Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Susano said:
Sure, that makes sense, but if sides have to be taken, I'd rather go with the guilds than with the priesthood, the nobility/warriors or the king. Seeing how administration and warriordom are semi-hereditary by now, the guilds are the last real vestments of social mobility, it seems to me. They're simply the best shot there is at more or less involving the people in government decisions. Hence, as I've said, all those medieval free cities that weren't ruled by traders or the patriciate, but by the guilds instead. That was a sort of self-administration by the people.

The thing is - the guilds exist anyway. Whatever you think on the effects of guilds as an economic model on the economy or on progress, it exists. People in this culture simply do work in guilds. But since they do, and since guilds hence in a way are "the people organized", one might as well give them a greater influence in the state.

Also, "proto-organized crime" really misunderstands the role guilds had in historic times. Stuff like driving out competitors wasn't crime, that was what they were legally there for. That still sounds a better deal to me than giving too much power to any one person (the king) or even worse, an isolated caste of people which will always only look out for themselves (and if you appeal to the society's virtues and norms in this I can do the same with guilds).

So, in conclusion, I'm absolutely pro-Guilds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Am not an anti guildsman per see, but the guilds where by no means the "people"

Only citizens could become guilds men, and only the urban nobility could reach the upper echelons of the guilds and have a say in the city councils.
As for citizenship, on average a medieval or renaissance city would have 5-10% of its total population as full citizens. The more rich and powerful cities like Genoa or Florence could go as low as 3%. The vast majority of any city population was made up of residents, labourers, half citizens, citizens without privilege or limited privliges/rights, quarter citizens, or non entities with specific purposes/privliges.


Needless to say those had absolutely no say in what goes in the city.
Not de jure anyways.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
Sure, that makes sense, but if sides have to be taken, I'd rather go with the guilds than with the priesthood, the nobility/warriors or the king.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think a big part of our objection to the priesthood is, we know that one of the main guys they're worshipping was simply a rival of one of their ancient chiefs, whose widow and son subtly turned the tables and put his descendants in charge of the People. By which point, Crow was long dead. Nothing particularly divine about him, just funny. So we know that their religion is based on a bunch of exaggeration and fairy tales.

Amusingly, their world does in fact have a pantheon of guiding spirits, thousands of years old and with knowledge beyond what any of the People can understand. And the highest of them is the great "I, AN."
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
Am not an anti guildsman per see, but the guilds where by no means the "people"

Only citizens could become guilds men, and only the urban nobility could reach the upper echelons of the guilds and have a say in the city councils.
As for citizenship, on average a medieval or renaissance city would have 5-10% of its total population as full citizens. The more rich and powerful cities like Genoa or Florence could go as low as 3%. The vast majority of any city population was made up of residents, labourers, half citizens, citizens without privilege or limited privliges/rights, quarter citizens, or non entities with specific purposes/privliges.


Needless to say those had absolutely no say in what goes in the city.
Not de jure anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
good thing we have full citizenship for all, (as far as i know) and the cities have a fluid population by word of AN. (people are constantly moving into and out of the city)
 
DocMatoi said:
Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard something along this line.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Guilds where legal charted monopolies, internal compitition was illegal. Hence what the guilds did was by no means criminal or proto criminal.

Everything the guilds did was by charter, privilege, right, grant and tradition.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
or even worse, an isolated caste of people which will always only look out for themselves (and if you appeal to the society's virtues and norms in this I can do the same with guilds).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's... what guilds ARE. And no, 5% of our population in guilds is probably about right. Farming is still the vast majority of our labor force, and noone ever made a farmers guild that I'm aware of. Not enough concentrated power for people to want to.
 
Kiba said:
I don't understand your thinking here.

If you can saturate the market with salt, it means that you're basically a hyperpower and that all your concerns will be internal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, I wasn't assuming that we could go that far. Merely that if we keep building salterns, we'll keep building passive income, with no limit for practical purposes.

Can you imagine what we could do with a passive Wealth income of, say, +5? The overflow into Econ alone would make a huge difference to our action economy. We could afford to stay on pretty much any policy we wanted, because the stat overflow would keep everything running in the background.

We just need to find enough seaside locations. And dominate more trade goods, for similar benefits.
 
Malevolo said:
The problem would be the farmers and the foresters guild, anything would have to pass them first.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Irl the farmers ranked rock bottom in the city hierarchy, even Jews had better standing than farmers. (this is only for charterd cities though, farmers under landed aristocracy fared dramatically better)

Although the level of scorn varied regionally. The Netherlanders and English being fairly lenient
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
Irl the farmers ranked rock bottom in the city hierarchy, even Jews had better standing than farmers. (this is only for charterd cities though, farmers under landed aristocracy fared dramatically better)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But would that really translate that much into Ymaryn culture considering their reverence for the Forests and Fields and Fythagyna who is goddess of life?
 
Lone Wolf 666 said:
Pffft. My priorities is to be technologically advance than anyone. So that they can marvel at our steel and glass vertical farms and render impotent for eternity.:V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And that goes against my dream of a huge lush forest that spans tectonic plates. :rolleyes: Say no to forest killing industry!;)

(Finally i can embrace my inner irrational hippie.):p
 
DocMatoi said:
Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard something along this line.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, keep in mind that I'll only really be able to talk about German middle ages, but...

Guilds were privileged associations. That was their defining thing. The lord of a city, or the city itself if it was a free city, would grant a charter to the potters or the blacksmiths etc etc which necessarily included a monopoly - only the guild of potters would be allowed to do pottery in the city etc. That way, nearly all craftmanship in the cities was regulated and monopolized; there was no such thing as an "open market" for guild products. Only industries considered shady and disreputable, or too specialised (like apothecaries) would not have a guild. And the guild in turn regulated how many masters of a craft were allowed to practice within the city.

The whole purpose of the guild was to regulate and basically keep away competition. Legally so. But of course, law enforcement was, uh, limited back then. Getting the permission to enforce laws protecting you yourself was the norm - and so here as well: Part of the guild's privilege was usually the right to enforce that monopoly themselves, i.e. to drive away people by force who did the craft outside their guild. That wasn't mob crime; that was their legal privilege because there wasn't much in the way of law enforcement yet back then.

DocMatoi said:
good thing we have full citizenship for all, (as far as i know) and the cities have a fluid population by word of AN. (people are constantly moving into and out of the city)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not a matter of citizenship but guild membership. Obviously, only part of the people will be organized in the guilds (but still, a considerable part, certainly more than the nobility), and if it is like the medieval model, only the masters will have any say - but even that is a level of social mobility.

pblur said:
That's... what guilds ARE. And no, 5% of our population in guilds is probably about right. Farming is still the vast majority of our labor force, and noone ever made a farmers guild that I'm aware of. Not enough concentrated power for people to want to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Guilds are not quite the same sort of self-sustaining closed elite that the nobility is, though. In the society descriptions, crafts are still not listed as hereditary. There still is social mobility involved there. Yes, farming is still the mainstay of the people, but guilds still are far more "by the people" than nobility or even the priesthood could ever be. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives.

maximillian said:
Irl the farmers ranked rock bottom in the city hierarchy, even Jews had better standing than farmers. (this is only for charterd cities though, farmers under landed aristocracy fared dramatically better)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh not really. Cities could own land as feudal subjects, yes, but it really made no difference who your feudal master was, whether that was a lord or a city. Legally, that was equivalent anyway. Really, the only thing that mattered was whether you were a free farmer or a serf.
 
Susano said:
Guilds are not quite the same sort of self-sustaining closed elite that the nobility is, though. In the society descriptions, crafts are still not listed as hereditary. There still is social mobility involved there. Yes, farming is still the mainstay of the people, but guilds still are far more "by the people" than nobility or even the priesthood could ever be. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty sure we have WoG that artisans are more hereditary than our priesthood. Our priesthood ISN'T particularly hereditary, because it isn't really a big source of power.
 
Susano said:
Well, keep in mind that I'll only really be able to talk about German middle ages, but...

Guilds were privileged associations. That was their defining thing. The lord of a city, or the city itself if it was a free city, would grant a charter to the potters or the blacksmiths etc etc which necessarily included a monopoly - only the guild of potters would be allowed to do pottery in the city etc. That way, nearly all craftmanship in the cities was regulated and monopolized; there was no such thing as an "open market" for guild products. Only industries considered shady and disreputable, or too specialised (like apothecaries) would not have a guild. And the guild in turn regulated how many masters of a craft were allowed to practice within the city.

The whole purpose of the guild was to regulate and basically keep away competition. Legally so. But of course, law enforcement was, uh, limited back then. Getting the permission to enforce laws protecting you yourself was the norm - and so here as well: Part of the guild's privilege was usually the right to enforce that monopoly themselves, i.e. to drive away people by force who did the craft outside their guild. That wasn't mob crime; that was their legal privilege because there wasn't much in the way of law enforcement yet back then.


It's not a matter of citizenship but guild membership. Obviously, only part of the people will be organized in the guilds (but still, a considerable part, certainly more than the nobility), and if it is like the medieval model, only the masters will have any say - but even that is a level of social mobility.


Guilds are not quite the same sort of self-sustaining closed elite that the nobility is, though. In the society descriptions, crafts are still not listed as hereditary. There still is social mobility involved there. Yes, farming is still the mainstay of the people, but guilds still are far more "by the people" than nobility or even the priesthood could ever be. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives.


Eh not really. Cities could own land as feudal subjects, yes, but it really made no difference who your feudal master was, whether that was a lord or a city. Legally, that was equivalent anyway. Really, the only thing that mattered was whether you were a free farmer or a serf.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Aye, but cities were much better than the nobility at abrogating whatever rights and privileges that the peasants had, be they serfs or free holders. Again this was dependant on region, the rhineland and the low countries had peasants that were more or less the same regardless of who's the liege Lord. Whilst in areas like the Italian boot or the baltic you get a sharper divide.

Edit : time lines also played a role, as the status changed every century. And owners every half century.

Edit edit : the rights and duties of the peasant as peasants can remain consistent, but his role and rights within the greater polity that is the city is lesser than it otherwise could be.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
Well, keep in mind that I'll only really be able to talk about German middle ages, but...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ymaryn Guilds seem to be quite different. Firstly their numbers are limited and kept not too low or too high, monopolies are retained but the monopolies are split apart into subcategories. This ensures that innovation is not stifled and competition is actually encouraged as those who want to create their own Guild have to create technological advancements and spread it to a large enough scale to create Guilds, or they have to be impressive or innovative enough to gain the support of their colleagues for later in life. Overall it's a much less oppressive system that is much more open to intelligent commoners and is less hereditary than most other political systems in Ymar.

Second, the Guilds don't actually have anything special for their members, all non-half exile Ymaryn are involved in choosing their local Chiefs, in the cities we just couldn't sustain the Clan/Family model and utilised Guilds instead of familial relations to help elect Chiefs to petition the King and help with internal disputes and organising Guild/Clans. Do they have more power via having easier and more direct access to the King and more influence over the major areas of our cities? Yes. But they aren't the major super exclusive citizen based Guilds of Germany.

Overall we cannot and should not compare Ymaryn Guilds to Real Life Guilds, we have a radically different culture and political system to anyone in Real Life and it's near impossible and not to mention inaccurate to make comparisons.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top