Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    >
    > 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-)

  2. #2
    David Sean Brown
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    > 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).

    Sure, but lets compare expenditure..do you think Gates would keep his
    business floating if he accrued over 1+ billion in debt each year? NOt
    likely.


    > 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.

    Sure, but at the same time the populace suffered to make these buildings.
    In BR terms, tax the heck out of you subjects, lower your diplomacy to
    next to nothing, and demand high payments from you vassels..you too can be
    rich..not very popular, but rich.

  3. #3
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    Have to say I'm on the side of rich guilders and poor law regents. See my
    previous post on MONEY, which no one seems to be able to counter. To
    summarize: it's a play balance issue, guilders have money, law regents have
    force, it's up to the players to roleplay/fight out a balance. This post also
    notes the trade route rules should be revamped to require a friendly guild on
    either end (which was always implied by the rules)- this should satisfy those
    who think T routes are too easy to make and generate too much money.

    To the "taxes make up more income and produce great monuments" folks. True.
    I think the BR income systems reflects this pretty well. In most realms I've
    overseen as a DM, (Halskapa, Muden, Danigau, Kozlovnyy, Grabentod, Grevesmuhl,
    Ust Atka/Raven, Meresaf and others) the taxes take in more than the guilds. (keep in mindmy trade route rules interpretation seems to be different than others)
    Now, as someone already stated, they also have greater expenses which makes
    their net income less than that of the guilder. This is as it should be.
    BR is a early Ren. setting (in most areas). Guilds should be coming into thier own.
    Law regents should be cronically short of money. Bombards should be in use ---ooops,
    that's another issue.

    In the Middle Ages, most "capital" was produced by the land- in the form of food. The
    whole reason for the fuedal system was to support(feed) the armored knight and his horse.Thus, most of the income generated by the land went to sustaining the populace, not
    armies or monuments. All kingdoms had this same "baseline" to support. What made the
    relative difference between a rich or poor kingdom was a special industry,resource or
    trade route.

    Most of the monuments of Constaninople were built over a span of 4 centuries while they
    were "still Roman" with a classical (slave based) economy.
    Likewise the Great cathedrals of Europe were usually constructed over a period of decadesby a consortium of church, state and guild. In the usual time frame of a BR Campaign, nosole regent should have the resources to construct great buildings like these.


    BR/AD&D is a game of high fantasy (low magic shouldn't mean low fantasy), not fuedal
    economics. If you want that, play C&S, Empires of the Middle Ages, or Pendragon NOBLES
    supplement. I've done that (doh! another bad harvest! it's famine for sure!) and it's fun, but it's not Birthright.

    Randax

  4. #4
    hobbychest@pcsia.co
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    BI>Have to say I'm on the side of rich guilders and poor law regents. See my
    BI>previous post on MONEY, which no one seems to be able to counter. To
    BI>summarize: it's a play balance issue, guilders have money, law regents have
    BI>force, it's up to the players to roleplay/fight out a balance.

    The problem is, if I am the land owning regent, I don't like all of
    these guilders hording the money, so I just use my army, level their
    guilds, and make my own trade routes. Every land owning regent with a
    decent army should do this. Guilders are ousted, and there isn't really
    anything they can do about it. The regents all now have more money than
    they know what to do with.
    Problem is, I don't want all regents to have to own guilds to make
    money. Trade routes generate so much more income than any other method
    of making money, that any smart regent should try to control some. This
    doesn't seem like good play balance to me.

    Robert Thomson

  5. #5
    Brian Stoner
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    Guilders make more money than rulers because they don't spend money on
    armies. They use their money to influence others, rulers can use their
    armies for that... Remember, when it comes down to it, a man who is
    given a choice between avoiding death or making money will choose to
    avoid death (assuming it's his only choice and he isn't a fool). A
    sword can be quite a motivator...sometimes more than money. This is
    where the power of the ruler balances the guilder.

    Brian

  6. #6
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    > Problem is, I don't want all regents to have to own guilds to make
    > money. Trade routes generate so much more income than any other method
    > of making money, that any smart regent should try to control some. This
    > doesn't seem like good play balance to me.
    >
    Exactly my point. Finally, someone who cares ::sob:: (quick, someone get me
    a hanky)..

  7. #7
    Neil Barnes
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 hobbychest@pcsia.com wrote:
    > The problem is, if I am the land owning regent, I don't like all of
    > these guilders hording the money, so I just use my army, level their
    > guilds, and make my own trade routes.

    Occupying your own provinces really shags up loyalty - loyalty drops to
    poor immediately and then by one each season, which (quite obviously)
    isn't good. The occupying regent then needs to rule up their own guild
    holdings to build trade routes. This takes time and money.

    At the same time the guilders can use thir savings to back a
    neighbouring regent's invasion by hiring troops.

    > Every land owning regent with a
    > decent army should do this. Guilders are ousted, and there isn't really
    > anything they can do about it. The regents all now have more money than
    > they know what to do with.

    Maintaining guild holdings & trade routes takes time & effort, without a
    concomitant benefit in terms of Regency Points - it's more efficient to
    let guilders do the work & then nick their money at the end.

    A regent who goes around imposing martial law on their own country makes
    a lot of enemies. The guilders will still have their saved money &
    holdings in other realms to strike back from. It's storing up trouble
    for the future.

    neil

  8. #8
    FRANKEN*RC
    Guest

    Revenues; national, religious,

    > > The problem is, if I am the land owning regent, I don't like all of
    > > these guilders hording the money, so I just use my army, level their
    > > guilds, and make my own trade routes.



    > Maintaining guild holdings & trade routes takes time & effort, without a
    > concomitant benefit in terms of Regency Points - it's more efficient to
    > let guilders do the work & then nick their money at the end.

    I usually use (that is when i play, i usually DM) a little diplomacy,
    play the guilds against eachother or make them pay tribute to me,
    not too much or they'll start big trouble.

    > A regent who goes around imposing martial law on their own country makes
    > a lot of enemies. The guilders will still have their saved money &
    > holdings in other realms to strike back from. It's storing up trouble
    > for the future.
    >
    > neil

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Religious
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 12:56 AM
  2. Religious issues...
    By prince_dios in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 08:59 PM
  3. Religious Chapter Houses
    By furt in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-13-2004, 10:04 PM
  4. Dwarven Religious Life
    By Green Knight in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-27-2004, 11:23 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.