Medieval Titles And What They Mean

[Scorponok]

I was wondering about medieval titles and what they mean as well as how they rank in your world.

Of course King and Queen is above all. Then next highest would be prince/princess.

Then there are the ones I'm not sure about. Duke, Duchess, Baron, Earl, Regent, Mayor.

In terms of military, General probably is highest ranked in an army, while Admiral is highest ranked if the country has a navy.

In that Telltales Game of Thrones game, they've even used Castellan - a person in charge of a castle. But does this outrank a General, Major, Leftenant, or even Sergent?

Do you use ranks in your games, and how do they stack against one another?

[Malimar]

Short answer: It's complicated.


Medium answer: It's so complicated and the answer varies so much over time and space that anything anybody tells you is only going to be accurate to a small minority of real-world circumstances.


Longer, inaccurate answer: there are approximately four tracks: the nobility, the burghers, the church, and the military. (But for some (but by no means all) of medieval history, the roles of military officers were performed by the nobility, so there was no separate military track.)

For the noble track, Wikipedia has more information than you ever wished to know (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_noble_ranks). (In the simplest and possibly commonest form, it goes: Emperor, King, Archduke, Duke, Count/Earl, Viscount, Baron, Baronet, Knight.)

On the military track, Wikipedia again has you covered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_rank).

On the burgher and church tracks, I don't have much to tell you other than the "doge" meme makes me chuckle for other than the intended reasons (http://imgur.com/gallery/5eBrV).


In my own setting, it varies from country to country.

Gus is ruled by a King. The largest towns are ruled by Viscounts, and the smaller towns are ruled by elected Mayors, some of whom report to the Viscounts and some of whom report directly to the King. Theoretically, the King might at some future point install a handful of Dukes in between himself and the Viscounts (and could for that matter install some of the other unused levels, but there's less conceptual space for them than there is for Dukes).

The Omorashi Empire is ruled by the Scorpion Emperor. Reporting to the Emperor is the Shogun, who commands the military, and a number of Daimyos, who rule the large towns. Small towns are ruled by landed members of the samurai class, who report to the Daimyos.

Shell is ruled by a Governor (who in retrospect I should have called the Doge, oh well, maybe that's among his several titles).

Everybody else only gets weirder and less like the standard medieval model from there.

[Tiktakkat]

Another source I've found useful, putting a lot of the info on a single page instead of having to surf around Wikipedia:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm

[VonMuller]

This is by no means accurate. But it's simple.

An emperor rules over an empire, empires are defined by the subjugation and integration of conquered cultures. Empires usually respect local customs but enforce law and sometimes, religion. They are often seen as gods or demigods.

A king rules over a kingdom and is tradtionally a descendant of a line of rulers, he is the only "true" lord and owner of everything (unless he knelt to an emperor, see above). The most important part? He is the source of all legitimacy in the system. Laws and Titles are worth more than the paper they are written on because the king provides his legitimacy, presumably god-given, to that.

Then come Dukes, rules of Duchies. Counts, rulers of Counties and Barons, rulers of Baronies.

Each has under his power none or several of the others. They are all landed. Their titles are usually inherited but can be not inheratable and return to the one that granted them.

Then knights. Usually not landed or with a small plot of land.

Then, the peasants, they have no land, not in the propietal sense we concieve it today. They provide food and goods to his liege, who provides it to his liege along with men , and so on. The liege (be it Emperor or Knight) is supposed to provide protection and administer justice.

In traditional european settings the church also serves this role, but as a parallel and often in conflict or alliance with the liege. When the roman empire fell, the state crumbled and broke into a thousand parts. The church held together.

Their ranks (trying hard to keep them usable in D&D go from:

Pontifex (or Pope): a representative of the faith's god. Usually chosen in some weird way.

Cardinal: a priest that can elect the ruler of the faith. Often expected to be a candidate.

Bishop or High Priest: A priest that rules over a huge division.

Priest: an ordained member of the faith, with rights, and vows to uphold.

Consacrated: A non-priest, blessed with some kind of spiritual responsibility, often minor

Layman: A simple member of the faith, a believer.

[BowStreetRunner]

The history of such ranking systems has always fascinated me. While it might seem frustrating that there is no single authoritative answer to the question of what each rank means and how different ranks compare, that is actually one of the most interesting aspects of the topic. In history there were many times when confusion about differing ranking systems created problems, and this can be a fantastic source of inspiration for role-playing games.

Imagine a pair of kingdoms, each with its own language and each with its own system of noble ranks. In the first the ruler is the King, he is supported by his Earls, and each of them were supported by their Thanes, Yeomen, and Thralls, in that order. The larger, more powerful kingdom on the other side of the sea is ruled by a Jarl who is supported by his Dux, who are then supported by Thegns, Yeoman, and Thralls. Jarl in the second kingdom's language translates to Earl in the first kingdom's language. (Similar situations actually occurred in Scandinavia where there were sovereign Jarls, or Earls, in Sweden and Earls who were vassals of Kings in some of the other lands.) An encounter in which an uninformed character wrongly confuses an Earl and a Jarl in precedence could trigger a strong reaction from the slighted individual.

Likewise, consider a PC who is a lowly ranking military officer/church official/etc. who is travelling with a foreign contingent and mistakenly treated as a much higher ranking, more important person than he really is.

My recommendation to anyone trying to implement a ranking system in their game is to pick one you like for the PCs' own kingdom and use different ones for other lands - some only slightly different and other drastically different. This will give you the most flexibility to use confusion about the differences as fodder for developing the story.

[Karl Aegis]

Duke, Duchess and Earl all rule a Duchy. A Duchy is made up of 2-5 counties which are ruled by either Counts, Bishops, or Grand Mayors. If the Primary title of the County is a castle the County is ruled by a Count. If the primary title of the County is a city the County is ruled by a Grand Mayor. If the primary title is of the County is a temple it is ruled by a Bishop. Holdings within the County that are not the Primary Title are ruled by Barons, Mayors or Priests for Castles, Cities and Temples, respectively. Earls are just Dukes that don't live within the De Jure Kingdom of their liege such as English Earls ruling over Northern France for a while.

Regents are the people put in charge while their ruler is incapable of ruling. Like when they bashed in the face and turned into an imbecile or when they get bashed in the face and turned into a dead person before their heir is old enough to rule.

This is what I remember from playing Crusader Kings II, so take it with a grain of salt.

Military ranks are General, Colonel, Lieutenant-Colonel, Major = Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant-Major.

Squads have a Sergeant, Corporal and a handful of Privates. A Staff Sergeant will usually be in charge of keeping a platoon (several squads). A Major or Captain will be in charge of keeping a handful of platoons together in a company. A Colonel will be in charge of the Majors and Captains in their Regiment. A General will be in charge of directing their several Regiments around so, hopefully, they can win in their Theatre.

Some of this may be muddled up since I'm trying to remember this from my reading of Gaunt's Ghosts which had a VERY irregular command structure because all their officers got nuked into oblivion and they promoted a handful of guys from common grunts directly to commanding officers.

[Raz Dazzle]

Duke, Duchess and Earl all rule a Duchy. A Duchy is made up of 2-5 counties which are ruled by either Counts, Bishops, or Grand Mayors. If the Primary title of the County is a castle the County is ruled by a Count. If the primary title of the County is a city the County is ruled by a Grand Mayor. If the primary title is of the County is a temple it is ruled by a Bishop. Holdings within the County that are not the Primary Title are ruled by Barons, Mayors or Priests for Castles, Cities and Temples, respectively. Earls are just Dukes that don't live within the De Jure Kingdom of their liege such as English Earls ruling over Northern France for a while.

Regents are the people put in charge while their ruler is incapable of ruling. Like when they bashed in the face and turned into an imbecile or when they get bashed in the face and turned into a dead person before their heir is old enough to rule.

This is what I remember from playing Crusader Kings II, so take it with a grain of salt.

CKII gives the basic gist of it, but it lacks a lot of the nuance of medieval heirarchies. Counts, dukes etc. didn't necessarily have bishops and barons and mayors as direct vassals. There are also some titles that aren't tied to land - for instance there is no Duchy of York, but there is a Duke of York, it's a ceremonial title given to the second son of the English monarch.

What's very important to remember, however, is the significance of territory to those titles that are actually landed. Take William the Conquerer - beginning of 1066, he's just the Duke of Normandy. Normandy is nominally part of the Kingdom of France, so the King of France is nominally William's liege, although William enjoys a degree of independence. At the end of 1066, though, the Norman Conquest has made William King of England. But he's not just King of England - he's still Duke of Normandy, too. Even though he "ranked up," Normandy isn't suddenly part of England, it's just part of the lands William rules. And even though William, as King of England, is technically of equal rank to the King of France, William, as Duke of Normandy, still owes the King of France his fealty.

How is this problem resolved? With centuries of enmity and war, of course! This kind of dispute was complicated matter in a time where borders were determined by who owned what land and had what title rather than national borders. Just look at an internal map of the Holy Roman Empire and you'll see what chaos this results in.

You could use simplified title hierarchies like CKII uses in your own games, perhaps mixing things up a bit here and there. Having different forms of hierarchy and inheritance in different realms provides options for political and intrigue adventures. Maybe a Duke in one kingdom is also a Viscount in another, and different inheritance laws in each realm will cause his family to lose one of his titles. He appeals to one of the kings, who goes to war with the other to preserve his vassal's lands.

[Malimar]

This is what I remember from playing Crusader Kings II, so take it with a grain of salt.

The Crusader Kings 2 wiki (http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Vassals) has got you covered with some tables of rank names by culture and religion. (The burgher and clergy tracks have some gems -- certain pagan priests with king-level titles get to be Witch-King/Witch-Queen, which is awesome -- but by and large are dull.)

[Dekion]

I tend to use virtually all of the royal/noble titles across multiple cultures, as my world is based in a fantasy version of 13th century Earth. It does get confusing, as there are some titles that are parallel to others, but have different names, or some that have similar names or the same name in different cultures, but are at different levels of peerage. There are also positional titles that may be different than noble/royal titles, like Lord High Chancellor or Lord High Marshal that may be bestowed upon individuals who hold actual noble/royal titles, and positional titles that you may or may not use in conjunction with royal/noble titles, like Mayor or Burgomeister so that can add more confusion. Additionally, military ranks can add even more complexity, and depending upon whether you want historical accuracy or more variety, and there is plenty of history on that on Wikipedia and other sites if you want to do the research. I tend to keep my military ranks simple, General, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant Major, Sergeant, and Corporal with anyone not ranked being a soldier, where normally it is typical that only nobility, Knights (landed or not) and above, can hold officer ranks with "commoners" holding non-commissioned ranks through a noble or royal decree for a specified or indefinite time. Historically, I think the original common western ranks that developed were Captain and Sergeant and that all of the other modern western themed ranks stemmed from those as military forces grew in size, but there are a lot of rank options if you want to use them.

In general (as far as noble order of peerage in my world, at least in the more Western European regions)

Emperor/Empress - Ruler of an empire, usually a region consisting of multiple kingdoms or nations of differing cultures
Imperial Crown Prince/Imperial Crown Princess - Eldest child of the ruling imperial family, or the one designated next in line to the imperial throne
Imperial Prince/Imperial Princess - Any other child of the ruling imperial family
King/Queen - Ruler of a kingdom, typically a sovereign land of cultural similarities
Crown Prince/Crown Princess - Eldest child of the ruling family of a kingdom, or the one designated next in line to the kingdom's throne
Prince/Princess - Any other child of the ruling family or a kingdom, or perhaps a sovereign of region given legitimacy by a religious group of significant power
Duke/Duchess - Ruler of a duchy or an inheritor of the title due to royal blood, despite not being in direct line for a royal throne, may not involve attachment to a duchy
Marquess/Marchioness (often considered to be equivalent to Count/Countess) - Ruler of a march, normally a borderland adjoining another royal or noble's land, other than their patron's
Count/Countess (often considered to be equivalent to Marquess/Marchioness) - Ruler of a county, normally in interior land not adjoining an external border with a higher ranking royal or noble's land
Baron/Baroness - Ruler of a barony, typically the smallest portion of noble land granted by title
Knight/Dame (but, with the more prevalent gender equality in fantasy worlds, well, mine anyway, female knights are usually knights) - Sometimes an honorific earned through deed, typically not hereditary, but may be a landed title with small land holdings and could be passed from parent to child

Edited to add details and correct some errors

[Twurps]

The history of such ranking systems has always fascinated me. While it might seem frustrating that there is no single authoritative answer to the question of what each rank means and how different ranks compare, that is actually one of the most interesting aspects of the topic. In history there were many times when confusion about differing ranking systems created problems, and this can be a fantastic source of inspiration for role-playing games.
.....................


I pretty sure there were instances where a single country was enough to create the confusion. (E.g.: where a king promises somebody a new kind of title, telling the recipient how great it is, and meanwhile downplaying it to his other vassals as to not have a riot on his hand/land)

[BowStreetRunner]

I pretty sure there were instances where a single country was enough to create the confusion. (E.g.: where a king promises somebody a new kind of title, telling the recipient how great it is, and meanwhile downplaying it to his other vassals as to not have a riot on his hand/land)

The British have had nobles who are granted a dukedom but no duchy. Mostly members of the royal family they are styled Duke or Duchess of X, but don't actually have a domain to go with it. This is similar in some ways to what you are describing.

Meanwhile, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a sovereign state in its own right ruled by a Grand Duke.

The rules don't just change as you go from country to country either. Sometimes they change over time within a single country - often as the result of conquest or marriage creating complex relationships between various nobles. And remember, a person who is a Duke may also be an Earl, Count, Baron, etc. - holding a variety of titles but usually only emphasizing the most important one. (Prince Charles of England is officially "HRH Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, ADC")

[Bullet06320]

And remember, a person who is a Duke may also be an Earl, Count, Baron, etc. - holding a variety of titles but usually only emphasizing the most important one. (Prince Charles of England is officially "HRH Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, ADC")

that's a mouthful
but not as bad as his mother, im just gonna link the page for everyone to ponder this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II

in most europeon armies the highest ranked general where marshals, grand marshal, reich marshal, field marshal, depending on country or time period. During WWII the US created a similar rank to prevent our generals from being out ranked by our allies, it was going to be Marshal, but the Army Chief of Staff, George Marshal, didn't want to be known as Marshal Marshal, so we ended up with General of the Army using 5 stars. its just goes to show how the oddest of things can make or break a title or rank

then theres King of Prussia vs King in Prussia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Prussia
as simple word can change the meaning of a title

[Thaneus]

These titles incline and change over era and area.
Medival Britain (concerning 13th century) had a completely other structure regarding nobility, feudal law and royalty as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation sometimes position at similar name (when translated) but the concluded rights where quit different.

When you look at the same time at Arabian country, or the far east you head goes wiggle about the sheer masses on different positions and options.

When I use a medieval European setting as DM I make it easy, all base Nations have the same political structure, I only differ between: Monarchy, Magocraty, Theocraty, Empire and Republic maybe sometimes i go crazy and there are Deucraty (when gods descent and take the matters at hand), Naturacraty (yeah Druids...), stuff like this.

After this the structure is for all the same pyramidal structure, just changing the names for each "system": 6 steps of upper echelon in hierarchic structure with some "Arch" or "Marg" to give some of them a higher position but not quite so much more then the next title above, that's basically it.
It wont help to go all complicated when your player just want enjoy a cup of tea with a king or earl from time to time and go out and slay some dragon which also does not care if the princess he abducted was the daughter of a duke or king (most the times at least).
If the guys at my table want it though... but until they did not bother.

[johnbragg]

In reality, even systems that start very simply (king-duke-count-baron-knight) become complicated over time.

Realistic: Well, his title is Duke of Agrabah, but there's no Duchy of Agrabah because that's direct royal territory--he's the kings grandson. That guy? Yeah, he's the Duke of Methlabia, he's not very important because Methlabia is poor and horrible. Her over there? She's the Grand Countess of Champagne, matriarch of the second wealthiest family in the kingdom. No, their family don't rank as Dukes because in the peace negotiations after the War of the Seven Snails....

That's terrible for gaming purposes though. For gaming purposes, I'd just keep the titling system simple and uncomplicated. Emperors rank Kings rank Dukes rank Counts rank Barons, or whatever. Different cultures, different names for the same or similar setup.

If you want to complicate it though: Use Prince/Princesss as a generic title like which is known to convey no specific meaning except some kind of noble birth. Maybe the grandson of a great deposed dynasty, maybe the younger son of a powerful noble, maybe the grandson of a butcher's apprentice who seized power over a city for a grand total of six weeks, maybe the seventh son of the fifth son of the Baron who rules over seven sheep and two shepherds--but still entitled to claim noble/royal rank.

[Scorponok]

I think I'm gonna go with Prince and princess for royalty and lady for nobility. Not sure what the equivalent for 'lady would be for men of noble birth.

[tyckspoon]

I think I'm gonna go with Prince and princess for royalty and lady for nobility. Not sure what the equivalent for 'lady would be for men of noble birth.

Lord. It's a pretty generic term of address for a person of status. Persons holding a specific title in addition to that would also be entitled to/expect/possibly be offended if not addressed by a different styling; the one I remember off hand is Dukes can be addressed as 'Your/His/Her Grace.' A full title reading/introduction can get rather long for people holding multiple titles, and which one you're supposed to use when would be the subject of a fairly thick etiquette manuscript. You usually can't go too wrong using somebody's highest/most prestigious title, tho. Or just Lord as a sort of generic respectful address, like referring to somebody as Mister or Misses in the modern day.

[Bullet06320]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence
this link may be useful and interesting too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_order_of_precedence

this one is interesting too, regarding Hillary Clinton, if she is with her husband she ranks higher as a former first lady, then if she's by herself as a former secretary of state
just using this as an example of how complicated rankings can be even in the modern world in a country without titled nobility

[Khedrac]

Lord. It's a pretty generic term of address for a person of status. Persons holding a specific title in addition to that would also be entitled to/expect/possibly be offended if not addressed by a different styling; the one I remember off hand is Dukes can be addressed as 'Your/His/Her Grace.' A full title reading/introduction can get rather long for people holding multiple titles, and which one you're supposed to use when would be the subject of a fairly thick etiquette manuscript. You usually can't go too wrong using somebody's highest/most prestigious title, tho. Or just Lord as a sort of generic respectful address, like referring to somebody as Mister or Misses in the modern day.

Just to confuse, I think Henry VII was the first Englsih king to be addressed as "You Majesty" instead of "Your Grace". This might be because for some time after William I they may have considered the title "Duke of Normandy" more important that "King of England", but I understand it also applies to those kings before the Norman invasion.

The main thing is to work out a scheme (and probably anything you work out will have historical precedents somewhere) and document it (so the players know what it is) and be consistent using it (of course different regions can use different systems even in the same country!)

[hamishspence]

Just to confuse, I think Henry VII was the first Englsih king to be addressed as "You Majesty" instead of "Your Grace". This might be because for some time after William I they may have considered the title "Duke of Normandy" more important that "King of England", but I understand it also applies to those kings before the Norman invasion.

Wikipedia suggests it was Henry VIII rather than Henry VII, and suggests that multiple kingdoms had started adopting the style at the time:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_British_sovereign

From about the 12th century onwards, English sovereigns used the style "Highness". They shared this style with only five other monarchs in Europe: the Holy Roman Emperor and the Kings of France, Castile, Aragon and Portugal. Around 1519, however, the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France assumed the style "Majesty"; Henry VIII copied them. The style "Majesty" had previously appeared in England, but did not become common until Henry VIII's reign.


(It also suggests that Henry used "Grace" "Highness" and "Majesty" fairly indiscriminately- and it wasn't till James I that Majesty became the standard official title).

[eru001]

Medieval military ranks get a bit (read a lot) more confusing than modern ones.

For starters, there is no actual private rank, you are simply a soldier, with no additional prestige or responsibilities above the standard. There isnt a term for it yet, and won't be for a few hundred more years. Rome had one, (Munifex) but it fell out of use with the empire.

Corporal and Sargent are terms which will be tossed around, however while both denote a higher status than the base, it isn't until the 1400's that they are formalized relative to each other. In some armies they did not even denote being in command of squads but simply status as a professional as opposed to a levy or militia (Sargent being above corporal in the modern usage)

In England you don't have corporals and sargents until much later, though you do have Sentenels, and ventenals, who were sort of squad and platoon leaders, though the terms squad and platoon aren't used yet, and the actual unit sizes will vary much more than they do today.

Captains command companies, same as in modern times, however one slight twist, a company has no standard size yet and can be anywhere from the size of a modern platoon, to over a thousand strong. Captain could also just mean, the guy in command, and the man that you refer to correctly as your captain, may very well have a man above him whom he refers to, also correctly, as his captain.

Lieutenant as a term is in use, however rather than denoting a specific rank (the specific rank was not formalized until about the 1600's) it denotes a relationship of rank. You are not a lieutenant, you are a lieutenant of X Person, meaning that you command a portion of their troops taking your orders directly from them.

the combination of the above means that yes you could simultaniously be a lieutenant and a captain. This was exactly as confusing as it sounds.

Contrary to popular belief, Man-At-Arms, was not a rank, but a status. It meant a non-noble wealthy enough to maintain their own arms and armor, retained in service to a noble. Men-At-Arms were often equipped no differently from knights, and could be employed similarly on the battlefield.

[Elricaltovilla]

This is obviously an incredibly complicated question since every country has a different system of nobility and ranks. Wikipedia has a decent breakdown of the titles and their meanings with links to more specific information. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_noble_ranks)

[P.F.]

In my games I tend to simplify the rankings down to three social tiers.

The highest ranking group are the "greater nobles," or royalty. This includes emperors, kings, queens, prince/esses, and dukes/duchesses who retain their social standing after being unified to a larger territory. Sometimes these latter will retain the titles of "petit king" or "royal duchess" and so on.

All are essentially of equal rank with differences in wealth, military power, prestige, etc. determining their internal pecking order moreso than the particularities of any given titles and styles. The emperor of an archipelago whose main export is goats will be outranked by the duchess of a wealthy province containing a strategically important fortresses. Regardless of protocols about who bows to whom in which courts, no one is confused about these two persons' relative standing. Because they are both royalty, their children could intermarry.

Next tier are lesser nobles. Counts, jarls, barons, sheriffs, chieftains, lords and ladies of all stripe and color. These tend to be the most status-obsessed group and constantly reorganise themselves based on nebulous criteria such as "access," "importance," and most of all "favor." Lesser nobles ultimately derive their standing from the greater nobles' fiats.

Functionally, lesser nobles are all of similar rank, with differences primarily marked by personal perceptions and palace intrigues moreso than objective facts. Intermarriage between any various ranks is possible, but a match which improves the houses' standing is preferred. Lesser nobles ascend to royalty through military conquest or, very rarely, by marriage. No amount of economic power will buy a royal title.

Finally, there are the commoners. These range from wealthy merchants and masters-at-arms to lowly laborers and slaves. Social distinctions within this class are typically based on access to money, with wealthier persons holding themselves aloof from the poorer groups.

Commoners are free to marry whomever they choose, although families of similar wealth are preferred. A sufficintly rich commoner might be able to buy a lesser noble's title from a royal sovereign, or marry into a lesser noble house under the custom of "money for honors." While the newly-elevated noble's common birth will be a social impediment for the rest of his or her life, his or her children will suffer less stigma. Occasionally a particularly successful warlord will become recognised as a lesser noble in his own right.

This three-tier system allows me to use whatever titles I deem appropriate for various NPC's without having to hand out protocol packets for my players to study. My players' characters can thus, for example, be prepared to disarm when appearing before royalty, but be immediately suspicious when asked to do so for a lesser noble.