... but what of battlefield looting
Is it okay to collect items from the dead on the battlefield? Only if you killed them perosnally?
and I am not talking about the mass scale looting DnD style where the players try to sell the 99 axes they looted after the last battle with the Saxons, but say a trophey Ax from a Saxon or a 'spare' sword
I could picture Footman looting boots etc off the dead after the battle, but not knights unless it was some one they perosnally Killed like what one sees in the Iliad.

And This would be different from the distrubution by share of any caputres goods in the bagage train that seems to go on by the victors.


Split this off from the Jousting questions for clarity.

I'd say that in the course of normal battle, you don't have time to loot the enemies, and it is quite hard to prove later that you were the guy who killed this particular knight, assuming you can even find the body. The loot at the end of the battle is meant to represent that kind of generalized loot sharing of all the stuff secured from the battlefield and from the enemy camp/baggage train.

EDIT: Not to mention that the battle round rolling represents about an hour's worth of fighting & taking a breather, so it is hard to say when you have even managed to kill someone. I do tend to say that if you roll a crit in melee, you are leaving bodies behind, whereas with a success, you might have finished off someone already wounded or knocked someone silly for a while. In any case, normally there is little opportunity to do this, as if you dismount to loot, you are extremely vulnerable to being counter-attacked.

However, if the situation arises where the PK during the battle kills another knight, and then goes through the trouble of taking the body and the horse of the dead knight back to his own camp, then good for him. Naturally, such an effort would be fraught with peril, and your eschille mates might not appreciate you going off on your own to secure your loot while they remain behind to fight.

In a skirmish involving just a couple of dozen knights per side or so, where the things are resolved by normal melee until one side calls it quits, I would allow the PKs to claim their kills after the battle. Note, however, that in Pendragon, actual death on the battlefield is quite rare for knights, if they are not abandoned. Judicious use of first aid might heal the defeated knight, who could then be ransomed. Or the PKs could just slit throats. [Merciful/Cruel]

If it's a full scale battle then the loot itemised in the battle write up represents what was retrieved from the dead and/or the enemy camp.

If it's a private scrimmage then sure, if you hold the field then whatever's left there is yours to dispose of as you wish (and vice versa of course).

Regards
Luke

... but what of battlefield looting


In fact, historically much of the booty captured was tallied collectively, and then divided according to shares
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

This was considered fair

There was also plenty of "I got that, it's mine" going on too
but the point is that the leader of the expedition, who is on site, was the key divider-in-chief
He had the power to do what he wanted
So if someone kills the magic axe guy, he may not end up with the axe
he would probably end up with something special as compensation (presumably taken out of the leader's share)

For battlefield ransoms, the guy who captured a high-cost knight would get credit for it
but someone higher up would buy the captive
Whoever captured him would get paid immediately

Finally, "fairness" (Just) does exist
and heroic individuals would likely end up with the cool stuff they alone were responsible for getting in a batlefield
but not necessarily
for looting a city

at least as I understand it

For battlefield ransoms, the guy who captured a high-cost knight would get credit for it
but someone higher up would buy the captive
Whoever captured him would get paid immediately


For instance, Edward the Black Prince did this during the Hundred Years War, and naturally made a killing in profits. It made sense for the ordinary knights and men-at-arms to sell their noble captives to higher authorities, since don't forget, the captor is responsible for maintaining the captives, too. And the ransoms usually took time to arrange; a year was nothing out of the ordinary.

In our campaign, it was Sir Kay who pretty much offered half of the ransom straight away, for the ransomees that the PKs captured during our Second French War. There was also a lot of exchanging prisoners to get the captured PKs out, as well.

Thank you so much all for the info in the above posts.

For clairty, I was more thinking getting the Squire to take the item to the rear, but nevermind the exact details.

I am perperutally amazed by how helpful and knowledgable everyone is here, and that we get posts from Greg as well.

Thanks all again

I also take into effect traits and passions here. Selfishness/Generosity can directly come into play, but so can just/arbitrary. One of the things that made certain individuals great is their generosity to their subjects regarding this very thing. A king gets 1/3 and the leader gets 1/3. If they are one and the same, then what happens if the king gives it all away? He might get a generosity check, but his vassals, household knights, and so on would probably get checks in loyalty. (Yes, you can buy certain passions). At least that is how I am running it.

Humbly submitted,

Robert Schroeder

A king gets 1/3 and the leader gets 1/3. If they are one and the same, then what happens if the king gives it all away? He might get a generosity check, but his vassals, household knights, and so on would probably get checks in loyalty. (Yes, you can buy certain passions). At least that is how I am running it.


Wholly agreed. A generous leader is one worthy of loyalty. I generally award Loyalty checks when the Lord goes above and beyond the 'business as usual'. Ransoming vassals definitely counts. Even protecting them, coming to their aid when they are in need would be enough to justify a Loyalty check, even if that is just living up to his end of the feudal bargain.

Heck, even getting singled out for a fulsome praise by the Lord might be enough for the knight to develop a higher Loyalty. :)

So what happens when the battle is over and the looting begins, it says that the first to reach the camp get loot x3, because they take the nicest loot first, which leads me to think its first come first serve and unconscious knights probably didnt get much plunder if any at all.

Either that true or the knights who reach the enemy camp and take x3 loot are taking more than there share and hence taking some of the Kings and Leaders share (Selfish check?), since the protocol is likely the kings trusted men gather and divide the treasure and then pass along 2/3 to the leader who then divies it among his men in which case the unconscious knights would get some plunder.

So which is historically correct for the Uther period? (hoping Greg can answer this one)

I would assume that capturing the enemy camp is awarded by the leader of the campaign, hence the extra loot.

As for generocity, I remember a note on largesse in one of the 3rd or 4th supplements (I cannot remember which one unfortunetaly ) that it was custom for a leader to give some of his own loot back to his closest advisors. If they did not give this money they were given a selfish check and if they gave much more they would receive a generous check.

As for generocity, I remember a note on largesse in one of the 3rd or 4th supplements


3rd Ed, I think. The Book is Savage Mountains, scenario The Cambrian War.

They are rewarded by their leaders for their success
You are correct that loot is collected and doled out by the leaders
See also above for Generous/Selfish

--Greg




So what happens when the battle is over and the looting begins, it says that the first to reach the camp get loot x3, because they take the nicest loot first, which leads me to think its first come first serve and unconscious knights probably didnt get much plunder if any at all.

Either that true or the knights who reach the enemy camp and take x3 loot are taking more than there share and hence taking some of the Kings and Leaders share (Selfish check?), since the protocol is likely the kings trusted men gather and divide the treasure and then pass along 2/3 to the leader who then divies it among his men in which case the unconscious knights would get some plunder.

So which is historically correct for the Uther period? (hoping Greg can answer this one)

Thanks for such a quick reply Greg and Cornelius :D

One more question, would the Vassal Knights house knights receive the same plunder as the PK at Lincoln, which is 14 librum?

Thanks for such a quick reply Greg and Cornelius :D
One more question, would the Vassal Knights house knights receive the same plunder as the PK at Lincoln, which is 14 librum?


Vassal knights get the same share as any knights.

Let me rephrase, I think I wasnt clear in my last question. The reason I ask if the Pk's Vassal knight's brothers the 'house knights' would also get the 14 librum is because I question that
since 2000 knights were at Lincoln, each with a third of the loot and 14 librum. That tells us 28,000 librum would be distributed by the leaders to the knights. 84,000 librum worth of loot recovered in total from the battle.

Do these figures sound reasonable?

In fact, historically much of the booty captured was tallied collectively, and then divided according to shares
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

This was considered fair

Greg this is both false and very oversimplified.

It was never all lumped together, individuals had to give a third of their gains to their lords/captains and they in turn had to give a third of their own gains to the king, but the king at the right to all the lords captured before the thirds started for which he compensated the captors (see above for the Black Prince buying prisoners)

So the real system was like this:
2/3 kept by those who captured the prisoners and loot, with 1/3 going to their lords who in turn gave 1/3 of their own gains and 1/3 of the gains gotten from their men to the king. This system was pretty late historically (c.1350+) and had plenty of exceptions ( this is Denys Hay's theory which seems correct, but is based on spotty evidence).

A knight or squire serving got rewarded in a number of ways: pay; regards; restauro equorum; transport of their horses to war and back home and their loot and ransoms gained on campaign. this was all before the thirds system came into effect. Before then the lords claimed half their men's gains and the king claimed half the lords' gains. When the thirds system came into effect the restauro equorum (paying for lost horses) was no longer done nor was paying for transport of horses over seas and back again. A regard was a sign up bonus paid by the king about equal to the cost of a horse. Regards were normally paid when the thirds system came into effect and abnormal before than. ransoms were themselves abnormal before the hundred year war and were mainly done at tourneys of war or for lords. players playing under the thirds system would get about 2/3 of the profits, but could forget about their lord giving them a remount, paying for lost equipment or ransoming them (unless they were too poor and too important to the war not to ransom).

In the field a knight's squires usually did the capture of prisoners and looting. The standard organization was into "lances" made up of one knight bachelor and four squires (the knight was often only a squire and the squires were often sergeants or yeomen) the lances were in turn organized into a banner consisting of: a knight banneret; 9 knights bachelor and 40 squires. Note: both household knights and vassal knights were knights bachelor. the real meaning of "bachelor" is not an unmarried knight, but a knight unfit for command of other knights. the same system was used in the gilds which normally divided the skill grades into: apprentices; journeymen; bachelors and masters. Those below the rank of masters were not allowed to have apprentices or journeymen. Note: not even a baron or a lord was automatically a banneret, many of them were considered unfit for command and stayed knights bachelors.

In fact, historically much of the booty captured was tallied collectively, and then divided according to shares
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

This was considered fair

Greg this is both false and very oversimplified.

It was never all lumped together,


Yes it was.

Furthermore, In the Uther Period, and to a varying degree thereafter, it was done thus.

The primary source for the time tells us so. see G.Stafford quoted above.


You seem to be missing that This is a Roleplaying Game, set in a mythic setting, not an accurate simulation of history.

Drawing inspiration and information from history and academic research is a fine thing, I do it myself, but there are limits to it's usefullness, and I think you ought to consider making a distinction between "this is what I believe happened historically", "This is how I think this works in reality" and "this is how I think this might work best in the game".

Interesting
Will you send me the source?
My only source is a book about Hawkwood that seemed to state the terms I used
This makes a bit more sense
Thanks!




In fact, historically much of the booty captured was tallied collectively, and then divided according to shares
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

This was considered fair

Greg this is both false and very oversimplified.

It was never all lumped together, individuals had to give a third of their gains to their lords/captains and they in turn had to give a third of their own gains to the king, but the king at the right to all the lords captured before the thirds started for which he compensated the captors (see above for the Black Prince buying prisoners)

So the real system was like this:
2/3 kept by those who captured the prisoners and loot, with 1/3 going to their lords who in turn gave 1/3 of their own gains and 1/3 of the gains gotten from their men to the king. This system was pretty late historically (c.1350+) and had plenty of exceptions ( this is Denys Hay's theory which seems correct, but is based on spotty evidence).

A knight or squire serving got rewarded in a number of ways: pay; regards; restauro equorum; transport of their horses to war and back home and their loot and ransoms gained on campaign. this was all before the thirds system came into effect. Before then the lords claimed half their men's gains and the king claimed half the lords' gains. When the thirds system came into effect the restauro equorum (paying for lost horses) was no longer done nor was paying for transport of horses over seas and back again. A regard was a sign up bonus paid by the king about equal to the cost of a horse. Regards were normally paid when the thirds system came into effect and abnormal before than. ransoms were themselves abnormal before the hundred year war and were mainly done at tourneys of war or for lords. players playing under the thirds system would get about 2/3 of the profits, but could forget about their lord giving them a remount, paying for lost equipment or ransoming them (unless they were too poor and too important to the war not to ransom).

In the field a knight's squires usually did the capture of prisoners and looting. The standard organization was into "lances" made up of one knight bachelor and four squires (the knight was often only a squire and the squires were often sergeants or yeomen) the lances were in turn organized into a banner consisting of: a knight banneret; 9 knights bachelor and 40 squires. Note: both household knights and vassal knights were knights bachelor. the real meaning of "bachelor" is not an unmarried knight, but a knight unfit for command of other knights. the same system was used in the gilds which normally divided the skill grades into: apprentices; journeymen; bachelors and masters. Those below the rank of masters were not allowed to have apprentices or journeymen. Note: not even a baron or a lord was automatically a banneret, many of them were considered unfit for command and stayed knights bachelors.

What about my other question? Is 84,000 Librum in Loot, to much, for say the Battle of Lincoln? Shiould it be only the Vassal Knights get 14 Librum loot and then give from that some to thier house knights? Or is thier really that much loot to spread around from one war.

The reason I ask if the Pk's Vassal knight's brothers the 'house knights' would also get the 14 librum is because I question that since 2000 knights were at Lincoln, each with a third of the loot and 14 librum. That tells us 28,000 librum would be distributed by the leaders to the knights. 84,000 librum worth of loot recovered in total from the battle.

Do these figures sound reasonable?

Can you give me a page reference?



What about my other question? Is 84,000 Librum in Loot, to much, for say the Battle of Lincoln? Shiould it be only the Vassal Knights get 14 Librum loot and then give from that some to thier house knights? Or is thier really that much loot to spread around from one war.

The reason I ask if the Pk's Vassal knight's brothers the 'house knights' would also get the 14 librum is because I question that since 2000 knights were at Lincoln, each with a third of the loot and 14 librum. That tells us 28,000 librum would be distributed by the leaders to the knights. 84,000 librum worth of loot recovered in total from the battle.

Do these figures sound reasonable?

Can you give me a page reference?


Assuming it is this one, GPC, p. 153. Year 517, Plunder: 1 charger, 2 cobs, £5 in goods. I don't know where the £14 comes from.

Battle of Saussy during the Roman War is probably the biggest bonanza. Plunder: 1 Andalusian charger, 1 charger, 2 palfreys, £6 in goods. Can't imagine EVERY knight in the army getting an Andalusian... I'd say these would be extra for 'heroes', which the PKs hopefully prove to be on the battlefield. But then again, I tend to be a bit more stingy when it comes to doling out huge amounts of loot.

Can you give me a page reference?

I looks like it is GPC p49, the Battle of Lincoln (490AD). A huge battle, that is a decisive Cymric victory. Base plunder is listed as £14 in goods.

Regards
Luke

Thank you

Looks like too mucj to me!
Make it 7





Can you give me a page reference?

I looks like it is GPC p49, the Battle of Lincoln (490AD). A huge battle, that is a decisive Cymric victory. Base plunder is listed as £14 in goods.

Regards
Luke

I looks like it is GPC p49, the Battle of Lincoln (490AD). A huge battle, that is a decisive Cymric victory. Base plunder is listed as £14 in goods.


Thanks, Luke. I was lazy and just used Find. :) No idea why it didn't pick that battle, too...

Ah, this is why! In my edition, it is the Battle of Lindsey, not Lincoln.

Thank you

Looks like too mucj to me!
Make it 7





Can you give me a page reference?

I looks like it is GPC p49, the Battle of Lincoln (490AD). A huge battle, that is a decisive Cymric victory. Base plunder is listed as £14 in goods.

Regards
Luke



Thanks guys, yes I got it wrong it is the Battle of Lindsey! I thought the loot seemed too much if you also include, the house knights of the player knight getting 14 librum, based on your help, I think the best compromise is to give 14 to the pk still, and expect that the Vassal knight would take half of that and award it to his house knights, that fought at the battle. So he nets the suggested 7 that Greg says. and for poor house knights 2-3 librum share is actually alot.

Interesting
Will you send me the source?
My only source is a book about Hawkwood that seemed to state the terms I used
This makes a bit more sense
Thanks!




In fact, historically much of the booty captured was tallied collectively, and then divided according to shares
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

This was considered fair

Greg this is both false and very oversimplified.

It was never all lumped together, individuals had to give a third of their gains to their lords/captains and they in turn had to give a third of their own gains to the king, but the king at the right to all the lords captured before the thirds started for which he compensated the captors (see above for the Black Prince buying prisoners)

So the real system was like this:
2/3 kept by those who captured the prisoners and loot, with 1/3 going to their lords who in turn gave 1/3 of their own gains and 1/3 of the gains gotten from their men to the king. This system was pretty late historically (c.1350+) and had plenty of exceptions ( this is Denys Hay's theory which seems correct, but is based on spotty evidence).

A knight or squire serving got rewarded in a number of ways: pay; regards; restauro equorum; transport of their horses to war and back home and their loot and ransoms gained on campaign. this was all before the thirds system came into effect. Before then the lords claimed half their men's gains and the king claimed half the lords' gains. When the thirds system came into effect the restauro equorum (paying for lost horses) was no longer done nor was paying for transport of horses over seas and back again. A regard was a sign up bonus paid by the king about equal to the cost of a horse. Regards were normally paid when the thirds system came into effect and abnormal before than. ransoms were themselves abnormal before the hundred year war and were mainly done at tourneys of war or for lords. players playing under the thirds system would get about 2/3 of the profits, but could forget about their lord giving them a remount, paying for lost equipment or ransoming them (unless they were too poor and too important to the war not to ransom).

In the field a knight's squires usually did the capture of prisoners and looting. The standard organization was into "lances" made up of one knight bachelor and four squires (the knight was often only a squire and the squires were often sergeants or yeomen) the lances were in turn organized into a banner consisting of: a knight banneret; 9 knights bachelor and 40 squires. Note: both household knights and vassal knights were knights bachelor. the real meaning of "bachelor" is not an unmarried knight, but a knight unfit for command of other knights. the same system was used in the gilds which normally divided the skill grades into: apprentices; journeymen; bachelors and masters. Those below the rank of masters were not allowed to have apprentices or journeymen. Note: not even a baron or a lord was automatically a banneret, many of them were considered unfit for command and stayed knights bachelors.



Sure Greg

Denys Hay, 'renaissance essays', essay ' The division of spoils of war in fourteenth - century England
ISBN-10: 0907628966
ISBN-13: 978-0907628965

Andrew Aydon, Knights and warhorses: military service and the English aristocracy under Edward III, chapter 'Restauro Equorum', Vadis Guerre and the profits of war.

ISBN-10: 0851157394
ISBN-13: 978-0851157399

In fact, historically much of the booty captured was tallied collectively, and then divided according to shares
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

This was considered fair

Greg this is both false and very oversimplified.

It was never all lumped together,


Yes it was.

Furthermore, In the Uther Period, and to a varying degree thereafter, it was done thus.

The primary source for the time tells us so. see G.Stafford quoted above.


You seem to be missing that This is a Roleplaying Game, set in a mythic setting, not an accurate simulation of history.

Drawing inspiration and information from history and academic research is a fine thing, I do it myself, but there are limits to it's usefullness, and I think you ought to consider making a distinction between "this is what I believe happened historically", "This is how I think this works in reality" and "this is how I think this might work best in the game".


Dan, I assumed Greg was talking about real history and did not even consider that he was discussing only "imaginary history" in KAP. I can see your point when talking about inside the existing KAP rules. Though, even in games the real part should be realistic, so that one can better be sucked in by the fantasy part.

Squires always did the looting, one can prove this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland


CLXXVIII
Il n'en i ad chevaler ne barun
Que de pitet mult durement ne plurt;
2420
Plurent lur filz, lur freres, lur nevolz,
E lur amis e lur lige seignurs;
Encuntre tere se pasment [...] li plusur.
Naimes li dux d'iço ad fait que proz,
Tuz premereins l'ad dit l empereür:
2425
«Veez avant de dous liwes de nus,
Ve[d]e[i]r puez les granz chemins puldrus,
(Que) Qu'ase(n)z i ad de la gent paienur.
Car chevalchez! Vengez ceste dulor!»
- «E! Deus!» dist Carles, «ja sunt il ja si luinz!
2430
Cunse[i]l[l]ez mei e dreit[ure] e honur;
De France dulce m'unt tolud la flur.»
Li reis cumandet Gebuin e Otun,
Tedbalt de Reins e le cunte Milun:
«Guardez le champ e les vals e les munz.
2435
Lessez gesir les morz tut issi cun il sunt,
Que n'i adeist ne beste ne lion,
Ne n'i adeist esquier ne garçun;
f.44v
Jo vus defend que n'i adeist nuls hom,
Josque Deus voeil[l]e que en cest camp revengum.»
2440
E cil respundent dulcement, par amur:
«Dreiz emperere, cher sire, si ferum!»
Mil chevaler i retienent des lur. AOI

CLXXVIII
No chevalier nor baron is there, who
Pitifully weeps not for grief and dule;
They mourn their sons, their brothers, their nephews,
And their liege lords, and trusty friends and true;
Upon the ground a many of them swoon.
Thereon Duke Neimes doth act with wisdom proof,
First before all he's said to the Emperour:
"See beforehand, a league from us or two,
From the highways dust rising in our view;
Pagans are there, and many them, too.
Canter therefore! Vengeance upon them do!"
"Ah, God!" says Charles, "so far are they re-moved!
Do right by me, my honour still renew!
They've torn from me the flower of France the Douce."
The King commands Gebuin and Otun,
Tedbalt of Reims, also the count Milun:
"Guard me this field, these hills and valleys too,
Let the dead lie, all as they are, unmoved,
Let not approach lion, nor any brute,
Let not approach esquire, nor any groom;
For I forbid that any come thereto,
Until God will that we return anew."
These answer him sweetly, their love to prove:
"Right Emperour, dear Sire, so will we do."
A thousand knights they keep in retinue. AOI.
-Original text with English translatiion by Charles Scott Moncrief (London, 1919)
Online source
http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/French/Texts/Period_02/1090-La_Chanson_de_Roland.htm

Squires always did the looting, one can prove this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland

You have a very strange definition of "prove" there.
And using the word "always" should always be avoided with regards to history.

And using the word "always" should always be avoided with regards to history.


Along with "never."


T.

Squires always did the looting, one can prove this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland

You have a very strange definition of "prove" there.
And using the word "always" should always be avoided with regards to history.


Spoonist Greg has already studied William Marshal, therefore I'm assuming he knows that squires usually captured knights in the early tourneys. The Song of Roland shows that they were the ones doing the looting as early as the 11th century. It's common knowledge that they kept the prisoners and looted them in the hundred years war. You should read the Song of Roland, it's combat is very realistic just like Homer's and both the Iliad and the Song of Roland were written by people whom had seen the elephant.

"Always" is used for the normally expected, e.g. "people always need to eat", if we're going to believe the [tall] tales of saints lives some of them went years without eating and had it "confirmed" by medical examination. "Never" is much more absolutely true, e.g. Knights were never killed by cruise missiles in the 14th century.

[

["Never" is much more absolutely true, e.g. Knights were never killed by cruise missiles in the 14th century.


True — if you bring impossibilities into the dialog. I'll never be able to jump to the moon, either, but that sort of goes without saying. Absolutes within the realm of the possible can be more elusive.


Best,


T.

I've not done any particular research into looting in the battles of the 5th and 6th century, but I've got a fairly fixed idea in my head of what I want those battles to look and feel like for my players.

Each individual turn of a battle, assuming that the player knights aren't going out of their way to loot, will be too pell-mell for any systematic looting.
If an entry on the book of armies notes that a unit has an exceptional amount of treasure, I might ask for awareness and then relevant personality trait rolls.
Knights who succeed (or fail, depending on how you look at it) might quickly snag a bit of jewellery here or there from downed foes if the party are the victors of that particular round.
Otherwise, the bulk of the looting will be done in the final rounds of the battle should the player knights be on the winning side.
At that point, it'll be a choice between whether or not they want to get stuck in to some nice, good looting, or go for glory attempting to ride down fleeing enemies.
(From my experience, 90% of the players in my group will go for the glory, since it's both experience and bragging rights combined...)

If players are adamant that their knights are going to spend time looting during a pitched battle, I'll simply impose a penalty on their weapon skills and let them risk becoming separated from their unit!
The same goes for squires, to a greater or lesser extent. For the most part, they'll be following alongside their knights desperately trying to not be killed while doing their jobs.
I doubt that squires enjoyed any kind of protected status on the battlefield and that they will undoubtedly have to get stuck in now and then.
If the player demands that the squire loot instead of doing their job, it'll be a squire roll.
The squire won't be able to bring the knight a new horse or weapon that turn and a failure will indicate that they get separated for the duration of the battle.
A fumble would be bad. For the squire. Because he'll get stabbed. With swords. In the face. Alot.

(Thinking about it, I might create 'what happens to your squire?' table for when player knights lose a round in a battle...)

Nevermind, it exists as part of the end of round checks in the book of battle. Who knew! Them writers they be thinking of everything before me.

@Snaggle
Why defend the undefendable? Quoting Roland does not prove that something always happened. It cannot by its nature.
But since you are trying sooooo hard I'll oblige and yank your chain.
;D

Spoonist Greg has already studied William Marshal, Yes, and? What Greg has or hasn't done has nothing to do with anything when looking at your statements here.

therefore I'm assuming he knows that squires usually captured knights in the early tourneys. Yes, and? (Although I'd nitpick and say that squires usually assisted after ;) the knight had been captured or rendered useless by other knights.)

The Song of Roland shows that they were the ones doing the looting as early as the 11th century. It's common knowledge that they kept the prisoners and looted them in the hundred years war.No? Again this is definite statements without caveates. This is simply a flawed writing style which should always be avoided when talking about history. A single counter example renders that sentence useless and there are plenty of counter examples of footmen and lackeys doing the looting as well. Especially so if you include the 100 years war.
Also, common knowledge isn't common. Making such statements is just rhetoric fluff.

You should read the Song of RolandWhy do you assume I haven't? Statistically I'd say the odds would be favourable that people interested in this era enough to comment has, don't you think? The correct way to say this without rhetoric condescension is to phrase it like a question; "... have you read the Song of Roland? If not then..."

, it's combat is very realistic just like Homer's and both the Iliad and the Song of Roland were written by people whom had seen the elephant.Does not compute. The reason why historians and reenactors have such a hard time getting a clear picture of how battles and warfare really worked in pre-modern eras is that these types of literature was very much not realistic. Some works are much more informative and contain lots more data that seem to be accurate. But to call any of those works 'very realistic' would also have us believe that History channel's Vikings is 'very realistic' and gives insight into how things was "always" done.
(Oh and a funny tidbit is that using 'seen the lion' is actually from the late late late middle ages, so skip the elephant).

"Always" is used for the normally expectedNo its not, unless used for a clear exaggeration with a faulty premise. Like "I will always love you" or "she is always beautiful", both of which are factually wrong. So when talking about "facts" or in this case "proof" the use of always would either make us believe that you are not really serious or that you meant always as in "consistently" or "every time". This is why it should always be avoided. See?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/always
Now your sentance would work without the "always" so it is clear that it is added for rhetoric strength/exaggeration. Let's look at these sentances;
"Squires did the looting, one can prove this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland"
"Squires always did the looting, one can prove this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland"
Which makes the reader assume that only squires did the looting? Yea, its the exaggerated one...
Which is most easily proven wrong? Yea, its the exaggerated one...
Compare that to this:
"Squires was tasked with looting, one can substantiate this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland"

, e.g. "people always need to eat",Nope, its just exaggeration. The always is again unecessary. "People need to eat" is equally untrue as "people always need to eat".

if we're going to believe the [tall] tales of saints lives some of them went years without eating and had it "confirmed" by medical examination.We really are not, are we?

"Never" is much more absolutely true, e.g. Knights were never killed by cruise missiles in the 14th century.Agreed. Never has it uses, always should always be avoided with regards to history.

Gentlemen—

While vigorous debate and in-depth discussion can be productive pursuits, I will trust you to keep thread this from escalating into something that will require the intervention of a moderator. Let's keep things respectful and cordial.


T.

Thank you for the references!
I'll check them out
So many books, so little time...


Squires always did the looting, one can prove this from the 11th century Chanson de geste of Roland

A wonderful poem
but while a squire may seize the loot, it was done for his knight, and because the knight knocked the guy down
In general looting situations, like sacking a city or a battlefield, implications are that knights joined in

There are a number of references to knights looting in both Byzantine Empire and the Middle East during the Crusades. Including looting Constantinople herself... unfortunat;y, my histories are packed.

Ballad of Roland is little proof.

what of battlefield looting

I agree with Greg How I have always done mine is the same way Greg Stafford explains it earlier in this post to make things easy in a Battlefield operation here is a summery of rules I use for my game is this real don't know but it works for me and my players.

The commander of the Army which was usually the King or the King's Champion or even the Queen's Champion always took position of the treasure and captives divided By 1/3's
1/3 went to the king, or whoever had financed the original expedition
1/3 went to the leader on the field
1/3 was divided among the men

Also Ransoms of High Ranking Knights in my campaign's were ransomed back to their family's by the king those who captured them got a choice of reword usually Ether get 3d20 Danri per captive (ie Paid right their and then, and this Rule is for PK Knight's and high Ranking NPC's) or he got favor owed to him by the king who ever had financed the original expedition depending on how many knights he captured and killed during the battle if he captured he would get 1 to 10 he would get a minor favor if he took 11 to 20 he got a medium favor, and if he took 50 or more het got a large Favor.

I am in the middle of packing and ran last night a regal tournament at King Arthur's Easter Tournament for 516, as the last Game for our group, everyone enjoyed it very much, so the point I am making is this as far as Tables for these favors go they were all packed away already I can add them later if some one wishes to see them.

But one favor the king might grant is the title of Land as castellian of a castle some where GM's choice however I would use this adventure if you do
found here http://www.rpgarchive.com/index.php?page=adv1&advid=243

whoever said getting land was easy and who ever said holding on to it was easy I had a pk knight ask his father for land of his own after getting knighted his father granted him a worm infested rotted keep, that was in bad need of repair, sense me and my group was having our last game, everyone got a piece of land of their own from the different adventures they were on, most where new players who just achieved knight hood and chose to play out the six years as a squire to a famous knight so I allowed it and we had a blast with it. Now thier all knighted and got garrison duty till further notice.