- This topic has 67 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why didn’t medieval nobles just invade and burn down cities? Cities typically weren’t typically controlled by the nobility (aside from the king himself), and the people who lived inside of the cities were hated for being dishonest greedy merchants and usurious bankers, so why not just kill them all and take their money?
-
they had walls
-
Build a trebuchet.
-
>news goes out you’re building a treb
>everyone else gets nervous
>look up who you’re gonna use it on
>city alerted
>mercs get hired, king gets petitioned, city guard mobilizes, neighboring nobles offer defense
The nail that sticks out gets hammered, the noble that stirs shit gets ganged up on.-
Trebuchets are built on site.
-
All the samr, gearing for war takes time and resources. That would attract attention especially when there’s no imminent threat.
-
-
-
-
-
Because that Noblecucks fear the Merchvnt Bvlls.
-
Because they made money off of them
-
>Because they made money off of them
How?-
well for one taxes along with trade
-
>well for one taxes
Typically the taxes would only go to the king himself, it was rare for a nobleman to actually have control of a city.
>along with trade
Why would they care about that? Their wealth comes from the land they own and the crops their peasants farm, not from trading.-
>it was rare for a nobleman to actually have control of a city.
Is this true? What about all the cities in a duke or counts domain? He got no money from them? Only the king did? The mayor or lord of the city wasn’t a vassal of the duke or count who’s territory he resided in?-
-
Petty noblemen put up toll roads and canals on their territory.
Who freaking owned the cities then if the nobles didn’t. Your telling me all medieval cities of feudal Europe weren’t owned by the nobility, that’s not freaking true and makes zero sence
-
Calm down son. It’s called the Merchant class and they literally exist to this day; you shouldn’t be so surprised unless you’re absolutely scrotebrained.
-
How come I have never heard of this before and can’t find any information on it other then scrotebrain OP and like 6 poopyholes in this thread. Yes the merchant class had a lot of influence in medieval cities but the cities were still OWNED by local lords
-
Don’t confuse towns with cities.
-
there is no difference besides size. stop being a schizo, hamlets grew to villages grow to towns grow to cities. Along the way NOTHING legally changes. And if the king wants to get magna carta’ed then he can try to pull some bullshit and have the barons slap his shit.
-
Once you get to city-size with walls and militias and stuff you really don’t need the noblemen anymore, hence why they weren’t under the jurisdiction of the nobles.
-
why exactly zero things have changed the walls would have been there forever if it was the noblemans seat. Most likely his fathers father father founded the whole place as a hill fort. Please post one tiny piece of evidence that in any country in feudal europe places got to a certain population level and the king took it away. Just look at france, nobles controlled loads of major cities. The house of Valois’s personal demesne included the cities of paris and orleans. Other major cities controlled by their nobles included Dijon, metz, lourdes, Reims and again you know every city in france besides paris, orleans, and bourges. So I guess you dont need to post any proof as I have posted proof you are wrong.
-
Paris was the capital, metz is in Lorraine in the hre, dijon is in burgundy which had large autonomy, none of these are mainland france.
The difference between town and city is important as cities have bishops, like the Bishop of rouen who would intersect with the city council in how they paid taxes to the duke and later king. You want a simple answer when the levels of centralisation and autonomy vary greatly for the whole medieval period making it hard to give an answer -
Now account for every other freaking city in France outside the valouis crown lands, also I dont know if you realize this but east and west Francia had a few wars and places like Lorraine switched around quite a bit. Nice attempt at moving goalposts
-
I typed out a lengthy response but this is so freaking stupid I can’t begin to contemplate the mind of a man who believes it or where to start in rebutting this.
-
Peasants needed noblemen because they protected the peasants. What does a bunch of militiamen with a bigass city wall need a nobleman for?
-
who freaking built that big ass city wall, and leads the militia? The Nobles you scrotebrain. you have already been disproven several times in this thread, so at this point you are trolling or are violently stupid.
-
>who freaking built that big ass city wall
The people living in the city you scrotebrain. Nobles didn’t even have enough money to pay for that kind of thing.
>and leads the militia
Soldiers. -
>The people living in the city you scrotebrain. Nobles didn’t even have enough money to pay for that kind of thing.
The Burgundian Duke was literally richer than the French King you scrotebrain
>Soldiers
>He thinks the Baker from across the street who’s part of the Militia has time to learn about the intricate strategies and tactics involved in warIt was the nobles, what the fuck do you think Knights did? In the cities younger sons of merchants would act like pseudo-knights and again these merchants would be nobles in all but name.
>But muh professional soldiers!!
Those were part of a retinue paid and trained by nobles
-
>The Burgundian Duke was literally richer than the French King you scrotebrain
Kings weren’t very wealthy either. Nobles kept very little wealth around. -
>Kings weren’t very wealthy either. Nobles kept very little wealth around.
I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on this one because it seems circumstancial rather than standard
-
>The Burgundian Duke was literally richer than the French King you scrotebrain
Because the duke from switching sides in the 100YW was largely free of feudal obligations and held all of the low countries under his command in personal union, charles the bold also centralised these holdings alot -
>charles the bold also centralised these holdings alot
I’m guessing that if every ruler did that we’d see the rise of professional armies a d advancement of warfare earlier?
-
-
-
-
Kings would never give away a whole ass city. while a nobleman could be permitted to own a town, a city is simply far too rich and powerful not to mention most cities would make themselves subservient to the king alone since the king would likely let them rule themselves.
-
wtf? You have shit backwards, the nobleman would never give away his city to the king. since we are talking fuedelism, we are talking post western roman fall. So there are ZERO real cities in europe now Rome itself might have even become uninhabited. Local warlords stake claims, build forts and take control of towns and villages or establish new ones around their forts. These eventually become citites. Meanwhile some extra strong lord goes around and through various means establishes a kingdom and codifies land rights for services. Dont you think if later the kings descendants tried taking all the local lords most valuable property that might start shit?
-
the cities themselves would seek to become direct vassals of the king. and they got away with it almost every time.
-
-
-
-
It varied place to place. In the Holy Roman Empire a whole bunch of places became Imperial Free Cities, directly subject to the emperor. Hamburg and Bremen are two particularly triumphant examples. In Northern Italy, the cities became the locus of power, and ruled themselves under a variety of governmental structures after kicking the Empire back across the Alps in a series of coalition wars. Otherwise, cities weren’t special and usually had their own local governments who swore loyalty to someone who, through a confluence of historical prerogative and personal power, had the right to it. Maybe a King, maybe a Duke, maybe even a Seigneur.
-
-
Petty noblemen put up toll roads and canals on their territory.
-
what do you think a city is your dumb fuck? Do you think after a noblemans town just gets to a "city size" the king just takes it away from them? Absolute monarchies were a late medieval invention the king had his personal demesne which couldnt be too large and the rest of the land cities included were parts of nobles fiefs. Sometimes cities would have special privilege’s but that didnt mean the king took them for himself
-
>Their wealth comes from the land they own and the crops their peasants farm, not from trading
I’m in awe of how stupid you are. What do you think the lord did with his share of the crop? Here’s a hint, he didn’t eat it all -
read a book
-
-
-
Tolls
-
A place to turn movable property into coinage
-
-
-
>Why didn’t medieval nobles just invade and burn down cities?
> didn’t
They did. Often. Even priests (bishops) did this.
Which is why cities either were beholden to some big noble in vicinity, or had big walls and highly militarized society. Usually, both. -
because cities realized that hey, anyone can fuck us over unless we defend ourselves, so they just built huge fuckoff fortifications and started arming their men, which they could easily do because they were centers of wealth, and with that degree of power they maintained a respectable level of self-governance within the greater kingdom.
Note that noblemen aren’t magical ubermensch, but just groups of people who managed to get enough military support that they could declare themselves as privileged. Especially in the medieval period, which has as a defining feature that power is heavily decentralized and fractal. There’s no existence of modern states.
And even then, even if they could easily demolish a city, the money only exists because the city is a nexus of economic activity. If you kill all the people who are doing that economic activity, you just erased an important source of revenue, which even if not taxed would still contribute just through the generation of economic products that you could then buy (which is better than having money and nothing to buy).
Also, it’s important to know the most important part of a city is probably not the bankers or merchants, but the actual guilded artisans, who were fairly respected.
-
>note that noblemen aren’t magical ubermensch,
acthually since they were richer they ate better than the peasents and also prolly had some sports or military education + theyre better armored so yeah they were prolly pretty stronk compared to your average joe son of joe
-
-
this thread again? learn the basics of economics scrotebrain.
-
I’m pretty sure feudal lords weren’t taking advice from economists.
-
It doesn’t take an economist to deduce that killing your supply of foreign goods and trade is BAD for the economy
-
What the hell does a nobleman need trade for? He’s got peasants for that.
-
Spices, silk, expensive stuff in general. You think a peasant can pull this shit out his ass?
-
Noblemen are part of the global trade network? Norweigan wood is sold to the dutch who go to Portugal to trade in sugar from brazil
-
-
-
-
-
They had walls
The general population was richer than the lords people and were able to field more competent and well armed armies. -
https://i.4cdn.org/his/1632734961859.gif
>Cities typically weren’t typically controlled
-
Who else was going to pay for their shitty wars?
-
randomly chimping out is a very good way to be executed as a traitor to the crown
-
Why would they ?
-
>Why didn’t medieval nobles just invade and burn down cities?
They did all the time until merchants paid the other nobles to cover them.
Better to milk the town than to plunder it. -
Because the nobles too were subservient to the king? Do you think that he’d appreciate a bunch of poopyholes killing the people who paid him taxes?
-
Where can I learn about this. So all major cities were owned by merchants who were subjects to the king alone? No nobles under the king owned cities? And it was like this in every feudal realm?
-
-
Even in the middle ages there were rules of war in Europe that the church would excommunicate you over and lead to vassal rebellions
-
>Cities typically weren’t typically controlled by the nobility
…no anon, they were not autonomous zones. What communists have you been listening to?
-
They were literally called communes.
-
-
First of all, this happened all the freaking time, secondly, cities learned to defend themselves and money is all it takes to hire soldiers and buy food and equipment and even veterans to train and lead inexperienced troops.
It was a lot easier for cities to afford all this than the jumped-up descendants of Warlords and Bandit-Kings you call "Nobles."
-
Shut up OP, you are the largest scrote on LULZ right now and that’s saying something.
-
-
This stupid thread again from the same stupid poster.
-
FYI OP has made this exact thread before: https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/11895374/#q11895374
He is a deranged schizo and you are wasting your time replying to him.
-
stupid question, there was a balance of power, either you build a city wall and raise a militia and make the city more expensive to attack than the loot you get from it or you pay protection money to someone
-
Because while merchants are evil, they are necessary evil.
-
So is this a new form of bait and trolling where we all pretend like every city in feudal Europe was independent and that nobles, counts, dukes, and other forms of nobility didnt own them? They were just owned by merchants Lmao but why are so many responding to this as if it were true, some type of discord trolling effort?
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.