After months of trying, I still don't feel like I have a good understanding of the differences between a duke and a count, and just what those titles actually entail.

My headcanon is that a duke is a temporary (in theory) Palatinate given at-royal-pleasure hold over border counties, possessing viceroyal authority, acting like a mini-king within the dukedom, and excersizing nearly everything only the king has the right to do in most counties, towards the end of having strong and consolidated border armies under central leadership. Sort of like the marcher lords, or the palatine county of lancashire in history.

Counts on the other hand I'm thinking of as Barons who possess the majority of the land in a given county, are recognized for their special and ancestral ties to that land, and because of this are given special honor and the permanent shrievalty (office of sheriff or equivalent powers) over that county in conjunction with those county holdings and inseparable from that honour.

The difference being between this comptal shrievalty and dukedom, other than the fact that earldom is legally heritable, that the count represents the king and administrates his liberties as a sheriff would inside the county, while the duke in essence is the king within his own dukedom, though of course still owing dues of soldiers and geld to the actual king.

I know this is contradicted by the book of the warlord, but I can't from the text get a good grip on what the hard-and-fast meanings of what these titles are supposed to represent, if it isn't as I've described.

After months of trying, I still don't feel like I have a good understanding of the differences between a duke and a count, and just what those titles actually entail.

Don't feel bad about that
It is pretty vague and slippery
And duke even changes its meaning in KAP from the Uther to the Twilight Period


My headcanon is that a duke is a temporary (in theory) Palatinate given at-royal-pleasure hold over border counties, possessing viceroyal authority, acting like a mini-king within the dukedom, and excersizing nearly everything only the king has the right to do in most counties, towards the end of having strong and consolidated border armies under central leadership. Sort of like the marcher lords, or the palatine county of lancashire in history.

That is more or less correct for the Uther phase
although
I do not see them as exercising powers except the military one


Counts on the other hand I'm thinking of as Barons who possess the majority of the land in a given county,

While this is certainly true for Salisbury, I do not consider it to be so for the others
Their caput major is in the county they are named after, but that is about it
Historically, in England, earls were given names of counties in which they even held no land!
KAP doesn't get there, though


are recognized for their special and ancestral ties to that land, and because of this are given special honor and the permanent shrievalty (office of sheriff or equivalent powers) over that county in conjunction with those county holdings and inseparable from that honour.

Yea, looks like that for Uther Period doesn't it


The difference being between this comptal shrievalty and dukedom, other than the fact that earldom is legally heritable, that the count represents the king and administrates his liberties as a sheriff would inside the county, while the duke in essence is the king within his own dukedom, though of course still owing dues of soldiers and geld to the actual king.

I would say your assumption concerning the dukes are more powerful than I had imagine
but the heritable part is right on


I know this is contradicted by the book of the warlord, but I can't from the text get a good grip on what the hard-and-fast meanings of what these titles are supposed to represent, if it isn't as I've described.
I think you are mostly correct
except that the dukes are military lords without many of the other royal powers
but in truth, things are way looser than most people are comfortable with

So what are the kinds of things a king has the right to do but a duke does not have the right to do within the dukedom? I kind of picture the relationship as "there's the border, it's frankly a mess, here's the temporary writ of feudal tenure and partial cession of royal authority for that entire area, just make sure you're fulfilling the standard servitum debitum, get me my geld when I ask, and do all the normal baron-things. Other than that, do what you got to do man. Peace out *washes hands*"

So what are the kinds of things a king has the right to do but a duke does not have the right to do within the dukedom?

Most of the taxes that the King can levy but a baron can't, for instance. Royal Justice. The holdings within the Dukedom which are not the Duke's own vassals still pay their inheritance tax to the King and their lands escheat to the King in the absence of heirs, not to the Duke, as they would if his Dukedom were an independent kingdom.

As per Book of the Warlord, a duke is just a baron with the right to call up the ducal army by his own initiative (but in the King's name) to defend the dukedom. He is a military leader. Now it is true that many Dukes are ALSO powerful barons in their own right, and the ducal gifts often come with extra goodies to make the duke a powerful noble if he isn't already. But the major distinguishing feature is the military command over the dukedom. The Count of Salisbury can't tell the Baron of Thornbrush to bring his knights to a fight if Salisbury is attacked even though Thornbush has the Swan Hundred inside the county of Salisbury, but the Duke of the Vale (Silchester) CAN order the Baron to show up with his knights to defend Silchester against the Saxons.

Alright so the distinction i'm getting here is that the Counts are barons who are more or less given permanent shrievalty of a county in conjunction with their holdings there, sort of like the king's shield and most senior baron within the county, whereas a duke is given temporary military hegemony over the barons of the dukedom, an extension of the king's mailed fist acting where he himself cannot, but not the shrievalty. For example the Count of Salisbury can carry the king's justice and raise the king's taxes within the county (hey thornbush, you owe this much in geld to the crown and your ferm is late again) whereas a duke is given military command of all the barons and knights in a given region (hey thornbush, I need your army at levcomagus yesterday, come on, double time), but is still subject to royal sheriffs in the areas in which he operates, am I getting it right?

So then in this sense, you could have a count 'under' a duke, but at the same time have the duke 'under' the count in different ways.

So then in this sense, you could have a count 'under' a duke, but at the same time have the duke 'under' the count in different ways.

The Counts in the Uther's time are a historical relic, tracing their status to Constantine's time, rather than any particular 'administrative' decision. Later on, new Counts get made, but it is still a bit unclear if this is just a title upgrade for some (Rich) Barons or if there will be some administrative difference as well.

However, I think your distinction between a 'civilian' Count and a 'military' Duke is in error, as far as BotW is concerned:
Duke (Count) Corneus is also the (hereditary) Sheriff of Linden.
Duke Edaris is not the Sheriff of Lambor (or of anywhere else for that matter).
Duke Eldol is not the Sheriff of Glevum (or of anywhere else for that matter).
Duke Gorlois is also the Sheriff of Tintagel for life (not at the King's will). (BoU says that the Duke of Tintagel is always the Sheriff of Tintagel, too, but there is no title 'Duke of Tintagel'. There is Duke of Cornwall, though.)
Duke Lucius is not a Sheriff of anything. You could argue that the Count of Caerwent -title might make him the Sheriff of Caerwent, but this is not mentioned in the Sheriff section of BoU, while other title-connected Sheriffs are, so I am going to go on a limb and say that it is not connected to the title. (This, by the way, confuses me! Count is an inherited title, and Lucius is said to have the lands of his father, so why is he not a count?)
Count Roderick is not the Sheriff of Salisbury & Gentian.
Count Sulien is not explicitly the Sheriff of Bedegraine in BotW, but is in BoU, which takes precedence.
Duke Ulfius is also the Sheriff of Silchester.
Count (King) Cadwy appoints the Sheriff of Summerland, not Uther (said in BoU), since he is de facto independent King.

Thus, we have two (three, if you count Summerland) cases of Count = Sheriff (Linden and Bedegraine), two cases where a Count is not also a Sheriff (Salisbury & Caerwent), two Dukes who are also Sheriffs (I am counting Linden as a Count), and three Dukes who are not Sheriffs (The Marche, Glevum & Saxon Shore). There is no rule that counts would always be Sheriffs and Dukes would not be.

In short, Sheriff is NOT a title, but a Royal Office. Apart from the hereditary Sheriffs, Uther can dismiss a Sheriff at will, but would have much harder time depriving a Baron of his lands and titles without some very good reason (Gorlois' rebellion comes to mind).

That being said, if you change your argument to "you could have a SHERIFF 'under' a duke, but at the same time have the duke 'under' the SHERIFF in different ways." you are totally correct. Also, since many of the nobles have lands in several counties, they would be 'under' many Sheriffs or many Dukes, even if they are themselves Sheriffs or Dukes. It is not all neat and organized. :)

So to get this right does an earl have *any* special rights or authority in Uther/Warlord/Estate?

For my campaign I'm trying to marry together the situation described in the GPC, where earls have definite power over their counties as a function of their title, to the updated position where this is no longer the case. I figured that earldom = a heritable grant of baronial land within a county that also grants special heritable shrievalty of that county, as the most straightforward solution to this. Have it so that the count doesn't rule the county (as was the case in 5.0), but had definite ancestral authority over it, and power to act in the king's name and on his behalf. Sort of melding of the anglo-saxon ealdorman, who was an administrator rather than a vassal, with feudal barony.

is the title of "Count" just completely window-dressing?

is the title of "Count" just completely window-dressing?

BotW:
p. 1: "Counts and dukes should simply be thought of as “super-barons.” "
p. 5: "A poor count is higher in status than a rich baron."

In p. 6, it is mentioned that the counts during the post-Roman era held control of their local area (roughly corresponding to the counties), but that the system has become more decentralized. So you could take that to mean that somewhere in the early to mid-400s (or even during 300s), Counts may have combined the Sheriff function, too, as you envisioned. But it is clear from the examples that we have, especially Count Roderick, that this is no longer the case. Interestingly enough, comes (count) was originally a military title, too.

p. 8: "Counties should not be confused with the noble rank of count. Counts may have once ruled entire counties, but in the feudal world which is the game’s setting they do not. Even the Count of Salisbury’s holding does not encompass all of County Salisbury."

In p. 16, we find out that (combined with p. 6) Count of Salisbury and Count of Caerwent hold their comital lands by Time Immemorial, not stemming from the King, even though the King is their overlord. So that seems to be the main issue (other than social precedence) between a Count and a Baron. To be honest, I don't see what practical difference it makes. They are still beholden to supply knights and soldiers for the Royal Muster, etc. .

Thanks. I think in my game I'll stick to headcanon so just as not to confuse the players, but I have the facts going forward I suppose.

In my games I treat Earl Salisbury as a partial sheriff to explain why a large county would have a sheriff that also oversees a smaller neighbor. The reason he can do so is that within the lands claimed by Time Immemorial the Earl holds all rights; even those the king would rather he not such as High Justice. Roderick zealously guards these rights but later on Robert defers to Arthur in practicing them as a show of his loyalty and admiration of the High King.

Other Counts might have similar set ups but until I set a game with them as the PK's liegelord I don't plan to detail them.