In my GPC I have reached the anarchy period. I was wondering who of the remaining Legates of the Supreme Collegium survived the infamous feast. the book states that there are 9 survivors, but not who they are. Anyone has a list of them?

Ulfius and Nanteleod are two I know of but who are the others?

In my GPC I have reached the anarchy period. I was wondering who of the remaining Legates of the Supreme Collegium survived the infamous feast. the book states that there are 9 survivors, but not who they are. Anyone has a list of them?

Ulfius and Nanteleod are two I know of but who are the others?


That's a great question, C. I'm only two years away from the Anarchy myself. We'll have to look to Greg for that...


T.

Here is what I gathered after a 'brief' look:

Certain candidates (7 in number):
Ulfius, the Duke of Silchester
Natanleod, the King of Escavalon
Idres, the King of Cornwall
Pellinore, the King of Gomeret
Uriens, the King of Gorre
Cadwy, the King of Somerset (appears in an adventure in the Uther period and in one set well after 514)
Leodegrance, the King of Cameliard

Strong Candidates:
Duke of Lindsey (Not mentioned by name, but included into a statement of 'two dukes' with Ulfius, hinting that he is a surviving member as well. Also, Duke Corneus seems very active in his lands, which implies, to me, that he is an old hand rather than a young, untried heir.)
Duke of Caer Colun (In 497, the 'old duke' of Caer Colun is mentioned, but Duke Lucius was killed in 486. This has to be his heir, and to be an 'old duke' implies that he survived 495, as otherwise, why call him 'old duke' instead of 'new duke' in 497, if he inherited in 495?)

Possible candidates:
Heraut de Apres, King of Malahaut (Barant de Apres is mentioned in 512, so in principle, Heraut could have died already in 495.)
Archbishop Dubricus (But he mentioned only as a Bishop Dubricus in 492... Does he become the Archbishop before or after 495?)
The two Archbishops of Carlion and St. Albans, of whom Dubricus could be one. (As churchmen, they might abstain from the wine.)
Belinas, the King(?) of Powys (In the Tournament of Dreams, he is said to be 45 years old and the adventure is recommended for 510 - 525 period. However, no fixed year is given. If he is 45 at 510, he would have been 30 at 495 and probably the King of Powys already. However, given that he lives post-530 at the very least and there is no indication of him being a tired old man, he is probably still a prince in 495.)
Brangore, the King(?) of Strangorre (appears in an adventure post-521, but he'd be in his early/mid-20s in 495, and might still be a prince; age hard to pin down as the adventure itself has a non-fixed time, i.e. the same problem as with Belinans)

The Duke of Lindsey is definitely a survivor as he lays siege to London in 507 or 508 I believe.

I checked the GPC and I think you got it right Morians, the 7 suviving mentioned in the GPC, Duke corneus, but the new Duke of Caer Colon is probably not the 9th Legate

I believe the 9th surviving Legate is Dubricus Archbishop of Carlion

page 39 GPC, the original 28 legates

28 Legates of Uther period (those in bold are the survivors of the Uther period)
Canterbury, Archbishop, position destroyed?
Cambridge, Earl Kent, position destroyed 484
Colchester, Duke Caercolun, position destroyed 487
Exeter, Duke of Cornwall, position destroyed 491
Sarum, Earl Salisbury, position destroyed 495
Alclud, King Strangorre
Caer Beris, just outside Bulith Wells, King Powys
Caer Caradoc, Duke Gloucester
Caer Constantine (Totnes), King Idres of Cornwall
Caerwent, King Nanteleod of Escavalon
Carduel (Carlisle), King Uriens of Gorre
Carlion (Isca), Archbishop Dubricus of Carlion (Roman Church)
Carohaise (Wall), King Leodegrance of Cameliard
City of Legions (Chester), Duke Cheshire
Doncaster, King Roestoc
Dorchester, Praetor Dorset
Eburacum, King Malahaut
Ilchester, Earl Jagent
Leicester, Duke Lindsey
London, Lord Mayor of London
Manchester, King Amans
Oroquelenes (Wroxeter/Viroconium), King Orofoise
Silchester, Duke Ulfius of Silchester
Segontium (Sinadon Caernarfon), King Pellinore of Gomeret
St. Albans, Archbishop (British Christian) of St. Albans,
Vertis (Worcester), King of the Dean
Wells, King Cadwy of Somerset
Winchester, Earl Hampshire

The Duke of Lindsey is definitely a survivor as he lays siege to London in 507 or 508 I believe.


Alas, the Duke of Lindsey in GPC is not named. Hence, there is no certainty that the Duke of Lindsey who is mentioned post-495 is the same guy rather than his heir. However, I do feel that circumstantial evidence is supporting that Duke Corneus is a veteran Duke rather than a new duke to his position, but on the other hand, Ulfius is specifically mentioned as a wounded survivor in 495 and the Duke of Lindsey is not. So it -could- be other way in one particular campaign. :)

I checked the GPC and I think you got it right Morians, the 7 suviving mentioned in the GPC, Duke corneus, but the new Duke of Caer Colon is probably not the 9th Legate

I believe the 9th surviving Legate is Dubricus Archbishop of Carlion


Yeah, with Colchester in Saxon hands, I can see the Duke of Caer Colun losing his place. What I don't get, however, is why wouldn't the heirs of the legates also receive the legateship, if they control the cities which provide the legates? After all, the Supreme Collegium pre-dates the current legates by almost a century anyway...

Or are we simply making a distinction between veteran politicians who survived and the newly elevated heirs who don't have the auctoritas yet? Or do we need a High King to invest a legate? No High King, no new legates (I like this option)?

Or do we need a High King to invest a legate? No High King, no new legates (I like this option)?


In my new Jagent campaign, I've used the description i PGC in how legates are decided (it varies) to create some possible stories. Basically, a number of local noble families have the right to vote for the Ilminster/Jagent legate when the old one dies. He just did. Now several PKs will be involved in some vicious intriguing when Uther (it's 493) will try to get the "right" man for the job.

So I don't like this option. First time ever I don't agree with you.

In case anyone cares, and knows Swedish, heres the relevant background for my campaign:

Om Lindinis, Durotriges stammar och Collegium Supremum
Åren efter att Roms sista styrkor drog sig tillbaka från Britannien var mörka och hårda. Det fanns ingen ledare som kunde ena britter och romare mot alla deras fiender, varje stad och varje fästning slogs ensam och många övermannades och föll för att aldrig byggas upp igen. Efter några år började Britanniens ledande män inse att de alla skulle fall om de inte kunde enas. Så uppstod Collegium Supremum. Det bestämdes att varje större stad skulle utse en legat till detta råd, som skulle samlas och om det kunde enas skulle välja en man som överkung för att samla och leda britter och romare mot barbarerna.
Sätten att utse legater varierade mellan olika städer, och sedan den tiden och fram till nu har mycket hänt. I vissa städer går legattiteln i arv i vissa släkter. I andra städer kan en viss ledare utse vem han själv önskar. I andra åter väljs legaten av de ledande männen i trakten.
I Lindinis utsågs den första legaten av medlemmarna av stadens råd (ordo), de så kallade decuriones. Dessa hade en gång för länge sedan varit etthundra till antalet (som namnet decuriones antyder) och det ansågs vara en stor ära att räknas i deras krets. Lindinis var en liten stad och därför hade många viktiga män ur Durotriges stam också tagits upp i dess råd. Men under de långa och svåra år som romarriket hade genomlevt hade tunga bördor lagt på rådsmedlemmarna, och många undandrog sig sina plikter. När Collegium Supremum sammankallades första gången fanns det därför bara kvar sjutton rådsmedlemar. Rättigheterna och skyldigheterna som kom med en rådsplats hade blivit ärftliga, son efter far, generation efter generation.
Rådet i Lindinis beslöt att utse en viss Beletor till sin legat. När Collegium Supremum sedan sammankallades igen, trettio år senare, hade Beletor dött. Rådet samlades därför och utsåg nu baron Rhun till sin legat. Man bestämde också då att han skulle vara legat på livstid och att alla legater framgent skulle utses på samma grund. På så sätt behövde stadens råd inte samlas mer än när det var absolut nödvändigt.
Sedan dess har staden Lindinis blivit en enkel marknadsstad och familjerna med rådsplats har blivit riddare och har inte längre något med staden att göra. Endast tretton familjer finns nu kvar, men de bildar fortfarande Lindinis ordo. Den dag Rhun dör kommer de att samlas för att utse en ny legat med röst och säte i Collegium Supremum. Kung Uther är ingen vän till Rhun och hans familj, och kommer säkert att lägga sin kungliga näsa i blöt för att få en säker röst till den dag har försöker bli överkung, som hans bror, farbror och far var före honom.

Or do we need a High King to invest a legate? No High King, no new legates (I like this option)?

So I don't like this option. First time ever I don't agree with you.


First time? Come on, we must have disagreed previously on stuff, surely! :)

My comment was more to the way that if the local nobles can select their own legates (good for the story), what is so special with nine legates surviving, politically, when they get swamped by the other new legates?

How about making it a two tiered thing? Local nobles select their legate, but the High King invests them with the office? That way, the old legates are saying that no, the new legates are invalid since they do not have the High King's blessing, hence keeping the power to elect the new High King in their own greedy hands? More story fodder, combining the best of two worlds?

Duke Corneus dies late in the anarchy, shortly after Netley Marsh - the GPC implies that this is coincidental, merely mentioning age and a protracted illness, but news of the disaster that overtook Nanteleod can't have helped.

The GPC names the successor to the Dukedom as his nephew Derfel, but that makes for a bit of a mystery since Corneus has at least two sons who are 'named' characters at Arthur's court in the source material (Sir Lucan and Sir Bedivere) and one of whom might be expected to succeed him. IMG I resolved the issue by making Derfel his son, with Lucan as 'the spare' and Bedivere as an illegitimate byblow.

Regarding the composition of the Supreme Collegium, bear in mind that whilst there are only nine survivors in 495 many of the empty seats will get filled. By the time I came to introduce the council to my game there were only four vacant spots.

Regards
Luke

I would expect that all the regions where the Legate died there is some small or larger dispute or problem. For example Salisbury has an earl of 3 years in 496. Other positions may have similar problems.

As there is no progress from the Collegium in 496 I think this is one of the main problems the nine survivors talked about. What about the empty seats? Does a regent has the right to vote? and so on. I guess they keep on talking about this instead of choosing a new High King.

And thank you Morien. I have taken your list and used them for my GPC. This is the list I am using now.
1. Ulfius, the Duke of Silchester
2. Natanleod, the King of Escavalon
3. Idres, the King of Cornwall
4. Pellinore, the King of Gomeret
5. Uriens, the King of Gorre
6. Cadwy, the King of Somerset
7. Leodegrance, the King of Cameliard
8. Duke of Caer Colun
9.

I still have to fill in the ninth Legate.
I have kept the duke of Caer Colun in the list as there are some familial ties with one of the PKs in the game.

First time? Come on, we must have disagreed previously on stuff, surely! :)

Can't remember an example of that!


My comment was more to the way that if the local nobles can select their own legates (good for the story), what is so special with nine legates surviving, politically, when they get swamped by the other new legates?

Well, nothing, really.


How about making it a two tiered thing? Local nobles select their legate, but the High King invests them with the office? That way, the old legates are saying that no, the new legates are invalid since they do not have the High King's blessing, hence keeping the power to elect the new High King in their own greedy hands? More story fodder, combining the best of two worlds?


But wouldn't that create a Catch 22 situation: no High King = no legates, and lack of legates = no legal election of a new High King.

But wouldn't that create a Catch 22 situation: no High King = no legates, and lack of legates = no legal election of a new High King.


Exactly the point. That -would- make the nine surviving, appointed legates 'special', thus making it imperative to break the constitutional deadlock somehow. Hence more politics.

Now you do get a messy situation if you demand that you need to have ALL legates present for a quorum, but surely the surviving legates would argue that it is enough to have the surviving legates gathered for a legitimate election of the High King. And/or broker a deal where a majority of legates can 'elevate' a legate candidate into their hallowed ranks.

Just thinking of potential ways to make the nine surviving legates special while still providing opportunity for political maneuvers elsewhere, too.

Huh, I don't recall seeing the note about 9 surviving legates. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the line of Caer Colun is wiped out by this time. Otherwise, I think Morien has a good list. And silburnl has a good point of spots being filled.

In my campaign, Lot convinced Nanteleod to support Lot and other powerful northern lords in being named to the Collegium (riffing off the line about some seats held by places that were no longer important; the flipside would be that now important places were not represented, as the Supreme Collegium reflected where the Romans ruled). Nanteleod thought he was gaining new supporters, ensuring he was elected High King and would thus be able to lead the Britons in driving the Saxons back into the sea. Instead, Lot and friends left Nanteleod hanging, using their new status as legates to increase their personal power and authority.

Under hte news section in the GPC in year 497 is mentioned: The Collegium was not able to do anything about
appointing a king. The nine surviving legates argued about protocol and precedence and did nothing. It seems to be the
end of the Collegium as a functioning body.

and with the ideas mentioned here there is a lot of room to see how the nine legates are discussing the issue. ;)

But wouldn't that create a Catch 22 situation: no High King = no legates, and lack of legates = no legal election of a new High King.


Exactly the point. That -would- make the nine surviving, appointed legates 'special', thus making it imperative to break the constitutional deadlock somehow. Hence more politics.

Now you do get a messy situation if you demand that you need to have ALL legates present for a quorum, but surely the surviving legates would argue that it is enough to have the surviving legates gathered for a legitimate election of the High King. And/or broker a deal where a majority of legates can 'elevate' a legate candidate into their hallowed ranks.

Just thinking of potential ways to make the nine surviving legates special while still providing opportunity for political maneuvers elsewhere, too.


I dig it, it makes sense in the context of the anarchy that soon follows.

I got these as my Legates

Caer Constantine (Totnes), King Idres of Cornwall
Caerwent, King Nanteleod of Escavalon, d508
Carduel (Carlisle), King Uriens of Gorre
Carlion (Isca), Archbishop Dubricus of Carlion (Roman Church), d550
Carohaise (Wall), King Leodegrance of Cameliard
Leicester, Duke Corneus of Lindsey, d508
Silchester, Duke Ulfius of Silchester
Segontium (Sinadon Caernarfon), King Pellinore of Gomeret
Wells, King Cadwy of Somerset