Sen no Sukiru o Motsu Otoko - Vol. 3 Ch. 16

[Siti]

nekse chapteru purisu?

 

[feha]

@HDMI1 so as a result noone got to sleep in the private room?

 

[Goldenzeal]

@feha
@HDMI1

the duel was over the knight girls room.
becouse the baron lost he had to share the common room with the servents.
so he kicked everyone out who was staying there ( the two MC included )

the knight girl still got to sleep in the private room.

 

[TitanAnteus]

@tigerstar186
He's not obnoxious. He's great.
When the protagonist divorced his wife he let him crash at his place without a thought and tried to cheer him up by them going shopping for rare stuff to sell in the other world.

Like legitimately, he's a great friend overall.

@aFFi
I know it's hard to like things, but the manga's not bad. It has good characters, a realized world and characters with motivations that make sense.

 

[feha]

@Goldenzeal why is the knight girl in page 16 lying under her covers (and gazing jealously at the coworker) then?

 

[Goldenzeal]

@feha

Becouse you are wrong, thats why. 👺
That's not the knight girl, it's the scout girl
And she is also a servant like them.

The knight girl is the one who got braids in her hair on page 1.
On page 6 you can see both of them at once.

One of them got braids and the other got the horsetail hairstyle if you have problems seeing the difference.

 

[Mogima]

@CountryMage no, i get that. what i'm confused is, under what circumstances the MC group let him do that?
the femlae knight is the same rank as the pig, right? and the pig have no more underling. so why give it to him?

 

[genderbenderbb2]

@Gauvain oh you're right. I guess one more chapter folks!

 

[CountryMage]

@Mogima I don't know if they count as the same rank, she's a knight, and he's a baron. As @Goldenzeal puts it though, the Knight didn't lose the room though, seems it was just MC and his servant class friends that have to sleep in the stables.

 

[IMACOP]

@CountryMage @Mogima
He outranks her... by a lot. She's just a knight (probably rural too, based on her house's financial condition and location), while he's a full-fledged noble. Either author doesn't know how aristocratic rank works, or that she's supposed to be written as some really bold (or ignorant) knight. Think of it like a lieutenant going against a colonel, or a team supervisor going against a regional manager.

 

[Goldenzeal]

@CountryMage
@IMACOP
@Mogima

a knight is the 2nd lowest rank of nobility there is, only outranking the "Lords" tittle. ( who basically are temporarily given a title to rule a piece of land and is not allways a true noble )
A Knight is however the lowest Hereditary title as "Lords" dont allways ( but usually did anyway as long as they ruled the land ) automatically inherit the tittle.
Sometimes Knight Tittles were none Hereditary aswell, but most was hereditary if they owned land like she does.
In Terms off "level of nobility" it comes down to if they are permanent lords or knights as they are pretty much the same level more or less.
Temporary knights can serve under a permanent lord for example, but it was rare for a permanent Knight to serve under a lord as they themselves are lords too as long as they own land.

I dont know if it was a real thing or not but in some medieval mangas, TV shows etc etc the more upnosed nobles did not allways consider knights and lords as true nobles because they were nothing more then commoners given land to rule and a fancy tittle.
The none Hereditary version of Knight was usually given to outstanding warriors or leaders as a means for them to prove themselves, thus skipping the lord title as they dont have a land to rule most of the time.
They were usually given land if they earned it witch made the knight title permanent or at minimum downgraded to lord status after the knights death if they still owned the land.

Baron is the 3rd lowest title which means it's more like a team supervisor refusing the orders of the project manager.
He doesn't actually outrank her by that much as she is from a knight family who owns land and should be a permanent knight family as they have land to rule over.
It is however the first Title who must be assigned by the ruler of the land ( the king ) unlike lords and kights who can be given the tittle by any other noble.
This might also be a part of why the lords and knights are not always considered true nobles, but they do have a noble tittle.
The flip side to this is that becouse the lord and kight tittle have to be earned they are usually depicted in media as more competent whereas Barons and above can easily become corrupt or at least incompetent as skill have nothing to do with inheriting a noble title unless you REALLY MESS UP and were much less in risk of losing the title as only the king can make it so.


TLR
This basically comes down to him not being able to push her around unless he is her direct superior or have good reasons to do so witch he clearly dident have.
All Lords and Knights serve under ONE Baron who can give them orders who himselfs takes orders from a Count, Viscount or Earl.
If a Baron who is from a different region of the Viscounty ( the combined land ruled by the viscount family and all bellow them ) or even from a different one entirely.
He have no right to order her around unless its for the greater good of the realm. AKA the

 

[IMACOP]

@Goldenzeal The difference between a knight and a baron is night and day. If you're talking about rank difference by order, then yes, a baron is just 1 or 2 ranks higher than a knight. If it's actual influence and authority, a baron, while having the lowest seat in nobility, have a say in the royal court, but knights aren't even allowed in unless they're there as guards and of course, they have no say in anything.

Also, are you mistaken? A knight isn't allowed to use Lord, just Sir. Lord is only for Baron (Baronet (maybe)) and above. Barons and above all serve and only take orders from the king (theoretically). Lower nobility like barons might work under the influence of a higher ranking noble, but it's a form of alliance (political factions) rather than direct subordination. Knights on the other hand, are basically glorified guards or stewards and are always a subordinate of a higher ranked noble, whether they have land or not, and unless one is a royal knight, most knights have their own land since that is their income.

You're right that Lords (baron and above) 'can't' order knights who aren't under them around, but it's not because they can only order their own subordinate knights, instead it's about whether that Lord is prepared for the consequences of messing with another Lord's underling.

 

[Goldenzeal]

Like i pointed out yes, there is a difference in rank but i would still argue it's not that big of a difference between a landed knight and a baron
( unless the baron is also a knight, but he clearly isn't one. )
a Knight did actually have a say in the royal court but most of the time they would not care to ask anyone of the lower ranks anyway unless they had a reason too for the simple reason of consolidating as much power as possible.
Witch lets be real here did not happen alot.
unless you are thinking of the house of lords, but that is a whole different can of worms ?

Everyone in the noble faction serve the king, but they do so by serving the next in line on the totempole.
As there were offen multiple Marquess, viscounts, barons and so on who fought for power among themselves.
This is why there was multiple factions and is the weakness of the feudalism system itself.


but yeah i dont think the difference was as big as you make it out to be.
As for actual influence it going to come down to a chase by chase basis unless the diffrence in rank is alot bigger.
Even a Knight family who have earned a lot of merit and is rich might have alot more influence then a baron who have done nothing.
Think yourself, who would you trust more.... the Knight who have guarded your borders for 30 years and knows the land or his superior baron who only cares about losing out on tax when it comes to preparing a border patrol or not ?

Both Lords and Knights are Vassals to the higher tiers of nobility.
Lords are usually considered higher as they allways have land they control, But a landed knight is actually higher on the totempole then a lord as they have land AND military merits.
Lords and Knights are technically different types of titles as a Lord might not be a knight, but a Knight could be a lord to make things more confuseing.
( A landed knight in this example is a Lord AND a Knight )

The whole "Sir" and "Lord" thing is also not the same as the titles itself.
To be allowed to use "Sir" you would have to be knighted by the ruling nobility ( the king or queen )
Also the "Sir" thing is a lot newer and is mostly an english/british thing.
It came from "Sire" which was the common way to call a nobleman if you were not a noble yourself. ( this was used in ALOT more areas of the world then just england )
Lord on the other hand is something you called every single noble( outside of the royalty ) and was the way most nobles talked about other nobles if mentioned by name.
simply put the calling of "Lord" is not the same as the noble title of "Lord" as even barons and viscounts were called lord.

A Simple example of this is that God ( the Christian one ) himself was called Lord while he clearly is a higher rank then pretty much everyone.
( Fun fact Kings were thought to be appointed vassals by god and could never be questioned in their decisions as it was the will of god )
Most people did not use the titles like "Baron von schneider" outside of official business and simply went with "Lord von schneider" when speaking more casualy just like you said.

 

[IMACOP]

@Goldenzeal Sorry, honestly no offense, but you seem to be really confused on this subject.

All barons and above, are knights. A knighthood is simply the baseline that separates a commoner and a noble in social status. It's only if you have other higher peerage then you'll be referred to as such (baron, count, etc.) or you'll simply be a mere knight/noble/gentlemen. A knight do not have any say within the royal court, at all, with the rare exception that his Lord allows it, and that same Lord having an adequate amount of influence in the court. Second or third (or whatever) sons of nobility have a weird position, in that while their father is alive (the actual noble), they are and can claim nobility, but as soon as the father is gone, and they lost the inheritance fight, they are no longer nobles, and many become stewards, butlers and the like, or they set out on their own in hopes of gaining a knighthood, thereby creating a new house. In later eras, these people are usually referred to as gentlemen, and the term would later be used for anyone with a good social standing, noble or not.

It is almost impossible for a knight to be richer than a baron, unless the baron royally messed up his wealth. A knight with land, will at most have a few families serving him, and in terms of land size, is no more than a few acres. He will also be a direct subordinate of a Lord and will be at his Lord's beck and call. A baron's land will have a minimum of around a hundred families, including any knight's under him. The scale is on a whole different level, and even if you're talking about a landless baron (court rank, rarity), he'll still receive an income and authority (influence is another matter) equal to that of a landed baron. Needless to say, a Barony (or any Lord's domain) is massive in size compared to a knight's land, afterall, the knight's land is part of it.

Merit is worthless in such a society, that's the whole (part of, depending on who you ask) reason people revolted and abolished the aristocratic system.

When an army is mustered, it is the Lord that leads his knights and other men-at-arms. A knight alone have no authority to muster, nor does he have much (or any) men to recruit, or the money for it. With that said, Lords are also at the head on military matters, because, they're essentially generals of their armies.

Also, Sir was already in used as far back as after the Norman conquest of England and Crusades and other than the fact that Sir came from Sire, everything else is, no offense, WTF are you talking?

EDIT: Perhaps I was mistaken about the 'lord' that you were referring to. Now that I think about it, the 'lord' that you're using might simply be a person, regardless of his peerage but usually of gentle birth (i.e. noble), who have control over a place. It is simply a word used to indicate their authority, so they can be called lord or master or something. However, the title of Lord, is exclusive for Barons and above.

Look at it this way. Baron and above, they are all essentially independent kings of various sizes, working together under one big high king. Knights are their servants, and commoners/serfs are their slaves.

 

[Goldenzeal]

@IMACOP

same to you really....
Not all nobles were knights, i can tell you that for a fact.
Being a Knight were by no means a baseline for every noble out there.
Also if you think Knights were some kind of baseline noble why do you think they DID NOT take part in court ?

As for how a knight could be richer and / or influential than a barron, there are a few ways even without the baron messing up but again but i do agree its likelly a pretty rare chase.
But that wasent the point i was trying to make... i was pointing out that there are multiple ways one can be influential, Martial and economical power are only examples.
For all its flaws the aristocratic system had its benefits and merits certainly wasn't useless, it was however pretty hard to get merits unless you were extreamly lucky.
The caste system medieval europe was hard for most people and climbing it sure wasn't easy.
But it was far from impossible if you had the money to do it even if it usually took a lifetime of work to even get to try once unless you were well of to begin with.
the exception to this was of course if you were born into serfdom where you were little more then a house pet to the land owner.

you are correct that the lords usually lead the armies themselves, but the "men at arms" were almost always landed knights so.... you kinda proved yourself wrong there.
your allegory of nobles being independent kings is a pretty good one but i do want to mention that not all commoners were peasants or serfs who were little more then slaves.
you are missing out on the entirety of the merchant class as well as the free peasants who were the once who paid the majority of the tax.

sure i might not be 100 % sure on the sir part and quite few things you say aren't necessarily wrong, but a lot of what you are saying are also just not true and i probably could prove it.
But by this point i dont think there is any meaning to keep this discussion going unless you want both of us to start digging up sources for our claims as i dont think we are going to convince the other one otherwise.

And i for one dont feel like spending the whole night doing that.
Still it was enjoyable reading reading through your posts.

 

[IMACOP]

@Goldenzeal Oh, no, reading each others thoughts, that's what discussion is about. 😜 Though, I'll apologise if you'd think my language was crude, but please don't mind me, I just have a filthy mouth. Well, anyway, the final response then...

You are born either the child of a noble, or not. As the child of one, you'll be sent to train under a knight as a squire. You are technically not a noble at this stage, but recognized as a noble son. After you come of age, you'll become a fully fledged knight and officially a noble of the realm, then when your father passes, you'll receive whatever he left for you. As a second or third child, if your father have the money, you too will be trained as a squire and get the chance of gaining your knighthood, becoming a noble. If not, you will become a freeman or commoner. That's why, being a knight is the baseline.

They did not take part in court because they were too low in the peerage system. As I've said, they're glorified guards, as far as social status goes. You're not going to bring in a supervisor into a discussion among the board of directors, no matter how useful or valid that supervisor might be.

Climbing up the social rank in medieval times is not just hard, it's downright impossible, because it's entirely based on bloodline and relations. Wealth is based on land, because everyone (including kings) were money poor. That's why lands were given away as income. It is also why so many jump at the Crusades, because it is one of the few moments in history where you can actually rise above your station with merit, and that most lands were already taken back in Europe.

you are correct that the lords usually lead the armies themselves, but the "men at arms" were almost always landed knights so.... you kinda proved yourself wrong there...

How did I proved myself wrong? The knights belong to the Lord they are under. The land, which the knights own, are their salary for their service, given to them by their Lord, and is located within the Lord's domain. The Lord is in turn, one of the upper echelon leading the country and his domain, is his salary. Also, the majority of men-at-arms were actually not knights, because knights were expensive, so knights tend to act as squad leaders, or captains and the like. That's why I estimated them to be lieutenants, and even in the Napoleonic era, the 'knight's' equivalent rank was around lieutenant.

It's like you hiring a maid with your salary. Your maid is not going to have a say on how you run your household, let alone going to your workplace and advising how to run things over there. That is how low a knight ranks in the peerage system. Also, fun fact: Lady-in-waiting, female servants of nobility (maids, really), are almost all of noble birth, and their male counterparts? Knights.

you are missing out on the entirety of the merchant class as well as the free peasants who were the once who paid the majority of the tax

Actually, no. The majority of tax in the medieval era is from serfs, in the form of wheat, then mostly labour and a little money or whatever, from the artisan or commoners. Freemen farmers, too paid in harvest, but they and the merchant class are a minority. Money poor, remember. It is only towards the Renaissance period that the middle/merchant class begin to increase.

It is also this Renaissance era that the Sun King of France was the first to switch from a feudal system to an absolute monarchy, where all Lords were deprived of their military right. Lord's then only need pay taxes to the crown and only the king is allow to muster armies. Of course, the Lords were quite happy about it, since they no longer need to go onto the battlefield themselves. This also shows the extend of a Lord's military authority, before this time period.

Anyway, yeah, too troublesome to dig for sources... so, cheers, mate.

 

[CountryMage]

@Goldenzeal and @IMACOP I said I don't know if they are the same rank or not, because some novels/manga separate the noble ranks between landed nobles and non landed nobles, or military nobles and administrative nobles, giving them different titles that are equal in rank to ones on the other branch. So for all I know at this point, Baron and Knight could both be the lowest noble rank, one from a military nobility, and the other charged with finances somewhere.

 

[IMACOP]

@CountryMage Yeah, that happen quite a bit. Somehow these authors love using different culture's same rank to create some artificial separation of their duties. Especially, Marquis (English/French) and Margrave (German). Anyway, no, there's no such thing as military or admin only rank IRL, a knight is below a baron. The closest example of an admin only rank is a Viscount, it usually belong to a landless noble.

 

[Smokeball]

now now let's practice some more young padawan.

 

[TheOneAboveGod]

How are they gonna explain where they got their millions though? Don' they need to launder their money or something?