[Social Engineering] Status and Military Rank in Medieval Feudalism

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

And, finally, a knight does have some level of Legal Immunity - let's call it the 10-point level.

Knights did not have legal immunity, knights could be charged with crimes by commoners. However, it was much easier for the knight to prove his innocence given his higher status. One set of laws said that a knight could prove his innocence against a commoner by getting 4 other knights to swear that he had not willingly broken the peace. That said, he would have to get 4 knights to swear to that, so if he did not have at least 4 friends willing to lie for him, he was out of luck.

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

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.

...

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

Why only Feudal Rank 1? It seems to me that, in such a case, a knight would be subject to the command of a commoner with Rank 2. Or since these are parallel rank structures, should the Rank 2 commoner not have any authority over anyone with Feudal Rank, but someone with Feudal Rank lower than his also would not be able to issue him orders? If that is the case, shouldn't the regular military rank lack dominance and only be worth 4 points/level?

[AlexanderHowl]

I imagine that an unlanded knight would likely have Military Rank 3 because he would have command (rather than support) the equivalent of a platoon of soldiers on behalf of his overlord. His overlord would grant him his arms and his mount, so he would only require a Comfortable Wealth to support his Status 2 (since one level would come from and be supported by his military rank), but he would probably require Patron to represent his overlord. I imagine that a landed knight would have not have Military Rank (his earning and his men come from his land), though he would receive a brevet Military Rank equal to his Status during war (meaning that he would have equal Military Rank to an unlanded knight during war from his Status 3 and Very Wealthy Wealth).

[tanksoldier]

They can't just arrest a commoner on their own say-so, perform searches, or anything like that.

I think you’re reading too much of modern society into medieval society.

“Doesn’t normally do that” isn’t the same as “can’t do that”.

If a knight brought a suspect ed murderer and evidence before a lord holding the High Justice there may be a trial, but nobody would tell the knight “ you can’t do that”.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I imagine that an unlanded knight would likely have Military Rank 3 because he would have command (rather than support) the equivalent of a platoon of soldiers on behalf of his overlord. His overlord would grant him his arms and his mount, so he would only require a Comfortable Wealth to support his Status 2 (since one level would come from and be supported by his military rank), but he would probably require Patron to represent his overlord. I imagine that a landed knight would have not have Military Rank (his earning and his men come from his land), though he would receive a brevet Military Rank equal to his Status during war (meaning that he would have equal Military Rank to an unlanded knight during war from his Status 3 and Very Wealthy Wealth).

This is an interesting way to handle this. I am pretty partial to this idea, thank you.

[AlexanderHowl]

You are welcome.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by 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.

While tribunes served in the military they were closer in nature to a gentleman that gets a promotion for being a gentleman then to having status replace Military Rank. His position was still an extension of the authority of the Republic or Emperor.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

While tribunes served in the military they were closer in nature to a gentleman that gets a promotion for being a gentleman then to having status replace Military Rank. His position was still an extension of the authority of the Republic or Emperor.

...but in game terms, what’s the difference? Especially if it’s a military oriented campaign?

Should a tribune pay 15 points for Status 3 and 15 points for military rank 3?

...the rank is still a side effect of their status.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

...but in game terms, what’s the difference? Especially if it’s a military oriented campaign?

Should a tribune pay 15 points for Status 3 and 15 points for military rank 3?

...the rank is still a side effect of their status.

Someone with rank and not status gets court-martialed for pouting in his tent over a slave girl while everyone else has to fight.

[AlexanderHowl]

Military Rank 3 also gives a level of Status that your Wealth does not need to support.

[whswhs]

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.

When i wrote it up for GURPS Social Engineering, I had it work slightly differently. You still purchased the diffuse attribute of Status, but you also purchased Feudal Rank equal to Status, if you were a noble who had actual power.

So, for example, Henry VIII had Status 7, Feudal Rank 7, and some level of Wealth---let's say Multimillionaire 1 after he expropriated the monasteries. His wealth would have cost 75 points; his Rank 35; but his Status would have been discounted 5 points for Wealth and 10 for Rank, meaning it cost 20 points.