You say he is wrong, yet you claim that because lord's share is usually around 10-15%. Why is it usually that low? Because lords aren't as greedy you make them out to be.
I'm not here to judge, I'm not calling anyone greedy, but people
often do what is in their own self-interest.
Knights are only a harm to lords if they choose, because they can take up to 50% if they want of their knight's income, meaning the lord would lose nothing, yet the region/realm gains gold. So in other words, lords aren't really that greedy after all and there really is no downside to knights, despite you claiming so. A lord who wants max gold and power can give himself the largest estate he can and have a lord's share of 50%. Simple as that.
The realm gains more gold by making the knight a lord.
As an add-on, you didn't read his post that well, because he said the region produces more gold, not his lord gains more gold, because he loses no gold, yet the region really does make more gold. (Assuming 50% lord's share which he probably doesn't do because his city is so rich he has no need to.)
Apparently I read it better than you because he said quote: "I make more in Idapur with full knights and estates at 100% than I do with no knights."
To all your benefits you listed of this, its false, because a number that holds no power is simply a number, and thus isn't promoting any of things you claimed because people don't care about numbers, they care about power.
Then why do we have scores for honour, prestige and fame?
To the recognizing a character's rank, that is already done via their title. If they are a duke and you are lord, they are more powerful, simple as that.
I have to disagree. The Prime Minister of the UK has more political power than the Queen, even though she is superior in rank. The President of the US has more power than the President of the Congo, even though they are equal in rank. A title that holds no power is simply a title.
