James Ruhland
10-31-1997, 04:42 AM
>
> This is true, but hasn't it been shown that even in real life, the
> businessmen (be it legitimate or otherwise) tend to make more money than
> the tax collection or religious dontion?
>
The real modern world, or the real midieval one? In either case, you're
wrong (not even Bill Gates rakes in 1.2+ trillion dollars a year).
Admitedly, their are large companies that on a per person basis make buku
scratch; but even they can't rival governments. See, the diference is they
have to find suckers..er, customers, willing to buy their junk...er,
software, while governments can just compell you to fork over the cash. In
most midieval-level societies, less than 20% of the pop (and usually closer
to 10%) was urbanized; most folks were rural, and they pretty much "made
do" with whatever they could make themselves (except for the local smithy).
They made their own garments (usually one or two a year), pots, fixed and
built their own houses, etc. I.E. not much trade (which is the main reason
why their are few TRs for low pop. provinces, and no sea trade--it assumes
their is no urban center in the province capable of sustaining trade).
Meanwhile, thouse same pesants pay roughly 50% taxes to their lord (mostly
in-kind taxes, not cash, but we should also asume that the lord pays his
troops in part through feeding them, builds roads with corvee labour, etc.)
Sure, in the late middle ages several areas developed powerful merchantile
families (guilders), mostly in heavily urbanized areas. And lords often
became indebted to them. But thouse rulers (regents) tax revenues still
outpaced the merchants (problem was the lords spent more than they got even
so, and went into debt 'cause the merchantile houses were a source of ready
cash, since they, for the most part, were not supporting huge armies.)
Theoritecially, you shouldn't be
> able to get rich by taxing your subjects..the income gained here is
> supposed to be sufficient to upkeep the kingdom...to make more money than
> this, it really should be necessary to branch out.
>
most of the great monuments of the ancient and midieval world (Great Wall
of China, Parthenon, Taj Mahal, Haiga Sophia*, etc.) were built with tax
funds...so you theoretically can get rich from taxing your populace...at
least in real life. And if you think funds can't come from religious
donations, just look at the oldest buildings in Europe and the Middle East;
lots of *big* cathedrals and *beautiful* Mosques top the chart. Only in a
few areas (Venice, Florence, a few cities in Belgium & Holland) do stuff
built by merchants top the list.
*Just in Constantinople alone I can come up with a huge list of stuff built
with tax revenues, not trade rev.: Hagia Sophia, the Augustium, the
Hippodrome, the Great Palace, the Walls of Theodosios, Baths of Xuzippus
[spelling that one wrong], Haigia Irene, several big forums, Palace of
Blachernae...I could continue, but you'd be board.
> Then they have to go to their guilder
> regents and beg, borrow or steal the money they need. But this is hardly
> unrealistic: medieval rulers were forever borrowing money in order to
fund
> their battles. King Richard the Lionheart borrowed heavily from the
Jewish
> moneylenders of England to go fight in the crusades, and then had to
> borrow even more in order to pay his own ransom when he was captured by
an
> enemy on the way home.
This is a good point (in fact all the crusader lords had to do much the
same). But this was an unusual expendature. The dudes needed more cash than
their realms could give for this special expedition--but that doesn't mean
that they collected less income than the merchants. The diference? Rulers
have to maintain a lot of things (armies, castles, palaces, etc), while
merchants don't have the same expenses, so they save up a lot. The current
Birthright system takes this to extreams, though; not only do merchants
have lower expenses, but they collect more income (in many, if not most,
cases *a LOT* more income). It is the latter that isn't realistic. I don't
mind makind lords have to pass the hat for extra-ordinary expenses (like
major military undertakings), but the current system makes it hard for 'em
to do anything, while the merchants become as wealthy as Crassus.
> Well, I'm obviously in the minority here, so after this I'll shut up on
> the subject.
Being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong, especially regarding your
own campaign.
> In fact, most of the instances of killing that happen are evil...
In real life, I agree with you. In a game, like AD&D, it depends on the
kind of campaign you and your players prefer, I guess. Lots of folks, when
they play, they like to kill a lot of dudes; but they don't nessisarily
want to play evil characters. So the campaign centers on more or less
heroic types, who happen to run into a lot of monsters, evil sorcerors,
vile priests, etc, who can't be reasoned with and so regretably must go
down, and must go down hard. But I appreciate your long explaination, and I
found much of interest in it. Remember: just because you're in the minority
it doesn't mean you should shut up. And just because you're in the
minority, that doesn't mean you're wrong (disagreeing with me, however, is
a different matter....8-)
> This is true, but hasn't it been shown that even in real life, the
> businessmen (be it legitimate or otherwise) tend to make more money than
> the tax collection or religious dontion?
>
The real modern world, or the real midieval one? In either case, you're
wrong (not even Bill Gates rakes in 1.2+ trillion dollars a year).
Admitedly, their are large companies that on a per person basis make buku
scratch; but even they can't rival governments. See, the diference is they
have to find suckers..er, customers, willing to buy their junk...er,
software, while governments can just compell you to fork over the cash. In
most midieval-level societies, less than 20% of the pop (and usually closer
to 10%) was urbanized; most folks were rural, and they pretty much "made
do" with whatever they could make themselves (except for the local smithy).
They made their own garments (usually one or two a year), pots, fixed and
built their own houses, etc. I.E. not much trade (which is the main reason
why their are few TRs for low pop. provinces, and no sea trade--it assumes
their is no urban center in the province capable of sustaining trade).
Meanwhile, thouse same pesants pay roughly 50% taxes to their lord (mostly
in-kind taxes, not cash, but we should also asume that the lord pays his
troops in part through feeding them, builds roads with corvee labour, etc.)
Sure, in the late middle ages several areas developed powerful merchantile
families (guilders), mostly in heavily urbanized areas. And lords often
became indebted to them. But thouse rulers (regents) tax revenues still
outpaced the merchants (problem was the lords spent more than they got even
so, and went into debt 'cause the merchantile houses were a source of ready
cash, since they, for the most part, were not supporting huge armies.)
Theoritecially, you shouldn't be
> able to get rich by taxing your subjects..the income gained here is
> supposed to be sufficient to upkeep the kingdom...to make more money than
> this, it really should be necessary to branch out.
>
most of the great monuments of the ancient and midieval world (Great Wall
of China, Parthenon, Taj Mahal, Haiga Sophia*, etc.) were built with tax
funds...so you theoretically can get rich from taxing your populace...at
least in real life. And if you think funds can't come from religious
donations, just look at the oldest buildings in Europe and the Middle East;
lots of *big* cathedrals and *beautiful* Mosques top the chart. Only in a
few areas (Venice, Florence, a few cities in Belgium & Holland) do stuff
built by merchants top the list.
*Just in Constantinople alone I can come up with a huge list of stuff built
with tax revenues, not trade rev.: Hagia Sophia, the Augustium, the
Hippodrome, the Great Palace, the Walls of Theodosios, Baths of Xuzippus
[spelling that one wrong], Haigia Irene, several big forums, Palace of
Blachernae...I could continue, but you'd be board.
> Then they have to go to their guilder
> regents and beg, borrow or steal the money they need. But this is hardly
> unrealistic: medieval rulers were forever borrowing money in order to
fund
> their battles. King Richard the Lionheart borrowed heavily from the
Jewish
> moneylenders of England to go fight in the crusades, and then had to
> borrow even more in order to pay his own ransom when he was captured by
an
> enemy on the way home.
This is a good point (in fact all the crusader lords had to do much the
same). But this was an unusual expendature. The dudes needed more cash than
their realms could give for this special expedition--but that doesn't mean
that they collected less income than the merchants. The diference? Rulers
have to maintain a lot of things (armies, castles, palaces, etc), while
merchants don't have the same expenses, so they save up a lot. The current
Birthright system takes this to extreams, though; not only do merchants
have lower expenses, but they collect more income (in many, if not most,
cases *a LOT* more income). It is the latter that isn't realistic. I don't
mind makind lords have to pass the hat for extra-ordinary expenses (like
major military undertakings), but the current system makes it hard for 'em
to do anything, while the merchants become as wealthy as Crassus.
> Well, I'm obviously in the minority here, so after this I'll shut up on
> the subject.
Being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong, especially regarding your
own campaign.
> In fact, most of the instances of killing that happen are evil...
In real life, I agree with you. In a game, like AD&D, it depends on the
kind of campaign you and your players prefer, I guess. Lots of folks, when
they play, they like to kill a lot of dudes; but they don't nessisarily
want to play evil characters. So the campaign centers on more or less
heroic types, who happen to run into a lot of monsters, evil sorcerors,
vile priests, etc, who can't be reasoned with and so regretably must go
down, and must go down hard. But I appreciate your long explaination, and I
found much of interest in it. Remember: just because you're in the minority
it doesn't mean you should shut up. And just because you're in the
minority, that doesn't mean you're wrong (disagreeing with me, however, is
a different matter....8-)