[Social Engineering] Status and Military Rank in Medieval Feudalism

[edk926]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

In a games not focused on Social Engineering, it is probably overkill to buy everything... Just use status and wealth, symbolize administrative authority by legal enforcement power, and only bother with military or religious rank within a long term military company / the church itself.

I'd add that, if you are only using Rank that way, you could look at reducing Rank to 2-3 pts per lvl.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Historically, SE grew out of a campaign of mine set in France in the early 1700s under Philippe d'Orleans (as regent for Louis XV, I believe). They had all kinds of social hierarchies, including at least three different governmental hierarchies—officers of state, judicial, and financial. So I wanted rules (at least optional rules) that COULD cover than huge maze of social positions and influences.

I will just use this opportunity to say that in the latest campaign I played in (a SF trade and politic campaign loosely based on the Game Master of Orion), we made extensive use of SE rules, so thanks for those !

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by MWnRNC

For my mid- to late-medieval inspired setting, I generalize three types of knights and assign Status and Feudal Rank accordingly.

I do not use Military Rank (except for mercenary companies) because military command is commissioned from the nobility on a temporary basis for the prosecution of a particular battle, campaign, or season. Feudal Rank generally tracks with Status, but may vary depending on the number of household troops commanded and the size of their land's levy.

This seems sensible - the modern concept of military rank really doesn't apply in most feudal armies.

Knights Bachelor can be odd beasts as well - in the early period their feudal rank could even be lower, some Norman versions were essentially little more than cavalrymen with very limited social status. Indeed, in some places something very like a knight bachelor could even be unfree (these tend to be referred to as ministrales).

Also, for those that aren't aware, serjeant was a social status, not a rank in most medieval contexts. Essentially someone who held land in return for service who was neither a serf nor gentry - serjeants at arms qualified for this, but so did a variety of "petty serjeants", from people who had what were effectively victualing contracts to those who did bizarre jobs like holding the king's head during sea travel - the much famed "Ronald the Farter" probably meets this test as well.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

This seems sensible - the modern concept of military rank really doesn't apply in most feudal armies.

Knights Bachelor can be odd beasts as well - in the early period their feudal rank could even be lower, some Norman versions were essentially little more than cavalrymen with very limited social status. Indeed, in some places something very like a knight bachelor could even be unfree (these tend to be referred to as ministrales).

Also, for those that aren't aware, serjeant was a social status, not a rank in most medieval contexts. Essentially someone who held land in return for service who was neither a serf nor gentry - serjeants at arms qualified for this, but so did a variety of "petty serjeants", from people who had what were effectively victualing contracts to those who did bizarre jobs like holding the king's head during sea travel - the much famed "Ronald the Farter" probably meets this test as well.

It applied among footmen, artillery, engineers, archers, etc. The difference between those and knights would have been status. But non-knightly troops often had something that would have been roughly equiv to military rank.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

It applied among footmen, artillery, engineers, archers, etc. The difference between those and knights would have been status. But non-knightly troops often had something that would have been roughly equiv to military rank.

True - although there should probably be an upper limit on it. IIRC English longbowmen had a rank called vintenar which was a leader of a group of 20 men who might report to a non-noble captain rather than a knightly one, and presumably other (semi)professional units did similar things but that was about the limit of it. Anyone expecting a rank structure or chain of command like a modern army has another thing coming.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

True - although there should probably be an upper limit on it. IIRC English longbowmen had a rank called vintenar which was a leader of a group of 20 men who might report to a non-noble captain rather than a knightly one, and presumably other (semi)professional units did similar things but that was about the limit of it. Anyone expecting a rank structure or chain of command like a modern army has another thing coming.

Actually what a feudal army was like was not what we would call an army. One of the best comparisons is a fire camp. Different interests all provide personal with the government providing the command overall.

In such situations Military Rank is unfeasible above a certain point. The army is simply not an army when it is not gathered together.

Also the concept of obeying a machine takes a while to sink in. An officer is different from a lord because his command comes, as Barrayarans say, from speaking with the "Emperor's Voice". A lord is to some degree a client prince.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Actually what a feudal army was like was not what we would call an army. One of the best comparisons is a fire camp. Different interests all provide personal with the government providing the command overall.

In such situations Military Rank is unfeasible above a certain point. The army is simply not an army when it is not gathered together.

Also the concept of obeying a machine takes a while to sink in. An officer is different from a lord because his command comes, as Barrayarans say, from speaking with the "Emperor's Voice". A lord is to some degree a client prince.

You certainly describe accurately armies such as the first crusades. XIII century Switzerland levies, or XV century royal companies under Charles VII or Maximilien Lansquenets were much more structured.
Even the prototype medieval army that was Charlemagne host had a command hierarchy that mirrored the civilian one by geographic area.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

You certainly describe accurately armies such as the first crusades. XIII century Switzerland levies, or XV century royal companies under Charles VII or Maximilien Lansquenets were much more structured.
Even the prototype medieval army that was Charlemagne host had a command hierarchy that mirrored the civilian one by geographic area.

That's mostly because of what the feudal system grew out of: 'I am the leader of the troops that protect this patch of land, therefore I am in charge of it,' with different groups banding together for various reasons under more charismatic/powerful/wealthy leaders. Right at the beginning, you had fairly large areas under the command of the proconsul assigned by Rome (or a senior officer who was on the losing side of a political conflict, but managed to flee with his men and money), and then his descendants if they were capable of holding his army together as men died or retired and new ones came in. Large enough armies would assign detachments (vexillationes) to defend various sections of their territory, and the heirs of the leaders of those detachments would sometimes become leaders, themselves.

The system of provinces and legions Rome created sort of staggered on for a while, then crawled away and broke up, but didn't so much 'die completely' as evolve into a form that could survive without the central authority Rome provided.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

You certainly describe accurately armies such as the first crusades. XIII century Switzerland levies, or XV century royal companies under Charles VII or Maximilien Lansquenets were much more structured.
Even the prototype medieval army that was Charlemagne host had a command hierarchy that mirrored the civilian one by geographic area.

I believe I read somewhere that the Swiss militia all knew where to assemble beforehand and thus they could be in the field before everyone else.

The Confederation was something close to a nation-state. It was a commune (which at the time meant roughly republic, and did not mean utopian settlement), but had several cities as well as rural components.

Switzerland certainly would have had military rank. Though it is hard to find many records of notable commanders and their stereotyped tactics made such things unneeded. They needed policy makers to decide when, where, and why to make war, and subalterns to keep the formation in order though.