I've been doing some work fleshing out the years before the Uther Period, and ran into a bit of a contradiction. When exactly does the institution of Knighthood begin? In the Family History section of KAP5 it states that the first native knights appeared under King Constatin, and that the PK's great-grandfather.

In the Book of Knights& Ladies, page 73 it states that Ambrosius Aurelianus began the institution of knighthood. " ,
but on page 122 it states" 462-479. Aurelius Ambrosius institutes the key practices that make up the knight’s repertoire (horse, lances, honor,manorial system, etc.) It spreads quickly through Britain.


So does this mean that Pendragon assumes that Ambrosius Aurelianus and Aurelius Ambrosius are two different people? Did the former begin the institution of knighthood (probably more like adapted the Roman Equestrian class), and the latter fleshed it out? Or are they the same person (the general assumption) and that Greg changed his mind about which source/format to use for Ambrosius (i.e. to Geoffrey of Mommoth) , and when and how knighthood started?

Greg Stafford did some thinking along these lines as the game progressed over the years. Aurelius Ambrosius (= Ambrosius Aurelianus) reintroduced the concept of knighthood back into Britain. Greg's latest thinking is knighthood has been around for centuries. Moses was a knight. David was a knight. Brutus was a knight. Over time, the meaning of "what is a knight" became more and more blurred until knight became more and more equal to a superior fighter. So, the answer is the source and when knighthood started, but also what it means to be a knight.

Okay, so let me see if I got this straight:

1) Knighthood has been around for centuries. That makes sense, since the Roman Equities have always been considered Knights in Pendragon.
2) Aurelius Ambrosius (= Ambrosius Aurelianus)
3) Knighthood went into some sort of decline in Britian. This also makes sense since the Romans left Britain to fend for itself after 410 AD.
4) What Knights that remained after 410 probably suffered heavy losses with all the raids and wars that were taking place. The British ere probably loosing knights, horses, and armor faster than they could be replaced.
5) When Constantin came over from Brittany to claim the throne, the 2000 men he brought with him included more knights, which probably was a significant boost to the ranks of knights in Britain, and helped to explain how he could beat the raiders and help stabilize the kingdom.
6) During Vortigern's reign, with all the raids, wars, and then the Night of Long Knives, Knights were pretty much wiped out.
7) Knighthood was reintroduced, or at least revitalized by Aurlieus. Since he is noted for doing this while in Brittany, it probably was in decline there too. That also makes sense with the Huns, Vandals, Goths and such running amok, and Roman generals taking their forces away from Britain and Gaul.
8) Aurelius probably transitioned Knighthood from the Roman method to to a Feudal system.

Does that seem about right?

BTW, I am considering making the lance charge something introduced by Aurelius. That would make his Knights the first heavy shock troops in KAP, and give him a distinct advantage on the battlefield. I think this works out well story wise, and game wise, since it would give players a nice upgrade in play. It also almost works "historically", with the way the line of Pendragon accelerates history. What do other people think of that?

Aurelius learned about heavy cavalry from the Visigoths, and he brought/used heavy cavalry in Britain.

For what it is worth... Equites have been around for quite a while. IIRC, Constantin's 'best men' become the knights of Britain in 415. These are the Great-Grandfathers of the Uther Period PKs. However, they are not the same as the heavy cavalrymen of Uther's days. The heavy cavalry charge with couched lances is an 'innovation' arising in the continent due to the influence of Alan and Visigothic (Aquitainian) heavy cavalry (as well as Sassanid Persia in the East), and gets imported to Britain by Aurelius Ambrosius.

So my take on it is:
415 - 465: Knight = well-armored and full-time warrior nobility, riding to battle but dismounting and fighting mainly on foot
466 - 513: Knight = well-armored and full-time warrior nobility, but on a charger with a lance, fighting from horseback
514+: As previously, but Chivalry is added to the mix, and increasingly expected of the knights, especially the best and most famous ones.

EDIT: Heh. We were all writing these pretty much at the same time. :)

Morien's posts will always have more detail than mine, but we are all pretty much in agreement here.

Thanks guys. Looks like we are pretty much in agreement here. About the only difference is that I see early knights fighting on horseback, but not doing lance charges yet, due to the lack of strirrups or the knightly saddle. At least once King Constantin arrives.

I'm working of assembling a rough outline for a "Book of Aurelius."

Oh, BTW, I was thinking that Aurelius Continental forces probably contain a mix of former Roman troops, including Roman Legionaries, Equites, and auxiliary troops such as Cataphacti or even Arian Calvary. I was thinking that while campaigning on the Continent, c. 462 he abolishes the auxiliaries as "foreign" troops and incorporates them in with his Roman forces, which is what starts the "new" feudalism. It makes sense to me, because Rome had been sacked in 455, and he, along with everyone else, could see the handwriting on the wall. The old reward of Roman citizenship wasn't worth much if there was no Rome to be a citizen of. So I figure he used this as a means to build an army that was personally loyal to him, and set up a manor system in lands he conquered from the Franks to both pay off those troops who were due land, and to set up a system that would be both self supporting and self sustaining.

Thanks guys. Looks like we are pretty much in agreement here. About the only difference is that I see early knights fighting on horseback, but not doing lance charges yet, due to the lack of strirrups or the knightly saddle. At least once King Constantin arrives.


Sure, it could be situational too.



Oh, BTW, I was thinking that Aurelius Continental forces probably contain a mix of former Roman troops, including Roman Legionaries, Equites, and auxiliary troops such as Cataphacti or even Arian Calvary. I was thinking that while campaigning on the Continent, c. 462 he abolishes the auxiliaries as "foreign" troops and incorporates them in with his Roman forces, which is what starts the "new" feudalism. It makes sense to me, because Rome had been sacked in 455, and he, along with everyone else, could see the handwriting on the wall. The old reward of Roman citizenship wasn't worth much if there was no Rome to be a citizen of. So I figure he used this as a means to build an army that was personally loyal to him, and set up a manor system in lands he conquered from the Franks to both pay off those troops who were due land, and to set up a system that would be both self supporting and self sustaining.

Couple quick points:
1. Pendragons are explicitly Cymric in KAP, not Roman unlike how AA has been portrayed before.
2. (Salian) Franks are a relatively minor tribe living in Belgium (and Calais region) in 460s. They are allies of Rome (Soissons). Visigoths are the major threat to Roman Gaul, and Burgundians are expanding in the Rhone and the Doubs valleys. Just to say that most of modern France would be populated by Romans and ruled over by other Romans (Soissons) or by Visigoths or Burgundians, not by Franks. The Frankish expansion doesn't take place until Clovis in 480s, when he takes over Soissons.

Aurelius learned about heavy cavalry from the Visigoths, and he brought/used heavy cavalry in Britain.

Aurelius may have also served with the Taifali (Alans/Sarmatians) units around Orleans. These are the guys who as far as I've read in the historical accounts invented the heavy cavalry charge and introduced it to the Romans.

--Khanwulf

Couple quick points:
1. Pendragons are explicitly Cymric in KAP, not Roman unlike how AA has been portrayed before.

Arthur and Uther have. We haven't gotten much on Aurelius, Constantin, Budic or Aldreon. But it doesn't matter much if We do have Aurelius as Cyrmic. That doesn't mean he can't have some Roman(-ized) troops. All I think I need is a cadre of Romans. - just enough to let me use Aurelius as Riothamus.


2. (Salian) Franks are a relatively minor tribe living in Belgium (and Calais region) in 460s. They are allies of Rome (Soissons). Visigoths are the major threat to Roman Gaul, and Burgundians are expanding in the Rhone and the Doubs valleys. Just to say that most of modern France would be populated by Romans and ruled over by other Romans (Soissons) or by Visigoths or Burgundians, not by Franks. The Frankish expansion doesn't take place until Clovis in 480s, when he takes over Soissons.

Thanks. Sources say that Riothamus rules over Btetons and Franks. I assumed this mean he went on campaign in Soissons, but if they are ailed that would work too. I just need to give Aurelius some sort of continental campaign before he returns to Britain in 466. That would not only give him seasoned troops, but helps to explain his reputation at a great leader and warrior whom the Saxons feared. Several of the accounts have it that Hengest and the Saxons feared Aurelius contenential troops much more than the local Brtions.

Riothamus is accounted for in Book of Sires. Suggest you wait until you have read it before doing too much. But, he is NOT Aurelius. Of course, YPMV is still valid if you don't want to use Book of Sires as the official history of Pendragon.

Riothamus is accounted for in Book of Sires. Suggest you wait until you have read it before doing too much. But, he is NOT Aurelius. Of course, YPMV is still valid if you don't want to use Book of Sires as the official history of Pendragon.

Akk! That does throw a spanner in the works. I'll have to change a few things. Pity, I kinda liked the idea of the British taking the Latin title of Riothamus (High King) and translating it into Cymric as Pendragon.

So who is Riothamus in BoS? And does he have any ties to Aurelius Ambrosius (some sources have one as a officer of the other)?

A Cornish noble who is made King of Cornwall. He marries his sister to Idres as heir presumptive and goes to battle in Gaul for the Romans against the Aquitanians and is killed in 470. Idres becomes the King of Cornwall as a result, but in not accepted at first.

A Cornish noble who is made King of Cornwall. He marries his sister to Idres as heir presumptive and goes to battle in Gaul for the Romans against the Aquitanians and is killed in 470. Idres becomes the King of Cornwall as a result, but in not accepted at first.

Any background you're able to share on the reason this approach was taken?

I can see the issue of timing, since really Uther should be off in Ireland in 470 getting the Giant's Dance, and it was only 469 when Hengest was killed. The timeline gets... very tight.

Am curious of course.

--Khanwulf

Yeah, Cornwall is a bit of a surprise. Especially consider the whole Roman thing. Although, that does give him ties to both Britain and Brittany I wonder if he is related to Gorlois?

Yeah, Cornwall is a bit of a surprise. Especially consider the whole Roman thing. Although, that does give him ties to both Britain and Brittany I wonder if he is related to Gorlois?

No, he is not related.
I tried to give each possible candidate for "will the real Arthur" stand up a real story which explains away all the other possibilities. Riomathus dies in Europe. Time table for him being Arthur did not fit Greg's vision, so he became a king of Cornwall who went to fight on the continent. There is more of his story, but that is explained in the Cornwall section of Book of Sires. Gorlois has his own story, including how he meets Ygraine, but is also a Cornishman.

No, he is not related.
I tried to give each possible candidate for "will the real Arthur" stand up a real story which explains away all the other possibilities.

I dearly hope this is an actual sidebar title, because now I'm picturing Eminem in a tunic, rapping in a post-Roman hall.

--Khanwulf

My small attempt at humor. Please ignore. During my research, there are many persons who have been postulated as being the originator of the "Arthur" personage.
Ambrosius Aureliamus, Ambrosius, Arthur, Constantinus, Riomathus and other names are out there. One source had Arthur's 12 battles between the 2 walls and thus Arthur really never was King of all Britain. So, out of this chaos, I and Greg created one story. I truly hope you all like it and come to realize that it all fits together.

Your humor is appreciated, and should be included.

This whole period is a mess, and tracing a coherent thread means making choices. I'm glad to have Greg's hand in it, for his sake, and respect yours as well.

--Khanwulf

My small attempt at humor. Please ignore. During my research, there are many persons who have been postulated as being the originator of the "Arthur" personage.
Ambrosius Aureliamus, Ambrosius, Arthur, Constantinus, Riomathus and other names are out there. One source had Arthur's 12 battles between the 2 walls and thus Arthur really never was King of all Britain. So, out of this chaos, I and Greg created one story. I truly hope you all like it and come to realize that it all fits together.

Yeah, and there are several versions of the tale of each claimant. Just look at Pendragon. Greg primarily uses Mallory, but didn't want to ignore a lot of good Celtic, French and even German stuff, so he added different bits and worked to make the fit. There another thread around here where someone questions the Pagan Lustful thing in the context of Pendragon patriarchal society. The thing is, the Celtic Pagan society from which it originated wasn't as patriarchal.

The Book of Sires will, hopefully give us one "official" answer to all that (which of course we can all pick and choose from). BTW, is there a "Romanized Arthur" candidate in the pack?