Hello folks,

I'm trying to gather some information on other famous figures who would be squires still in and around the 479/480 Uther period start. Any ideas? It seems most of Arthur's famous knights were born around 490-500 or later, and the knights listed in BoU are already knighted by 480.

"Foreign" knights and famous figures are also fair game: I figure they could be fostered into Logres as squires easily enough to broker family relationships in the High King Ambrosius period. (Something less likely under Uther.)

I have several objectives for this:

1. To get a better idea of who might have been within Madoc's orbit. He's noted as having formed his impressions and circle of friends during his squire days.

2. To set up relationships and rivalries for PKs, later, of course.

3. To have a better picture of who of the Anarchy period there could be reasonable interactions with.

For example:

Pellinor? Natanleod?


--Khanwulf

I think Natanleod was born around 450 so he'd be a grown man by 480. His bastard shows up in early 490s so he would gave been a squire in late 480s. Leodegrance and Pellinore are probably adults by 480 too. The banners of Glevum might be around the correct age though: they are each capable of attracting a following in early 490s so likely not fresh from the knighting. Sir Ector could easily be knighted around 480. Depending how you wish to use Brastias, he could be knighted around 480 too and jtst be so awesome as to make it to Duke Gorlois' household captain by 492. I forget how old we made him in BoU.

Hmm, you'd want characters born between the years of 459 (knighted just at the start of Uther's reign, like the BoU default PKs) 483 (squired just before St. Albans). Looking at an excel file of NPCs I made, and limiting it to cultures that had knighthood at this point (Cymri, Romans, Aquitainians, and maybe the Irish), my list came to:

Mark of Cornwall (463)
Pellinore de Gales (465)
Lot of Lothian (467)
Belinans of Sugales (470? I can't remember where I saw this or if I came up with it myself)
Marhaus of Ireland (481)
Balin le Sauvage (482)

In addition, Sagremor le Desirous would have been born in 482, so he'd be serving in the Greek equivalent of squiredom by 495.

Hmm, you'd want characters born between the years of 459 (knighted just at the start of Uther's reign, like the BoU default PKs) 483 (squired just before St. Albans). Looking at an excel file of NPCs I made, and limiting it to cultures that had knighthood at this point (Cymri, Romans, Aquitainians, and maybe the Irish), my list came to:

Mark of Cornwall (463)
Pellinore de Gales (465)
Lot of Lothian (467)
Belinans of Sugales (470? I can't remember where I saw this or if I came up with it myself)
Marhaus of Ireland (481)
Balin le Sauvage (482)

In addition, Sagremor le Desirous would have been born in 482, so he'd be serving in the Greek equivalent of squiredom by 495.

Mark is born 469 in GPC, which makes his squirehood be in (latter half) of 480s, overlapping the first decade of Uther's reign.

I think you are about a decade off on Pellinore, since according to his write-up in KAP 5.2 (p. 229), he is in his early 30s in 484-5. (1st edition has him born 473, which is even more off from KAP 5.2.)

Also, Lot is way too young, too, although this is a mistake (IMHO) in his write-up in GPC, where his birth year is indeed 467. However, I am having it very hard time to believe that he is already the overlord of the North (GPC, p. 26) at his tender age of 17-18. If he were just a prince at this time, fair and well, but he is already KING Lot. Thus, I'd argue that he would be better a decade older, although I would happily accept King Uriens as being just knighted in 485. By the way, if Lot is born in 457, a decade earlier, this would make him become a knight in 478, thus his squirehood would overlap with the PKs being knighted in 480. However, it is very unlikely that they would be in the same circles.

Belinans might be found in the Tournament of Dreams adventure... The canonical date is 516, and Belinans is said to be in his early fourties, so around 473-5 seems about right for him. 470 is a shy too young.

Marhaus is indeed born in 481 based on KAP 1st edition (although there are many typos, and some dates have been superseded since then, like King Mark being born in 505, or Ulfius in 469, making him 11 in 480...). Given that the Triple Questers happens around 520, and he dies in a duel with Tristram in 529, when he would already be 48, I would de-age him a decade or so. That would make him 38 during the duel, a man in his prime, and make him more of a contemporary of Gawaine, another Triple Quester.

Balin Le Sauvage has his birth year in KAP 1st edition, too. Since he takes himself out of the circulation in early half of 510s, I don't have a problem with his age.

Not sure where you get Sagremor's birthdate? Given that Kay nicknames him Le jeune mort (the dead kid) in mid-510s, it seems off a bit if Sagremor is already in his mid-30s. Especially since Kay is born around 488 (1st edition, but supported by the fact that he was a young knight by 510) or 485 (GPC, doesn't make a big difference, still junior to Sagremor).

Nanteleod was born in 452 (GPC), so already a knight by the time the PKs are squires.

Brastias was born in 459 (BoU), so he'd be perfect, being knighted in 480.

Thanks guys, 459-461 birth is the sweet spot, age-wise, for the BoU start. It does seem like a lot of the featured characters fall just before or after that. I suppose that gives plenty of latitude to roll up NPC knights and kill them off in the wars (or, feast).

My assumption has been that fostering squires off to foreign lands is a fairly common practice, insomuch as it's really the main opportunity to get some fresh experience before picking up your at-home duties on knighting. Plus the ties, which could either strengthen remote family bonds or political connections, especially if you're not hot on marrying the kid off for that.

Am I off base here, though?

As for characters mentioned, Mark sounds interesting, and Ector would fit very well indeed! Lot... maybe. Bastias of course is the perfect age, of meager knightly birth, and could be scrabbling all over for upward purchase until he makes it good with Gorlois on his merits.

But for both Mark and Lot to be in Logres as squires they would need to either be squired to a high-ranking noble, someone very famous, or in fact not be first in line for the throne at that time. "Oh my older brother is going to inherit, so he's stuck with my dad the king. Unless of course, he snuffs it...." A Lot born in 463-ish would be fine to make him a young king in 485--and GPC wouldn't have to call him "young" for it to be son, unless that were the point of the entry (which it's not?).

Pellinor... I'd *like* to use him, and it seems odd that he's doing so awesome alongside Arthur at the ripe old age of 60+, taking out King Lot and all. Of course Arthur is quite old at Camlann, but he's Arthur. Have to ponder if it matters for Pellinor to be born in 465 vs. 455ish. Also, if Natanleod was born in 450 then he was fighting at 59 y.o. when he dies at Netley Marsh....

Stuff to ponder.

--Khanwulf

My assumption has been that fostering squires off to foreign lands is a fairly common practice, insomuch as it's really the main opportunity to get some fresh experience before picking up your at-home duties on knighting. Plus the ties, which could either strengthen remote family bonds or political connections, especially if you're not hot on marrying the kid off for that.

Am I off base here, though?


What little I can recall, it does seem a bit off for the Royal princes and the like. I think they generally were trained 'in-house' rather than squired*. They are princes, after all. Barons' sons tended to end up in the royal household, to rub elbows with the princes and make friends and connections for later, if you were on the upper tier of nobility. For lower barons and knights, it was more customary to send your son to a friend, ally, liege, family member to be fostered, which would be more typical page-squire-knight career. Even so, unless there was that family/friendship connection, it rarely skipped kingdoms, although in the borders, it would happen more easily.

* That being said, Edward V was raised in his uncle's household, so it was not always the royal household. But he was no mere squire, and it was still in the same kingdom.

Of the top of my head, I can't recall an actual prince, let alone a crown prince, being a squire in another kingdom. Or even raised. I am not saying it didn't happen, just that I can't remember it... Then again, this is something that seldom comes out in the general histories. (Frederick II of Holy Roman Empire was raised in Sicily, but that was his mother's inheritance and Germany was practically in civil war during his infancy.)

Also, what might be true for larger medieval kingdoms might not hold for the much smaller kingdoms of the dark ages. If in your campaign you want the princes to be fostered out to rival kingdoms**, you can do so.

** Actually, that jogged a memory, as I was just thinking about the Welsh principalities of the middle ages... The Kings of England often demanded hostages from various Welsh princes***, in order to keep them in check. It would be very possible that Mark would be such a hostage-prince in Aurelius' court, to keep his father, Idres, from starting any mischief. Lot's father could easily be a similar trouble-maker, or maybe just Aurelius had enough friendly contact there to make it happen. This actually suggests that you might be able to add one of the princes of Malahaut, too? There are tons of minor kings and princes to choose from, if you prefer, and who can tell you otherwise?

*** from http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/latimer.htm :
"Understandably furious, Henry turned on his Welsh hostages. He mutilated by blinding, and possibly castration, Cadwallon and Cynwrig, sons of Owain, Maredudd, son of Rhys, and many of the sons of lesser Welsh princes. He cut the noses and ears from female hostages. He may even have had some of his hostages killed.[67]"




But for both Mark and Lot to be in Logres as squires they would need to either be squired to a high-ranking noble, someone very famous, or in fact not be first in line for the throne at that time. "Oh my older brother is going to inherit, so he's stuck with my dad the king. Unless of course, he snuffs it...." A Lot born in 463-ish would be fine to make him a young king in 485--and GPC wouldn't have to call him "young" for it to be son, unless that were the point of the entry (which it's not?).

Pellinor... I'd *like* to use him, and it seems odd that he's doing so awesome alongside Arthur at the ripe old age of 60+, taking out King Lot and all. Of course Arthur is quite old at Camlann, but he's Arthur. Have to ponder if it matters for Pellinor to be born in 465 vs. 455ish. Also, if Natanleod was born in 450 then he was fighting at 59 y.o. when he dies at Netley Marsh....


It is your campaign, so you can do whatever. I doubt anyone would call you out for making Pellinore (or Nanteleod) younger; indeed, I think I have argued for the Questing Beast scenario to happen in early 490s, hence making Pellinore's age match jmberry's suggestion better, which would also make him younger at Terrabil. However, this would mean that he is quite young to be already King of Norgales/Gomeret in 485. Still doable, of course.

One big problem with using Pellinore and many of the other high-octane names is that they can easily overshadow the PKs completely. Something to keep in mind.

A good source for Pre-Arthur Cymri practices would probably be the Cyfraith Hywel (Laws of Hywel Dda). Pertinent to this discussion is that Welsh noble children stayed in their father's household until age 14, at which point boys were to join the warband of a neighboring lord and girls were to be married. The males returned home after roughly 14 years in the warband, at which point they were declared legal adults (this means that historically, many Welsh noblemen didn't marry until they were 30).

There are some interesting tidbits in there - a man was not allowed to inherit until he was over 27, bastardry was no limitation, it was perfectly legal for a woman to elope, etc. - that at least puts the actions of Arthur's enemies into a different context once he introduces Norman law.

I believe that Savage Mountains (Cambria) is using the medieval Welsh society as a backdrop. However, it is perfectly clear from BotW that the Norman England is the basis for already Uther's Logres and I'd argue it was Aurelius who laid the groundwork there, being the originator of the feudal titles etc. I'd probably use Welsh customs for Pagan Cymri, especially in the North and Cambria.

Well, looking at this, you could argue that at 14, the males would become squires (BoE for more details and the lower level of the warbard), and at 21 become knights (the upper level of the warband). So there is some similarity. Agree that in Cambria and the North tribal societies are more common. I know that we don't make distinctions within the warband, but as time mores on, those who are veterans would become more and more the leaders.

Thank you for the citations Morien, in particular (as well as the other references, gentlemen). Having not dug into the scholarly and historical sources at much depth yet, let me refer to: MASTER AND APPRENTICE, KNIGHT AND SQUIRE: EDUCATION IN THE ‘CELTIC’ IRON AGE (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2005.00235.x) as one article Google spits up. The point being to reflect both the fantastic anachronisms of Uther/Ambrosius' court circa 480 or a tad before, and set up pins to be knocked over later.

I'm especially fascinated by the effort to tease out the cultural and social implications of the phases involved with KAP, from (all very relatively speaking) the "collapse" of Roman influence in 410 to Ambrosius' re-assertion of Romano-Sarmatian discipline and tactics, to Uther's distinctly Norman flavor as he attempts to hold the center with flawed efforts, to the reversion of British culture and the Invasions period of the Anarchy, and finally rise of Arthur as first a War of the Roses-style unifier and later as an icon under Guinevere's gentling yet flawed influence. (I'm hand-waving a lot here, as you can tell.)

Back to the topic of specific characters and arrangements, however: the high-octane nature of certain named characters is less of a concern if--

a) they are foreign and will therefore go back "home" at some point to tend the kingdom, so to speak. Even Brastias falls into this category.
b) the intent is to create early links that can be used to pull PKs in different directions later on, provoke loyalty checks, and display the character of NPCs so they are more than ciphers later when they act in big ways.

The idea being "show not tell". Using the examples of the characters cited already in this thread, Pellinor makes a bit more sense if he as squire was well-trained but always the first to volunteer to hunt and last to come in; Mark a scheming, congenial fellow with an eye for pretty ladies and a hand for advancement; Lot as conservative a stick as they come but with a keen grasp of customs; Bastias loyal and skilled but ambitious beyond his birth, and etc. If you throw in Balin, make him exactingly proper, skilled, and quite rash. Again, this is at the level of "squire play", with a small amount of time spent setting up arrangements for knighthood and the breaking of any circle at least partially.

On that note my intent as well is to squire PKs away from Salisbury, and then reign them back in for their real jobs. This is a little different from the basic scenario but should work fine.

Jmberry your citation is of interest as well both from explaining the actions of the characters and setting up expectations. Again with the mentioned characters, most of them might expect to continue under the High King, assuming that Ambrosius requested (or, accepted) foster-hostages from the fringes of Britain to re-instruct in Roman ways following the defeat of Hengest. Such fosterings (page/squire relationships) would make the most sense either directly to his household or to trusted vassals he served with in Gaul. The death of Ambrosius in 480 would end that arrangement (no foreigners wanted to follow Uther as High King) and some of these royals (e.g. Pellinor) could have been called back already to assume station following the death of their royal fathers.

An alternate use for the period (477) could be simply to show the important characters as squires in the backdrop of Britain mustering against the Saxons (Aelle, Invasion of Frisia) under Ambrosius. Uther had to make do with his own army, but it seems plain that the rest of Britain owed and fulfilled their loyalty to his brother as High King pretty well--otherwise Uther wouldn't have had much leeway to invade Bedegraine right off!

Musings. I'm not set on using any particular mix, and will ponder the possibilities for entertainment.

--Khanwulf