What did Republics actually do during the timeframe?

[Maksim17]

So, this one is probably for the history buffs.

I can understand what the feudal lords did during the time - jousted, fought wars, tried to get advantageous marriages, had hunting accidents and so on.

But what about the republics in the game, and the patrician families we will play? Is this a wholly abstract concept, or are there historical examples? I looked at Borgias and Medici, but they seem to be in the 14th century onwards, so not sure how representative this is of earlier centuries.

What did they actually do, and how were they structured – were they really "family firms"? Were they primarily merchant captains themselves, or did they hire captains? Did they do things like make investments, issue coinage and sell insurance? Did they really have large standing armies of personal leg-breakers?

At the moment, I have this mental image of a Sopranos-style family more than anything else. Hopefully, this discussion could give some ideas of possible events for patricians to be included.

 

[Faarenough]

Well of course they went to war all the time, from stopping pesky Sarecens to beating up each other for control of trade routes. In Italy of course they also built huge estates to impress not only each, but also others rulers and kings but to also demonstrate their power to other Patrician families and for influence on the Pope. Gardens were a big thing just like it was in the old Roman Empire (in Italy). Of course assassination was also a popular pass time amoungest the families.

Havent read these yet but i'll assume they will help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Pisa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Genoa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lucca

PS Do we get to play as Lucca? I know its not there untill after Matilda carks it (who I normally play as) but still would be a nice challenge.

 

[unmerged(237533)]

The family system is abstracted to an extent of course, but it seems fairly faithful to reality, at least the reality of the Venetian and Genoese republics. They were indeed run by powerful 'family firms'(the dandolo dynasty in Venice springs to mind). They would both both be captains and hire captains, and though coinage would be issued by the republic itself, investments, insurance and money-lending were all day-to-day activities. Personal leg-breakers were also a reality, but populist mobs no less so. I would be most interested in the role of the proletarians as well as the patricians being represented. Though in Venice (and other republics) the democratic nature of these republics would often fade as their wealth increased, the physical ability of a mob to overthrow a doge remained very real. Popularity scores with the patricians and the populace should influence the degree of power and stability a doge enjoys, and should be a dynamic system that replaces crown authority.

 

[Faarenough]

Thats very true and would make things very interesting in terms of gameplay. You could have factions that were focused on bad mouthing the other families or amping up the mobs. Events for mob activities (like burning stuff and generally being mobbie) as well as decsions to help these sorts of things happen or not. For example build a theatre or a new port or even to set up some horse racing (to calm slash entertain the mob). Kind of like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palio_di_Siena but of course this is another city in another century but you get the idea.

 

[TheGreatLeader]

don't forget that they helped sack Constantinople (specifically Venice)!

 

[Alexandre_007]

2 words... Filthy RICH.

 

[Kanin_Usagi]

Venice had a HUGE affect on many of the crusades. If I remember correctly, they gave rides to the crusades in several different crusades, and in the Fourth Crusade they used the Crusaders to sack Zara (a Venetian controlled city which had revolted several years earlier) and then, with a little prodding by a displaced Emperor, attacked Constantinople and conquered it (For the first time in history!) from the Byzantines, creating the Latin Empire.

 

[Portal]

Oh nothing much... just sack Constantinople, which had not fallen for centuries.

 

[Rubidium]

They also launched several Holy Wars against, e.g. Mahdia in North Africa. Genoa in particular played a major role in the First Crusade, resupplying the crusaders and providing troops. This allowed Genoa to establish trading posts and get favorable trading rights in the Crusader States.

And also relevant to the DLC, the sack of Constantinople and of Zadar/Zara before it were in response to the loss of Venetian trading rights/influence over those cities. Venice thus got trading rights in the new Latin Empire, while Genoa tended to back the Byzantines in Nicaea. Thus when the Byzantines retook Constantinople, Genoa got advantages at the expense of the Venetians.

 

[Joel M Bridge]

Grandball alot of mistress really pretty palaces.

 

[Maksim17]

Popularity scores with the patricians and the populace should influence the degree of power and stability a doge enjoys, and should be a dynamic system that replaces crown authority.

I'm wondering whether the prestige\respect system for patricians is intended to represent their popularity with the "mob", so to speak. And the relationship with the other patricians would probably be easiest modeled using the existing "opinion" system, perhaps with a lot of options to make friends\rivals (well, rivals, mostly).

Thats very true and would make things very interesting in terms of gameplay. You could have factions that were focused on bad mouthing the other families or amping up the mobs. Events for mob activities (like burning stuff and generally being mobbie) as well as decsions to help these sorts of things happen or not.

So, a high intrigue member of the family in your court could come up with a plan to lower the prestige of a rival family, or hit them financially? That could be done quite easily with the event system in CK2, I think.

Some other thoughts and questions:

What was the place of women in the family? Reading on Lucrezia Borgia historically, it seems she was not particularly well-positioned, being more of a pawn for her male relatives to use; however, if non-Doge patricians have similiar council slots to feudal lords, could female relatives take the place of steward, spymaster or chancellor for the family, perhaps? Or would this be too much of a Hollywood-isation?

Did republics have civil wars between families, or would petty squabbles be a more accurate description? Something drastic that would completely change the balance of power, and perhaps even destroy a family or two?

 

[OrdepNM]

I hope there is a way you can "sponsor" a crusader once its called by the pope, in exchange for free trading post if its sucessful. The catch being that you only get the reward if you pick the right hor... i mean crusader lord. If he wins the crusade you get a trading post, if not... Well, God is pleased I guess.

That could be an interesting dynamic for the republiican player and also give the crusades a much needed boost.

 

[Voy]

What was the place of women in the family? Reading on Lucrezia Borgia historically, it seems she was not particularly well-positioned, being more of a pawn for her male relatives to use; however, if non-Doge patricians have similiar council slots to feudal lords, could female relatives take the place of steward, spymaster or chancellor for the family, perhaps? Or would this be too much of a Hollywood-isation?

I know people want to think women had a lot to say in the political world (just like those fan boys who wish amazons actually existed), but, in truth, the Republics was all men and men only. Women were little more than cattle to them. Dowagers didn't have the same power in the republics as in the feudal world because of the "senate".

 

[Divi]

I know people want to think women had a lot to say in the political world (just like those fan boys who wish amazons actually existed), but, in truth, the Republics was all men and men only. Women were little more than cattle to them. Dowagers didn't have the same power in the republics as in the feudal world because of the "senate".

Widows and unmarried women had a lot of power, as did heiresses in their own right; not as much as in Navarra but still more than in the norman/frankish influenced regions. It was sufficiently present that the republic of Corsica had women voting in the 1730s. Had a republic happened in Navarra, the rights of women to inherit property based on absolute primogeniture were enshrined repeatedly throughout the period and I doubt this would have changed much.

The Amazons are based on greek perceptions of a number of steppe/iranian/proto-slavic peoples, who did fight alongside women.

That said, no, women didn't generally hold power directly in medieval republics, except through webs of influence. I would say a powerful matriarch could probably head a family in exceptional cases but not hold the dogeship. Then again the Medici didn't need to rule Florence to run the show

 

[Voy]

Widows and unmarried women had a lot of power, as did heiresses in their own right; not as much as in Navarra but still more than in the norman/frankish influenced regions. It was sufficiently present that the republic of Corsica had women voting in the 1730s. Had a republic happened in Navarra, the rights of women to inherit property based on absolute primogeniture were enshrined repeatedly throughout the period and I doubt this would have changed much.

The Amazons are based on greek perceptions of a number of steppe/iranian/proto-slavic peoples, who did fight alongside women.

That said, no, women didn't generally hold power directly in medieval republics, except through webs of influence. I would say a powerful matriarch could probably head a family in exceptional cases but not hold the dogeship. Then again the Medici didn't need to rule Florence to run the show

Keep it within the time frame, please, we don't need the whole history of women rights in this thread... I think.

It's probably a matter of small examples. Just because one woman held a dagger to the balls of some men doesn't mean all women had influence regardless of civil status. The woman was still regarded feeble minded and was often used in the political sense. If a woman held power there was almost always another man to govern that power. But as always there are sure to have been exceptions.

 

[Divi]

Keep it within the time frame, please, we don't need the whole history of women rights in this thread... I think.

It's probably a matter of small examples. Just because one woman held a dagger to the balls of some men doesn't mean all women had influence regardless of civil status. The woman was still regarded feeble minded and was often used in the political sense. If a woman held power there was almost always another man to govern that power. But as always there are sure to have been exceptions.

And I don't see why exceptions shouldn't be possible. As it is the game has too much rigidity towards some things which should be less rigid and not enough in some areas. Also the Navarra thing is wholly within the time period; Navarrese law was also adopted in Bearn in the 13th century (including rights of heiresses to inherit in full and to hold political positions in the assemblies) when the viscount became king of Navarra. Personally I think the basque culture requirement should be removed; holding Navarra should be sufficient. Gaston Phebus was a lot more gascon than basque.

 

[Voy]

And I don't see why exceptions shouldn't be possible. As it is the game has too much rigidity towards some things which should be less rigid and not enough in some areas. Also the Navarra thing is wholly within the time period; Navarrese law was also adopted in Bearn in the 13th century (including rights of heiresses to inherit in full and to hold political positions in the assemblies) when the viscount became king of Navarra. Personally I think the basque culture requirement should be removed; holding Navarra should be sufficient. Gaston Phebus was a lot more gascon than basque.

The game doesn't restricts women from being powerful intriguer which is more fun and probably a good thing. The question was about women's role in the Italian families within the Republics and we can all agree that it was limited to some extent and therefor we can leave this little discussion. I'm sure discussing Navarra's politics is lots of fun, but it's completely irrelevant as it's not a republic which this thread is about.

 

[Vishaing]

In the game's code, the Gender Succession Laws are separate from the other Succession Laws, and that holds true for Muslims, who in game cannot switch away from Agnatic. This isn't hardcoded, there is just a little NOT = { religion_group = muslim } line in the allow = { } section for the other Gender Laws. So it will most likely hold true for our other new always Agnatic group, meaning it will probably be possible to mod it to our heart's content. I know I will, I've had too much fun building Matriarchies to stop now.

 

[Divi]

The game doesn't restricts women from being powerful intriguer which is more fun and probably a good thing. The question was about women's role in the Italian families within the Republics and we can all agree that it was limited to some extent and therefor we can leave this little discussion. I'm sure discussing Navarra's politics is lots of fun, but it's completely irrelevant as it's not a republic which this thread is about.

My rambling about the game doing poorly at exceptions is not just about women. It's just something that occured to me

 

[Voy]

My rambling about the game doing poorly at exceptions is not just about women. It's just something that occured to me

It's very true too, I agree.