Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
ctulhuslp said:
Orrr we can sacrifice Blackbirds for the sake of better military complex and rediscover better scouts + police force instead of a bit outdated folks.
Like, the more I think about it, the more it seems than Mar-whoever's reform is designed to be almost what we need - mass conscript army - but designed in a way which gives control over it not to the state, in a nod to historical Marius' reform and its problems.
Granted, we are not giving away land to poor just yet. We probably will give them land of yeomen once we move to break them, because somebody needs to own the niche.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sacrificing Blackbirds in that case also means fighting the free cities and provinces who WANT to keep them. We'd still do not have the right level of Martial to pass the crisis unless we shift our Martial model to one where the threshold is a proportion of our whole, rather than an absolute value which is...if we wanted to reach Martial <3, we must have Martial <2 and Econ <6. Yes, we have to starve to hit that level of Martial.

Why do we give land away at all?

We've resisted doing that all the way from the start.
Why start giving land away at the point where it'd actively make things worse?
 
Last edited:
SpeckofStardust said:
Why should we tap all the resources we have access to? Clearly it is a foolish thing to do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Land reorganization is currently a task to make more efficient use of land without giving any away.

And STILL, the question is not answered: How do you intend to get Martial to <3?
We still don't meet the requirement at Martial 0, because Econ becomes Martial. We have to starve to hit the threshold.
So the valid quest passing combos are:
-Econ <9, Martial 0
-Econ <6, Martial <2
-Econ <2, Martial <3

Why not just break the power of the low nobility in the Yeomen to solve it rather than break our country and military advantages?
 
Last edited:
SpeckofStardust said:
Why should we tap all the resources we have access to? Clearly it is a foolish thing to do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's possible to tap the land without giving it to people, by instead letting them work it but maintaining ownership by the state. Y'know, what we've theoretically been doing since the start of the quest (or at least the start of the central government).
 
veekie said:
And STILL, the question is not answered: How do you intend to get Martial to <3?
We still don't meet the requirement at Martial 0, because Econ becomes Martial. We have to starve to hit the threshold.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Swords and Ploughshares
Farmers can fight in wars, the marching of armies can pound out roads, and axes are good for splitting wood and skulls.
Pros: Gain +1/3 of Econ as bonus Martial, chance of negating Martial (and thus Econ) damage dependent upon Econ strength, increased power of Raise Army and Retraining
Cons: Damage to Martial can carry over to Econ (additional damage from Honour of Elites does not count)

.
Considering how low our eco is getting next turn so unless your thinking were going to be at 9 eco your fears are pointless.
 
But then again, as I've said earlier, I am waiting for AN's answer before settling on one opinion or another. If AN says that all power over new troops belongs to the state - sure, why not? But the way I see it now, it gives any sufficiently rich patrician a road to having a personal levee.
EDIT: and a way to forcefully take over yeomen lands "to the kingdom", of course of course because they are bureaucrats so nominally they are not full owners wink wink nudge nudge.

veekie said:
Wrong, on every level:
-The rich and powerful are disincentivized to wage war. Mobilizing the Urban Poor costs them money! Keeping the Urban Poor in training/civil jobs makes money.
-The Urban Poor do not advance career in war. Armies comprised of the urban poor gain nothing in war, they don't get land, they get paid, but this means they don't get paid doing their normal jobs and if they get maimed...well good luck with that.
-The Military elite(full time soldiers, yeomen, elite units) do advance career in war.

As such this is a false equivalency being presented without basis.
At least do some basic google lookup. The urbanites never like war. Only people who gain power from land, which is to say the rural landholders and the military elite, push for military adventurism. Bureaucratic elite dislike war because it makes the logistics complicated and wastes money paying the poor to kill people instead of paying the poor to make more money.

Which means it's an impossible target. Either the provinces will actively work to undo our progress or we destroy something the playerbase wants to keep.

Burning the Yeomen political power works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

> rich are disincentivized to wage war

1. Look at our fucking Trader quest and Guild quest, @veekie . They want war. Non-particians even, patricians merely want more military (hopefully for benign purposes). So, like, your point 1 is just plainly wrong due to current faction quests, sorry.
2. Urban Poor do not advance in war? That's...sourceless. They kinda do. I mean, it depends on concrete implementation, but a system of promotions and bigger pay for bigger achievement seems like a natural extension of reform. I mean, we'll have to see but I am not convinced. And didn't Roman legions actually have a promotions system for poor?
3. Military elite do advance, sure. If we change who is military elite, they will not magically lose motivation - new elites will advance careers in war. Question is, who are new elites?

veekie said:
Sacrificing Blackbirds in that case also means fighting the free cities and provinces who WANT to keep them. We'd still do not have the right level of Martial to pass the crisis unless we shift our Martial model to one where the threshold is a proportion of our whole, rather than an absolute value which is...if we wanted to reach Martial <3, we must have Martial <2 and Econ <6. Yes, we have to starve to hit that level of Martial.

Why do we give land away at all?

We've resisted doing that all the way from the start.
Why start giving land away at the point where it'd actively make things worse?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fair enough wrt land? I mean, land of yeomen will go to somebody once they lose their main source of influence, it will be either patricians or someone else. Unless our bureaucracy is so much magic we can make literally all their land into new crown lands...which will give power to whoever administrates all those crown lands, but that's another matter.
Point is, power vacuum is going to be filled, and it being filled by Urban Poor and Patricians means...what, exactly? I mean, patricians become de-facto, if not de-jure, big landowners, because land will go to someone and they are first in line, and we cannot handwave away the fact that ones who administrate the land gain profits and all...
I mean, if you want exchange rural middle class for big landowners + their armed city clientele, sure, but that's a bit dubious exchange. Maybe worthwhile, but I am not sure.

Point is, somebody is going to own the land yeomen owned once they lose their ability to defend their interest (remember how traders couldn't just overpower them because lol your caravans are now ambushed? say bye-bye to such countermeasure to abuses), so ignoring that this somebody new will most likely be patricians is extremely optimistic.
 
Last edited:
veekie said:
Wrong, on every level:
-The rich and powerful are disincentivized to wage war. Mobilizing the Urban Poor costs them money! Keeping the Urban Poor in training/civil jobs makes money.
-The Urban Poor do not advance career in war. Armies comprised of the urban poor gain nothing in war, they don't get land, they get paid, but this means they don't get paid doing their normal jobs and if they get maimed...well good luck with that.
-The Military elite(full time soldiers, yeomen, elite units) do advance career in war.

As such this is a false equivalency being presented without basis.
At least do some basic google lookup. The urbanites never like war. Only people who gain power from land, which is to say the rural landholders and the military elite, push for military adventurism. Bureaucratic elite dislike war because it makes the logistics complicated and wastes money paying the poor to kill people instead of paying the poor to make more money.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You are contradicting your own points about rich and powerful wanting to conquer earlier.

veekie said:
The patricians were always going to get more power out of this:
-Harmysyn means the Patrician optimal course of action is to go out there, get military victories to raise the standing of their family. This will produce stronger military ties and make for more military adventures in our elites. This is more or less why the Second Sons are invading our neighbors to begin with. We'd just add the Patricians to them.

-Myranyn means the Patrician optimal course of action is to make sure they control the food, wealth and media, so they control the urban poor, so they control the military. This will produce stronger trade and administrative ties, and make for more politics and bureaucracy in our elites. Which is the current status quo to begin with.

So, which do you prefer to encourage?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

veekie said:
The Harmysyn makes the problem worse by making going out to conquer people the best choice for the rich and powerful.
That's how you get Rome expanding until it just dissolved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Standing army costs money regardless of waging war or not. So using them to conquer will not cost any less than keeping said army doing training or doing jobs. If you are suggesting to train urban poor army then disarm them to save costs then that is just stupid. What is worse then urban poor, urban poor who were military obviously.

As for paying poor people to make money, i don't see how bringing guild and trade factions into this argument changes anything. Unless you mean having partisans expand their money making enterprises with military trained employee is a sane idea?
 
VoidZero said:
You are contradicting your own points about rich and powerful wanting to conquer earlier.





Standing army costs money regardless of waging war or not. So using them to conquer will not cost any less than keeping said army doing training or doing jobs. If you are suggesting to train urban poor army then disarm them to save costs then that is just stupid. What is worse then urban poor, urban poor who were military obviously.

As for paying poor people to make money, i don't see how bringing guild and trade factions into this argument changes anything. Unless you mean having partisans expand their money making enterprises with military trained employee is a sane idea?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, judging by Guilds and Traders, they very much do want to war, so I am not sure where the hell the idea of elites not wanting war came from. Seems unsupported by literally anything anywhere, from history to this quest to faction quests in the last update. WIth the exception of admnistration-minded Heroes here and there in the quest, I guess, elites did never oppose war all too much, to put it mildly.
 
sidestory said:
Sooo anybody bothered to ask whether we risk losing KotH to the Ket if we go with the subordinate reforms?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Never gave a damn about Prestige, so lol I don't care whatever. Although war for the title would be very untimely, ssooo I am voting for financial advancement to prevent another iteration of liquidity crisis which was only postponed by Trelli collapse.
 
veekie said:
Burning the Yeomen political power works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As long as you keep in mind that power vacuum is going to be filled by somebody and the ones who will benefit from the rural middle class collapse are most likely big landowners (yeah yeah de jure we don't have those who gives a fuck about de jure?), sure it does.
It's almost as if patricians are pushing for slamming down on Yeomen for their own goals and stand to gain from collapse of rural middle class. Unthinkable, that.
 
sidestory said:
Sooo anybody bothered to ask whether we risk losing KotH to the Ket if we go with the subordinate reforms?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't see how aliens comes..... you mean KH? Unlikely since West Y isn't part of us and WW is "stable" at this point. Prestige lose more likely from a civil war or fallen West Y, due to perception of failing defense duty and foreign incursion on "our" soil .
 
ctulhuslp said:
But then again, as I've said earlier, I am waiting for AN's answer before settling on one opinion or another. If AN says that all power over new troops belongs to the state - sure, why not? But the way I see it now, it gives any sufficiently rich patrician a road to having a personal levee.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, reminder of our anti-hoarding rules. We have a cap on how rich anyone is allowed to be. Anyone who can mobilize an army on their own
ctulhuslp said:
> rich are disincentivized to wage war

1. Look at our fucking Trader quest and Guild quest, @veekie . They want war. Non-particians even, patricians merely want more military (hopefully for benign purposes). So, like, your point 1 is just plainly wrong due to current faction quests, sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the current system yes.
What happens is that we have the current system:
-The Military are based in the Yeomen, who have nothing to do half the year except train and fight. Ergo, if they are not waging war they are actually making a loss.

Thats why we're changing to:
-The Military are based in the Urban Poor, who work all year. Ergo, if they are waging war they are making a loss if not for combat pay.

ctulhuslp said:
2. Urban Poor do not advance in war? That's...sourceless. They kinda do. I mean, it depends on concrete implementation, but a system of promotions and bigger pay for bigger achievement seems like a natural extension of reform. I mean, we'll have to see but I am not convinced. And didn't Roman legions actually have a promotions system for poor?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Remember Arete elitism. How are poorly fed urban poor going to compete with well fed Yeomen for NCO positions? How are either of them going to compete with the Patrician sons with the best food, equipment and trainers for officer positions?
ctulhuslp said:
3. Military elite do advance, sure. If we change who is military elite, they will not magically lose motivation - new elites will advance careers in war. Question is, who are new elites?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is why we try to make sure the military elites are not the political elite.
Thats why the Harmysyn reforms are ultimately harmful, because they move our political elite to be military elite.

When you need to be a General to sset policy the policy is going to be good for war
ctulhuslp said:
Fair enough wrt land? I mean, land of yeomen will go to somebody once they lose their main source of influence, it will be either patricians or someone else. Unless our bureaucracy is so much magic we can make literally all their land into new crown lands...which will give power to whoever administrates all those crown lands, but that's another matter.
Point is, power vacuum is going to be filled, and it being filled by Urban Poor and Patricians means...what, exactly? I mean, patricians become de-facto, if not de-jure, big landowners, because land will go to someone and they are first in line, and we cannot handwave away the fact that ones who administrate the land gain profits and all...
I mean, if you want exchange rural middle class for big landowners + their armed city clientele, sure, but that's a bit dubious exchange. Maybe worthwhile, but I am not sure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Theres no reason to reassign Yeomen land. They're the rural low nobility, which generates class differences with the urban high nobility. They actually do a job there. They just need to switch from making war their part time job to something useful, like cottage industries.

And the power vacuum would be filled by....the Yeomen again, once the crisis is over. Unless we intend to leave them at 0, which is not healthy, they can be raised back up after we take the armies away from them.
Remember big landowner patricians are the province governors. This is not even de facto, they only hold the land as part of their state title.
VoidZero said:
You are contradicting your own points about rich and powerful wanting to conquer earlier.





Standing army costs money regardless of waging war or not. So using them to conquer will not cost any less than keeping said army doing training or doing jobs. If you are suggesting to train urban poor army then disarm them to save costs then that is just stupid. What is worse then urban poor, urban poor who were military obviously.

As for paying poor people to make money, i don't see how bringing guild and trade factions into this argument changes anything. Unless you mean having partisans expand their money making enterprises with military trained employee is a sane idea?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Conscripts are usually not paid until the draft is called. When not on duty they are normally paid nothing, or training stipend, while they work normal jobs as waiters, laborers and such. This means that mobilizing an urban poor army directly impacts urban productivity, as the lost labor must be made up elsewhere.

And we already run our money making enterprises with military trained employees. The Farms are the ultimate source of wealth, and the Yeomen run it.

Sanity wise, it is a solution that has been adopted by basically every surviving civilization, so effectiveness and safety are self evident historically
 
Last edited:
veekie said:
Conscripts are usually not paid until the draft is called. When not on duty they are normally paid nothing, or training stipend, while they work normal jobs as waiters, laborers and such. This means that mobilizing an urban poor army directly impacts urban productivity, as the lost labor must be made up elsewhere.

And we already run our money making enterprises with military trained employees. The Farms are the ultimate source of wealth, and the Yeomen run it.

Sanity wise, it is a solution that has been adopted by basically every surviving civilization, so effectiveness and safety are self evident historically
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I see you moving goal posts, are you set on rich and powerful liking to conquer or no? Can't say Patricians are against conquest due to cost and logistics while claiming Patricians love conquest since it makes them more powerful, unless you practice double think.:V

You are saying that you see no problem with moving the power Yeoman had to Patricians? While proclaiming that having Patricians gain more control over said military power is what everyone else had been doing and is therefore perfectly fine.

I mean sure no problem, just want to be clear.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
what?
no veekie just no,
DO not apply 18-21 century armies to the bloody iron age.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

10ebbor10 said:
Conscripting forces goes back to the Babylonian Empire, in 2000 Before Christ.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you. Rome used it in the Classical era as well.
To great effect until they made their generals their ruling class.

At which point political knife fights became army fights
VoidZero said:
I see you moving goal posts, are you set on rich and powerful liking to conquer or no? Can't say Patricians are against conquest due to cost and logistics while claiming Patricians love conquest since it makes them more powerful, unless you practice double think.:V

You are saying that you see no problem with moving the power Yeoman had to Patricians? While proclaiming that having Patricians gain more control over said military power is what everyone else had been doing and is therefore perfectly fine.

I mean sure no problem, just want to be clear.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're deliberately obfuscating and confusing a straightforward argument. There are no goalposts being moved when what is described is a before and after state.
Inclinations are not innate.
People do what is optimal for them in the now. Invariably.

-Patricians are in favor of increased Patrician presence in the military. They are neutral on war in the core, but in the colonies, the Governor can gain political power by gaining new land and thus additional subordinates.
--Under the Myranyn they will remain in the same status quo.
--Under the Harmysyn they will have an increased presence in the military. This means that military achievement becomes more important for a Patrician to social climb. The ultimate extreme of this is the Roman situation, where to be elected you have to have won a war somewhere.

-Yeomen are in favor of waging war, because this means their children will be Yeomen instead of Rural Poor or Urban Poor, and because they have nothing else to do in the off seasons.
--Under the Myranyn they will be displaced and their military role phased out. The Yeomen will look for alternative means of producing wealth in this situation, historically they took up cottage industries, transitioning raw material intensive industries to the rural areas(and as a side effect, raised rural education standards)
--Under the Harmysyn they will have a reduced presence in the officer corps due to Patrician buy in. Social climbing via martial achievement becomes more difficult

-Traders hate war(because it wastes money), and like money but they want Trell. Trell is worth so much wealth they override all other concerns to say "Take it now!"
--Under the Myranyn, they will have an increased objection to war, as the urban poor where they source cheap labor for their trade facilities are hired away to wage war, driving up costs.
--Under the Harmysyn, they are not really affected

-Guilds hate war(because it wastes money), and like money. Since their dominances are secure they don't care.
--Under the Myranyn, they will have an increased objection to war, as the urban poor where they source cheap labor for their production facilities are hired away to wage war, driving up costs.
--Under the Harmysyn, they are not really affected

-Priests are only interested in their beliefs and gaining more political power. They are currently pursuing their beliefs.
--Under either side they aren't really affected. The priesthood generally doesn't really care what happens to the military.
 
ctulhuslp said:
It's almost as if patricians are pushing for slamming down on Yeomen for their own goals and stand to gain from collapse of rural middle class. Unthinkable, that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm sorry, are you implying some sort of conspiracy theory that the Patricians are trying to destroy the Yeoman? That is ridiculous. The Patricians are trying to curtail Yeoman power because the Yeoman are out of control. In addition, the plan does not call for the dismantling of the Yeoman class, but rather trying to reduce their ability to prosecute a war by themselves in direct contradiction to the wishes of the state. The plan doesn't even try to take away rights or privileges that do not relate to arming the countryside without regulation.

I'm sure the Patricians are looking to benefit from this - that is the entire purpose of the Harmysyn Reforms, after all - but to say that they're just out to destroy the rural middle class is absurd.


This line of discussion makes me think people either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring what the crisis is even about. As a reminder:

While a few ringleaders of outright seditious intent had been caught in the act and rounded up for punishment, the problem was essentially bone deep among the People. Young men, especially among the yeomanry, seemed to just like to talk about the glory that could be theirs if they went off to the frontier. Even if most never actually did it, every once in a while the talk stuck in some young lad's mind and he stole away into the night to join those who had already broken away. Despite best efforts, the king's influence was already shaky and proclaiming that the People straight up should not talk about this wasn't going to work, especially not in the rural areas where the problem was primarily stemming from. It seemed that either the ambitions and power of the rural farmers and militias would have to be broken for the idea to truly die down, or for the idea to be definitively proven a bad one via main force.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is stemming from young men leaving our rural areas for the frontier to make war without the consent of the state. Even if the new army commanders want to go conquer stuff, this is not even remotely similar to the situation we are facing with the Second Sons.

Unless we're willing to go to war with Western Ymar with practically no martial to try to end this and hope we win, our options are going to come at the expense of the Yeoman because they are the Crisis. Arming the highly concentrated and controllable urban poor instead, under the power of the state, is a clear path towards achieving this.
Adhoc vote count started by 8bitBob on Oct 7, 2017 at 5:48 AM, finished with 112682 posts and 90 votes.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by 8bitBob on Oct 7, 2017 at 6:09 AM, finished with 112683 posts and 90 votes.
Click to expand...

Adhoc vote count started by 8bitBob on Oct 7, 2017 at 6:16 AM, finished with 112684 posts and 90 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[X] [Reform] Begin Myranyn Reforms Event Chain
[X] [GA] Subordinate reform (-10 Prestige)
[X] [Iron] Upgrade Iron Blooded to Steel Blooded
[X] [PiA] Freehills (Social Value)

Why did people not build roads? Sigh. One of Rome's reasons for success was roads.
 
We literally built roads every turn we could between the end of the Epic Age and the beginning of the Second Son Crisis. In between we often had Admin Heroes/Geniuses who took over control, and they also built roads, if not every time.
 
Last edited:
8bitBob said:
I'm sorry, are you implying some sort of conspiracy theory that the Patricians are trying to destroy the Yeoman? That is ridiculous. The Patricians are trying to curtail Yeoman power because the Yeoman are out of control. In addition, the plan does not call for the dismantling of the Yeoman class, but rather trying to reduce their ability to prosecute a war by themselves in direct contradiction to the wishes of the state. The plan doesn't even try to take away rights or privileges that do not relate to arming the countryside without regulation.

I'm sure the Patricians are looking to benefit from this - that is the entire purpose of the Harmysyn Reforms, after all - but to say that they're just out to destroy the rural middle class is absurd.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Conspiracy? Not necessarily, especially since they can just angle for being elected as a new king.
But to claim that they do not stand to benefit from breaking up one of major power blocks whose source of power (land) they can they nom and that they are unaware of it would be ridiculous.

veekie said:
gain, reminder of our anti-hoarding rules. We have a cap on how rich anyone is allowed to be. Anyone who can mobilize an army on their own
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You forgot part of the sentence here.
And frankly, "we have a cap on how rich one can be" sounds like the kind of law which exists only on paper, because those in power are going to want power, and this law limits them. You cannot expect lions to support vegetarian laws or something along those lines.

veekie said:
That's the current system yes.
What happens is that we have the current system:
-The Military are based in the Yeomen, who have nothing to do half the year except train and fight. Ergo, if they are not waging war they are actually making a loss.

Thats why we're changing to:
-The Military are based in the Urban Poor, who work all year. Ergo, if they are waging war they are making a loss if not for combat pay.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Then they have no incentive to fight. Either you make it worth their time (making them want war), or you force them to serve like in (early) modern
militaries, which is about as easy to implement as progressive taxation and land value tax.

Like, you seem to think we can implement Roman army without incentive to serve. That dog aint gonna bark: you either give them sufficient incentive to serve (at which point they want war), or you don't and hope you can enforce the service, which is very doubtful.

veekie said:
Remember Arete elitism. How are poorly fed urban poor going to compete with well fed Yeomen for NCO positions? How are either of them going to compete with the Patrician sons with the best food, equipment and trainers for officer positions?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given that you seem to be angling for a numerous army of them, more than enough. Otherwise we would still have aristocratic officer corps, and yet, as history proves, poor can advance quite high in ranks.

veekie said:
Theres no reason to reassign Yeomen land. They're the rural low nobility, which generates class differences with the urban high nobility. They actually do a job there. They just need to switch from making war their part time job to something useful, like cottage industries.

And the power vacuum would be filled by....the Yeomen again, once the crisis is over. Unless we intend to leave them at 0, which is not healthy, they can be raised back up after we take the armies away from them.
Remember big landowner patricians are the province governors. This is not even de facto, they only hold the land as part of their state title.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is no reason for us, players, to reassign land. For patricians, there is: greed/
Besides, what do you think bringing their power to 0 means? Rainbows and ponies? Nope, it means removing their ability to resist taking their land, because the only reason it is not take is that they are powerful and can protect themselves. Remove this ability, and they are done for.

And again, the more law limits those in power, the less likely it is to be followed. So I imagine province governors are, on paper (parchment?) indeed only hold lands as a part of state title, sure. On paper. In practice, reassignment of land to those "better able to use it" (read: friends, family, those who bribed him, for favours) is going to happen at least.

veekie said:
Conscripts are usually not paid until the draft is called. When not on duty they are normally paid nothing, or training stipend, while they work normal jobs as waiters, laborers and such. This means that mobilizing an urban poor army directly impacts urban productivity, as the lost labor must be made up elsewhere.

And we already run our money making enterprises with military trained employees. The Farms are the ultimate source of wealth, and the Yeomen run it.

Sanity wise, it is a solution that has been adopted by basically every surviving civilization, so effectiveness and safety are self evident historically
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thing is, again: you either give people big enough incentive to serve (Rome solution with land) or force them to serve (modern nation-state conscription). You do seem to hope we can do the latter within the age of the former?
That's not going to happen: we either make war worth the time of soldiers (Rome solution, and they were far more militaristic as a culture than us, so it is going to be way more difficult for us than for them) or, Iunno, hope that we can magic up bureaucracy three thousand years (or is it 4000 years?) ahead of our time.
 
ctulhuslp said:
But to claim that they do not stand to benefit from breaking up one of major power blocks whose source of power (land) they can they nom and that they are unaware of it would be ridiculous.

...

Besides, what do you think bringing their power to 0 means? Rainbows and ponies? Nope, it means removing their ability to resist taking their land, because the only reason it is not take is that they are powerful and can protect themselves. Remove this ability, and they are done for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is a huge leap in logic going on here. Reducing the power of the Yeoman does not somehow automatically equate to eliminating them from society and giving the land to the Patricians to manage. The reforms don't call for it and no one is suggesting it, so why are you so convinced that this is what's going to happen?

The Myranyn Reforms are about curtailing the powers of a group that has grown out of control by reducing the state's reliance on keeping them armed, trained and independent. It is not a plan to destroy the Yeoman and fold their power into the Patricians.
Adhoc vote count started by 8bitBob on Oct 7, 2017 at 7:07 AM, finished with 112686 posts and 90 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top