So I am of course new to the forums and would like someone to help clarify this for me. I have been trying to set up a GPC game and have been getting bogged down in setting up the countries. Specifically in how many knights are in a Barony or Earldom and how much income they all make. I found his post from Greg but have been having trouble rectifying it with my understanding of the game.



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

…..

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



I am confused on the numbers here. He says that a Barron spends 40% of his income on knights and their upkeep and that 10% are vassal and 90% are household knights. Working backwards and assuming all manors net a 6 libra income we can determine an approximate income for a Barony sporting 80 knights.


80*0.1=8 vassal knights needing a minimum of 6 libra. 8*6=48 libra
80*0.9=72 household knights needing 4 libra. 72*4=288 libra

48+288=336 libra minimum for knightly upkeep.

If 336 is 40% of the Barons total income then his total income is 336/0.4=840 libra.

Again assuming the standard manor income of 6 libra then 840 libra of income translates to 140 manors.


When put into the context of Salisbury this makes sense as the Earl of Salisbury is supposed to have around 75 knights and 120 manors under his control. What I am wondering is where the 200 libra income Greg was talking about came from? Am I missing something glaring?

Also, assuming the 840 libra income, where does the other 504 libra from the Barons income go (after subtracting the 336 for the knights)? I know he would probably have 100 libra in upkeep and expenses for him, his family and retainers and maybe another 100 for soldiers to garrison the cities and such but that still leaves 304 libra up for grabs.

The only reason I am asking this is because I have a player in my game that will try and take over Salisbury during the Anarchy period. No easy feat but he and the group is experienced enough that they could pull it off. If they do I want to make sure I understand how the large scale economics work.

Just off the top of my head if I adjust the amount a Baron spends on his knights to 60% rather than 40% then the total income of the country goes down to 560, or 94 manors. This means that after spending around 200 on the Baron upkeep, retainers and soldiers he has 24 libra left over. This is a more reasonable number but lowers the total number of manors considerably.

Anyway has anyone else thought about this? Any advice or comments would be appreciated!

I am going to entirely cop out on this answer
because
I am finishing up three books to address the large-scale economics
just to answer questions like this

May I beg patience?

-g

Oh. Well I didn’t know that was a thing. I simply thought it was an off the cuff remark.

By all means yes then. I look forward to their release.

Lots of additional places to spend money:
Construction - upgrading castles and fortifications, or building new ones
Church - Probably be tithing a fair sum to the church hierarchy
Tournament - Baron will be hosting one annually probably
Charity - Donating to hospitals, etc.
Extra military expenses - paying for a campaign which would probably include those expensive mercenaries
Fees owed to the King - Arthur gets his cut too.

Offsetting this to a degree is that the market towns and cities generate sizable amounts of money - different scale than a manor that is close to simply self-sufficient. But there are hefty expenses with these - fortifications, garrisons, dealing with guilds, etc.

The old "Lordly Domains" book did manor economics with a more complex system that showed goods and money transitioning from the manor up through the hierarchy with the manor owner getting a cut (roughly the 6L maintenance income) while the rest went up the chain to running the rest of the feudal machine. The current economics model is simply not showing this since the knight is not getting direct benefit from it.

One thing that becomes clear once you study this is the value of the trade roads and market towns. This is one reason that bandits and highway robbers are considered such a threat and dealt with quickly (if possible) and harshly. And why it is also sort of lucrative for a knight to have a castle on such a road in order to charge tolls.