Pages, Squires, and the division of knights

[Metz]

To add more flavor to the game and more of a hands on approach in the development of characters from an early age, perhaps the game can include the concept of the page and the squire. A boy could become a page at the age of 7 and he would learn court basics such as literature, music, and manners. At the age of 14, he would become a squire and would learn a bit of warfare, management, and martial life. By 21, he had the option of being knighted. There are three types of knights basically. Knight of an order (usually the Crusading orders or any other order if one is created by the lord of the realm), knight bachelor (a knight that is loyal to his lord but is not inducted into any specific order), and knight errant (a knight who goes his own way similar to a Viking adventurer after receiving the title).

 

[Roudrac]

I like the idea. I thought of something similar that when cultures have discovered Knighthood, all young noble men being educated with the martial focus would be page and then squire of the knight that educates them (ie. their guardian). Once reaching adulthood they would remain squires when serving as a champion for their lord, leaving them the opportunity to be knighted only after fighting in a successful battle.

 

[TheFeudalBavarian]

I like the page, squire, knight concept. But it should only used for children with military trait. If this suggestion would only be for this part, I would vote it up.

But I don't like the classification in three types for the CK3. I don't think it will help the game. First of all, knight bachelor is just a modern title, and has nothing to do with the medieval knight. Knighthood was handled different in different cultures and countries and the medieval knight that we think of didn't really appear before the high middle ages which was the golden age of the medieval knight. The concept of how knights are used in the game are nice (and I like it), but in order to me "realistic" we need to increase the number of knight in many cases to a few hundred to a few thousand. Just to take England as an example: England had about 45000 manors during the middle ages of which around 10000 were given to knights. From those 10000 knights maybe half were in fighting age and had to serve their king military service for 40 days per year. So, we can assume that in battles the English King had at least a couple thousand or more knights in his army.

 

[Metz]

I like the page, squire, knight concept. But it should only used for children with military trait. If this suggestion would only be for this part, I would vote it up.

But I don't like the classification in three types for the CK3. I don't think it will help the game. First of all, knight bachelor is just a modern title, and has nothing to do with the medieval knight. Knighthood was handled different in different cultures and countries and the medieval knight that we think of didn't really appear before the high middle ages which was the golden age of the medieval knight. The concept of how knights are used in the game are nice (and I like it), but in order to me "realistic" we need to increase the number of knight in many cases to a few hundred to a few thousand. Just to take England as an example: England had about 45000 manors during the middle ages of which around 10000 were given to knights. From those 10000 knights maybe half were in fighting age and had to serve their king military service for 40 days per year. So, we can assume that in battles the English King had at least a couple thousand or more knights in his army.

The in game knight could be renamed to Paladin to represent those knights who were the most influential to the lord.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I see two main issues with that idea, and one small issue.
1/ Those are very western european centric concepts. What about the rest of the world? We know education models from other places, does that mean that they should all be added to the game?
2/ The game isn't really focused on knights and knighthood in general. We are mostly playing as the stratum above knights. Our kids wouldn't be educated to become knights, but rulers.
3/ The knight culture you're talking about is mostly that: a cultural ideal, found in literature and politico-religious concepts of the time. The king had to be a "good knight", meaning prowess in battle, mercy to the enemies, respect for the ladies, humility, chastity, etc. It wasn't actually a educational reality. It's a bit like when we learn what being a good citizen means: taking care of others, not infringing the law, voting in elections, being active in humanitarian actions, paying our taxes and so on. That's not actually what drives the way we live our lives, it's more like an example. Actual citizens are motivated mostly by "living a good life" with their families, even they aren't the best citizens imaginable, and they will likely not have that well ordered life where at 18 they go on a humanitarian mission in Bangladesh. Same thing for real knights: knighthood was mostly a hereditary status, and as long as they could fight, they were knights. Some of them couldn't write, others weren't exactly examples of chastity. Knights errand weren't really a thing either.