D&D General If A Noble holds 1 title per country in 2 neighbouring countries what can he do if those countries go to war?, after all no matter what he lose's

[mamba]

So A Noble holds 1 title per country in 2 neighbouring countries and those 2 countries go to war, what does he do?

He either tries to stay out of it entirely or joins the side he thinks is most likely to win / promises him the most to join. We had plenty of cases for this in history

 

[Storyteller Hero]

A lot of moving parts when it comes to feudalism disputes.

For example, if the noble is a LANDED noble, then they have to take into consideration where their family is currently residing.

 

[Ancalagon]

Countries were much more... nebulous... back then. Strong national states and identity is a more modern invention.

 

[JMISBEST]

That's not actually particularly unlikely - historically Scotland and England warred frequently, with some nobles holding titles on both sides of the border (or otherwise wanting to play both sides).

The standard approach is for the head of the family to throw his lot behind whichever king they think is more likely to win, but have a son or other heir back the other side. Then whichever wing loses quietly drops out of public life until the reprisals are over, before coming back to the fore.

But somehow I'd forgot that. The most likely reason as to why I forgot is that I left school in November 2,001 and throughout my time at school History was always the subject I was worst at

 

[Zardnaar]

But somehow I'd forgot that. The most likely reason as to why I forgot is that I left school in November 2,001 and throughout my time at school History was always the subject I was worst at

Not much medieval history is taught at high school anyway.
Basically nationalism wasn't such a thing. Modern English monarchs are descended from a German hoyse and they've had Dutch and Scottish monarchs on the throne.

States where a lot more decentralized as well. By that the local lord mattered more than whoever sat on the throne. A weak King way have had to rule by the graces of a powerful Duke ( Louis VI and the Duke of New Orleans iirc).

Game of Thrones is based off the War if the Roses.

 

[JMISBEST]

Not much medieval history is taught at high school anyway.
Basically nationalism wasn't such a thing. Modern English monarchs are descended from a German hoyse and they've had Dutch and Scottish monarchs on the throne.

States where a lot more decentralized as well. By that the local lord mattered more than whoever sat on the throne. A weak King way have had to rule by the graces of a powerful Duke ( Louis VI and the Duke of New Orleans iirc).

Game of Thrones is based off the War if the Roses.

That must be why then. Its clear that because I left school in November 2,001 and History was always my worst subject at school I wrongly assumed that I'd forgotten what you mentioned. Sorry and thank you

 

[Zardnaar]

That must be why then. Its clear that because I left school in November 2,001 and History was always my worst subject at school I wrongly assumed that I'd forgotten what you mentioned. Sorry and thank you

Heh I don't recall any medieval history at m school. Was at university and general reading.

And playing games like Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis. Playing as Burgundy go read about them. Morocco, Ulm, Ottomans wash rinse repeat.

 

[Mad_Jack]

Heh I don't recall any medieval history at m school. Was at university and general reading.

And pkaying games like Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis. Playing as Burgundy go read about them. Morocco, Ulm, Ottomans wash rinse repeat.

Seems like most schools these days think history started in the 1600's...

 

[Starfox]

This varied a lot, both by region and over time. In the dark ages, this was av everyday occurrence, and there really weren't any countries, what existed was dynastic holdings and dynastic families. Nobles were pretty free to choose sides and could expect little consequence for doing so. As the idea of nations takes hold, the demands on loyalty increased. This seems to happen first in peripheral regions like Britain and Scandinavia while Germany and East Europe got centralized much, much later.

What ended this was that the feudal contingencies nobles could muster were no longer fit for battle - soldiering became professionalized, and increasingly only nations could afford to pay professional soldiers. At this point the landholder's didn't matter so much - feudal obligations had been converted to tax payments and each of a noble's holdings would pay these taxes to the nation they were in.

 

[amethal]

Was going to say, this was a fairly typical occurrence throughout feudal history. Inevitable, really. For example, William the Conqueror was also a vassal to Philip I of France, which caused all kinds of complications in relations and allegiances between many nobles in those countries, lasting for centuries.

It gets super complicated and nuanced, but pretty much boils down to: pick a side. Try for the one that will win. Or be powerful enough to stay out of it altogether.

King Charles III is still Duke of Normandy, but fortunately there is no longer a French monarch to complicate matters.

His Dutchy has been reduced to a tiny part of Normandy - just the Channel Islands.