One thing I'd like to add. The dramatic effect that magic would have on governance. For example Sorcerers. A Sorcerer's power comes from their bloodline. Bloodlines were important to nobles. This could be one of the reasons why - at least for some kingdoms within the setting. Having the right bloodline gives you literal magical power. Power to help you better persuade those at court (Enhance Ability), fight large groups of enemies during war (AoE damage and CC spells), escape coups and mobs (Invisibility, Dimension Door, Circle of Teleportation), learn what a group of raiders are doing and potentially located (Scrying), and so on. An invaluable power, which their entire bloodline could possess, if they were able to secure a certain marriage. Wizardry offers similar, but requires magical institutions and more dedication to learn. However nobles are rich. A magical education is well within their means. It's stereotyped that nobles spend a great deal of time learning the blade while learning governance. Within a fantasy setting, at least in some places, this could easily be magic instead. Magic offers protection, cantrips are always available, allows them to be always armed, and has tons of other benefits. Because of how powerful Wizardry is it's possible that nobles attempt to restrict access to it, limiting this access to those they trust. This access could even be a reward for deeds performed instead of the traditional granting of land and such. Clerics and Warlocks also adds an interesting spin. Divine right used to be a thing. Many Clerics and Warlocks are being given power from supernatural beings. That power allows for wondrous things such as ensuring harvests are always good (Plant Growth), that far fewer or no people die from sickness (Lesser Restoration), that the realm is more stable due to fatal accidents and assassinations being less successful (Resurrection spells), that everyone is more safe (all the combat spells). Usually this is given to priests, but it could easily be also given to the ruling nobles. Possibly under the expectation that they use their authority and armies to further their patrons' interests. When people say where does their authority come from they can literal display their divine powers and say it's from so and so. However this comes with a potential catch. It's given under the expectation that it's used in certain ways. So if the ruler does something bad, or allows something to occur, they, their families, and their local nobility, might lose that power. That power that also acts as their legitimacy for their rule. In other words they lose their divine right/favor of heaven. Imagine all the nuance these things can add to kingdoms that had some of these things going on.
"A Sorcerer's power comes from their bloodline. Bloodlines were important to nobles. This could be one of the reasons why - at least for some kingdoms within the setting. Having the right bloodline gives you literal magical power. Power to help you better persuade those at court (Enhance Ability), fight large groups of enemies during war (AoE damage and CC spells), escape coups and mobs (Invisibility, Dimension Door, Circle of Teleportation), learn what a group of raiders are doing and potentially located (Scrying), and so on. An invaluable power, which their entire bloodline could possess, if they were able to secure a certain marriage." This is actually the logic that was used in the 3.0 setting, "Swashbuckling Adventures". It was a D&D adaptation of 7th Sea roleplaying. Long story short, in the game, the modern noble houses/noble families were ALL sorcerer bloodlines that had accumulated power over centuries. It's simplified, but within each country, a specific bloodline was dominant. I'm not necessarily advocating that such a thing be done for D&D....but I *do* think there's a point to it. If the members of a noble family were disproportionately more likely to have a bunch of magical abilities not possessed by the regular public (except for those who spent lots of money on expensive wizard training), then that would be a way for them to hold themselves apart from all the "regular peons".
In fairness, the obsession with Military training was because science wasn’t an option for power at all. They were strong as hell and army life played to the nobility’s strength (eating well, good equipment, a castle to protect them). They probably would train for magic and breed for magic as well if that was relevant. Good pickup. 👍 😊
@@Xplora213 The medieval priesthood, but not just that, priesthood in general all over medieval and ancient societies, the priests were always the "knowledgeable men". Priests had an education in theology (obviously) and law too. In many societies they were also architects/engineers, since many structures had a sort of "divine geometry". It's not too far fetched to have a "Mages' Guild" holding a similar position. Instead of studying years and years how to please Ra and how to placate Set, or how to ready the entrails of an animal under the auspice of Apollo, the "priesthood" could instead learn how to cast Fireballs and Magic Missiles. Yes, families of Sorcerous could be the nobility, but you could still have a Church of (whatever God or Pantheon) and a "College Arcanum" as competing power structures. You could have nations that are full blown "Magocracies" and that hunt or supress sorcerous families, a society based on meritocracy upon which people are admitted into the arcane universities based on potential rather than money or influence, just for that nation to neighbor a "Sorcerous Aristocracy" that hates their guts. Clerics and Warlocks could form a third party power structure; thus you could have theocracies ruled by those, with wizard schools existing but being subjected to the wills of the church and the sorcerous being at the service of the church, or in other societies wizardry may be outright forbidden, and sorcerous are enslaved by the church; in others, sorcerous are the nobility, wizardry is forbidden, and the aristocracy shares power with the church. And in other societies it may be a more balanced distribution of power. Sorcerous could well be the Aristocracy and thus the "military rulers", while Wizards are akin to our "bourgeoisie", and thus come from wealthy merchant families that raised their fortunes with commerce enough to send their children to the "Mages' Guild", where they learn spells to further expand their families fortunes, and the Clerics are the Church; a sort of "the 3 States" of the pre-revolutionary France. There are many possible combinations; a strict Meritocratic Magocracy may outright hunt down any and all sorcerers and demand the clerics to "excommunicate" any such individual, and preach that their powers are evil or vice versa. Those combinations are also possible for some other classes too; Druids or Shamans may take the place of Clerics for some societies, and the relationships they have with wizards and sorcerers can wildly differ too. And in "evil" societies, you could have Liches and Necromancers rulling with an iron fist and demanding blood sacrifices
If your campaign takes place in a more late medieval setting, add some cities to the mix, for good measure. They are either ruled by a noble, making him probably much wealthier than his neighbors ruling only over peasants. Or they were free cities, in the Holy Roman Empire this was called imperial immediacy meaning they were directly an only under the authority of the Emperor (or King). Therefore they were on the same level of power as high nobility, and often had way more money. This changed the balance of power considerably.
It was very rare for local nobles to rule cities. Usually the cities paid their taxes to some higher noble like a margrave, Duke or King or they were given a letter of excemption from the king which meant they didn't pay tax at all (they did however often pay tarriffs).
@@DaDunge That depends on the time and size of the city. In the high middle ages independent or free cities were rare, most were ruled (and often have been founded by) by nobles like earls, dunkes, "Freiherren", bishops or abbots. In the late middle ages a lot of the larger cities becsme independent (and they grew larger because of the independence) while smaller ones often kept their rulers. Or got other rulers, including other (independent) cities who often bought those cities from impoverished nobles.
And sometimes sone of these free cities openly opposed the Emperor's authority and went to war against other cities wich suppirted the Emperor. Just look at the confluct between Guelphs and Ghibellines.
@@wolfstettler3183 Those are all very good points. And there's a considerable difference between feudal Europe in western Europe and central Europe, both pre and post Black Death of the mid 1300s. For instance, it seemed to be a papal policy to interfere in central Europe and in Germany to actively weaken the Holy Roman Emperors, especially in the high middle ages, while the kings of France after a pretty weak start, were allowed to consolidate their power base free from Papal interference. And in so many ways, the Black Death really turned the feudal world on it's head as laborers were in short supply and could make more demands on the lordly classes. Cities compounded problems for feudal "the great chain of being" as well. Where did mayors fit into the chain--were they like Lords, or were they gentlemen? There were so many competing hierarchies, that fitting everyone in their proper placement caused a great deal of social stresses.
It's also incredibly important to remember that outside of their small group of men at arms and archers, a nobleman has no standing army. And town guards aren't going to be these men at arms, who are often knights themselves. Instead towns are guarded by young freemen in a rotating cycle. Of course, in later medieval periods, there were more professional soldiers/household troops, but in a more high medieval based setting, mercenaries and the small group of household men are the only professional soldiers around.
This is addressed to a degree in the Bulders Gate source book. There were high guardsmen who patrolled the wealthy districts while a force of conscripted "guards" would handle most of the city proper. As part of the Descent into Avernus story arch the party is essentially forced into service to help with the influx of refugees fleeing a neighboring city & investigate what's happening. I am using a similar system in a medium size town that has a 3-strikes law on anyone who gets into brawls inside its gates. "You like to fight? Fight lawbreakers for your town."
Nobles were rarely involved in the cities anyway. Larger cities often paid their taxes directly to the monarch and villages and cities had their own councils. Remember this is an era when more than 90% of the population were in agriculture, the nobles ruling over the farmers in the fields meant they ruled plenty.
Based on what you said about separation of church and state, it'd be a fun surprise to pull on the players to get into combat with an evil noble and discover he's a cleric.
@@DungeonMasterpiece It's funny. I've been DMing for a bit, now, but I have yet to run a game set in a feudal society, which is weird, since that's the assumed default. This video got a lot of ideas rolling for me.
@@DaDunge Not necessarily. Neither clerics nor paladins are invincible, and at least for my own games I've always assumed that people who are truly blessed with divine powers are comparatively rare. Kings could easily hire (or even themselves be) learned and trained mages to counteract the power of those individuals.
@@chronitonfluxcapybara4231 Never said they were, in fact I never mentioned clerics or Paladins. My point was that it's a bit harder to claim divine right when it's possible to just dial up the gods and ask.
This is an excellent dissemination of the complex Feudal system that is often oversimplified in tv, movies, books, and games for the sake of the story. Unless you play Europa Universalis IV or Crusader Kings, those games got it down of how complex the medieval world was. For many of my own homebrew nations, I work from the local government up and try to establish the powers, and leadership that would be found at those locations. Even if my players never learn the system or how it works that is okay because it allows me to be able to come up with a reasonable response of how all the other characters are going to react. For long-term world building, I think that this video helps get a grasp around the foundations of a working medieval kingdom and all the crazy stuff that can happen.
I do much the same. Each kingdom has a tier rank of nobility or nobility equivalents. My favorite version of this is from a tiny gnomeish kingdom ruled like a merchant republic, but no. It went: troubleshooter (knight), apprentice (baron), journeyman (count), craftsman (duke), lord-forgemaster (an unlanded title similar to an archpriest/commander in chief), and finally the Grand Artificer (king).
I like that you don't necessarily feel compelled to explain it in detail to your players. Having the mechanics in place is invaluable for generating plots and keeping track of conflicts in the game world, even if most of it happens behind the scenes, where the players don't need to know about it. Of course, if you have _really_ good players, they'll want to know about it, and they'll ask you. I've had whole sessions where we've just discussed a setting that someone came up with, with everyone involved being 100% engaged and on-board for the whole session.
I've always been disappointed at Crusader King's lack of Marquis/Margrave ranks. CK3 even lets you negotiate a March contract, which I feel should rename their rank to that.
It's extra fun to play with in fantasy worlds of magic! Magic can kind of take the same role as guns/gunpowder that Ropp me mentioned in the intro. Part of why Eberron is a great setting 😋
When you have a DnD world, the question of what to do with spellcasters needs to be addressed. But the easiest way to do it would be to fold them into existing feudal systems. It's what existing nobility would do, anyway. Wizards are particularly amenable to this, because Wizardry is an education-based form of magic. You have to be learned to be a Wizard. Now "learned" can mean a lot of things - you could just as easily be a rural "witch" living in the forest, reading from a grimoire passed down many generations, and still be a Wizard - but in practice most of them will need (and desire) formal education. Especially since Wizards are highly protective of their magic, and thus charge high prices for teaching. So, on average, most Wizards would already be from wealth or in service to them, and thus a large percentage would be Nobles by default. They have the wealth, not to mention _time,_ to learn Wizardry. Members of the priesthood would also fall into this category, so would have a surprising number of Wizards. Speaking of the priesthood, Clerics of course would exist within whatever religion operating in the setting, and thus be beholden to those power structures. This makes these religious order(s) powerful within the feudal system. Not only can they hold the threat of excommunication over the heads of nobility and royals, they can leverage their magic, either using harmful kinds or withholding beneficial ones from those in power. When the priests hold the power of resurrection, or even to mend injuries and cure diseases, you don't want to get on their bad side. Even if a spellcaster doesn't have a noble title or church position, it behooves the Powers That Be to fold them into the feudal system wherever possible. Errant Wizards, as well as Sorcerers, Bards, and Druids, may be made into court magicians for nobility or royals, kept on retainer and granted privileges in return for loyalty and exclusive use of their magic. Such individuals, especially Sorcerers, may be married into noble lines, to firmly secure their magic for the use of the powerful. (Warlocks, meanwhile, are often looked askance at by most folks, because of their divided loyalties. Setting aside that those loyalties might be to explicitly evil beings. But Warlocks can always lie about where their powers come from, so they might fall into other categories. Albeit with the eternal threat of being found out. Moreover, noble families may have acquired power through secretive dealings with otherworldly patrons, or dabble into it after gaining their title).
I'd honestly take this a step further, and use these magical realities to begin stretching what these social structures might be. While learning about feudal society helps me understand how societies form under certain conditions, I prefer to start from the ground up and look at how new conditions might form a different society. Like for instance, I almost find it highly unlikely that nobility would consist of normal people. In real life, power is consolidated through ownership of resources and control of labor and violence. In these settings though, power has more various sources and far more disparate magnitudes. Coercion would be a much less communal effort, given that some warriors can be stronger than bears and spellcasters can subvert your very will. I'd go as far as to say that nobility would almost be made up of individuals of great power - the highest leveled NPC would be the one to generally hold power. The type of society they create would be based on the nature of the powers they hold. A society ruled by a great wizard may hoard knowledge preciously and share with esteemed colleagues who would form their underlying nobility. Sharing knowledge would be akin to a political revolution. Warlocks would be endemic to this kind of society, for wizards can give them some power without sharing the underlying knowledge - and all that power has strings attached. These societies may not collapse suddenly, but may lapse into pseudo-meritocracies sort of like the old Chinese empires (everyone gets to take the test! But only nobles can afford education...) Sorcerous bloodlines would probably have the most in common with pre-medeival classical era nobility, as the heirarchy would be strictly hereditary and the purity of their bloodline - much like how old Greek nobility justified their authority on blood descendants of patron deities (e.g., Athens is ruled by the family that traces its bloodline to Athena, and other families of divine bloodline). These societies have very different ideas about incest, bastards, and the political importance of family than medieval Europeans did given the Abrahamic faiths do not intrinsically emphasize heritage or bloodlines as important compared to obiesance to their doctrines and institutions. Medieval feudal societies were kind of a weird mix of this old culture trying to hold these older bloodline traditions without running afoul with catholic religion authority that held the hearts of their peasants. That's just a start, anyway. You could go even further with superhuman warrior societies (I'd take Rome for inspiration, since Roman authority frequently derived from military success and the support of armies). The butterfly effect goes crazy, but it does help keep things a little simpler when you can at least presume that most societies will be structured largely by the whims of its most most powerful, and that power is often highly segregated from popular support. If you're a max level wizard, you don't need an army. You can defend your castle from an peasant uprising by yourself! These societies would have VERY significant problems with tyranny.
In my setting there are five Duchies in the kingdom. The first Duchy is reserved for the king's heir. The second Duchy is reserved for the king's Spare. The other Duchies are led by Dukes that once expanded the kingdom through conquest. Each Duchy has five Counties or Marches led by a Count or a Marquis. The area around the Capitol is called The Original Province, and is about the size of a Duchy too. It has five Counties. Each March or County contains five Baronies. Each Baron divides his Barony into Manors, held by a Manor Lord. A Manor contains 4-12 farms. The farmer is a free man, but he has plots that are farmed by others. They receive a portion based on the yield of their plot. Near each Manor is a small Hamlet, the officially answers to the Baron, but practically answers to the Manor Lord. They have a few tradesman and woodsman that live in the hamlet. Villages answer to the Baron. Towns may answer to the Baron, but may instead answer to the Count or Marquis. Knights may have land or not. A noble (knight) without land is an unlanded noble. They are nobles and generate income by serving in the place of other nobles in the army. When you are a noble, you owe money (duties) and service to your Liege Lord. Many Manor Lords pay knights to perform their service. Then they just have to "manage" their Manor, which they hire out to a Foreman. In the Baron's court there will be a Chamberlain to manage domestic affairs, a Cpt of the Guard, a treasurer, a Steward and a High Sheriff. Instead of paying the top members of The Court, the Baron gives them Estates (land immediately outside the seat of power in the Barony) to derive an income for themselves. Like Manor Lords, they hire a Foreman to run the estate, and workers come from town to work the fields for pay. Manor Lords have to pay duties, but Estate Lords often do not. However, Estate Lords can be easily replaced, so they make sure to stay in the good graces of the Baron.
@@MsQuikly The kingdom is human centric, but there are many species living within. It is known that some hamlets are dominated by Halflings. In settlements, it is not surprising to hear the population of a few groups is great enough to have a "Dwarven sector" or an "Elven sector." The other nations, mostly of other species, have diplomatic relations and embassies in Calanthi. The leaders of Calanthi understand that others have talents they would benefit when shared. It is common in larger settlements to have large portions of the building trades populated with dwarven craftsmen, and artistic trades populated with elves and gnomes. Halflings are an enigma in this world. They seem to have no nation anywhere, but are welcomed almost everywhere. They just don't seem to grow past the size of a village to form larger settlements, much less a nation. But they are very industrious farmers and welcomed for their gifts anywhere they go, because the nation's agricultural output governs how big the nation can be. The larger nations can have more specialists outside agriculture, and this produces both the tools for sustaining life and the luxuries folks want.
One of the interesting things that strikes me often throughout history is how often political change only comes when a ruler dies and there's a succession crisis. So what happens in a world where the reigning monarch could live for hundreds or even thousands of years?
Prince, "When my father dies, I shall be king!" Lackey, "Your father?" Prince, "Yes." Lackey, "Your father, the Immortal Lich-King?" Prince, "Hmmm... Maybe I need to rethink my career plan."
Egypt was like this in a way. It was defensible and consistent - with good central planning and a strong central governing body, they were able to keep dynasties going for several generations - such as King Tut being the 20th ruler in a row without disruption. their language and culture evolved at a much slower rate than many of their peers. Other nearby civilizations rose and fell while Egypt kept the same gods and only barely shifted language for millenia. So an Elf or Dwarf monarch would be similar. Slow to progress or change - speaking the same language and sharing the same customs as their grandparents, while human kingdoms get built and fall on a weekly basis from their perspective
Why do you think the elves are always either in decline, post collapse, or in a golden age but far away. No fresh ideas from fresh rulers leaves you vulnerable to dramatic outside threats and disaster.
There are 3 words that come to mind: Elven Imperial Overlords. It's really the only logical conclusion. Assassination amongst elves would be exceedingly low, since at some point the conversation would shift to, "If we stop killing each other then every 40 (3-4 elven years) or so years the neighboring human kingdom will internally collapse, we can swoop in and nibble at the corners until we've gobbled it up." Assuming an reign time of 30 years that translates roughly into 300 years for an elf ruler. They will have seen their human neighbor descend into civil war 9-10 times in a single reign. Elven nobility would see this growth of land and wealth and as long as they're getting a cut, they'll be happy. Why buck the system which facilitates this? Now all of this ignores mitigating circumstances which could slow the rate of growth or disrupt the system, agreed. But there's very little that would persuade me that, if given an infinite timeline without world shattering external forces, this outcome would be produced and reproduced ad infinitum.
The addition of Magic and Spellcasters does add a new wrinkle to Feudalism, as magic adds a power dynamic not entirely linked to land wealth or military power. Not only can you add guilds of working class spellcasters, but some nobles might also have magical power, either from innate sorcerous powers or the study of wizardry.
I don’t think it adds a wrinkle as much as a clearly defined third, fourth or fifth pillar to your power dynamics. You can’t neglect the most powerful person in the kingdom and it’s very likely they just aren’t interested in ruling over the plebs. Merlin is a great example of power behind the throne. He’s right there, just like the high priest and the commander of the military. Psionics would be yet another as well.
This got me thinking about the relationship between the "church" and the state in a polytheistic dnd setting. I've often seen DnD campaigns where there is a singular "church" to match typical medieval settings without considering that there are multiple worshiped gods that can invoke direct change in the world. If you take this into consideration, what changes in the relationship between all the disparate religious beliefs and the state? Likely only popular deities would have actual temples, as their parish would be large enough to collect enough tithes to maintain such an establishment and pay for monks, priests, clerics, paladins, or shamans. Honestly, governments would likely collect taxes on these establishments, not the other way around. This would also mean that religious groups would be invested in the political dynamics surrounding them, since if they can get a follower in a position of power and wealth, then they could receive greater tithes and political favor. It would also mean that until a religious group managed to elevate a member to such a position or they had enough members to be an economic or military concern, they would have little influence over law and policy.
Think that depends a whole lot. For example in general DnD lore the worship of Vecna is punishable by death. While in Mercer's world different nations have different deities that they officially worship without denying the existence of the other gods. Likewise in my own setting different nations might worship different gods in their state religion while vilifying others and some nations might not officially worship any gods but the religion of a god with a large following might still hold an influence. Like if in medieval Europe a large part of the populace were Muslim instead of Christian (and also if Islam was organised like Catholicism with a single organised body) Islam would hold much sway regardless of whether it was an official authority recognised by the courts of Europe.
Different nations had different responses to other religions and dieties Rome for instance was very inclusive during its pagan times as long as you acknowledged Rome's authority and bowed to its emperor you were allowed to mostly worship what you wanted( going against the law and stuff was not really allowed) Judaism and Christianity were persecuted as they were monotheistic and did not bow down to the emperor So it can depend entirely on what the kingdom is rulership wise, the govt. Structure, state religion, etc
You can think of cult of particular deity as a mini-church, like say protestant denominations in the US - some live better with each other, some worse, politicians don't want generally to make all of them angry (unless they don't go crazy fanatic) so they try to appease to them somewhat (though having their own denomination aka their patron deity for dnd purposes) Also, think at cult of saints in catholic and orthodox churches. They have their roles like one cares of doctors, some of soldiers, santa claus for prostitutes. The ruler probably care most about the most important ones and most political ones (say war deity or economy deity) but people like to have more personal deities (say patron of their region, maybe some deified hero from their region). Then when you have temple of some god you probably want it to be as popular as possible because it means you as a cult are stronger, you got more pilgrims and money related to that and you may better influence people/ruler to your couse (through prayer, blessing, healings or divination etc). If it seems your god works - you can win. I'm afraidn I wrote it damn chaotic but maybe will help a little
I think the key point you brought up and ignored was that the deities may choose to interact with the world. Successful rulers would have deities they would curry favor with. After all if a deity claims an area as their own that would be massive political power as your not just worred about their military but divine retribution. In such places you would have a strong tie to that religion with some other minor worship going on on the fringe. An example from reality is the greek citystates who all had a personal deity known for they're city (ie athens athena) but you could still get statues respecting other deities there no problem.
One nice approach to this topic is what GRR Martin did with The Faith of The Seven. It is a polytheistic setting, but there is only one official "church" or faith (for most of Westeros al least). In your DnD setting you may have several kingdoms, sharing this faith, or with another faith, that worships another package of gods. The gods alignment can help you group these gods in different faiths. Ideally, as happened for most of medieval Europe, you wouldn't have more that 2 or 3 faiths (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox, Islam)
I loved this video and I think I'll be able to use quite a bit of it. Im a Roman Catholic and I had comment about the way you talked about excommunication though. Two things: every excommunication is revocable. If someone chooses to publicly repent of the thing they were excommunicated for, they would be let back into the fold. Second, Purgatory is not a place of Damnation. if a soul is in purgatory they are on the way to Heaven, even if they have a lot of work to do to get there. Someone who is justly excommunicated and remains unrepentant until death would damn themselves and go to Hell. There was a lot of unjust excommunication like the example you gave in the video of a Knight becoming a bishop, demanding more money in tithing out of spite and excommunicating anyone who says no. In that case, the wicked bishop is the one in actual moral peril. I say all of this so that we can have an understanding of how the system is supposed to work so we can recognize when it is being abused.
My character's backstory was the local Duke was excessively taxing everyone... Turned into a side quest, with the Lords of the area unknowingly all being manipulated by an organisation trying to resource the resurrection of an Arch-Lich!
Yes! 🙌 Dude, Baron, this is excellent! I’m stoked for the channel launch, and this video is a great kickoff. Really clean and informative breakdown of the nobility and royalty. Well done, man. 🤘❤️👍
The region I'm DMing for my Greyhawk campaign, the Gran March, is a weird mix of proto-America and constitutional monarchy. It started as a duchy offshoot of the main kingdom, lead by a general/duke and has barons that hold the land and collect taxes. But after an incident about a century and a half ago where the general/duke asked for all his subjects could give and then some, he was deposed by the barons, and they basically set up their own country with its own constitution while still remaining loyal to the crown. The barons are still barons, but the leader, now "commandant", is a sort of "high-general" that is elected... by the nobility, and almost always a member of the knight's order that founded the country, the war god clergy, or part of the military (optimally all three) to serve as the leader with very few benefits of being a king. He's the leader of the whole country's military, sure, but that leadership is passed through the barons. The only place he has jurisdiction in is the capitol (which was ceded by the noble house that holds the region and led the revolt, though they still live there and remain popular), and so the commandant and "high-baron" stations keep each other's military power in check. He gets a predefined salary based on a percentage of the economic prosperity of the country with a tithe inversely proportional to that percentage (as penned by the merchant god clergy), so is incentivized to avoid undue strife, make calculated risks to improve the country's standing, and maintain the country's military might (have to keep the God of War and Justice happy) while improving its economic might. Conscription is also mandatory for males (females can volunteer) aged 14-21, serving for 7 years and making it so that damn near every other citizen is no mere commoner, but has at least one class level, while the ladies are either similarly strong or powerhouses on the blue-collar labor front. Between that and the election process (more specifically, the "qualifications" to be elected), this leaves the door open for a massive rise in station if you prove yourself in both the armed forces and the political spheres. In fact, the most recent commandant has risen to power at a relatively young age under strange circumstances and proven to be a good and just leader, despite being assassinated twice. Being friends with the clergy is POWERFUL, especially in D&D!
At how you describe the succesion and the power of the king that sounds like the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth you just need to give each member of the legislative the power of veto that none use for a long time(some 2,3 centuries) and after that is always used,also foreign influence to elect their man,the king of Saxony was elected prince of PLC and the last king was a Russian puppet.
This is a great fun and informative video. I like the idea of a group of PCs being sent in to a Monastery by a compromised noble to steal damning evidence without leaving any sign of the heist. Who knows what else the intruders might stumble upon.
Knights we’re considered the lowest of the nobility, and it’s something that we’re achievable through military service, albeit most knights will origin from the aristocracy. Many knights would no be granted lands, but they would have small pockets of land that they administrated on the behalf of the king called manors. A single knight could have the responsibility of multiple manors sometimes. Look up manorialism! Knights were usually rich… really rich! (You’d ofc. get some that’s bankrupt). Modern historians estimate that their equipment alone is the equivalent of $500.000 - $3.000.000 perhaps more, and usually that was easily affordable for knights. They were also considered walking tanks, so they were really sought after and effective. How you can think of the feudal system is; the whole country belongs to the King. A king can’t govern large distances of his own, so he has people that does it for him. He’ll make a hereditary lease of his land to a duke (can also be counts, barons that answer directly to him, but dukes would be the link below him, usually if you see prince as a title with holdings, they don’t have a king to answer to, like in the HRE). In return the duke has to repay first and foremost in utmost loyalty to the crown (muhahahaha) and in men (that’s trained locally, so you won’t see a barracks training standing soldiers really in feudal society, probably were exceptions, probably the Byzantine empire) and taxes that was more likely to be in kind. The duke will get continue the chain of nobilities and get Counts etc. because he too, weren’t able to govern and develop the land that was given to him, but that dynamic is important, because leased land means that the one above them can revoke it as well. A king needed ofc. the necessary authority and power to do it, which in this case means, he has the men and ressources to execute his will. A weak king is a king that can’t exercise his authority, and many kings once anointed will travel through the kingdom to show the people that they’re in fact the king and stop rebellions which also tend to happen quite a lot during shift of power. Ofc. if they have huge amount of lands, it may not be possible to traverse their entire kingdom. With feudalism you get castles! And castles very much so is linked to the economic, logistics and administration of the feudal society. Many castle were wooden! Early on at least, but they funnily enough didn’t last. And what’s a castle good for? It’s a fortified home essentially that has multiple functions. Really effective of protecting you, that goes without saying, but it’s also as stated before, the place where administration of the realm took place. You could usually house a lot of soldiers as well, and it has enormous defensive purpose. When in war, time is an essential asset. You don’t want to do war at winter.. never! And a castle will be use to stall the enemy for getting reinforcements as well. War campaigns is roughly divided in (just to make it tangible): 10% pitch battle, 20% siege and 70% skirmishes. If you have a band of knights smashing into the enemy on horseback and then retreat, a castle is where they want to rest, and the majority of a war were hit and run and guerrilla warfare. Bonus info: A hospital also origines from medieval times. At its basic form the service that a hospital provided was not for tending wounds, but people weren’t allowed to sleep in the streets, but if you were sick or couldn’t afford anything or whatever reason why inns may not take you in, you could go to a hospital, and because many of them were sick, you’d get people like monks to treat them, and then it evolved from there. Tavern: that’s your pub/restaurant ish. Social hub, you don’t sleep there! Inn: You sleep there, there will be served food usually, but nothing special, better go to a tavern. Inns usually had large beds that strangers tucked into together. A bed could have like 3-5 sometimes. They wouldn’t bother with 5 rooms, that would be waste of money, but set in a fantasy world where travel is different and it can be beneficial to an innkeeper, then it ofc. will be provided for, probably more expensive as it has to cover and beat the constant money generated otherwise.
The country does not belong to the king. The land belongs to the nobles the king just extracts taxes from them its sort of a treaty sort of a protection scheme. If the king finds himself with land of his own he can either make noble titles from it in which he gives it away in perpetuity or as you said appoint someone to govern it for him but the latter is the exception not the rule most land in a kingdom is not owned by the monarch but by the nobles.
@@DaDunge I can guarantee you, in feudal society the King was the de facto ruler of all territories within the country. That’s the whole point of a feudal system, creating a chain. Nobles didn’t own the land, but they held it as a title and ruled in the name of the king. There were examples of freeholds within a kingdom that was sold, those land did have autonomy, and usually all towns payed fees not to the nobles, but to the king. The whole point of the feudal system is that the king rules all land and make nobles that rules in his name. And the king has divine right to rule the land as he’s closer to god than anyone else. It’s not the exception, that’s how it origins and the is the very fundament of feudalism. The question is, if he can exercise his authority, that’s a completely different question. But a king can revoke the title as he sees fit, depending on laws ofc. If the king don’t own his own kingdom, then we aren’t talking about a feudal system. And if you don’t believe me, which is totally alright ofc. I got one source for you: danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/feudalisme/?no_cache=1&tx_historyview_pi1%5Blang%5D=1 Webpage is owned by Aarhus University cultural and society institute. If you want more sources there’s dozens that more or less repeats it. Some societies during Middle Ages took many of the feudal principles with them an inspiration, but didn’t adopt them fully.
@@Christian_Bagger Ruler yes but not owner. Also the feudal contract is less absolute than you perceive. What's dejure is not always defacto that's defacto is not always dejure, and where the line between a tributary suzerain relationship and a vassal liege one is far less absolute than you seem to think. Also Denmark never really had feudalism. Not full on Salian style feudalism.
@@DaDunge I don’t say it’s total absolute, because obviously the system changes as power wants more power, hence all the civil wars and intrigues and disputes, and it gets obscure and muddy and more individual cases, because humans.. that’s just how it is, but the system is still what it is, and I’m talking from a fundamentally point of view, not what happen. Like in a democracy, it’s the people who has the power, you vote.. China and Russia call themselves democracies but you and I know, that they aren’t. I’m talking from a fundamental point of view, I don’t know what sources you’ve your take from or how you interpret your info, so I gave an example like Denmark as to showcase that there were kingdoms in the Middle Ages that adopt feudalism partially or were inspired by it, and perhaps that’s what you get mixed up. There will always be exceptions and divergence but generally speaking the King’s own all land, he can make laws that spans the entire kingdom and forests, important resources also did belong to the king unless he sold it ofc. which also happened. The nobles weren’t allowed to just built castles for instance, they had to ask permission to the king, as it was his de facto land.. some did try to do it anyway. The king can also revoke the land, because it’s his.. but usually they didn’t because they want stability. There were instances of rebellious lords where the king took the title from them, just to give it back to show everyone, it’s mine you better remember, I can do what I please. Eventually as the merchant and the middle class started to arise, the feudalism began to crack, and eventually collapse. Then absolutism began to arise. I’m describing the system, like saying the king doesn’t fundamentally own the land in a feudal system, is kind of saying that in a democracy you don’t vote. It’s the bedrock of the system. Then as it gets to people’s hands it differs and then rules get applied like before and after Magna Carta. In reality the world belongs to god, but he don’t walk among us, the Kings are anointed to rule in his place. It’s a divine right and kings are closer to god than anyone else… which the church also wants to dispute, which it did. It’s an important nuance, because that’s the King’s legitimacy over the land and the reasoning to why it is his. Nobles don’t have that connection. However the did have great deal of autonomy and make their own laws. For the most part, Kings wouldn’t interfere, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t, but kings wanted stability and he didn’t want the nobility to have too much power, just enough power, and power comes from how many men you can raise essentially.
Hospitals with that name were created in the middle ages, but in ancient Greece there was a place near an Asklepios (I'm not sure I spelled it right) temple for treatment of the ill, and it even had spaces without internal connections to each other to avoid cross contamination between people with different illnesses.
Thanks for your video. A few points from a medieval historian that viewers might find helpful: 1. There was a separation of church and state in the middle ages, but it was different from the American model (no one doubted that religion should inform government policy, for example, and everyone agreed on what the right religion was). The medieval church was a separate institution with its own laws, rights, and duties, independent of secular rulers. This was a major source of conflict between kings and popes in the middle ages: kings wanted to tax the church and appoint their friends/relatives/lackeys as bishops and abbots, while popes wanted to maintain the separation of church and state. Check out the story of St Thomas Becket, the Martyr of Canterbury, for an example of where this could lead. There are plenty of quest hooks built into this conflict! 2. Purgatory is not the same thing as hell in Catholic doctrine (same today as in the middle ages). You actually want to go to purgatory when you die, as it's the road to heaven. The excommunicated are thought to live in danger of hell, i.e., the state of being closed to God's grace forever. Depending on the religions in your game world, this difference may come into play. 3. Nobles in the high middle ages (c. 1000-1300) were often bound to the lands they owned much as serfs were bound to the lands they worked. This was known as the law of "entail," which forbade nobles from selling off or dividing up their family estates. Obviously this created a great deal of tension between the heads of noble houses, who owned all this land, and the various interested parties who wanted it for themselves: whether merchants, gentry, other nobles, or even their own relatives. But on the other hand, it also meant that nobles had a strong incentive to look after their serfs and make their lands more productive - as they knew that they would have to pass their estates to their sons, and they wanted to leave the best inheritance they could. The knight in the video who refused to repair a well and sparked a peasant revolt was a very rare case in real life. Unless he didn't care about the future of his family, then fixing the well (and otherwise taking care of his serfs) was generally in his best interest.
Awesome video. I think it's important to note that most kings also hold territories and fiefs as "lesser" titles. Louis XII of France was, for instance, also the Duke of Orleans (as well as Milan) and it was in this capacity that he held Territorial power, and, more importantly, held feudal authority, over a large military body of lesser nobility and their attendant men at arms. I really like your comparison of a king to a treaty org like NATO, very apt. As a DM, I've also found myself having lesser nobles, ie. Barons and Counts, be independent rulers of isolated territories. This is great for a mid level villains for PC's to work up to, a convenient way to not have bad (murderhobo) decision have far reaching consequences, and giving higher level characters something to branch out into. The BECMI companion rules are helpful in this regard.
When my players were in a position to start a city, I thought I'd give them a few options like who would join the pilgrimage and where it would land. But these hearts of iron 4 playing, crusader king 2 min maxing, goof ball lovable clowns ended up making an entire 11 page constitution properly formatted and written only halfway based upon the United States's own founding document with a few socialist add on such as a right to a job, food, and healthcare. It was a real pain naming a senator and congressman for each section or figuring out how pre industrial people would define health care in addition to keeping up with them when it came to the naming of a dozen something fire arms. *But isn't that what we love about this hobby?*
So as a baron, how many serfs were used to create this video? And if this is a homage to "masterpiece theatre", do you plan on creating feudal public television? Or is this one of those "i own 5 square feet of scotland" Baron titles?
Lol, huge learning curve making this video. And I'm glad you got the masterpiece theater joke! My family lost its official title in ww2 due to the conflicts. So, its not even a silly token barony anymore. It's just a national park now. 😂
@@DungeonMasterpiece My own family (mother's side) had to cut up their kontusz sash during WWII and exchange it for bread. ;( We still have a signet remaining on my father's side but that's the lesser nobility part of my family. Not that it matters these days - especially not in Poland where communism eradicated the last vestiges of nobility. It would still be cool to own some kind of heirloom like that...
Another thing to think about is that in some kingdoms titles were bound to the land, not the family. So a Baron could sell his land and thus his title, which would allow someone outside of the nobility/gentry to join the club (although such titles were often viewed in lower esteem and were afforded fewer rights and privileges)
Good video! Could have done with a flow chart and some definitions like this: -Emperor / Empress = ruler of an empire. Honorific: Your majesty. -King / Queen = ruler of a kingdom, which sometimes a subdivision of an empire. Honorific: Your majesty / Sire. -Duke / Duchess = member of royal family such as a prince who ruled their own territory called a dukedom. Dukes outrank other nobles because they are royalty. Honorific: Your grace. -Prince Princess = son / daughter of a king or emperor. Usually do not have any authority. Honorific: Your highness. -Marquess = noble in charge of a territory on a boarder called a march, subdivision of a kingdom; Marquees outranked counts because their territory is located on a boarder, which was more important militarily speaking because it came with more risk and responsibility. Honorific: Lord or Lady -Count / Countess = noble in charge of a county, which is a subdivision of a kingdom. Honorific: Lord or Lady -Viscount / Viscountess = noble in charge of a viscounty, a subdivision of a county or march. Honorific: Lord or Lady -Baron / Baroness = noble in charge of a barony, which is a subdivision of a viscounty if not a county or march. Honorific: Lord or Lady -Baronet / Baronetess = commoner with a heraldry who held land? still researching. Honorific: Sir / Madam? -Knight = ranking military servant of a noble with authority that varied from noble to noble. Honorific: Sir or Dame. -Gentry = Landholding commoner?
Prince is actually a noble title, as well as a term used to describe for the son of a regent. Princedoms are everywhere across the Kievan Rus and the Holy Roman Empire.
This is mostly accurate, but there's a few errors. Every nobleman is a knight, literally all of them. Some knights simply were men at arms and nothing more, but a lot of those who had only the title of a knight ruled villages and hamlets rather than just their own household. A Baronet is an English term commoner who was made a knight. "Gentry" is just one of the various words for nobles. Prince and Princess are words for any male or female member of a royal family who is not the regent.
For a fantasy world with several deities let's remember an often forgotten detail about the Pope of the Catholic Church. The Pope is also the King of the Vatican City. How do you become King again? Right, you declare yourself to be King. If a church has enough influence in an area, this would certainly make a game very interesting. The reasons could be manifold, from the Church wanting better protection than the nobles or royals want to give, securing the pilgrim routes to preparations for a religious war. Of course this can get mighty strange, depending on the deity being worshipped.
I loved your video. Since there isn't a "love" option, though, I felt compelled to interact and hopefully improve your metrics a bit. Best wishes for your content!
Thanks for this little explanation of fantasy royalty. I'm planning a political phase for my campaign and am really having fun creating a court for the characters to get involved in. They're getting famous in the world now, so I expect them to get invited to many grand gala balls and private parties of the rich and powerful.
Awesome background on feudalism, very helpful! In your vids, could you do a brief recap at the end where you remind us of those awesome potential plot hooks you hinted at throughout? I love your historical/political explanations, but have trouble remembering or finding those political tensions or issues of title or succession that are most promising for gaming.
how am I just discovering this creator? I've been consuming D&D content geared to DMs for a long time, and this is some of the best stuff I've encountered
This is my new favorite dnd channel. I'm all for building optimized builds, making epic campaigns and whatever else have you, but if the world doesn't feel alive in some way then it feels like things don't have as much impact. Your insight in dnd just helps add another layer of immersion in the world building process and I love it. Adventures will come and go but at the core of life for these adventurers is society and the systems that come with it
Very good video even if (speaking as a historian) it oversimplified some things. Not all noble titles were hereditary or granted through service in a war, not all noble titles automatically came with grants of land, nobles were not the only ones who collected taxes or were entitled to collect taxes. There are a few other quibbles but in broad strokes this is enough good material in the video to get a DM's brain moving.
Unfortunately, oversimplification is the secret sauce TH-cam engagement is made of. I mean, I could have been much more verbose and created a 45 min video (which would have taken me a month to edit), but then I'd never release anything or have any channel growth.
@@DungeonMasterpiece Oh I'm sure! It was well-summarized nonetheless! If I could offer a tip to DM's who are worldbuilding their own D&D settings and are thinking of just replicating a medieval English or French version of feudalism, I'd encourage them to look at other systems of feudalism or feudal-like systems from history. There are so many other interesting medieval political systems than just England or France or the HRE that can be included in a fantasy world.
@@razorboy251 thanks for being understanding of my not-quite-academic presentation of history, by the way. You'd be amazed how many comments I get from other history professors who lose their mind because, in other videos for example, I compress 100 years of Russian history into one sentence, demanding I instead "take it serious" enough to be citeable, at least for undergrad history papers, in quality
@@razorboy251 by the way, do you have any good audio sources for history on political structures found in the middle east? I'm finding it's what I'm most lacking on the nuance of (compared to my understanding of Chinese dynasties or hre)
@@DungeonMasterpiece I have more on Indian and Russian history but I'll take a look. Does it have to be an audio book or will an expert podcast do as well?
Most of my homebrew countries are run more like imperial Rome than feudal Europe. There's a legislature and a Royal in some distant capital, there's a standing army, and local governors, who generally don't own the land in their own right, but are appointed by the head honcho back in the capital. This is made easier by things like sending spells, which cuts down considerably on communication limitations that real Rome had. That being said, I do sometimes do some feudal stuff, just less frequently.
The Divine Right of Kings is a reinforcement of the larger Divine Order. In Medieval Europe the religious teachings and philosophy included The Great Chain of Being and The Order of the Spheres (put simply, a place for everything and everything in it's place). It wasn't just kings and Popes put in their positions by God, it was everyone, and everyone had a purpose to fulfill. In the ideal version of the construct there is no shame in being poor and holding a position of power means having responsibility to care for all those beneath you, so long as everyone maintains their proper place and fulfils their divine purpose God is pleased, if someone fails in their duties and disrupts the orderly working of the system - as when a king allows his subjects to starve - God will punish them and favor someone better able to fulfil the duties of the office (compare to the Protestant construct that - while much more favorable about self determination ad ostensibly better for social mobility - holds wealth and individual success is a mark of God's favor and hardship a mark of disfavor therefore the wealthy and powerful MUST be virtuous and the poor or sickly MUST be sinful).
This video is a great place to begin playing with the butterfly effect in fantasy - taking a post-modernist lens to fantasy settings is very fun! Envision all these social dynamics in a society where your individual power WASN'T entirely socially derived. It gets weird very fast!
Whelp here I am. I made it all the way through your back catalogue, every video. Some great tips and brainstorming in here. I make 3rd party 5e content and your videos have been really thought provoking. Thank you for your hard work!
Good video. Obviously there were details you couldn’t cover in this short format but it’s a good enough introduction to feudalism. As a medieval history nerd, I very much include feudal politics in the background & if my players ever want a political roleplay focused adventure, I bring it to the forefront
Great overview. As a DM who enjoys going down the rabbit hole of "realistic" geography during world building, your overview ties nicely with that. Never underestimate the value of a parcel of land. It could be a breadbasket for a region. It could contain a gold, silver, copper, tin mine. It could be the only viable location for a harbor within a reasonable travel distance for merchant ships. It could be the only mountain pass big enough for large wagons. As the old saying goes, location, location, location. Geography has always been at the center of disputes. The feudal system was just one means of controlling that geography.
I like the idea of one title conferring royalty onto the recipient. This would only be rewarded in very special cases; such as leading a risky flanking charge that crushes the opponents entire battlefield forces. This motivates leadership among the fighting force to take huge gambles.
I believe that, at least in Britain, the king technically owns all the land. Nobles held land from the king in fee simple, and couldn’t, for instance, sell the land enfeoffed.
Very helpful video. Having a basic structure for the political landscape is always something I wished my games had and this video lays it out very cleanly and in a way that gets my imagination rolling. This is exactly the kind of D&D content I look for.
This is a solid piece that introduces the incredible complexity of “rulership” in certain parts of Europe in the high to late Middle Ages. Different realms had different agreements with their vassals about the length of time they could call on their vassals to assist with a military campaign. A person from Toulouse apprehended in Bourbon would likely be returned to Toulouse to be tried under his or her own law. Within elected monarchies like the HRE, anti-Kings rather than pretenders might claim authority if the Emperor was believed to have stepped too far or, especially, if local prince-bishops supported him. One of the most interesting pieces of information you mentioned that is strikingly almost post-modern is that a king becomes a king and remains a king because people say he’s a king. I prefer using analogues to the Eastern Roman Empire (the so-called Byzantine Empire) either after the interregnum (1204-1262) or in the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance.
My first idea is around the idea of hostages - the medieval sort, used to ensure peace. The heroes might be needed to make sure a hostage exchange goes well, while certain nobles who want to go to war are looking to assassinate them. My second idea is around getting cool stuff for legitimacy. The reason behind having nice palaces was to show off wealth and be taken seriously by other nobles and royalty. So, the heroes might be asked to get an artifact as a gift for a visiting king, a center piece for an upcoming ball, or an ancient book showing a noble's connection to ancient royalty.
My D&D setting, the Kronmaran Empire, is pointedly so massive and complex that my players will never meet an actual member of the Royal Dynasty no matter how important they are. At best, they'll meet one of the Emperor's archons (basically ministers), usually they're dealing with local governors and oligarchs and guild bosses. I feel the early modern era fits the "go to strange lands and loot their treasure" themes inherent to the game. Unless they're evil-aligned I usually have a native group approach the party about getting a cultural artifact back, or removing some defilement from a place by it's unthinking conquerors, or hunting pirates.
3:00 Nobles could adopt non nobles too. But it still required the consent of the church and the monarch. And since nobles who died without an heir had their lands return to the crown (they could also chose to testament it to the church) it was fairly rare.
Watching the Tudors series really strikes all the content of this video home. Watching Henry the VIII navigating the court doing political "battle" with the nobles of the land was depicted excellently.
One other aspect of excommunication was that it could free/release a Knight/Nobel from his oaths to said lord, thus allowing new oaths and loyalties to be formed.
An excellent resource! I've subscribed. I do think that one thing that needs to change when adapting feudalism to a fantasy setting, is that deities actually exist in fantasy.
Pretty good video. You touched on it somewhat, but it is worth noting that the line between these three powers was more blurry than most modern governments. The pope was at times also the monarch of the Papal States, while many monarchs had additional lower titles, giving them direct control over a holding as a power base. Some nobles had lands in multiple countries through diplomacy or marriage. Have a blessed day!
Another awesome one! Definitely will be returning to this when I get to some future adventures involving recent succession and bastard sons. I actually wish you talked about how that plays in, i.e. how a bastard would typically inherit or not inherit titles. I guess I'll have to do my own research sometimes. 😂 Great video, loved the nuances here and thinking about how they might play into a storyline.
I like drawing inspiration from later eras of western feudalism, when the powers of the crown and church were waning and other groups were gaining power, such as merchants, other nobility, and industrialists. You get an interesting dynamic where the crown and the church are fighting over the power they have left, but also fighting against new powers rising, while the commoners are still left relatively powerless. Add in some magic users, other races, and polytheism, and you can get a powder keg waiting to blow.
Excellent video, to many games dumb down the system of nobility but it provides ripe fruit for stories. I like the game Exalted because it has a broad range of political structures
Funny enough there is a popular french comedy series that depicts this perfectly it's called Kaameelott and it's the best thing that has happened to modern cinema in France.
It depends on the region, different countries work differently. In Cwellia, where the PCs home town is, there are three kings with knights and nobles supporting them who divide up the country. The same is true in nearby Eswood, but in nearby Faeahar there is petty king over practically every town. Niederhold is claimed by the prince of Niederdam, but merchant hold most of the power. A trip across the western sea leads to a caliphate. Where feudalism is in place I use the guidelines from the old Companion Set.
So happy to have found your channel. It goes without saying that all of TTRPG is make believe and we can make up any societal system we want. However, I like knowing how accurate I can be and have meaningful and logical ideas and intrigue in my games. Thanks for the video!
The king could also hold land himself being a count or Duke at the same time as being a king. He would then appoint non hereditary viceroys or governors to govern those lands in his stead. There's also the gentry, not to be confused with the landed gentry, who are nobles with no lands associated with them. Usually by being distantly related to someone who is landed. Landed gentry is an exclusively British thing where members of the gentry are sort of landed but sort of not, I'm not English so I have never really gotten into how it works.
Very informative I kinda based various kingdoms off of corporate structure a CEO(king) in charge of a business(kingdom) and they would have various executives(nobility) in charge of branch offices(fiefdoms) with their own middle management(knights) over seeing things.
7:24 "Creating a law that was wildly unpopular with the sitting executive would result in a veto" - The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobility have entered the chat :)
I loved implementing this into my world. It's a good contrast to the rest of the world. Making a Duchy that has enough weather and resources that a culture like this can afford to exist. Most of my world is a dark fantasy place. Imagine if the Witcher 3 world, and the world of Dragon Age: Origins had a baby, then that bay shot itself, that's my world. So a Duchy of toussaint looking place is refreshing. I knew little about feudalism, and this video helped tremendously.
Something I've narrowed down to is that the law of the land set by the Royalty is that while taxes are a thing, money can NEVER be given in place of trained troops in times of crisis - doing so threatens keeping your Nobility. This makes armsmen particularly valuable, so much so that going after goblin tribes in the forest is too costly - in come adventurers and the permittance of otherwise toiling folk to take up arms and make a name for themselves.
@@fleetcenturion Seriously? Cube was actually accurate, look it up. Duchies were ruled by dukes, and Marches were ruled by Margraves. That was a real thing back then.
This is probably the most in-depth explanation of Western feudalism I've heard (not sure how similar the Eastern variety is). I find modern politics abhorrent, but politics in history and fiction fascinate me. I'd be interested to learn the finer details of court politics in the Islamic caliphates of the Middle Ages. How did those courts work? They didn't have a pope, but they did have a caliph. But the caliph didn't operate quite like a pope. And the intrigue of the old Chinese dynastic courts interest me as well. Great video, Baron! (bows politely)
@@DungeonMasterpiece I have a violent reaction to people who talk about Starship Troopers without knowing anything about it. Citizenship is through service - of which military is only one small part. Today the military has about two million uniformed people. Let’s add in associated workers so say 5 million people. State local and federal government has 21 million people. Any future society will have socialized medicine available for the masses (even if the rich have their private medicine). Currently the medical field employees 22 million people. Citizenship through service means you only get to vote if you do something that benefits society - not just enriches yourself. It’s Socialism that allows Capitalism to exist but not to control society.
@@john-lenin considering nobility was only awarded to people who sacrificed in service to the kingdom, and these nobles were expected to provide welfare for their hold, lest they be in contempt of the church, I think there is far more similarity than difference, but I'd you find that to be a catch in your craw, I guess you are welcome to call me a dumfbuck
As an aside on Middle Ages excommunication, it wasn't just communion and attending church you were barred from. The Church handled you quite literally from birth to grave, beginning with baptism, continuing with marriage, and ending in burial. If you were excommunicated, you couldn't do any of those things, and a handful of other things as well. It was a big deal, especially when there were superstitions attached to those very things such as faeries replacing your baby or the dead rising to stalk the living in the night due to an improper burial. Which just happen to be mechanics and plot hooks in D&D. Bear in mind, the Church would hold entire nations hostage with excommunication if the nobility or monarchs did something they didn't like. Meaning that not just the offending leaders were being punished, but the entire nation, which could easily lead to a rebellion that would depose the problematic ruler, which was the real carrot and stick. "Keep paying us and we'll keep your people happy; make us mad and we'll get you deposed and/or killed." This is exactly why Henry the 8th breaking away from the Catholic Church and starting the Church of England was such a power play. Basically it was his way of telling his people (and the Church by proxy) that they didn't *need* the Roman Church if they had their own local church. And honestly, the only real difference between the Roman and English Churches were who was in charge, the Pope vs the King (or Queen). Again, this could be a whole hook, plot line, campaign, what have you for a clever DM. Hell, George RR Martin wrote a fanfic about the War of the Roses and look how well that did!
Of note: "Margrave" is from the German "Markgraf," which translates as "March Count." Marches were the border counties of a country. Margraves were not always more powerful than regular Grafs (Counts), but the fact that they were holding the marches gave them more prestige of title, even if their border county was smaller/less productive than a regular county.
- Most noble families gained their titles very early in a country’s history or later in the renaissance & early modern period when the merchant class became important enough to buy or gain such titles ie the Cromwell family became lesser nobles off Thomas Cromwell’s European trade connections allowing him to be an effective finance minister for Henry VIII - titles of nobility gained by freemen through warfare or diplomatic or financial service were usually very low and sometimes were just a non hereditary knighthood, right to have a coat of arms, and exemption from taxation. Sometimes they didn’t even get an estate and there were cases of not passing on their coat of arms and title to their kids. Usually, at least in England, you needed to continue to serve the king in an exemplary fashion in order to be upgraded to a hereditary nobleman who not only is exempt from tax but can collect it. - those late medieval merchant nobles often did not gain land and peasants with their titles, but rather already owned manor houses with free (ie non serf) tenants paying them rent, the financial difference came in the form of exemption from taxation (the most important part of being noble), potentially a royal stipend, and a duty to support the king in war. Sometimes, if you didn’t have a lot of land, this didn’t mean raising peasant levies but making or buying weapons, or recruiting burghers (non-servile city dwellers)
And don't forget that royalty could appoint a known skilled warrior or war leader to be the new Count of Overtheria, and give him the task of arresting the "pretender" to that office who actually is in charge of it. This is a means of getting somebody to fight a small war or put down a rebellion or defeat an uppity rival on your behalf without having to actually spend any of your own money or troops. The newly-minted noble owes fealty to you because without your authority proclaiming him nobility, he has no right to do what he's doing. But with the King's say-so, what he's doing is totally legal and the other nobles will have to at least pretend to be okay with it. Or become openly in revolt against the King.
My current game has a backdrop where the duke of a neighboring kingdom has married his son into the family of a neighboring county. The marquis dies in battle against an army of kobolds and now the duke's son is claiming the title of marquis due to there being no male heir, however under his nation's succession laws he can claim it through the daughter of the former marquis. Under the succession law of the host kingdom, female lines are invalid and therefore the former marquis' brother has a claim. The baron the PCs have been working under this whole time is backing the lord from the neighboring kingdom due to trade deals and marrying into the family. The PCs are also named knight's errant of the realm of the original kingdom with an oath not to raise arms against it. Also there is a dragon awakening in the mountain range seperating the regions (hence the army of kobolds).
Because I'm aware of how a few non European cultural hierarchies worked. I prefer to use them over the classic medieval setting. Like yes, it's often like European monarchies. Where the person in charge is often only there, because of consent of noble families. But you often had situations where the influence of holy people, wasn't a separate entity like a church, but a blood relative. Often with even more of a claim on the throne, because of their spiritual connection. Plus two witches who started an multi generational feud, because one was jealous of the other's magic powers. Is just great.
I went with the sword in the stone. In my setting humanity travelled to another world started a war which they lost with a few getting sanctuary in one of the kingdoms there. Having to rebuild due to losing much of their technology their hosts began leaving until only a few elves remained. One of these made a deal in return for the first human king of Rothenel had to look after some orphans of various different races. He eventually messed up losing the ability to draw the sword the actual proof of his right to rule, but the humans overlooked that. Eventually there was a civil war, which ended with no clear successor. So they returned to the sword, which nobody could draw until a minor noble married to an elf arrived at court and naturally was able to draw the sword. Of course the nobles insisted he divorce his wife and marry more suitable in so doing losing the ability to draw the sword but the nobles didn’t give a damn about that!
Now lets through in monsters and a group of people with incredible power that they can use to defeat these monsters but refuse to claim that these magical abilities come from a divine source.
(High) Barons (those who's Feility is directly to the King), Counts and Dukes can create Knights with or without a Holding, but can not award a Manor, Dukes and above can create Baronets who are Knights with Manor Holdings, this is done in the name of the King. A King if he has a large Kingdom (or multiple Kingdoms) may appoint selected Nobles to be "Over Lords" of lesser nobles. A Count or Masque may be the Overlord of a collection of Baronets and even (lessor) barons, a Duke over Viscounts and Counts and an Arch Duke over any nobles of Duke or lower. perhaps the King has many kingdoms or likes to go on Crusade and can be away for Years or may never visit the Kingdom in his lifetime, the Dukes could all be jockeying for the appointment to Archduke and their fore the role of Vice-Regal (the Man on the ground for an absent Monarch) to prove they have the ability to enforce the Laws, Manage the Lands, Defend the Realm and collect Taxes. to do this they could be recruiting Lesser Nobles or creating new ones and elevating those loyal to them. all kinds of politics and shenanigans could be going on as the Dukes try to find out who will be the top dog. the child of a Yeoman or Bastard or very latter child of some Noble (that's where most adventures come from anyway) could make a name for themselves by Bandit Hunting and Clearing Monsters then tithe the "Kings Portion" of some Rich Dungeon (all Treasure Troves technically belong to the Crown anyway) to the Duke their family already has ties to, in exchange they could be given some portion of a boarder march to establish a Manor on and be given a Baronet title to call their own.
I’m not done the video, so maybe you brought this up, but the king was very often aligned WITH peasant rebels because a peasant victory allowed him to reduce the nobility’s autonomy & fine the lords to his own benefit, without expending the troops he could personally raise from the royal domain
Good to know I mostly stick to rensonce as while the feel is very differnt to Medaval you get alot of goodies you can mess with with out having to ssay a wizard did it. So I mostly stick to Empire and counties. That said I'm writing a setting for my TTWargame/RPG I am deving and it has an medeval feudal Kingdom so this will be a great refernce thanks!
I don't follow this completely in my game. I do tend to have higher ranking nobles boss around lesser ranking ones, and in my game you can become king in three ways. The first way is to climb the ranks and be next in line for the throne when the king dies. The second is to gain enough influence to proclaim yourself king, sometimes by killing the former king (simply proclaiming yourself without any influence would not make you a king in anyone's eyes). The third way is for a bishop to announce you as king, and this way is seen as more legitimate than the second way. I also like the idea of the highest ranking noble actually holding all of the power, but he can be overthrown by his subjects if he's not careful, and I include Duke and Prince as royal ranks. So that's how closely I follow it, though honestly I haven't played with it enough to know for sure how good it is.
To the question of what to change, my world is very oceanic, made up of massive underwater volcanos. So, landmasses are island continents and archipelagos and whatnot, and is very verdant and abundant with wildlife/monsters. The change is that now fish is as common as chicken/deer in this world, so the fisherman are gonna be rich. Spice that nobility up with them also being the international news source and closely contracted with the government, and it changes a lot of the dynamic with nobility and the structures.
"My Lord, the peasants are revolting!" "Of course they are revolting. That is why I decreed that they had to bath at least once a month."
🤣🤣🤣
The decree was probably the cause of the uprising.
Bathe*
Oversimplified?
kek , truly patrician muh lord
One thing I'd like to add.
The dramatic effect that magic would have on governance.
For example Sorcerers.
A Sorcerer's power comes from their bloodline. Bloodlines were important to nobles. This could be one of the reasons why - at least for some kingdoms within the setting.
Having the right bloodline gives you literal magical power. Power to help you better persuade those at court (Enhance Ability), fight large groups of enemies during war (AoE damage and CC spells), escape coups and mobs (Invisibility, Dimension Door, Circle of Teleportation), learn what a group of raiders are doing and potentially located (Scrying), and so on.
An invaluable power, which their entire bloodline could possess, if they were able to secure a certain marriage.
Wizardry offers similar, but requires magical institutions and more dedication to learn.
However nobles are rich. A magical education is well within their means.
It's stereotyped that nobles spend a great deal of time learning the blade while learning governance. Within a fantasy setting, at least in some places, this could easily be magic instead.
Magic offers protection, cantrips are always available, allows them to be always armed, and has tons of other benefits.
Because of how powerful Wizardry is it's possible that nobles attempt to restrict access to it, limiting this access to those they trust. This access could even be a reward for deeds performed instead of the traditional granting of land and such.
Clerics and Warlocks also adds an interesting spin.
Divine right used to be a thing. Many Clerics and Warlocks are being given power from supernatural beings. That power allows for wondrous things such as ensuring harvests are always good (Plant Growth), that far fewer or no people die from sickness (Lesser Restoration), that the realm is more stable due to fatal accidents and assassinations being less successful (Resurrection spells), that everyone is more safe (all the combat spells).
Usually this is given to priests, but it could easily be also given to the ruling nobles. Possibly under the expectation that they use their authority and armies to further their patrons' interests.
When people say where does their authority come from they can literal display their divine powers and say it's from so and so.
However this comes with a potential catch. It's given under the expectation that it's used in certain ways. So if the ruler does something bad, or allows something to occur, they, their families, and their local nobility, might lose that power. That power that also acts as their legitimacy for their rule.
In other words they lose their divine right/favor of heaven.
Imagine all the nuance these things can add to kingdoms that had some of these things going on.
"A Sorcerer's power comes from their bloodline. Bloodlines were important to nobles. This could be one of the reasons why - at least for some kingdoms within the setting.
Having the right bloodline gives you literal magical power. Power to help you better persuade those at court (Enhance Ability), fight large groups of enemies during war (AoE damage and CC spells), escape coups and mobs (Invisibility, Dimension Door, Circle of Teleportation), learn what a group of raiders are doing and potentially located (Scrying), and so on.
An invaluable power, which their entire bloodline could possess, if they were able to secure a certain marriage."
This is actually the logic that was used in the 3.0 setting, "Swashbuckling Adventures". It was a D&D adaptation of 7th Sea roleplaying. Long story short, in the game, the modern noble houses/noble families were ALL sorcerer bloodlines that had accumulated power over centuries. It's simplified, but within each country, a specific bloodline was dominant. I'm not necessarily advocating that such a thing be done for D&D....but I *do* think there's a point to it. If the members of a noble family were disproportionately more likely to have a bunch of magical abilities not possessed by the regular public (except for those who spent lots of money on expensive wizard training), then that would be a way for them to hold themselves apart from all the "regular peons".
In fairness, the obsession with Military training was because science wasn’t an option for power at all. They were strong as hell and army life played to the nobility’s strength (eating well, good equipment, a castle to protect them). They probably would train for magic and breed for magic as well if that was relevant. Good pickup. 👍 😊
@@Xplora213 *laughs in Chinese gunpowder*
@@azarisLP yet it wasn’t the powder guy running the kingdom. It was still the head of the army 😜
@@Xplora213
The medieval priesthood, but not just that, priesthood in general all over medieval and ancient societies, the priests were always the "knowledgeable men". Priests had an education in theology (obviously) and law too. In many societies they were also architects/engineers, since many structures had a sort of "divine geometry".
It's not too far fetched to have a "Mages' Guild" holding a similar position. Instead of studying years and years how to please Ra and how to placate Set, or how to ready the entrails of an animal under the auspice of Apollo, the "priesthood" could instead learn how to cast Fireballs and Magic Missiles.
Yes, families of Sorcerous could be the nobility, but you could still have a Church of (whatever God or Pantheon) and a "College Arcanum" as competing power structures.
You could have nations that are full blown "Magocracies" and that hunt or supress sorcerous families, a society based on meritocracy upon which people are admitted into the arcane universities based on potential rather than money or influence, just for that nation to neighbor a "Sorcerous Aristocracy" that hates their guts.
Clerics and Warlocks could form a third party power structure; thus you could have theocracies ruled by those, with wizard schools existing but being subjected to the wills of the church and the sorcerous being at the service of the church, or in other societies wizardry may be outright forbidden, and sorcerous are enslaved by the church; in others, sorcerous are the nobility, wizardry is forbidden, and the aristocracy shares power with the church. And in other societies it may be a more balanced distribution of power. Sorcerous could well be the Aristocracy and thus the "military rulers", while Wizards are akin to our "bourgeoisie", and thus come from wealthy merchant families that raised their fortunes with commerce enough to send their children to the "Mages' Guild", where they learn spells to further expand their families fortunes, and the Clerics are the Church; a sort of "the 3 States" of the pre-revolutionary France.
There are many possible combinations; a strict Meritocratic Magocracy may outright hunt down any and all sorcerers and demand the clerics to "excommunicate" any such individual, and preach that their powers are evil or vice versa.
Those combinations are also possible for some other classes too; Druids or Shamans may take the place of Clerics for some societies, and the relationships they have with wizards and sorcerers can wildly differ too. And in "evil" societies, you could have Liches and Necromancers rulling with an iron fist and demanding blood sacrifices
If your campaign takes place in a more late medieval setting, add some cities to the mix, for good measure. They are either ruled by a noble, making him probably much wealthier than his neighbors ruling only over peasants. Or they were free cities, in the Holy Roman Empire this was called imperial immediacy meaning they were directly an only under the authority of the Emperor (or King). Therefore they were on the same level of power as high nobility, and often had way more money. This changed the balance of power considerably.
It was very rare for local nobles to rule cities. Usually the cities paid their taxes to some higher noble like a margrave, Duke or King or they were given a letter of excemption from the king which meant they didn't pay tax at all (they did however often pay tarriffs).
@@DaDunge That depends on the time and size of the city. In the high middle ages independent or free cities were rare, most were ruled (and often have been founded by) by nobles like earls, dunkes, "Freiherren", bishops or abbots. In the late middle ages a lot of the larger cities becsme independent (and they grew larger because of the independence) while smaller ones often kept their rulers. Or got other rulers, including other (independent) cities who often bought those cities from impoverished nobles.
Also, guilds. Shadiversity has a good video on the subject
And sometimes sone of these free cities openly opposed the Emperor's authority and went to war against other cities wich suppirted the Emperor. Just look at the confluct between Guelphs and Ghibellines.
@@wolfstettler3183 Those are all very good points. And there's a considerable difference between feudal Europe in western Europe and central Europe, both pre and post Black Death of the mid 1300s. For instance, it seemed to be a papal policy to interfere in central Europe and in Germany to actively weaken the Holy Roman Emperors, especially in the high middle ages, while the kings of France after a pretty weak start, were allowed to consolidate their power base free from Papal interference. And in so many ways, the Black Death really turned the feudal world on it's head as laborers were in short supply and could make more demands on the lordly classes. Cities compounded problems for feudal "the great chain of being" as well. Where did mayors fit into the chain--were they like Lords, or were they gentlemen? There were so many competing hierarchies, that fitting everyone in their proper placement caused a great deal of social stresses.
It's also incredibly important to remember that outside of their small group of men at arms and archers, a nobleman has no standing army. And town guards aren't going to be these men at arms, who are often knights themselves. Instead towns are guarded by young freemen in a rotating cycle. Of course, in later medieval periods, there were more professional soldiers/household troops, but in a more high medieval based setting, mercenaries and the small group of household men are the only professional soldiers around.
This is addressed to a degree in the Bulders Gate source book. There were high guardsmen who patrolled the wealthy districts while a force of conscripted "guards" would handle most of the city proper. As part of the Descent into Avernus story arch the party is essentially forced into service to help with the influx of refugees fleeing a neighboring city & investigate what's happening. I am using a similar system in a medium size town that has a 3-strikes law on anyone who gets into brawls inside its gates. "You like to fight? Fight lawbreakers for your town."
Nobles were rarely involved in the cities anyway. Larger cities often paid their taxes directly to the monarch and villages and cities had their own councils. Remember this is an era when more than 90% of the population were in agriculture, the nobles ruling over the farmers in the fields meant they ruled plenty.
Based on what you said about separation of church and state, it'd be a fun surprise to pull on the players to get into combat with an evil noble and discover he's a cleric.
Why have I never thought about this.
@@DungeonMasterpiece It's funny. I've been DMing for a bit, now, but I have yet to run a game set in a feudal society, which is weird, since that's the assumed default.
This video got a lot of ideas rolling for me.
The problem is the moment you have real gods the dynamic alters.
@@DaDunge Not necessarily. Neither clerics nor paladins are invincible, and at least for my own games I've always assumed that people who are truly blessed with divine powers are comparatively rare. Kings could easily hire (or even themselves be) learned and trained mages to counteract the power of those individuals.
@@chronitonfluxcapybara4231 Never said they were, in fact I never mentioned clerics or Paladins. My point was that it's a bit harder to claim divine right when it's possible to just dial up the gods and ask.
This is an excellent dissemination of the complex Feudal system that is often oversimplified in tv, movies, books, and games for the sake of the story. Unless you play Europa Universalis IV or Crusader Kings, those games got it down of how complex the medieval world was. For many of my own homebrew nations, I work from the local government up and try to establish the powers, and leadership that would be found at those locations. Even if my players never learn the system or how it works that is okay because it allows me to be able to come up with a reasonable response of how all the other characters are going to react. For long-term world building, I think that this video helps get a grasp around the foundations of a working medieval kingdom and all the crazy stuff that can happen.
I do much the same. Each kingdom has a tier rank of nobility or nobility equivalents. My favorite version of this is from a tiny gnomeish kingdom ruled like a merchant republic, but no. It went: troubleshooter (knight), apprentice (baron), journeyman (count), craftsman (duke), lord-forgemaster (an unlanded title similar to an archpriest/commander in chief), and finally the Grand Artificer (king).
I like that you don't necessarily feel compelled to explain it in detail to your players. Having the mechanics in place is invaluable for generating plots and keeping track of conflicts in the game world, even if most of it happens behind the scenes, where the players don't need to know about it.
Of course, if you have _really_ good players, they'll want to know about it, and they'll ask you. I've had whole sessions where we've just discussed a setting that someone came up with, with everyone involved being 100% engaged and on-board for the whole session.
I've always been disappointed at Crusader King's lack of Marquis/Margrave ranks. CK3 even lets you negotiate a March contract, which I feel should rename their rank to that.
It's extra fun to play with in fantasy worlds of magic! Magic can kind of take the same role as guns/gunpowder that Ropp me mentioned in the intro.
Part of why Eberron is a great setting 😋
When you have a DnD world, the question of what to do with spellcasters needs to be addressed. But the easiest way to do it would be to fold them into existing feudal systems. It's what existing nobility would do, anyway.
Wizards are particularly amenable to this, because Wizardry is an education-based form of magic. You have to be learned to be a Wizard. Now "learned" can mean a lot of things - you could just as easily be a rural "witch" living in the forest, reading from a grimoire passed down many generations, and still be a Wizard - but in practice most of them will need (and desire) formal education. Especially since Wizards are highly protective of their magic, and thus charge high prices for teaching. So, on average, most Wizards would already be from wealth or in service to them, and thus a large percentage would be Nobles by default. They have the wealth, not to mention _time,_ to learn Wizardry. Members of the priesthood would also fall into this category, so would have a surprising number of Wizards.
Speaking of the priesthood, Clerics of course would exist within whatever religion operating in the setting, and thus be beholden to those power structures. This makes these religious order(s) powerful within the feudal system. Not only can they hold the threat of excommunication over the heads of nobility and royals, they can leverage their magic, either using harmful kinds or withholding beneficial ones from those in power. When the priests hold the power of resurrection, or even to mend injuries and cure diseases, you don't want to get on their bad side.
Even if a spellcaster doesn't have a noble title or church position, it behooves the Powers That Be to fold them into the feudal system wherever possible. Errant Wizards, as well as Sorcerers, Bards, and Druids, may be made into court magicians for nobility or royals, kept on retainer and granted privileges in return for loyalty and exclusive use of their magic. Such individuals, especially Sorcerers, may be married into noble lines, to firmly secure their magic for the use of the powerful.
(Warlocks, meanwhile, are often looked askance at by most folks, because of their divided loyalties. Setting aside that those loyalties might be to explicitly evil beings. But Warlocks can always lie about where their powers come from, so they might fall into other categories. Albeit with the eternal threat of being found out. Moreover, noble families may have acquired power through secretive dealings with otherworldly patrons, or dabble into it after gaining their title).
I'd honestly take this a step further, and use these magical realities to begin stretching what these social structures might be. While learning about feudal society helps me understand how societies form under certain conditions, I prefer to start from the ground up and look at how new conditions might form a different society.
Like for instance, I almost find it highly unlikely that nobility would consist of normal people. In real life, power is consolidated through ownership of resources and control of labor and violence. In these settings though, power has more various sources and far more disparate magnitudes. Coercion would be a much less communal effort, given that some warriors can be stronger than bears and spellcasters can subvert your very will.
I'd go as far as to say that nobility would almost be made up of individuals of great power - the highest leveled NPC would be the one to generally hold power. The type of society they create would be based on the nature of the powers they hold. A society ruled by a great wizard may hoard knowledge preciously and share with esteemed colleagues who would form their underlying nobility. Sharing knowledge would be akin to a political revolution. Warlocks would be endemic to this kind of society, for wizards can give them some power without sharing the underlying knowledge - and all that power has strings attached. These societies may not collapse suddenly, but may lapse into pseudo-meritocracies sort of like the old Chinese empires (everyone gets to take the test! But only nobles can afford education...)
Sorcerous bloodlines would probably have the most in common with pre-medeival classical era nobility, as the heirarchy would be strictly hereditary and the purity of their bloodline - much like how old Greek nobility justified their authority on blood descendants of patron deities (e.g., Athens is ruled by the family that traces its bloodline to Athena, and other families of divine bloodline). These societies have very different ideas about incest, bastards, and the political importance of family than medieval Europeans did given the Abrahamic faiths do not intrinsically emphasize heritage or bloodlines as important compared to obiesance to their doctrines and institutions. Medieval feudal societies were kind of a weird mix of this old culture trying to hold these older bloodline traditions without running afoul with catholic religion authority that held the hearts of their peasants.
That's just a start, anyway. You could go even further with superhuman warrior societies (I'd take Rome for inspiration, since Roman authority frequently derived from military success and the support of armies). The butterfly effect goes crazy, but it does help keep things a little simpler when you can at least presume that most societies will be structured largely by the whims of its most most powerful, and that power is often highly segregated from popular support. If you're a max level wizard, you don't need an army. You can defend your castle from an peasant uprising by yourself! These societies would have VERY significant problems with tyranny.
In my setting there are five Duchies in the kingdom. The first Duchy is reserved for the king's heir. The second Duchy is reserved for the king's Spare. The other Duchies are led by Dukes that once expanded the kingdom through conquest.
Each Duchy has five Counties or Marches led by a Count or a Marquis. The area around the Capitol is called The Original Province, and is about the size of a Duchy too. It has five Counties.
Each March or County contains five Baronies. Each Baron divides his Barony into Manors, held by a Manor Lord. A Manor contains 4-12 farms. The farmer is a free man, but he has plots that are farmed by others. They receive a portion based on the yield of their plot.
Near each Manor is a small Hamlet, the officially answers to the Baron, but practically answers to the Manor Lord. They have a few tradesman and woodsman that live in the hamlet.
Villages answer to the Baron. Towns may answer to the Baron, but may instead answer to the Count or Marquis.
Knights may have land or not. A noble (knight) without land is an unlanded noble. They are nobles and generate income by serving in the place of other nobles in the army.
When you are a noble, you owe money (duties) and service to your Liege Lord. Many Manor Lords pay knights to perform their service. Then they just have to "manage" their Manor, which they hire out to a Foreman.
In the Baron's court there will be a Chamberlain to manage domestic affairs, a Cpt of the Guard, a treasurer, a Steward and a High Sheriff. Instead of paying the top members of The Court, the Baron gives them Estates (land immediately outside the seat of power in the Barony) to derive an income for themselves. Like Manor Lords, they hire a Foreman to run the estate, and workers come from town to work the fields for pay. Manor Lords have to pay duties, but Estate Lords often do not. However, Estate Lords can be easily replaced, so they make sure to stay in the good graces of the Baron.
These are human lands? Or do the duchies include elves, dwarves, tabaxi, etc?
@@MsQuikly The kingdom is human centric, but there are many species living within. It is known that some hamlets are dominated by Halflings. In settlements, it is not surprising to hear the population of a few groups is great enough to have a "Dwarven sector" or an "Elven sector." The other nations, mostly of other species, have diplomatic relations and embassies in Calanthi. The leaders of Calanthi understand that others have talents they would benefit when shared.
It is common in larger settlements to have large portions of the building trades populated with dwarven craftsmen, and artistic trades populated with elves and gnomes. Halflings are an enigma in this world. They seem to have no nation anywhere, but are welcomed almost everywhere. They just don't seem to grow past the size of a village to form larger settlements, much less a nation. But they are very industrious farmers and welcomed for their gifts anywhere they go, because the nation's agricultural output governs how big the nation can be. The larger nations can have more specialists outside agriculture, and this produces both the tools for sustaining life and the luxuries folks want.
One of the interesting things that strikes me often throughout history is how often political change only comes when a ruler dies and there's a succession crisis. So what happens in a world where the reigning monarch could live for hundreds or even thousands of years?
They better be on the lookout for assassins
Prince, "When my father dies, I shall be king!"
Lackey, "Your father?"
Prince, "Yes."
Lackey, "Your father, the Immortal Lich-King?"
Prince, "Hmmm... Maybe I need to rethink my career plan."
Egypt was like this in a way. It was defensible and consistent - with good central planning and a strong central governing body, they were able to keep dynasties going for several generations - such as King Tut being the 20th ruler in a row without disruption. their language and culture evolved at a much slower rate than many of their peers. Other nearby civilizations rose and fell while Egypt kept the same gods and only barely shifted language for millenia.
So an Elf or Dwarf monarch would be similar. Slow to progress or change - speaking the same language and sharing the same customs as their grandparents, while human kingdoms get built and fall on a weekly basis from their perspective
Why do you think the elves are always either in decline, post collapse, or in a golden age but far away. No fresh ideas from fresh rulers leaves you vulnerable to dramatic outside threats and disaster.
There are 3 words that come to mind: Elven Imperial Overlords. It's really the only logical conclusion. Assassination amongst elves would be exceedingly low, since at some point the conversation would shift to, "If we stop killing each other then every 40 (3-4 elven years) or so years the neighboring human kingdom will internally collapse, we can swoop in and nibble at the corners until we've gobbled it up." Assuming an reign time of 30 years that translates roughly into 300 years for an elf ruler. They will have seen their human neighbor descend into civil war 9-10 times in a single reign.
Elven nobility would see this growth of land and wealth and as long as they're getting a cut, they'll be happy. Why buck the system which facilitates this?
Now all of this ignores mitigating circumstances which could slow the rate of growth or disrupt the system, agreed. But there's very little that would persuade me that, if given an infinite timeline without world shattering external forces, this outcome would be produced and reproduced ad infinitum.
Service guarantee's citizenship? I WOULD like to know more.
I'm doing my part! Are you?
I would LOVE to know more
Join the mobile Infantry.
The Service made me the man I am today!
The addition of Magic and Spellcasters does add a new wrinkle to Feudalism, as magic adds a power dynamic not entirely linked to land wealth or military power. Not only can you add guilds of working class spellcasters, but some nobles might also have magical power, either from innate sorcerous powers or the study of wizardry.
I don’t think it adds a wrinkle as much as a clearly defined third, fourth or fifth pillar to your power dynamics. You can’t neglect the most powerful person in the kingdom and it’s very likely they just aren’t interested in ruling over the plebs. Merlin is a great example of power behind the throne. He’s right there, just like the high priest and the commander of the military. Psionics would be yet another as well.
This got me thinking about the relationship between the "church" and the state in a polytheistic dnd setting. I've often seen DnD campaigns where there is a singular "church" to match typical medieval settings without considering that there are multiple worshiped gods that can invoke direct change in the world. If you take this into consideration, what changes in the relationship between all the disparate religious beliefs and the state? Likely only popular deities would have actual temples, as their parish would be large enough to collect enough tithes to maintain such an establishment and pay for monks, priests, clerics, paladins, or shamans. Honestly, governments would likely collect taxes on these establishments, not the other way around. This would also mean that religious groups would be invested in the political dynamics surrounding them, since if they can get a follower in a position of power and wealth, then they could receive greater tithes and political favor. It would also mean that until a religious group managed to elevate a member to such a position or they had enough members to be an economic or military concern, they would have little influence over law and policy.
Think that depends a whole lot.
For example in general DnD lore the worship of Vecna is punishable by death. While in Mercer's world different nations have different deities that they officially worship without denying the existence of the other gods.
Likewise in my own setting different nations might worship different gods in their state religion while vilifying others and some nations might not officially worship any gods but the religion of a god with a large following might still hold an influence. Like if in medieval Europe a large part of the populace were Muslim instead of Christian (and also if Islam was organised like Catholicism with a single organised body) Islam would hold much sway regardless of whether it was an official authority recognised by the courts of Europe.
Different nations had different responses to other religions and dieties
Rome for instance was very inclusive during its pagan times as long as you acknowledged Rome's authority and bowed to its emperor you were allowed to mostly worship what you wanted( going against the law and stuff was not really allowed) Judaism and Christianity were persecuted as they were monotheistic and did not bow down to the emperor
So it can depend entirely on what the kingdom is rulership wise, the govt. Structure, state religion, etc
You can think of cult of particular deity as a mini-church, like say protestant denominations in the US - some live better with each other, some worse, politicians don't want generally to make all of them angry (unless they don't go crazy fanatic) so they try to appease to them somewhat (though having their own denomination aka their patron deity for dnd purposes)
Also, think at cult of saints in catholic and orthodox churches. They have their roles like one cares of doctors, some of soldiers, santa claus for prostitutes. The ruler probably care most about the most important ones and most political ones (say war deity or economy deity) but people like to have more personal deities (say patron of their region, maybe some deified hero from their region). Then when you have temple of some god you probably want it to be as popular as possible because it means you as a cult are stronger, you got more pilgrims and money related to that and you may better influence people/ruler to your couse (through prayer, blessing, healings or divination etc). If it seems your god works - you can win.
I'm afraidn I wrote it damn chaotic but maybe will help a little
I think the key point you brought up and ignored was that the deities may choose to interact with the world. Successful rulers would have deities they would curry favor with. After all if a deity claims an area as their own that would be massive political power as your not just worred about their military but divine retribution. In such places you would have a strong tie to that religion with some other minor worship going on on the fringe. An example from reality is the greek citystates who all had a personal deity known for they're city (ie athens athena) but you could still get statues respecting other deities there no problem.
One nice approach to this topic is what GRR Martin did with The Faith of The Seven. It is a polytheistic setting, but there is only one official "church" or faith (for most of Westeros al least). In your DnD setting you may have several kingdoms, sharing this faith, or with another faith, that worships another package of gods. The gods alignment can help you group these gods in different faiths. Ideally, as happened for most of medieval Europe, you wouldn't have more that 2 or 3 faiths (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox, Islam)
I loved this video and I think I'll be able to use quite a bit of it. Im a Roman Catholic and I had comment about the way you talked about excommunication though. Two things: every excommunication is revocable. If someone chooses to publicly repent of the thing they were excommunicated for, they would be let back into the fold. Second, Purgatory is not a place of Damnation. if a soul is in purgatory they are on the way to Heaven, even if they have a lot of work to do to get there. Someone who is justly excommunicated and remains unrepentant until death would damn themselves and go to Hell.
There was a lot of unjust excommunication like the example you gave in the video of a Knight becoming a bishop, demanding more money in tithing out of spite and excommunicating anyone who says no. In that case, the wicked bishop is the one in actual moral peril.
I say all of this so that we can have an understanding of how the system is supposed to work so we can recognize when it is being abused.
My character's backstory was the local Duke was excessively taxing everyone... Turned into a side quest, with the Lords of the area unknowingly all being manipulated by an organisation trying to resource the resurrection of an Arch-Lich!
Hey, those expensive spell components aren't going to buy themselves
Yes! 🙌 Dude, Baron, this is excellent! I’m stoked for the channel launch, and this video is a great kickoff.
Really clean and informative breakdown of the nobility and royalty. Well done, man. 🤘❤️👍
Thanks a ton!
The region I'm DMing for my Greyhawk campaign, the Gran March, is a weird mix of proto-America and constitutional monarchy. It started as a duchy offshoot of the main kingdom, lead by a general/duke and has barons that hold the land and collect taxes. But after an incident about a century and a half ago where the general/duke asked for all his subjects could give and then some, he was deposed by the barons, and they basically set up their own country with its own constitution while still remaining loyal to the crown.
The barons are still barons, but the leader, now "commandant", is a sort of "high-general" that is elected... by the nobility, and almost always a member of the knight's order that founded the country, the war god clergy, or part of the military (optimally all three) to serve as the leader with very few benefits of being a king. He's the leader of the whole country's military, sure, but that leadership is passed through the barons. The only place he has jurisdiction in is the capitol (which was ceded by the noble house that holds the region and led the revolt, though they still live there and remain popular), and so the commandant and "high-baron" stations keep each other's military power in check. He gets a predefined salary based on a percentage of the economic prosperity of the country with a tithe inversely proportional to that percentage (as penned by the merchant god clergy), so is incentivized to avoid undue strife, make calculated risks to improve the country's standing, and maintain the country's military might (have to keep the God of War and Justice happy) while improving its economic might.
Conscription is also mandatory for males (females can volunteer) aged 14-21, serving for 7 years and making it so that damn near every other citizen is no mere commoner, but has at least one class level, while the ladies are either similarly strong or powerhouses on the blue-collar labor front. Between that and the election process (more specifically, the "qualifications" to be elected), this leaves the door open for a massive rise in station if you prove yourself in both the armed forces and the political spheres. In fact, the most recent commandant has risen to power at a relatively young age under strange circumstances and proven to be a good and just leader, despite being assassinated twice. Being friends with the clergy is POWERFUL, especially in D&D!
At how you describe the succesion and the power of the king that sounds like the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth you just need to give each member of the legislative the power of veto that none use for a long time(some 2,3 centuries) and after that is always used,also foreign influence to elect their man,the king of Saxony was elected prince of PLC and the last king was a Russian puppet.
This is a great fun and informative video. I like the idea of a group of PCs being sent in to a Monastery by a compromised noble to steal damning evidence without leaving any sign of the heist. Who knows what else the intruders might stumble upon.
Knights we’re considered the lowest of the nobility, and it’s something that we’re achievable through military service, albeit most knights will origin from the aristocracy. Many knights would no be granted lands, but they would have small pockets of land that they administrated on the behalf of the king called manors. A single knight could have the responsibility of multiple manors sometimes. Look up manorialism! Knights were usually rich… really rich! (You’d ofc. get some that’s bankrupt). Modern historians estimate that their equipment alone is the equivalent of $500.000 - $3.000.000 perhaps more, and usually that was easily affordable for knights. They were also considered walking tanks, so they were really sought after and effective.
How you can think of the feudal system is; the whole country belongs to the King. A king can’t govern large distances of his own, so he has people that does it for him. He’ll make a hereditary lease of his land to a duke (can also be counts, barons that answer directly to him, but dukes would be the link below him, usually if you see prince as a title with holdings, they don’t have a king to answer to, like in the HRE). In return the duke has to repay first and foremost in utmost loyalty to the crown (muhahahaha) and in men (that’s trained locally, so you won’t see a barracks training standing soldiers really in feudal society, probably were exceptions, probably the Byzantine empire) and taxes that was more likely to be in kind. The duke will get continue the chain of nobilities and get Counts etc. because he too, weren’t able to govern and develop the land that was given to him, but that dynamic is important, because leased land means that the one above them can revoke it as well. A king needed ofc. the necessary authority and power to do it, which in this case means, he has the men and ressources to execute his will. A weak king is a king that can’t exercise his authority, and many kings once anointed will travel through the kingdom to show the people that they’re in fact the king and stop rebellions which also tend to happen quite a lot during shift of power. Ofc. if they have huge amount of lands, it may not be possible to traverse their entire kingdom.
With feudalism you get castles! And castles very much so is linked to the economic, logistics and administration of the feudal society. Many castle were wooden! Early on at least, but they funnily enough didn’t last. And what’s a castle good for? It’s a fortified home essentially that has multiple functions. Really effective of protecting you, that goes without saying, but it’s also as stated before, the place where administration of the realm took place. You could usually house a lot of soldiers as well, and it has enormous defensive purpose. When in war, time is an essential asset. You don’t want to do war at winter.. never! And a castle will be use to stall the enemy for getting reinforcements as well. War campaigns is roughly divided in (just to make it tangible): 10% pitch battle, 20% siege and 70% skirmishes. If you have a band of knights smashing into the enemy on horseback and then retreat, a castle is where they want to rest, and the majority of a war were hit and run and guerrilla warfare.
Bonus info: A hospital also origines from medieval times. At its basic form the service that a hospital provided was not for tending wounds, but people weren’t allowed to sleep in the streets, but if you were sick or couldn’t afford anything or whatever reason why inns may not take you in, you could go to a hospital, and because many of them were sick, you’d get people like monks to treat them, and then it evolved from there.
Tavern: that’s your pub/restaurant ish. Social hub, you don’t sleep there!
Inn: You sleep there, there will be served food usually, but nothing special, better go to a tavern. Inns usually had large beds that strangers tucked into together. A bed could have like 3-5 sometimes. They wouldn’t bother with 5 rooms, that would be waste of money, but set in a fantasy world where travel is different and it can be beneficial to an innkeeper, then it ofc. will be provided for, probably more expensive as it has to cover and beat the constant money generated otherwise.
The country does not belong to the king. The land belongs to the nobles the king just extracts taxes from them its sort of a treaty sort of a protection scheme. If the king finds himself with land of his own he can either make noble titles from it in which he gives it away in perpetuity or as you said appoint someone to govern it for him but the latter is the exception not the rule most land in a kingdom is not owned by the monarch but by the nobles.
@@DaDunge I can guarantee you, in feudal society the King was the de facto ruler of all territories within the country. That’s the whole point of a feudal system, creating a chain. Nobles didn’t own the land, but they held it as a title and ruled in the name of the king. There were examples of freeholds within a kingdom that was sold, those land did have autonomy, and usually all towns payed fees not to the nobles, but to the king.
The whole point of the feudal system is that the king rules all land and make nobles that rules in his name. And the king has divine right to rule the land as he’s closer to god than anyone else. It’s not the exception, that’s how it origins and the is the very fundament of feudalism. The question is, if he can exercise his authority, that’s a completely different question. But a king can revoke the title as he sees fit, depending on laws ofc.
If the king don’t own his own kingdom, then we aren’t talking about a feudal system.
And if you don’t believe me, which is totally alright ofc. I got one source for you: danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/feudalisme/?no_cache=1&tx_historyview_pi1%5Blang%5D=1
Webpage is owned by Aarhus University cultural and society institute. If you want more sources there’s dozens that more or less repeats it.
Some societies during Middle Ages took many of the feudal principles with them an inspiration, but didn’t adopt them fully.
@@Christian_Bagger Ruler yes but not owner. Also the feudal contract is less absolute than you perceive. What's dejure is not always defacto that's defacto is not always dejure, and where the line between a tributary suzerain relationship and a vassal liege one is far less absolute than you seem to think.
Also Denmark never really had feudalism. Not full on Salian style feudalism.
@@DaDunge I don’t say it’s total absolute, because obviously the system changes as power wants more power, hence all the civil wars and intrigues and disputes, and it gets obscure and muddy and more individual cases, because humans.. that’s just how it is, but the system is still what it is, and I’m talking from a fundamentally point of view, not what happen. Like in a democracy, it’s the people who has the power, you vote.. China and Russia call themselves democracies but you and I know, that they aren’t. I’m talking from a fundamental point of view, I don’t know what sources you’ve your take from or how you interpret your info, so I gave an example like Denmark as to showcase that there were kingdoms in the Middle Ages that adopt feudalism partially or were inspired by it, and perhaps that’s what you get mixed up. There will always be exceptions and divergence but generally speaking the King’s own all land, he can make laws that spans the entire kingdom and forests, important resources also did belong to the king unless he sold it ofc. which also happened. The nobles weren’t allowed to just built castles for instance, they had to ask permission to the king, as it was his de facto land.. some did try to do it anyway. The king can also revoke the land, because it’s his.. but usually they didn’t because they want stability. There were instances of rebellious lords where the king took the title from them, just to give it back to show everyone, it’s mine you better remember, I can do what I please.
Eventually as the merchant and the middle class started to arise, the feudalism began to crack, and eventually collapse. Then absolutism began to arise.
I’m describing the system, like saying the king doesn’t fundamentally own the land in a feudal system, is kind of saying that in a democracy you don’t vote. It’s the bedrock of the system. Then as it gets to people’s hands it differs and then rules get applied like before and after Magna Carta. In reality the world belongs to god, but he don’t walk among us, the Kings are anointed to rule in his place. It’s a divine right and kings are closer to god than anyone else… which the church also wants to dispute, which it did. It’s an important nuance, because that’s the King’s legitimacy over the land and the reasoning to why it is his. Nobles don’t have that connection. However the did have great deal of autonomy and make their own laws. For the most part, Kings wouldn’t interfere, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t, but kings wanted stability and he didn’t want the nobility to have too much power, just enough power, and power comes from how many men you can raise essentially.
Hospitals with that name were created in the middle ages, but in ancient Greece there was a place near an Asklepios (I'm not sure I spelled it right) temple for treatment of the ill, and it even had spaces without internal connections to each other to avoid cross contamination between people with different illnesses.
Thanks for your video. A few points from a medieval historian that viewers might find helpful:
1. There was a separation of church and state in the middle ages, but it was different from the American model (no one doubted that religion should inform government policy, for example, and everyone agreed on what the right religion was). The medieval church was a separate institution with its own laws, rights, and duties, independent of secular rulers. This was a major source of conflict between kings and popes in the middle ages: kings wanted to tax the church and appoint their friends/relatives/lackeys as bishops and abbots, while popes wanted to maintain the separation of church and state. Check out the story of St Thomas Becket, the Martyr of Canterbury, for an example of where this could lead. There are plenty of quest hooks built into this conflict!
2. Purgatory is not the same thing as hell in Catholic doctrine (same today as in the middle ages). You actually want to go to purgatory when you die, as it's the road to heaven. The excommunicated are thought to live in danger of hell, i.e., the state of being closed to God's grace forever. Depending on the religions in your game world, this difference may come into play.
3. Nobles in the high middle ages (c. 1000-1300) were often bound to the lands they owned much as serfs were bound to the lands they worked. This was known as the law of "entail," which forbade nobles from selling off or dividing up their family estates. Obviously this created a great deal of tension between the heads of noble houses, who owned all this land, and the various interested parties who wanted it for themselves: whether merchants, gentry, other nobles, or even their own relatives. But on the other hand, it also meant that nobles had a strong incentive to look after their serfs and make their lands more productive - as they knew that they would have to pass their estates to their sons, and they wanted to leave the best inheritance they could. The knight in the video who refused to repair a well and sparked a peasant revolt was a very rare case in real life. Unless he didn't care about the future of his family, then fixing the well (and otherwise taking care of his serfs) was generally in his best interest.
Awesome video. I think it's important to note that most kings also hold territories and fiefs as "lesser" titles. Louis XII of France was, for instance, also the Duke of Orleans (as well as Milan) and it was in this capacity that he held Territorial power, and, more importantly, held feudal authority, over a large military body of lesser nobility and their attendant men at arms. I really like your comparison of a king to a treaty org like NATO, very apt. As a DM, I've also found myself having lesser nobles, ie. Barons and Counts, be independent rulers of isolated territories. This is great for a mid level villains for PC's to work up to, a convenient way to not have bad (murderhobo) decision have far reaching consequences, and giving higher level characters something to branch out into. The BECMI companion rules are helpful in this regard.
When my players were in a position to start a city, I thought I'd give them a few options like who would join the pilgrimage and where it would land.
But these hearts of iron 4 playing, crusader king 2 min maxing, goof ball lovable clowns ended up making an entire 11 page constitution properly formatted and written only halfway based upon the United States's own founding document with a few socialist add on such as a right to a job, food, and healthcare.
It was a real pain naming a senator and congressman for each section or figuring out how pre industrial people would define health care in addition to keeping up with them when it came to the naming of a dozen something fire arms.
*But isn't that what we love about this hobby?*
So as a baron, how many serfs were used to create this video? And if this is a homage to "masterpiece theatre", do you plan on creating feudal public television? Or is this one of those "i own 5 square feet of scotland" Baron titles?
Lol, huge learning curve making this video. And I'm glad you got the masterpiece theater joke! My family lost its official title in ww2 due to the conflicts. So, its not even a silly token barony anymore. It's just a national park now. 😂
@@DungeonMasterpiece My own family (mother's side) had to cut up their kontusz sash during WWII and exchange it for bread. ;(
We still have a signet remaining on my father's side but that's the lesser nobility part of my family.
Not that it matters these days - especially not in Poland where communism eradicated the last vestiges of nobility. It would still be cool to own some kind of heirloom like that...
Another thing to think about is that in some kingdoms titles were bound to the land, not the family. So a Baron could sell his land and thus his title, which would allow someone outside of the nobility/gentry to join the club (although such titles were often viewed in lower esteem and were afforded fewer rights and privileges)
Good video! Could have done with a flow chart and some definitions like this:
-Emperor / Empress = ruler of an empire. Honorific: Your majesty.
-King / Queen = ruler of a kingdom, which sometimes a subdivision of an empire. Honorific: Your majesty / Sire.
-Duke / Duchess = member of royal family such as a prince who ruled their own territory called a dukedom. Dukes outrank other nobles because they are royalty. Honorific: Your grace.
-Prince Princess = son / daughter of a king or emperor. Usually do not have any authority. Honorific: Your highness.
-Marquess = noble in charge of a territory on a boarder called a march, subdivision of a kingdom; Marquees outranked counts because their territory is located on a boarder, which was more important militarily speaking because it came with more risk and responsibility. Honorific: Lord or Lady
-Count / Countess = noble in charge of a county, which is a subdivision of a kingdom. Honorific: Lord or Lady
-Viscount / Viscountess = noble in charge of a viscounty, a subdivision of a county or march. Honorific: Lord or Lady
-Baron / Baroness = noble in charge of a barony, which is a subdivision of a viscounty if not a county or march. Honorific: Lord or Lady
-Baronet / Baronetess = commoner with a heraldry who held land? still researching. Honorific: Sir / Madam?
-Knight = ranking military servant of a noble with authority that varied from noble to noble. Honorific: Sir or Dame.
-Gentry = Landholding commoner?
Prince is actually a noble title, as well as a term used to describe for the son of a regent. Princedoms are everywhere across the Kievan Rus and the Holy Roman Empire.
This is mostly accurate, but there's a few errors. Every nobleman is a knight, literally all of them. Some knights simply were men at arms and nothing more, but a lot of those who had only the title of a knight ruled villages and hamlets rather than just their own household. A Baronet is an English term commoner who was made a knight. "Gentry" is just one of the various words for nobles. Prince and Princess are words for any male or female member of a royal family who is not the regent.
@@plaidpvcpipe3792 Thanks for the good feedback.
@@plaidpvcpipe3792 Most of your assertions are wrong.
@@bilbobaggins5938 explain how I am wrong. And which ones.
An interesting anomaly to the Feudal System was the rise of the Swiss Confederacy.
For a fantasy world with several deities let's remember an often forgotten detail about the Pope of the Catholic Church. The Pope is also the King of the Vatican City.
How do you become King again? Right, you declare yourself to be King.
If a church has enough influence in an area, this would certainly make a game very interesting. The reasons could be manifold, from the Church wanting better protection than the nobles or royals want to give, securing the pilgrim routes to preparations for a religious war.
Of course this can get mighty strange, depending on the deity being worshipped.
I loved your video. Since there isn't a "love" option, though, I felt compelled to interact and hopefully improve your metrics a bit. Best wishes for your content!
Thanks so much!
Thanks for this little explanation of fantasy royalty. I'm planning a political phase for my campaign and am really having fun creating a court for the characters to get involved in. They're getting famous in the world now, so I expect them to get invited to many grand gala balls and private parties of the rich and powerful.
The Algorithm finally suggested something good with this channel, which has fast become one of my top faves for dnd stuff.
Awesome background on feudalism, very helpful! In your vids, could you do a brief recap at the end where you remind us of those awesome potential plot hooks you hinted at throughout? I love your historical/political explanations, but have trouble remembering or finding those political tensions or issues of title or succession that are most promising for gaming.
how am I just discovering this creator? I've been consuming D&D content geared to DMs for a long time, and this is some of the best stuff I've encountered
Great, informative video! I actually feel like I could use this info in my game.
Glad it was helpful!
This is my new favorite dnd channel. I'm all for building optimized builds, making epic campaigns and whatever else have you, but if the world doesn't feel alive in some way then it feels like things don't have as much impact. Your insight in dnd just helps add another layer of immersion in the world building process and I love it. Adventures will come and go but at the core of life for these adventurers is society and the systems that come with it
Very good video even if (speaking as a historian) it oversimplified some things. Not all noble titles were hereditary or granted through service in a war, not all noble titles automatically came with grants of land, nobles were not the only ones who collected taxes or were entitled to collect taxes. There are a few other quibbles but in broad strokes this is enough good material in the video to get a DM's brain moving.
Unfortunately, oversimplification is the secret sauce TH-cam engagement is made of.
I mean, I could have been much more verbose and created a 45 min video (which would have taken me a month to edit), but then I'd never release anything or have any channel growth.
@@DungeonMasterpiece Oh I'm sure! It was well-summarized nonetheless!
If I could offer a tip to DM's who are worldbuilding their own D&D settings and are thinking of just replicating a medieval English or French version of feudalism, I'd encourage them to look at other systems of feudalism or feudal-like systems from history. There are so many other interesting medieval political systems than just England or France or the HRE that can be included in a fantasy world.
@@razorboy251 thanks for being understanding of my not-quite-academic presentation of history, by the way. You'd be amazed how many comments I get from other history professors who lose their mind because, in other videos for example, I compress 100 years of Russian history into one sentence, demanding I instead "take it serious" enough to be citeable, at least for undergrad history papers, in quality
@@razorboy251 by the way, do you have any good audio sources for history on political structures found in the middle east? I'm finding it's what I'm most lacking on the nuance of (compared to my understanding of Chinese dynasties or hre)
@@DungeonMasterpiece I have more on Indian and Russian history but I'll take a look. Does it have to be an audio book or will an expert podcast do as well?
Solid video! Now I just have to find myself a royal who will elevate me into nobility xD
Lol I say cut out the middle man and proclaim yourself emperor!
Most of my homebrew countries are run more like imperial Rome than feudal Europe. There's a legislature and a Royal in some distant capital, there's a standing army, and local governors, who generally don't own the land in their own right, but are appointed by the head honcho back in the capital. This is made easier by things like sending spells, which cuts down considerably on communication limitations that real Rome had. That being said, I do sometimes do some feudal stuff, just less frequently.
The Divine Right of Kings is a reinforcement of the larger Divine Order. In Medieval Europe the religious teachings and philosophy included The Great Chain of Being and The Order of the Spheres (put simply, a place for everything and everything in it's place). It wasn't just kings and Popes put in their positions by God, it was everyone, and everyone had a purpose to fulfill. In the ideal version of the construct there is no shame in being poor and holding a position of power means having responsibility to care for all those beneath you, so long as everyone maintains their proper place and fulfils their divine purpose God is pleased, if someone fails in their duties and disrupts the orderly working of the system - as when a king allows his subjects to starve - God will punish them and favor someone better able to fulfil the duties of the office (compare to the Protestant construct that - while much more favorable about self determination ad ostensibly better for social mobility - holds wealth and individual success is a mark of God's favor and hardship a mark of disfavor therefore the wealthy and powerful MUST be virtuous and the poor or sickly MUST be sinful).
This video is a great place to begin playing with the butterfly effect in fantasy - taking a post-modernist lens to fantasy settings is very fun!
Envision all these social dynamics in a society where your individual power WASN'T entirely socially derived. It gets weird very fast!
Good video. Useful info when thinking about npcs
Whelp here I am. I made it all the way through your back catalogue, every video. Some great tips and brainstorming in here. I make 3rd party 5e content and your videos have been really thought provoking. Thank you for your hard work!
Good video. Obviously there were details you couldn’t cover in this short format but it’s a good enough introduction to feudalism.
As a medieval history nerd, I very much include feudal politics in the background & if my players ever want a political roleplay focused adventure, I bring it to the forefront
Great overview. As a DM who enjoys going down the rabbit hole of "realistic" geography during world building, your overview ties nicely with that. Never underestimate the value of a parcel of land. It could be a breadbasket for a region. It could contain a gold, silver, copper, tin mine. It could be the only viable location for a harbor within a reasonable travel distance for merchant ships. It could be the only mountain pass big enough for large wagons. As the old saying goes, location, location, location. Geography has always been at the center of disputes. The feudal system was just one means of controlling that geography.
I like the idea of one title conferring royalty onto the recipient. This would only be rewarded in very special cases; such as leading a risky flanking charge that crushes the opponents entire battlefield forces. This motivates leadership among the fighting force to take huge gambles.
I believe that, at least in Britain, the king technically owns all the land. Nobles held land from the king in fee simple, and couldn’t, for instance, sell the land enfeoffed.
Very helpful video. Having a basic structure for the political landscape is always something I wished my games had and this video lays it out very cleanly and in a way that gets my imagination rolling. This is exactly the kind of D&D content I look for.
I've come back to watch this like 6 or more times. Please make more on this subject!
This is a solid piece that introduces the incredible complexity of “rulership” in certain parts of Europe in the high to late Middle Ages. Different realms had different agreements with their vassals about the length of time they could call on their vassals to assist with a military campaign. A person from Toulouse apprehended in Bourbon would likely be returned to Toulouse to be tried under his or her own law. Within elected monarchies like the HRE, anti-Kings rather than pretenders might claim authority if the Emperor was believed to have stepped too far or, especially, if local prince-bishops supported him.
One of the most interesting pieces of information you mentioned that is strikingly almost post-modern is that a king becomes a king and remains a king because people say he’s a king.
I prefer using analogues to the Eastern Roman Empire (the so-called Byzantine Empire) either after the interregnum (1204-1262) or in the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance.
My first idea is around the idea of hostages - the medieval sort, used to ensure peace. The heroes might be needed to make sure a hostage exchange goes well, while certain nobles who want to go to war are looking to assassinate them.
My second idea is around getting cool stuff for legitimacy. The reason behind having nice palaces was to show off wealth and be taken seriously by other nobles and royalty. So, the heroes might be asked to get an artifact as a gift for a visiting king, a center piece for an upcoming ball, or an ancient book showing a noble's connection to ancient royalty.
Ah, the Eldrege knot. I see a man of culture, I upvote.
My D&D setting, the Kronmaran Empire, is pointedly so massive and complex that my players will never meet an actual member of the Royal Dynasty no matter how important they are. At best, they'll meet one of the Emperor's archons (basically ministers), usually they're dealing with local governors and oligarchs and guild bosses. I feel the early modern era fits the "go to strange lands and loot their treasure" themes inherent to the game. Unless they're evil-aligned I usually have a native group approach the party about getting a cultural artifact back, or removing some defilement from a place by it's unthinking conquerors, or hunting pirates.
3:00 Nobles could adopt non nobles too. But it still required the consent of the church and the monarch. And since nobles who died without an heir had their lands return to the crown (they could also chose to testament it to the church) it was fairly rare.
Watching the Tudors series really strikes all the content of this video home. Watching Henry the VIII navigating the court doing political "battle" with the nobles of the land was depicted excellently.
One other aspect of excommunication was that it could free/release a Knight/Nobel from his oaths to said lord, thus allowing new oaths and loyalties to be formed.
An excellent resource! I've subscribed. I do think that one thing that needs to change when adapting feudalism to a fantasy setting, is that deities actually exist in fantasy.
This is the kind of content I want from a dude named Baron de Ropp.
Pretty good video. You touched on it somewhat, but it is worth noting that the line between these three powers was more blurry than most modern governments. The pope was at times also the monarch of the Papal States, while many monarchs had additional lower titles, giving them direct control over a holding as a power base. Some nobles had lands in multiple countries through diplomacy or marriage. Have a blessed day!
Another awesome one! Definitely will be returning to this when I get to some future adventures involving recent succession and bastard sons. I actually wish you talked about how that plays in, i.e. how a bastard would typically inherit or not inherit titles.
I guess I'll have to do my own research sometimes. 😂 Great video, loved the nuances here and thinking about how they might play into a storyline.
I like drawing inspiration from later eras of western feudalism, when the powers of the crown and church were waning and other groups were gaining power, such as merchants, other nobility, and industrialists. You get an interesting dynamic where the crown and the church are fighting over the power they have left, but also fighting against new powers rising, while the commoners are still left relatively powerless. Add in some magic users, other races, and polytheism, and you can get a powder keg waiting to blow.
Excellent video, to many games dumb down the system of nobility but it provides ripe fruit for stories. I like the game Exalted because it has a broad range of political structures
Funny enough there is a popular french comedy series that depicts this perfectly it's called Kaameelott and it's the best thing that has happened to modern cinema in France.
It depends on the region, different countries work differently. In Cwellia, where the PCs home town is, there are three kings with knights and nobles supporting them who divide up the country. The same is true in nearby Eswood, but in nearby Faeahar there is petty king over practically every town. Niederhold is claimed by the prince of Niederdam, but merchant hold most of the power. A trip across the western sea leads to a caliphate. Where feudalism is in place I use the guidelines from the old Companion Set.
So happy to have found your channel. It goes without saying that all of TTRPG is make believe and we can make up any societal system we want. However, I like knowing how accurate I can be and have meaningful and logical ideas and intrigue in my games. Thanks for the video!
The king could also hold land himself being a count or Duke at the same time as being a king. He would then appoint non hereditary viceroys or governors to govern those lands in his stead.
There's also the gentry, not to be confused with the landed gentry, who are nobles with no lands associated with them. Usually by being distantly related to someone who is landed. Landed gentry is an exclusively British thing where members of the gentry are sort of landed but sort of not, I'm not English so I have never really gotten into how it works.
I hope you know I’m studying this like I would a college lecture cause I’m taking notes on this to build my campaign realistically
Comparing the crown to the Warsaw Pact is pretty brilliant.
Very informative I kinda based various kingdoms off of corporate structure a CEO(king) in charge of a business(kingdom) and they would have various executives(nobility) in charge of branch offices(fiefdoms) with their own middle management(knights) over seeing things.
As for the last video's question, the D&D default mode of commoners being allowed to clear and claim land is a big change to feudalism.
7:24 "Creating a law that was wildly unpopular with the sitting executive would result in a veto" - The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobility have entered the chat :)
I loved implementing this into my world. It's a good contrast to the rest of the world. Making a Duchy that has enough weather and resources that a culture like this can afford to exist.
Most of my world is a dark fantasy place. Imagine if the Witcher 3 world, and the world of Dragon Age: Origins had a baby, then that bay shot itself, that's my world.
So a Duchy of toussaint looking place is refreshing. I knew little about feudalism, and this video helped tremendously.
Something I've narrowed down to is that the law of the land set by the Royalty is that while taxes are a thing, money can NEVER be given in place of trained troops in times of crisis - doing so threatens keeping your Nobility.
This makes armsmen particularly valuable, so much so that going after goblin tribes in the forest is too costly - in come adventurers and the permittance of otherwise toiling folk to take up arms and make a name for themselves.
As an Episcopalian who plays D&D, I approve this message
HAHAH amazing
Thanks for clarifying 'county'! Question: why isn't there a Dukey or a Margravey?
There are duchies/dukedoms and marks/marches respectively :)
@@toucann8 but Dukey sounds more fun 🙃
I like Margravey
@@toucann8 - Try to provide people with some real information, and you see what happens.
@@fleetcenturion Seriously? Cube was actually accurate, look it up. Duchies were ruled by dukes, and Marches were ruled by Margraves. That was a real thing back then.
This is probably the most in-depth explanation of Western feudalism I've heard (not sure how similar the Eastern variety is). I find modern politics abhorrent, but politics in history and fiction fascinate me. I'd be interested to learn the finer details of court politics in the Islamic caliphates of the Middle Ages. How did those courts work? They didn't have a pope, but they did have a caliph. But the caliph didn't operate quite like a pope. And the intrigue of the old Chinese dynastic courts interest me as well.
Great video, Baron! (bows politely)
Hey Baron Dumfbuck - it has nothing g in common with Starship Troopers.
This is my favorite comment to date
@@DungeonMasterpiece I have a violent reaction to people who talk about Starship Troopers without knowing anything about it. Citizenship is through service - of which military is only one small part. Today the military has about two million uniformed people. Let’s add in associated workers so say 5 million people. State local and federal government has 21 million people. Any future society will have socialized medicine available for the masses (even if the rich have their private medicine). Currently the medical field employees 22 million people. Citizenship through service means you only get to vote if you do something that benefits society - not just enriches yourself. It’s Socialism that allows Capitalism to exist but not to control society.
@@john-lenin considering nobility was only awarded to people who sacrificed in service to the kingdom, and these nobles were expected to provide welfare for their hold, lest they be in contempt of the church, I think there is far more similarity than difference, but I'd you find that to be a catch in your craw, I guess you are welcome to call me a dumfbuck
you should use that Intro with the old British or whatever music, and get one of those old frilly shirts and a white wig.
Excellent sum up! More of this please!
I love history-as-insporation. Let me know if there is a specific topic that interests you
How have you made time to record this video on your wedding day??
Thank you for increasing the engagement metric used by the collaborative filter's algorithm.
Very informative, was never realy sure how 'ranks' within nobility worked. Also sorry to hear about your family losing its property to the reds.
Thumbs up for use of the term "tomfoolery." The rest of the video was pretty good too...
As an aside on Middle Ages excommunication, it wasn't just communion and attending church you were barred from. The Church handled you quite literally from birth to grave, beginning with baptism, continuing with marriage, and ending in burial. If you were excommunicated, you couldn't do any of those things, and a handful of other things as well. It was a big deal, especially when there were superstitions attached to those very things such as faeries replacing your baby or the dead rising to stalk the living in the night due to an improper burial.
Which just happen to be mechanics and plot hooks in D&D. Bear in mind, the Church would hold entire nations hostage with excommunication if the nobility or monarchs did something they didn't like. Meaning that not just the offending leaders were being punished, but the entire nation, which could easily lead to a rebellion that would depose the problematic ruler, which was the real carrot and stick. "Keep paying us and we'll keep your people happy; make us mad and we'll get you deposed and/or killed."
This is exactly why Henry the 8th breaking away from the Catholic Church and starting the Church of England was such a power play. Basically it was his way of telling his people (and the Church by proxy) that they didn't *need* the Roman Church if they had their own local church. And honestly, the only real difference between the Roman and English Churches were who was in charge, the Pope vs the King (or Queen).
Again, this could be a whole hook, plot line, campaign, what have you for a clever DM. Hell, George RR Martin wrote a fanfic about the War of the Roses and look how well that did!
Of note: "Margrave" is from the German "Markgraf," which translates as "March Count." Marches were the border counties of a country. Margraves were not always more powerful than regular Grafs (Counts), but the fact that they were holding the marches gave them more prestige of title, even if their border county was smaller/less productive than a regular county.
Margraves also, at least in theory, leaned more into the martial role than typical counts, especially during times of strife or international trouble.
- Most noble families gained their titles very early in a country’s history or later in the renaissance & early modern period when the merchant class became important enough to buy or gain such titles ie the Cromwell family became lesser nobles off Thomas Cromwell’s European trade connections allowing him to be an effective finance minister for Henry VIII
- titles of nobility gained by freemen through warfare or diplomatic or financial service were usually very low and sometimes were just a non hereditary knighthood, right to have a coat of arms, and exemption from taxation. Sometimes they didn’t even get an estate and there were cases of not passing on their coat of arms and title to their kids. Usually, at least in England, you needed to continue to serve the king in an exemplary fashion in order to be upgraded to a hereditary nobleman who not only is exempt from tax but can collect it.
- those late medieval merchant nobles often did not gain land and peasants with their titles, but rather already owned manor houses with free (ie non serf) tenants paying them rent, the financial difference came in the form of exemption from taxation (the most important part of being noble), potentially a royal stipend, and a duty to support the king in war. Sometimes, if you didn’t have a lot of land, this didn’t mean raising peasant levies but making or buying weapons, or recruiting burghers (non-servile city dwellers)
And don't forget that royalty could appoint a known skilled warrior or war leader to be the new Count of Overtheria, and give him the task of arresting the "pretender" to that office who actually is in charge of it. This is a means of getting somebody to fight a small war or put down a rebellion or defeat an uppity rival on your behalf without having to actually spend any of your own money or troops. The newly-minted noble owes fealty to you because without your authority proclaiming him nobility, he has no right to do what he's doing. But with the King's say-so, what he's doing is totally legal and the other nobles will have to at least pretend to be okay with it. Or become openly in revolt against the King.
My current game has a backdrop where the duke of a neighboring kingdom has married his son into the family of a neighboring county. The marquis dies in battle against an army of kobolds and now the duke's son is claiming the title of marquis due to there being no male heir, however under his nation's succession laws he can claim it through the daughter of the former marquis. Under the succession law of the host kingdom, female lines are invalid and therefore the former marquis' brother has a claim. The baron the PCs have been working under this whole time is backing the lord from the neighboring kingdom due to trade deals and marrying into the family. The PCs are also named knight's errant of the realm of the original kingdom with an oath not to raise arms against it. Also there is a dragon awakening in the mountain range seperating the regions (hence the army of kobolds).
Based on this video alone, have a sub! You put a lot of good content into 12 minutes!
Because I'm aware of how a few non European cultural hierarchies worked. I prefer to use them over the classic medieval setting.
Like yes, it's often like European monarchies. Where the person in charge is often only there, because of consent of noble families. But you often had situations where the influence of holy people, wasn't a separate entity like a church, but a blood relative. Often with even more of a claim on the throne, because of their spiritual connection.
Plus two witches who started an multi generational feud, because one was jealous of the other's magic powers. Is just great.
I went with the sword in the stone.
In my setting humanity travelled to another world started a war which they lost with a few getting sanctuary in one of the kingdoms there.
Having to rebuild due to losing much of their technology their hosts began leaving until only a few elves remained.
One of these made a deal in return for the first human king of Rothenel had to look after some orphans of various different races.
He eventually messed up losing the ability to draw the sword the actual proof of his right to rule, but the humans overlooked that.
Eventually there was a civil war, which ended with no clear successor.
So they returned to the sword, which nobody could draw until a minor noble married to an elf arrived at court and naturally was able to draw the sword.
Of course the nobles insisted he divorce his wife and marry more suitable in so doing losing the ability to draw the sword but the nobles didn’t give a damn about that!
Loving this series of short concise articles! Just can't discern what style of tie knot that is....
Eldridge
Sorry to hear that the De Ropp family lost 1/4 of Lithuania to the soviets, great medieval architecture over there, I hope I can visit it one day.
Now lets through in monsters and a group of people with incredible power that they can use to defeat these monsters but refuse to claim that these magical abilities come from a divine source.
(High) Barons (those who's Feility is directly to the King), Counts and Dukes can create Knights with or without a Holding, but can not award a Manor, Dukes and above can create Baronets who are Knights with Manor Holdings, this is done in the name of the King. A King if he has a large Kingdom (or multiple Kingdoms) may appoint selected Nobles to be "Over Lords" of lesser nobles. A Count or Masque may be the Overlord of a collection of Baronets and even (lessor) barons, a Duke over Viscounts and Counts and an Arch Duke over any nobles of Duke or lower.
perhaps the King has many kingdoms or likes to go on Crusade and can be away for Years or may never visit the Kingdom in his lifetime, the Dukes could all be jockeying for the appointment to Archduke and their fore the role of Vice-Regal (the Man on the ground for an absent Monarch) to prove they have the ability to enforce the Laws, Manage the Lands, Defend the Realm and collect Taxes. to do this they could be recruiting Lesser Nobles or creating new ones and elevating those loyal to them. all kinds of politics and shenanigans could be going on as the Dukes try to find out who will be the top dog. the child of a Yeoman or Bastard or very latter child of some Noble (that's where most adventures come from anyway) could make a name for themselves by Bandit Hunting and Clearing Monsters then tithe the "Kings Portion" of some Rich Dungeon (all Treasure Troves technically belong to the Crown anyway) to the Duke their family already has ties to, in exchange they could be given some portion of a boarder march to establish a Manor on and be given a Baronet title to call their own.
Hey mate, just found your channel. Would you consider making one for medieval fantasy guilds too?
I should!
*** Doubts he's even a real baron ***
de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropp gotta use Google translate tho
I’m not done the video, so maybe you brought this up, but the king was very often aligned WITH peasant rebels because a peasant victory allowed him to reduce the nobility’s autonomy & fine the lords to his own benefit, without expending the troops he could personally raise from the royal domain
I appreciate that you used Margrave instead of Marquis. It's a much cooler name for the title. And an underappreciated and underutilized title.
Margrave is the correct English word. Marquis is french lol
Wait "my house"? that was unexpected.
11:00 The three estates are nobles clergy and burghers though not peasants. Unless you're in Scandinavia where free peasants were the fourth estate.
Good to know I mostly stick to rensonce as while the feel is very differnt to Medaval you get alot of goodies you can mess with with out having to ssay a wizard did it. So I mostly stick to Empire and counties. That said I'm writing a setting for my TTWargame/RPG I am deving and it has an medeval feudal Kingdom so this will be a great refernce thanks!
I don't follow this completely in my game. I do tend to have higher ranking nobles boss around lesser ranking ones, and in my game you can become king in three ways. The first way is to climb the ranks and be next in line for the throne when the king dies. The second is to gain enough influence to proclaim yourself king, sometimes by killing the former king (simply proclaiming yourself without any influence would not make you a king in anyone's eyes). The third way is for a bishop to announce you as king, and this way is seen as more legitimate than the second way. I also like the idea of the highest ranking noble actually holding all of the power, but he can be overthrown by his subjects if he's not careful, and I include Duke and Prince as royal ranks. So that's how closely I follow it, though honestly I haven't played with it enough to know for sure how good it is.
To the question of what to change, my world is very oceanic, made up of massive underwater volcanos. So, landmasses are island continents and archipelagos and whatnot, and is very verdant and abundant with wildlife/monsters.
The change is that now fish is as common as chicken/deer in this world, so the fisherman are gonna be rich. Spice that nobility up with them also being the international news source and closely contracted with the government, and it changes a lot of the dynamic with nobility and the structures.