I'm trying to stir things up a little in my campaign to give the players several options from here on in (AD490). Recently they traveled through Marlborough, and were apprehended by a border patrol. When asked to follow the patrol back to Marlborough castle my knights refused and fought their way onwards - downing several of the patrol knights and routing the rest. They sped through the county, engaging one other patrol while doing so.

Now while this is no big deal in the knightly world, I'm intending to use this little scrap as reason enough for Marlborough to step up their claim to the southern part of Savernake Forest (the GPC says its ownership is disputed by the two counties) thereby setting up some nice border conflicts for my knights to deal with.

I'm just a little unsure about the hierarchy of power in this county. Marlborough is part of the Duchy of Clarence and so therefore governed by the Duke of Clarence. However, when a county is part of a duchy does it still have some autonomy, and does it still have an earl? (who has sworn fealty to the Duke?). Is there any administrative position and if so what would it be?

Looking at wikipedia tells me what dukes, earls etc are but I'm not sure how they fit together here. Where do barons fit into this? Are they the same as a banneret? If not whereabouts do they sit on the power ladder and what differentiates them from the other ranks?

And while I'm on this subject, what of Silchester? We have Ulfius, the duke, but are there earls or lesser rulers in the counties of Windsor and London. I assume London city is run by the council but is it considered separate from the county? ie Is Ulfius not the highest authority there? Excepting the king of course.

Good Questions, never quite answered in KAP.
I'm working on a book for this, the Book of BARONS, to present all the information as a whole.
It is not really as neat and understandable as we modern folk would like it--even though the experts tried for a few centuries to make it so (and modern scholarship is pulling it away from this)
I think the book will make it as clear as possible.
For now, though, I will briefly answer your questions for 490, Uther.
Put on your seat belts and thinking caps, mates...



I'm trying to stir things up a little in my campaign to give the players several options from here on in (AD490). Recently they traveled through Marlborough, and were apprehended by a border patrol. When asked to follow the patrol back to Marlborough castle my knights refused and fought their way onwards - downing several of the patrol knights and routing the rest. They sped through the county, engaging one other patrol while doing so.

Now while this is no big deal in the knightly world, I'm intending to use this little scrap as reason enough for Marlborough to step up their claim to the southern part of Savernake Forest (the GPC says its ownership is disputed by the two counties) thereby setting up some nice border conflicts for my knights to deal with.


Nice



I'm just a little unsure about the hierarchy of power in this county. Marlborough is part of the Duchy of Clarence and so therefore governed by the Duke of Clarence. However, when a county is part of a duchy does it still have some autonomy, and does it still have an earl? (who has sworn fealty to the Duke?). Is there any administrative position and if so what would it be?

Ambrosius, upon his victory over Vortigern, reestablished the Roman system of centralized government (rather than the more tribally-oriented system favored by Vortigern and most of the British lords)
Of course, this was the "modern Roman" system, i.e.- Charlemagne-like, not old Imperial.

Logres is divided into shires, or counties, for governmental administrative purposes. These often, and intentionally, divide up the old British tribal territories into parts (divide and conquer). Each county is ruled by a Count, an acknowledged noble whose powers (tax collection, judicial, military) are part of a system that feeds money to the "emperor," the High King. Titles and rights of the Counts were inherited by this time, but when the lines died out Ambrosius often did not fill the spot, but appointed reeves (sheriffs) to administer the land, alongside the bishops in the cities and imperial administration. Thus not all counties have counts, even in 490.
Lands in the shire are divided up and "owned" by various people for purposes of property rights and profit, but pay taxes to the count. The counts who survive generally own much of the land in their county, as well as in others both near by and afar.
Dukes are a temporary title, granted by Ambrosius (and maybe by others before Vortigern) to warlords on the borders of the lands. Their job is to keep out the enemy. They are all powerful landlords in their own right, sometimes even counts. As dukes they also have access to many properties to help finance defense, but these are usually not in the ducal territory, but father away. When the dukes get uppity, the king seizes their outer lands for himself.
Nonetheless, the dukes got powerful quickly, each of them almost as powerful as the king by himself. But they are also rivals of each other, and the king's internal politics are to balance them against each other, while not weakening defense against external foes. Counts are lesser powers, but still significantly great.

During the reign of Ambrosius the tension between the Roman (centralized) and British tribal (local) powers was balanced by Ambrosius being emperor, and Uther working closely with the tribal lords. Indeed, he was personally in favor of the localized positions, the feudal system as we call it now, more British than Roman.
After Ambrosius died Uther took the imperial mantle but the island-wide Senate (largely toothless for real power, but still holding the right to make an emperor) refused him the title of High King. He called himself King of Logres, and didn't give the cities the power they had before. Since their primary purpose was as trade centers, and long-distance trade had disappeared, the cities were largely abandoned.


Looking at wikipedia tells me what dukes, earls etc are but I'm not sure how they fit together here. Where do barons fit into this? Are they the same as a banneret? If not whereabouts do they sit on the power ladder and what differentiates them from the other ranks?


Barons are the most numerous of the upper noble classes. In 490 it's a vague but clearly upper class of warriors, great landlords, bishops and abbots, and councilors who are all close to the king. Counts and dukes are counted in this--they are barons with extra titles.
Bannerets might be barons, if they are close to the king. Otherwise they are bannerets of another lord, like Count Roderick. They might be more wealthy and powerful than a king's baron, but that's not important to the title, which comes only from the king. (In fact, historically many barones were petty, holding a little farm here to serve as the king's messenger, or half a farm there to stand guard for a night at the castle when the king is present. KAP ignores those, for the sake of GM and game designer sanity.)
Logres has about 80 powerful barons. The number of counts is diminishing, as will dukes in the future.
BARON is going to be the "standard nobleman" of KAP
I do not plan to ever list "the 80 barons of Logres" or quantify, year by year, who rules over whom. It would be tedious and so restrictive to the unimaginative that it would paralyze the game

--I mean this!! I resist the urge to make these comprehensive lists. The game's task is NOT to supply the GM with everything he will ever have to need. It is to supply examples and models and let the GM use those if he cannot do better. It is to try to generate a natural creative burst in the GMs.-- If you want to do it yourself, I do urge you to do so! Shae it as well, and I'll probably use parts of it--but I just do not dare to fossilize the realm for the sake of empty completeness at the cost of fully potentialized game fun.



And while I'm on this subject, what of Silchester? We have Ulfius, the duke, but are there earls or lesser rulers in the counties of Windsor and London. I assume London city is run by the council but is it considered separate from the county? ie Is Ulfius not the highest authority there? Excepting the king of course.


Ulfius is Duke of the Jutish March, with its appurtenances, including command of the London Mobile Force, Lordship of Luds Castle and others. He is also Count of Silchester, baron of Windsor, Staines, etc.; rex Saxonium of Surrey, Senatorus Principus of Silchester, and king-apparent of the Atrabates.

Official Title (common)
Duke of the Jutish March (Silchester)
Duke of the Saxon March (Caerwent)
Duke of the Irish March (Cornwall)
Duke of the Western March (Clarence)
Duke of the Northern March (Lindsey)

In medieval France, a "baron" was a nobleman who held his land(s) directly from the king, i.e. baron meant "king's vassal". He could therefore be both a small nobleman (simple vassal) or a powerful one (like a duke).

Thanks for the replies, and impressive detail.

Greg, I'm left feeling less vague on some aspects of this and more vague on others :)

Let me put this into an example - say Salisbury. From what you're saying would I be right to assume that Salisbury has the earl at the top of the tree (Roderick), several barons (nameless at present), several bannerets, then vassal knights, household knights etc? And would it be right to say that a baron is effectively anyone who has acquired enough wealth? They don't need to be a knight, just have large reserves of cash or an impressive income. The title confuses somewhat. If you're an abbot would you also call yourself a baron? Is is just a turn of phrase or personal preference? Ulfius for example is duke of Silchester and baron of Windsor.

Now with Marlborough, if I pick through your reply, it would seem that the county could indeed have a baron (or barons) that would run the county under the direction of the duke. This is important for me because, if I put into play the border dispute as mentioned in my first mail, I don't really want it turning into a full scale war involving the whole duchy, as the combined force of Clarence AND Marlborough could overwhelm Salisbury. Salisbury vs Marlborough is more evenly matched. Of course if things really did escalate then I would expect Clarence to become involved but I don't intend it to go that far.

However, when I read on through your reply, you say that Duke Ulfius is also baron of Windsor so that would seem to rule out regional rulers and suggest that, in this example, he is power incarnate for the who duchy - he can't get much sleep with that much on his hands :) Am I right in saying then that there are no earls under Ulfius (or the Duke of Clarence for that matter) instead only barons?

I'm trying to stir things up a little in my campaign to give the players several options from here on in (AD490). Recently they traveled through Marlborough, and were apprehended by a border patrol. When asked to follow the patrol back to Marlborough castle my knights refused and fought their way onwards - downing several of the patrol knights and routing the rest. They sped through the county, engaging one other patrol while doing so.

Now while this is no big deal in the knightly world, I'm intending to use this little scrap as reason enough for Marlborough to step up their claim to the southern part of Savernake Forest (the GPC says its ownership is disputed by the two counties) thereby setting up some nice border conflicts for my knights to deal with.

I'm just a little unsure about the hierarchy of power in this county. Marlborough is part of the Duchy of Clarence and so therefore governed by the Duke of Clarence. However, when a county is part of a duchy does it still have some autonomy, and does it still have an earl? (who has sworn fealty to the Duke?). Is there any administrative position and if so what would it be?

Looking at wikipedia tells me what dukes, earls etc are but I'm not sure how they fit together here. Where do barons fit into this? Are they the same as a banneret? If not whereabouts do they sit on the power ladder and what differentiates them from the other ranks?

And while I'm on this subject, what of Silchester? We have Ulfius, the duke, but are there earls or lesser rulers in the counties of Windsor and London. I assume London city is run by the council but is it considered separate from the county? ie Is Ulfius not the highest authority there? Excepting the king of course.


I think the first thing I would say is that there is a modern - and so a medieval distinction - between civic power/duties and Nobles. Counties are an administrative unit and not a political unit. So, the Duke of Gloucester will not control all of Gloucestershire.

Within Gloucestershire there will be church fiefs, fiefs (manors) that owe their loyalty to another lord (as a result of some marriage gift etc), an independent Baron or two, towns with charters that will have a mayor (or Lord Mayor,but that's another discussion). The boundaries of the Duke's Lands may not necessarily co-incide with the boundaries of Gloucestershire but are likely to do so for the most part.

So, in Medieval times, who owns Gloucestershire ? The strict answer is nobody. Different people control different bits of it.

In the legal sense, the civic administration will be based around tax collection and justice. The Duke will broadly speaking have absolute power over most things on the lands that he controls. Some offices such as Coroner - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner - will be Crown appointments. The crown will also have an interest in people who die intestate and things like wrecks.

In practical Pendragon terms, then unless you have particularly fussy (or detailed players) these niceties of jurisdiction are unlikely to trouble you. If you want to get a feel for the Medieval Coroner in action then I've enjoyed reading the Crowner John Medieval murder mysteries from Bernard Knight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowner_John_Mysteries

Whilst for understanding Sheriff and bailiff then there is Michael Jecks series

http://www.michaeljecks.co.uk/index.html

Both should be found under Crime in your local library, unless they have a special section for historical fiction.

For a quick introduction to peerages I found the following site useful:

http://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles02.html

Note that the ranks are order of precedence, not that a Baron holds lands from an Earl who holds from a Duke. The important thing about peers (the collective word for Dukes down to Barons) is that they all hold their land direct from the King. So the Baron hands over his taxes etc direct to the King. The Baron (like other Peers) can "advise" and speak to the King direct. Of course, a Baron may "listen" to what his big neighbour Duke next door says. Beneath all the Peers will be Baronets and Knights holding land from a Peer (that is to say Duke down to Baron). I think Greg and I differ a little in how we see Baronets/Bannerets but that is probably another long discussion.

I like Baron as a position in game terms because it can be as powerful or as weak as you want to make it as a reward. It may be indicative of military strength or political office (or both), whereas the Earls and Dukes will (generally) always have reasonable sized military armies.

One piece of land will be controlled by only one person - King direct, Church (in its various Bishops etc), Independent Town/City with Charter or Peer (which includes his underlings who owe him loyalty). Different people may have different rights over that land though. For example, the King has the right to hunt deer in the Royal Forests but the commoners are allowed in twice a year to gather up wood that has fallen - http://www.newforestexplorersguide.co.uk/sitefolders/commoning/fuelwood/fuelwoodpage.html -

There's examples of this sort of thing all over the UK as a result of our medieval history.

Chris

Chris - thanks. Some very interesting links there.

I certainly don't have fussy players - they would glaze over if I hit them with that much detail - and I'm really just looking for a workable system that conveys an illusion of complexity. I'm only playing KAP every other month and already I have plenty of bookkeeping to keep me busy.

Knowing that a baron holds land directly from the king is a great help, I thought it was feudal all the way down (King gives to duke, duke give to earl, earl gives to baron, etc). Also it's interesting to read that a duke does not control the county which makes up the duchy. Surely he must hold sway though. He has the largest army at his disposal so he must be the one to fear/respect (leaving the king aside). Actually, some more questions spring to mind here

Now if a baron is getting his lands from the king (let's say it's a baron resident in Salisbury) then...

- If the baron holds land from the king does/can he give that land out to vassal knights in return for service?

- If yes, who do those knights fight for? When Roderick summons the Salisbury army those aforementioned knights are technically not his, even though they reside in the county. But then who do they fight under? The king? That certainly means that barons could turn out to be a right royal pain in the backside. They live in the county but don't abide by your rules. And their knights do as they please.

Could you give some more detail on the barons in your campaign? What sort of power base are we talking here? 2 manors? 10? 20?

Chris - thanks. Some very interesting links there.

I certainly don't have fussy players - they would glaze over if I hit them with that much detail - and I'm really just looking for a workable system that conveys the illusion of complexity. I'm only playing KAP every other month and already I have plenty of bookkeeping to keep me busy.

Knowing that a baron holds land directly from the king is a great help, I thought it was feudal all the way down (King gives to duke, duke give to earl, earl gives to baron, etc). Also it's interesting to read that a duke does not control the county which makes up the duchy. Surely he must hold sway though. He has the largest army at his disposal so he must be the one to fear/respect (leaving the king aside). Actually, some more questions spring to mind here

Now if a baron is getting his lands from the king (let's say it's a baron resident in Salisbury) then...

- If the baron holds land from the king does/can he give that land out to vassal knights in return for service?

- If yes, who do those knights fight for? When Roderick summons the Salisbury army those aforementioned knights are technically not his, even though they reside in the county. But then who do they fight under? The king? That certainly means that barons could turn out to be a right royal pain in the backside. They live in the county but don't abide by your rules. And their knights do as they please.

Could you give some more detail on the barons in your campaign? What sort of power base are we talking here? 2 manors? 10? 20?


<<<Also it's interesting to read that a duke does not control the county which makes up the duchy. Surely he must hold sway though. He has the largest army at his disposal so he must be the one to fear/respect (leaving the king aside)>>> Absolutely true - welcome to real world politics, even more so in the dark age/medieval world where might is often right.

Salisbury is Greg's setting and I leave it to him to comment on how he sees the power structures. I will comment on where I set my game - in part because one of my players that came out of one (fairly generic) campaign to be the focus of a seperate campaign and said "right, I'm going home to Leicester, and what's this amour Helen of 16" - all this after he had been away at University for three years. I'd long forgotten who the original Helen was so I had to come up with something....

I also developed on a paragraph in Knights Adventurous "leicester is an important walled city on hte king's Road, once famous for its influence and wealth. The Duke of Lindsey is still occassionally referred to as the Duke of Leicester, even though Lincoln is now the centre of the Duke's realm. The Roman Folk of Leicester are resentful of the loss of power and influence that their city has suffered, and are suspicious of the ruling Cymric Culture that now dominates their urban politics".

So, after the French Wars of the 530's I have someone who has 8,000 + glory and succeeds as a fairly nasty adventure and gets promoted to Round Table Knight. Back home trouble is brewing and again after various adventures we end up with an independent Barony of Leicester created by Arthur, a new Baron, a new wife (local girl who rose to be part of Guinivere's harp quartet) and a deptuy Keeper of the Privy Seal who understands why he has a forger on his staff... (the Road to Baron had involved some time as a life tenant of a Royal Castle at Orford, a group of Loyal Saxons on the second rebellion, and some hush hush boat trips to the continent)

Back then (in KAP terms) Leicester was Roman rather than Cymric (book of Knights and Ladies). I was using Book of Lordly Domains as well to generate things, and some of the numbers of knights and money started to creak a bit so it got put to oneside whilst we mullled things over.

In terms of Power bases though:

A) City of Leicester. Independent Town through charter. Run by a Roman Council headed by a Mayor. (In practice this means noble famillies with a few rich commoners). Militarily they oversee a town guard, and a Cavalry Unit of Equites (Knights) formed along Roman lines that the Baron effectively controls, but as a unit not as individuals. Thus the individuals pledge loyalty to the City, and the Mayor then pledges the loyalty of the City (and unit) to the Baron.
b) Baron's own Castle in Leicester. Probably around half a dozen household knights along with Knights who function as officers etc. Remember his immediate cavalry command to trundle up and down the fosse way is the city unit.
c) The Baron had three sub castles - Based around real castle sites or small towns (for a motte and bailey), these were Ashby de La Zouche, Market Harborugh and Melton Mowbray. These would be held by a Banneret (who may or may not double up as the Constable). The Banneret may have his own househould knights (if he can afford them) and will have his own vassals on manors.
d) The County at large would also contain knights who are immediate vassals of the Baron.

So, to try and represent this diagramatically.

Baron (inc household knights)

City Cav Unit Vassals (holding directly from Baron) Bannarets (inc household knights)
Vassals holding from Bannarets

Should one come into play, I would therefore expect the vassals holding from the Bannarets to have both a Loyalty (Bannaret) and a Loyalty (Baron) score.

In a more traditional Barony then the City Cavalry unit would be replaced by vassals holding directly from the Baron, although I would probably interpose another banneret for practical command purposes.

Remember not all knight fiefs may be active as well - some may have old knights too old for active service but whose sons are not yet of age, they may have no knights and wards or widows.

e) Also present within Leicester and Leicestershire is:

Leicester Cathedral (within the city) - seat of the Bishop of Leicester. He will have Church fiefs in the County and knights who owe him service. A bishop like this is going to be equivalent to a banneret/royal officer or official/baron depending upon the individual concerned and what they do and what personal wealth (i.e. fiefs or other perogatives he has got). Any sensible Baron will want to keep the Bishop on his side. (OK so the Diocese wasn't created until 1927 I know realise. Never mind, the church dates from 1086 at least, and I wanted a Bishop, so I had a Bishop !).

Leicester Abbey (technically outside the city) - headed by an Abbot. In my Pendragon world Abbeys etc have armed guards (historically they were walled anyway). The Captain of the Guards is a knight, almost certainly a younger son.

Mount St Bernard Abbey - some way from the city. This would be headed by a Abbot and would be a rival faction (say white robed monks as opposed to black robed monks) to the monks at Leicester Abbey.

These six people - The Baron, The Mayor/Captain of the Cavalry Unit, the Bishop and two Abbots would be the political players in the Baron's backyard, whilst just up the road he has Bedegraine (and Lyanors and Borre Le Cure Hardy).

d) Within Leicestershire would be a small number of fiefs that for various historical reasons owe their allegiance to somebody else. From memory (because I needed it for GM purposes) I created one at a road junction on the Fosse Way (A1), where one duty was to maintain a stable of horses, a blacksmith and fresh beer for the Kings messangers. I think this was held in the technical sense from the Chamberlain rather than Arthur direct.

Needless to say the Baron needs to keep on the good side of the Duke of Lindsey.

This is my take on a Leicester and a Barony that evolved in my game for various reasons. As Greg said prevously, to define everything leaves no room for creativity: all one needs to watch is that one keeps the fundamental threads (e.g. Joyous Garde is Lancelot's castle) reasonably intact.

One think I do when considering relationships is to photocopy a couple of pages from a reasonably large scale road Atlas of the area, and then mark on it places of interest, territorial divisions, castles, roman roads etc. Sometimes this evolves as time goes on.

Chris

Without getting historical and miticulous on you here... i will tell you what i would do in your situation, if it helps, then great. I would start small. Whatever area your pk's were in when they defeated the patrol, i would have the direct ruler in that area pursue this squabble with the players. So , for example, Maybe its just the local banneret or castellan in the area. He informs the count and the count says " hey...dont whine to me pal.... take care of these punks". So the castellan, banneret or whoever, is left to his own good judgement as to how to handle this and how serious to get. He takes some knights and raids north salisbury in retaliation for the players actions, announcing their reasons for doing so in a clear fashion so that any survivors will be able to carry the news to the players and to the nobility of salisbury. This means the ball is back in the players court. They could call it good, or decide to get back at marlbourough. This could keep going , getting more serious and escalating. Either one side will stop retaliating at some point or it will continue until it starts to get out of hand.. At this point One of the counts may decide that he has had enough and do a few things. A) call a talk with the other count to reach a peace agrement B) attack the other count C) anything else the GM wants to do! The count could have any number of ideas about how he wants to handle the affair.
So i guess what im saying is that i would expect it to be a a small localized affair unless the players involvement causes it to escalate more and more until both counts are obligated to acknowledge it and take a direct hand. :)

Thanks for the replies, and impressive detail.

Greg, I'm left feeling less vague on some aspects of this and more vague on others :)


If you like that can be the sig line for this discussion. It is endless.



Let me put this into an example


Concrete examples are always good.



- say Salisbury.


Salisbury is especially good, because by the good Graces of He Who Made Pendragon, that county is perfectly average for what it is. In 490, a county, established by AA and with full (old time) honors.



From what you're saying would I be right to assume that Salisbury has the earl at the top of the tree (Roderick),


The count, yes.
Earls come later, with Arthur. Well, after a while with Arthur.



Barons live.
several barons (nameless at present),


Yes, but not necessarily on the map that you have seen for Salisbury. Basically, though, any castle might be a barons castle (or a comptal castle, or a ducal or royal castle, etc.)
In truth, I am still compiling some information about the area before deciding where the barons live.



several bannerets,


OK, you know I am getting all historical here and not necessarily recommending this for play. Too man questions and I'll require you to go read a certain book and give a book report on the site. :)
Bannerets, yes, as long as you mean knights leading around ten knights. The official title of banneret doesn't quite start yet--Arthur does it.
They would all be Lords, and in this period might have the vestige of any old Celtic or Roman title to justify their position. They will all have armies, though.



then vassal knights, household knights etc?


Yes, as followers of the the various lords.
In this period even the various titles for military men are kind of mixed up, with warriors and soldiers and sargeants all side by side. In KAP the distinction of a knight begins in this period to be a man with the right equipment who has sworn homage (unbreakable) to a lord.



And would it be right to say that a baron is effectively anyone who has acquired enough wealth?


Yes, and has spent it wisely on an army and fortifications.



They don't need to be a knight, just have large reserves of cash or an impressive income. The title confuses somewhat.


This is the Sword Are the Spear Age, the age when Might Is Right.
You can call yourself anything you want these days, and if you've got the men to back you everyone will call you Sir.



If you're an abbot would you also call yourself a baron?


Only if you held land directly from the king, and paid the usual baronial services.
So, some are and some are not.



Is is just a turn of phrase or personal preference? Ulfius for example is duke of Silchester and baron of Windsor.


In this case, both would be used because they refer to different "awards" he has. Depending on the setting, he might use his other titles too. He's stacking things in his favor, collecting old titles in case they are useful some day, depending on who wins in the end.



Now with Marlborough, if I pick through your reply, it would seem that the county could indeed have a baron (or barons) that would run the county under the direction of the duke.


The barons are the men of the king, but they have been ordered to obey the duke. There are other lords there (equivalent of barons) subject to others, maybe one subject to the count of Hampshire, another that belongs to the the baron of Newark, etc.



This is important for me because, if I put into play the border dispute as mentioned in my first mail, I don't really want it turning into a full scale war involving the whole duchy, as the combined force of Clarence AND Marlborough could overwhelm Salisbury. Salisbury vs Marlborough is more evenly matched. Of course if things really did escalate then I would expect Clarence to become involved but I don't intend it to go that far.

However, when I read on through your reply, you say that Duke Ulfius is also baron of Windsor so that would seem to rule out regional rulers and suggest that, in this example, he is power incarnate for the who duchy - he can't get much sleep with that much on his hands :) Am I right in saying then that there are no earls under Ulfius (or the Duke of Clarence for that matter) instead only barons?


Yes in both those cases.
And yes, Ulfius is a successful power grasping war lord with his own agenda.

I just have a point for clarification. Should we be referring to Count Roderick or Earl Rodrrick?

I always thought that the title Earl was a corruption of the Norse Jarl. Is there some truth in this or just coincidence?

I just have a point for clarification. Should we be referring to Count Roderick or Earl Rodrrick?

I always thought that the title Earl was a corruption of the Norse Jarl. Is there some truth in this or just coincidence?


I'm sticking with "Earl" regardless. There's just too much chaos to deal with already in relationship between peers. Historical accuracy isn't so important to the game IMHO.

Etymology from dictionary.com:
bef. 900; ME erl, OE eorl; c. OS erl man, ON jarl chieftain

Now with Marlborough, if I pick through your reply, it would seem that the county could indeed have a baron (or barons) that would run the county under the direction of the duke. This is important for me because, if I put into play the border dispute as mentioned in my first mail, I don't really want it turning into a full scale war involving the whole duchy, as the combined force of Clarence AND Marlborough could overwhelm Salisbury. Salisbury vs Marlborough is more evenly matched. Of course if things really did escalate then I would expect Clarence to become involved but I don't intend it to go that far.

However, when I read on through your reply, you say that Duke Ulfius is also baron of Windsor so that would seem to rule out regional rulers and suggest that, in this example, he is power incarnate for the who duchy - he can't get much sleep with that much on his hands :) Am I right in saying then that there are no earls under Ulfius (or the Duke of Clarence for that matter) instead only barons?


The normal situation would be that:
King
|
Baron
|
Knights

A Baron - anyone that holds land from the King, though you also need a minimum estate size to qualify for the title
A Count or earl is simply any baron who has been granted administration responsibilities for a county. This gives greater income, and thus, tends to be a larger household, retinue, etc.
A duke is simply a baron who has been given the responsibility to protect the borders - and to do this, has usually also been granted a county or two (and the title of count or earl over those lands) for financial support (since medieval economics don't allow for effective centralised control of the finances - the duke needs land to be able to afford to raise the army he needs to protect the border)

A lord often has multiple titles, but is usually just referred to by his largest title. So, an Earl is also a Baron. A Duke is often also a Count/Earl, and is always also a Baron. Some proud lords may insist on use of all of their ttles whenever introduced, and it would be standard practice in big court situations for the herald to announce a lord by giving all of their titles, whether proud or not.

Whether a Baron, Count, or Duke, you hold your lands from the King, and answer directly to him. usually. But exceptions are possible...

So a county will have an Earl (or count), who is responsible for the shire court, and responsible for administering certain of the kings rights in that area. But there could also be a baron or two who have holdings within that same region. They don't answer to the earl, they answer to the King - except in those areas where the King has delegated authority to the earl (or a sheriff, or other representative).

Some of the regions of Logres have great lords who appear to have jurisdiction over other regions. Like, the Duke of Clarence having Marlborough as a vassal. So, while the Earl of Marlborouh would ordinarily owe fealty (and taxes!) to the King, it seems likely that the king has ceded that authority to Clarence (perhaps in return for some important aid at a time he really needed it, or maybe it was given to support the Duchy). In this case, the Earl of Marlborough keeps his title, but would actually answer to the Duke of Clarence as if the Duke of Clarence was a king. (Silchester seems to be another of these kind of estates.)

I would imagine many such arrangements crop up during the Anarchy (and some pre-date Uther), and most of them get dissolved when Arthur returns, but others are accepted and allowed to persist.

I just have a point for clarification. Should we be referring to Count Roderick or Earl Rodrrick?

I always thought that the title Earl was a corruption of the Norse Jarl. Is there some truth in this or just coincidence?


It's true historically, but isn't the case in Pendragon. The title Earl descends from our anglo-saxon heritage, but in Pendragon, that's in the future. It's just one of many anachronistic elements of pendragon.

For pendragon purposes, the terms Count and Earl are interchangeable, but some estates might use one title and others might use the other, and still others will use both.

<<<Also it's interesting to read that a duke does not control the county which makes up the duchy. Surely he must hold sway though. He has the largest army at his disposal so he must be the one to fear/respect (leaving the king aside)>>> Absolutely true - welcome to real world politics, even more so in the dark age/medieval world where might is often right.


Yes, also...

I tend to imagine the duchies as being like a Palatinate estate, for example the Bishopric of Durham. This is a region where the King has granted the "Prince Bishops" of the estate full rights over that estate - it is a small kingdom in all but name. Logres is as large or larger than any of the northern and welsh regions, and those regions have multiple kingdoms. A Duchy of Logres seems to me a region that would be a kingdom, if the region wasn't Logres - which can have only one King. I think its likely that the Dukes of Silchester and Clarence answer to the King of Logres, but the various nobles within those estates - even if Counts - owe their loyalty to the Duke, not the King. To avoid offending these earls and barons who had to become vassals of the duke, their titles were not removed, but they no longer hold them direct from the King. The Duke is their King, effectively.

The origin of duchies as a title described by Greg earlier, as granted to someone responsible for border defences is interesting, but the way it was done (granting them responsibility to protect the border, but giving them lands far from the border) doesn't seem to work as well for pendragon. I like to think the Dukes were given control over their border estates, which include a county and barony or two in some cases. Maybe they happened to be the lords in those areas, the borders were under threat, and the king gave them extra powers and authority to help them preserve the border, and when the threat was over, they naturally clung to those extra authorities.

This approach makes things a lot simpler to play and GM, especially if one day we have rules for administering the estates of barons and greater nobles. The GM and players don't need to worry about - "Okay, the Duke of Silchester is Duke here, but where are his lands?"

The example Greg gives above of the Duke of Silchester, who is also Baron of Staines, Windsor, etc., also works perfectly, but does tend to mean there are fewer great nobles (because several estates are held by one man), and I like the idea of these sub-kingdoms within Logres. In any case, Ulfius probably needs to delegate an officer to administer Staines and Windsor for him, and in the simpler feudality of Pendragon, these might end up as hereditary positions, meaning those appointments do become barons in practice.

I really should have taken more notice at school during history lessons. These are impressive replies. <Thinks - are all Round Table members just killing time during their jobs at Oxford University>.

I'm now thinking how some barons could fit into my campaign. Really I just want something that's workable but also doesn't appear completely nonsensical, so -

- I'm going to create a barony or two in Salisbury (where my camapign is set) to add some colour. Greg, any chance of you divulging some secrets from your upcoming book? For instance, the areas you have already earmarked for this?

- I'll assume that Marlborough is overseen by the Duke of Clarence but he allows the barons of that county a certain level of autonomy in return for their general allegiance. They may grumble from time to time and there may be the odd flare of disquiet, but there is general cohesion.

- I'll create a Baron of Marlborough castle (or perhaps Earl, as I think from reading this that an earl can exist under a duke) who will deal with all matters relating to the county up to a certain point.

- Likewise, I think I'll have some sub-rulers of Silchester, loyal to Ulfius, who take care of Windsor and London (with London City as a separate entity).

All sound feasible?

As a side note here - what is the situation with King Cadwy of Somerset? I have Somerset as a separate kingdom, not part of Logres, although I assumed it did become part of Logres after Uther visits in 488. Regardless of that error, if Somerset does at some point become part of Logres does King Cadwy then lose his title and become an earl?

That all sounds very reasonable to me. An important thing to realise is that there are no hard-and-fast rules for feudalism. Wherver you find a "this is the standard way its done" rule, you'll immediately find numerous exceptions to that rule. basically, they were making things up as they went along, and the rules evolved to meet the situation. You can do the same. If you think of a power arrangement that would be fun, then it's perfectly okay to use it - feudalism is all about exceptions-to-the-rule.

Regarding Somerset:
Most of the regions of logres would have been kingdoms at one point, and when conquered, the kings were given new titles. So, that could happen to Somerset. But it's also possible that if it is a kingdom, the king keeps his title - but everyone knows he's still only the rank of an earl or count. Take for instance the northern and welsh kingdoms. When Arthur conquers them, they usually keep their title as kings.

It could depend on how much automony they are allowed. If your somerset is conquered, and Uther asserts the right of appointing new earls/counts to the land, then the new title will be count or earl. If on the other hand, the region submits to Logres, but Logres allows the title to the land to continue being inherited by the same family, then it's likely to remain a kingdom.

Use whichever seems most fun for your campaign.

(Snip)
I'm now thinking how some barons could fit into my campaign. Really I just want something that's workable but also doesn't appear completely nonsensical, so -

- I'm going to create a barony or two in Salisbury (where my camapign is set) to add some colour. Greg, any chance of you divulging some secrets from your upcoming book? For instance, the areas you have already earmarked for this?

- I'll assume that Marlborough is overseen by the Duke of Clarence but he allows the barons of that county a certain level of autonomy in return for their general allegiance. They may grumble from time to time and there may be the odd flare of disquiet, but there is general cohesion.

- I'll create a Baron of Marlborough castle (or perhaps Earl, as I think from reading this that an earl can exist under a duke) who will deal with all matters relating to the county up to a certain point.

- Likewise, I think I'll have some sub-rulers of Silchester, loyal to Ulfius, who take care of Windsor and London (with London City as a separate entity).

All sound feasible?

(Snip)


Sound perfectly reasonable to me, with the exception that I dont hold that Earls swear fealty to a Duke, unlike other messages in this thread. An Earl may be under the practical control of a Duke (e.g. ward, widow, under age, young knight) but an Earl in the feudal sense (as opposed to real politic) is not subservient to a Duke: they are all Peers.

Run with what you and your players feel comfortable with, and helps your game along.

Couple of quick ideas for Barons in Clarence:

Base one at Dawn Ampney - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Ampney -
As for the Hungerford Family - http://explore.englandspastforeveryone.org.uk/items/hungerford-family-and-codford-st-peter - <<<They had a colourful family history including murder, incest, treachery, execution, disgrace, bankruptcy, but they also possessed great wealth and wielded considerable influence>>> Bit of searching on the internet should throw up some ideas for some scenarios there, but a good base for sometimes troublesome BAron.

Chedworth Roman Villa could be another base - http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chedworthromanvilla - this is probably on the border of Gloucester and Clarence, so an independent old Roman Leader (but who swears loyalty to Arthur as the new Emperor of the Britons) - who styles himself Baron in Arthur terms -

Chavenage - http://www.chavenage.com/history.html - I'm not sure what i would do with this one at the moment. Given its early history then I'm tempted to think of a Baron that stems from the grant of land and positon to a sister of a Duke. The "Baron" maintains he is independent, the Duke sees him as a vassal.

Chris

I'm now thinking how some barons could fit into my campaign. Really I just want something that's workable but also doesn't appear completely nonsensical, so -


For the record, barons are going to be the common noble. There are 80 or so in Logres, compared to a half dozen counts and earls.



- I'm going to create a barony or two in Salisbury (where my camapign is set) to add some colour. Greg, any chance of you divulging some secrets from your upcoming book? For instance, the areas you have already earmarked for this?

I've been working on the 1.1 editions for pdf/pod release and haven't had a chance to concentrate on it for a while.
I'll take a look again and make some decisions soon, if I can.
I just want to get BATTLE finished first.



- I'll assume that Marlborough is overseen by the Duke of Clarence but he allows the barons of that county a certain level of autonomy in return for their general allegiance. They may grumble from time to time and there may be the odd flare of disquiet, but there is general cohesion.


I'd say the same thing but like this:
Marlborough is a barony, and thus a vassal of Uther. However, Uther had ordered the baron of Malborough to plae his army at the command of Duke Ulfius. Marlborough is naturally jealous of maintaining all his own prerogatives against the duke, who keeps saying things like "your army owes me more than 40 days service" an "your castle is an army attachment, so you should let me occupy it."



- I'll create a Baron of Marlborough castle (or perhaps Earl, as I think from reading this that an earl can exist under a duke) who will deal with all matters relating to the county up to a certain point.


Could be earl, especially now. I had the count of Marlborough in one of my campaigns.



- Likewise, I think I'll have some sub-rulers of Silchester, loyal to Ulfius, who take care of Windsor


Windsor, yes for sure. Not held by title, but by officership--temporary positions working for Ulfius. He would have many, many subofficers in important command posts.
Windsor has a castellan, for instance, He'd have 3 bailiffs who oversee the large agricultural territories within his realm. Foresters



and London (with London City as a separate entity).


I treat London as a chartered city--that is, it is a vassal of the king, with its mayor acting as as vassal for the city. It is so powerful that it (or rather, its richest inhabitants) still own most of the lands in its county, making it a Roman county. This Roman remnant, with ancient traditions and Law backing their power, does things its own way.
But it sends its field army to Ulfius, fearing the Saxons.


All sound feasible?


Go for it.
Your story always has precedence over published material.
I want to publish material that is useful and inspiring, not strait-jacketing.

Chris that's great stuff. Do you know of, or have links to possible barons of salisbury?




For the record, barons are going to be the common noble. There are 80 or so in Logres, compared to a half dozen counts and earls.



Does that mean they will replace knights? Or rather vassal knights will now be known as barons, of varying power?

Chris that's great stuff. Do you know of, or have links to possible barons of salisbury?




For the record, barons are going to be the common noble. There are 80 or so in Logres, compared to a half dozen counts and earls.



Does that mean they will replace knights? Or rather vassal knights will now be known as barons, of varying power?



No, this means that the most common titled noble is the baron.
There may be 80 or so barons in Logres, but there are a lot more vassal and household knights than there are barons (Salisbury alone has 80-200+ knights, remember).

All, first:
None of this is going to be inflicted on ordinary players. This is all optional.
Think of it as "deep GPC" material.



That all sounds very reasonable to me. An important thing to realise is that there are no hard-and-fast rules for feudalism. Wherver you find a "this is the standard way its done" rule, you'll immediately find numerous exceptions to that rule. basically, they were making things up as they went along, and the rules evolved to meet the situation. You can do the same. If you think of a power arrangement that would be fun, then it's perfectly okay to use it - feudalism is all about exceptions-to-the-rule.


Yes.
And the early phase of the GPC is going to be kinda loosey goosey in all--like it was in those days.
I think the plethora of titles for Ulfius gives an idea of them




Use whichever seems most fun for your campaign.


Always a god rule

- I'll assume that Marlborough is overseen by the Duke of Clarence but he allows the barons of that county a certain level of autonomy in return for their general allegiance. They may grumble from time to time and there may be the odd flare of disquiet, but there is general cohesion.


I'd say the same thing but like this:
Marlborough is a barony, and thus a vassal of Uther. However, Uther had ordered the baron of Malborough to plae his army at the command of Duke Ulfius. Marlborough is naturally jealous of maintaining all his own prerogatives against the duke, who keeps saying things like "your army owes me more than 40 days service" an "your castle is an army attachment, so you should let me occupy it."


That is a much better way to put it :)

Avalon makes a very important point. Dukes are not necessarily ABOVE a count in the way that they can FORCE that count to swear fealty to them, They have both already sworn fealty! To the KING!!! Generally that would be the case i think. This is sooo important to remember. It has caused a lot of trouble in our games! BUT the kind of trouble that makes for excellent roleplaying!..Rule of thumb if you will ; " A title is just a title until the High King Arthur comes to power. Before that a man can have whatever title he wants... But if he doesnt have the army and political power or allies to back it up..then its nothing ". Read Gregs blog about the Candlebees. When Count Edar became count he resisted the New Duke of Lindsey's attempts to get him to swear fealty. Edar decided that he had rescued the county (AND the New count of lindsey, so he would not be subservient to him). As a result the DUKEDOM of Lindsey was split, and became two Counties with a COUNT of lindsey, and Edar essentially CREATED the COUNTY of Leicester that was once part of the Dukedom of Lindsey! So thats a good example. Edar would never follow a duke simply because of the mans title. He might take the mans advice and would ALWAYS Give him his due in the form of respect and his rights, but he made sure to always assert his own rights as a peer as well!

That is a much better way to put it :)


I am currently trying to always think from the barons point of view.

Logres has 80 families vying for parts of a finite power base. Some ae rich, some poor, some successful, some followers of others (in practice if not homage).

Book of BARONS will focus on that as the noble titled class, and anything beyond (the few earls, Arthur has few dukes), is jus a bonus.

My campaign is set amongst knights of the Duke of Lindsey, so I have given some thought to the power hierarchy thereabouts. Here's a brief rundown of my version:

Corneus (we are in the anarchy) is the the Duke of Lindsey, an office he was appointed to by Ambrosius (and subsequently re-confirmed in by Uther) - as such he is the war leader for the counties of the Northern march, which are presently Lincoln, Leicester, Lambor and Lonazep (the duke's people would probably argue that Bedegraine and Roestoc should be in the list as well, but Uther never got around to adding them to the Duke's brief so they aren't - and the current tenants in those parts don't like Lindsey much, so there you are).

As Duke, Corneus has what the Romans would call imperium over the various peers of the northern counties in matters of war (and preparation for same), but he has no formal writ when it comes to civil matters (taxation, law, inheritance etc) and the other peers do not owe him any vassal duties (being peers of the realm themselves). Of course Corneus is a peer in his own right (Count of Lincoln) and also by marriage (Count of Leicester), so he is responsible for civil matters in those fiefs, plus his personal history and presence as the biggest landholder of the region means that he is very much primus inter pares when it comes to dealing with the other peers of the region - he just can't order them about (except when they are mustered in the army of course).

Corneus has the most problems with the Count of Lonazep, who chafes at what he (Lonazep) regards as the Duke's ambition and constant overstepping of the bounds of his office. He has also had a vexatious time with the Count of Lambor (his wife's cousin) and the Abbot of Leicester (despite the name, the office is in Lambor's gift). Lambor regards the dowry that the Countess of Leicester brought to her husband as part of the Lambor patrimony which was lost when his grandfather negotiated an over-generous marriage alliance with the Duke. This froideur has been lessened of late thanks to the assistance the count's brother received in his (temporarily) successful conquest of the County of Huntingdon - but the underlying issue is still a problem and will continue to rankle.

Technically Corneus can also direct some of the chieftans of Sorestan (ie those who contracted as feoderates to Uther, Ambrosius or Vortigern at some point in the previous 50 years or so) in matters of war, but practically speaking his writ hasn't run in the saxon areas for many years and many of the 'new men' amongst the saxons have never been feoderates. The contracts and the claims they delineate are all waiting upon a time when the politics permit them to be revived of course - such legal ambiguities are very helpful when it comes to reordering things after a significant realignment in practical, on-the-ground power happens.

Regards
Luke