Please correct my understanding of a feudal army

[Imperialus]

My understanding is that traditionally you took his stuff. He is well treated, but sans some expensive gear. "To the victor go the spoils."

Come to think of it, that would make sence too. This is after all a culture where your purse during a tournament consisted of getting your defeated opponents horse and armour so it would make sence that if you captured him in battle it would make sence too.

You could probably run it either way though, two different cultures could have drastically different approaches to the treatment of captives even if they are treated humanely.

 

[Mark CMG]

My understanding is that traditionally you took his stuff. He is well treated, but sans some expensive gear. "To the victor go the spoils."

Sometimes they were ransomed and thier belongings were included. Other times there was a separate price for their belongings. Even in tournaments, their gear and mount was considered lost if the tourney was lost, but the tradition was to ransom the mount and gear back to the loser. Thus the tournament prize was really whatever trophy might be given by the king (or whoever held the tournament) plus whatever the going rate was for gear ransoming, times however many opponents were personally vanquished.

 

[Imperialus]

but the tradition was to ransom the mount and gear back to the loser.

Which makes sence because the armour at least would typically be fitted to an individual wearer, not much sense in having a room full of suits of armour if none of it fits. Of course in D&D where most armour is "one size fits all" such a practice would make less sence.

 

[jmucchiello]

On a related note - the low level of morale among typical troops has an interesting side effect - it means that most people who are regarded as superior generals have, as their primary skill, the ability to inspire their troops rather than being brilliant tacticians or strategists. Charles Martel, the Black Prince, Henry V, and so on were regarded as great leaders primarily because they could inspire their men to stay on the field and fight. Their tactics and strategy were very basic, and not particularly inspired for the most part - but their ability to convince men to stay and fight was what counted. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the redevelopment of professional armies that tacticians became a big deal.

This example makes an historically accurate feudal system impractical to me. With "evil" humanoids, random monsters and the occasional adventuring party as common features in the area, a more organized form of defense is practically required. Especially if you are going to have cities with more than 10,000 citizens. You probably must use a renaissance (or later) model.

Developing the idea in a more sinister direction - why do the fantasy feudal lords keep peasants around anyway? They don't need the food, any reasonably old lineage of aristo-adventureres will have procured items which magically produce food, and have access to food creation spells anyway. No, the key to remember is that willing people can donate their XP for magic item creation. That's what peasants in a fantasy world pay their tithes in, their own life force, which is used to fuel the rituals which empower and items which equip their guardian-masters. They do this willingly, because without sufficiently powerful protection, they're just prey to the next rampaging monster that comes along.

This is the coolest thing I've read on ENWorld in at least a week or two. Makes me want to lock myself in a room with a word processor and create a setting book. It so simply and elegantly explains why giving PC thousands of gp really does not destroy the economy.

 

[shilsen]

No, the key to remember is that willing people can donate their XP for magic item creation. That's what peasants in a fantasy world pay their tithes in, their own life force, which is used to fuel the rituals which empower and items which equip their guardian-masters. They do this willingly, because without sufficiently powerful protection, they're just prey to the next rampaging monster that comes along.

As jmucchiello mentioend above, this is a cool idea, but it does require house-ruling the item creation rules. You can only contribute XP to item creation if you're treated as the creator, and in order to be treated as the creator you have to be the one meeting one of the prerequisites for the item, and the item's caster level is equal to or less than yours. Which, in turn, meets you need to be a spellcaster, so random peasants won't work without the house-ruling I mentioned.

 

[Tonguez]

Developing the idea in a more sinister direction - why do the fantasy feudal lords keep peasants around anyway? They don't need the food, any reasonably old lineage of aristo-adventureres will have procured items which magically produce food, and have access to food creation spells anyway. No, the key to remember is that willing people can donate their XP for magic item creation. That's what peasants in a fantasy world pay their tithes in, their own life force, which is used to fuel the rituals which empower and items which equip their guardian-masters. They do this willingly, because without sufficiently powerful protection, they're just prey to the next rampaging monster that comes along.

It's a little bit like the Runelords books, but with a much more pressing need for the peasants to donate, and a more versatile use of the donated life force.

I like it - I think 'Jurgen Huberts' (sp) Urbis setting uses a similar idea

and I've always said that most (if not all) PCs should be of Aristocratic background

 

[CharlesRyan]

This is a really good thread, with a lot of very interesting points. I won't repeat them, but here are a few bits to fill in some holes.

First, keep in mind that the feudal system varied dramatically over periods and between nations. (In fact, part of why the English system was so effective for the king was that, following the Norman conquest, William basically built an entire feudal nation from the ground up, using all the best practices of the time without being hamstrung by existing traditions and agreements.) So nothing is definitive; any points made in this thread (including my own) might be true in some areas and times, but not in others.

Here are some bits and pieces:

Taxes: The OP mentioned that Sir Stanley paid taxes in addition to his military obligation. Actually, he probably only owed the military time, with no additional taxes required. If the king called him up for war, he might be able to get out of it by paying a fee. (Same for the peasants: They rarely paid cash taxes to the local lord, but paid for their land with their time, working the lord's land. Cash taxes came later.)

Service time: As someone mentioned, there were limits to the length of service. In England, it was generally 40 days--that applied both to knights and to peasant footsoldiers. Better get that campaign moving quickly!

Loot: It's true that peasants rarely benefited from ransom, but they could do quite well in looting. Technically, they only got to keep a small portion of what they took, with the rest going to their lord (who passed a portion up the chain, and so on). However, small items were often overlooked (and coins are pretty small), and even when the rules were followed, a peasant could end up with booty equal to many years worth of income. Thus, despite the high mortality rate, under the right circumstances (an enemy perceived as rich and weak), going to war could be quite appealing even to the peasants.

Levy and borders: As pawsplay mentions, peasant levies often couldn't be sent beyond their own borders. Keep in mind, though, that feudal borders were often less simple than modern borders. In the 100 Years War, a levy from Wales could easily, and legally, end up serving in southern France, as both were holdings of the English king. Also, if the border in question is contested--if the king says he's taking back land that's rightfully his--can the peasant levy refuse to cross it? (The answer: Maybe. Despite the authoritarian nature of the feudal system, getting 10,000 people to do something they don't want or feel obligated to do can be tough for even the most brutal of overlords.)

Ransom: It's my understanding that peasants couldn't get ransom. Yes, they might capture a knight, but then they'd turn him over to their lord (who, if generous, might reward them for it. Or might not.). The idea of a noble being the captive of a commoner was anathema to the feudal worldview. Also, I think the captor did in fact keep the captive's stuff--that was the case even in tournaments, let alone real wars.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Thanks for the summary Charles - I appreciate yours, and everybody else's, insights into this topic.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

As jmucchiello mentioend above, this is a cool idea, but it does require house-ruling the item creation rules. You can only contribute XP to item creation if you're treated as the creator, and in order to be treated as the creator you have to be the one meeting one of the prerequisites for the item, and the item's caster level is equal to or less than yours. Which, in turn, meets you need to be a spellcaster, so random peasants won't work without the house-ruling I mentioned.

Or, lords can gain similar benefits from peasants by using the some of the rules in Book of Vile Darkness. Souls as Power? 10 XP each. Liquid Pain extracted via torture? +2 caster level for one spell. And sacrifices? All kinds of potential benefits.

So evil overlords keep peasants around for sacrifices. Work your fields and you might be one of the lucky ones who live; try to flee and I guarantee you're going on the altar.

Good rulers keep peasants around to protect them. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.

Neutral rulers... not really seeing a reason for them to want to rule over a bunch of peasants, probably more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Alratan]

As jmucchiello mentioend above, this is a cool idea, but it does require house-ruling the item creation rules. You can only contribute XP to item creation if you're treated as the creator, and in order to be treated as the creator you have to be the one meeting one of the prerequisites for the item, and the item's caster level is equal to or less than yours. Which, in turn, meets you need to be a spellcaster, so random peasants won't work without the house-ruling I mentioned.

Actually, I believe XP donation is a variant rule from the Epic Level handbook (and not just as an ability of epic level characters), although it says that it only works between PCs.

Or, lords can gain similar benefits from peasants by using the some of the rules in Book of Vile Darkness. Souls as Power? 10 XP each. Liquid Pain extracted via torture? +2 caster level for one spell. And sacrifices? All kinds of potential benefits.

So evil overlords keep peasants around for sacrifices. Work your fields and you might be one of the lucky ones who live; try to flee and I guarantee you're going on the altar.

Good rulers keep peasants around to protect them. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.

Neutral rulers... not really seeing a reason for them to want to rule over a bunch of peasants, probably more trouble than it's worth.

Note that their is a good equivilent of liquid pain, so you can milk your peasants of Ambrosia. It takes less investement to just suck away a hundred XP per peasant per year, or something similar.