Treating your vassals

[Norgesvenn]

Right!

How should vassals be treated? And what options do you have for treating your vassals?

I'd think you could bribe them, frighten them... but can you lose vassalage?

I'd think I'd prefer keeping my vassals fairly happy. Intermarrying with them, trying to get my hands on their lands.

Can you raise the status of a vassal? Say, if you have the Baron of Nowhere... could you make him into the Duke of Rightoverthere?

So many questions...

 

[Barkdreg]

I'll answer that:
yes (I hope)

 

[Norgesvenn]

Can't really see you treating those vassals nicely, Barkers...

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Right!

How should vassals be treated? And what options do you have for treating your vassals?

I'd think you could bribe them, frighten them... but can you lose vassalage?

I'd think I'd prefer keeping my vassals fairly happy. Intermarrying with them, trying to get my hands on their lands.

Can you raise the status of a vassal? Say, if you have the Baron of Nowhere... could you make him into the Duke of Rightoverthere?

So many questions...

"Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with." ~ Machiavelli


But also:
"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women." ~ Machiavelli

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Can't really see you treating those vassals nicely, Barkers...

they are not vassels cuz they are the head guy around depending on how many you got and how much you honestly need them i so go all out and treat em like garbage
however should the need arise that requires their assistence you would find yourself in a bad way without them

 

[Barkdreg]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Can't really see you treating those vassals nicely, Barkers...

You just made my to-kill list!

 

[Norgesvenn]

Originally posted by Barkdreg
You just made my to-kill list!

Right, tactical nukes at noon Saturday, then?

 

[Winkelried]

Re: Re: Treating your vassals

Originally posted by Havard
"Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with." ~ Machiavelli


But also:
"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women." ~ Machiavelli

Guess I'll dust off "the prince" before CK hits the shelf and read it completely. Now that's the book you want to consult to be a successful king. With Paradox you know that the manual will s... anyway. Maybe "the art of war" would make for a good additional strategy guide to CK.

 

[Drakken]

No, the Prince is the book to learn to be a long-lasting prince. Only the virtù of the prince and the competent use of circumstences make him a good one.

Drakken

 

[NobillyT]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn


I'd think I'd prefer keeping my vassals fairly happy.

Bake them some cookies!

 

[Norgesvenn]

The most interesting thing I think is what options you are given when it comes to treating the vassals.

1) Threaten
2) Bribe
3) Ignore
4) Badmouth

Such things.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
The most interesting thing I think is what options you are given when it comes to treating the vassals.

1) Threaten
2) Bribe
3) Ignore
4) Badmouth

Such things.

5) take away their lands and give them to someone else?

 

[Norgesvenn]

Something like that. But fromwhat I gather, number five will be difficult, as formally it's the vassal's land?

 

[Lethke]

Isn't it the lord's land and the vassal just get's to take care of it?
Sure if your vasals become too powerfull you would have a problem doing it, but it should be possible to take a man's titles and land.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Hence the Great Reduction in Swedish history, when a king did something the nobles did not like...

Speaking of Swedish stuff, Sweden is (and has long been) divided into 'län'. Supposedly the term comes from the word 'förläna', which is roughly 'bestow' or 'lend to, from above'. Dunno if I'm all wrong or just a little wrong now, but that suggests to me that the nobles got their lands in exchange for something (usually loyal service). That in turn suggests that whenever the deal is no longer good in the king's eyes, he had the right to terminate it. Of course, by that time the lands had usually passed to the grandchildren of the nobles, and they didn't see matters in quite the same way ("they had inherited their lands from their fathers!"), but that's another story...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Something like that. But fromwhat I gather, number five will be difficult, as formally it's the vassal's land?

Technically it is the kings land and he portions it out to the nobility in return for protection and military service. In actuality you are closer to the truth once we get to CK time.

EDIT: gotta type faster and get interrupted by the boss less often.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Stupid bosses.

I'm very curious as to how they plan to model the king (you) - vassal relationship. Given that there are certain RPG elements in here as well, I suppose "dread" etc will be of importance.

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Onslaught
Hence the Great Reduction in Swedish history, when a king did something the nobles did not like...

Speaking of Swedish stuff, Sweden is (and has long been) divided into 'län'. Supposedly the term comes from the word 'förläna', which is roughly 'bestow' or 'lend to, from above'. Dunno if I'm all wrong or just a little wrong now, but that suggests to me that the nobles got their lands in exchange for something (usually loyal service). That in turn suggests that whenever the deal is no longer good in the king's eyes, he had the right to terminate it. Of course, by that time the lands had usually passed to the grandchildren of the nobles, and they didn't see matters in quite the same way ("they had inherited their lands from their fathers!"), but that's another story...

I think in the beginning of the game Landskap is probably a more accurate division. I have no idea about how the power was distributed in them though.

 

[unmerged(5588)]

Originally posted by Aetius
I think in the beginning of the game Landskap is probably a more accurate division. I have no idea about how the power was distributed in them though.

I think "län" would be more accurate as they define a political unit of control through a vassal. In Norway it's called "len", and a "lensherre" (länsherre), had a similar function to a baron in France and England. The word is a direct translation of similar units of land in the rest of Europe (like feudum, fief and such).

Regarding inheritance of lands: Feudalism originated with the Franks, and were originally not automatically inheritable. It became custom that the king would accept a heir of the vassal, and eventually a right. Persons were on the whole more important than offices: Each time a vassal died, the successor had to swear an oath of fealty to the king (a personal act), and when a king died, all the vassals would give a new oath to their new liege. In many cases, the new king would have to have these oaths before he was rightfully king, and this led to election in places like the HRE, where the vassals had a lot of influence.

It is important to remember that feudalism is a very distinct way of government, with a lot of rituals, expectations and relationships that are very different from earlier and later forms of rule.

 

[Greyshaft]

I always found Vassals a two-edged sword in EU.

* They couldn't be forgotten in case they threw off their vassalship through the influence of another power.

* They could get involved in wars and drag you into a conflict you didn't want.

* They still had enough of an independant existance to take up much of my mindshare in keeping them happy.

I know CK will explore the vassal relationship more thoroughly than EU. My question is whether the player will find himself so bogged down in keeping his vassals in line that he is unable to be a real "Crusader King".