Hi community,

While I've been visiting on and off over the years to this forum, this is my first post. If this topic has been dealt with elsewhere, my apologies, I tried a couple of different variations in the advanced search and found nothing LOL

My players, a couple of years into anarchy, while they understand that Salisbury - and Logres at large - was devasated after St.Albans, they are still treating strategic meetings and summer court as if they - and the 12 or so landed knights left in the county - can make a huge difference during this period...alone...without allies.

I don't feel their desperation enough, and I feel I need to determine numbers...an approximation of how many knights and army sizes are in each of the counties around this time so that the longer they are in the period, the more people they travel and talk to, they will come to an understanding of just how vastly they are outnumbered by the saxons.

Is there a place, in the books or elsewhere, where there are approximations on how many knights died at St. Albans, how many knight families are left in Salisbury, and what the number of knights vs. saxons there are around this time.
I'm struggling for any kind of reference material to work off of, and build from.

These are amazing forums, and I look forward to more work and reading within the community.
Best,
-Devin

My players, a couple of years into anarchy, while they understand that Salisbury - and Logres at large - was devasated after St.Albans, they are still treating strategic meetings and summer court as if they - and the 12 or so landed knights left in the county - can make a huge difference during this period...alone...without allies.

I don't feel their desperation enough, and I feel I need to determine numbers...an approximation of how many knights and army sizes are in each of the counties around this time so that the longer they are in the period, the more people they travel and talk to, they will come to an understanding of just how vastly they are outnumbered by the saxons.

Is there a place, in the books or elsewhere, where there are approximations on how many knights died at St. Albans, how many knight families are left in Salisbury, and what the number of knights vs. saxons there are around this time.
I'm struggling for any kind of reference material to work off of, and build from.

Hi and welcome.

Some of my general ideas about the Anarchy here:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2589-Anarchy-Some-GMing-advice-(especially-about-the-Sauvage-Forest)&p=22222&viewfull=1#post22222

The knightly families are in very little danger of being wiped out at St. Albans. Only a minority of the knights would be at the Feast and dying in it, and even so, their families are back home. Even if you get that one young knight who hasn't got children yet, he likely has brothers or sisters, or an uncle or a cousin. Baronial families, due to being a) smaller in number, b) Barons poisoned at the Feast, and c) more in danger of being usurped and family slain/imprisoned, might get snuffed out, which may happen in a number of places. Still, I'd say that in the majority of Baronial families (say half), you still get an orderly succession. Whether the whole barony stays loyal, that is a different matter. Outliers in particular probably have to make their own arrangements with powerful, closer neighbors.

The thing is that the loss of the knights (like said, only a minority would die in Battle & the poisoning anyway) is very much a short term problem. After all, the barons and knights died at the feast, so their equipment and horses are still there for their squires to return to the families. There are usually sons or younger brothers or heck, the squires themselves, who can get knighted on that equipment and bolster the ranks of the county's knights. So this would be more of an issue for 495, but by 496, you should have recovered the number of knights. Now they might be less experienced knights, but they are still knights. Give them a few years of on-the-job training and by 500, you have a lean, mean fighting machine again, probably even more than in Uther's time, given the greater chance of experience in smaller scale raiding and skirmishing.

No, the bigger problem is the internecine raiding and fighting and the lack of a unified front against the Saxons (and Cornwall, in the Southwest). This allows the Saxons to overrun one county at the time (see Essex especially in the early Anarchy). Saxons are of course not immune to their own internecine bloodshed, which is pretty much what keeps them from uniting and just sweeping across Logres like a plague of locusts.

Off the top of my head, I don't think there is a good review of all the armies for individual counties. What you can do, if you have BotW or BoU, is to take the total income of Logres and divide it by the total number of Hundreds in all counties. And then assign each County an income based on the number of Hundreds it has. It is a rough estimate and assumes that each county coalescences into one unit fully within its borders, which we know is false, and that all hundreds are equal, which is also not true (but in aggregate, maybe?). But it gives you something to play with.

The Saxon numbers are even more in the air, and on other hand not, since we get some numbers from GPC, for the Battle of the Netley Marsh:
Wessex 2000
Sussex 5000

Now, Wessex is invaded, so this is probably all of them. Sussex is probably sending most of what they have, so 6000 max? Kent is able to fight Sussex to a standstill, so they should be comparable or slight smaller, since Aelle eventually gets to be Bretwalda. Essex is probably a bit smaller, being a newer Kingdom, but they are quite aggressive and successful early on, so maybe 4000? Angles arrive and are able to fight off everyone else, although the other Saxon kings are probably not bringing their full weight to the party, so maybe 8000 - 10000?

So this would lead to something like:
Wessex 2000
Sussex 6000
Kent 5000
Essex 4000
Angles 8000
Total 25000

This would be in the correct ballpark for Badon, where the Saxons are expected to have around 30 000 men, and they have been reinforced by the northern army. It might be a bit too high or Arthur might be underestimating the numbers slightly. Or you could reduce the numbers slightly, like:
Wessex 2000
Sussex 5000
Kent 4000
Essex 3000
Angles 7000
Total 21000

To go back to the Cymri, Salisbury has around 100 manors, not all part of the County of Salisbury. But correct in the ballpark. If we assume that each of the Counties is about 100 knights, that gives us a rough handle and we are in the approximate ballpark of 2600 knights or so for whole Logres.

Ulfius controls Silchester, Thamesmouth, Berroc and (eventually) Rydychan. So this would give him around 300-400 knights* (he loses Thamesmouth around the time he recovers Rydychan, so maybe 300 would be closer). A significant enough force to explain how he is able to act as a buffer against the Saxons, especially given his alliance with Sussex early on. Many of the barons (or 'barons') would control only parts of a county, but as I suggested in my overview (link in the beginning), the single manors are too small to go at it alone, so you would get at least small barony sized (£100 = 10 knights) collections around a castle, and more likely, even bigger clumps than that if there is a bigger entity large enough to start unifying the little lords.

* This is a bit of a contradiction with Nanteleod's reported forces at Netley March since he is quoted to have had only 500 Logres knights in GPC, which is suspiciously low given that he controls pretty much of all Logres by this point. Sure, maybe 6 counties have been lost to Saxons and Cornwall, and maybe Lindsey is busy defending against Malahaut, but still.

I don't feel their desperation enough, and I feel I need to determine numbers...an approximation of how many knights and army sizes are in each of the counties around this time so that the longer they are in the period, the more people they travel and talk to, they will come to an understanding of just how vastly they are outnumbered by the saxons.


Just to focus a bit on this one...

Simple. Have them defy the Saxon princes who come to collect tribute. The Saxons get upset, and then come to raid. Good luck standing up to thousands of Saxons, as they roll over your manors and steal and burn and pillage everything outside the castle walls. You probably need to do this only ONCE before the PKs get the message.

The rumors of Essex smashing Caercolun/Caerwent and then taking over Huntland (Huntingdon) and Hartland (Hertford) were enough of a wake-up call for my players that when Essex issued their 'or else' ultimatum, they did figure out that if Essex can smash three counties the size of Salisbury, they can smash Salisbury, too, if they don't get some allies.

As Morien says, Salisbury has about 100 manors, so could theoretically support 100 knights as a base. Not all of those manors will be in Robert's expected inheritance, but they likewise won't be in good touch with their actual liege lords, so it's entirely possible that the court at Sarum could bring (at least some of) these outlier holdings 'under the wing' of Salisbury's surviving command structure, to at least present a united front within the geographical county 'for the duration of the interregnum'. There's game for the (rare under Uther) 'courtly' Knights in managing some of the negotiations involved in setting that up. And game for the warfighters to bring the manors that don't join by negotiation under Silburian control by more violent means.

Keeping the alliances with the other Cymric powers (Ulfius mostly) is vital to staying (at least to some extent) out from under the Saxon heel; I think this is perhaps where the Silburian/Silcestrian rift over Ellen is perhaps most useful to a GM: without it, it's too easy for Salisbury and Silchester to stand together, making the situation too comfortable.

Keeping the alliances with the other Cymric powers (Ulfius mostly) is vital to staying (at least to some extent) out from under the Saxon heel; I think this is perhaps where the Silburian/Silcestrian rift over Ellen is perhaps most useful to a GM: without it, it's too easy for Salisbury and Silchester to stand together, making the situation too comfortable.

Not necessarily a problem... Ulfius' alliance with Sussex early on was enough to make my players hesitant (not to mention the Hate (Levcomagus) passions they had developed earlier), and since Ulfius is more focused on London and fighting Essex and Kent, it would be very easy for him to be an actual drain on Salisbury manpower, exposing them more to Wessex' raids.

Then Prince Mark can ooze in, suggesting that perhaps Salisbury should look for stronger, more loyal friends to protect them, say, oh, Cornwall...? :)

In my GPC game the PKs were able to unite some of the counties (Jagent, Dorset, Salisbury and later Silchester) to form some sort of alliance. They did that through intermarriage with the earl of Jagent and marrying Jenna off to Praetor Jonathel of Dorset. They did this in response to the actions of Cornwall early in the Anarchy period and were able to stop the advance (Jagent is never lost to Cornwall).
You can also emphesize the fact that it seems that everyone is fighting everyone (Nanteloed is fighting Irish first ,later Malahaut. Idris is advancing, Saxons are advancing)

The threat of the Saxons was more in the tales of ever growing numbers arriving. You have:
496 Wessex is established.
498 Essex takes Huntland (Huntington)
500 The angles arrive and take lands with ease it seems.
501 Port arrives with more men (defeats Wessex, but still more Saxons). Now the Angles move to Huntland (Huntington) and Hertford.
503 Essex and Kent move towards London and up the Thames.
I played out some of the poking of the Saxons at the border. The prescense of these small groups of Saxons added to the feeling of an unstoppable wave of Saxons.
I also introduced some nasty events like the kidnapping of the children of the PKs (they were after all the leaders of Salisbury)

All these events and the constant threat of raids made my PKs anxious enough.
Then finally someone comes along and stops them. Even thou it is not a complete victory, Nanteleod is still the winner. It felt as if he could be the new High King.

His death in 508 felt like a real blow and brought home the feeling of dispair.

Then finally someone comes along and stops them. Even thou it is not a complete victory, Nanteleod is still the winner. It felt as if he could be the new High King.

His death in 508 felt like a real blow and brought home the feeling of dispair.
Concur. As a player, in the battle where Nantleod carks it, we were this close to turning the battle into a Cymric victory. We busted through lines and generally kicked patootie. If we'd not had one new knight, who got unhorsed, and we went back for, we'd've been charging the enemy in the rear, and changing the Intensity score to a Cymric victory. As it was, we got there just in time to avenge Nantleod. Sure, he'd still have died if we had been the other side of the battle (because, story) but the result would not have been a rout...

The following two years were the toughest of the Anarchy.

My recommendation, from reading and these forums, is to remember that the tone of the Anarchy is just that: anarchy. It's not "Saxon boil 2.0", in which their fires lick the western seas again.

Remember that the Saxons start out even worse off than the Cymri after St. Albans: while the flower of the barons are dead, the Saxon's main fighting arm has been extinguished and their leadership cut off. That makes them vulnerable to usurpation and new invasions from the continent along with the need to raise up a new crop of fighters--which as pointed out isn't hard when you have distracted neighbors to raid.

The anarchy is double-plus bad because it represents the breakdown of unifying bonds and pits Cymri against Cymri when they should be unifying and taking advantage of St. Albans to complete the work of the Ambrosius and Uther. It's the greed and fractiousness and lack of vision of the upper nobility that prolongs the Anarchy and necessitates a "boy king" removed from the politics a generation later to finally crush the Saxons for the next 50 years. This highlights the thematic failures which rise again in later chapters, along with Arthur's pride and paradoxical unwillingness to confront internal problems--perhaps a lingering impression from the Anarchy?

In any event, the way to illustrate the chaos is to show the breakdowns:
* outliers stop sending their contributions--citing local troubles or no longer responding;
* new barons (falsely) see settling old feuds as a way to gain quick legitimacy;
* surviving knights start to wonder if they can jump up their family's position through a little aggressive negotiation;
* no one listens to the Church, and even the barons of the robe are furiously tending to gross material matters;
* family respect wanes and the ties fray--boys and girls elope and tangle alliances and plans, calls for help come more frequently than can be responded to, go unanswered, or are unreceived.
* everyone has problems, and the bonds of friendship grow thin as people are stressed and impatient... "doesn't he know I have all these issues?"

Worst of all no one knows how to get out of it, because everyone is off pursuing their own interests. That makes the ties that remain strong that much more precious, and when so and so gets killed by their neighbor is some petty dispute over a well, it really hurts!

Now this is all a lot of role-playing, but you can show it in the numbers. Take into strict account the effects of income and raids and weather -- show the PKs the county books (as well as their own) and year by year how the numbers go down, making them decide if they're going to keep outliers tied-in (hard), care for their manors, deal with increasingly desperate peasantry (some of whom will migrate in from other lands, bringing disputes with their former lords), and etc. As the income goes down the ability to support the fighting men of Salisbury goes down with it, first hitting quality of support and then raw numbers. Non-knights may desert to apparently more successful leaders, especially if their families are disrupted by raids. And even knights may question bonds and explore... options.

--Khanwulf

The following two years were the toughest of the Anarchy.

Whereas in our campaign, Salisbury became a vassal of Cornwall, and fought on the Saxon side. The PKs joined Prince Cynric charge against Nanteleod, and while not personally killing Nanteleod, at least took care of his bodyguards. The rest of 508 and 509 were so sweet. Now 510-13, on the other hand... 'grumblemumble* Arthur and his *grumblemumble* miraculous wins... :)

Remember that the Saxons start out even worse off than the Cymri after St. Albans: while the flower of the barons are dead, the Saxon's main fighting arm has been extinguished and their leadership cut off. That makes them vulnerable to usurpation and new invasions from the continent along with the need to raise up a new crop of fighters--which as pointed out isn't hard when you have distracted neighbors to raid.


The NORTHERN Saxon are, Octa's Nohaut and Eosa's Deira. However, Essex, Sussex and Kent have been sitting this one out, and are ready to take advantage.
(Although the fact that they don't already pounce in 495 is puzzling. If I were to GM through Anarchy again, I'd probably have Essex gobbling up Caerwent ahead of schedule, and Kent making moves on London, only to be thwarted by Thames and fortifications, and Ulfius coming to help. I might have Sussex reduce Anderida ahead of schedule, too.)



The anarchy is double-plus bad because it represents the breakdown of unifying bonds and pits Cymri against Cymri when they should be unifying and taking advantage of St. Albans to complete the work of the Ambrosius and Uther. It's the greed and fractiousness and lack of vision of the upper nobility that prolongs the Anarchy and necessitates a "boy king" removed from the politics a generation later to finally crush the Saxons for the next 50 years. This highlights the thematic failures which rise again in later chapters, along with Arthur's pride and paradoxical unwillingness to confront internal problems--perhaps a lingering impression from the Anarchy?


Fully agreed with this one.

The NORTHERN Saxon are, Octa's Nohaut and Eosa's Deira. However, Essex, Sussex and Kent have been sitting this one out, and are ready to take advantage.
(Although the fact that they don't already pounce in 495 is puzzling. If I were to GM through Anarchy again, I'd probably have Essex gobbling up Caerwent ahead of schedule, and Kent making moves on London, only to be thwarted by Thames and fortifications, and Ulfius coming to help. I might have Sussex reduce Anderida ahead of schedule, too.)

Think about it this way:
Wessex. They have just arrived and still need to consolidate. And they take the isle of Wight in the early years. And just as they think their are ready Port comes along to mess things up. Also Cerdic first tries to introduce himself as a Cymri king, and not a Saxon. this may make him hesitant to act against other Cymri lands. Going to war with them may not win their trust.

Kent. the oldest Saxon Kingdom, but lacking a strong leader. Furthermore the alliance between Silchester and Sussex is something to consider. They are the ones that are most silent in the early years, and you would expect them to increase their power, but I think the lack of a strong leader prevents that.

Sussex. They skirmish with Kent in the early days and manage to quickly enter an alliance with Silchester. Aelle already tries to make a bid for the position of Bretwalda, and I think he hopes to gain the support of other Cymri lands. Raiding would probably be counter productive to that. Also they have to take into account the position of Wessex. Btw from all the Saxon kings I always see Aelle as the one that is the most political savvy. So he may try to gain power not by conquest, hence the alliance with Silchester.

Essex. In the early years they are probably the most aggressive. They make Huntland (Huntington) their vassal. But then the angles arrive in full force and take up the mantle of most agressive. Essex then pairs up with Kent to enter Silchester's land and take London. I think that although they are agressive they lack the numbers. And probably the problems in Caer Colun also keep them busy.

Angles. They arrive later to the party, but they come with a vengeance. Unfortunately to them at that point Nanteleod has secured Gales and is moving into Cumbria and bringing Malahaut and Lindsey into his fold. He is the one that manages to stop them.

Think about it this way:

Yes, but all of that is 496 or after. I am thinking more why the Saxons are not taking advantage of the chaos of Uther and the Barons dying right after St. Albans. One explanation might be just the normal inertia; it takes time to get the news and assemble armies and start raiding. But I think it would add some urgency to the Anarchy, if, instead of 495 being taken in state funerals and the like, the whole thing goes down the toilet with usurpations, Saxon raids, uncommunicative/lost outliers, etc. Really hammer in the chaos in the immediate aftermath of 495, rather than give the PKs a breather. Having the Saxons be more active already in 495 would serve in underlining the chaos, I think.

Then, when the dust starts settling in 496, then the other whammy of Wessex being established right on Salisbury's doorstep happens, and Essex is pushing in the East and Cornwall in the West and the Lords of Logres squabble amongst themselves who should be the next king and Ulfius even allies with Sussex (to kick Kent out of Thamesmouth and protect his southern flank?)...

As for Kent lacking a strong leader... That depends. By GPC, they are led by Aesc, the son of the legendary Hengest. By the correction in BoU, Hengest dies in 469 (not 488), so it is Aesc who is kicking ass in the Battle of Windsor (I think it is called) in 473, and who is the mastermind behind the Battle of Salisbury in 480, even though that ends in defeat. He is also the one to support Essex in their invasion of Colchester in 486. So Aesc has quite a lot of gravitas by 495. However, my personal suggestion is to make Aesc die in 488 (instead of Hengest) and be followed by his son Oisc (alternative spelling of Aesc), to not have octagenarian Saxon kings fighting at Badon. Even so, Oisc would probably be in his mid to late twenties in 488, making him around mid-thirties in 495, with several years of ruling experience, and the weight of the bloodline behind him.

True. Getting the Saxons more acvtive in 495 would add to the confusion.

In my game I had the knights of Salisbury split into factions. The PKs had to choose which side they would back. they supported Robert's claim and manages to bring the other factions into the fold without too much bloodshed. Since this was their first problem I did not play up the Saxons in the first year. Then the arrival of Wessex and the conquests of Cornwall were more pressing for my PKs.

As for Kent. I did not know the changes. In my game Aesc more or less just lived of his fathers fame, but was not a strong leader himself. Hence the lack of Kent's actions in the early years. If you follow your suggestion you could also play it out the same way. Oisc may have some years on him, but no real major victories like his father and grandfather. But in hindsight I might play them out more strongely.

In my game I had the knights of Salisbury split into factions. The PKs had to choose which side they would back. they supported Robert's claim and manages to bring the other factions into the fold without too much bloodshed. Since this was their first problem I did not play up the Saxons in the first year. Then the arrival of Wessex and the conquests of Cornwall were more pressing for my PKs.


I did this too, with none other than Syagrius himself trying to take over Salisbury as well, and Levcomagus joining in to take advantage of the confusion. The PKs ended up rescuing the Countess and her children from Sarum, which allowed them to crush the usurpation party, and then married Jenna to the Praetor/Steward of Levcomagus to forge an alliance against Syagrius. So they were quite busy in 495, too.

That being said, I didn't expect that the PKs would do anything about the Saxons in 495. But the news that the Saxons have already done stuff in 495 would add more urgency, and the arrival of EVEN MORE SAXONS in 496 would also feel like it is just piling on.



As for Kent. I did not know the changes. In my game Aesc more or less just lived of his fathers fame, but was not a strong leader himself. Hence the lack of Kent's actions in the early years. If you follow your suggestion you could also play it out the same way. Oisc may have some years on him, but no real major victories like his father and grandfather. But in hindsight I might play them out more strongely.

Well, like said, I would have killed Aesc off in 488. But Oisc should be hungry for Glory. He has his father and grandfather to measure up to, and clearly he is not ready to play second fiddle to Aelle (until forced to do so). So he should be itching at the opportunity to establish his own badassery: after all, Essex has Aescwine and Sussex has Aelle, both founders of their own kingdoms. Oisc should have a chip on his shoulder to bring back the Glory days of Kent.

That being said, Kent is VERY passive in GPC. They skirmish with Sussex. They join in to fight the Angles. They join Essex in taking London. That is it. Or at least what we know. Given that Ulfius is allied to Aelle, I would make Kent the major opponent of Ulfius' throughout the Anarchy: they want London! There should be raiding and skirmishing all around the southern bank, until Kent finally allies with Essex and they take it together.