Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The original starship classes in EVE were frigates, cruisers, industrials and the elusive Battleships?

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Holder Ranks  (Read 3358 times)

Louella Dougans

  • \o/
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • \o/
Holder Ranks
« on: 06 Oct 2013, 12:03 »

The threads by Odelya here and here made me think a thing about known ranks of Holders might be useful

For the Khanid Kingdom, there are several Dukes mentioned:
Maser Bisi, Duke of Ashmarir - this duke is mentioned in the mission chain from Arizam Gimit. Ashmarir is a single system.
Shimon Jaen, Duke - this guy is a Commander in the Khanid Navy

In the Amarr Empire, we have:
Duke Manel Kador, Governor of Araz Constellation.
Baron Bartezo Maphante, Baron of Garisas system.
The Duke of Pator, a destitute Holder
Numerous Lords and sometimes Ladies, who occasionally own multiple planets, e.g. Lords Miyan and Darabi, or may only have a deep space habitat, e.g. Lady Jariza.

The age of a star system affects the Holders that control it. Some Holders own small parts of land, others own continents, some own whole planets. Less developed regions, the Holder controls multiple star systems.


Thoughts on this:
My thought would be, that a star system would have multiple levels of ownership.
E.g. for a system in Kador, there would be:
Uriam Kador, Heir and Holder of Kador Region
a Governor of the Constellation (may have the title of Duke)
a Holder of the System (may have rank of Baron)
a Holder of each Planet (Lord/Lady)
Holders of significant other celestial features - large asteroids, comets, deadspace pockets (Lord/Lady)
Holders of parts of planets (Lord/Lady)

In lesser developed systems, the Governor of the constellation would have control over everything, with vassal Holders only being created if the need existed.
In more developed systems, there would be lots and lots of Holders, with varying sizes of Holding.

A Lord might own several Planets, but not the System or the asteroid belts, comets and other celestial features. Might even own several planets spread across different star systems, which would complicate things for the lieges of those systems - Holder Plots, everywhere.


So, for players, then being a Duke/Duchess places the character pretty high up the ranking, suggesting control of a complete System or even Constellation.
Being a Baron/Baroness is still pretty significant.
Owning a Planet is also quite high social ranking.

Once you get down to planetary scales, then things are a bit easier to cope with player titles, I think.
Continent > Country > County > City > Town > Village > Farm. That sort of thing.

I play Crusader Kings 2 a lot D:
Logged
\o/

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #1 on: 06 Oct 2013, 12:46 »

That's more or less what is hinted in that Batman Aritcio chronicle.
Logged

Odelya

  • Guest
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #2 on: 06 Oct 2013, 14:03 »

Wiki says:

Quote
The only official title within the Empire for Holders is simply Holder. The title of Holder may be held by either a man or a woman, with Lord or Lady being the proper form of address. Some titles have indications of holdings, such as the title Holder of Dakba.

Certain Holders, for historical or traditional reasons, take more extensive titles, such as Duke[8]. These titles may denote higher levels of authority.
I would have imagined a very complex system of seniority which also translates into titles. On the other hand this could also be established through genealogical knowledge and local traditions of precedence.

And about the situation in the Kingdom it goes as follows:
Quote
Holders in the Khanid Kingdom are in many ways identical to their Empire counterparts. They retain many of the same governing and slave-owning functions. However, there are several main differences that set them apart.

The largest difference is the relative power of the Kingdom Holders. While in the Empire, all Holders are subservient to an Heir, in the Kingdom they must answer solely to the King. Khanid II has proven to be a somewhat hands-off ruler, allowing his Holders to rule in what manner they see fit. [13] Additionally, there is no Theology Council or centralized religious authority in the Kingdom aside from the King, so the Kingdom Holders assume many of the duties undertaken by the priesthood in the Empire.

In many ways, Kingdom Holders resemble the Holders of the pre-Moral Reforms Empire.

Additionally, a larger portion of Holders in the Khanid Kingdom belong to the Khanid bloodline. Though the majority are still of True Amarr descent, a large number of Khanid Holders owed their loyalty to the Khanid Family and accompanied Khanid II in his revolt against the Empire.

Odelya’s ancestors belonged to those followers (I haven’t worked out the details, but this doesn’t matter here). There might be dukes and duchesses who don’t possess much power (like the aforementioned Duke of Pator) but hold the title out of tradition. The filthy rich holder of Unefsih VII might have no fancy titles, but real power, while the Duke of Inis-Ilix might be the one with the big name, but little power (for he and his ancestors where complete idiots in handling their affairs) and no money. So the title might not be the prime indicator of power.
Logged

Odelya

  • Guest
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #3 on: 06 Oct 2013, 14:06 »

P.S.: Duke Shimon Jaen is now officially Odelya's new personal hero!
Logged

Louella Dougans

  • \o/
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • \o/
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #4 on: 07 Oct 2013, 14:14 »

Another thing that I thought about, relating to how things work in Crusader Kings 2, is the heirarchy and liege/vassal relationships.

Normally, it would be Region Holder > Constellation > System > Planets & other Celestial Holders.

As new constellations are discovered and added to a region, then the region Holder, would have all titles in that new constellation, and would create vassal Holdings as they saw fit, and may not necessarily follow the neat and orderly scheme of older settled areas.

That is, a new system Holder, may be a direct vassal of the Region holder, rather than the constellation Holder.

Which leads inevitably, to plots and schemes, where Holders argue that vassals should serve them directly, rather than the Heir Family that owns the region.

Intrigue, intrigue everywhere
Logged
\o/

Vic Van Meter

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 397
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #5 on: 07 Oct 2013, 17:29 »

On feudalism, I can say that the ranks have always been variable and a little wonky.  Essentially, a king would divide up his territory among his vassals, who would then intermittently cooperate and then fight to gain new holdings.  Since this doesn't seem to work in Amarr territory or the kingdom, we can't really link it too heavily to feudalism.  I would assume that holder families simply dole out land, planets, and systems according to their whim and might have their own titles.  One lord might dislike the title of "viscount" and thus would skip it on his way down the list.  Some have flat hierarchies and some are heavily graded.  One thing I think is like the feudal system is that you can't necessarily tell how powerful someone is by the title alone.

So I think it's important to do as Odelya did and sort of outline your holdings a bit.  The Duke of Pator might still be a Duke, but his power might be nigh nonexistent, compared to Duke Manel Kador who controls an entire constellation.

So I think it's extremely necessary to outlined holdings and to pay attention when people outline theirs.  That way we know exactly what they're representing.
Logged

Pieter Tuulinen

  • Tacklebitch
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 662
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #6 on: 07 Oct 2013, 18:15 »

Another thing that I thought about, relating to how things work in Crusader Kings 2, is the heirarchy and liege/vassal relationships.

Normally, it would be Region Holder > Constellation > System > Planets & other Celestial Holders.

As new constellations are discovered and added to a region, then the region Holder, would have all titles in that new constellation, and would create vassal Holdings as they saw fit, and may not necessarily follow the neat and orderly scheme of older settled areas.

That is, a new system Holder, may be a direct vassal of the Region holder, rather than the constellation Holder.

Which leads inevitably, to plots and schemes, where Holders argue that vassals should serve them directly, rather than the Heir Family that owns the region.

Intrigue, intrigue everywhere

You're missing the factor that is the importance/profitability of said territory. For example, someone owning a large island on Athra might well have a rank as high as Duke, whilst an entire barren world in an arse-end system might be the fief of no more than a Baronet.
Logged

Vic Van Meter

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 397
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #7 on: 07 Oct 2013, 19:48 »

Another thing that I thought about, relating to how things work in Crusader Kings 2, is the heirarchy and liege/vassal relationships.

Normally, it would be Region Holder > Constellation > System > Planets & other Celestial Holders.

As new constellations are discovered and added to a region, then the region Holder, would have all titles in that new constellation, and would create vassal Holdings as they saw fit, and may not necessarily follow the neat and orderly scheme of older settled areas.

That is, a new system Holder, may be a direct vassal of the Region holder, rather than the constellation Holder.

Which leads inevitably, to plots and schemes, where Holders argue that vassals should serve them directly, rather than the Heir Family that owns the region.

Intrigue, intrigue everywhere

You're missing the factor that is the importance/profitability of said territory. For example, someone owning a large island on Athra might well have a rank as high as Duke, whilst an entire barren world in an arse-end system might be the fief of no more than a Baronet.

That's actually got some historical accuracy.  In fact, there are some lieges in history who have been extremely influential, but their holdings were complete crap.  The reason they held these rocky bits of mountain was because they had strategic fortresses on them, or they were those city-states that "needed to be taken before Suchandsuch is taken."  So lords who were elevated for their military and strategic prowess were often given resource-poor regions that were better places to stage troops than people who were elevated as administrators and by favor.  Those people got very productive holdings that they could tax heavily.

I suppose it's up in the air whether a military or production holder would be more powerful.  That's probably a case-by-case basis.  You'd think an Amarrian Holder on the edge of lowsec on a barren planet is probably not the guy you'd want to dick around with, even if he's not the one rolling in cash.
Logged

Nicoletta Mithra

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #8 on: 08 Oct 2013, 03:55 »

On the other hand, in the Empire a lot of the military is directly in the Hand of the Emperor as it is with the Imperial Navy. In distinction from a feudal state as we know it from the medieval era, Holders do have some troops, but they don't provide the main part of the Empire's Military assets.
Logged

Odelya

  • Guest
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #9 on: 08 Oct 2013, 04:54 »

One lord might dislike the title of "viscount" and thus would skip it on his way down the list.  Some have flat hierarchies and some are heavily graded.  One thing I think is like the feudal system is that you can't necessarily tell how powerful someone is by the title alone.
That is exactly what I think.

So I think it's important to do as Odelya did and sort of outline your holdings a bit.  The Duke of Pator might still be a Duke, but his power might be nigh nonexistent, compared to Duke Manel Kador who controls an entire constellation.

So I think it's extremely necessary to outlined holdings and to pay attention when people outline theirs.  That way we know exactly what they're representing.
I think this is really very important and it will be the next step for me, to give it some more thought and elaboration.

You're missing the factor that is the importance/profitability of said territory. For example, someone owning a large island on Athra might well have a rank as high as Duke, whilst an entire barren world in an arse-end system might be the fief of no more than a Baronet.
Definitely, and this is one of the more interesting aspects. Precedence, genealogies, history, all the things that turn a title into a story.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #10 on: 08 Oct 2013, 07:48 »

On feudalism, I can say that the ranks have always been variable and a little wonky.  Essentially, a king would divide up his territory among his vassals, who would then intermittently cooperate and then fight to gain new holdings.  Since this doesn't seem to work in Amarr territory or the kingdom, we can't really link it too heavily to feudalism.  I would assume that holder families simply dole out land, planets, and systems according to their whim and might have their own titles.  One lord might dislike the title of "viscount" and thus would skip it on his way down the list.  Some have flat hierarchies and some are heavily graded.  One thing I think is like the feudal system is that you can't necessarily tell how powerful someone is by the title alone.

So I think it's important to do as Odelya did and sort of outline your holdings a bit.  The Duke of Pator might still be a Duke, but his power might be nigh nonexistent, compared to Duke Manel Kador who controls an entire constellation.

So I think it's extremely necessary to outlined holdings and to pay attention when people outline theirs.  That way we know exactly what they're representing.


There are mechanisms in CK2 that deal with these issues.

1) On the infighting between vassals : it stops to be possible if the crown authority is high enough (in terms of laws/legalism), unless there is a legitimate complain such as succession feud or alliance between an outsider and a vassal of the vassal or twisted things like that... But in Amarr law it's probably going to end in judicial duels or in court. Most kingdoms end up like that over the years as the central power becomes stronger and stronger.

2) You can perfectly hold the title of duke of a territory even if someone else holds the territory in question. It is only a question of time before the guy claims the title and makes it his own. It leads to furious conflicts between dukes that both hold half of the de jure territory of the duchy itself.
« Last Edit: 08 Oct 2013, 07:56 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Gaven Lok ri

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #11 on: 08 Oct 2013, 11:48 »

On the other hand, in the Empire a lot of the military is directly in the Hand of the Emperor as it is with the Imperial Navy. In distinction from a feudal state as we know it from the medieval era, Holders do have some troops, but they don't provide the main part of the Empire's Military assets.

I don't agree with this interpretation on several points.

First, we know that the Imperial Navy+Heideran's private forces+Dakos' rebellion were not enough to stop the secession of Khanid.

This either suggests that the force parity between a major military heir and the Navy is actually pretty high or that the Navy is made up of people with split loyalties and not completely in the hands of the Emperor.

Now, we know Heideran spent a great deal of effort on shoring up the position of the Navy and the position of the Emperor over his reign, a process that Jamyl is continuing, but it is not clear to me that this has changed the balance so completely in the Emperor's favor.

I would also be surprised if the other heirs would ever let the emperor gain enough power to beat all of them at once.

What I would expect is that the navy is certainly the largest of the amarr empire militaries, but that it is predominantly made up of patrol vessels rather than line of battle vessels. IE, the Amarr empire has a massive amount of space to protect and it seems to be the navies job to do that. This means that the navy is going to be quite spread out for the most part in basically garrison style deployments with obsolete ships.

I would expect that the actual top tier portions of the navy are relatively small. Still probably more than any other one heir can contest, but I cannot imagine the heirs allowing the navy to have a sufficient line of battle capacity to threaten them.

I would expect the heirs to have the opposite structure. Relatively small total numbers of hulls, but kept at tip top condition and weighted for a major engagement. Basically the role the heir's navies fill is going to be less of a territory maintenance role and more of a tool for handling disputes between themselves and other holders. It also seems likely that its the Heirs and major holder's fleets that allowed for reclaiming style conquest.

Basically what I see is a Navy that is increasing in size when a strong emperor pushes for centralization, but which is primarily a defensive and order maintenance tool. While the Heirs have most of the sheer firepower of the Empire when it comes to major offensive actions. This balance ebs and flows, at Heideran's height the navy was probably more powerful than most of the heirs, but we have had a lot of years of his dotage and of Doriam and Karsoth to contend with so I doubt that the balance is in favor of centralization currently.

I would expect specific holders under the heirs to serve in the heirs navies and contribute ships to them. There is also some evidence of lower tier holders having navies, but these seem to be relatively petty things compared to the really big dynasts.

While I am happier when we avoid the Western medieval titles in favor of the Amarr specific ones, we definitely do have subinfeudation, which means the feudal model is an accurate one. There are obviously holders beholden to bigger holders beholden to heirs who are beholden to the Emperor and this complicated aristocracy is how the empires military is manned and its bureaucracy run. The power of the Emperor is a great deal higher than the western models, something closer to a Byzantine or Sasanian balance of power, but it is a feudal system.
Logged

Esna Pitoojee

  • Keeper of the Harem
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #12 on: 08 Oct 2013, 15:32 »

It's worth noting that Khanid II was, at the time of his secession, the commander-in-chief of the Empire's military. So yes, it's fair to say that some in the navy had some severe crises of loyalty when that occured. This has likely been rectified since then.
Logged
I like the implications of Gallentians being punched in the face by walking up to a Minmatar as they so freely use another person's culture as a fad.

Horatius Caul

  • Words words words
  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 344
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #13 on: 09 Oct 2013, 15:46 »

On the other hand, in the Empire a lot of the military is directly in the Hand of the Emperor as it is with the Imperial Navy. In distinction from a feudal state as we know it from the medieval era, Holders do have some troops, but they don't provide the main part of the Empire's Military assets.

I don't agree with this interpretation on several points.

First, we know that the Imperial Navy+Heideran's private forces+Dakos' rebellion were not enough to stop the secession of Khanid.

This either suggests that the force parity between a major military heir and the Navy is actually pretty high or that the Navy is made up of people with split loyalties and not completely in the hands of the Emperor.
The Khanid Kingdom chronicle specifically spells out that Khanid was the commander of the imperial military, and that as a result a portion of the Navy defected along with him (also allowing him to steal the two titans).

The fact that the rebellion led to the Heideran Decree would also indicate that House Khanid's own military force was a deciding factor in the war.

The actual relationship between house militaries and Imperial command hierarchy is also unclear. They probably stand outside of the chain of command, making it difficult for the throne to actually leverage the combined forces of the royal houses against a single enemy. Depending on politics some house fleets may even be very reluctant to work alongside each other.

Plus, the rebellion came just after a Shatol'Syn ceremony, the time when every single tier of the Empire is seeing new management and vying for positions of power. New Emperor, new leaders of the royal houses, leader of the Navy has defected and taken a number of top military leaders with him, the Emperor Family and the Bureaucracy have to be purged of Khanid sympathizers, and there's a war to fight.

For all intents and purposes, the Empire was rendered nonfunctional by Khanid's rebellion. Heideran couldn't trust the Navy. The Royal Houses all had new leaders and focusing them on the war would have been like herding cats. Every executive body of the Empire would have been compromised. Not only was a royal house secceding, but with popular support from the Khanid people an entire ethnicity was also under suspicion. The Ministry of Internal Order was probably the most important imperial body during the rebellion, rooting out Khanid agents everywhere. Supporting Dakos to oust Garkeh was probably an MIO plan.

Gaven Lok ri

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
Re: Holder Ranks
« Reply #14 on: 11 Oct 2013, 02:47 »

I had forgotten how strongly worded Heiderans decree was.

That said, whether it is in effect at all is an interesting question. I would think that the interregnum period would have resulted in most big holders rearming and we have had at least one event where holders had access to military forces. We also have seen talk of the Heirs private militiaries in the news of the last few years.

Khanid reentering the fold also adds a major feudal military to the mix. Basically, right now I see the empire as much less centralized than it would have been 10 years ago.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2