attempting to pick up from another thread

I still run with the numbers from KAP5.1, p 134 +
But have finally gotten a formula

barons spend 40% of their income on their knights
a typical barony earns about L200 in the Uther Period
and thus has about 80 knights

Great!

And how many of those would be household knights and vassal knights? (I guess that vassal knights outnumber household knights).

And how many of those 80 knights would belong to banneret knights? (A banneret is supposed to have seven to eight vassal knights and a couple of household knights if I remember correctly).

Great!
And how many of those would be household knights and vassal knights? (I guess that vassal knights outnumber household knights).

10% vassals, 90% household
I have done some serious(ly expensive) reading lately, and only now have come to appreciate the king's favorites
I think it is actually more fun, adventurous and prestigeous to be a favorite than to be a landed knighty


And how many of those 80 knights would belong to banneret knights? (A banneret is supposed to have seven to eight vassal knights and a couple of household knights if I remember correctly).

In the Uther Period, none
Arthur is going to start granting this honor after 501, right on the battlefields

Great!
And how many of those would be household knights and vassal knights? (I guess that vassal knights outnumber household knights).

10% vassals, 90% household
I have done some serious(ly expensive) reading lately, and only now have come to appreciate the king's favorites
I think it is actually more fun, adventurous and prestigeous to be a favorite than to be a landed knighty


Wow, that ratio is quite a paradigm shift - at least for myself!

Would those household knights necessarily be unlanded?

By definition, household knights (aka knights bachelor) are unlanded.

The four assassins of Thomas Beckett were household knights (http://books.google.com/books?id=fFdBfrlM0YQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=medie val+warfare+english+experience&hl=en&ei=jz2qTrLmJe r30gH1v8nEDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum= 1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=becket&f=false) of Henry II, yet they held lands, and indeed were feudal lords; Sir Hugh de Morville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_de_Morville,_Lord_of_Westmorland) was Lord of Westmoreland, Sir William de Tracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Tracy) was Lord of the Manor of Toddington, Gloucestershire, Baron of Bradninch, and Lord of Moretonhampstead; Sir Reginald FitzUrse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_FitzUrse) inherited the manor of Williton from his father, and held other lands besides. In any case, by the early 13th century at the latest household knights were no longer necessarily physically resident in their lord's household (http://books.google.com/books?id=fFdBfrlM0YQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=medie val+warfare+english+experience&hl=en&ei=jz2qTrLmJe r30gH1v8nEDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum= 1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=%22necessary%20to%20 summon%22&f=false)--though granted, these were household knights of the king, as opposed to an earl.



The two methods of paying the vassal for his services—by the fief and by
maintaining him in the household—were not absolutely incompatible. Once
established on his tenement, the vassal did not on that account relinquish
his claim to other marks of the lord’s generosity—in particular to the gifts
of horses and arms, and especially of robes and mantles of ‘vair and gris’,
which came to be expressly provided for in many ‘customs’ and which
even the greatest personages—such as a count of Hainault, vassal of the
bishop of Liége—did not disdain to accept. Sometimes we find, as in England
in 1166, among the followers of a great baron, certain knights who, though
duly provided with lands, none the less live with him and receive from him
the ‘necessaries of life’.

Nevertheless, apart from some exceptional cases, household’ vassals
and beneficed vassals in reality represented two very well-marked types,
serving—from the lord’s point of view—different purposes; and as early
as Charlemagne’s time it was considered abnormal for a royal vassal
attached to the palace to hold a benefice ‘notwithstanding’. Whatever, in
fact, might be required of the feudatories in the way of military service or
counsel, or of administrative duties in peace-time, it was only the household
vassals, able to be constantly in attendance, who could be expected to
perform the innumerable escort duties or higher household services. Since
the two categories were not interchangeable, the contrast between them
was not, in the strict sense, the contrast between successive stages of
development. Undoubtedly the companion maintained in the house of the
master represented an older type of relationship. But he continued for a
long time to exist side by side with the more recent type—the enfeoffed
dependant. What happened if a vassal, after spending some time in the
lord’s immediate following, obtained a fief? Another person—it might be
a youth awaiting his inheritance, or a younger son—took the vacant place
at the lord’s table; and security of board and lodging, thus guaranteed,
seemed so desirable that knightly families of middle rank sometimes solicited
the promise of it for their younger members.
-Bloch, Feudal Society vol 1, p. 169

So yeah, it could go either way. In short, it seems that for the most part, being a "household knight" wasn't necessarily a matter of one's physical or economic circumstance, but of the nature of one's obligations to one's lord--even when not physically resident in the lord's household, as the name implies, he is expected to be always ready to serve his lord as though he were. (I think.)

This is, of course, assuming that Pendragon does not using a simplified and standardized terminology so that you don't have to read multi-volume historical treatises to play a game of make-believe.

10% vassals, 90% household
I have done some serious(ly expensive) reading lately, and only now have come to appreciate the king's favorites
I think it is actually more fun, adventurous and prestigeous to be a favorite than to be a landed knighty


That's a revision (?).

By the king's favorites, you mean that household knight's and the way that they have access to King, and also the kings patronage? As I see it, vassal knights have status and independence, but household knights are much closer to their lord in personal terms.

Will we see a shift in the in a future edition from a typical player knight being a vassal knight to him being a favored household knight?



In the Uther Period, none
Arthur is going to start granting this honor after 501, right on the battlefields


No Bannerets until Arhtur - This is implied in the Book of Knight and Ladies, so no suprise.

By 501 you mean 511, I guess?

barons spend 40% of their income on their knights
a typical barony earns about L200 in the Uther Period
and thus has about 80 knights


Shouldn't that be 80L, and therefore around 20 knights?

Wow, that ratio is quite a paradigm shift - at least for myself!


Me too, but I've been doing a lot of old, core scholarly stuff
I read The Household Knights of King John, S.D.Church; and and I finally really GOT it as far as the "Angevin household shuffle" for officers, and what familiaris, or "favorites," is really about.

The four assassins of Thomas Beckett were

Love those guys, eh? Which one built Pendragon Castle after he got back from exile?


This is, of course, assuming that Pendragon does not using a simplified and standardized terminology so that you don't have to read multi-volume historical treatises to play a game of make-believe.

which of course, it does standardize of course
it's pretty clear about that
where it defines a household knight as being in his lord's household as a knight's lifestyle rating
those guys were his familiaris, his favorites
you don't get drunk with the king unless you are wel ltrusted

The four assassins of Thomas Beckett were ...Reginald FitzUrse

As an interesting aside, my wife has traced her ancestry back to Fitzurse, who was a great uncle, actually. Her line extends to Charlemagne, Edward I, et al. I guess once you get into "the club" you're related to half the kings of old England. When we went to England last year for Christmas we went to the manor where the Barhams have lived for the last 100 years +. They have lots of old books on the subject and genealogical charts out the wazoo. But even these musty old tomes caution the attribution of Beckett's murder to Fitzurse is apocryphal at worst and unverifiable at best. Nevertheless, the tradition is that the Fitzurse line changed their name to Barham at some point (actually the charts show exactly when)—my wife's paternal grandmother was a Barham and the line goes all the way back, without a gap. Damn, the English kept good records!


T.

which of course, it does standardize of course
it's pretty clear about that
where it defines a household knight as being in his lord's household as a knight's lifestyle rating

Yeah, I figured that out about halfway through, but I never let a little thing like "the plainly-stated facts" get in the way of posting.



Love those guys, eh? Which one built Pendragon Castle after he got back from exile?
ACTUALLY it was built by the very real and not-at-all-fictional Uther Pendragon, check your sources

ACTUALLY it was built by the very real and not-at-all-fictional Uther Pendragon, check your sources


:)
The Unbelievers would have us to believe that it was built by one Ranulph de Meschines, during William Rufus' reign.

Sir Hugh de Morville (he of the Becket-slaying and a penitent pilgrimage to Jerusalem fame) was one of the owners, but he did not build it in either tale. :)