Prima Noctae rights????

[unmerged(11620)]

(besides, peasants at this time were hardy folk. A noble trying to do that would find himself slaughtered in little time. Heck, in our local records we have stories of groups of soldiers being squashed by villagers for far pettier reasons, such as insulting one of the locals)

Well, you can always choose not to grant it.

And since the nobles are asking for it, I dont see how it is unhistorical to give it to them if you are so inclined (though I'd assume the peasants wont like it too much).

This is still a fundamental misunderstanding of feudal politics. Even assuming that the aristocracy believed such a custom existed once and could be resurrected, no one would have done it. The main reason a sovereigns power was limited, as regards his vassals, was that his lords probably had customary rights that were respected by both his subject and the Church. If an idiot noble decided to enact such a custom he would find himself losing the support of his people and the Church. No sane lord would do that because it would give the king and excellent opportunity to expand his power, if you know what I mean. Certainly no noble would request such a right from his king.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Getting laid would help too. Then you wouldn't be upset about nobles of Pressburg getting more.

Seriously though, I bothers me to see this all the time. It was a fad in the Renaissance to consider every thing from 5th century to the 15th to be totally barbaric, and it's still one of the longest lasting, and unjustifiable, fads ever.

 

[Raczynski]

Isn`t that thing a random events you can edit out? That would solve your problems

 

[hjarg]

This is still a fundamental misunderstanding of feudal politics. Even assuming that the aristocracy believed such a custom existed once and could be resurrected, no one would have done it. The main reason a sovereigns power was limited, as regards his vassals, was that his lords probably had customary rights that were respected by both his subject and the Church. If an idiot noble decided to enact such a custom he would find himself losing the support of his people and the Church. No sane lord would do that because it would give the king and excellent opportunity to expand his power, if you know what I mean. Certainly no noble would request such a right from his king.

To hell with Church, to hell with king, to hell with even his subjects. But noone seem to think how the situation would look in real life. The real reason why something like that wouldn't never ever happen.

Let's have a look at the random castle. After a nice family dinner, a noble stands up, straightens his fur coat and tells his lovely wife:
"Ok, Maria. I heard that John and Mary down in the village are getting married, and let me tell you, Mary is a babe. So don't wait for me, dear, i'm using my first night right and i'm gonna shag her all night long. See you in the morning"

After that, let us guess what Lady Maria has to say about it:
a) "Sure, honey, shag your heart out. I'll keep the bed worm and bake you some cookies in the morning. You must be tired"
b) "Screw all the village girls you want, you're not getting any from me anymore. I might even join the monastery... hope you have a good time getting your heir then"

That's the main reason why i have always thought the story didn't make much sense.

 

[Martinus]

Actually if this was a reason, lords would have not hordes of bastards in their castle, most of those bastards *not* being older than their oldest legitimate offspring.

 

[Slargos]

That's the main reason why i have always thought the story didn't make much sense.

Uhn... do you honestly believe the women had much say in the matter? That the husband would go "Oh drats." and accept that she would not put out?

 

[The Witch-King]

Leper King, please calm down...

I understand your frustration as a professional historian about myths and such, especially given the very common and misleading popular view of the middle ages as the "dark ages".

However, any serious historian knows that the wealthier classes have to a large extent always used and abused the less fortunate throughout human history, and certainly also during the middle ages. We need not call that time exceptionally barbaric just because we accept the fact that barbaric customs existed, just as they did before and after, and even now. And there are accounts and clues from most ages and places of this and similar kinds of abuse going on, whether or not supported by law.

The extent of actual legislation for "Prima Noctae" in medieval Europe may well be exaggerated in popular accounts, as you say, but to suggest that such practices did not exist in many places is equal to painting people as the saints they most certainly were not.

It is certainly an error to condemn and paint medieval society all in black. But it is an equally grave error to unduly idealize it.

 

[The Witch-King]

I think priests would also be distressed by Prima Noctae.

Hehe, that all depends on what kind of priests you have, doesn't it?

 

[Belissarius]

There is historical precedence, and it's not confined to the middle ages. I am even sure you can see it today in some places, though it will most often not be inscribed in official law.

You just don't want to think that the world can be that bad, do you?

Well thats pretty sweeping so since there is historical president can you provide us with this historical evidence?

 

[Belissarius]

/snip
(I wish I hadn't given up alcohol for lent, I could really use some.)

This is why I'm so glad I'm not a papist and I dont even drink, being straight edge.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

but to suggest that such practices did not exist in many places is equal to painting people as the saints they most certainly were not.

Pointing out that the Jus Prima Noctis is bs isn't the same thing as saying the nobles of the time were all saints. I don't deny that the aristocracy could be cruel. But remember it was still a Christian society, and as such there were certain things that you couldn't do. Any lord just out to have a good time would have a hard time justifying his actions legally since even if such a custom ever existed it would have been a pagan law. And remember "Feudal Custom" is what we are talking about. It's assumed that this custom is part of the structure of feudal society. But Feudal customs and rights were tied to regions, what may be the right of a lord in one duchy might not be his right in a neighboring county, so the fact that it is often portrayed as a universal right is the first clue to its fraudulence. In any case, the idea that a lord would have the right over the body of his vassals wife is absurd in the highest degree. Lords didn't even have the right to throw lowly surfs off their land.

It is certainly an error to condemn and paint medieval society all in black. But it is an equally grave error to unduly idealize it.

This has nothing to do with idealizing. Yes the Middle Ages were'nt all “peaches'n cream, ” never the less, that truth should not be used as an excuse to ignore the popular acceptance of myth in place of historical reality.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

This is why I'm so glad I'm not a papist and I dont even drink, being straight edge.

"Drink, for the Lord has made it, and it is good."

 

[unmerged(9895)]

So that's why everyone hates Braveheart...

great movie if you like action and heroism, but the retelling of the tale is so holywood fabricated you can almost call it prapaganda

 

[Damocles]

Is something this petty that will have virtually zero meaningful effect or potential for abuse really worth complaining about?

/hypocrite.

 

[Edgar Francis I]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but looking at this thread along with several others, it might be a good idea for a moderator to combine this into a larger "I'm Smarter Than Paradox" thread.

That way everyone can complain about every single detail of the game none of us has actually played yet, focusing especially on why <Idea X> on which I/We are particular expert(s) is/is not included in the game and what a travesty the whole thing is because of its inclusion/exclusion.

I mean, what were those people at Paradox (conjecturally) thinking?

The gall. The unmitigated gall.


EF1

~hey, my Satire Hat still fits.

 

[hjarg]

Uhn... do you honestly believe the women had much say in the matter? That the husband would go "Oh drats." and accept that she would not put out?

Never underestimate the power of a woman, i'd say.

 

[Martinus]

Pointing out that the Jus Prima Noctis is bs isn't the same thing as saying the nobles of the time were all saints. I don't deny that the aristocracy could be cruel. But remember it was still a Christian society, and as such there were certain things that you couldn't do. Any lord just out to have a good time would have a hard time justifying his actions legally since even if such a custom ever existed it would have been a pagan law. And remember "Feudal Custom" is what we are talking about. It's assumed that this custom is part of the structure of feudal society. But Feudal customs and rights were tied to regions, what may be the right of a lord in one duchy might not be his right in a neighboring county, so the fact that it is often portrayed as a universal right is the first clue to its fraudulence. In any case, the idea that a lord would have the right over the body of his vassals wife is absurd in the highest degree. Lords didn't even have the right to throw lowly surfs off their land.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here (as I believe the whole issue is blown out of proportions and if you know previous Paradox games you should know how their events function) but the event happened not in Italy, France or even Germany here, but in Hungary, which accepted christianity relatively lately and (like Poland of the time) had many barbaric customs in place, which probably would have been frowned upon in the West. For example, I distinctly remember Ius Primae Noctis being mentioned in the context of Polish nobility and peasantry, and while it could have been another of those myths you speak of, it could have been right as well. Polish Kings, like Boleslaw the Brave, repudiated their wives without divorce and annulment, and took new ones in the 11th century, without rising any brow either among their nobles or their church (in fact when another Boleslaw, the Bold, which is the King in 1066, had an archbishop drawn and quartered for treason, it was his magnate partners-in-crime that rised a rebellion, while the Pope didn't bother with as much as an excommunication). When, in 14th century, another King (then Prince) Kazimierz was visiting his siter, Queen of Hungary, and raped a daughter of some local magnate, it was the magnate and his whole family that met death (due to drawing a sword in the presence of the King) and no punishment fell on the Polish Prince.

All I am saying that Christianity and its customs were not-so-fully-implemented in the Eastern-European countries for many years, and we are talking about a Hungarian AAR here.

 

[Martinus]

Never underestimate the power of a woman, i'd say.

Still, the fact that it was normal for a lord to have many bastards and the wife was not supposed to complain kinda invalidates the argument that she would complain about him using his Ius Primae Noctis right.

Marriages in middle ages were arranges and very rarely involved love. It was actually expected (if perhaps not encouraged) of the lord to seek more carnal pleasures out of the marriage bond, while the marriage itself served only for the propagating of his line. And, to what Slargos was I believe implying, it was I think only the 19th or even 20th century that came up with a concept of rape within marriage.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

The gall. The unmitigated gall.

And if an event popped up claiming "A Local Council of Bishops has declared Women to be soulless!... effect: Hail Mary, our piety increases!"

Or "It's May M'Lord, don't you think it's time to take a bath? action: 'Don't talk to me of thine heathen baths!... effect: popularity decreases!"

Or how abut this good old one "Nobles, riding through the fields, have trampled this years harvest M'Lord!... effect: peasants happiness declines."

None of these would have any real effect on gameplay, and all of them are just as historically valuable as an event for the “Ius Prima Noctis.” Does that mean you wouldn't care if they were in?

 

[Martinus]

And if an event popped up claiming "A Local Council of Bishops has declared Women to be soulless!... effect: Hail Mary, our piety increases!"

Or "It's May M'Lord, don't you think it's time to take a bath? action: 'Don't talk to me of thine heathen baths!... effect: popularity decreases!"

Or how abut this good old one "Nobles, riding through the fields, have trampled this years harvest M'Lord!... effect: peasants happiness declines."

None of these would have any real effect on gameplay, and all of them are just as historically valuable as an event for the “Ius Prima Noctis.” Does that mean you wouldn't care if they were in?

I see nothing wrong with either of these events.

Seriously, do you really believe there was not a single case of nobles trampling fields or something? This is becoming more and more ridiculous with each post of yours. I would recommend taking a step back, a deep breath and perhaps drinking a bit (despite this being lent or whatever) as you are making a laughinstock out of yourself.