I bet he only came in person because he thinks watching the peasants get evicted will give him some small measure of amusement. It probably won't though, he seems too jaded even for that.
Happy Good Friday!
Charlatans using the scriptures for personal gain is nothing to be surprised about. So unfair.
You do a great job of solidifying the unfairness of this.
I gotta agree with Colleen here; Duke Frankfurt doesn't look very likable. His scowl suggests that he doesn't even get much enjoyment out of his feasts or his manor, he's doesn't seem to respect the people who carry out his will (he doesn't call his knight "Sir"), and it seems like he's about to defraud his subjects.
Is Sir Patrick and Duke Frankfurt related (the duke addresses him somewhat informally and directly)? And/or have the village become caught up in a strife between them, with the duke now punishing Patrick by punishing the village (maybe due to Patrick helping the village against the desires or intentions of the duke - it should go without saying that a knight must be fully loyal to his liege)? Did the village do something to anger the duke? Or does the Duke have a valid reason for gathering resources, like war or other? How are the other villages treated? Worse or better? It sounds off if the villagers and peasants have not talked about these issues or looked into them, and do not have clues as to why they are seemingly penalized.
Or has the duke just looked at his tax income, maybe seen that the village might be performing much (, much) worse than other villages relative to what it is expected to be performing, and now demand that the village figure out how to perform better or at least not much (, much) worse than other villages?
Maybe the village ends up solving it through adventuring, for instance into Marblegate.
That relates somewhat to levies and other military service, where different social classes in different nations, countries and times had different requirements. From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Medieval_levies ) :
>The bulk of the Anglo-Saxon English army, called the fyrd, was composed of part-time English soldiers drawn from the freemen of each county. In the 690s Laws of Ine, three levels of fines are imposed on different social classes for neglecting military service.[11] Some modern writers claim military service was restricted to the landowning minor nobility. These thegns were the land-holding aristocracy of the time and were required to serve with their own armour and weapons for a certain number of days each year.
I have also heard that some (minor?) noble families in certain countries and time periods in Europe could get their tithes to the church reduced if they joined in crusades to help defend the faith.
Such a system of levies and the like seem incredibly much better than the later Ottoman system, where they abducted Christian boys, indoctrinated them, and turned them into military slaves to help conquer and occupy countries and lands.
See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries :
>They began as an elite corps of slave soldiers made up of kidnapped young Christian boys who were converted to Islam,[6] and became famed for internal cohesion cemented by strict discipline and order.
Just starting to talk about it! In the last page, she had just reached the age where they were starting to consider who they might try and pair her off with in the future. Gotta wait until they find the right guy (And wait until they can afford to have their oldest child leave their house and join another one)
Depending on the culture, arranged marriage can take a while.
The law of diminishing returns. The more I raise taxes the less I bring in so what should I do the answer is easy. Just raise more taxes! Some royalty are so divorced from reality that the only thing you can do to put reality into them is to take off their head and pound it into them!
The secret is, tax the people who have money. Like the Duke! Who honestly, probably has income streams outside of his power to tax given the way wealth builds on wealth.
To be on-topic, do Marblegate Adventurers have to pay taxes on their dungeon profits? It seems kind of strange to have them literally hauling money and precious items out of nothing and not have to pay a share for society. I know the whole place is under the authority of the Archmage, but you'd think the local town government would try to impose some kind of tax to pay for local roads, government services, and keeping order in a town full of murder-hobos.
Good question! There is little to no tax for adventurers just for going in, just for businesses that work there and traders that come there. Really high taxes. But the profits are really good for business owners, so it balances out pretty good in their favor. Adventurers aren't taxed, but the prices in Marblegate are high and spending is inevitable if your there for any length of time. Plus, there's costs for things like portal scrolls, service fees for the storage bank, costs of cleansing and purifying items if needed (else infected items be incinerated) and so on.
The adventurers almost certainly have to give a percentage to kings and other robbers, but only a percentage. Marblegate is dangerous, and if you don't get to keep a whole lot of the goodies, you would not go in at all. So those wanting the adventurer's loot are going to have to keep their greed under control.
If the population/peasants kill off the royalty, the population/peasantry becomes responsible for the direction and the defense and security of their nation and country, both in regards to physical defense and security as well as in other regards.
One alternative is then democracy. Thus, you need everyone to be capable and extremely responsible and selfless decision makers instead of just the royalty, and you need to ensure that everyone continue having those properties over the generations, and that the internal communication in the nation and country is not compromised, etc. What happens if large parts, or even the (vast) majority of the population, ceases being capable decision makers, or ceases being extremely responsible, or ceases being extremely selfless? And/or if the internal communication is compromised? Or some other parts breaks down? Of course, royalty can be a lot easier to target, with infiltration, assassination, marriage, debt, etc., but also much easier to protect and make demands of.
If the democratic population is not careful, they might end up being conquered, from the inside-out or the outside-in. And if that happens, they are at the mercy of their conquerors, and might then face eradication, enslavement, etc.
Be careful about shouldering a responsibility that you are not willing to bear or make the necessary sacrifices for.
>William hurried north with an army, defeated the rebels outside York and pursued them into the city, massacring the inhabitants and bringing the revolt to an end.
People don't need kings to defend them and often times all a king is doing is keeping his victims. . .I mean subjects under his control. People will fight to defend there families and livelihoods. Two the mongols would of spared the city if they would have paid the pay and submitted to the khan.
>People don't need kings to defend them and often times all a king is doing is keeping his victims. . .I mean subjects under his control. People will fight to defend there families and livelihoods.
People without any doubt need some form of system or organization to be able to defend, and one that works in practice, whether that is monarchy, democracy, or something else. Strength in numbers - a lone farmer is nothing against a thousand experienced and heavily armed soldiers, while 10.000 farmers, organized, lightly armed and trained, can depending on a number of factors defeat the experienced soldiers. And 10.000 farmers banding together some other way (for instance as part of a democracy by pooling resources to buy equipment and finance logistics and the like, and training in militias and/or conscription and/or other) can likewise stand against them, while 10.000 farmers, each alone and separated from the other farmers, stand no chance.
And yes, there have been (very or extremely) poor kings, but I demonstrated clearly that your statement:
>You know what the difference between a King and a Robber is right? The Robber will never tell you he is doing it for your good.
is 100% wrong and misleading for at least a number of kings historically.
>often times all a king is doing is keeping his victims. . .I mean subjects under his control
I wonder what a historical investigation and statistics reg. this would show. Though I fear that would be difficult to investigate or determine in a robust, verifiable, quick and reliable way.
>Two the mongols would of spared the city if they would have paid the pay and submitted to the khan.
Possibly. Surrender and submission is not without consequences, depending on the situation and case, both short-term and long-term, for one self as well as overall. Sometimes the consequences of surrender is complete enslavement and/or complete eradication, while fighting back can give a chance of either winning or at least frustrating and hindering the enemy, and possibly make them decide to turn back, for instance because they decide it is not worth it.
There are many examples of this in nature as well as historically reg. warfare and other kinds of cases (for instance the defense by Wenceslaus I mentioned, where they succeeded in repulsing the Mongolians). And a slightly related video (Honey Badger): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg .
After the defeat of the European forces at Legnica, the Mongols then continued pillaging throughout Poland's neighboring kingdoms, particularly Silesia and Moravia. King Wenceslaus I of Bohemia fled back to protect his kingdom after arriving late and discovering the devastation the Mongols caused in those places; gathering reinforcements from Thuringia and Saxony as he retreated. He stationed his troops in the mountainous regions of Bohemia where the Mongols wouldn't be able to utilize their cavalry effectively.[24]
By that time, the Mongolian forces had divided into two, one led by Batu and Subutai who were planning to invade Hungary, and another led by Baidar and Kadan who were ravaging their way through Silesia and Moravia. When they arrived to attack Bohemia, the kingdom's defenses discouraged them from attacking and they withdrew to the town of Othmachau.[25][24] A small force of Mongolians did attack Kłodzko but the Bohemian cavalry under Wenceslaus managed to fend them off.[26][27] The Mongols then tried to take the town of Olomouc, but Wenceslaus managed to get the aid of Austrian Babenbergs and they repulsed the raid.[24][28][29] A Mongol commander was captured in a sortie near Olomouc.[30] Under Wenceslaus' leadership during the Mongol invasion, Bohemia remained one of a few European kingdoms that was never conquered and molested by the Mongols even though most kingdoms around it such as Poland and Moravia were ravaged.[24] Such was his success that chroniclers sent messages to Emperor Frederick II of his "victorious defense".[31] After these failed attempts, Baidar and Kadan continued raiding Moravia before finally going southward to reunite with Batu and Subutai in Hungary.
One case of the consequences of failing to defend against the Mongolians:
>Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river and red from the blood of the scientists and philosophers killed.[29]
So, the rules in your world may vary, but I'm pretty sure a Duke gets addressed as "Your Grace" rather than "Your Majesty", which I believe is exclusive to a King or Queen. Unless he's the actual head of state for the entire nation maybe, which is not uncommon, also I guess you can make people call you whatever you want when you own everything.
This looks like the kind of dude who's gonna demands all the 'back taxes' all at once.
Highly suspect, though. You think he wouldn't wait 4 years for taxes. Guess he wants to build a new house.
Charlatans using the scriptures for personal gain is nothing to be surprised about. So unfair.
You do a great job of solidifying the unfairness of this.
That relates somewhat to levies and other military service, where different social classes in different nations, countries and times had different requirements. From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Medieval_levies ) :
>The bulk of the Anglo-Saxon English army, called the fyrd, was composed of part-time English soldiers drawn from the freemen of each county. In the 690s Laws of Ine, three levels of fines are imposed on different social classes for neglecting military service.[11] Some modern writers claim military service was restricted to the landowning minor nobility. These thegns were the land-holding aristocracy of the time and were required to serve with their own armour and weapons for a certain number of days each year.
I have also heard that some (minor?) noble families in certain countries and time periods in Europe could get their tithes to the church reduced if they joined in crusades to help defend the faith.
>They began as an elite corps of slave soldiers made up of kidnapped young Christian boys who were converted to Islam,[6] and became famed for internal cohesion cemented by strict discipline and order.
Depending on the culture, arranged marriage can take a while.
Print money for individuals. Don't run the Secret Service will be with you shortly.
To be on-topic, do Marblegate Adventurers have to pay taxes on their dungeon profits? It seems kind of strange to have them literally hauling money and precious items out of nothing and not have to pay a share for society. I know the whole place is under the authority of the Archmage, but you'd think the local town government would try to impose some kind of tax to pay for local roads, government services, and keeping order in a town full of murder-hobos.
One alternative is then democracy. Thus, you need everyone to be capable and extremely responsible and selfless decision makers instead of just the royalty, and you need to ensure that everyone continue having those properties over the generations, and that the internal communication in the nation and country is not compromised, etc. What happens if large parts, or even the (vast) majority of the population, ceases being capable decision makers, or ceases being extremely responsible, or ceases being extremely selfless? And/or if the internal communication is compromised? Or some other parts breaks down? Of course, royalty can be a lot easier to target, with infiltration, assassination, marriage, debt, etc., but also much easier to protect and make demands of.
If the democratic population is not careful, they might end up being conquered, from the inside-out or the outside-in. And if that happens, they are at the mercy of their conquerors, and might then face eradication, enslavement, etc.
Be careful about shouldering a responsibility that you are not willing to bear or make the necessary sacrifices for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson#Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#First_rebellions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Revolts_of_1069
>William hurried north with an army, defeated the rebels outside York and pursued them into the city, massacring the inhabitants and bringing the revolt to an end.
People without any doubt need some form of system or organization to be able to defend, and one that works in practice, whether that is monarchy, democracy, or something else. Strength in numbers - a lone farmer is nothing against a thousand experienced and heavily armed soldiers, while 10.000 farmers, organized, lightly armed and trained, can depending on a number of factors defeat the experienced soldiers. And 10.000 farmers banding together some other way (for instance as part of a democracy by pooling resources to buy equipment and finance logistics and the like, and training in militias and/or conscription and/or other) can likewise stand against them, while 10.000 farmers, each alone and separated from the other farmers, stand no chance.
And yes, there have been (very or extremely) poor kings, but I demonstrated clearly that your statement:
>You know what the difference between a King and a Robber is right? The Robber will never tell you he is doing it for your good.
is 100% wrong and misleading for at least a number of kings historically.
>often times all a king is doing is keeping his victims. . .I mean subjects under his control
I wonder what a historical investigation and statistics reg. this would show. Though I fear that would be difficult to investigate or determine in a robust, verifiable, quick and reliable way.
>Two the mongols would of spared the city if they would have paid the pay and submitted to the khan.
Possibly. Surrender and submission is not without consequences, depending on the situation and case, both short-term and long-term, for one self as well as overall. Sometimes the consequences of surrender is complete enslavement and/or complete eradication, while fighting back can give a chance of either winning or at least frustrating and hindering the enemy, and possibly make them decide to turn back, for instance because they decide it is not worth it.
There are many examples of this in nature as well as historically reg. warfare and other kinds of cases (for instance the defense by Wenceslaus I mentioned, where they succeeded in repulsing the Mongolians). And a slightly related video (Honey Badger): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe#Invasion_of_Czech_lands
After the defeat of the European forces at Legnica, the Mongols then continued pillaging throughout Poland's neighboring kingdoms, particularly Silesia and Moravia. King Wenceslaus I of Bohemia fled back to protect his kingdom after arriving late and discovering the devastation the Mongols caused in those places; gathering reinforcements from Thuringia and Saxony as he retreated. He stationed his troops in the mountainous regions of Bohemia where the Mongols wouldn't be able to utilize their cavalry effectively.[24]
By that time, the Mongolian forces had divided into two, one led by Batu and Subutai who were planning to invade Hungary, and another led by Baidar and Kadan who were ravaging their way through Silesia and Moravia. When they arrived to attack Bohemia, the kingdom's defenses discouraged them from attacking and they withdrew to the town of Othmachau.[25][24] A small force of Mongolians did attack Kłodzko but the Bohemian cavalry under Wenceslaus managed to fend them off.[26][27] The Mongols then tried to take the town of Olomouc, but Wenceslaus managed to get the aid of Austrian Babenbergs and they repulsed the raid.[24][28][29] A Mongol commander was captured in a sortie near Olomouc.[30] Under Wenceslaus' leadership during the Mongol invasion, Bohemia remained one of a few European kingdoms that was never conquered and molested by the Mongols even though most kingdoms around it such as Poland and Moravia were ravaged.[24] Such was his success that chroniclers sent messages to Emperor Frederick II of his "victorious defense".[31] After these failed attempts, Baidar and Kadan continued raiding Moravia before finally going southward to reunite with Batu and Subutai in Hungary.
One case of the consequences of failing to defend against the Mongolians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)#Destruction
>Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river and red from the blood of the scientists and philosophers killed.[29]