Dan
06-03-2012, 06:07 PM
One thing that has been irking me is the cost of horses in the Basic rulebook (5.0)
Rouncys seem priced about right, but the cost of Chargers seems out of kilter with the standard economic unit, (ie £6 pa for one manor)
I managed to find a fairly good scholarly work on the cost of Horses in late 13th & 14th C England.
'Knights and Warhorses' by Andrew Ayton ISBN 085115 739 4
It has a lot of data on the cost of warhorses, both rouncys and destriers, as well as other types.
Now, bear with me.
Edward I sets the level of income at which knighthood is Compulsory at £20 pa in 1278 in the Writ of distraint for knighthood. (see Adams & Stephens 'Select documents of English constitutional history')
In his welsh campaign of 1282, the mean cost of an Esquires mount is £7 and the mean cost for a knights mount £15. (These costs taken from the amount paid by the excehquer in compensation for mounts lost in the kings service.)
there are a handful of truly exceptional horses that appear in the records of the scottish campaigns of 1336 under Edward III, valued at £60, or £80 and even one at £100, but this is getting well into the age of partial plate, and the appearance of the pendragon Destrier equivalent.
If we look at these costs as fractions of one of Edward's knights' minimum annual income (£20) and then extrapolate on a pendragon knights minimum income (£6) it seems reasonable to suggest that the cost of horses should be adjusted along the lines of,
Rouncy, £1-2 (ie 1/6 - 1/3 of annual income)
Charger, £3-4 (ie 1/2 - 2/3 of annual income)
Destrier, (if you can find one) £20+ (3x+ annual income, out of the reach of poor knights)
this is a very simplistic condensation of the data in Ayton's work, and I would reccommend anyone to read his work in full.
dropping the cost of Chargers would alleviate some of the concerns other posters have raised about characters getting filthy rich by siezing horses, and some of the other odd stretches of comparative value that need to be made. eg it's more expensive to re-mount your vassal than ransom him. ?
Rouncys seem priced about right, but the cost of Chargers seems out of kilter with the standard economic unit, (ie £6 pa for one manor)
I managed to find a fairly good scholarly work on the cost of Horses in late 13th & 14th C England.
'Knights and Warhorses' by Andrew Ayton ISBN 085115 739 4
It has a lot of data on the cost of warhorses, both rouncys and destriers, as well as other types.
Now, bear with me.
Edward I sets the level of income at which knighthood is Compulsory at £20 pa in 1278 in the Writ of distraint for knighthood. (see Adams & Stephens 'Select documents of English constitutional history')
In his welsh campaign of 1282, the mean cost of an Esquires mount is £7 and the mean cost for a knights mount £15. (These costs taken from the amount paid by the excehquer in compensation for mounts lost in the kings service.)
there are a handful of truly exceptional horses that appear in the records of the scottish campaigns of 1336 under Edward III, valued at £60, or £80 and even one at £100, but this is getting well into the age of partial plate, and the appearance of the pendragon Destrier equivalent.
If we look at these costs as fractions of one of Edward's knights' minimum annual income (£20) and then extrapolate on a pendragon knights minimum income (£6) it seems reasonable to suggest that the cost of horses should be adjusted along the lines of,
Rouncy, £1-2 (ie 1/6 - 1/3 of annual income)
Charger, £3-4 (ie 1/2 - 2/3 of annual income)
Destrier, (if you can find one) £20+ (3x+ annual income, out of the reach of poor knights)
this is a very simplistic condensation of the data in Ayton's work, and I would reccommend anyone to read his work in full.
dropping the cost of Chargers would alleviate some of the concerns other posters have raised about characters getting filthy rich by siezing horses, and some of the other odd stretches of comparative value that need to be made. eg it's more expensive to re-mount your vassal than ransom him. ?