I've been trying to get my head around the comparative strenghts of the different counties in Logres, but am having a hard time reconciling stuff. I'm sure I've seen a list of how many knights each county fields (and footmen are roughly 2-3 times that, given that during the Anarchy there's no need to send the king his footman), but I can't find it anywhere.

We're running a more "adventure-ey" campaign with less land management, so I've abstracted away all hundreds, far off holdings etc., so Logres only has the following counties (unless I messed up already):
Devon
Bedegraine
Windsor
Caercolun
Caerwent
Clarence
Dorset
Marlboro
Gloucester
Hampshire (destroyed and became Wessex)
Hertford
Huntington
Jagent
Lambor
Lindsey
Lonazep
Rydychan
Salisbury
Silchester
Somerset
London
Tintagel
Tribuit
Wuerensis

If Logres has ~2500 knights during Uther's reign, that would average out to about 105 knights per county, but for example Ulfius (and I'm guessing Gorlois before he was killed) are supposed to have far more than that, whereas Salisbury is supposed to have 75 knights "only". I also tried to calculate the knights by hundreds (2500*[hundreds in a county/total hundreds in Logres]), but this gave some very odd numbers indeed (Salisbury 116 knights, Tintagel 42, Rydychan 171, etc.)

Why this is somewhat important, is so I can give my players information about who to seek alliances with, who to avoid angering, how comparative was Hampshire to Salisbury military-wise, etc. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

If Logres has ~2500 knights during Uther's reign, that would average out to about 105 knights per county, but for example Ulfius (and I'm guessing Gorlois before he was killed) are supposed to have far more than that, whereas Salisbury is supposed to have 75 knights "only". I also tried to calculate the knights by hundreds (2500*[hundreds in a county/total hundreds in Logres]), but this gave some very odd numbers indeed (Salisbury 116 knights, Tintagel 42, Rydychan 171, etc.)


The above is basically what I have been suggesting people to do. I can try to find the thread, but you basically have it right there.

I don't know why you say that Ulfius and Gorlois are supposed to have far more than that, unless you are referring to their status as Dukes, or their support during the Gorlois' rebellion and Ulfius during The Anarchy? I see many of the Cornish nobles joining with Gorlois, thus boosting his army from the measly 80 knights or so that he has in BotW. As for Ulfius, he pretty much takes over whole of Silchester, Berroc, Thamesmouth and parts of Hantonne/Hampshire, so he has a significant enough an army to be a bulwark against the Saxon Kingdoms.

As for Salisbury only having 75 knights in KAP 5.2, the Count of Salisbury doesn't own the whole of Salisbury. So it is not a contradiction. Also, if you count all the knights we know Roderick to have had before he died, then the number would be well above 100, given all the outliers.

EDIT:
Here you go:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?3144-State-of-Salisbury-Onset-of-Anarchy&p=25852&viewfull=1#post25852

Thanks for the response! I realize that these numbers are also not usable for pre-Anarchy, since the crown also owned land directly (any idea what Uther's personal army was, size wise?). The Forest Sauvage probably also plays a role in affecting the power of counties within its borders after Uther's death (I'm thinking Marlboro at least).

Also, isn't Berroc pretty far from Ulfius' power base in Silchester? Sorry, I'm using the modern names, so maybe I have something mixed up?

Thanks for the response! I realize that these numbers are also not usable for pre-Anarchy, since the crown also owned land directly (any idea what Uther's personal army was, size wise?). The Forest Sauvage probably also plays a role in affecting the power of counties within its borders after Uther's death (I'm thinking Marlboro at least).


In BotW, Uther's personal demesne is 2085 and he is said to have 21 eschilles. So about 210 knights.

The Forest Sauvage influences mainly Tribruit, with a bit of the neighboring counties as well. Marlboro/Gentian does not border the Forest Sauvage, and would be unaffected by it. See the map in BotW p. 31. However, since it is mainly messing things up in the North, it doesn't affect Salisbury and its neighbors too much, save for a bit of Rydychan.

There is also the (re-)appearance of Faeries in the Forest of Gloom between Salisbury and Somerset/Summerland, who invade Western Salisbury, as noted in BotW p. 100.



Also, isn't Berroc pretty far from Ulfius' power base in Silchester? Sorry, I'm using the modern names, so maybe I have something mixed up?

Berroc is right next to Silchester County, between it and Kent. It is closer than London, which we know from GPC Ulfius is protecting (or trying to protect) against the Saxons. It would make perfect sense that they would be allied with Ulfius, in particular since Ulfius is the Duke of the Vale and the local nobility/knights would be used to having him in charge. And the map in GPC p. 71 makes it very plain that Silchester's influence covers Berroc as well.

I fail to see Berroc anywhere on the map. As I mentioned, we're doing the land management and distribution part in a simplified manner, so we've been using this map for now: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/pendragonrpg/images/6/67/Logres_Map_485.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160513075612

Basically, Windsor County = Berroc. The borders are slightly different in BotW (Western Windsor, up to that smaller river, is part of Silchester), but as long as you don't sweat the details, it is close enough.

Thanks for all your help so far!


I don't know why you say that Ulfius and Gorlois are supposed to have far more than that, unless you are referring to their status as Dukes, or their support during the Gorlois' rebellion and Ulfius during The Anarchy? I see many of the Cornish nobles joining with Gorlois, thus boosting his army from the measly 80 knights or so that he has in BotW. As for Ulfius, he pretty much takes over whole of Silchester, Berroc, Thamesmouth and parts of Hantonne/Hampshire, so he has a significant enough an army to be a bulwark against the Saxon Kingdoms.

This is one part that continues to confuse me. Gorlois and Ulfius are made out to be very powerful and notable lords, but their armies are smaller than almost all the other lords mentioned in the BotW. Cadwy being passed over as "less notable" I get, he's an independent king (sort of), and did some hoodoo to get Uther scared. It also makes sense to reward Ulfius with status, considering his loyalty. Still, their importance and strength seems to me to be overstated in the Uther/immediately-after-St. Albans periods. Potentially their importance could come from their holdings being close together, so they could raise their smaller armies faster and more efficiently, but I'm not sure I buy that as being enough of a differentiator between, say, Ulfius and Roderick, to say nothing of Gorlois.

Right at the beginning of the Anarchy, we know that at the very least the king's, his officer's, and Gorlois' lands (since the king kept them for himself) are up for grabs. Idres takes over Gorlois' holdings in Cornwall, Ulfius takes over Windsor, London, parts of Hampshire, parts of Rydychan (in our campaign Praetor Syagrius actually takes over northern Rydychan for that adventure, rather than three noname knights for a bit more story investment. Long story, but he was still around at this time. Ulfius uses this to his advantage and claims the southern parts), and parts of Marlboro in order to become the big and powerful Duke he is painted as. Lindsey is probably too weak after 494 to do anything more than pay tribute and pray that the Saxons don't come knocking, but what of the other large and powerful counties (assuming consolidation occurs on average equalling out)?

(County, knights)
Devon 135
Caercolun and Caerwent 164 (maybe +~46 from the northern hundreds of Caercolun. Both held by one Duke, if I am not mistaken? We know the Duke of Caercolun [who is he BTW, isn't Lucius long dead by this point?] is crushed in 500 by the Anglians, but that still gives several years where he is pretty much on par with Ulfius as the baddest Duke in Britain, even without claiming parts of other counties and with the majority of Caercolun taken over by Essex)
Dorset 159
Hampshire 169 (although if I am interpreting the BotW correctly, EVERYONE had holdings in Hampshire, so the county was probably fractured and weak when Cerdic arrived to crush it)
Rydychan 179
Tribuit (far off to the north and dealing with Forest Sauvage, so not much influence on the Anarchy)

All this naturally before Nanteleod rides forth to save all of Britain from certain doom at the hands of the Saxons.

Thanks for all your help so far!
This is one part that continues to confuse me. Gorlois and Ulfius are made out to be very powerful and notable lords, but their armies are smaller than almost all the other lords mentioned in the BotW. Cadwy being passed over as "less notable" I get, he's an independent king (sort of), and did some hoodoo to get Uther scared. It also makes sense to reward Ulfius with status, considering his loyalty. Still, their importance and strength seems to me to be overstated in the Uther/immediately-after-St. Albans periods. Potentially their importance could come from their holdings being close together, so they could raise their smaller armies faster and more efficiently, but I'm not sure I buy that as being enough of a differentiator between, say, Ulfius and Roderick, to say nothing of Gorlois.


Easy answer:
GPC predates BotW, and when Greg was writing GPC, each county was ruled by a duke or a count, and the dukes ruled over the wealthier counties. In 4th edition, Salisbury musters 75 knights, whereas Silchester musters 300 knights by itself... BotW really cuts the legs from under the Dukes, but there is one little thing that helps: it is the fact that the Dukes have authority over the Dukedom's nobles. They are not his vassals, but the Duke can call them to muster. Technically, they are acting in the name of the King, but given that most of the Dukes were installed over 20 years ago by the previous king, Aurelius, and Uther is the hot-headed kid brother, they have had time to seal the regional loyalties somewhat.

As for Gorlois... Gorlois' defiance of Uther and the negotiated surrender in 489 comes from the movie Excalibur. In HRB, Gorlois is with Uther at Mt. Damen, and it is he, not Merlin, who advises Uther to charge the Saxons, who are already celebrating their upcoming victory in their camp. The incident with Ygraine happens the following Easter (implied, although you could insert perhaps a year of Uther campaigning against the Scots, which does not happen in GPC), and Gorlois' rebellion is mainly two sieges, as he lacks the strength to face Uther's army in a fair field battle. Gorlois is never able to stand toe to toe to Uther army-wise in HRB.

A bit more complicated answer:
Since the 489 event based on Excalibur (the movie) is in GPC, how do we justify Gorlois' ability to defy Uther in 489, given BotW? Well, he is a Duke, appointed by Aurelius, and has held his position for 20 years. Also, he has fought wars against Cornwall, presumably successfully, so he probably has a rather decent reputation amongst his neighbors, who are also used to taking commands from him. It is also possible that when Uther is marching against Gorlois in 489, Gorlois is able to rally all the other local barons and knights, painting a picture of Uther coming to punish everyone, since they are all guilty of not marching to Uther's orders in previous years. So the whole Dukedom is united in 489, whereas some of Uther's strength is dispersed to other frontiers, Saxons particularly. Given that Gorlois occupies a very favorable terrain, Uther would have to pay in blood and pay heavily. Now, the situation is different in 491. It is Gorlois, personally, who is at fault, so all of those allies desert him and join the wrathful King instead, as to not incur the said wrath.



Lindsey is probably too weak after 494 to do anything more than pay tribute and pray that the Saxons don't come knocking, but what of the other large and powerful counties (assuming consolidation occurs on average equalling out)?


I am going to disagree there. Corneus is the other surviving Duke (Ulfius is the other one), and unlike Ulfius, he is not recuperating when St. Albans goes down. He is in Lindsey, his castles and his knights still under his command, and he would be the local nucleus of stability in the north. Also, unlike Silchester, he doesn't border any Saxons either, so there is a higher hurdle from them to try to raid him. On the other hand, he is probably feeling the squeeze from Malahaut. The events in 500s hint that Malahaut is the threat to Lindsey, not the Saxons. Corneus and Lindsey are doing well enough that they liberate London in 507, once their backs are secure against Malahaut.



Devon 135


Like said, GPC predates BotW, and had territorially concentrated nobles. I don't mind this at all, and it makes sense in Anarchy. Devon is gobbled up early by Cornwall, so it doesn't matter as an independent statelet. (Take into account that Cornwall also has overlordship over Brittany.)



Caercolun and Caerwent 164 (maybe +~46 from the northern hundreds of Caercolun. Both held by one Duke, if I am not mistaken? We know the Duke of Caercolun [who is he BTW, isn't Lucius long dead by this point?] is crushed in 500 by the Anglians, but that still gives several years where he is pretty much on par with Ulfius as the baddest Duke in Britain, even without claiming parts of other counties and with the majority of Caercolun taken over by Essex)


This is no longer correct after BotW, and I am not sure it is true even before that.

The Duke of Caercolun is referred to as Lucius in the People index in GPC, implying he is the same person in 485-486 and 500. However, he is most definitely killed in 486 and there is never a mention of another Duke of Caercolun until 500. It is Brastias in GPC (corrected in BoU to be Prince Madoc, as Brastias is still with Gorlois in 486) who leads the defense against Essex. Why, if there is an heir? Ok, maybe he is underaged in 486. However, if there is a Duke in 495, why isn't he at St. Albans?

Easiest thing to do is to assume that there is no legitimate Duke (Lucius is killed in 486, and he is explicitly the last legitimate Duke of Saxon Shore), and while there is probably some local strongman/usurper who might title himself as the Duke of the Saxon Shore, he will have his hands full fighting against Essex and then dies against the Angles.

It is rather telling that Caercolun sits still while Essex is taking over its neighbors. Almost as if they have a deal with Essex... hmm...



Dorset 159


Dorset is able to unify under its Praetor (either a stable succession, or maybe they simply elect a new guy, being Romans), and they even give Cornwall a bloody nose. However, their attention is to the west (Cornwall), not the east (Saxons).



Hampshire 169 (although if I am interpreting the BotW correctly, EVERYONE had holdings in Hampshire, so the county was probably fractured and weak when Cerdic arrived to crush it)


Yep. Also, the Saxons pretty much decapitate it in 496 by taking Hantonne, and Port arrives later to finish the job. Camelot doesn't exist yet.



Rydychan 179


In midst of a 'civil war', what with the usurper knights (or Syagrius, good use of him there!), and later part of Ulfius' domain.

Easy answer:
GPC predates BotW, and when Greg was writing GPC, each county was ruled by a duke or a count, and the dukes ruled over the wealthier counties. In 4th edition, Salisbury musters 75 knights, whereas Silchester musters 300 knights by itself... BotW really cuts the legs from under the Dukes, but there is one little thing that helps: it is the fact that the Dukes have authority over the Dukedom's nobles. They are not his vassals, but the Duke can call them to muster. Technically, they are acting in the name of the King, but given that most of the Dukes were installed over 20 years ago by the previous king, Aurelius, and Uther is the hot-headed kid brother, they have had time to seal the regional loyalties somewhat.

As for Gorlois... Gorlois' defiance of Uther and the negotiated surrender in 489 comes from the movie Excalibur. In HRB, Gorlois is with Uther at Mt. Damen, and it is he, not Merlin, who advises Uther to charge the Saxons, who are already celebrating their upcoming victory in their camp. The incident with Ygraine happens the following Easter (implied, although you could insert perhaps a year of Uther campaigning against the Scots, which does not happen in GPC), and Gorlois' rebellion is mainly two sieges, as he lacks the strength to face Uther's army in a fair field battle. Gorlois is never able to stand toe to toe to Uther army-wise in HRB.

A bit more complicated answer:
Since the 489 event based on Excalibur (the movie) is in GPC, how do we justify Gorlois' ability to defy Uther in 489, given BotW? Well, he is a Duke, appointed by Aurelius, and has held his position for 20 years. Also, he has fought wars against Cornwall, presumably successfully, so he probably has a rather decent reputation amongst his neighbors, who are also used to taking commands from him. It is also possible that when Uther is marching against Gorlois in 489, Gorlois is able to rally all the other local barons and knights, painting a picture of Uther coming to punish everyone, since they are all guilty of not marching to Uther's orders in previous years. So the whole Dukedom is united in 489, whereas some of Uther's strength is dispersed to other frontiers, Saxons particularly. Given that Gorlois occupies a very favorable terrain, Uther would have to pay in blood and pay heavily. Now, the situation is different in 491. It is Gorlois, personally, who is at fault, so all of those allies desert him and join the wrathful King instead, as to not incur the said wrath.

Alright, makes sense. Guess I'll just need to make the players get the point by repeating "Ulfius is a badass duke" in as many ways as I can :p


I am going to disagree there. Corneus is the other surviving Duke (Ulfius is the other one), and unlike Ulfius, he is not recuperating when St. Albans goes down. He is in Lindsey, his castles and his knights still under his command, and he would be the local nucleus of stability in the north. Also, unlike Silchester, he doesn't border any Saxons either, so there is a higher hurdle from them to try to raid him. On the other hand, he is probably feeling the squeeze from Malahaut. The events in 500s hint that Malahaut is the threat to Lindsey, not the Saxons. Corneus and Lindsey are doing well enough that they liberate London in 507, once their backs are secure against Malahaut.

I guess I put too much weight on the "The Saxons come south. When Lincoln is attacked, Duke Lindsey and every other nobleman shut themselves into their castles and cities while the Saxons ravage the countryside" part then, but that's easy to fix in our campaign still, just have some visitor from Lindsey show up and say "Oh, the damage wasn't as bad is initially thought, the Saxons overexaggarated and Duke Corneus is still a force to be reckoned with"


Easiest thing to do is to assume that there is no legitimate Duke (Lucius is killed in 486, and he is explicitly the last legitimate Duke of Saxon Shore), and while there is probably some local strongman/usurper who might title himself as the Duke of the Saxon Shore, he will have his hands full fighting against Essex and then dies against the Angles.

It is rather telling that Caercolun sits still while Essex is taking over its neighbors. Almost as if they have a deal with Essex... hmm...

This is actually a brilliant idea, and also drives home the opportunism of Anarchy, where the Cymric nobles let their base ambitions almost bring Logres to the brink of ruin


In midst of a 'civil war', what with the usurper knights (or Syagrius, good use of him there!), and later part of Ulfius' domain.

Fair point, maybe I am thinking about this too much :D

I guess I put too much weight on the "The Saxons come south. When Lincoln is attacked, Duke Lindsey and every other nobleman shut themselves into their castles and cities while the Saxons ravage the countryside" part then, but that's easy to fix in our campaign still, just have some visitor from Lindsey show up and say "Oh, the damage wasn't as bad is initially thought, the Saxons overexaggarated and Duke Corneus is still a force to be reckoned with"


Thing is, the Saxons that did it pretty much all die at St. Albans, so they wouldn't be causing additional issues. Also, while they ravaged the countryside, that hurts mainly in 494, and 495 they would be recovering already. Sure, some manors probably got burned down and all that, but it is not like the Saxons had time nor the desire to go hunting for each peasant and their livestock in the forests etc. So yes, there is damage, but Lindsey is not a wasteland afterwards. And unlike the other counties, they have their duke and his knights, ready and able to defend the county and prevent it from collapsing into Anarchy. However, it might be enough to explain why they didn't expand as aggressively as Ulfius did, in the power vacuum of 495. It takes until 500s before there are intimations that Lindsey is stretching its hand out to Lambor and Bedegraine, for instance. But they are by no means weak compared to other counties, especially in their immediate surroundings.