Castles

[Laur]

One of the images most often associated with the medielval period is that of a castle. Being used both as a residence and a fortress, the castles pretty much defined life during middle-ages Europe. However, building a castle had different consequences for the monarch and the nobles who built them.

If the king/duke/count built a castle on his domain, it served to strengthen his/her rule over that particular land, protecting it and, usually causing a small fair/town to sprout up next to it, improving thus, the economy of the countryside and helping with the tax flow.

On the other hand, castles built and/or expanded by the vassals of this particular king/duke/count signified a loss of control by the latter over the former, as the vassals could claim more autonomy from behind the walls of their fortress, leading to more descentralization of the overlord's realm.

Sieges were also generally more unpleasant for the besieging party rather than for the ones being under siege, and the lord could ill afford wasting his resources in reducing all the castles of his vassals - hence more castles = more independence to the latter. The ruler should, however, have the option of forcing an unruly vassal to reduce his/her own castles under certain circumstances (part of a ransom after being held hostage, part of recongising their succession or as part of a larger pardon, etc.) without necessarely marching his/her troops against them.

 

[the_legion]

The central question:
How to translate that into actual gameplay.

 

[RedRooster81]

Maybe make it so that you need your liege's permission to expand your fortifications, unless laws already exist to the contrary; greater autonomy represented by smaller scutage and troop levies?

 

[Wilsonrtf]

Maybe make it so that you need your liege's permission to expand your fortifications, unless laws already exist to the contrary; greater autonomy represented by smaller scutage and troop levies?

The use of laws seems good. Anyways, at most feudal realms, the vassals should not have to ask his liege permission to build castles.

 

[RedRooster81]

The use of laws seems good. Anyways, at most feudal realms, the vassals should not have to ask his liege permission to build castles.

I imagine that it should be tied to some big, bad event like a civil war that the Crown has won against the great nobles' pretender: so, until further notice, let's say no count will be allowed to have more than a level two castle, and no duke more than a level three. Building fortifications could be argued in such a situation a privilege that the titled nobility has lost. Just a suggestion. I don't know if it would work as a possible event or decision, but it could be interesting.

 

[Emperor Basil]

The use of laws seems good. Anyways, at most feudal realms, the vassals should not have to ask his liege permission to build castles.

To build a castle you did need the liege's permission. William the Conqueror spent most of his time preconquest going about knocking down his vassals' castles. As stone castles started to become the norm vassals couldn't build them fast enough to get them completed before the liege found out. You could have an event pop-up everytime a vassal wanted to build a castle. He could ask for permission or just go a head and build it. If he went ahead and built it then an event for the liege could appear whereby he could ignore it or demand it be destroyed each with suitable conquences.
For the liege, granting permission could strengthen your vassals' power and loyalty and denying them could make them disloyal and weaker.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

To build a castle you did need the liege's permission. William the Conqueror spent most of his time preconquest going about knocking down his vassals' castles. As stone castles started to become the norm vassals couldn't build them fast enough to get them completed before the liege found out. You could have an event pop-up everytime a vassal wanted to build a castle. He could ask for permission or just go a head and build it. If he went ahead and built it then an event for the liege could appear whereby he could ignore it or demand it be destroyed each with suitable conquences.
For the liege, granting permission could strengthen your vassals' power and loyalty and denying them could make them disloyal and weaker.

English feudalism was very different from the continental feudalism - typical european kings had much less power and authority to interfere with his vassals lands than english kings after William (and see all the trouble english kings got from their barons due to their centralized power). Most of them would not be strong enough to enforce a prohibition of this kind upon his vassals, at least not until the pre-emergence of absolutism.

 

[RedRooster81]

English feudalism was very different from the continental feudalism - typical european kings had much less power and authority to interfere with his vassals lands than english kings after William (and see all the trouble english kings got from their barons due to their centralized power). Most of them would not be strong enough to enforce a prohibition of this kind upon his vassals, at least not until the pre-emergence of absolutism.

It should depend on relative power and centralization. That I agree with entirely. And your direct vassals, maybe just your barons, you should have more control over than the very powerful dukes in France's case.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

It should depend on relative power and centralization. That I agree with entirely. And your direct vassals, maybe just your barons, you should have more control over than the very powerful dukes in France's case.

Your post lead me to an interesting doubt. Considering that there will be "town" baronies, will it be possible to grant them charters?

 

[RedRooster81]

Your post lead me to an interesting doubt. Considering that there will be "town" baronies, will it be possible to grant them charters?

I was thinking about that, too. You will be able to appoint bishops, but what about the mayors of towns? If so, then you could decide to grant charters, letting them appoint their own mayors by election, but give you higher taxes and militia. It might be an interesting dynamic in certain parts of the map, where municipalities were more common and had a lot of rights.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

English feudalism was very different from the continental feudalism - typical european kings had much less power and authority to interfere with his vassals lands than english kings after William (and see all the trouble english kings got from their barons due to their centralized power). Most of them would not be strong enough to enforce a prohibition of this kind upon his vassals, at least not until the pre-emergence of absolutism.

it would be fun to allow ahistorically successful kings on the continent to enforce this kind of law too.

I.e. allow a successful HRE Emperor to force his vassals into a much more obedient role... at the risk of constant rebelliousness of course.

Ideally I would love it if there was a way for feudal kings to become true despots - i.e. throw off the constraints of traditional feudalism, and demand for example that duchies and counties are no longer hereditary any more o Like in the muslim world and Byzantium, where emperors and sultans could (if they were powerful enough) reverse those heriditary tendencies.

After all, when Charlemagne divided his empire into counties, he did NOT intend these to become hereditary.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

it would be fun to allow ahistorically successful kings on the continent to enforce this kind of law too.

I.e. allow a successful HRE Emperor to force his vassals into a much more obedient role... at the risk of constant rebelliousness of course.

Ideally I would love it if there was a way for feudal kings to become true despots - i.e. throw off the constraints of traditional feudalism, and demand for example that duchies and counties are no longer hereditary any more o Like in the muslim world and Byzantium, where emperors and sultans could (if they were powerful enough) reverse those heriditary tendencies.

After all, when Charlemagne divided his empire into counties, he did NOT intend these to become hereditary.

This all would be extremely cool. Even more if a succesfull despotic ruler could be followed by a inept heir who allows the nobles to reassert their feudal privileges.

I also believe that newly created kingdoms should be easier to become and maintain as more centralized monarchies, as, for example, happened to historic Portugal.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

In CK1 you had kingdom laws where the best one to have (for the king) was "Royal Prerogative" or something like that. I don't recall the details but I think it have you the best troops from your lands, the most taxes, the biggest prestige, and also other good stuff.

But it made your vassals angry and even as a powergamer you were hard pressed to hold a large realm together under this law, so at some point you gave into your vassals' constant pestering and granted more lax feudal laws.

Maybe something like this approach will also be in CK2? Where you trade legal powers for manageability of your realm. You could *try* to roll back hereditary feudalism, but only if you're willing to rule like a tyrant.

Would suck though if the AI tried this in a realm where the player is just a duke o Game over if the king decides he'd rather grant your lands to his favorite, than your heir??

 

[King of Men]

It is true that there were laws against building fortifications without the permission of your overlord; but it is also true that such laws were regularly flouted until the development of cannon. The problem was that it was a lot easier to build a castle than to knock one down; a hundred men can put together a basic motte-and-bailey structure in a month, and then it might take a year for the overlord just to get together an army that can actually interdict the place. Observe that English has a specific legal term that refers to castles built without permission; they are called 'adulterine'. The need to have such a term suggests to me that illegal castles were very common.

 

[unmerged(314930)]

All some nice points, although I'd like more inter-castle fueds and title claims being over the smaller piece of a kingdom.
Hopefully some of the new additions will add this, if not, maybe I'll wait for CK3 or 4...

 

[Andrelvis]

Prohibition or allowance of war between vassals could be one of the set of laws?

 

[RedRooster81]

Prohibition or allowance of war between vassals could be one of the set of laws?

That's my understanding, though I can't cite a specific source.