Estate landholding

[Johan]

I know people have mentioned the Black Death increasing peasant power by depopulating them, and that being hard to measure; perhaps that's represented by situationally-induced modifiers on the Estates, rather than on the pops directly? Like how in EU4 the Burghers have more influence with large cities and high trade. Say, the Peasant Estate has an influence modifier based on how much spare land or limited food there is (however that's measured), which just sticks a calculation on the end of the process, instead of having to measure the power of each peasant individually. Or you have a similar 'wealth modifier' for the Nobility if you try to run an Absolutist court by handing out tax privileges for immediate gold; I could see that sort of thing being a strategy you might use if nobles or their resources are in demand.

Should relative scarcity of peasants impact their power in general?

 

[HaxMode]

I think it would be too far to include that as a general mechanic. It could lead to plenty of metagaming (Increase peasant influence by massacring your civilian population).

A few events related to the Black Death specifically could be enough.

 

[GrandEurypterid]

Should relative scarcity of peasants impact their power in general?

I think scarcity of pops in relation to their jobs, or equivalent mechanic, would probably make sense for most estates. Even for slaves- off the top of my head, societies with more slaves tended to increase in terribleness (e.g Sparta and colonial Haiti)- although I'm not sure that would be particularly convenient to model in a sensitive manner.

If you have a lot of trade and a small amount of burghers, then that sounds like conditions for a monopoly. If you have a lot of arable land and a small amount of peasants, that sounds like they have more bargaining chips to deal with the nobles. If you have a big army and few nobles, then that sounds like conditions for them to have a lot of bargaining chips to deal with the state. The clergy... I don't really know enough about the clergy, and for all of these I don't really know the search terms to find research papers to back them up. But it does seem sensible, and 'relative to their jobs' makes more sense to me than 'relative to population in general' (and not too mathematically complicated if it's applied to the estates- e.g 'relevant buildings/total buildings' as a modifier). From what I know of Colonial Haiti, the terrible abundance of slaves also meant that small landholders- my guess is that they'd be represented as peasants with a particular free landholding law- had little power and were rather unhappy about it, as an example of 'low abundance' not meaning 'high power' if there aren't the jobs to work.

I think it could also make a lot of sense in regards to presenting reactionism as an easier path to fall into; a lot of Paradox games have that moment where you go 'oh, I suddenly understand why people did that terrible thing'- very useful as a tool for learning from history's mistakes and whatnot, so I think it's worth pondering. One of the problems I have with Vicky 3 is that there's not much motivation to cooperate with the landowners outside of a challenge, and even that challenge is just 'try to avoid engaging with the law system' since you tend to start with a landowner preference anyway. Having a population's power grow as their demand increases (e.g getting more trade and needing more burghers as France), and then taking steps to try and stave off their influence in favour of your happy and powerful estates (e.g something like an 'enforced tax rights on trade' that acts as a buff to Nobility wealth/power and a debuff to Merchants wealth/power and trade income, which gets to be an increasingly worse tradeoff as the usage and viability of trade increases), seems like it'd be both proactive and present the alternate routes to 'liberalise, establish parliament' that states took IRL, while also having the player be more likely to experience the pitfalls that led real states to Revolution.

Basically, having broad local conditions (with supply and demand being a fairly broad and easy one to apply) affecting your estates' power sounds like it'd be an excellent way to encourage players to play their estates off against each other- and to present a risk of said conditions overwhelming your careful balance if things change too much.

 

[MasterPaw]

Should relative scarcity of peasants impact their power in general?

Wouldn't it clash with 1 pop = X power?

Maybe there should be some power efficuency equilibrium, like peasants would give 0.05 power if their amount reached equilibrium, and going above or below would reduce this.

Although I'm worry of how intuitive and balanced that would be in practice


Maybe having events like suggested above, for example after a sudden loss of peasants due to war, epidemic or famine, that gives them power because the individual peasant labour becomes more valuable to the other estates? This could simulate it in a more comprehensive way? It could even ask the player between granting concession giving them power or refusing at economic costs.

 

[theJalden]

Should relative scarcity of peasants impact their power in general?

If you look at the history of serfdom, it holds on into the 19th/early 20th century in most places, except in France and England, where the Black Death is typically given as a reason for its abandonment. The economic theory goes that at fewer number, each individual peasant is more valuable. Though let me offer an alternative reading, after the Black Death nobles wanted more peasant movement to attract other peasants to their manors, thus serf emancipation in some places was driven by the desire of the nobles. Eastern Europe expanded serfdom in this era, Russia had by far the worse treatment of peasants, and they weren't exactly few in number. The spread of the enlightenment is what really removes serfdom, and I'm not sure how that should be modeled in-game.

Of course all this is complex, not everyone was put into such a simple box as burgher or peasant/commoner? Strictly speaking, peasants didn't own land, or owned a very small amount, perhaps enough to live on. Serfs were tied to the land, but freeholders could come and go as they pleased, but both existed side-by-side until serfdom was abolished. Above that rank is the yeoman commoner, who owns enough to support his own household, and the gentry, a wealthy commoner who can live like a noble but has no title. So long as this isn't represented, and I by no means think that it should, some abstraction is required.

But so long as the size of peasant revolts is related to the number of peasants in an area, larger numbers of peasants will have *some* bearing on their power. (maybe a different kind of power than is represented in the estates rights and privileges.) In most places peasant's political opinion didn't matter at all. So how would I model it in game? I would give them no political power, though they retain the privilege system, their power comes from the threat of revolt, they win their rights through revolt. Serfdom, as something desired by the nobles should depend on the relative lack of peasants compared with nobles.

 

[Nerexa]

Shouldn't it go like this:
- peasant pop plummets
- peasant power plummets
- you lose the benefits of (high) peasant estate power
- so you *might* deem it necessary to hand out privileges to them to boost their power to restore those boni (taxes, levies and whatever was mentioned in the estate dev diary)

While this doesn't model the actual reasons why it was done historically, which would be hard to do on a generic basis, without hardcoded events, it has a similar development, reaching a similar conclusion, while being easily done dynamically on a generic basis for all similar cases of population decline.

 

[GenericType]

Shouldn't it go like this:
- peasant pop plummets
- peasant power plummets
- you lose the benefits of (high) peasant estate power
- so you *might* deem it necessary to hand out privileges to them to boost their power to restore those boni (taxes, levies and whatever was mentioned in the estate dev diary)

While this doesn't model the actual reasons why it was done historically, which would be hard to do on a generic basis, without hardcoded events, it has a similar development, reaching a similar conclusion, while being easily done dynamically on a generic basis for all similar cases of population decline.

Or maybe there could be a ratio instead? Say for example, 100 peasants to one noble, 50 to one burgher, then IF the peasant ratio falls, instead of their power increasing, there could be a malus to noble/burgher power to signify a lack of skilled labor? And maybe that should increase migration to the province to signify that the nobles/burghers are looking for more workers? Maybe tie all that to a modifier that says this province has experienced a recent massive population loss due to war, event-based famine, pestilence, etc, so to not "game" self-inflicted famines, etc?

To be honest, can't really wrap my head on an idea to simulate the rise of wages and peasant mobility from the Black Plague.

 

[Nerexa]

Or maybe there could be a ratio instead? Say for example, 100 peasants to one noble, 50 to one burgher, then IF the peasant ratio falls, instead of their power increasing, there could be a malus to noble/burgher power to signify a lack of skilled labor? And maybe that should increase migration to the province to signify that the nobles/burghers are looking for more workers? Maybe tie all that to a modifier that says this province has experienced a recent massive population loss due to war, event-based famine, pestilence, etc, so to not "game" self-inflicted famines, etc?

To be honest, can't really wrap my head on an idea to simulate the rise of wages and peasant mobility from the Black Plague.

A target or optimum population pyramid (based on country type/reforms/size/institution) with increased demands or penalties the further you move away from it, would be easy to implement, I guess.

 

[Johan]

Wouldn't it clash with 1 pop = X power?

There is an enormous amount of things impacting the estate power of a pop. Privileges, Laws, buildings, etc, so another factor impacting it locally is not out of the question.

 

[Metz]

There is an enormous amount of things impacting the estate power of a pop. Privileges, Laws, buildings, etc, so another factor impacting it locally is not out of the question.

Will geography/topography indirectly play a role in influencing estate power, for instance temperate plains allowing more agricultural output which means commoners are more important and useful here than say arid mountains?

 

[Nerexa]

Will geography/topography indirectly play a role in influencing estate power, for instance temperate plains allowing more agricultural output which means commoners are more important and useful here than say arid mountains?

I wouldn't deem them more important, but fertile lands will simply have (the capacity for) more commoners and thus probaly also a different ratio of estates represented locally leading to different influence.
The totality of commoners will have more power this way in plains, but I don't see why the single pop should have more?

 

[Johan]

I wouldn't deem them more important, but fertile lands will simply have (the capacity for) more commoners and thus probaly also a different ratio of estates represented locally leading to different influence.
The totality of commoners will have more power this way in plains, but I don't see why the single pop should have more?

in theory yes.

 

[Beorsferth]

Should relative scarcity of peasants impact their power in general?

In my opinion it definitely should. Peasants as a workforce used to produce the most important good, food, (among many other very important goods) are the basis of any agrarian economy. If they are scarce, you cannot treat them as poorly as a noble and probably have to pay them more / leave them more of their crops, when they demand it simply because you cannot afford to loose many without loosing the basis of your own economy/holdings/power as the upper classes. Lower classes will just be more valuable and have more bargaining power even though their legal power might be unchanged.
If anything them dying should also weaken the power of the nobility as they are the source of their power essentially.
More realistically though scarcity historically lead to looser control and laws for peasants and generally more freedom. At least for a period. And freer peasants with their own land will have more of an own agenda and power.
So in summary scarcity should definitely drive power dynamics and societal changes forward!

 

[theJalden]

I'm really just noodling a few things over with this one. I'd like to make the distinction between commoners without land and those who own land, roughly the leaseholder/freeholder distinction. I propose that the former be represented by the "peasant" class, while the latter by the "burgher" class. They will be referred to as such for the rest of this post.

Even in Britain and the US at the end of the time period, only those with land were able to vote. The times when commoners could wield actual political power was few and far between, such as the peasant republic in Dithmarschen. So, except for the exceptions (could be handled by a special government type). The only real power that peasants should wield should be through revolts.

Forgive my crude marxist analysis here, but the productive power of the peasants was almost entirely extracted by the elites in society, on the manor where they labored. Which is why there should be some notion of how land is distributed, if not in a location, then at least at the province level. Assuming the peasants in a province are split equally along the lines of how noble, clerical, and burgher land is owned, then the number of peasants each estate has working on its land can factor into that estates power, rather than the actual number of pops in that estate.

As for the decline of serfdom in Western Europe, that could be modeled in game by peasant revolts, which were common following the Black Death. And I could see not wanting to kill all the peasants, since they're the ones growing the nation's food.

 

[Kimudena]

New conquered land should go to the crown estate, and maybe some mobilized commoners who served as leavies, or burghers who financed the war/campaign, as an alternative way of payment for them

 

[honkajoki]

New conquered land should go to the crown estate, and maybe some mobilized commoners who served as leavies, or burghers who financed the war/campaign, as an alternative way of payment for them

I thought it historically often went to nobles, either as reward for actions in the war or repayment of debts, perhaps taken to finance the same war.

 

[Nerexa]

I'm really just noodling a few things over with this one. I'd like to make the distinction between commoners without land and those who own land, roughly the leaseholder/freeholder distinction. I propose that the former be represented by the "peasant" class, while the latter by the "burgher" class. They will be referred to as such for the rest of this post.

Even in Britain and the US at the end of the time period, only those with land were able to vote. The times when commoners could wield actual political power was few and far between, such as the peasant republic in Dithmarschen. So, except for the exceptions (could be handled by a special government type). The only real power that peasants should wield should be through revolts.

Forgive my crude marxist analysis here, but the productive power of the peasants was almost entirely extracted by the elites in society, on the manor where they labored. Which is why there should be some notion of how land is distributed, if not in a location, then at least at the province level. Assuming the peasants in a province are split equally along the lines of how noble, clerical, and burgher land is owned, then the number of peasants each estate has working on its land can factor into that estates power, rather than the actual number of pops in that estate.

As for the decline of serfdom in Western Europe, that could be modeled in game by peasant revolts, which were common following the Black Death. And I could see not wanting to kill all the peasants, since they're the ones growing the nation's food.

Not having a political representation or rights, doesn't mean they have no influence.
Its just not direct or legal influence.
Like the church was also often formally separated from secular politics, but heck that didn't stop them from influencing.