Maybe something like elected council members?"Late Administration"? Mark me down as intrigued.
Maybe something like elected council members?"Late Administration"? Mark me down as intrigued.
Maybe something like elected council members?
It is probably best to read from the historians here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._historians_say_feudalism_never_existed_what/
To summarize things neatly:
Feudalism is a post-medieval construct that like most of popular history concerning the middle ages (and CK2 is built on popular history because actual medieval history would be impossible to simulate on the clausewitz engine in a remotely fun manner) is at best, massively oversimplified, and at worst flatly invented centuries after the fact and has only come into question in the 20th century.
Vassals and fiefs, as Susan Reynolds explains, are essentially born of 16th century misunderstandings of 13th century academic legal papers. Fiefdom was not even the primary means of owning land and Homagery was not necessarily a system of vassalage. Nor did we actually have a nice, neat hierarchy of pretty little ranks. It was a very fluid, constantly changing structure that essentially worked through common assent.
It's hardly nonsense if it's the current dominant viewpoint in medieval academia and it's hardly academia's fault that popular culture and scholastic education is slow to catch up to discoveries made by medieval historians.
For all the jokes about fantasyOk, Dracos shall remain sleeping but ever vigilant.
I was in academia at one point. Advisor was a medievalist. Close confidant in the department focused on medieval studies. To say that this is the current and dominant idea is ridiculous. It's tenure fishing at its worst, really.
In what capacity?
I'm going to dismiss your anecdote out of hand for the reason that it is an anecdote. I'm going to have to ask if you've ever actually read Susan Reynold's Fiefs and Vassals which is the basis for the school of thought that feudalism was not a real thing. If not, I'm entirely willing to send you a copy over email. At the very least, check out Elizabeth Brown's essay on why Feudalism is a word without meaning because everyone was basically using their own private definition.I was in academia at one point. Advisor was a medievalist. Close confidant in the department focused on medieval studies. To say that this is the current and dominant idea is ridiculous. It's tenure fishing at its worst, really.
Saying that there were not neat ranks and that some systems functioned differently doesn't mean the feudal system as we know it is totally wrong. It just means that it's sometimes simplified for things like, say, a game.
The idea that our our concept of feudalism derives from a single 12th-century source as stated in that reddit is ridiculous. There is a plethora of literature that attests to the classical concept. Some ofit is very famous and I've mentioned it in this very thread.
N.B. part of why I left academia pursuits is the number of people willing to believe their own bullshit just so that they could get a tenure track position. Social sciences are sadly overpopulated and people will whore themselves out to get a paycheck.
Anyway, the whole thing is a strawman for a semantic argument. It's beyond silly. As another academic once said, it's sometimes hard to see the forest with all those damn trees in the way.
How did we get from "new CK2 dlc" to "let's discuss whether feudalism was X or Y"?
Coalitions? Is this EU4?
Conclave: so, sadly - very sadly - no distinction between defensive alliances and offensive alliances?
Go read the previous dev diaries.
Feudalism, like a lot of other words, has a broad definition. Here's how Wikipedia (and any other internet source) defines it :I'm going to dismiss your anecdote out of hand for the reason that it is an anecdote. I'm going to have to ask if you've ever actually read Susan Reynold's Fiefs and Vassals which is the basis for the school of thought that feudalism was not a real thing. If not, I'm entirely willing to send you a copy over email. At the very least, check out Elizabeth Brown's essay on why Feudalism is a word without meaning because everyone was basically using their own private definition.
While they may try to address bugs with the DLC patch, each DLC has also added new bugs to the mix. Bugs I've seen:
-Muslim decadence invasion intended for a specific muslim ruler's dynasty declared against me, the catholic holy roman emperor, instead. (I've posted this one in the bug forum since its impact is significant, allowing decadent muslim empires to stay intact.)
-A strange "NO_TITLE" barony holding that is treated like a king-level holding that keeps popping up every generation that screws up certain inheritances
-As a ruler with the homosexual trait, I keep getting spammed with homosexual romance events.
-I've noticed certain tooltips with incorrect info. I have vassalized the pope and I receive a +10 opinion for "Free Investiture" but I really think it means to say Papal Investiture, since that's what's in place and I believe that's what he'd want to see, anyway.
-Most female courtiers in my court, by the age of 17, have Lover's Pox. And not because it's my character's fault.
I'm not a gametester, so these are just the bugs or imbalances I've noticed, which would most certainly be just the tip of the iceberg. I am not trying to be a killjoy, but I just want things fixed before they're broken again. It's gotten to the point where I wait a month after a DLC is released before I even try a fresh ironman for fear of game-breaking bugs.