Feudalism, again

[Daniel McSorley]

I've been thinking of a better way to model feudalism, within the rules as
they stand, I'm thinking of using it in the Rjurik and Vos areas (or
goblins), should any of my group ever express interest in those places.
Basically, the smallest workable unit in the rules is the province. So,
the overlord would have several vassals, all at the province level, ie a
bunch of Counts. Each would owe the overlord some GB and RP each turn.
Since I'm looking at this as a model for fairly unadvanced areas, most of
the provinces would be level 4 or lower. Therefore, an expectation of 1 GB
and 2 RP per turn per province would not be unreasonable. As well, each
Count would provide 1 unit of troops: archers, irregulars, infantry, or some
form of cheap cavalry (1 GB maintenance).
Then, the overlord would also collect GB and RP from his capitol
province, and maintain his own units with those funds. He would then owe,
to his Emperor or Tsarevo or whatever, several GB and RP and a few units of
troops.
Now, under the counts, there are several levels of baronets and bannerets
and landed lords, but they aren't significant enough to show up on the map
provided by the rules.
I plan to play up the challenges by having a lot of petty squables
betweent he various counts, that the overlord has to take care of, plus
external threats, demands from his lord, stuff like that.
So, have I missed anything important?

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Oyvind Gronnesby]

At 09:07 24.08.98 -0400, you wrote:
>I've been thinking of a better way to model feudalism, within the rules as
>they stand, I'm thinking of using it in the Rjurik and Vos areas (or
>goblins), should any of my group ever express interest in those places.
> Basically, the smallest workable unit in the rules is the province. So,
>the overlord would have several vassals, all at the province level, ie a
>bunch of Counts. Each would owe the overlord some GB and RP each turn.
>Since I'm looking at this as a model for fairly unadvanced areas, most of
>the provinces would be level 4 or lower. Therefore, an expectation of 1 GB
>and 2 RP per turn per province would not be unreasonable. As well, each
>Count would provide 1 unit of troops: archers, irregulars, infantry, or some
>form of cheap cavalry (1 GB maintenance).
> Then, the overlord would also collect GB and RP from his capitol
>province, and maintain his own units with those funds. He would then owe,
>to his Emperor or Tsarevo or whatever, several GB and RP and a few units of
>troops.
> Now, under the counts, there are several levels of baronets and bannerets
>and landed lords, but they aren't significant enough to show up on the map
>provided by the rules.
> I plan to play up the challenges by having a lot of petty squables
>betweent he various counts, that the overlord has to take care of, plus
>external threats, demands from his lord, stuff like that.
> So, have I missed anything important?
>
>Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

I thnk you should include that the army cannot be gathered for more than 40
days at a time (especially levies). The reason given for this was that the
harvest should not suffer because of the war (mainly an excuse from nobles
not to risk their men in a battle they usually wasn't interested in).

Otherwise it looks okay.
But I wonder, were you thinking then of treating each province leader as a
blooded regent with their own law holdings within their own provinces?


Oyvind Gronnesby

[Trizt]

At 09:07 24.08.98 -0400, Daniel McSorley (mcsorley.1@osu.edu) wrote:

- ->> I've been thinking of a better way to model feudalism, within the rules
as
- ->> they stand, I'm thinking of using it in the Rjurik and Vos areas (or
- ->> goblins), should any of my group ever express interest in those places.
- ->> Basically, the smallest workable unit in the rules is the province.
So,
- ->> the overlord would have several vassals, all at the province level, ie a
- ->> bunch of Counts. Each would owe the overlord some GB and RP each turn.
- ->> Since I'm looking at this as a model for fairly unadvanced areas, most
of
- ->> the provinces would be level 4 or lower. Therefore, an expectation of 1
GB
- ->> and 2 RP per turn per province would not be unreasonable. As well, each
- ->> Count would provide 1 unit of troops: archers, irregulars, infantry, or
some
- ->> form of cheap cavalry (1 GB maintenance).
Yes, that sound quite good.

- ->> Now, under the counts, there are several levels of baronets and
bannerets
- ->> and landed lords, but they aren't significant enough to show up on the
map
- ->> provided by the rules.
- ->> I plan to play up the challenges by having a lot of petty squables
- ->> betweent he various counts, that the overlord has to take care of, plus
- ->> external threats, demands from his lord, stuff like that.
Yuppz, that sound good, but I have a small thing to suggest, if you use this
for Rjurik or Vos, then choose North-Germanic or Slavic words for the
titles.

You may have to choose how long a jarl can keep his unit assembled, there
are a few different alternatives from europe.

We have the Anglo-saxic (spl?) of 30 days/year and if the troops leaves the
home county then the solder can choose if he will follow the army or not.

The Salvic way has more or less been to the death or victory.

The nordic type has been more of loyalty, the lords hasn't been able to get
an army if the population hasn't supported the lord in question.


Troops which are paied for has loyalty for money and follows completly other
rules.



//Trizt of Ward^RITE

--------------------
E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL1: http://home.bip.net/trizt/
ICQ# : 13696780 URL2: http://www.ukko.dyn.ml.org/~trizt/
Nick : Trizt IRC: lib.hel.fi Channel:
#Opers
MUD: callandor.imaginary.com 5317
--------------------
OS : AmigaOS 3.1 / openBSD 2.3 CPU: PPC603e/160Mhz & MC68040/25Mhz
--------------------