You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight.
I don't undestand. By defenition, a knight is one without the capacity to hand out estates. Else he'd be a lord.
And rulers do have to live somewhere... And that somewhere quite often was not the kingdom's biggest city, it was often some small town/castle in the middle of farmlands. I wouldn't see why they shouldn't be able to take up an estate in any region, as long as you make them tax-exempt to make it clear that they aren't subjugated to anyone.
And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.
Err, what???
It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.
In medieval times, from what I gathered, nobles would sometimes come to the battlefield with their men, and then judge whether or not the felt like participating in said battles would not. They could come, and then say "screw this, we aren't being offered enough to fight here" and turn back. You didn't give an oath of fealty and loyalty to that marshal, only to (perhaps) the person who gave him the responsibility. The marshal coordinates the nobles, and his authority only comes from the fact that someone higher up is backing up his instructions. "Marshal" doesn't figure in the feudal hierarchy for a reason. Medieval armies are nothing like modern armies. Nobles could get away with a lot of things that officers today could never dream of doing.
While unit formations are indeed a sign of subjugation, this could be solved by giving the ruler the ability to check a box "follow/don't follow marshal formations". It would be foolish to think that whenever a king was present on the battlefield, he would always decide on how everyone would deploy. I won't pull a random percentage out of my ass, but I'm convinced that some kings were more than happy to follow the suggestions of a trusted military leader. Not ever ruler is born to be a military leader. And some of them recognize this, and would rather maximize their odds of success by delegating the task to someone they trust to do better than they would. Being at the top doesn't mean you won't ever listen to anyone other than yourself.
He can always, you know, not be in any army.
In some cases, it wouldn't matter. In others, it would just suck. Why force the ruler out of the armies? They always have been a part of the armies. And a lot of players play this game for the war aspect. Forcing the rulers out would not be fun for many of them. Many are already courtiers, but they shouldn't be forced to become one if they don't want to.
If you meant "they could continue fighting with the army without technically being part of it", then what's the point? It's just creating a big headache for some people with no reward whatsoever. It is already quite obvious to everyone that the ruler is at the top and owes nothing to nobody. Forcing rulers out of armies, or forcing them to be their own marshals, would be promoting a vision of medieval armies that I don't see as being correct and adding unnecessary restrictions to the gameplay of rulers. With no gain.
And what next? Are dukes also not going to be part of armies, because that marshal is a mere lord and therefore inferior? And lords too, if the marshal is a mere knight, and therefore inferior? May as well have nobody in the army. It's a slippery slope, because it's not any more valid for rulers than for dukes and lords, imo, as all of them appoint themselves to the army as they like and have the power to change armies or found one themselves if they wish.
Alternatively add him to a special position in the Army, when he joins one. Simply add him a title over the Marshal, and voi-la.
We already have that. It's called "Ruler", or "King", "Hetman", "Prime Minister", or whatever other variation. As I and Bedwyr has said, nobody actually thinks the marshal is superior to the ruler he supposedly "commands". When I was a marshal, and had instructions for the ruler, I would label it as a request, not an order. If he didn't follow it, I didn't bitch about it. And if I had, I would have been the one ridiculed, not him. There is absolutely no need to add a synonym to "ruler" in their titles. Some people (myself included) already have long enough titles as it is.
