Petition to remove some restrictions on baronies and barony vassals

[Farfour]

Petition to remove the restrictions on baronies and barony vassals so rulers can rule from baronies;

Historical examples;
1. Byzantines

Spoiler

Constantinople and the immediate vicinity was governed by an Urban Prefect (AKA Eparch). They were regarded as the supreme judicial authority in the capital, and various rules for various guilds fell under his authority. They were also responsible for appointing teachers to the University of Constantinople and distributing the grain dole throughout the city. The Kletorologion states his two chief aides were the logothetes tou praitoriou and the symonos, in addition to the others like;

• the heads and Kritai judges of Constantinople's districts
• Parathalassites responsible for the port (plus tolls and Epoptai inspectors)
• the Exarchoi guild-masters
• the Boullotai who checked the seal of the eparch on weights, scales, and merchandise

Besides their role in the Constantinople's economy by regulating and supervising all guilds, corporations, and public institutions, they were the sole bureaucrat responsible for Constantinople's administration.

They controlled the city's police (with the city jail in the basement of their praetorium), and though the Night Prefect controlled the night watch, the praitor of the demoi was entrusted w/30 firemen and 20 others for policing and firefighting, and the quaesitor was tasked with limiting uncontrolled province->city migration, supervising public mores, and persecuting and heretics.

The Constantinopolitan Prefect was also part of the highest senatorial class (illustres), so prestigious they could not be a eunuch, and presided over the Senate so his nomination had to be ratified by the Senate as well (one of the last vestiges of the Republic, it seems).

(Fun Fact: They also wore togas.) Thaaaaat's bureaucracy!

2. Anglo-Saxons

Spoiler

The Anglo-Saxon semi-feudal hierarchy went like this; King, Ealdorman or High-reeve, King's Thegns, Lower Thegns, Ceorls, servile peasants, and slaves.

Ealdormen were granted individual shires to govern as a local representative of the King's authority (with royal consent, an appointment). They had their own reeves alongside shire-reeves (sheriffs, then Imperia) to aid them in enforcing the King's laws. Ealdormen would additionally lead the fyrd of their shire in battle, preside over courts, levy taxation, and (in the south after English Unification) attend the King's court and witness his charters.

The problem is, King's didn't have an Ealdormanry to rule for themselves (there was no royal domain as in France, nor a stem duchy they'd hold on to after election as in the early HRE). All of England's counties (including Hampshire) would have an Ealdorman in them, and the official seat of power would be Wintanceaster (a fortified city/burh which served as an administrative/minting center), though the King's court was mobile and sometimes frequently moved.

So therefore I think allowing baronies owned by lieges and not tied to vassalage of the count, and moreover removing the restrictions all together when it's within a realm (allowing internal border gore, but not always external) would be a great idea.

The current system is far too focused on medieval France and the "royal domain" of French Kings when in reality outside of France this was not a widespread form of governing.

EDIT: I'm not really understanding why people think all of Medieval Europe was just Medieval France, the two examples aren't outliers, the outlier would be France.
When William conquered England, for example, ALL land in England was part of his "royal demesne" (or Crown land) by allodial right.

 

[pengoyo]

The first one sounds to me like it's about adding flavour events and honorary titles to Constantinople, not about how baronies themselves work (but I'll admit I don't really understand what you want changed).

For the second one, my understanding of ealdorman is that they were what eventually became refered to as earls. If that is indeed the case, then they can already be represented in CK3 as earls is considered a county level title (at least in CK2). So this doesn't require any changes to how baronies work, just having ealdorman as a cultural tile for counts if you're Anglo-Saxon.

 

[kurthakon]

Yeah, I think you need to clarify some of what you mean here @Farfour.

1) Barons already exists as you probably know, and none of them are playable. It's not known exactly how Constantinople will be treated, beyond the fact that it's county will be very small. I don't think they have said anything yet on if there are any other barony holdings in the county besides Constantinople.

2) The Ealdorman would indeed eventually transition into Earl as their territories grew larger, but the Ealdorman was still in use as a title, but no longer for land holders. By 1066, the Ealdorman title should’ve already transitioned and grown into the title of Earl. Due to the size of the earldoms in 1066, Ealdorman and Earls should probably not ever co-exist as titles for land holders.

Theoretically, if Ealdorman were barons beholden directly to the Anglo-Saxon kings, what would be the Anglo-Saxon equivalent for counts or dukes? Keep in mind that the titles need to represent both start dates, unless Paradox introduces some title dynamism.

 

[Farfour]

Yeah, I think you need to clarify some of what you mean here @Farfour.

1) Barons already exists as you probably know, and none of them are playable. It's not known exactly how Constantinople will be treated, beyond the fact that it's county will be very small. I don't think they have said anything yet on if there are any other barony holdings in the county besides Constantinople.

2) The Ealdorman would indeed eventually transition into Earl as their territories grew larger, but the Ealdorman was still in use as a title, but no longer for land holders. By 1066, the Ealdorman title should’ve already transitioned and grown into the title of Earl. Due to the size of the earldoms in 1066, Ealdorman and Earls should probably not ever co-exist as titles for land holders.

Theoretically, if Ealdorman were barons beholden directly to the Anglo-Saxon kings, what would be the Anglo-Saxon equivalent for counts or dukes? Keep in mind that the titles need to represent both start dates, unless Paradox introduces some title dynamism.

The examples provided didn't have their sovereign rulers possess lower titles of similar rank to their vassals, is essentially the point I'm getting at.

Having the Great Palace and Palace of Blachernae as the only directly held Imperial possessions in the Byzantine Empire makes more sense than the Emperor holding c_constantinople, which was historically under the role of an Eparch (an office inherited from earlier Roman times) elected by the Senate and also presided over it ex officio. That would also essentially equate the title with that of a tourmarches (if the themata hierarchy is accurately implemented) in addition to not allowing the Eparchate to even exist.

Having Winchester as the only directly held holding for West Saxon/later Anglo-Saxon kings makes more sense than them holding the entirety of Hampshire, as there were Ealdormen (a title equivalent to count, not baron) for every shire (equivalent to county) in the realm. Even more accurate would representing mobile courts, but that's something for another thread.

This "royal domain (existing only in France) must consist of counties" catch-all isn't particularly representative of the fact that this often wasn't the case for many (ie. most) countries at the time, since fiefdoms or administrative divisions would often include the capital in them.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

The issue is that you can't realistically have such a fundamental difference for one or two cultures on the map.

Since they've made the decision to take baronies off of the map, kings have to hold *at a minimum* a county to have a landed presence. At this stage this is not a design decision that it would be practical to reverse.

 

[Farfour]

The issue is that you can't realistically have such a fundamental difference for one or two cultures on the map.

The way the French "demesne" works is more unique of France than other sovereign rulers holding just their seat of power.

Since they've made the decision to take baronies off of the map, kings have to hold *at a minimum* a county to have a landed presence. At this stage this is not a design decision that it would be practical to reverse.

Unfortunate, for it means applying a royal domain to everyone again, but true.