>Soldiers are paid with land, not with money. Can this work?

>>51844755
You mean feudalism?

>>51844755
Yes.

>>51844755
>Can the system that worked for centuries work?
Let me think about this for awhile.

>>51844755
Not for every soldier providing a 'realistic' war environment and numbers in reference to actual history, you'd need something like far fewer soldiers or far more land to really justify it, or you could go full legal nightmare and start giving them tiny plots of land each.

Alternatively, a huge rework to the entire economic system would be required, with a few tweaks to core ideas or ratios.

File: IMG_6997.jpg (438KB, 1275x1600px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1275x1600px

>>51844755

Uh... yeah.

What? Um yes
Land<money

Land can be used for farming bruh

>>51844755
It works, both in its feudal way (giving land to the a noble) and its roman way (giving land to the veteran footsoldiers). Although roman soldiers were not always happy because they usually got land in Chaosfuckrape frontier province that had just been conquered and had angry barbarians just across the river.

>>51845210
><
You got your arrows backwards, Anon.

>>51844755
Literally the basis for feudalism, literally how Caesar paid his soldiers, literally the basis for Visigothic conquest.

>>51845365
>Dat conflict when Caesar tried to give his soldiers Gallic land rather than Magna Graecian land.

>>51844755

The problem with being paid in land is where are you supposed to store it all?

>>51845448
Generally along with the turf you're also given the right to the location it's currently being stored in.

>>51845448
Easy, you request it have lots of water and store it in the river bank

>>51844816
Or instead make sure your soldiers die horrible deaths on the battlefield. Or just don't give them any land and make sure they stay poor when they come back from the war so people won't associate with them and think that they are the scum of society.

>People keep spouting Victorian hearsay about Feudalism despite the fact we've moved past this shit for most of 20th century medieval historiography.

>>51844755
Yes, but it's not feudalism; that's independently wealthy landowners dividing extra pieces of land in interconnected contracts of loyalty and obligations. This is far closer to the Eastern Roman Empire's thematic system.

If you have enough soliders, you run out of land.

And how are you supposed to live if you have no coin, but instead have a square of dirt? You need money to buy seed, but with just land and no money, you starve.

>>51846972
I mean, are you implying that society from post-classical antiquity wasn't arranged through a system of land ownership?

>>51846980
The thematic system developed into feudalism after a couple generations though.

>>51847008
I'm not, but it wasn't the popular perception of 'Work for me, I pay you in land!' Rather the system was vastly more complex, interdependent and regionally varied. It's pretty much medieval history 101, first day stuff at uni level: 'Feudalism doesn't exist but we group these mechanisms under that term that because we've yet to come up with a better term for it that everyone agrees on'.

>>51847069
Pfft, I've read like a history book and all Grrrrr Martin books and feudalism in Europe was exactly this for 1000 years with no exceptions.

>>51845512

Huh, that's convenient.

>>51847002
You go get a loan. Jews/ Dwarves are there for a reason.

>>51844755
>Soldiers are paid with money, not with land.

Is such a thing even possible?

>>51844755

The Romans did it for centuries you fucking retard.

>>51847002
>You need money to buy seed, but with just land and no money, you starve.
Barter exists. Loans exist.

Hell, this anonymous dude only got the land because he's a soldier. I'm sure a soldier has at least some possessions or skills he can trade for resources.

What kind of weird vacuum of a world are you imagining?

>soldiers are paid with the flesh of enemy combatants

can this work?

>>51847717
Anything can work if the soldiers aren't human and if they have non-human needs.

If a species of obligate carnivore somehow developed a society, it would be completely reasonable to pay a soldier in meat.

>>51844755

Depends on how you get your soldiers. Are you conscripting dirt farmers and shoving a spear in their hand? If so, then no. It probably won't work. Are you attracting the affluent middle class (who are able to supply and provision themselves) to your banner with the chance to become land-owners, and therefor possibly join the upper class? Then yeah, good chance it'll work.

You've also got to discuss how much land you're talking about, and what sort of claim you have on it, that you can be giving it out. What system of laws exist to deal with the land? Does it remain in the soldiers' families hands after death, or does it revert back to you? Can they potentially sell the land on at a later time?

Lots of questions. But at a fundamental level, yes, it can work.

>>51844755
What's the difference?

>>51844755

While it works for some, especially the nobility. Other soldiers at your disposal may only care for short term wealth and not want to risk settlement in a potential hostile post-invasion land.

William the Conquerer offered land and also paid many French and Breton soldiers who returned to their lands after the invasion. Even some Normans returned to Normandy and didn't take land after they had received a cut of the looting of England.

Point is you're limiting your scope on the number of people you muster for your army if you only have land to offer. Also it depends on the nature of the land.

Is it rocky and infertile? Are the natives dangerous? And also are you soldiers advanced people who can make better use of material wealth in their life than some land in foreign country? Or are they savage nomadic raiders who still perceive fresh pastures as their ultimate goal?

>>51847069
That isn't different from literally any other form of society or government.

What we call democracy, for instance, is just as broad a brush as feudalism. The world's modern and historical democracies are vastly more complex and regionally varied as well.

When we discuss feudalism, it is generally understood that we're talking in a very broad-strokes manner about what these systems have in common. Pointing this out isn't really helpful.

tl;dr: Everyone already knows that you fucking retard.

>>51844755
Like, individual infantrymen? This would be a pretty damn small plot of land each if you have an army of even remotely useful size.

But officers? Yeah, quite a lot of historical societies did this exact thing.

>>51844755
Well, in Ukraine soldiers get paid shit, but they get some neat social benefits after the end of service. Including the right to get some land.
So it works.

>>51848410
>Like, individual infantrymen? This would be a pretty damn small plot of land each if you have an army of even remotely useful size.
You are underestimating how much land there is. For example, right now Russian government is granting up to 10000 square meters to any citizen willing to use it.
Granted, that's 10000 meters of a frozen shithole far away from any infrastructure. Even more so than regular Russia. And it is not granted unconditionally. But it is still a decent patch of land you can get more or less for nothing. Aggressively expanding nation can pay it's soldiers a lot better.

File: 1897853513.jpg (29KB, 350x498px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x498px

>>51844755
"He gave Obarthy on the sea
to Hervey de Mont Maurice.
To Maurice de Prendergast,
the valiant earl, Richard
had already given Fernegenal
and in his council confirmed it
before the renowned earl
had landed in Ireland;
ten fiefs he gave him on this condition
for the service of ten knights."

--The Song of Dermot and the Earl, an Old French song about the Norman invasion of Ireland c.1170

It's a lot easier to award land when you've just won it in conquest though (obviously).

>>51847002
You tax them heavily.
I'm serious, No peace for the wicked, As the saying goes.

>>51845515
kek

File: looting_house.jpg (202KB, 853x500px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 853x500px

>>51844755

Yes. Soldiers are very capable of taking the matter of monetary rewards into their own hands. Some armies never got paid by their leaders. In ancient times, YOU and you alone were the one who payed for your own equipment.

File: starship-troopers-wyltkm.jpg (154KB, 550x301px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 550x301px

SERVICE GUARANTIES CITIZENSHIP.

Weren't Romans known to do that periodically?

Also, I remember hearing that soldiers often weren't paid in the sense we understand it, instead being promised a share of the plunder rather than a wage. Rich landowners would invest in armies as a promise of future wealth.

You can even see elements of this in the Homeric epics, where the primary interests of the soldiers were food and plunder.

>>51844755

What OP really meant to ask was

>Can players be paid with land, not with money?

but the answer is still yes

>>51845365
>recently conquered place
>put garrison of soldiers there
>give them the land to develop and thus pay no upkeep
>you know they're skilled as they just survived this war
Really it's a win win
>>51845421
Ah hello fellow Rome poster, the real question remains was he a CONSUL of Rome

>>51853911
>letting plebs into the army
Come on Cato let's have some banter shall we, I bet I can shag those Gauls quicker than you can get your toga off

>>51847740
Or if they were Scottish. Galloglaich were paid in meat sometimes.

File: 2014-03-22_00005.jpg (500KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1600x900px

>>51844755
It did.

>The wars which followed the breakup of Megas Alexandros' empire drained the Makedonian armies of many of their Makedones. For the western Diadochoi, levies from populations could take place directly, but the eastern Diadochoi depended on their dwindling standing armies or on new mercenary recruits. They needed a renewable source of Hellenic recruits if they were to keep power and retain their military strength.

>The answer was the establishment of Hellenic military-settlements throughout the Successor states, where a soldier was given a plot of land and reduced taxes. Sometimes they were given some slaves too, to work their alloted land, freeing up more time for the Klerouchos soldier to be on campaign. Arming the native population (Aigyptioi in the Ptolemaic kingdom, Syriakoi and Babylonioi in the Seleukid Empire), was less appealing, as that would have laid the Makedonian dynasties open for native revolts in their respective heartlands. In Aigyptos most Klerouchoi were settled in the Fayum depression, but many others were settled further to the south, though in smaller numbers.

>>51847002
Land generally isn't uninhabited when you receive it.

>>51844755
rome did it

>>51844816
almost like this

>>51846963
but much more like this

>>51859951
>Land generally isn't uninhabited when you receive it.
in times when land grants to soldiers were common it generally was either mostly or completely uninhabited

>>51863373
Could be referring to foliage and wildlife habitation, but if so I don't know why he just wouldn't say natural resources. But yeah, there's decent amounts of land with some kind of inherent value you can milk.

>>51844816
>what is the roman empire

You just need to make them conquerors instead of simple mercenaries in meaningless disputes.

>Be Rome
>Pay Romans with land of conquered Barbarians
>400 years later
>Be Rome
>Pay Barbarians with land owned by subject Romans
>???
wtf where did my empire go??

ITT: People don't understand land is a limited comodity
Also: People don't understand the difference between basic idea for feudalism and giving a small plot of land as a retirement

Romans literally run out of land they could give their veterans by 2nd century AD. And that was after barely 300 years of this practice, while only giving the land to people who served their time, thus survived long enough from not exactly the biggest starting number to boot.
And they were giving out what could qualify as small farm in terms of area.

File: forum romanum.jpg (508KB, 1400x687px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1400x687px

>>51864379
It hurts how accurate this is

Conquistadors were paid with land, they got to keep some of the stuff they conquered.

American Revolution soldiers were paid with land too, since the early US government didn't have enough money to pay them.

Yes, the system works, it worked very well for a very long time.

>>51844755
Yeah, Rome did that. Basically, the system collapses once the army stops taking land they can pay the soldiers with. It's a double hit to morale - not only are they losing, but they're also not getting paid. I'd highly recommend making more of a temporary incentive than a permanent method of payment. Still, your choice.

File: Map_Byzantine_Empire_1025-en.svg.png (685KB, 1963x1104px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1963x1104px

>>51864379
>wtf where did my empire go??

It went to the east anon

>>51867037
And on the subject of the byzantines, the Theme System is GOAT.

No one's made a "bought the farm" joke yet?

>>51866963
Yeah, you have to also pay them partially in gold. Then when you aren't expanding, you dispense of gold based on political favor of each of your main barons/generals. They fight each other for position instead of just taking over the state. It keeps you better prepared for the inevitable barbarian hordes.

>>51844755
Nigga that's how it worked since Sumer

>>51864379
That's the price of extending your boundaries past a sustainable point, and depriving yourself of friendly neighbors (because you already gobbled them up).

>>51857376
15-20 years later a swarm of pissed off barbs with a grudge swarm over the river and murderfuck the oldmen and their families

>>51847702
It was actually a problem, and people exploited it in order to get grab up cheap land from soldiers.

>>51845365
>its roman way (giving land to the veteran footsoldiers).

OP said land *instead* of money, not as well.

Roman soldiers regularly killed their commander if they weren't properly paid, as did professional soldiers throughout history.

>>51866963
They also did it with British colonies.