Imperial Diet & Rules

[phonicsmonkey]

The Prinz grins at the Margrave's irascible nature.

Good Margrave, it is a pleasure to see you in such fine spirits.

I may be able to support your amendment but I'm not sure exactly what it means. What, in practice, will the following mean for the Marshall?

(4)The Marshall shall while holding this position lose all his ties to his Duchy and answer only to the Kaiser and the Diet.

It is a worthy sentiment but vaguely drafted at present - it could be given a wide range of interpretations. Pray be more specific and I might consider seconding it.

I should also point out that I will not support this measure unless point 3 is redrafted thus:

The Marshall's army cannot be used to conquer new settlements unless expressly authorised to do so by the Diet.

This will allow us flexibility should we collectively decide to use the Reichsmarschall's force as part of an offensive against an enemy which threatens the Reich and must be eradicated.

I agree with the sentiment which I perceive to be behind it, which is that the centrally funded army should not be used to further the territorial ambitions of individuals.

[The Celtic Viking]

"Very well, I shall explain. Since the Reichmarshall's army would be paid for by all electors and is there for the defence of the Reich as a whole, he cannot be partial and must act in an objective manner. If he is a client of a Duke or a Margrave, then that conflicts with this responsibility, and allows for the Duke or Margrave in question to exert undue influence over him. So in order to avoid this, the man who is elected as Reichmarschall will, for the duration of his term as such, will not be a part of any Duchy. He would thus, while serving as Reichmarschall, stop being a client of his Duke, and instead be bound only to the Kaiser and the Diet.

This means that, while he is Reichmarschall, he is not a member of any Duchy and cannot recieve income from any land that is part of one. Whether this means that he keeps the land which is then removed from the Duchy, or if he forfeits that land altogether, matters little to me, though I think the former is better, as we can then add that income to the Reichmarshall's army. When his term is over, he returns to his Duchy together with any land that he might have taken with him.

Allow me then to rephrase my proposal:

Charter Amendment 4.1c

Should Charter Amendment 4.1b pass, the following should be added to the Reichmarshall position:

Penalties:
(3) The Reichmarshall's army has two priorities, in order of importance:

a) To defend the Reich's current possessions
b) To reclaim lost settlements

As such, the Reichmarshall's army cannot be used to conquer new territory

(4) For the duration of his term, the Reichmarschall will secede together with any land he owns from his Duchy and answer only to the Kaiser and the Diet.

Does that clear things up for you?"

[phonicsmonkey]

It does but I then cannot support it - for it would effectively disbar any Duke from serving as Reichsmarschall, restricting the position to lesser nobles. What if we have but Dukes as Electors? Then we shall have no Reichsmarschall.

Also, what is to become of the Reichsmarschall's personal lands if he is not able to spend money to improve them during his term? The Reich is then paralyzed in some part and cannot be developed.

Further, if the Reichsmarschall has no independent income then there is no further resource for him to fall back upon if the central budget is exhausted.

So I'm afraid I must oppose the measure unless this item is removed.

It's a pity, for I am in favour of the rest (with the minor amendment I proposed to (3)).

[The Celtic Viking]

"If we have only Dukes then we will either have too many Dukes, or we will be in such a dire situation that we have worse things to think about. Besides, if the Duke becomes Reichmarschall, and he stays being Duke, then we have an even worse conflict of interest. In any case, there is nothing legally barring Dukes from becoming Reichmarschall; he would keep his settlements while being the Reichmarschall, and he will have his Duchy reinstated afterwards. For him, this would merely be a formal change, which is why I would prefer if the Reichmarschall was elected from non-Dukes. However, I have amended my proposal to better guarantee this.

As for his personal income and such, I did not mean to say that it would have to be used for his army. I said he could, and by that meant it to be exactly what you call for: an independent income to draw from if need be. It was in contrast to the option where he surrenders his land, which I did not propose. Those objections thus carry no weight. So, let me make a third draft:

Charter Amendment 4.1c

Should Charter Amendment 4.1b pass, the following should be added to the Reichmarshall position:

Penalties:
(3) The Reichmarshall's army has two priorities, in order of importance:

a) To defend the Reich's current possessions
b) To reclaim lost settlements

As such, the Reichmarshall's army cannot be used to conquer new territory, unless expressively authorized to do so by the Diet. This, however, cannot surpass priority a) or b).

(4) For the duration of his term, the Reichmarschall will secede together with any land he owns from his Duchy and answer only to the Kaiser and the Diet. Immediately after his term is over, his status (and Duchy, if the Reichmarschall was a Duke) will be brought back to what it was before.

Does this change your opinion on the matter?"

[phonicsmonkey]

I'm afraid my first objection still stands. The Reichsmarschallship is a temporary position which should be open to all Electors, Dukes and Margraves included. Indeed it is desirable that someone of the landed gentry take the position as they have access to resources to supplement the Marshall's budget.

Even in the situation of a Count (which is the only situation to which your rule would apply if Dukes be disbarred) I fail to see what practical difference it makes.

A Count already has his own income which is independent from the Duchy. I have no claim, for example, on the income of Budapest save what I choose to extract in tax. Count Herden is free to spend his money as he wishes.

What would your measure change of that situation, except that in name he would no longer be part of Osterreich?

[The Celtic Viking]

"It has always been open for Dukes to join in, and still is. They will simply give up their title as Duke while being Reichsmarschall, keep their land, and then when the term is over automatically have their Duchy reinstated.

Charter Amendment 4.1c

Should Charter Amendment 4.1b pass, the following should be added to the Reichmarshall position:

Penalties:
(3) The Reichmarshall's army has two priorities, in order of importance:

a) To defend the Reich's current possessions
b) To reclaim lost settlements

As such, the Reichmarshall's army cannot be used to conquer new territory, unless expressively authorized to do so by the Diet. This, however, cannot surpass priority a) or b).

(4) For the duration of his term, the Reichmarschall will secede together with any land he owns from his Duchy and answer only to the Kaiser and the Diet. Immediately after his term is over, his status (and Duchy, if the Reichmarschall was a Duke) will be brought back to what it was before.

This would mean that the Reichmarschall is not personally bound as a client to any Duke. If count Herden is elected, for example, you would for the duration of his term be in no greater legal authority over him than I would. He would not be your client for the while. You cannot fail to see the point in this."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OOC: Sorry, I have a habit of being too quick to press the post reply button (as I did even here). I hoped I could edit my post before you read it, but I failed.

[phonicsmonkey]

The Prinz has lost his patience.

I can clearly and certainly see the point in it, which is a rather transparent attempt to hobble Count Herden. It is a shame that you seem unable to leave your past grievances to one side and choose instead to continue this petty feud, wasting the Diet's time while you do so.

To answer the point at hand I fail to see it will make any practical difference if the Marshall is removed from his House for the duration of the term - for if he is aware that he shall rejoin that House at the end of the term then he is as bound to it and its long term interests as he was before he took up the position.

Your proposal is ill conceived and I shall not second it, nor will I vote in favour of it, should it find a pair of seconders, unless you remove point (4) altogether.