How close to each other would a Bannaret's enfeoffed manors be to each other?

Would they be within a half day's ride of each other, or would the Earl/Count/King want them farther apart to make it harder for the Bannaret to "muster an army"?

My thanks for the assistance.

MrUkpyr

Depends on the size of his holding and how he acquired it. If the knight inherited the lands and title, they might all be geographically near one another. If he acquired lands through a series of marriages, they'll likely be separate. Historically, people's holdings were scattered all over the place. Just look at the list of landholders (http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/landindex.html) in the Domesday Book (http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/index.html). In the end, do what best fits the needs of your story. If one player-knight is a banneret and the others his vassals, keep them closely grouped if you want them to be able to lend one another aid in a crisis.

If one player-knight is a banneret and the others his vassals, keep them closely grouped if you want them to be able to lend one another aid in a crisis.


This tends to be my preference when dealing with banneretcies in general and the player characters in particular. Then again, I tend to use banneretcies sort of like 'marches', local bufferzones near the edges of the county, away from the county 'capital'. The idea being that it is better to have a local bigwig near the trouble, if someone raids. And of course it is nice to have those famous, rich knights as a raid-stopper there.

Of course it makes possible rebellions more probable, but that is just another RP hook, not a disadvantage! :)

That being said, the actual manors owned (officially) by one player knight include two manors in Malahaut, two manors in Salisbury (his inheritance) and two manors in Normandy. Other PKs have manors in Salisbury, Hampshire and Normandy. In all fairness, those manors outside Salisbury have been the results of conquest/marriage, in Hampshire's case the post-Badon rewarding by Arthur.