So I have begun my campaign in the Uther period and we are about to embark on back to back years of war and it got me wondering about two situations -

1) Sanctity of religion.
In both Bedegraine and Summerland, when Uther unleashes the army to pillage the countryside - are churches and monasteries deemed off limits? I would assume pagan knights would not show much disdain for looting a Christian holding (church / monastery / abbey / whatever) but how would roman Christians view a british Christian building? BoU describes how "King Uther dislikes churchmen so much that he issued an order that no new monasteries may be founded in his kingdom" (pg87), so would he balk at accepting tribute taken from religious dwellings?

BotW describes how you can oust an order (pg78), so can you drive off the inhabitants in hopes of bringing men of your favored persuasion to take control of the land?



2) Landed knights in conquered lands.

In Bedegraine, Uther rewards a duplicitous cousin to assume control after defeating the King, so I guess any surviving knights can swear loyalty to Sir Sulien and have a chance of keeping their previous holdings. I don't believe the same can be said for the lands taken from Summerland the following year. I would assume the baron's who seize the hundreds of western Salisbury "to rectify previous wrongs" would want to reward their loyal vassals and try to enforce their control - so what happens to the dispossessed knights of King Cadwy? Obviously many would have had extensive holdings and large families, so returning to being a simple household knight would not be possible, but what options exist?

My two denarii...



1) Sanctity of religion.


Like you, I would presume that Uther probably wouldn't care personally so much where the wealth comes from. However, I do believe that Honor penalties are still accrued for looting religious institutions. As for British/Roman Christians, given that Pendragon generally tries to play down sectarian violence, and there are no clear persecutions on either side, I would think that most Christian knights would accept the other branch as perhaps mistaken but not actively heretical, and hence treat the clergy of both sects with respect (although perhaps not equally so). (Granted, since in our campaigns we have just a single Christian Church, this issue doesn't come up so much...)



2) Landed knights in conquered lands.


It is very much not clear that vassal knights of Summerland would have had 'extensive holdings' in hundreds lost to Salisbury and other conquerors. Remember that vassal knights are usually only a small fraction of the total number of knights in the service of the King of Summerland, if even that many. The King of Summerland is more of a throwback to an earlier mode of kingship, IMHO, where the king owned all the land and the 'knights' were just his household guards. So it is very much possible that there were no vassal knights at all. in BotW p. 23, it says: "He [Cadwy]is not a knight, for he was king before knighthood was conceived."

But let's assume that there are vassal knights in those hundreds. They are pretty much out of luck. There is no requirement for the liege to resettle them, although a generous liege might do that. Also, 'Count' Cadwy has received holdings from elsewhere in Logres, for instance again in BotW (p. 19), he is listed as having Castle on the Heights in Ascalon (I assume this is Daws Castle), although the Castle's landholdings are a measly £13.8 as mentioned later. Still, that is easily more than enough to resettle one vassal knight family. It is also possible that he got other manors scattered around Logres as compensation, as BoU says: "Uther accepts the homage of King Cadwy, names him Count Summerland, and even gives him new lands." Just £13.8 seems like it would not quite do it, given that Cadwy lost at least ten times as much, if not more.

Still, we are probably talking about something in the order of £200, tops. Which means that assuming the normal ration of 10 - 20% vassal knights, would mean 2-4 vassal knights out of their lands. Hardly many, and that is assuming average £10 manors each.

Sorry for the tardy reply, but as always Morien, I wish to thank you for your quick response and helpful insights -


My two denarii...
Like you, I would presume that Uther probably wouldn't care personally so much where the wealth comes from. However, I do believe that Honor penalties are still accrued for looting religious institutions. As for British/Roman Christians, given that Pendragon generally tries to play down sectarian violence, and there are no clear persecutions on either side, I would think that most Christian knights would accept the other branch as perhaps mistaken but not actively heretical, and hence treat the clergy of both sects with respect (although perhaps not equally so). (Granted, since in our campaigns we have just a single Christian Church, this issue doesn't come up so much...)

We are avoiding the idea of religious warfare and sectarian violence, but the players at this point are shooting for a more religious fervor in place of the later Arthurian chivalry just so these first characters will be different from their children and grand-children as we work through the GPC. To that end all characters are roman Christian, and considering the rules in BotW for ousting religious orders I thought it best to find out how others view these interactions during Uther's reign. I'm sure that none of the characters would think of destroying a religious establishment, but if ordered to pillage the countryside and weaken the kingdom taking the wealth of these places may fall in to a more grey area. If it comes to pass, I'm sure there will be some very pointed quests in their future to make atonement.




It is very much not clear that vassal knights of Summerland would have had 'extensive holdings' in hundreds lost to Salisbury and other conquerors. Remember that vassal knights are usually only a small fraction of the total number of knights in the service of the King of Summerland, if even that many. The King of Summerland is more of a throwback to an earlier mode of kingship, IMHO, where the king owned all the land and the 'knights' were just his household guards. So it is very much possible that there were no vassal knights at all. in BotW p. 23, it says: "He [Cadwy]is not a knight, for he was king before knighthood was conceived."

But let's assume that there are vassal knights in those hundreds. They are pretty much out of luck. There is no requirement for the liege to resettle them, although a generous liege might do that. Also, 'Count' Cadwy has received holdings from elsewhere in Logres, for instance again in BotW (p. 19), he is listed as having Castle on the Heights in Ascalon (I assume this is Daws Castle), although the Castle's landholdings are a measly £13.8 as mentioned later. Still, that is easily more than enough to resettle one vassal knight family. It is also possible that he got other manors scattered around Logres as compensation, as BoU says: "Uther accepts the homage of King Cadwy, names him Count Summerland, and even gives him new lands." Just £13.8 seems like it would not quite do it, given that Cadwy lost at least ten times as much, if not more.

Still, we are probably talking about something in the order of £200, tops. Which means that assuming the normal ration of 10 - 20% vassal knights, would mean 2-4 vassal knights out of their lands. Hardly many, and that is assuming average £10 manors each.


Many was a horrible choice of words on my part, I apologize. Further, I should have slowed my brain and done my searches prior to letting it run wild. After consulting several online sources and other players sites we are looking at approximately 7 - 9 manors lost, along with 2 - 3 villages / towns. This is not a large number as you pointed out, but the crux of my query was what happens to vassals who become dispossessed - especially those who have families. A lord is not required to provide for a household knights family so anyone who loses a holding and must return to court now faces the difficulty of providing for his family who no longer has a manors income to support them. As you pointed out, Uther awards Count (King) Cadwy with other lands and these can take care of most if not all of the dispossessed; but what got me wandering down this path was what happens to PK's who are affected in this manner during the Anarchy? You also stated that a liege is not required to resettle them, so does this give them an opportunity to seek a new lord? Can they use this as an excuse to become a knight errant and seek a better liege? While the story is set to make the PK's powers in Salisbury and give them influence during this tumultuous time I'm trying to see clearly how to guide NPC's who the Pk's know and are familiar with (possibly related to), and how much latitude players should have in regards to the rules of knighthood.

I completely understand that this is my game to run, guide, create, etc, and that YPMV - but I do not want this to descend into another D&D campaign or Pathfinder with passions, so I humbly seek the advice of those who are more familiar with not only Arthurian legend but also knightly / Lordly responsibilities.

Sorry for the tardy reply, but as always Morien, I wish to thank you for your quick response and helpful insights -


Happy to try and be helpful. :)





but what got me wandering down this path was what happens to PK's who are affected in this manner during the Anarchy? You also stated that a liege is not required to resettle them, so does this give them an opportunity to seek a new lord? Can they use this as an excuse to become a knight errant and seek a better liege? While the story is set to make the PK's powers in Salisbury and give them influence during this tumultuous time I'm trying to see clearly how to guide NPC's who the Pk's know and are familiar with (possibly related to), and how much latitude players should have in regards to the rules of knighthood.


Taking care of a couple of vassal knight families is frankly pocket money for most higher nobles. Even most Barons can swing that without raising a sweat, as long as their own holdings are not overrun, too. It comes down to how much the nobleman wishes to have the ex-vassal's services, has the knight been loyal, how much the noble's Loyalty (Vassals) is, what were the circumstances and so forth.

In essence, the vassal-liege relationship is a two-way street. The vassal has failed to defend the manor, but at the same time, the liege has failed to support the vassal. Hence, there is enough cause there for the dissolving of the relationship, especially if the liege doesn't offer help to support the ex-vassal or to reconquer the land. Good enough reason for the family to gather what they have and move elsewhere, if they so choose. Although in many cases, they would also have other family to turn to (like the wife's father/brother who would likely be another vassal knight, too).

But yes, this would make for a good excuse to become a knight errant and seek a new liege. This is exactly what the surviving knights from Caerwent/Anglia do after the Anglian invasion, like Sir Hervis de Revel. Some Gorlois' knights might do likewise, refusing to bend a knee to Uther. Same thing all around where lands are conquered by Cornwall or especially the Saxons.

As Morien stated the realtionship between Liege and Vassal is a two way street. And as these men are usual the most loyal of his subjects it is a good idea to keep them to your side.

For one thing it may actually strengthen the bond between them. Both men lost honor when the manor was lost and it is in their interest to redeem themselves. So they have a common ground. (Unless of course there is a feeling the blame can be laid at the feet of the other). To do this the liege may offer to award the vassal with anther holding if he proofs himself.

Not entirely the same situation but I think the example of Galegantis of Garloth is a good case. After the battle was lost and Arthur (based on a technicality) claims the lands of his father, Arthur promises to award him another holding if he proofs he is loyal. Galegantis does this and he is awarded a dukedom later.


For some example

GPC is seriously contradicting itself with Garloth. Nentres is the king of Garloth BEFORE he marries Elaine, and Elaine certainly didn't rule in Garloth before that, either.

I prefer to say that Arthur claimed Garloth by the right of conquest, but allowed the widowed queen to hold court there and enjoy the comforts of her station. As for Galegantis, he could prove himself and earn lands, just like Arthur says and does in GPC.

Note that Arthur also claims Lothian for himself and doesn't hand it back to Gawaine, despite Gawaine being his heir and champion. (Also something I tend to change in my campaigns, with Arthur parceling the kingdom between the Orkney brothers, as it also gives Mordred a reason to go and mope in Lothian like he does in GPC.)

EDIT: Ah, looks like Greg already addressed this issue in 2013:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?661-Prince-Galegantis-of-Garloth&p=5564&viewfull=1#post5564

GPC is seriously contradicting itself with Garloth. Nentres is the king of Garloth BEFORE he marries Elaine, and Elaine certainly didn't rule in Garloth before that, either.

I prefer to say that Arthur claimed Garloth by the right of conquest, but allowed the widowed queen to hold court there and enjoy the comforts of her station. As for Galegantis, he could prove himself and earn lands, just like Arthur says and does in GPC.

Note that Arthur also claims Lothian for himself and doesn't hand it back to Gawaine, despite Gawaine being his heir and champion. (Also something I tend to change in my campaigns, with Arthur parceling the kingdom between the Orkney brothers, as it also gives Mordred a reason to go and mope in Lothian like he does in GPC.)

EDIT: Ah, looks like Greg already addressed this issue in 2013:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?661-Prince-Galegantis-of-Garloth&p=5564&viewfull=1#post5564

Isn't Galegantis the Duke of Clarence by 531?

Isn't Galegantis the Duke of Clarence by 531?

Yes, that is what Cornelius was referring to with a dukedom and I was agreeing with. :)