Zim
01-19-2012, 12:43
Hello everybody. Over in the Throne Room we have a tradition of RPGs where players take the part of nobles in whichever kingdom we are playing in game (represented as the in game family members and generals). Generally in these games realism takes a bit of a back seat to a mix of having a fun game and verisimilitude.
In the latest such game there's been a bit of a discussion about the power of a king and feudalism. For context we are talking about Hungary circa 1222. In our "court room" there's some heated in character discussion about decisions pertinent to the kingdom's future and one player made an out of character statement on royal authority (you can find the whole post here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?139689-Lords-of-the-Danube-Courtroom&p=2053414415&viewfull=1#post2053414415) ).
The rules of the game state that the nobles own their land because otherwise it would be very dull to play in a game where one guy acts all high and mighty and everyone else does his bidding. Historically however the King owned all the land that was not part of the Church's property and in turn gave it out to the nobles in return for allegiance and knights. They in turn split their lands in smaller portions, leaving some for their private estates and granting the rest to their knights in exchange for service and so that the knights may pay for their destriers, mail and weapons. The knights in turn leased the land to serfs who toiled and gave a large portion of the produced goods back to the knight or just paid him a tax in gold form the sales they made. The rest they used to feed themselves and make a living. However ultimately the King still owed all of the land in the Kingdom and could revoke titles, confiscate lands and promote new nobles on a whim. Doing this in a game will suck however, but this was the reality back then.
My first thought (and that of at least one player) was that this seemed very far off from how we thoguht of feudalism. All through university and the books I've read the theme seemed to be that feudalism was both a cause of decentralization and sometimes a cause of it, with feudal societies only slowly (at different times in different places) moving towards greater centralization of power in the hands of a monarch.
After being challenged to provide sources for my opinion I realized at best I might be able to have a bar room or typical internet forum debate on the subject. From me at least there'd likely be a lot of "I read or was told this", a few dubious internet sources, intermingled with whatever I can find quickly on the books I do own that touch on the subject (most of which are hopefully at least well sources but addressed towards the laymen).
So I thought I'd bring the discussion here where there are much more knowledgeable posters. Would anybody be able to address the subject, or suggest a book (if possible one available on Kindle)? I have a degree in Political Science, so I'm well able to slog through dry books on government if need be (in fact if we were talking something 500 years more recent or 700 years further in the past I'd likely be able to speak more authoritatively).
In the latest such game there's been a bit of a discussion about the power of a king and feudalism. For context we are talking about Hungary circa 1222. In our "court room" there's some heated in character discussion about decisions pertinent to the kingdom's future and one player made an out of character statement on royal authority (you can find the whole post here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?139689-Lords-of-the-Danube-Courtroom&p=2053414415&viewfull=1#post2053414415) ).
The rules of the game state that the nobles own their land because otherwise it would be very dull to play in a game where one guy acts all high and mighty and everyone else does his bidding. Historically however the King owned all the land that was not part of the Church's property and in turn gave it out to the nobles in return for allegiance and knights. They in turn split their lands in smaller portions, leaving some for their private estates and granting the rest to their knights in exchange for service and so that the knights may pay for their destriers, mail and weapons. The knights in turn leased the land to serfs who toiled and gave a large portion of the produced goods back to the knight or just paid him a tax in gold form the sales they made. The rest they used to feed themselves and make a living. However ultimately the King still owed all of the land in the Kingdom and could revoke titles, confiscate lands and promote new nobles on a whim. Doing this in a game will suck however, but this was the reality back then.
My first thought (and that of at least one player) was that this seemed very far off from how we thoguht of feudalism. All through university and the books I've read the theme seemed to be that feudalism was both a cause of decentralization and sometimes a cause of it, with feudal societies only slowly (at different times in different places) moving towards greater centralization of power in the hands of a monarch.
After being challenged to provide sources for my opinion I realized at best I might be able to have a bar room or typical internet forum debate on the subject. From me at least there'd likely be a lot of "I read or was told this", a few dubious internet sources, intermingled with whatever I can find quickly on the books I do own that touch on the subject (most of which are hopefully at least well sources but addressed towards the laymen).
So I thought I'd bring the discussion here where there are much more knowledgeable posters. Would anybody be able to address the subject, or suggest a book (if possible one available on Kindle)? I have a degree in Political Science, so I'm well able to slog through dry books on government if need be (in fact if we were talking something 500 years more recent or 700 years further in the past I'd likely be able to speak more authoritatively).