Betraying the Castle Lord

Suppose there is a guard working for a minor lord, a castle lord maybe baron, let's call him Robert. He has no personal attachment to either his immediate lord, the count above him, or the king (I mean, not too many people meet their king anyways).

He then gets a letter from the count, let's call him Geoffrey. It contains evidence that Robert is planning a rebellion against Count Geoffrey and has identified a dozen conspirators, including some unlanded sons of nobles and two other barons. The guard thinks about the activity and documents he might have seen around the castle and realizes Robert had been conspiring to rebel for three years and was spending time trying to secure loyalties and formant descent against Count Geoffrey.

The letter asks for the guard, who is assigned to the gatehouse, to bribe the others to keep the thing open with the money contained with the letter. Robert is not yet in open rebellion, so the main gate is usually open (like it is during peacetime) and Count Geoffrey plans to personally come over with his knights and nip the rebellion in the bug. It promises rewards for the guard if he cooperates and also trys to appeal to the guard through legal means (I mean Robert is about to rebel, that's a good reason). Geoffrey doesn't realize the guard also knows Geoffrey lacks any siege equipment and has almost no hope of taking the castle with the gate closed.

The letter later gets wet that day and becomes completely illegible, but the guard knows what was in it.

What is the likelihood that the guard will cooperate and betray his castle lord, and the likelihood he'll simply pocket the money? Even if Geoffrey puts down the rebellion when it happens, he won't even know if the letter got intercepted or reached its intended recipient, so treachery is unlikely to be discovered.
 
I find quite hard to concieve a classical medieval guard high enough to be trusted with a conspiracy letter that wouldn't have a personal attachement, would it be only trough vassalage link, with his immediate lord. Up to the XIIth, such guards while low-ranked in the nobility (or completly out of it) were called miles or, as we do, knights.
It was no unusual for even a small lord with a poor castle to have at least 5 or 6 miles at his service.

Then, while secret rebellions did exist, they didn't were so for long, would it be only trough the sheer need to act before the logistics fall :three years of secret rebellion is more of a modern narrative exemple.

Eventually, it entierly misses the point of classical medieval siege, at least between a count and his vassals or vavassors. Most of the sieges were announced by advance (one month for exemple) to give time to reconsider the options, and when began these sieges tended to be rather demonstration of strength, plundering the countryside to force an agreement.

Finally, if the vassal is this independent, good luck being inconcipious after having pocketed the money of the count and using it when your own lord probably coin his own.
 
It'll depend on the guard, really. How loyal he is to Robert, what he thinks of Geoffrey, whether he thinks he can realistically get away with it (his perception, which is a different calculation than whether he actually can get away with it), etc.

Treachery was certainly common, but so was loyalty. At the end of the day it could go either way.
 
Eventually, it entierly misses the point of classical medieval siege, at least between a count and his vassals or vavassors. Most of the sieges were announced by advance (one month for exemple) to give time to reconsider the options, and when began these sieges tended to be rather demonstration of strength, plundering the countryside to force an agreement.

OK, let me think about this. A medieval siege usually announces these to give them a chance to reconsider (and give in, both sides are alive and nobody has to deal with that mess). If a count finds a conspiracy before it happens (like how the murder of the Duke of Orleans was planned for years... and then implemented in a completely different way not involving most of the conspirators when one of them found an opportunity to kill him and pass it off a tyranicide), should he conduct a regular siege and give his baron time to reconsider or should he just nip the thing in the bud before the rebellion occurs? And aside from which is tactically optimal, which one fits the medieval mindset more?

Obviously once the rebellion takes place the normal siege thing happens.

Thanks for your help
 
If a count finds a conspiracy before it happens (like how the murder of the Duke of Orleans was planned for years
Not really the case : while the murder was really considered early, it's as early as June. Before this, maybe it had been contemplated, but nothing material.
I'll add this is not as much a conspiracy to get rid of a suzerain than to get rid of a court faction leader.

Assassination isn't that much used as a political tool, because it can backfire really easily : a lot of nobles accused (rightfully or wrongfully) of such really went down, as the break of vassalic or nobiliar trust was really a no-no. Even as Jean sans Peur had a large popular support, he still ended with a large part of the nobility allying against him for these reasons.

Medieval conspirations usually implied networking and alliances, rather than individual attempts like this. Which was why trying to siege the conspirator into obedience was eventually more useful.

But I stress this : blunt assassination is not really a good way to get legitimized or having one's goals acknowledged, to the point I litterally can't really remember one assassination plot that worked at the benefit of plotters. You might have some, but I don't really see which.
 
No
But I stress this : blunt assassination is not really a good way to get legitimized or having one's goals acknowledged, to the point I litterally can't really remember one assassination plot that worked at the benefit of plotters. You might have some, but I don't really see which.

My particular example isn't assassination, I was just saying some things were plotted for awhile. There are others on the tip of my tounge, not common occurance but not impossible.

Anyways, forget that specific one. Would trying to nip the rebels in the bud (going in the castle, not an assassination in this case) be good, or would it be better just to send a letter "Robert, I know what you're going and you have one month to apologize or ELSE"? Which makes more tactical sense and which one fits with medieval sensibilities.

Obviously if the rebellion started, the first option makes no sense what so ever.
 
Anyways, forget that specific one. Would trying to nip the rebels in the bud (going in the castle, not an assassination in this case) be good, or would it be better just to send a letter "Robert, I know what you're going and you have one month to apologize or ELSE"? Which makes more tactical sense and which one fits with medieval sensibilities.
It depends how pressing the matter is, and if the suzerain does want to make a show of strength (especially in the risk of civil war, as with the Praguerie).

If the plot is discovered early on, even the threat would be rather implied in a "This is a major problem there : I want you to stop right now". and then going to the arrest if ignored (especially if the plotter is in court. But you might have, with the latter case, the suzerain going directly to the castle, preventing the plotters to really advance their advantages.
 
It depends how pressing the matter is, and if the suzerain does want to make a show of strength (especially in the risk of civil war, as with the Praguerie).

If the plot is discovered early on, even the threat would be rather implied in a "This is a major problem there : I want you to stop right now". and then going to the arrest if ignored (especially if the plotter is in court. But you might have, with the latter case, the suzerain going directly to the castle, preventing the plotters to really advance their advantages.

Ah I see. So step one might be an implied threat to the would be rebel who didn't actually betray the suzerain, letting him know he has a problem and Robert should "stop it."

If this doesn't dissuade him (which it usually will because the whole reason these are done in secret is because the plotters don't think it will work if its known), then he might show up at the castle. In this case, a random nobody with no personal connection to Robert or Geoffrey, but who works under Robert the castle lord would not be asked (because this guy isn't likely to cooperate and won't keep the gate open). If anyone is asked to cooperate, it would be someone in the castle who DOES have a personal connection to Geoffrey and a positive one.

And then, of course, the siege against a rebellious vassal if that doesn't work.

Ok, thank you very much for your knolwedge
 
Top