Should the AI be, uh, *slightly* less likely to appoint sons as knights considering how likely they are to die?

[Torredebelem]

I acknowledge the AI issue, and have done so in the past in this thread, but I have to note that this is a separate issue from the one you raised before, and I answered, where you claimed that battles were too dangerous for knights.

Reducing the already low risks of wounds and death for knights in the combat mechanics because the AI is bad at handling them is addressing the wrong issue.

As for the many female rulers further into the game, these are the root causes as I see them - can you think of any I have overlooked?

• The high number of battles a knight/champion will fight during his lifetime due to wars being frequent even compared to the already bloody medieval history
• AI not prioritizing keeping heirs alive if low on male heirs (if male only or male-dominated primary title inheritance - I presume the same issue with reverse gender if female only or female-dominated laws)
• Women being limited to 5 children (and that only for the higher ranks)
• AI possibly being too sparing of divorcing an infertile or old spouse to take another spouse in case of running out of heirs
• There aren't enough knights/champions around who aren't counts or above, or their sons, while historically most knights and champions weren't from the very top ranks of society; It is ridiculous that we have counts (and higher!) in-game reduced to using low prowess sons because of not having mediocre prowess courtiers available. (In principle the game has a solution to this with "invite knights", but counts are only rarely able to spend both the 150 prestige to get 3 knight candidates and the gold to recruit them)

I agree entirely with you but continue to add a point that knights, due to the low threshold of prowess they have to be considered such, are killed at a very high rate during battles. This is an AI issue, too.
As for the rest and commenting on the first point you mention, certainly the huge aggressiveness counties display is neither good for the health of the knights, nor for the health of the character's finances that could be invested in the country instead of being spent on wars every 3 or 4 years.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

Furthermore, there's outright immunity to death so long as your side outnumbers the other 5:1, so you are not going to see your knights dying in battles where you are mopping up over small enemy stacks.

That is good. It gives me lots of prisoners to ransom, torture or sacrifice when the AI suicides its trash levy to proper soldiers and gets stack wiped.

 

[Secret Master]

Which is why the Gallant tree is so important for early warfare as a minor power, since you have few troops and your knights make up a major part of both your offensive and defensive strength.

I just want to add that the first dynasty perk for warfare adds +2 prowess and 15% effectiveness as well. Most players may not be in the early game when they get this perk, but if you are, it's another way to turn knights into Terminators.

All taken together, I don't really see the need for the game to focus on capturing knights in combat.

This is one of those situations where a small fact about a historical period gets generalized into some kind of universal rule for 500 years.

Yes, taking prisoners and ransoming them was a thing. And yes, in parts of map covered by the period of the game, there were rules and such about ransoms, taking prisoners, and so on.

But in 90% of cases it was still warfare. Plenty of people who would count as characters in CK3 were killed in combat. Happened all the time. So, while taking prisoners and ransoming them was a thing, the middle ages wasn't like the Thief video game series or various pirate sims where aristocrats were wandering around battlefields using non-lethal methods of fighting to try and bag as many prisoners as possible.

I was sitting here thinking about various battles from Anglo-Saxon England, and I keep seeing a laundry list in my head of important people who died in those battles. Including skilled warriors. And yes, I blame the Vikings for 80% of it, and the Normans for the rest.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

[/QUOTE]

I was sitting here thinking about various battles from Anglo-Saxon England, and I keep seeing a laundry list in my head of important people who died in those battles. Including skilled warriors. And yes, I blame the Vikings for 80% of it, and the Normans for the rest.

Though fictional and based only very, very, loosely on history fact, I recommend the Saga of the Jomsvikings for the splendid description of the battle of Hjörungavágr (traditionally dated 986, but nobody knows), with detail paid to all the champions killed blow by blow, and the memorable execution scene of the seventy jomsvikings who survived the battle to be taken prisoner. The saga is of no use whatsoever as a historical text, but it is a good read and it shows what writers 2 centuries later believed to be how vikings behaved based on the oral tradition and written sources available to them in the 12th century.

Of course the fatalistic approach to death is common to the sagas; Reading them one gets the idea that while killing skilled enemies whose exploits are known is ideal to make your own name, being killed by them yourself is a decent second best.

 

[Secret Master]

Of course the fatalistic approach to death is common to the sagas;

You see it in Anglo-Saxon writing as well, although with a slightly different flavor.

It's one of the things I like about the culture and period in literature, and it's rarely presented as simple or stupid.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

You see it in Anglo-Saxon writing as well, although with a slightly different flavor.

It's one of the things I like about the culture and period in literature, and it's rarely presented as simple or stupid.

You've probably read it, but for those who haven't here is the memorable execution scene with its happy ending from the saga of the Jomsvikings. After losing most of the Jomsvikings in battle, including most of their chiefs and champions, only seventy were left wounded and so exhausted they were unable to fight any longer. They were then taken prisoner by Earl Håkon and his son Earl Eirikr.

The seventy of them were taken ashore and the earl had them all tied to one rope. Their ships were all beached and their goods distributed. Afterwards the earl’s men unpacked their provisions and ate, bragging and boasting all the while. When they had finished eating they went over to the prisoners. Thorkell Leira was appointed to act as the Jomsvikings’ executioner. Three gravely wounded men were freed from the rope, and thralls were appointed to guard them and twist sticks in their hair. Thorkell Leira now proceeded to cut off their heads. He said afterwards: ‘Do you think I have changed colour on account of this deed, for many say that this happens if a man beheads three men?’ Earl Eirikr said: ‘We didn’t see you change colour at that, but yet you don’t look the same at all.’

Then a fourth man was taken from the rope and a stick was twisted in his hair. He was very badly wounded. Thorkell said: ‘What do you think about dying?’ ‘I am well content to die: I shall suffer the same fate as my father.’ Thorkell asked what that was. He said: ‘Strike; he died.’ Then Thorkell cut off his head.

Then the fifth one was brought forward and Thorkell asked him what he thought about dying. He said: ‘Poorly would I remember the laws of the Jomsvikings if I shrank from death or spoke words of fear. Death comes to every man.’ Thorkell cut off his head. They thought then to pose the same question to each one of them before he was killed to see whether these men were as brave as they were reputed to be. They thought it a sufficient proof if none of them spoke words of fear.

A sixth man was led forward and a stick was twisted in his hair. Thorkell put the same question to him. He said he thought it was best to die with a good reputation, ‘but you, Thorkell, shall live with shame.’ Thorkell cut off his head.

Then the seventh one was led forward and Thorkell asked him as usual. ‘I’m very content to die. But deal me out a speedy blow. I have here a dagger. We Jomsvikings have often discussed whether a man knew anything after he had lost his head if it was cut off speedily. Let us make the following arrangement that I shall hold the dagger up if I know anything, otherwise it will fall down.’ Thorkell struck him and his head flew off, but the dagger fell down.

Then the eighth man was brought up and Thorkell put the usual question to him. He said he was content to die. When he thought the blow was almost on him he said ‘Ram’. Thorkell checked his hand and asked him why he said that. He said: ‘Yet you would not have too many for those ewes you Norwegians called upon yesterday whenever you got hit.’ ‘Wretched fellow,’ said Thorkell and let the blow crash down on him.

Then the ninth man was released and Thorkell asked him as usual. He said: ‘I am well content to die as are all our comrades. But I will not let myself be slaughtered like a sheep: I would rather face the blow. Strike straight at my face and watch carefully if I pale at all, as we have often spoken about that.’ He was allowed to face the blow and Thorkell approached him from the front and hewed into his face. He did not pale, but his eyes closed as death overtook him.

Then the tenth man was led forward and Thorkell put his question. He replied: ‘I would like you to wait while I relieve myself.’ ‘You have permission to do that,’ said Thorkell. When he had finished, he said: ‘Much turns out otherwise than one expects. I had thought to sleep with Thora Skagadottir, the earl’s wife’—and he shook his member and then pulled up his trousers. Earl Håkon said: ‘Cut off his head without delay for he has long had wicked intentions.’ Thorkell cut off his head.

Then a young man was led forward whose long hair was as golden as silk. Thorkell posed his usual question. He said: ‘I have had the best part of my life; and I am not interested in living longer than those who have just fallen. Yet I don’t want to be led by thralls to my death, but rather by a warrior who is of no less account than you are; and it won’t be difficult to find someone. Let him hold the hair away from the head and pull the head sharply so that the hair does not become blood-stained.’ A hirdman came forward, took hold of the hair and twisted it round his hands. Thorkell made a blow with a sword. At that very moment he pulled his head away sharply so that the blow fell on the man who was holding the hair and cut off both his arms at the elbows. The other sprang up and said: ‘Whose hands are in my hair?’ Earl Hakon said: ‘Things are turning out very badly and kill him and all those who are left without delay, as these men are much too difficult for us to handle.’ Earl Eirikr said: ‘We want to know first who they are. And what is your name, young man?’ He said: ‘I am known as Sveinn.’ The earl asked: ‘Who is your father?’ He said: ‘I am reputed to be Bui’s son.’ The earl asked: ‘How old are you?’ He replied: ‘If I survive this year then I shall be eighteen.’ Earl Eirikr said: “You shall survive it’—and made him a member of his own following. Earl Hakon said then: ‘I don’t know whether we should let him go free who has done us so much shame; but yet you shall decide. Carry on beheading the men.’

Then another Jomsviking was released from the rope, but it twisted round his foot so that he could not move. He was big, young and very nimble. Thorkell asked him what he thought about dying. ‘It won’t worry me,’ he said, ‘provided I first fulfill the other part of my vow.’ Earl Eirikr asked: ‘What is your name?’ ‘I am called Vagn,’ he said. The earl asked who was his father. He said that he was Aki Palnatokeson’s son. The earl said: ‘What was the vow you made the fulfillment of which would enable you to die contentedly?’ ‘It was this,’ he said, ‘that if I came to Norway, I should lie with Ingibjerg, the daughter of Thorkell Leira, without the consent of her relatives and that I should kill Thorkell himself.’ ‘I shall prevent that,’ said Thorkell. He rushed at him and swung his sword at him with both hands. But Bjorn the Welshman pushed Vagn with his foot so that he fell over. The blow went over Vagn causing Porkell to stumble. He lost his grip on the sword which cut the rope and set Vagn free. Vagn sprang up, seized the sword and slew Thorkell Leira. Then Vagn said: ‘Now I have accomplished half of my vow and I’m that much more satisfied.’ Then Earl Hakon said: ‘Don’t let him go free, but kill him immediately.’ Earl Eirikr said: “He’s not going to be killed any more than I am.’ Earl Hakon said: “It’s no good my trying to interfere if you want to have the last word.’ Earl Eirikr said: ‘Vagn is a great acquisition, and I think it would be a good exchange if he were to fill Thorkell Leira’s place.’ Earl Eirikr let Vagn join his own following. Then Vagn said: ‘Only if all my companions are spared would I think it better to live rather than to die. Otherwise we will all endure the same fate.’ Earl Eirikr said: ‘I’m going to have a word with them first and I’m not ill disposed to doing that.’

Then Earl Eirikr went to Bjorn the Welshman and asked for his name. He told him. The earl said: ‘Are you that Bjorn who made such a brave return for the man in King Sveinn’s hall? Or what reason have you, an old man with white hair, for attacking us? The truth of the matter is that all are against us. Will you receive your life from me?’ Bjorn said: ‘I will, if Vagn, my fosterson, and all those who are left are spared.’ ‘I shall see that this is done if I can.’ Earl Eirikr asked his father to give the remaining Jomsvikings quarter. Earl Hakon told him to do as he wished. The Jomsvikings were then released and assurances were given on either side.

After that Earl Eirikr gave Vagn permission to go east to the Vik and Earl Eirikr said that he should marry Ingibjerg as he wished. Vagn went to Vik and bedded Ingibjerg the night he arrived. He stayed the winter there. When spring came he went south to Denmark to his estates in Fyn and held sway there long afterwards. Many famous men are descended from him and Ingibjerg, who was esteemed a great lady.

(The saga continues another page or so telling the future of the other living named men.)

 

[Secret Master]

‘Much turns out otherwise than one expects. I had thought to sleep with Thora Skagadottir, the earl’s wife’—and he shook his member and then pulled up his trousers.

It's been awhile, and I forgot about that little gem.

 

[klinkvon13]

It was definitely not universal. Ransoming was quite particular to late medieval Europe, and occasionally practiced by Islamic cultures as well. Most other cultures did not capture and hold nobility for ransom. And that is quite logical. As valuable as ransom money is, the death of an enemy is often even more valuable. If you ransom someone they can come back to bother you again. If you kill them then that is an obstacle permanently removed. For this reason, even cultures that did ransom sometimes chose to kill someone rather than ransom them.

Do you have some links or else to support that assertion?

Regarding the ransoming and low death of nobles it is well documented.
The battle of Azincourt is a good example, since France lost a significant amount of 6000 knights in this battle, which was exceptional (order given by Henry V to kill prisoners but lords, order first refused by archers explicitely because they expect ransoms), while the English lost only 13 knights. It has drastic effect similar to the begin of world war I for the Russian (loss of many experienced leaders that would doom the white army against the reds afterwards).

But the opposite, I dont know of. Maybe you are right, but the "quite logical" is not really a proof of anything. It is not like the well documented general practice was illogical. And it sounds more like a personal pick on the topic than a historical fact.
Same goes for practicals problems. Yeah ok, not so easy. And?



"A percentage of 30% of noblemen dying due to war-related causes is not unrealistic at all and is supported by academic studies. See here for example: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour.../BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader"

It is very interesting article. But it is deduction-based ("We can expect that a large proportion, especially of the men, died in battle. But can we know if an individual in the data dies from violence in this way?" - so, not based on such data; comparing death dates by known date of battles is interesting but needs a pinch of salt).

As said, it is very interesting. However, statements like "he long-run decline in violence is cited as one of the principal correlates of the emergence of the modern World with the “civilizing process” needing the transformation of warrior nobles into gentleman courtiers" suggests that medieval history might not be the main field of the author.
And still, battle death are deducted from potential violent death. Lot of deduction, in an era in which violent death can easily be just being hit by a horse.

Once again, very fine article that open up interesting perspective. But not material to ignore other sources. The author is not making so bold statement; for instance he states "The cause of the 1400 rise in adult noble lifespan is unknown".

Not to mention that the reasons proposed by the author to explain this drop from 30% to 5% are completely unrelated to "practical" or "logical" concerns proposed here: "the decline of cavalry meant that nobility became officers, inherently a more administrative role than before. In war, nobility still led, but from the safety of the rear guard, not the front lines". So the decline is not the result of change of mind of the potential ransoner, just the fact it was even harder to capture someone hidden in the rear.

The European Middle Ages have a reputation as being a violent time and that reputation doesn't exist for nothing.

The middle age is massively misrepresented. The notion that is a violent time is bullcrap in the sense that neither ancient and modern time were peaceful. And any statement supposed to describe 1000 years of history is bound to be proven wrong.