|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 8:37:10 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 2, 2005 8:37:10 GMT -5
Who are the nobles in the Imperium? By what right are they called nobles, and what kind of priveleges do they have?
In Europe, most nobles have royal family or royal ancestors. What family do nobles in the Imperium have? Obviously, none of them are related to the Emperor. Not officially, at least.
And what kind of nobles are there in the Imperium? Are there dukes, barons and lords? Do these maintain their noble status across the Imperium?
Sorry to ask so many questions without providing any answers, but I'm absolutely clueless about all of this.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 10:01:02 GMT -5
Post by Sojourner on Apr 2, 2005 10:01:02 GMT -5
I would guess those individuals whose families have hereditary ties to the Administratum. The workings of the Administratum are rather feudal in themselves - your title is the same as your father's and your vocation is passed down the generations. Successful families in higher ranks probably amass quite substantial family holdings.
All I can come up with for the moment.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 11:42:36 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 2, 2005 11:42:36 GMT -5
Before I start this quick little post, I point out that the system does need some work. It was created at a time when GW/BL had not begin to even mention some of these little tid-bits of information and, even then, I still think that with some modification it could work. Why modification? Generally speaking I feel that the system advocated is a tad more interesting than a uniform interpretation of what it is to be 'noble', i.e. in this case the superficial and simplistic approach. The approach which I advocate to create an intereting analogy to the system of the Roman Empire, which I admit drawing overtly on in terms of the political system of the Imperium, is to work along the lines of two broad ranging groups of 'nobility': - The nobilitas imperialis, or the "Imperial nobility". I envisage a similar principle as Sojourner (although this has developed with time) in which the nobilitas imperialis has intimiate ties with the adeptus administratum, and indeed other organisations of the adeptus terra, but which are not solely defined by the 'Administratum'. Wha? Merely that while they have ties to it, they are not the 'Administratum'. Their origins lies in the origin of the Great Crusade itself, 'noble houses' that threw in their support for the Emperor. (Whether these are subsequently sub-divided into the 'administration' and the 'military' is another question, though I would tend to think not, at least at this juncture.) Thus:
- They are a distinct group from the nobilitas provincialis (q.v.).
- Their origins lie in the period immediately before and during the Great Crusade. Their support for the Emperor fossilised into fuedal advantage on Earth and, to an extent, beyond.
- They continue to exist in parallel to the adeptus terra in the same way that the 'noble houses' of the navis noblite exist.
- Their influence extends over the Imperium moderated by the feudal ties, i.e. nobility is the defining feature of the Imperium in terms of integration. (E.g. The Imperial Commanders are members of the nobilitas imperialis either by enoblement of position or hereditary, depending on the nature of the government on any given world.)
- The 'letter of enoblement' that defines an 'Imperial noble' is valid over the entire Imperium.
- The nobilitas provincialis, or "Provincial Nobility". These are, quite simply, nobility raised within the individual systems of government maintained on the worlds of the Imperium. Their influence extends over a limited sphere and their 'letter of enoblement' is limited to a given sphere, marked by historical or traditional ties, or the extent of mercantile interest. Thus:
- Their sphere of influence is limited by some means, either historical, traditional or economic.
- They are raised by the specific practices of a given world, rather than the generic 'enoblement' of the nobilitas imperialis.
The two groups of nobility do, of course, interact through the traditional means of noble interaction: marriage as a means of fossilising bonds of obligation; economic treaties; patronage; etc. It is also important to note that the relative scale of 'wealth' doesn't play into the differentiatio of the two groups of nobility: it is entirely possible for a provincial noble house to be more wealthy than an Imperial noble house, although extremely unlikely... In other words, the Imperial nobility are at the bloated heart of the Imperium and have been so since its inception. Needs some work but, for me, a good place to start and one which creates a dynamic situation that allows for interesting scenarios, both RPG and wargame, to be created. Kage
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 11:51:59 GMT -5
Post by Sojourner on Apr 2, 2005 11:51:59 GMT -5
I'm not terribly convinced about the intermixing of local and imperial types. They are very different institutions, and quite possibly on a very different scale. While a local noble may have a large country house to their name, an Imperial one may own an entire continent, fleets of cruise ships and enough capital to buy a small world outright. They aren't going to be particularly interested in mixing with one another - at least not in the downward sense.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 13:26:37 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 2, 2005 13:26:37 GMT -5
They are very different institutions, and quite possibly on a very different scale. While quite possibly note. The concept of the merchant captains as the 'new' nobility mentioned in the Eisenhorn books alludes to such a potential. While a local noble may have a large country house to their name, an Imperial one may own an entire continent, fleets of cruise ships and enough capital to buy a small world outright. Yes, and that is also not to say that the influence, both economic and otherwise, of a provincial noble house should not extend to such huge shows of ostentation either. Consider the Glaws of Eisenhorn once again (even if they did only 'own' one house, their influence extended over a much wider area). The potential is there even though I personally think that it is less likely: the nobilitas imperialis, as I define them, have been at it for much longer and had a much better start on it than many of the other worlds of the Imperium. They aren't going to be particularly interested in mixing with one another - at least not in the downward sense. As an extension of the interests of the nobilitas imperialis throughout the Imperium it is entirely possible, in an analogous fashion as to how it occurred in later medieval europe. E.g. marriage of the 'poorer' nobility with that of the wealthy merchants. In other words, the situation is not a case of black and white, as normal for the 40k universe. <lurk once again> Kage
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 14:07:37 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 2, 2005 14:07:37 GMT -5
So how are hereditary titles passed down? I admit I know very little about things like this, but thankfully I seem to be the only one at that I assume that not all the children inherit the title of their noble parent(s), otherwise nobles could multiply quite a lot over 10,000 years. If there were 50 nobles of the nobilitas imperialis in the Anargo sector during the Great Crusade, and these nobles (and their offspring) had on average three children.. well, I'm no expert in maths, but I think it's safe to say that these could populate their own hiveworld by M41. How many nobles would you think there are in a sector like Anargo? Obviously, it varies from sector to sector, so let's start with Anargo. OriginIf the original nobles are identified as powerful 'houses' from around the galaxy that supported the Emperor during the Great Crusade, I'm left wondering who were given this reward? I mean, he conquered the majority of human worlds in the galaxy. Sooner or later, pretty much everyone supported the Emperor. So who were rewarded with nobility? Everyone who greated him with open arms? I believe there were quite a few. Or was nobility a carrot the Emperor dangled in front of the faces of those who considered defying the Emperor and giving him a fight? Example: Imperial forces arrive in the Anargo system, in M30. At that time, Anargo is a balkanised world, ruled by ten kings. All of these kings have agreed that they will not disgrace their ancestors by becoming petty servants of this upstart Emperor, so they prepare to go to war. So, the Emperor promises them nobility, hereditary titles and lands, in return for a peaceful solution. Is that what we see happening?
What about new nobles? Are people ever awarded with nobility and hereditary titles, or do they have to acquire these by marriage? Can a succesful Warmaster retire and live the rest of his days as a noble? Are heroes awarded noble titles, like the heroes of England were awarded with Knighthood? I would prefer it if we didn't actually have Imperial 'Knights' in this sense, personally.
What are the types of nobility, beyond Imperial and Provincial nobility? (Dukes, barons, lords, what?) Furthermore, what kind of priveleges do they have? That many noble families accumulate wealth over the millennia is a given, and I imagine that their ancestors would be given much territories and treasures during the Great Crusade. But what sets them apart from Joe Imperium, except for social status, economy and a fancy title? Are they automatically given education by the Adeptus Terra, for example? What else?
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 14:41:51 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 2, 2005 14:41:51 GMT -5
What if the higher nobles (provincial) of worlds also forms part of the court of an Imperial noble? As a model: it would be like the world’s nobles are in charge of ‘counties’ that make up the Imperium?
Seeing as the Imperium is ingrained in all human worlds, it must get grass roots support as well as support from the leaders. If it where possible to ‘work your way up’ provincial nobles could joint the big boys and try to become an Imperial noble. Though this may take extreme resolve and several generations.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 15:03:38 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 2, 2005 15:03:38 GMT -5
It really depends upon the system in question. Primogeniture, i.e. transmission of the title to the elder son, is the normal case in a system which generally had women as second-class 'nobles' (and people). While such transmission is traditional, it must also be confirmed by the feudal overlord who has the right to position any individual in any position at any time. (You can see this in relation to the Charters of the Fleet and the 'fluff' therein.)
Yes, as above. Primogeniture is a common approach in feudal systems although there are alternatives. E.g. IIRC the Irish system operated on a righ-domnha approach whereby while primogeniture was common (in this case male and female), the 'monarch' in this case could be selected from any members of the 'royal line'.
40k has, for the most part, struck me as a combination of Primogeniture coupled with this other approach. The first son (normally; daughter very rarely) gets the position unless they are considered unworthy, in which case it goes to the most fitting (popular, powerful, cunning... whatever) member of the line.
That really depends on whether you are talking about Imperial or provincial nobles. In terms of the latter? Who knows. It would depend on the number of worlds that operate an oligarchic system of government.
For my approach each 'fiefdom' in Anargo (this normally translates to a system) contributes at least one (1) member of the nobilits imperialis in the form of the nominal head of the Imperial Commander's household. That, however, depends on the nature of the local government and whether it is imposed or organically developed.
For me it is an ab initio phenomenon: it was those 'nobles' (warlords, whatever) that supported the Emperor from Terra. In this regard it conforms to the premise that the government of the Imperium is 'centralised', even though a consideration of the 'fluff' shows that in n this cannot be true. As to extension towards the 'masses' during the Great Crusade, this is covered by the raising of the Imperial Commander to the rank of nobilitas imperialis (of the ordo eques to borrow Roman terminology once again, i.e. a lower 'rank' of noble than the powerful ones found on Earth, i.e. ordo senatorum).
One also has to remember that not all noble titles are hereditary. Consider the title of 'Sir', i.e. a Knighthood. That is a life-time title that is not necessarily passed down to ones children. Thus it could be similar in the Imperium and, indeed for me, that is the case.
That is entirely possible since I am of the personal opinion - not saying that it is not a common opinion - that the Emperor did not simply use force of arms to 'conquer' the Imperium.
It's a possibility. Although in this hypothetical situation I think it more likely that only one of the 'kings' be raised to the rank of Imperial Commander and 'nobility' (allusions to the concept of 'High King').
Again, there is a great deal of lattitude since the Imperium is not a purely feudal affair.
For me yes, in both cases.
I like them. Rewards for a lifetime of service but one which does not pass to the children.
The ranks of nobility for the nobilitas provincialis are, well, provincial: they vary for the world. Otherwise I personally see it swaying to the Roman model more than anything else.
That really depends on the 'noble' in question. Members integrated into the nobilitas imperialis through an Imperial Commandership have privileges that we are all familiar with. In terms of the 'core' nobilitas imperialis, that which is represented by a fiefdom on Terra itself, there is administration of given areas of Terra, etc.
The only 'education' provided by the adeptus terra, as we have discussed previously, takes the form of the []schola progenium[/i]: the whole funky 'Imperial orphans' approach. I'm somewhat of a cynic and realise that this is not entirely the case, but it is a point in question.
But 'social status, economy and a fancy title' - all caught up in the sense of feudal obligations (i.e. noblesse oblige) - are themselves their own reward. They raise an individual out from the plebs/masses...
That depends on the system of government, but yes that is possible.
That is an entirely weird statement. The degree to which the Imperium is 'integrated' into a world varies considerably.
Similar to the information presented in Eisenhorn and as mentioned in terms of non-hereditary nobility, and why the concepts of intermarriage, patronage, etc. are important. But I would personally see the ranks of the higher nobility restricted by... well, themselves.
Kage
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 15:18:29 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 2, 2005 15:18:29 GMT -5
But I would personally see the ranks of the higher nobility restricted by... well, themselves. I suppose they can guard against inbreeding by using genetic-engineering as apposed to taking on ‘new blood’.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 2, 2005 15:42:59 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 2, 2005 15:42:59 GMT -5
I suppose they can guard against inbreeding by using genetic-engineering as apposed to taking on ‘new blood’. Well, that is entirely possibly although I would find the premise unnecessary. They noble houses are themselves very large and genetically diverse. Rather I was saying that the higher ranks of the nobility pretty much well use the concept of politics to preserve their lofty position. Kage
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 3, 2005 7:05:35 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 3, 2005 7:05:35 GMT -5
For my approach each 'fiefdom' in Anargo (this normally translates to a system) Fiefdom? What is the definition of a fiefdom? If it is an area ruled by an Imperial Commander, then aren't all systems considered fiefdoms? Let's try to hazard a more accurate estimate, rather than 'more than one per world, and less than a billion' Would it be reasonable if Anargo, for example, had a dozen of 'Nobilitae Imperialis'? Would it be possible for Elinas to have half a dozen, or is this extremely unlikely? Oh, I'm fine with that, as long as we don't call them 'Knights'. Could you enlighten those of us who are not that familiar with the Roman model? Some more accurate answers or suggestions would be greatly appreciated, if you have any. I'm quite familiar with the Imperial Commanders, yes, and the Terran nobles don't really concern me at this point. I'm more interested about nobles such as House Glaw, and the other types of nobility that we are likely to see in the Anargo sector. [/i]: the whole funky 'Imperial orphans' approach.[/quote] Aye, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Imperial nobles are automatically accepted into the higher grades of the schola, and given more luxurious jobs. They don't end up as administratum clerks, for example. Of course, of course. But I was interested in things such as law immunity, travelling priveleges, trading rights, etc. Special priveleges.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 3, 2005 9:21:12 GMT -5
Post by Sojourner on Apr 3, 2005 9:21:12 GMT -5
I believe the Romans chose their successor for one, look to them for inspiration perhaps. They didn't even have to be family.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 3, 2005 12:59:34 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 3, 2005 12:59:34 GMT -5
Yes, which is why I said 'usually a system'. Of course, in complex cases such as Terra it is not that simple (e.g. with Mars there). Thank you for your sarcasm. The point was that it really depended on the world, its trade and social importance, etc. But you have at least one for each system in Anargo. Yes, entirely possible as the world is important both in terms of 'society' (i.e. capital) and economy (i.e. Anargan Trade Spine, etc.). I cannot really remember the world, so that probably means its fairly minor. So the answer there would be a 'no' and, yes, it would be extremely unlikely. Again, though, if you're after specific numbers that would have to come later. At present I merely refer to them, rather inaccurately, as Tribunes (of the senatorum imperialis). I need to buff up on my Roman government, though. It's been a number of years since I looked at it! A 'wealth based' requirement or, in this case, based upon land-grants originally handed out by the Emperor. Three general classes of nobilite were formed: the ordo decurionium, or the 'magistrates' (i.e. associated with lower level administrative positions within the adeptus terra); the ordo eques (mid-level); and the ordo senatorium, the highest ranking members of the nobilitas imperialis. The analogy with the Romans and the nobilitas provincialis comes in differentiation: i.e. the nobilitas imperialis have 'citizenship', while the nobilitas provincialis do not. Of course, the direct application of citizenship here doesn't quite work. Oh, I have tons. Do you have any specific examples, or are all the requests going to be so general as to make them impossible? In general, however, the 'noble' has the right of at least Low law within his domain. High Law, i.e. 'capital crimes' against the state, etc., are weird. It would seem that they have them as well when they are directly within their fief, as long as the application of such does not break the lex imperialis or otherwise step on the toes of its officers. Remember, that in some ways I'm making this up as I go along... Might want to take things a bit easier? They could either be provincial or Imperial. The problem s that within the scope of influence the 'powers' of the noble are going to be broadly the same. It's just the sphere of influence of the nobilitas imperialis is arguably that much greater. That is a rather obvious given. The question has always been one of orphanship... The lex imperialis constrains them all. As mentioned above, though, in their own fiefdom they have right of Low and High Law. They have as much travelling privileges as anyone else with the money to acquire it and the same with regards to trading rights. It is the bonds of obligation, marriage and patronage that allow the extension of trading 'rights' or, more accurately, ability. You will note that this is included in the above. Kage
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 3, 2005 13:51:54 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 3, 2005 13:51:54 GMT -5
Yes, which is why I said 'usually a system'. Of course, in complex cases such as Terra it is not that simple (e.g. with Mars there). I see. Well, if you'll only find exceptions within the Segmentum Solar, that answers my question. It wasn't really intended as sarcasm, so sorry if I offended you. I'm just really anxious to get some answers on what seems to be an important but unexplored area of fluff. Since much in the Imperium is arguably feudal in nature, we really need to agree on what the nobles are and do to get an in-depth view of Imperial worlds. I wanted noble houses to be very important on Nagoma for example, but I couldn't really add detail to this concept, since I knew very little about how nobility worked in the Imperium. It seems that most worlds in the Anargo would have something like 1-15 or 1-20 nobles (Nobilitas Imperialis), depending on their history and relative importance. That's seems like a good place to start for now. A nice frame. I thought Tribunes were just military ranks. I guess I need to buff up as well Well, be sure to let us know once you have some suggestions for different types of nobility. I realise this might not be in the immediate future, but still. I'd rather have a term that doesn't immediately remind everyone of the Inquisition, but that seems like a good structure for Imperial nobility. Not really a big problem though. Again, I was not trying to be sarcastic. Examples are hard to give, I'm afraid, since I don't know what you need to know in order to determine priveleges. Do you imagine so many different types of priveleges, beyond social status, wealth and titles? Just for sake of discussion though, let's return to the example with the 'High King' of Anargo. So, if I understand you correctly, a noble could steal an apple or kill a local judge (not an Arbites judge, mind) without getting into trouble, but would be punished if he did anything to the Adeptus Terra, other nobles, or broke the Lex Imperialis. I'm just very eager to get to the answers, is all, and I tend to get even more eager when people answer "Depends." As far as I know, you're the only one who's explored this area of the fluff, and you're basing your suggestion on the roman empire, which seems more appropriate than anything. Well, I seem to remember that we agreed that noble applicants are considered orphans upon joining the Schola Progenium. That means their noble priveleges and titles are removed, to prevent complicated problems. They keep their noble names though.
Note: I'm really trying to be constructive here. That's why I started this thread. Even when you find that I am not, please keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Nobles
Apr 3, 2005 14:29:50 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 3, 2005 14:29:50 GMT -5
I see. Well, if you'll only find exceptions within the Segmentum Solar, that answers my question. There is a chance that you can find exceptions anywhere. That is why they're exceptions! In reference to Anargo specifically then, yes, it is unlikely that a system is going to be split up into multiple fiefdoms. Further, we have previously argued against a single Imperial Commander extending his fiefdom to another system... Since much in the Imperium is arguably feudal in nature, we really need to agree on what the nobles are and do to get an in-depth view of Imperial worlds. Indeed. But much of the ideas that I'm posting haven't really been addressed since their initial conceptualisation and have barely been scratched at in the 'fluff'. In terms of the wargame material they remain untouched, and the BL novels only make generic and hazy allusions to the complexities of Imperial society. I wanted noble houses to be very important on Nagoma for example, but I couldn't really add detail to this concept, since I knew very little about how nobility worked in the Imperium. [/b][/quote] If Nagoma itself is feudal then they are going to be nobilitas provincialis, but only if my system is utilised. Remember that the system was created before even any of the novels that allude to a political structure beyond the generic structure of the Imperium were written! The sense in this is that, for the most part, a noble is a noble is a noble (i.e. there is no difference between a noble of one world, a noble of another world, or a noble of Terra)... A fine line must be walked between differention for the sake of differentation (common in the 'fluff') and one that is there to create interesting social and political situations. I like the split of nobility types... but then again I also prefer an expanded senatorum imperialis. It seems that most worlds in the Anargo would have something like 1-15 or 1-20 nobles (Nobilitas Imperialis), depending on their history and relative importance. That's seems like a good place to start for now. A nice frame. The numbers seem a tad on the high side... potentially. One can imagine that the nobilitas imperialis are going to be peripatetic, moving as and when needed rather than this sedentary nobility that is being implied here. At any one time then, yes, you could have 20 or so members of the nobilitas imperialis, but you could also just have the one (i.e. the Imperial Commander). Further, the concept of marriage into the nobilitas imperiais hasn't really been addressed. I would say that it doesn't make the non- nobilitas imperialis family noble, or even the spouse, but rather gives them a more defined and legal link to the domus imperialis in question. I thought Tribunes were just military ranks. I guess I need to buff up as well Probably is. I seem to remember latching on the term because it was for a period of service (in this case life) and therefore was non-hereditary. Given the fact that the only individuals likely to be 'elected' to the status of the nobilitas imperialis are likely to be military in nature (up to and including participation in the senatorum imperialis, cf. Eisenhorn) I thought that it just suited at the time... But, again, this was years ago before BL novel began to publish many of its books. I'd rather have a term that doesn't immediately remind everyone of the Inquisition, but that seems like a good structure for Imperial nobility. A fair enough comment. Again, it is a direct lift from the ranks of nobility present in Imperial Rome and can be suitably modified. Not really a big problem though. No, not at all. I just try and be honest about the short-fallings of concepts that I have posted that I have previously identified. The only difference is the source of enoblement, essentially, and that finds parallel in the difference between the 'Rogue Trader' and the 'rogue trader' as previously discussed. Do you imagine so many different types of priveleges, beyond social status, wealth and titles? Not really. I merely point out that in many feudal societies the noble was the law, even if certain parts of High Law were restricted to the feudal overlord. In this case that would be the Emperor and His Officers, i.e. the senatorum imperialis (or, for me, the consulares of the senatorum imperialis, i.e. the concilium imperatos) and the adeptus arbites and the Inquisition. Other than that the noble would have rights to make laws within their fief (applicable to both nobilitas imperialis and provincialis) under the aegis of the lex imperialis, except in the case of the nobilitas provinciailis where that authority derives from the Imperial Commander. In the cases a member of the nobilits imperialis having residence on a world that is not their fief, they would enjoy the privileges of the nobilitas provincialis except in those circumstances where it comes into conflict with the Imperial Commander. Then it comes down to a matter if relative influence, either of the individuals in questions or their patrons. Just for sake of discussion though, let's return to the example with the 'High King' of Anargo. Well, the generic situation has been presented above. The 'High King' of Anargo (although this was not the case! ) would be raised to the position of nobilitas imperialis (for me a hereditary member of the ordo eques given a nominal fiefdom in or on Terra; there is a whole degree of potential in the establishment of patronage, etc., here). All the other 'kings' that you mentioned would be nobilitas provincialis. In the case where the powers between the various kings are not clear, or where there is a rotating system of government (i.e. one rules for seven years, then another), the position of Imperial Commander and membership of the nobilitas imperialis is attached to the office and subsumed by local practices. Again, as mentioned previously the adeptus terra tends to be a parasitic organisation on most Imperial worlds for this reason. So, if I understand you correctly, a noble could steal an apple or kill a local judge (not an Arbites judge, mind) without getting into trouble, but would be punished if he did anything to the Adeptus Terra, other nobles, or broke the Lex Imperialis. It would seem reasonable, yes, unless that in itself was questioned by his fuedal overlord which in this case would be the Imperial Commander. Well, I seem to remember that we agreed that noble applicants are considered orphans upon joining the Schola Progenium. That means their noble priveleges and titles are removed, to prevent complicated problems. They keep their noble names though. In which case it would be irrelevant what their origins would be: they are 'orphaned'. But, of course, we're all far more cynical than that. The obvious other suggestion is, and which has been made quite reasonably numerous times before, that the nobilitas imperialis do not really integrate with the adeptus terra in terms of contribution to their personnel but are rather manifestations of the 'warriote elite'. Personally I like the cross-over, but the yoke of the schola progenium as described in the 'fluff' is potentially problematic. Kage
|
|