medieval history. The idea of nobles being unhappy with individual commoners getting privileges is quite late, even into the Europa Universalis time period. After all, by this time their class and hereditary privilege was the main foundation of a noble's power. However, early in medieval history, we have cases where kings ennobled chieftains and other powerful individuals to create a sort of pyramid scheme justifying their power. The unification of Norway, for example, is said to have happened in this manner. But in general, nobility early on would have been a recognition of power rather than a source of it.

This focus on "class" as a universal aspect of societal structure also seems very modern.

 

[Arko]

Nobles should also be mad if you gave too much land to commoners

Landed commoners become then Nobles

 

[aono]

This focus on "class" as a universal aspect of societal structure also seems very modern.

It's Plato. Modern focus is on equaling social and economy classes.

The idea of nobles being unhappy with individual commoners getting privileges is quite late, even into the Europa Universalis time period.

Well, in TVTropes they use "Older then Feudalism" trope in this case. It's actually the base dynamic of stratified society - nobles tend to oppose "washing" of their powers or removing their privileges (by simply revoking them or expanding them onto commoners). Look into patrician-plebean dynamic in Rome.
The point of early European feudalism was that there was not actual nobles. It just took some time for clan society with chieftains, quite often based on seniority, not bloodlines, to transit into noble-commoner system.

 

[LordofLight]

Nobles should also be mad if you gave too much land to commoners

The whole idea and concept behind nobles was that they owned land. The ability to actually own land made them nobles. They earned money and power by owning said land, via tenants and so on ( Also land was power because more land means more food and people need food. So if you own the food you own the people). And projected their power via a castle that would help them keep ownership/control over the region.

But the general idea is: Are you really a commoner if you own land in the Medieval era?

You are correct though. Nobles would be mad if the king started making commoners into nobles.

 

[Serenity84]

You are correct though. Nobles would be mad if the king started making commoners into nobles.

That's what I meant. Of course people received noble titles now and then for certain accomplishments. But that wasn't always welcomed by the existing nobility.

Eventually different classes of nobility were established with sometimes different rules for them. The details varied with times and countries of course. Often there was a clear distinction between the old noble families and the newer upstarts. At least after the middle ages when handing out noble titles to rich or otherwise distinguished people became extremely common. Some association with the lower noble classes became necessary just because of their power, but they were often regarded as lesser. A marriage with someone from a lower class of nobility may not have been well regarded.

There is also a huge difference between knighting someone and making someone a duke. Knighting people for distinguished service was nothing unusual. Knights could and later on often were pretty poor. There were many knights who couldn't support themselves from an estate. But turning a commoner into a duke would probably be unheard of.

 

[lazprune]

Actually, it's not true. The whole reason of giving privileges to the nobility was that nobility would riot if you would not. Nobility - powerful men - were supposed to get more positions and privileges to placate them (and more, and more, and more, and then the king stays without anything, and tries to restore his power, and, well, feudal squabbles are fun!).
Still, for sure it could be a bargaining chip in dynastic fights. "If I would be a king, I'd appoint you a marshal!".

THIS.

Whatever you think of it, folks, representing class struggle is an underrated way to make internal politics actually interesting in strategy games.

 

[Dmitrius]

I think CK2 handled this quite well in the council system.

Power nobles could be kept in check whilst in court. You could have lowborns in your council, but.... that means fewer opportunities to appease powerful nobles.

In other words you can have a mix, but be careful who you leave out in the cold.

 

[Thrake]

Actually, it's not true. The whole reason of giving privileges to the nobility was that nobility would riot if you would not. Nobility - powerful men - were supposed to get more positions and privileges to placate them (and more, and more, and more, and then the king stays without anything, and tries to restore his power, and, well, feudal squabbles are fun!).
Still, for sure it could be a bargaining chip in dynastic fights. "If I would be a king, I'd appoint you a marshal!".

I would really love to see becoming a thing. It bugged me a good deal in CK2 that nobility had no expectations. I think that dynasty prestige and the amount and tiers of held titles should be driving factors when determining who would expect the most titles and positions. It would force the liege to strenghten strong families, or face short term issues. But strenghtening strong families would also mean you would have a strong counterweight to your power and cause long term issues (when they forget who fed them with titles).

 

[aono]

The whole idea and concept behind nobles was that they owned land. The ability to actually own land made them nobles.

And again, not exactly. Actually, it was one of the reasons of Crusades - there were too many unlanded nobles, who needed new lands to get fiefs, and who was mercenaries and, well, plainly robbers until holy war. Still, they were nobles (and they had some privilegies, actually).

 

[aono]

I think that dynasty prestige and the amount and tiers of held titles should be driving factors when determining who would expect the most titles and positions.

I'd limit it to dynasty prestige. Upstarts (like somebody with high-level titles but without high dynasty prestige) would like they had this titles already (in expense of some prestigious houses), but his children and grandchildren would be a different story.

 

[Thrake]

I'd limit it to dynasty prestige. Upstarts (like somebody with high-level titles but without high dynasty prestige) would like they had this titles already (in expense of some prestigious houses), but his children and grandchildren would be a different story.

If you only look at dynasty prestige, it means that the system would not model the possibilties for old noble families eventually becoming weak and poor and having little but their name left.

I guess limiting expactations to the dynastic head would make sense? I'm not sure how it exactly worked historically to be fair.

 

[aono]

If you only look at dynasty prestige, it means that the system would not model the possibilties for old noble families eventually becoming weak and poor and having little but their name left.

Why? Quite the opposite. Of course, such a family would have a big expectations; still, they would not be a problem for ruler, until they happen to find some powerful support. By marriage, for example.

 

[Thrake]

Why? Quite the opposite. Of course, such a family would have a big expectations; still, they would not be a problem for ruler, until they happen to find some powerful support. By marriage, for example.

Silly me - you're right.

 

[ray243]

If you only look at dynasty prestige, it means that the system would not model the possibilties for old noble families eventually becoming weak and poor and having little but their name left.

I guess limiting expactations to the dynastic head would make sense? I'm not sure how it exactly worked historically to be fair.

Jealousy needs to be big part of CK3. It's part and parcel of human nature and jealously do drive politics and decisions of many people.