4 ms·

I live somewhere that has a lot of castles - there are 3 (possibly 4) within 2km of where I am sitting writing this. I don't think any of these castles were bu

I live somewhere that has a lot of castles - there are 3 (possibly 4) within 2km of where I am sitting writing this. I don't think any of these castles were built directly by kings - although I suspect their construction was either approved by a king or by someone who had delegated authority from a king. NB I can also see a large castle about ~11 km away that was a royal castle (and still has a military garrison). I suspect that most castles are probably in other people's kingdoms.

khafra 2y ago
So, you should build your castle in someone else's kingdom iff that kingdom either 1. Has strong norms against castle seizure or abandonment of the king's duties in kingdom upkeep 2. Has a federation of non-king castle owners strong and unified enough to force the former point.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hoorayimhelping 2y ago
  3. You are strong enough to provide a serious and credible threat to the king if he implements a policy that threatens you. Example: Valve in the early 2000s before or as they were building Steam to challenge the video game publisher model. 20 years on and Valve is still printing money, while Sierra Online doesn't exist.
  - oremolten 2y ago
    Sierra Online was acquired through fraudulent accounting, and the company that acquired them went under shortly after as their fraud was revealed. Unfortunately Sierra had to accept the offer.
  - smcin 2y ago
    Also Valve has always been a private company tightly controlled by insiders, whereas Sierra had already been a public company since 1989, subsequently acquired by CUC in 1996 for $1.5bn, and embarked on a non-stop acquisition spree in pursuit of short-term growth, which usually ends badly (think Gateway, AOL, Time-Warner, etc). Esp. pre-Sarbanes-Oxley. Moreover, Gabe Newell always had a controlling stake in Valve ever since 1996, so that prevents any shenanigans. There are comparatively few shareholders (than a public company) and they were all long-term, since Valve will likely never go public, certainly no year soon, or even be privately acquired; while Newell controls it. In this instance your complaint is about corporate governance rather than tech; (how far back did tech people stop being in control at Sierra?)
Maken 2y ago
If you are in France or some other central European old Kingdom, the people living in those castles were the ones who either put the king in the throne or had the power to remove him if he started some funny business, so it was their kingdom in a sense. The problem with modern platforms is, as always, how much leverage the users have against the administrators.
- arethuza 2y ago
  Yes, in the case of Scotland there is a famous document (Declaration of Arbroath) that was written to the Pope asking him to, amongst other things, acknowledge that Scotland had been pretty much always been independent of England. This was "signed" by the Scottish nobles and has a section saying that if the current king (Robert the Bruce) wasn't good enough at fighting the English he'd be removed and they'd find someone more capable.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Removal of a bad king was a possibility, but actually attempting to do it was ... tricky. It could definitely backfire and end up with the rebels on a scaffold, or, worse, with a decade-long civil war that harmed everyone and opened the door of the kingdom to potential raiders from the outside. In practice, unhappy nobles would often rather deny their necessary cooperation (at war or administering the land in peace) and thus force the king to make some amends and tradeoffs. Passive aggressivity isn't a modern concept :)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - int_19h 2y ago
    So long as the king is not sufficiently powerful to take on a bunch of nobles who gang up, for all practical purposes, it is not the king's country.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      "for all practical purposes" Well, there is the practical purpose of legitimacy. It may seem too soft for modern power theoreticians, but the legitimate king has something that cannot be acquired by raw power, and that puts somewhat of a damper on potential rebels. Not on each and every one of them, of course, but it has a wide effect. Killing or deposing the legitimate monarch was a serious spiritual crime for which one could pay not just by his earthly life, but in the afterlife as well. Even usurpers like William the Conqueror tried to obtain some legitimacy by concocting stories why they and nobody else should be kings. We still see some reverbations of that principle today. Many authoritarians love to "roleplay elections", even though they likely could do it like Eritrea and just not hold any. It gives them a veneer of legitimacy.
PaulHoule 2y ago
My understanding in many places (France in the Versailles era and the contemporaneous Tokugawa Japan) important families were expected to have some members at court where they could be observed, held accountable (hostage?) etc. That would be a reason to be your own domicile close to the court.
nasmorn 2y ago
Castle building was in fact a function of the downfall of the carolingian empire that until then kept it under control and only granted the right at strategic locations. Most castles simply made a local lord unfireable by his king since besieging a castle was way too expensive for a regular dispute. The castle building shifted the power to the local realm, starting the feudal period for good. Castles are thus more like domains where once you take hold of it, even the big powers have a hard time taking it away from you again
- grues-dinner 2y ago
  Seems more like the rule is: > Building a castle is a very good idea if you seek to entrench yourself in the power structure of the kingdom. To do this, you must be able credibly mount a defence of the castle to discourage forcible eviction without major mutual destruction (cough too big to fail). > Don't build a wooden cottage and expect it function like a castle with a garrison under your command. Even if you slowly expand it to a stone mansion, if you don't maintain a garrison, it won't work as a castle. Sadly, building an game on someone else's platform is more like setting up a cottage on the land. You might be able to get some farming done and survive, but if the lord fancies the grain, you're out of luck. But also good luck finding land to farm without a lord. Peasant.
  - arethuza 2y ago
    Well, you could go to the Moon or Mars or set up your own independent space habitat which are just a bit harder than building a castle and/or farming some land.
movedx 2y ago
I’m guessing you live in Wales if the castles are that densely populated. It has the highest density of castles in the world.

khafra 2y ago

So, you should build your castle in someone else's kingdom iff that kingdom either 1. Has strong norms against castle seizure or abandonment of the king's duties in kingdom upkeep 2. Has a federation of non-king castle owners strong and unified enough to force the former point.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hoorayimhelping 2y ago
3. You are strong enough to provide a serious and credible threat to the king if he implements a policy that threatens you. Example: Valve in the early 2000s before or as they were building Steam to challenge the video game publisher model. 20 years on and Valve is still printing money, while Sierra Online doesn't exist.
- oremolten 2y ago
  Sierra Online was acquired through fraudulent accounting, and the company that acquired them went under shortly after as their fraud was revealed. Unfortunately Sierra had to accept the offer.
- smcin 2y ago
  Also Valve has always been a private company tightly controlled by insiders, whereas Sierra had already been a public company since 1989, subsequently acquired by CUC in 1996 for $1.5bn, and embarked on a non-stop acquisition spree in pursuit of short-term growth, which usually ends badly (think Gateway, AOL, Time-Warner, etc). Esp. pre-Sarbanes-Oxley. Moreover, Gabe Newell always had a controlling stake in Valve ever since 1996, so that prevents any shenanigans. There are comparatively few shareholders (than a public company) and they were all long-term, since Valve will likely never go public, certainly no year soon, or even be privately acquired; while Newell controls it. In this instance your complaint is about corporate governance rather than tech; (how far back did tech people stop being in control at Sierra?)

Maken 2y ago

If you are in France or some other central European old Kingdom, the people living in those castles were the ones who either put the king in the throne or had the power to remove him if he started some funny business, so it was their kingdom in a sense. The problem with modern platforms is, as always, how much leverage the users have against the administrators.

arethuza 2y ago
Yes, in the case of Scotland there is a famous document (Declaration of Arbroath) that was written to the Pope asking him to, amongst other things, acknowledge that Scotland had been pretty much always been independent of England. This was "signed" by the Scottish nobles and has a section saying that if the current king (Robert the Bruce) wasn't good enough at fighting the English he'd be removed and they'd find someone more capable.
inglor_cz 2y ago
Removal of a bad king was a possibility, but actually attempting to do it was ... tricky. It could definitely backfire and end up with the rebels on a scaffold, or, worse, with a decade-long civil war that harmed everyone and opened the door of the kingdom to potential raiders from the outside. In practice, unhappy nobles would often rather deny their necessary cooperation (at war or administering the land in peace) and thus force the king to make some amends and tradeoffs. Passive aggressivity isn't a modern concept :)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 2y ago
  So long as the king is not sufficiently powerful to take on a bunch of nobles who gang up, for all practical purposes, it is not the king's country.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "for all practical purposes" Well, there is the practical purpose of legitimacy. It may seem too soft for modern power theoreticians, but the legitimate king has something that cannot be acquired by raw power, and that puts somewhat of a damper on potential rebels. Not on each and every one of them, of course, but it has a wide effect. Killing or deposing the legitimate monarch was a serious spiritual crime for which one could pay not just by his earthly life, but in the afterlife as well. Even usurpers like William the Conqueror tried to obtain some legitimacy by concocting stories why they and nobody else should be kings. We still see some reverbations of that principle today. Many authoritarians love to "roleplay elections", even though they likely could do it like Eritrea and just not hold any. It gives them a veneer of legitimacy.

PaulHoule 2y ago

My understanding in many places (France in the Versailles era and the contemporaneous Tokugawa Japan) important families were expected to have some members at court where they could be observed, held accountable (hostage?) etc. That would be a reason to be your own domicile close to the court.

nasmorn 2y ago

Castle building was in fact a function of the downfall of the carolingian empire that until then kept it under control and only granted the right at strategic locations. Most castles simply made a local lord unfireable by his king since besieging a castle was way too expensive for a regular dispute. The castle building shifted the power to the local realm, starting the feudal period for good. Castles are thus more like domains where once you take hold of it, even the big powers have a hard time taking it away from you again

grues-dinner 2y ago
Seems more like the rule is: > Building a castle is a very good idea if you seek to entrench yourself in the power structure of the kingdom. To do this, you must be able credibly mount a defence of the castle to discourage forcible eviction without major mutual destruction (cough too big to fail). > Don't build a wooden cottage and expect it function like a castle with a garrison under your command. Even if you slowly expand it to a stone mansion, if you don't maintain a garrison, it won't work as a castle. Sadly, building an game on someone else's platform is more like setting up a cottage on the land. You might be able to get some farming done and survive, but if the lord fancies the grain, you're out of luck. But also good luck finding land to farm without a lord. Peasant.
- arethuza 2y ago
  Well, you could go to the Moon or Mars or set up your own independent space habitat which are just a bit harder than building a castle and/or farming some land.

movedx 2y ago

I’m guessing you live in Wales if the castles are that densely populated. It has the highest density of castles in the world.