Delta Green
Know what you're doing yet?
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2013
- Messages
- 219
- Likes received
- 1,619
I actually confused myself. Feudalism (the "proper" one with oaths of mutual assistance from inferior to superior Lord, etc.) is a 9th Century thing.Apparently no one told Nasu that.
Beyond that, however, I actually have a theory about how the Human Order works. I think it might restructure the past based on the common human perception of the time. Hence why the Knights of the Round Table all ended up wearing plate instead of chainmail. Anachronisms actually make a certain amount of sense if the past itself is run like the world's most existentially horrifying version of Wikipedia.
Chivalry is more like 10th-11th Century, when the Church realized that the highly militarized and decentralized society created (because you need sizable packs of warriors with local warlords everywhere to defend against raiders, unlike the Carolingian's "King has the BIG STICK army at his beck and call, Lords are local administrators with small retinues") needed some form of code of conduct in war because they kept acting... well, like the Samurai of the Japanese medieval periods (i.e. "feel like testing your new sword? Look, a peasant that nobody of import will miss!" and such.) [reminder that Bushido was never actually a thing until the 19th Century].
So the Catholic Church straight-up invented the code of chivalry (it was their third attempt at making things more peaceful, but the religious truce days didn't work) and popularized it by teaching it around Europe as an example to follow for good Christian Lords and Knights. Don't want to piss God off and end up answering pointed questions asked by Lucifer, do you? Follow the code at least, then. (i.e. "Stop murdering the non-combatants, you absolute dick!")
In the feudalism part, the Nasu Camelot, as described, is not dissimilar from the actual Carolingian model. The central King had the army of warriors and dispatched administrators. Vassal Kings paid tribute to their Overlord but otherwise were still Kings in their own rights (they just recognized that the central King had the bigger beat stick).
The "There's only one King in this Kingdom" thing is a later invention when feudal hierarchy solidified and establishing who was who's superior and inferior mattered for chain of command. (i.e. "The Duke of Artois commands the Flanders contingent because the King received his oath of fealty personally, even if the Count of Brugges is 2x richer and had 1000 more men under his personal command.")
Contrast with the Arthurian court where there were at least 5 Kings around the Round Table at any given time.
Last edited: