Where does nobility come from? Do they spawn from and eventually return to the plebeian masses? Are they part of bloodlines that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years? Are they genetically superior to "normal" people, or were they just in the right place at the right time and it carried on from there?
Each civilisation's nobility forms at its beginning.
Western nobility formed around the 10th century, though new families joined it throughout history. Nobody can trace their ancestry farther back than that though.
>>417389
Way, way back in roman times their ancestors were filthy rich and when the world went to shit they fed poor people in return for their physical labour services. Over time this made them feudal landlords. This evolved into nobility.
>>417408
Please stop making shit up.
>>417389
Some tribal chief who's strong/wealthy enough creates a title as the "King of X". People acknowledge this overtime, and the title eventually becomes worth something.
I'm gonna speak in pretty general terms, here, without a ton of examples, so take this as you will.
It depends entirely on civilization and point in history, how an aristocracy, elite, or nobility forms in it's specfics.
Broadly speaking, the families or tribes designated as elites in a given civilization have to be around at the start of a given social order and have enough power to enforce their position over other competing families or tribes, This is usually accomplished through the control of wealth, the threat of force, or the influences of a foreign political power. Sometimes a nobility can be propped up by connections to an older, outside power; sometimes it's about control of resources (i.e. wealth); sometimes it's about who is the baddest motherfucker. Sometimes (well, probably most of the time) it's a combination of any and all of these factors.
Then you can get super weird stuff like how the Communist elite formed in the USSR, which was based around ideological credibility, personal political connections, and the larger climate of party and leadership politics. That shit is probably more modern than what OP is asking about though.
I think nobility comes directly from popularity. Only a man who is popular with a large percentage of the populace and universally revered can be considered of noble birth. It will then pass on to his offspring of course.
>It is almost a law of history that the same wealth that generates a civilization announces its decay. For wealth produces ease as well as art; it softens a people to the ways of luxury and peace, and invites invasion from stronger arms and hungrier mouths. On the eastern boundary of the new state a hardy tribe of mountaineers, the Kassites, looked with envy upon the riches of Babylon. Eight years after Hammurabi's death they inundated the land, plundered it, retreated, raided it again and again, and finally settled down in it as conquerors and rulers; this is the normal origin of aristocracies.
Will Durant, Story of Civilization
The French nobility, for example, were the descendants of the German conquerors of the late Antiquity. To this day the English nobility is descended from Normans who came with William the Conqueror.
Some day, hundreds of years in the future, there will be a new legitimate "nobility" in Europe based upon today's ethnic crime families.
>>417389
>where does nobility come from?
from God. get back to work you disgusting peasant
>The French nobility, for example, were the descendants of the German conquerors of the late Antiquity.
Not really.
In Merovingian times, the nobility included both Frankish and Gallo-Roman families (dukes, ie leaders of armies, were usually Franks, and counts, ie administrators, were usually Gallo-Roman). This got muddled through the centuries of the dark ages and families rose and fell quickly. The French nobility only started solidifying between the late 10th and the 11th century, and no French family can trace its ancestry farther than that. This is 300 years after the last Merovingians, and 500 years after the fall of Rome, so it's highly unlikely that the nobility would be of pure or even of significant Germanic ancestry.
The situation in England is different though, since it happened later, and power wasn't shared like in France but taken outright. As a result the vast majority of English nobility can trace their ancestry to the Conquest.
>>417926
>The French nobility, for example, were the descendants of the German conquerors of the late Antiquity
Stop using wrong terms, retards
The German people was born in 9th century
Franks were Germanic but not German
Luck, wealth and education.
>>417389
Either strength, intelligence, both, or birthright get them there. The ones there through birthright tend to get more and more incompetent as there's no guarantee they'll be as smart as their parents.
>>417934
underrated post
>>417389
>Where does nobility come from?
Social surplus in the form of land rights in feudal or tributary modes of production.
Clan leaders, very rich merchants and/or warlords.
My noble ancestors went to being regular Joes after aristocracy was outlawed.
>>417389
You should really read Machiavelli's "The Prince", it'll clear a lot of this up for you.
>>417408
>feudalism in ancient rome
Nowadays you can buy a "noble"title on the internet for like 60 bucks kek
>>417389
It is the other way round.
Aristocrats have sons who are more likely to survive to adulthood than the peasants and attract more women with their money, the eldest inherits the paternal acres and the rest mingle with the rest of the population.
>genetically superior
A modern myth is that a single gene often governs incredibly complex processes in biology. This may be the case for hair color which involves a small number of chemicals produced by hair follicles but not for something unfathomably complex like the brain. We haven't even begun to talk about whether these genes benefit someone in different environments.
Aristocrats may have a slightly higher proportion of genes that favor intelligence generally but it is still a lottery. Though aristocrats are relieved of much of the burden of natural selection so this might not be the case in older lineages.
>>418999
Political candidates would pay out money to keep people around as their entourage. This was the beginning of feudalism.
>>417926
>Some day, hundreds of years in the future, there will be a new legitimate "nobility" in Europe based upon today's ethnic crime families.
And America is maturing and creating its own domestic fat cat aristocracy.
>>419688
>This was the beginning of feudalism.
No that was the parthians.
>>419597
>attract more women with their money
nobility typically attracted other nobility for more reasons other than money and didn't mingle with the rest of the population. also i don't think aristocratic offspring had a better chance of survival. families were detached from their children because of the low survival rate and in france at least the practice of wetnursing among the aristocracy led to a significant amount of deaths on the actual journey to the countryside where the nurses were. we're talking about many babies under a year old being strapped to horses and carried over distances that took days to traverse.
>>417926
europe and the first world is essentially a nobility
>>419750
>essentially
What other crimes of sloppy interpretation do you hide beneath this weasel word?
>>417926
>Some day, hundreds of years in the future, there will be a new legitimate "nobility" in Europe based upon today's ethnic crime families.
nah
>>419750
>europe and the first world
>>417389
The nobility is an aristocracy that has his position recongized since the birth by the law.
>>417934
based
>>417389
it is part of the anacyclose
>Are they part of bloodlines that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years?
Yes.
Is there even any point of living if you're not one of the elite? You are basically a slave.
>>421752
You tell me.
>>417389
It is a form of meritocracy.
>Man excels in some area to the point that other leaders realize he *needs* to lead
>Is elevated to nobility in culture
>Passes on his attitudes, etc. to his children
>If they are competent at leading, they remain leaders
>If they excel, they move up the ladder of aristocracy
>If they are poor at their jobs they lose influence, power, and wealth
Aristocracies tend to be surprisingly dynamic and mobile over time
>>419688
The subject of 'clientes' in the Republic is actually not so cut and dry as that. There is no evidence of a clear relationship between nobiles, their clientes, and electoins.
Check out chapter 8 of Peter Brunt's book 'The Fall of the Roman Republic', or any of the numerous articles on patronage.
>>421752
If you live in any of the western nations you're already in all likelihood global upper middle class at least.
In mediaeval times nobility typically lasted 100 years before returning to the pleb masses.
>>421895
Thanks for the tip
>>421840
>Aristocracies tend to be surprisingly dynamic and mobile over time
Continents tend to be surprisingly dynamic and mobile over time too.
>>417397
>Nobody can trace their ancestry farther back than that though.
There are a handful of 8th century families actually, and a great deal of 9th century ones in highly literate areas (at the time) like northern Italy and southern Germany where there were plenty of monesteries to keep records. A family that lives near me has been residing in the area since fucking Carloman came to take the throne of Italy, and they have the documents to prove it.
>>419745
aristocrats sired many bastards is what I meant
also I am pretty sure a noble's legitimate child had a better chance of survival, they would be fed during a famine, they would not sleep with the pigs, wetnurses were experienced mothers with antibodies in their breast milk, etcetera
>>418999
>not knowing that proto-feudalism was developing in the late Roman empire
