[Social Engineering] Status and Military Rank in Medieval Feudalism

[phayman53]

Medieval armies, especially in the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages, had a significant number of semi-professional soldiers. They had men-at-arms, archers, sergeants, etc.--all non-nobles. It seems that these people would have some kind of military rank. Likewise, some knights must have had authority over others and higher nobles seem to have had command positions over other nobles of the same status. How would you model military rank and how it interacts with status in GURPS, especially using the "Variant Rank Costs" and "Behind the Curtain: Status as Rank" on pages 14-15 in Social Engineering?

One thought is just to count all rank as temporary and therefore not worth any points. The exception would be rank in a mercenary company, which would be worth 2 points per level since it lacks dominance and legitimacy.

My second thought is that military rank exists but is worth 4 points per level because it lacks dominance because status. In this case, a noble who is also in charge of military subordinates would have to have both Rank at 4 points/level and status at 5 points/level. Such rank would also give status according to the values in Social Engineering at the bottom of page 14. This means that Feudal Military Rank 3 (12 points) would give +1 to Status, it would take Feudal Military Rank 7 to impute Status +2.

What do you all think of the second one? This would mean that every noble with Status would get respect from military but they would not be able to give military orders to even a commoner who had Feudal Military Rank. For that he would also need Feudal Military Rank in excess of the commoner.

[jason taylor]

One of the chief natures of Military Rank is that it is always deputized. Now a feudal ruler is deputized in the sense of not being sovereign nor having allodial tenure. But military rank allows someone plenipotentiery powers over his master's men at arms. Clearly this will exist in a feudal system. Any given baron can tell anyone in his command, "you're in charge of this pack of armsmen I am giving you, go catch those thieves and hang them". Formalizing this makes it Military rank.

[Phantasm]

Feudal Rank is one of those that seems to be 10/level instead of 5/level because it includes and replaces Status above 0.

To answer the OP's question about modern military Ranks, http://dagwood.sandwich.net/marvel/a...us_tables.html gives my takes on the modern rank structures; while I'm constantly revising the first table (Administrative/Political), the Merchant, Military, and Police Ranks have gone mostly unchanged for a while. (The third table on that page is Army/Marine Corps/Air Force, the fourth is Navy.) (This doesn't account for the various other agency Rank types (FBI, CIA, FSB, SHIELD, etc.) which use the system from Social Engineering: Pulling Rank.)

[Kelly Pedersen]

I think this is best addressed by assuming that, in the typical medieval European feudal setup, Military Rank exists, but only goes up to about level 2 or 3, and then converges with Feudal Rank (see "Converging Rank", Social Engineering p. 13). So a sergeant in a feudal army would have Military Rank 2, perhaps, but a baron, with Feudal Rank 3, would outrank them, and it would simply be treated as if they were in the same rank structure.

I wouldn't discount Military Rank in such a system for lacking dominance, unless, as you mentioned, you're talking about an actual mercenary. A sergeant in a legitimate feudal levy does have dominance - such organizations make up much more of the armed forces than mercenaries or bandits or other military groups, at least through most of the medieval period.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Feudal Rank is one of those that seems to be 10/level instead of 5/level because it includes and replaces Status above 0.

I don't think that's the case, actually. Social Engineering doesn't suggest that, for one thing - all the examples of Feudal Rank in it treat Status as separate. More importantly, it doesn't really fit the mould of unified Rank and Status. For that to apply, there has to be really only one way, one legitimate organization, that grants Status in the society, and that doesn't really work for a typical feudal society. In Medieval Europe, for example, you could certainly use Religious Rank to gain Status just as easily as Feudal Rank. And there were more limited forms of Rank that nonetheless granted some Status: Guild Rank, for example, or even Military Rank - as I mentioned above, Military Rank would have been capped, perhaps, but if you got a couple levels, you'd still get the Status boost.

[tanksoldier]

In Roman times tribunes with little or no experience outranked centurions with decades of hard service... because of social class.

In feudal times military organizations were often ad hoc. Knights or even squires were put in command of common troops who had their own officers and organization. Occasionally an experienced Knight or other noble was appointed to command over others who outranked him socially, which sometimes caused problems.

The commoner captain of a large city guard might be respected by the nobility and have some social status but none of the nobility would ever serve under his actual command. If the city were attacked a noble would be put in command of the defense and all the other nobles with their household retainers would serve under him alongside the captain and his troops... but not under the captains command.

By the time you get to a point in history where social status doesn’t automatically equate to military rank the social status or rank usually brings the other along anyway. The city guard captain likely would have been knighted at some point and the sons of aristocracy usually purchased commissions.

Even in the modern US military while is is fairly common for lower socioeconomic classes to obtain officer rank it is rare, tho not unknown, for the children of the wealthy to enlist. They usually go thru one of the paths to commissioning. So, not all officers are from wealthy families, but most soldiers from wealthy families are officers.

All of this is the long way of saying: in my games until TL6 status = military rank and military rank = status up to 2, to go higher than that you have to at least be knighted or whatever the equivalent is and then your rank converts to status.

Merchant and priestly rank also grants equivalent status, but for merchants again only up to 2.

[phayman53]

Thanks for the input so far. One other question (maybe it should be its own thread?):

Social Engineering gives King Henry VIII "Feudal Rank 7 [35], Multimillionaire I [75], and Status 7 [15] (including +4 imputed from Wealth and Rank)" (pg. 13). What is the difference between Feudal Rank and Status? All of the official templates for knights and other nobles do not have Feudal Rank. It also says on pg. 13,

Status always grants respect, or at least cautious treatment; but some people’s Status includes actual, direct, political power – for example, the ruling class in an aristocracy. Such power is treated as Rank in the state itself as an organization. Purchase Feudal Rank equal to Status, at 5 points/level; be sure to take imputed Status from Feudal Rank into account in figuring the total cost of Status.

Is this an additional level of detail added for Social Engineering or does it represent a more developed feudal aristocracy than is typically found in the earlier periods of the Middle Ages? Henry VIII was late 15th to mid 16th century and this was a period of much greater royal and central authority, so I could see Feudal Rank not being appropriate in earlier centuries and ruling power all being based on status. Thoughts?

[tanksoldier]

Personally I think that’s getting over detailed and expensive. A Knight effectively has status, feudal rank, military rank, legal enforcement powers, legal immunity and probably a few others.

Is it REALLY a 50 point advantage to be a knight?

Or is it more like a 15 point, Status +3, advantage?

If you’re playing a high level campaign where everybody is an aristocrat and fine distinctions matter, maybe it’s worth it.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Social Engineering gives King Henry VIII "Feudal Rank 7 [35], Multimillionaire I [75], and Status 7 [15] (including +4 imputed from Wealth and Rank)" (pg. 13). What is the difference between Feudal Rank and Status? All of the official templates for knights and other nobles do not have Feudal Rank.

I think this is a matter of Feudal Rank not really being created before Social Engineering - it's designed to give more detail to the social structure of feudal societies. Templates created before Social Engineering wouldn't use it because it wasn't an option, and templates created after SE might refrain from using it if that would add too much complexity.

Originally Posted by phayman53

Is this an additional level of detail added for Social Engineering or does it represent a more developed feudal aristocracy than is typically found in the earlier periods of the Middle Ages?

I'm pretty sure it's the former. There were definitely ways to gain social status that weren't directly tied to feudal standing, even in the early middle ages, which suggests that Feudal Rank and Status were pretty much always separate.

I suppose one could argue that in the very early feudal period, when the system was much more informal (basically just individuals making agreements with each other, where the military sorts provided armed protection, while the non-military sorts provided their resources in exchange for that protection), that no Feudal Rank existed, and people were just buying Status, or even simply local Reputations. But by the time the system became traditional (which only took a few generations, as I understand it), and actual ranks became a recognized thing, I think you pretty much have Feudal Rank.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Person all I think 5hsts getting over detailed and expensive. A Knight effectively has status, feudal rank, military rank, legal enforcement powers, legal immunity and probably a few others.

They wouldn't have both Feudal and Military Rank, anyway. As I said above, this is a matter of the ranks converging. Past about Rank 2 or 3, Feudal Rank is Military Rank, pretty much. Similar cases exist in modern-day society - the President of the United States, for example, is technically the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. But they don't need to buy both Administrative Rank and Military Rank - in America, Military Rank 7 takes orders from Administrative Rank 8.

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Is it REALLY a 50 point advantage to be a knight?

Well, they probably don't have Legal Enforcement Powers either. Those are for people who either have them over everyone in society (although perhaps only in a limited area), or for those who have unusual legal enforcement powers over others in their own Rank hierarchy. I don't think a knight would typically have either. They can't just arrest a commoner on their own say-so, perform searches, or anything like that. And they can't exercise any more legal control over people in the feudal hierarchy than their Rank would allow, either.

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Or is it more like a 15 point, Status +3, advantage?

Let's assume a knight is Status 2 - that's the lower level suggested by both the Basic Set and Banestorm. They should have Feudal Rank 1, I'd say (squires are effectively Feudal Rank 0). Plus, a knight will typically be well-off. Wealthy is suggested. And, finally, a knight does have some level of Legal Immunity - let's call it the 10-point level. So, a knight has to pay 5 points for Feudal Rank 1, 20 points for Wealthy, and 10 points for Legal Immunity, and a further 5 points for the level of Status that Wealthy doesn't automatically provide, for a total of 40 points. But for that, the knight gets to exert substantial influence on everyone of Status 1 or lower, gets to directly command squires, ordinary militia, and other people at Feudal or Military Rank 0, has the benefits of being wealthy, and is immune to a lot of the laws that "common folk" have to deal with. I'd say that's worth 40 points, yeah.