In the Map Project thread, Thijs made a comment expressing surprise that the bannerets were all lucky enough to get manors all close together as they were shown on the banneret manor map.

I never saw any response to that.

So what do people think, would the bannerets' manors normally be a bit more spread than shown on the map? If so, would some trading go on, with the Earl's permission, to make a lord's holdings less spread out?

Thanks,
Chip

I expect the lords wouldn't want his banneret's manors too close together. The whole point was to prevent the consolidation of a power base.

Large landholdings (such as a banneret's) in medieval times were often quite spread out. Thats my impression from Nordic history at least, though I do not know if this equally applies to Britain.

Indeed, since a manor is per definition a self contained unit of production, there was until large scale agriculture was introduced (in Sweden and Denmark, his happened in the 16th and 17th centuries respectively) no real need to keep the holdings together. Having them spread out might even lessen risk (ie if a blight strikes on part of the land and not the other, or a invasion, or whatever, spread out land holdings will turn out to be a good idea).

The one banneretty I've detailed in my game is nice and compact, but that was purely for my (and the players) convenience since I didn't want the hassle of wrangling 4 lots of manorial sheets, multiple stewards and such. However the sort of considerations mentioned by Skarpskytten and Eothar would certainly be a factor in 'real' life.

If I had to justify my choice with an in game reason I'd say was that it was in a chaotic county with weak central authority and threatened by multiple external enemies (Malahaut, Cameliard, several flavours of saxons) so bannerets were the de facto power centres for this area, but elsewhere/elsewhen you'd get the more dispersed banneretties.

Regards
Luke

In the Map Project thread, Thijs made a comment expressing surprise that the bannerets were all lucky enough to get manors all close together as they were shown on the banneret manor map.


That map showing bannerets is not official.



So what do people think, would the bannerets' manors normally be a bit more spread than shown on the map?


I have no statistics on this, but I would suspect that in general they would be spread around.



If so, would some trading go on, with the Earl's permission, to make a lord's holdings less spread out?


Probably not.

Thank you all for your answers.

I expected that they would be spread out overall, but I hadn't thought of a lord purposefully keeping his vassals holdings spread out to keep them from getting too strong.

Thanks,
Chip

Thank you all for your answers.

I expected that they would be spread out overall, but I hadn't thought of a lord purposefully keeping his vassals holdings spread out to keep them from getting too strong.

Thanks,
Chip


That sort of thing has to be on every feudal lord's minds, from the lowly bannerette up to the high king. Their vassals are required to be somewhat independent, and they can get quite rebellious if given the chance!

Thread necromancy!

Given that the concentration of the Counties already under one Earl is somewhat ahistorical, not to mention the obvious anachronisms inherent in a Pendragon campaign, I would not worry too much about these historical details. Instead, convenience and plot are more important to me. Hence, in our campaign, the banneretcies tend to be concentrated. Not only does this give the PKs an additional sense of togetherness, but it works plotwise as well. Our Banneretcies are originally created to improve the command response of the areas in the outskirts of Salisbury, to make certain that there is a local authority, the Banneret, who can quickly respond to smaller raids, and coordinate defense against a larger one. The fact that this also gives the Banneret a powerbase from which to stage challenges against the overlord (i.e. The Earl of Salisbury in this case), is simply a bonus from my GMing perspective, especially during Anarchy. :)

(In our other campaign, the Banneret of the Ebble Valley tried to get his son-in-law, a famous knight (and a PK), to overthrow the Countess after the Earl died in St.Albans. Unfortunately for him, some of the other PKs stayed loyal to the Countess and warned her about this, allowing her to act first and arrest the conspirators. Alas, the Banneret managed to escape and rather than face the might of Salisbury alone, pledged his loyalty to the new Praetor of Dorset to gain the Praetor's protection. Fun fun. :) )

Morien - Would you care to share the location and number of Banneretcies you're currently using in your campaign?

Easiest to just center them around existing population and defensive centers... Devizes, Du Plain, Ebble, Sarum, Tilshead, Vagon, Warminster, Wilton.

Morien - Would you care to share the location and number of Banneretcies you're currently using in your campaign?


Well, the thing is that I have only named three Banneretcies in Salisbury, with 'and a couple of others' tagged after that and never elaborated on. My players have not asked, so I have not had to make stuff up. :) Even the other two bannerets came to the limelight only when there was a question who'd become the Regent of Salisbury in our mini-Anarchy while Arthur was held by the Witch, Camille.

But now that you have put me into the spot... Looking at Thijs' map, I'd say that in my campaign, the Banneretcies would be as follows:

1. Levcomagus March: about where the Upperchute Banneretcy is on the map, but including Grateley, Cholderton and Newton Tony. Basically intended to defend Salisbury against raids coming from Levcomagus.

2. Saxon March: Du Plain + environs. In one of our campaigns, there was a couple of manors down the river as well. Intended to defend Salisbury against Saxon raids from Wessex or up the Test.

3. Dorset March: Ebble + Ebble valley. Protecting the southern border of Salisbury.

4. Somerset March: Warminster + environs.

5. Blakemoor March: West Lavington + environs.

6. Cirencester March: Devizes + environs. (I'd be tempted to merge this with the one above, and distribute some manors to the one below.)

7. Dike March: Upavon + manors north of that (not the south ones as in Thijs' map)

8. Marlborough March: Wilton + environs.

(Names given on the spur of the moment.)

Granted, these kinds of 'border banneretcies' work much better when they are not inherited. ;) But dynastic strife is so much fun.

Like said, the intent in my campaigns tends to be that the banneretcies provide a local leader for defense, ensuring better cooperation between the knights of the environs, until the Earl can hasten up with the rest of the army. I'd assume that legally, those castles would be the Earl's and the banneret is simply the castellan. But again, it is so much more fun (for us, at least), when the PKs are building castles of their own (more akin to timber motte and bailey than anything from stone, admittedly) and hiring their own private armies.