Basically, what if, instead of the OTL number of 1-3%, nobility in medieval Europe amounted to 10-12% of the population, ergo the same as in Poland?
WI: One tenth of Medieval Europe nobles
- Thread starter Chiropteroid
- Start date
Nothing gets done and then the Ottomans capture most of Europe. Or option two, the titles come with little to no political value and life carries on as usual.
That's not a WI, it's an AHC.
One of the main reasons why Poland had such a large nobility was that in Poland nobility was not directly tied to land. Very few of the noble class actually had formal titles in the style of French or German nobility; even if a Polish noble or szlachta were to lose all of their holdings they would still be counted as nobility and thus eligible to vote in the Sejm.
It was very complicated.
One of the main reasons why Poland had such a large nobility was that in Poland nobility was not directly tied to land. Very few of the noble class actually had formal titles in the style of French or German nobility; even if a Polish noble or szlachta were to lose all of their holdings they would still be counted as nobility and thus eligible to vote in the Sejm.
It was very complicated.
I admit, this was originally supposed to be an AHC. It's not easy choosing between causes and effects of a TL, if you want to know both.
EDIT: Probably should have added the Polish nobility system as well.
Last edited:
You need to go back to the immediate post-Roman West, I think, or even further and have the Roman Empire in western Europe unravel in a different way. The incoming post-Roman kingdoms initially established themselves by confiscating land from absentee Roman landlords, and those packets of land got shuffled around as the centuries went on. The link to land needs to be broken somehow, and I'm not really sure how to do it.
Just spitballin' here, but what if you preserve a little bit more of the combined arms tradition in the West, so there's more of a recognized role for relatively competent infantry. Then you might get a new layer of "nobility" below the knight level who are expected to render military service as relatively well-equipped and competent footmen. Basically, is there some way you can have the OTL burghers and gentry recognized as a new, lowest level of the nobility?
I think option 2 is the most likely. A landless noble only really has power in a system like Poland's, with a strong Sejm and elective monarchy.
"Oh, you're a Duke? That's nice. Mind giving us some help with the manure?"
Just have a different definition of what a noble was. In Britain it meant being a member of the House of Lords, heir to a member or married to a member. So if you were a second son of a Duke by law you were a commoner, even Knights weren't nobles, they were gentry.
In much of continental Europe if you were descended from a nobleman you were a nobleman no matter how poor you were. Then the bigger issue is how freely your local monarch gives out membership of the nobility. That's how you get massive noble classes like in Poland where generous monarchs plus less restrictive laws means lots of nobles. Replicate that and you can have a massive number of "noble" peasants and tradesman* in any country, even the Thirteen Colonies.
*and that is what 95% of the population is going to be under any scenario prior to the Industrial Revolution.
In much of continental Europe if you were descended from a nobleman you were a nobleman no matter how poor you were. Then the bigger issue is how freely your local monarch gives out membership of the nobility. That's how you get massive noble classes like in Poland where generous monarchs plus less restrictive laws means lots of nobles. Replicate that and you can have a massive number of "noble" peasants and tradesman* in any country, even the Thirteen Colonies.
*and that is what 95% of the population is going to be under any scenario prior to the Industrial Revolution.
I don't really get the OP, or more precisely, I think the OP got his statistics wrong.
Nobility around 1% of the population is a lowest estimation or, maybe, representating the "aristocratic" or titled (as title and nobility aren't synonymous) part of european nobility, unless we're talking of periods posterior to Middle-Ages where nobility tended to be more restrictive of course (actually, it may be that, as I don't see how you could have precise statistics with medieval data).
The border between noble and non-noble was often socially blurry : and a poor knight couldn't always be differenciated from non-nobles.
While ten percent of the population wasn't reached everywhere (but was elsewhere than Poland, in Spain by exemple), if you really need a stat (to be taken really cautiously), nobility could represent something between 2 and 5% of the population depending the aeras in most regions, and up to 10% or less than 1% in some other.
By exemple, medieval France had, depending on the regions, around 4% (probably more, as censies didn't really existed per se) of nobles on its population, while England had less then 0,5%, and Spain had around 10% before the core of XIV century crisis (the rates being possibly, but speculativly, higher before that, and certainly lower afterwards).
Finally, Polish nobility (while it seems to have concerned 8% of the population before the disapperence of the kingdom) wasn't that much distinct in this regard for the era, but didn't was targeted or as much, by both the reinforcement of royal powers and, by the other hand, the demographic crisis that decimated western nobility (that went distinct from gentry, at the difference of polish one).
Generally, some features increased the "proportion" : being on a "hot" border (Reconquista Spain, Hungary, Latin States), higher population (towns, medieval nothern France).
It may be helpful to increase ATL nobility in some regions, but not enough for the whole medieval culture.
Now, in order to have more "nobles", we must enlarge its definition.
With the famous statements "Nul seigneur sans terre" (No lord without land) in Northern France, "nul seigneur sans titre" (No lord without title) in southern France or "Nul titre sans terre" (No title without land) in part of western France.
As you see, even within a same kingdom, the definition was far from being the same.
Eventually, the ideal outcome would be to have freemen of early middle ages being divided between nobles (that would have been a synonymous for free and -relativly- powerful) and other layers of peasantry.
It's doable, but would require an harsher post-carolingian Europe, with more infighting and a even more harsh feudal structuration of the territory (with aristocracy being more prone to take on "free" pesantry, as much they did for allods by exemple).
It would have required more ressources, and more men that they could have "obtained" the same way than knighthood was created : from the peasantry.
No "Peace of God" movement, or its failure, could help.
Nobility around 1% of the population is a lowest estimation or, maybe, representating the "aristocratic" or titled (as title and nobility aren't synonymous) part of european nobility, unless we're talking of periods posterior to Middle-Ages where nobility tended to be more restrictive of course (actually, it may be that, as I don't see how you could have precise statistics with medieval data).
The border between noble and non-noble was often socially blurry : and a poor knight couldn't always be differenciated from non-nobles.
While ten percent of the population wasn't reached everywhere (but was elsewhere than Poland, in Spain by exemple), if you really need a stat (to be taken really cautiously), nobility could represent something between 2 and 5% of the population depending the aeras in most regions, and up to 10% or less than 1% in some other.
By exemple, medieval France had, depending on the regions, around 4% (probably more, as censies didn't really existed per se) of nobles on its population, while England had less then 0,5%, and Spain had around 10% before the core of XIV century crisis (the rates being possibly, but speculativly, higher before that, and certainly lower afterwards).
Finally, Polish nobility (while it seems to have concerned 8% of the population before the disapperence of the kingdom) wasn't that much distinct in this regard for the era, but didn't was targeted or as much, by both the reinforcement of royal powers and, by the other hand, the demographic crisis that decimated western nobility (that went distinct from gentry, at the difference of polish one).
Generally, some features increased the "proportion" : being on a "hot" border (Reconquista Spain, Hungary, Latin States), higher population (towns, medieval nothern France).
It may be helpful to increase ATL nobility in some regions, but not enough for the whole medieval culture.
Now, in order to have more "nobles", we must enlarge its definition.
With the famous statements "Nul seigneur sans terre" (No lord without land) in Northern France, "nul seigneur sans titre" (No lord without title) in southern France or "Nul titre sans terre" (No title without land) in part of western France.
As you see, even within a same kingdom, the definition was far from being the same.
Eventually, the ideal outcome would be to have freemen of early middle ages being divided between nobles (that would have been a synonymous for free and -relativly- powerful) and other layers of peasantry.
It's doable, but would require an harsher post-carolingian Europe, with more infighting and a even more harsh feudal structuration of the territory (with aristocracy being more prone to take on "free" pesantry, as much they did for allods by exemple).
It would have required more ressources, and more men that they could have "obtained" the same way than knighthood was created : from the peasantry.
No "Peace of God" movement, or its failure, could help.