How do you reconcile the number of knights in a county with those generated by a PKs family?

This problem has been bugging me for quite some time. However, as I don't play Pendragon the Genealogy edition it's not something that has interfered with play. But it has meant I've ducked the question when asked or swept it under the carpet with the reply "they're all household knights".

Example - KAP5.1 says a new character has this many knights in his family;
Old Knights: 1d6–5
Middle-Aged Knights: 1d6–2
Young Knights: 1d6

So on average about 5 or so knights per family plus the PK. The highest knight population I have read for Salisbury is approx 120 vassal knights, with 240 men at arms (which I assume to be household knights). My 5 PK families between them consist of 5 vassal knights (the PKs) and approx 30 other family knights. If you extrapolate these average figures across the rest of the county you reach 240 knights with 40 families.

Am I to assume that the majority of these knights are related to multiple families? eg the young family knights of 1 PK are *also* - potentially - the young family knights of another PK? This is the only explanation I can think of that prevents the knight totals from being exceeded. It’s not explicitly stated this way in the rules tho and it does mean that actions by one PK could kill the family of another. Not to mention the conflicting loyalties at play.

It also complicates Winter phase Family rolls. If one PKs result says "cousin dies" and the other says "cousin gets married" - and they're the same cousin - well, you get the idea.

How do you reconcile the number of knights in a county with those generated by a PKs family?

With difficulty :)


This problem has been bugging me for quite some time. However, as I don't play Pendragon the Genealogy edition it's not something that has interfered with play. But it has meant I've ducked the question when asked or swept it under the carpet with the reply "they're all household knights".

That is part 1 of the correct answer


Example - KAP5.1 says a new character has this many knights in his family;
Old Knights: 1d6–5
Middle-Aged Knights: 1d6–2
Young Knights: 1d6
So on average about 5 or so knights per family plus the PK.

The PK is intended to be the highest-ranking member of the family


The highest knight population I have read for Salisbury is approx 120 vassal knights,

Too many. I am pretty sure that includes mostly household knights. Maybe 20 are vassal knights.


with 240 men at arms (which I assume to be household knights).

Oh no, those 240 are commoners with a license to kill


My 5 PK families between them consist of 5 vassal knights (the PKs) and approx 30 other family knights. If you extrapolate these average figures across the rest of the county you reach 240 knights with 40 families.

Well there ya go! No problem at all! :)


Am I to assume that the majority of these knights are related to multiple families? eg the young family knights of 1 PK are *also* - potentially - the young family knights of another PK? This is the only explanation I can think of that prevents the knight totals from being exceeded. It’s not explicitly stated this way in the rules tho and it does mean that actions by one PK could kill the family of another. Not to mention the conflicting loyalties at play.

You are actually right about them being counted multiple times, as knight families tended to intermarry.


It also complicates Winter phase Family rolls. If one PKs result says "cousin dies" and the other says "cousin gets married" - and they're the same cousin - well, you get the idea.

Well, such is inevitable when it's such a simple events system.
I hope some day I can provide a better one that that.

But in truth, in general I too ma unhappy with the family system as it has been presented. There is too much family without enough to do with it. I tend to deal with the patrilinial lineage until they are all killed off, then go to a secondary branch where a nephew can pick up the family.

Whoa! This is totally new information. I have been playing it very wrong indeed then.

The bit that jumped out at me was the "only 20 or so vassal knights in the county". For the last 3 years I always assumed that each manor on the Salisbury map (of which there are approx 120) was either still held by the earl and managed by a steward and a few household knights or in the hands of a vassal knight. I had a self determined split of approx 80 granted manors and 40 still vacant. Of course some knights owned several manors but on the whole I'd gone with 1 manor = 1 vassal.

Having just 20 vassal knights radically alters this and many other aspects. Is it right therefore to say that the 120 or so knights Salisbury can muster consists primarily of household knights? Also, this makes my PKs far more potent. The 5 of them make up 1/4 of Salisbury's vassal knight count!

Family wise, I don't have the problem you do. My PKs use their family all the time. Raiding and the like.

EDIT - Can you explain a little more about Household knights?

Are most of them stationed on other manors, overseeing them for the Earl/Countess? Do they have any autonomy or do they act strictly as directed by the earl?

What I don't yet understand clearly is who controls these household knights. Say you marry a widow with three manors, each of which with a household knight. Do these knights come under your command, or do they remain the "property" of the earl? Or does it just depend on who pays for their upkeep?

I approached the question of family knights from another angle. the main reason is that I wanted to play out the GPC, but wanted the players to play a family. So the family tree is an important source of information.
I let each player roll for the family (3 generations: grandfather, father and his own siblings). For each generation I had them roll a 1d20 to determine the status of the family member:
For the grandfather's siblings: 1-15 lineage man; 16-17 officer of your grandfather (steward or reeve); 18-19 household or mercenary knight; 20 Vassal knight.
For father's siblings: 1-14 lineage man; 15-16 officer of your father; 17-19 household or mercenary knight; 20 vassal knight
For your own siblings: 1-15 lineage men; 16-19 household or mercenary knight; 20 vassal knight.

This is done for both paternal as maternal line. From this you can see how many knights you can muster. If they want more family knights they have to increase it through gameplay. I do not have the problem with too many knights in the county at the moment.

But I must agree with Sir Pramalot that if there are only 20 vassals in Salisbury the PKs have a lot more to say than I expected.

Cornelius - Your system would allow older vassal knights to appear in the family. Does that not make them the higher ranking family member?

BTW I like it, I'm just curious. Do you have any online family trees I could view to compare with my own?

Whoa! This is totally new information. I have been playing it very wrong indeed then.

The bit that jumped out at me was the "only 20 or so vassal knights in the county". For the last 3 years I always assumed that each manor on the Salisbury map (of which there are approx 120) was either still held by the earl and managed by a steward and a few household knights or in the hands of a vassal knight. I had a self determined split of approx 80 granted manors and 40 still vacant. Of course some knights owned several manors but on the whole I'd gone with 1 manor = 1 vassal.

Yes, you are not alone
I see this is so from some of the postings and maps that I have gotten


Having just 20 vassal knights radically alters this and many other aspects. Is it right therefore to say that the 120 or so knights Salisbury can muster consists primarily of household knights? Also, this makes my PKs far more potent. The 5 of them make up 1/4 of Salisbury's vassal knight count!

Yes, that is correct
This was my intent
Unfortunately I did not make it clear anywhere :-[


EDIT - Can you explain a little more about Household knights?
Are most of them stationed on other manors, overseeing them for the Earl/Countess? Do they have any autonomy or do they act strictly as directed by the earl?

No.
The household knights live in his house, hence "household" knight
Or rather, in his houses, aka halls, of which he has several
The manors are overseen in batches
There is no need for a knight per manor


What I don't yet understand clearly is who controls these household knights.

The count and his offices


Say you marry a widow with three manors, each of which with a household knight.

This is slightly different, as she is a vavasour with vassals of her own
The widow with three knights is responsible for sending those three to the count's army
Their eschille commander leads them


Do these knights come under your command, or do they remain the "property" of the earl?

Property! Please! :o
Only commoners are property!! :)
These three knights have likely sworn loyalty to the the count
If they held land from the widow, then they would have sworn to her


Or does it just depend on who pays for their upkeep?

No. They are loyal to the count if they do not hold land
And the widow is responsible for paying for their upkeep by sending goods and maybe cash to the count

Thanks for the reply, Greg.

With that information in mind I can say I've played all of Uther phase wrong:( Have my players noticed? No. Because I have been consistent in being wrong. However, as my players look to me to provide a decent explanation of the basics of feudalism, at least enough to get by in the game, I need to be right, or at least right enough.

I have some more questions that I would appreciate input on. Please imagine you're explaining quantum physics to a layman here; such is the gulf in our respective knowledge.

Basics first;
I've just finished Uther but let's assume we're still discussing Uther phase as it's way less chaotic that Anarchy. During this phase I assumed there were about 80 knights under the control of Roderick. This is less than the 120 mentioned elsewhere but it's a figure I used nonetheless. I assumed these 80 knights to be vassal knights, assigned to one of the many manors dotted around the county. When my players asked how come Salisbury county only had 80 knights, when their 5 families alone could provide nearly 30, I told them Salisbury had 80 vassal knights, the extra family ones being household knights that were off somewhere else - guarding Sarum, usually being the best explanation. Now this explanation always bothered me, hence my initial question. You've answered that of course, I just wanted to establish the foundation on which my campaign is built.

Moving on...




EDIT - Can you explain a little more about Household knights?
Are most of them stationed on other manors, overseeing them for the Earl/Countess? Do they have any autonomy or do they act strictly as directed by the earl?

No.
The household knights live in his house, hence "household" knight
Or rather, in his houses, aka halls, of which he has several
The manors are overseen in batches
There is no need for a knight per manor


So would I be right in saying that these household knights (whose number is made up at least in part by non player knights in my PKs families) are dotted around the holdings of the Earl, some at Sarum, some somewhere else, all paid for by him. Furthermore they are in 24/7 service to him, rather than the 40 day service period my PK knights are sworn to.

If household knights do owe 24/7 service then how is it possible for a PK to call on his family in times of trouble? Wouldn't these family knights (the young, middle aged and old ones), all being household knights, be unable to help without breaking the terms of the service to the earl?

The most troublesome part of your answer is the "There is no need for a knight per manor", no doubt due to my misunderstanding of something deeper but let me elaborate. Many times in the past, on this board, there have been discussions about how to handle knights that go raiding, and in return get raided. During these discussions it is often implied "woe betide any knight that leaves his manor unguarded for too long, as someone is bound to come and loot it". These two points do not mesh. If it’s not necessary to have a knight, of any kind, on a manor, why would a vassal knight need to worry about leaving his own, for any length of time?

Trying to answer my own question here, is this because a manor only becomes something of worth when granted to, and developed by, a knight and his family? Prior to that being little more than a name on a map - a tract of land with a few hovels, that is not worth much to anyone.

I pulled this up from KAP5.1 p61 to help get my point across – now the numbers may have changed but let’s use this as a starting point;

TABLE 3-1: THE ARMY

InfantryGarrisonKnights
Retinue -- 12*
Staff w/retinues -- 10
Devizes 35 4
Du Plain 35 4
Ebble 5 1
Sarum 150 8
Tilshead 20 2
Vagon 35 2
Warminster 15 2
Wilton 35 2
Patrol -- 5×2*
At own Manors --- 10
Other Business --- 7*
Total 260 75
*indicates they live in Sarum


Am I right to assume that the 75 knights here are made up of approx 65 household and 10 vassal (I assume 10 vassal as that is the number next to the “At Own Manor” entry) and that all the others are Household knights in the employ of the lord (owner or whatever title) of the respective area? Eg Du Plain has 4 household knights serving the lord of Du Plain which in turn he swears to the Earl?

Using these figures, 10 knights on their own manors plus the 5 that my PKs hold, suggest that roughly 100 of the Salisbury manors are empty, unguarded or simply don’t exist yet. If I assume the knights assigned to Warminster, Devizes etc are drawn from the surrounding manors, and add them all up it comes to approx another 25 knights, which still leaves 75 manors empty. Am I missing something here?

Ok. Back to the approx 20 vassal knights and approx 100 household knights that make up the county knight quota. Of those 20 vassals, I assume some of them hold than one manor, through marriage or some other grant. The terms of that grant determine if they have to provide knights to the count (enfeofed manor) or whether the manor is essentially free (demense manor) – btw I’m now at the extreme edge of my understanding of feudal terms. On those enfeoffed manors, who do the household knights “belong” to? Are they part of the 80 or so Salisbury county household knights or are they separate and swear loyalty to the holder of the land grant.





Or does it just depend on who pays for their upkeep?

No. They are loyal to the count if they do not hold land

OK. So if I have a holding of several manors, the household knights – that I pay for – take orders from me?

What about this scenario. A PK is gets another manor for some reason, say he marries a widow who has a demense manor from her dead husband. The PK already has his own manor and so decides to install a household knight on the new one. Where does this household knight come from? Can he, the PK, knight him, or does he ask the earl to provide one? If so, does he relinquish loyalty to the earl and swear it to the PK instead?

Is there any information of the breakdown of the holdings of these 20 vassal knights or is it left to the whim of the GM? KAP5.1 mentions Sir Hywel, the banneret of West Lavington and I assume there are several other bannerets like him.

Finally, as I feel like someone who is flailing around in the dark looking for the light switch, if anyone with a decent grasp of this wouldn’t mind a quick skype or msn Q&A session, please PM me!

Cornelius - Your system would allow older vassal knights to appear in the family. Does that not make them the higher ranking family member?

BTW I like it, I'm just curious. Do you have any online family trees I could view to compare with my own?

They would be more experienced and maybe even more important in the court of the earl, yes. But I do not see it as higher ranking. They both are vassal knights and as such have an equal voice in the court.

In one case the PK has an paternal uncle who is a vassal. The manor he is given is the manor of his wive's family. Her father and brother died and as such she became the heir.

I haven't put the family trees on line yet.

Thanks for the reply, Greg.
With that information in mind I can say I've played all of Uther phase wrong:(

I will respectfully disagree with your assessment. Why?


Have my players noticed? No. Because I have been consistent in being wrong.

That's why.


However, as my players look to me to provide a decent explanation of the basics of feudalism, at least enough to get by in the game, I need to be right, or at least right enough.

In my assessment, you have been "right enough."
This is not about being right
It is a game, and it is about having fun
About being challenged, engaging imagination, feeding our "magical selves" by participating in wondrous realms
And it seems you have done that

So, first, buck up! Be glad you have done so well with so little information!
For other information, see next response

To start
I just want to remind everyone that I have been learning this as I go along too
Assumptions that I made, and wrote into, the first edition have been superceded with new information
At that time (1985) I was 37 years old, working full time (and running Chaosium was indeed a full time job), and with a young family
I've had alot more study time since retiring, hence some reconstruction of the information


I have some more questions that I would appreciate input on. Please imagine you're explaining quantum physics to a layman here; such is the gulf in our respective knowledge.

Quantum Medievalism! Cool


Basics first;
I've just finished Uther but let's assume we're still discussing Uther phase as it's way less chaotic that Anarchy. During this phase I assumed there were about 80 knights under the control of Roderick. This is less than the 120 mentioned elsewhere but it's a figure I used nonetheless.

It's a pretty good number to use for the area around the Castle of the Rock, aka Sarum
With two other castles to tend, he's gotta split off some of his army


I assumed these 80 knights to be vassal knights, assigned to one of the many manors dotted around the county. When my players asked how come Salisbury county only had 80 knights, when their 5 families alone could provide nearly 30, I told them Salisbury had 80 vassal knights, the extra family ones being household knights that were off somewhere else - guarding Sarum, usually being the best explanation. Now this explanation always bothered me, hence my initial question. You've answered that of course, I just wanted to establish the foundation on which my campaign is built.

I am going to do my best to answer these according to my understanding, and if need be, you can adjust them to ytour campaign.


Moving on...




EDIT - Can you explain a little more about Household knights?
Are most of them stationed on other manors, overseeing them for the Earl/Countess? Do they have any autonomy or do they act strictly as directed by the earl?

No.
The household knights live in his house, hence "household" knight
Or rather, in his houses, aka halls, of which he has several
The manors are overseen in batches
There is no need for a knight per manor

So would I be right in saying that these household knights (whose number is made up at least in part by non player knights in my PKs families) are dotted around the holdings of the Earl, some at Sarum, some somewhere else, all paid for by him.

Pretty close
Most of them live in the castles, not so much "dotted around"
There are some knights who are vassals of his subinfeudatories (ie-the knights who have been granted holdings large enough to support several knights)
Those knights are the vassals of the vassal and owe Loyalty to their boss--whoever enfoeffed them with land
But since that guy owes knight service to the count for the number of knights under him, then they are for all practical purposes, under the Count.


Furthermore they are in 24/7 service to him, rather than the 40 day service period my PK knights are sworn to.

Correct
Pretty close


If household knights do owe 24/7 service then how is it possible for a PK to call on his family in times of trouble? Wouldn't these family knights (the young, middle aged and old ones), all being household knights, be unable to help without breaking the terms of the service to the earl?

Aye, there is the crux of the problem that is bigger than when I first wrote those rules.
Nonetheless
The knights DO have conflicts with other loyalties
But knighthood is a transitional period when loyalty to family--which is as old as humanity--is in conflict with a larger loyalty, the political loyalty to a lord
This is a problem for the knights, not the game
These are the types of problems that come up in the literature and in medieval history
and is the stuff that stories are made of


The most troublesome part of your answer is the "There is no need for a knight per manor", no doubt due to my misunderstanding of something deeper but let me elaborate. Many times in the past, on this board, there have been discussions about how to handle knights that go raiding, and in return get raided. During these discussions it is often implied "woe betide any knight that leaves his manor unguarded for too long, as someone is bound to come and loot it".

It can be a problem, but the problem is not really at the knight level
(Except in the Anarchy Period, or except if the baron/count doesn't like the knight for any reason)
The count's job, his sworn duty, is to protect his vassals
If a knight goes away raiding and has his lord's permission, then the count will defend his lands
The problem with a knight leaving his lands is more concerned with Stewardship


These two points do not mesh. If it’s not necessary to have a knight, of any kind, on a manor, why would a vassal knight need to worry about leaving his own, for any length of time?

See above.
Note, I am agreeing with you that the issue of leaving a manor unguarded has been overstated as long as their is a lord above the knight


Trying to answer my own question here, is this because a manor only becomes something of worth when granted to, and developed by, a knight and his family? Prior to that being little more than a name on a map - a tract of land with a few hovels, that is not worth much to anyone.

No, it is as rich and thriving as the manors with vassaqls sitting amidst them


I pulled this up from KAP5.1 p61 to help get my point across – now the numbers may have changed but let’s use this as a starting point;

BTW, if "dotted around the land" means that list, then they are dotted
Although probably not in the towns anymore
Just in the castles and fortified manors
CONCERNING WHICH: Vagon and DuPlain are now (in my game, in my mind, and in any future version that may be done) Fortified Manors, not castles


Am I right to assume that the 75 knights here are made up of approx 65 household and 10 vassal (I assume 10 vassal as that is the number next to the “At Own Manor” entry) and that all the others are Household knights in the employ of the lord (owner or whatever title) of the respective area? Eg Du Plain has 4 household knights serving the lord of Du Plain which in turn he swears to the Earl?

Sure, if you want it to be so
It is just as possible that they are the count's knights who rotate through there on garrison duty


Using these figures, 10 knights on their own manors plus the 5 that my PKs hold, suggest that roughly 100 of the Salisbury manors are empty, unguarded or simply don’t exist yet. If I assume the knights assigned to Warminster, Devizes etc are drawn from the surrounding manors, and add them all up it comes to approx another 25 knights, which still leaves 75 manors empty. Am I missing something here?

Yes, though I think that it's my fault for not making it clear enough
Blocks of manors are overseen by non-knights
Look at my entry about the holdings of Salisbury under another thread
See those "hundreds?" Those are divisions of a county/shire which are close(-ish) together
Those can all be overseen by a single squire and the bailiffs on the spot
In fact, somewhere on line I talk about the Seneschals, a term used in KAP to mean "over steward," who oversees the stewards of separate areas


Ok. Back to the approx 20 vassal knights and approx 100 household knights that make up the county knight quota. Of those 20 vassals, I assume some of them hold than one manor, through marriage or some other grant. The terms of that grant determine if they have to provide knights to the count (enfeofed manor) or whether the manor is essentially free (demense manor) – btw I’m now at the extreme edge of my understanding of feudal terms.

You're doing fine


On those enfeoffed manors, who do the household knights “belong” to? Are they part of the 80 or so Salisbury county household knights or are they separate and swear loyalty to the holder of the land grant.

They belong to no one. They are noblemen!

But they are under the command of whomever enfoeffed them with their land


OK. So if I have a holding of several manors, the household knights – that I pay for – take orders from me?

Yes


What about this scenario. A PK is gets another manor for some reason, say he marries a widow who has a demense manor from her dead husband. The PK already has his own manor and so decides to install a household knight on the new one.

Because he is now responsible for providing two knights for the count--his original manor, and the new one he just got possession of


Where does this household knight come from? Can he, the PK, knight him,

Depends on the period
In Uther the questions of making knights is up in the air
In the Boy King Period it becomes established that only nobles, then high-ranking nobles can dub knights
Later, only the king can do it!


or does he ask the earl to provide one?

He can do that if he wishes
Or even, in the Uther Period, he can supply just a cavalryman to fulfill this obligation
In general, people would appoint their relatives for this kind of thing
As long as the candidate fulfills the requirements of knighthood (see K&L, page 68) he can be knighted


If so, does he relinquish loyalty to the earl and swear it to the PK instead?

No


Is there any information of the breakdown of the holdings of these 20 vassal knights or is it left to the whim of the GM? KAP5.1 mentions Sir Hywel, the banneret of West Lavington and I assume there are several other bannerets like him.

GM Whim
I always hesitate to entirely populate or hard-wire flexible things like this
Though I see that it would be an advantage for Salisbury


Finally, as I feel like someone who is flailing around in the dark looking for the light switch,

It is only your panic that makes you think that
You are dong pretty well


If anyone with a decent grasp of this wouldn’t mind a quick skype or msn Q&A session, please PM me!

Please post it here for everyone to benefit from it!
Including me
I need to know what is not clear for future editions or future supplements!

Sir Pramalot, remember the wise words of a sage: 'Don't Panic'. :)

If your players have enjoyed the campaign so far, good for you! Besides, I seriously doubt you are the only one who populated Salisbury with vassal knights, for example I did so too. In addition, there is no real reason to nail everything down, as long as the general feel is consistent. Of course, that depends on your and your players' styles.

While I enjoy a bit of Soap Opera that comes from intermarrying between PK families and the who is who's new stepdad and so forth, having ~5 NPKs per PK is way too many NPCs for me to worry about. Thus, while they occasionally come up in play, it is much more of a case of 'cousin So-and-So from FarAway is visiting with a tale of woe'. But I wouldn't see a great problem having most of them as household knights in Salisbury, especially under Greg's rather more limited vassal knight populace. As you correctly note, household knights have duties. While an understanding lord might give a household knight leave to avenge a sister or some such, he would be less likely to let the knight act as an unpaid guard at the PK's manor, for instance. So, it comes with rather good limits.

Anyway, I think we all have recognized that it is much better for the Lord to have a household knight at £4/yr at his beck and call 24/7, than a vassal knight at £6/yr (1 manor) for 2 months per year (of war, I make the lazy buggers attend garrison duty and court, of course). And it makes the PKs that much more special, and make having a manor a really big deal. But the game hardly breaks if you have 80 vassal knights in Salisbury and another 40 household knights, instead of 20 and 100...

Greg and Morien - thanks+rep. I was panicking, overly so TBH. There is a reason for this though - I'm two weeks away from running my first Anarchy phase session, which I was heading into with my old setup of 80 vassal knights etc,. What I'm about to say may be completely wrong historically but this is what was going to happen.

I had assumed that with the Earl dead, those remaining knights, all 80 vassals, would be faced with a choice - either swear loyalty to the Countess or swear it to some other individual they thought more suited to the task of leading the county. Over the last five years of Uther I introduced several NPCs into the campaign who suit that role. One is the cousin of the countess; an arrogant so and so with great aspirations, and the other is a brutal knight from Marlborough who intends to take back the disputed areas of the Savernake Forest. Both of these NPCs were going to be played by two dedicated role players who live overseas from me (from the UK that is). Each directing the actions of their forces on a yearly basis against the PKs (assuming the PKs swear loyalty to the countess). This was an exciting prospect because it meant that a) I had human intelligence other than my own behind the NPCs and b) the outcomes would be as surprising and interesting to me as they would be to the players.

With this in mind I was devising a meta-game of sorts. I already have an excel sheet that tracks the harvest rolls of every vassal knight and I was going to condense this into two simple commodities; grain and gold. The leaders of each faction would use gold to raise troops & build fortifications, with grain serving as a cap on how many “units” they could have on the go at any one time; armies, spies and the like. On top of this I was planning an espionage setup, eg spies and informants which could be used to gather info, burn buildings, cause problems etc etc.

The PKs would decide on the actions of their forces at the beginning of each session; how much gold to spend, where to send troops, where to direct spies etc (kindof like a war council at court), then move to a micro level and play out the actions of their individual PKs, adventuring and the like. Afterward, the overseas players would give me the orders for their forces, I would calculate the outcomes, and provide everyone with the results. This would continue year by year with everyone having to contend with the other factors that come into play; marauding Saxons, other counties and the attack from Cornwall.

Now with that in mind I had already set the stage by telling my PKs that some of the county’s knights had already declared their allegiance. Not all, but some, and that they too would have to decide who to support at the start of the next session. I invite you to look at this MAP (http://www.kap5.net/Other/Maps-Complete/11132069_qBD5ZT#!i=2111972913&k=8Tk4Rwd&lb=1&s=A) to see the current situation. Quite frankly, this now makes no sense whatsoever as those manors are not individual knights. In fact, most of those manors are actually totally empty! While I could carry on, I’d prefer to do so based on what I've recently learned as it does make more sense.

The only workaround I can think of is to have the 20 or so vassal knights that do exist, control several blocks of manors, eg turn them into bannerets with larger holdings.

Greg, your explanations were very clear, thanks. There are just one or two points which puzzle me further;




Using these figures, 10 knights on their own manors plus the 5 that my PKs hold, suggest that roughly 100 of the Salisbury manors are empty, unguarded or simply don’t exist yet. If I assume the knights assigned to Warminster, Devizes etc are drawn from the surrounding manors, and add them all up it comes to approx another 25 knights, which still leaves 75 manors empty. Am I missing something here?

Yes, though I think that it's my fault for not making it clear enough
Blocks of manors are overseen by non-knights
Look at my entry about the holdings of Salisbury under another thread
See those "hundreds?" Those are divisions of a county/shire which are close(-ish) together
Those can all be overseen by a single squire and the bailiffs on the spot
In fact, somewhere on line I talk about the Seneschals, a term used in KAP to mean "over steward," who oversees the stewards of separate areas

If there is just one person (or persons) responsible for looking after such wide areas what is to stop another knight, or faction from turning up on a manor and claiming it, until they are persuaded to leave or accepted? Perhaps there is nothing, especially in Anarchy. If so, doesn’t this lead to one big land grab with everyone grabbing any bit of land with only the other land grabbers to contend with? In short, total chaos.

Also, do these seneschals have an allegiance? Using my campaign as an example, what if one of these guys decides to swear allegiance to someone other than the countess, does all the land he overseas flip sides too? No that surely can’t be right, right?





What about this scenario. A PK is gets another manor for some reason, say he marries a widow who has a demense manor from her dead husband. The PK already has his own manor and so decides to install a household knight on the new one.

Because he is now responsible for providing two knights for the count--his original manor, and the new one he just got possession of

I don’t quite follow this. I *thought* that demense manors were essentially free manors. Eg I could chose to pay 4L and put a household knight there, or just send a steward and collect the 5L left over. I assumed that only effeoffed manors *had* to provide a knight to the count/earl. If both require a knight’s service then I don’t understand why there is a distinction between them. Indeed this is quite a critical point as one of my PKs has, through marriage, just acquired a second demense manor, and, for last year at least, collected 5L from it.

OK, let me start by answering one of your questions first before addressing the bigger picture: "If there is just one person (or persons) responsible for looking after such wide areas what is to stop another knight, or faction from turning up on a manor and claiming it, until they are persuaded to leave or accepted?"

Answer: That would be the Count (or the King), with all of those other household & vassal knights in tow. During the Anarchy... well, the answer might be 'no one'. Out with the old boss, in with the new boss.

And this leads me to your campaign 'problem'... You are too focused on the manors. The ownership of the manors is a side issue, short term. What really matters here and now is who has the most mail-clad bruisers on his/her side. If I have 30 knights and 10 manors and you have 10 knights and 30 manors, then I can simply say that your 30 manors are now mine, move in and take over, so that in the end I will have 30 knights and 40 manors. Sure, you can and probably fight for them, but with 3:1 odds, I will probably win. Ain't Anarchy swell?

All of those household knights in the Earl's service were sworn to the Earl. With the Earl poisoned at St. Albans, they are essentially free lances able to pledge new loyalty to whoever promises them the most (and since we are still in might makes right, they might even switch allegiance if a better offer comes along). And since they know where there are plenty of unprotected manors, they can simply come back and claim squatter's rights, becoming de facto vassal knights. Anyone wanting to become the new power in the County might be promising to his/her supporters that once they have won, he will reward his/her supporters with manors of their own! Also, with the turbulence of the Anarchy, it actually makes sense to have a knight 'in residence', especially on the manors in the outskirts of the County. So you have a knight practically living on a manor, and the difference between a vassal knight and a resident household knight starts to blur.

This is actually what happened historically in Carolingian France. A succcession of weak kings and outside threats (Viking, Saracen, Magyar raids) caused the royal authority to break down. Individual castellans took over, pretty much ruling their castles and everything within half-a-days ride as independent 'kingdoms'. The fiefs were originally offices, but since the King needed the castellans and their forces to fight the raiders, the fiefs became hereditary even by law. The King of France in late 900s ruled de facto just the Ile of France. (And this example works quite well in Pendragon's 'medieval history telescoped into Arthur's reign'.)

So what I am saying is this... you have a cool idea, there is no reason NOT to run with it. :)

EDIT: Oh, senechals and allegiances... Again, it comes down to those bruisers. If the senechal has the local armed ruffians in his pocket and tells the Countess to stuff it, she has to either organize an invasion and likely a siege to kick the senechal and his goons out, or shrug and pretend it didn't happen. The land would still legally be hers, but she wouldn't be able to exert much control over it. Or even without the bruisers, if the senechal is the one collecting the produce and taxes, and chooses to give those to the other guy, then effectively, the land has switched over. If the Countess is especially well-liked, the peasants might start hiding stuff and complain, and surely she should send some knights to thump the dastardly senechal.

As for demesne & enfeoffed, that is the way I have understood it as well:
demesne = no knight-service
enfeoffed = knight-service required (can be either a household knight or another vassal knight)

Greg and Morien - thanks+rep. I was panicking, overly so TBH. There is a reason for this though - I'm two weeks away from running my first Anarchy phase session, which I was heading into with my old setup of 80 vassal knights etc,. What I'm about to say may be completely wrong historically but this is what was going to happen.

Your plan is great--right on target
That is precisely what I imagined would happen
EXCEPT you have gone two steps to improve it:
the outside commanders--brilliant
planning the harvests in advance


two simple commodities; grain and gold.

one point--there is no gold
imagine your plan without it
there is a
REAL problem with resupply of armor, although Salisbury does have some local bog iron
Also, horses ae the really big commodity
I say this not to derail your plan, which is fantastic
just to offer some problems for your players


If there is just one person (or persons) responsible for looking after such wide areas what is to stop another knight, or faction from turning up on a manor and claiming it, until they are persuaded to leave or accepted?

A strong defense force, ie-the earl


Perhaps there is nothing, especially in Anarchy. If so, doesn’t this lead to one big land grab with everyone grabbing any bit of land with only the other land grabbers to contend with? In short, total chaos.

You got it: nothing
That is Anarchy


Also, do these seneschals have an allegiance? Using my campaign as an example, what if one of these guys decides to swear allegiance to someone other than the countess, does all the land he overseas flip sides too? No that surely can’t be right, right?

The stewards are knights of the count, just like all his officers
they do not control the land, the oversee it
but without a count, who does control it?
The strongest man controls it--the one who can get the most knights to follow him
LAND GRAB!!
POWER GRAB!!


I don’t quite follow this. I *thought* that demense manors were essentially free manors. Eg I could chose to pay 4L and put a household knight there, or just send a steward and collect the 5L left over. I assumed that only effeoffed manors *had* to provide a knight to the count/earl. If both require a knight’s service then I don’t understand why there is a distinction between them. Indeed this is quite a critical point as one of my PKs has, through marriage, just acquired a second demense manor, and, for last year at least, collected 5L from it.

I misunderstood your first question
I was thinking that the heiress had both an enfoeffed AND a demense manor
Your are correct in your assumptions

aha progress! This is great stuff. Thanks

Greg - Grain and Gold was a bad term, what I mean is grain and coin. They are just two general commodities for use with the meta game aspect.

I think I'll go with Morien's suggestion to a degree. Have some of the household knights grab land and become defacto vassals. Then when the new leader eventually asserts himself, whoever it is, he will give the top 20 or so vassals dominion over a greater number of manors, the ex-households can either agree of get crushed. I do like the idea of having less vassal knights. Having 20 or so, as opposed to 80, means it is plausible for the PCs to get to know them by name. They standout more. And my PCs will feel like they're part of a more elite group.

A few specific points;
Do the knight numbers of Salisbury stay roughly the same throughout the GPC? eg roughly 120 knights, made up of 20ish vassals and 100ish house?

Who overseas towns? Are they granted to someone in the same way a manor is granted to knight? And if so, does the grantee become a knight?

Castellans. If a knight is made castellan does he keep any manors he already owns or does his new post take precedence? So if I have a PK with three manors, does he keep those and gain the castellanship?

A few specific points;
Do the knight numbers of Salisbury stay roughly the same throughout the GPC? eg roughly 120 knights, made up of 20ish vassals and 100ish house?


I vaguely remember something about the numbers increasing, which someone explained via the manorial improvements. It was probably one of the threads here... Well, I am sure someone else can recall it.



Who overseas towns? Are they granted to someone in the same way a manor is granted to knight? And if so, does the grantee become a knight?


Depends on the size of the town, but in the scale of Salisbury, yeah. It might even be divided in a sense that one knight has rights to the market, another has right to tolls, etc... Or one knight but with requirement to bring two household knights as well. Whatever works.



Castellans. If a knight is made castellan does he keep any manors he already owns or does his new post take precedence? So if I have a PK with three manors, does he keep those and gain the castellanship?


Of course he keeps them, if they are his (grant or gift which is not connected to some previous position that he might get dismissed from). If he is simply overseeing them, depends on the pleasure of the Lord. Castellanship is just an office, although historically it often also meant two things:
1) You are living in a castle and probably make sure it is garrisoned by men loyal to you personally, which is bad news to anyone trying to get you to leave.
2) You gain control over the castle's finances, which can be good (if you skim from the top) or bad (if the times are rough, you might have to make up for the lack of funds from your own pocket).

Coming in late to this with a few additional bits to the excellent points made by Greg and Morien thus far.

Firstly - one answer to the original question about PK lineage size vs the knightly population of Salisbury that wasn't aired in the initial exchange of posts is that not all relatives are necessarily resident in Salisbury. The cousins and such could well be in service, or for that matter freelancing, for a lord elsewhere in Britain or the nearby continent. I've never had to fix things authoritatively IMG, but my mental model has always been that at least half of a player's relatives are in 'foreign parts'.

Secondly regarding the shift in your mental gears from '80 vassals and 40 household' to '20 vassals and 100 household' - I wouldn't sweat that too much. It's entirely possible that your mental model wasn't explicitly communicated to your players in the game thus far so you can just 'silently edit' the situation and proceed as though the '20 and 100' setup has always been there. Even if you have made the '80 and 40' setup something that everybody knows you can probably walk it back, in my experience most players are happy to accept a retcon if it's presented to them openly and they get a chance to chew over the implications for a bit.

If your players include folk who aren't happy with a retcon, then the Great Poisoning of St Albans presents you with an in-universe opportunity to thin the herd - you can rule that only X (whatever your desired X is) vassal knights in Salisbury survived the catastrophe and suddenly there are all these vacated manors just waiting for whomever is first on the scene with sufficient force to make their word stick. The various factions you have introduced can make all sorts of noises about how they will install vassal knights in good time but for the duration of the emergency they prefer to bulk up their followings with household retainers and use them to periodically sweep through disputed manors with 'tax collection patrols' (aka raiders) and ambush rival claimants who are foolish enough to get caught in the open. This will swiftly get you to the desired pattern of concentrated knightly garrisons that are strong enough to fully control nearby manors, exact taxes from outlying manors (but otherwise neglect them) and contest the outlying manors of their rivals. Once you add Silchester, Saxons and Cornwall into the mix then things should get nicely fraught.




Greg - Grain and Gold was a bad term, what I mean is grain and coin. They are just two general commodities for use with the meta game aspect.

I think what Greg is driving at here is that a universal exchange token (however you might name it) shouldn't really be relevant at the meta level you are wanting to set up - since it assumes reliable access to trade networks and markets that just doesn't exist during the anarchy, thus what you should track in the meta game are the key resources that the factions need to accumulate in order to pursue their agenda. My suggestion would be that you need to track at least two of these - food (used to support your following) and materiel (used to equip your following - this would help to capture the iron shortage Greg mentions). If you really wanted to turn the meta-game into an actual *game* then you could add more resources to track and then put mechanisms in place to permit the conversion of one resource into another (eg add 'horses' as a resource which is required in addition to a point of materiel if you want to equip a knight unit, along with a move you can make which permits the conversion of surplus food to horses) or the spending of 'resource sets' to trigger special events and the like.



Do the knight numbers of Salisbury stay roughly the same throughout the GPC? eg roughly 120 knights, made up of 20ish vassals and 100ish house?
I've asked this question in the past and the answer is no. From memory the typical county goes from ~70 knights early in the game to ~150 knights by the end but I'll see if I can dig out the thread.

Here is the thread (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=590.0) I was talking about - counties actually grow to ~200 knights by the peak (then the plague comes along and knocks things for six).


Who overseas towns? Are they granted to someone in the same way a manor is granted to knight? And if so, does the grantee become a knight?
I would model towns (assuming they aren't free boroughs of course) as a collection of manors - strictly speaking a manor is an economic unit, a portion of territory whose revenues are sufficient to maintain a retainer in his station. As far as a lord is concerned the town is a collection of various taxes, imposts and duties which generally amount to £X, therefore X/4 gives you how many household knights it can support.


Castellans. If a knight is made castellan does he keep any manors he already owns or does his new post take precedence? So if I have a PK with three manors, does he keep those and gain the castellanship?
Yes. Being made Castellan is an appointment thus if you hold land you would continue to own that land (and enjoy it's revenues) in addition to getting whatever perquisites that come with being a Castellan. Note that lords will only appoint highly trusted men to such a role and that for many lords the dangers of an overmighty vassal would tend to exclude landholding knights from consideration.

Regards
Luke

Do the knight numbers of Salisbury stay roughly the same throughout the GPC? eg roughly 120 knights, made up of 20ish vassals and 100ish house?

No
As the population and technology increase, so does the number of knights
which is offset by people dropping out of knighthood,
a complex process I will explain in a supplement


Who overseas towns? Are they granted to someone in the same way a manor is granted to knight? And if so, does the grantee become a knight?

Ordinary towns are part of a regular holding
Market Towns are a special case, for they answer only to the king
In Boy King Period they become boroughs, a clarification of their status
In Anarchy there is no king, so they are their own little political units


Castellans. If a knight is made castellan does he keep any manors he already owns or does his new post take precedence? So if I have a PK with three manors, does he keep those and gain the castellanship?

Castellan is a temporary job (most of the time)
They keep their lands, and get a bonus in income for doing this extra job
Details will be in the new books I am finishing up

Thank you all for this excellent information.

My game is just post St Albans so Luke, you're right, the perfect time for a subtle retcon.

Hi,

some cracking answers here.
Just to pick up on an earlier point. One of the reasons a vassal knight with multiple manors would appoint a vassal knight of his own rather than provide a household knight (which as you've pointed out is cheaper!), is loyalty. All household knights are desperate to become vassals. Land is the only security. A mercenary or a household knight can't afford to support a family. His family will die with him. When he is older he will have no security. Once he is landed, that's it. His family is secure for generations to come. Such a knight will fight to defend his lands and the lord who granted them to him. Even against superior forces. Where a household knight or a chance brought mercenary may shrug (take the loss of Honour) and move on if his lord is facing bad odds and almost certain destruction.
The anarchy is probably a time when vassals with multiple manors are looking around and hoping to tie their best men down with the tie that binds, the tie of land.

HTH
GR

I found that thread I mentioned - I've put a link in my earlier post.

One other thing about the shift in emphasis from 'majority vassals' to 'majority household' for the chivalric population is that it makes the default starting point of the game highly unusual. If we assume that the annual turnover of the knightly population is ~5%, then four or five new knights getting dubbed by Earl Roderick at Easter or Pentecost sounds about right. However given the ratio of vassal knights to household knights, only one of those might be expected to be a vassal knight in a typical year - indeed I would expect that in many years there would be none. To have the entire 'graduating class' be comprised of vassal knights would be highly remarkable (and remarked upon I think - especially as the default assumption for the game is that they are all boon companions rather than actual or potential rivals).

There are two ways to play this as a GM I think. Your either embrace it and amp up all the 'marked by destiny' features of the early years of the GPC (they help Merlin find Excalibur, kill Gorlois at Tintagel, get marked out for retribution by Uther after Arthur disappears etc etc) or you downgrade the default social class of the starting characters to household knight.

The first option would be a good approach for a higher powered, 'movers and shakers in Camelot' sort of game - where player knights end up amongst the dramatis personae in the Matter of Britain. The second is probably the better option if you want to shoot for a more RAW level of play - where characters can expect to end up as big cheeses in their locality, but only marginal figures in the central stories played out at Camelot.

Obviously this advice is too late for the OP, but it might be useful context for GMs embarking on the GPC in future.

Regards
Luke