Castle Information Thread

Raksab wrote:

Originally castles were fortresses. The wall is there for protection and the towers are for watch and defense. In times of war, the noncombatants living nearby can take refuge inside the keep. In peacetime a castle may contain the lord and his family, servants, and maybe a few armed men. If the lord rules a large domain he may have courtiers and advisors around. Some castles with large households that dominate the local economy gradually get expanded until they are small cities. Some castles aren't even inhabited when the lord is not in residence.

A palace is just a very fancy house. There are castles which are palaces, but typically the more luxurious the place gets, the less practical it becomes for military use. There are modern castles which have been constructed solely for pleasure and with no defensibility in mind, but you'd have to be really absurdly rich and hopelessly romantic, or else a very daring entrepreneur.

Arinyes wrote:

Well, little else to be said about difference between palace and castle. Castles are fortified structures meant to defend a position, palaces are generally great opulent estates that may have some means of keeping out the rabble, but otherwise have little in the sense of keeping out an army.

Life for a girl who was the daughter of the king's righthand man may mean that she grows up with a certain level of social status. Even when the father died, if his name is held in great esteem, it's likely to reflect on the children. Servants would be dedicated to raising her and dependent on the king's disposition towards the offspring of his deceased right-hand man, may provide them with an education or just have them stowed away in a corner so that they don't get in his way. All of this really is about whether he has use of the children, sees the use in them and to what end.

In feudal europe, the child of a knight tended to be part of the lesser nobility, carrying the proud name of their father. Girls for that purpose would be considered prime marriage materials for the sons of other knights (who may just as well have been raised to be knights themselves). And the same goes to children born of the higher nobility, getting an education in the absence of their parents and be given their debut in high society once they come of age. Naturally, besides that they'd be raised and properly educated, they'd be expected to uphold certain responsibilities from an early age and behave themselves accordingly to their station.

Especially with children of higher nobility, their lands would be put in the trust of a guardian who'd be appointed to oversee the dealings of the estate until the heir is old enough to take over and see to the education of the child(ren) in question.

Arinyes wrote:

Higher nobility in essence hold lands of their own, support the king and its armies and see to oversight of local affairs in name of the crown by collecting taxes and send the king's cut to fill the state coffers. The nobility under a monarchy are essentially a variant of bureaucracy, in which the higher nobility pay homage to their king or queen by managing larger estates of land and possibly manage lesser nobility and land owners. Higher nobility are also likely to house a few knights of prominent families, depending on the knight system, although in general being a knight meant one had to be of the nobility already (especially in later times when the nobility is settled and steeped in tradition with little room for added titles).

Raksab wrote:

Aristocracy is kind of like middle management. They are supposed to look after smaller parcels of the kingdom on behalf of the king (or pope, or emperor) who is in charge. In some countries (ancient Persia, China) the whole system is a tightly managed bureaucracy; in others (czarist Russia) the individual fiefs are pretty well ignored and the local lords can do what they like within their domains.

Some lords were authorized to administer justice in their lands, so if two peasants had a dispute they could take it to the lord to get settled. In other places, the court system was a separate entity, which might be directly controlled by the king. In theory, a peasant mistreated by his lord could petition the king for relief, but that depended a lot on what country you were in. And in medieval Europe, the church had its own separate court. If you had a grievance with a priest, secular authorities had no power over the matter: you had to take it up with the church, which (naturally) tended to side with its own. This became a source of dispute between kings and the church, to put it mildly. By the way, the Pope was effectively a king and he had nobles (bishops), land holdings, and armies of his own.

A crucial piece of the feudal system in the ancient and medieval world was "homage." If you owed homage to a lord, that specifically meant if he called you to fight for him, you'd show up armed and ready, and if you were a lord yourself, you'd bring along some men from your province to fight as well. You'd also bring servants to look after your mounts and gear. They had wars more or less constantly (except in winter, and in some cases even then) so homage was a big deal. That was the quid pro quo of a noble title. And in those days, land was money. If you didn't own land, you would most likely be poor forever.

In the early Middle Ages, wars depended on trained noblemen. As technology and politics changed, mercenaries took the place of knights, and wars began to depend more on large numbers of peasants. By the 16th century, nobility was more about providing money (taxes) than about supplying the king with an army. If you were rich enough, you could essentially buy a noble title, and thanks to global trade and so much new land available, you didn't need a title to get rich anymore.

Then came a number of revolutions, new political thinkers, and (eventually) Napoleon. By the late 18th century, nobility meant much less, and money and voting rights meant a lot more -- it was possible to have a noble title and not have any power, or you could have no title and still have the king's ear if you wielded money, or if you were a large number of poor commoners with votes. Land was still greatly valued, but banks and trade were so well developed that you could be rich without ever owning an acre.

And by the 19th century, weapons had developed to the point noblemen were no use on the battlefield without special training. They could help their lord best by sending money and supplies, not by going to war themselves. Following the Industrial Revolution, having cash and credit could actually be BETTER than owning land.

Nowadays, nobility in most countries is just a token given by a monarch, and it doesn't come with any serious land or power. Votes are worth more than titles, and in theory votes trump money as well (though in practice, people are susceptible to bribes and advertisements).