[Discuss] Dukes and kings

[Josiah Allen]

On 3/13/07, Samuel Knowlton <sam at iamsam.org> wrote:
>
> This is definitely to give people a chance at power, but I think, right
> now,
> the system is balanced too much in favor of the Dukes -- in a manner that
> is
> very appropriate for Democracies and Republics, but not appropriate in
> Monarchies or Tyrannies.
>
> Monarchs historically held a bazillion titles, which they doled out as
> needed to nobles whose support they needed. The King of England held
> several
> Duchy-level titles, as well as even more lower ones. Obviously we can't
> model this in BM very easily as there aren't enough titles to go around,
> but
> there should be some method of compensating.
>
> Right now, if there is a rebellious Duke, the only thing you can do is ban
> him (guarantee that he secedes) or strip him of his nobility, which is
> usually far more serious than the situation requires. There should be some
> military option in situations like these that gives a Monarch an advantage
> if he acts first, or is able to act without the Duke knowing. Dukes still
> do
> (and should) have a lot of power, but there ought to be some (still quite
> difficult) mechanism of arresting them or at least limiting their
> authority
> that isn't 'strip them of their nobility.' When the exile command was
> first
> discussed on this list, it didn't seem as serious as it ultimately turned
> out to be, as right now it's so serious that I would almost rather fight a
> secession war than use it.
>
> In other words: Dukes ruled at the pleasure of the King. Right now, the
> King
> rules at the pleasure of the Dukes. The balancing act should be tipped,
> just
> a little bit, more in favor of Kings.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


No one could be king without the support of the lords during the feudal
ages.  Dukes had powerful private armies.  They were powerless only when the
King's decision was supported by enough other lords, power was what
mattered, not title.  This is why kings were either diplomatic enough to
keep support or overthrown quickly.
 Think 1200s, not 1600s.

-- 
"Growth in wisdom may be exactly measured by decrease in bitterness"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070313/f223d799/attachment.htm