Oleksandr

some more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatriz_Bermúdez_de_Velasco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatriz_de_Palacios

oops, autocorrect...😅 Well, basic KAP combine elements from multiple different sources (including 20thc books and movies), and intentionally anachronistic. Settlements and economic model, for example, explicitly based on 11thc, not 6thc.

Well, KAP already try (quite successfully) to combine realistic and mythical elements, so... why not shift a little bit one component or another?😄 Personally, i think that emphasis on established epic heroes (and villains) could be more interesting than on thousands of nameless, faceless combatants (who mostly stays on background anyway) 😄

So, I looked through several tables of battle sizes, and noticed that armies in it are razer.. big. I mean, really Big. This correspond to average army sizes as described in chronicles, but problem is, modern historical consensus is that this numbers are greatly exaggerated for added "epicness" (especially on enemy side 🤣). It should be noted that when history as real science started to form, armies just reached sizes mentioned in chronicles, thus for a long time this numbers was used without critical approach. This problem still linger. As example, in Book of battle, Agincourt was given as RL example of large battle (25000 combatants). Modern estimates that i found stated that , of the troops that actually participated in battle (for example, armed servants didn't), there was 1,5-1,7 thousands on English side, and 4-4,6 on French side. And that is battle involving much larger France. And, this is battle from LMA, when population of Britain was around 4 times bigger than during Uther's (in BoU, if i remember correctly, about 1 million people) and especially in Arthur's times. Question there not only in historical realism, but in game itself - in realistically tiny army PK's actions and accomplishments would be much more meaningful 😉 😎.

Thats my point exactly. I don't want romantisation, i aim to historical realism. Anyway... One other point i want to add, Anarchy period and early reign of Arthur was full of wars, maybe even more than during initial saxon invasion. Thats, along with accompanying starvation and diseases, logically led to population decline. The thing is, in archaic agrarian society this may lead to increased average prosperity - poor people are more likely to die, and already cultivated land will later be re-distributed among survivors - or at least that what (according to modern historians) happened after Plague. Obviously, with modern economy, going Thanos on people wouldn't work like that😅

It should be taken into account that some of them could be noncombatants (nurses, camp followers ets., they are often ignored). Then again, maybe not. We have no way of knowing. Of course, even noncombatants would fight for their lives. I suppose most female combatants was more likely from samurai class, who could afford better equipment, training and, unlike peasant women, could eat regularly, thus being bigger and stronger 😁. Returning to Europe, i heard that ther was female combatants among Hussites militia, and among guerilla army of Vlad the Impaler, and among Cortes's troops.

Well, we all are entitled to our own opinions, however, i must point out that, given how widespread such feature was, even in far more oppressive states then Uther's Logres, it would be even somewhat unrealistic that something like this didn't existed. Please note also that, as described in linked articles, such communes gradually diminished in number through MA, along with gradual rise of social gap, which may somewhat warp perception of this phenomenon😉. And in KAP itself, judging by number of castles built by commoners for self defense during Anarchy (according to BotW) and other sources, commoners aren't so passive and pliable in this setting. BTW, you think that this doesn't feet Arthurian story?🤔 I mean, In GPC Arthur allowed commoners representation in parliament... Well, i would argue that Arthur (at least in GPC) had "mandate from the masses"😉. All commoners present during sword drawing, churchmen, and almost all noblemen of Logress (and many from outside) submitted to him. Large cities and market towns had some amount of self rule, and (theoretically) could defy him along with rebellious lords (and yes, such thing happened in real MA). In fact, while researching this subject, i , to my surprise, discovered that elective monarchies was very common in MA, especially early on. Way more common than direct primogeniture. In some cases representatives of free commoners participated in election.

Wouldn't top tower count as being on the crag? BTW, i noticed that Crags/ridges in BotW give +10 DV, it was +25 in NB... I also noticed that "Castle of the Pass" (BotW) are on "steep hill", which, it seems, provide +6 instead of +5 of "simple" hill...

A little bit of (questionable) humor.

of course, my point was that they contributed to food production while not being peasants, therefore making 15-20% of noblesse sustainable. You see, my main point is, the less peasants per noble - the more noblesse depend upon their peasants. Somebody who rule over thousands of serfs may afford to not care about them, meanwhile somebody who is a "lord" of single village had to be more benevolent😁.

I thought about this point for a while, and it seems that there could be a lot of possibilities for this bonuses. For example, if castle are built on island or peninsula, then stronghold (or inner ward AND stronghold) can be on the river edge, receiving it's (smaller) bonus. In fact, if castle/city build on the coast or clif edge, if properly positioned, inner defences still will be on same coast/edge.😉 P.s. BTW, look at this fortress (or, what left of it...) : While whole fortress is on the hill, each subsequent layer of defence is on the rise relative to the previous. And there is cliff on the other side. Cool, isn't it?😎

How exactly it's different to being killed by a man? 🤨 I still can't see a difference between fighting women on the battlefield, and doing it while assaulting their houses... And, by that point peasant conscripts has long been comprising bulk of the armies. When social structure was reformed after war end, they formed intermediate class above normal peasants, with some privileges. It also important to note that at this time plate armor still was rare among samurai. Experiments showed that plate armor are highly resistant to firearm (depending on distance, angle and quality, of course). In fact, both Nobunaga and Tokugawa was hit multiple times, and their armor stopped bullets. Contrary to popular belief, plate armor was used for centuries after guns became common. Gunpowder based armies was reasonably effective, yet cheep, expendable and, most importantly, consisted of poor commoners instead of ruling elite😆

There was olso other people who produced food. Many monks was engaged in agriculture, many burghes and military garnisons worked small plots of land in free time. DB provides examples of soldiers who was given small farms by their lords. Well, for what we know about historical tribal cultures (and their more recent counterparts) they was quite egalitarian, especially in comparison to some other systems, like absolute monarchies, or ussr 😆. Besides, if, as we can see, such commoners communes existed in Norman's England, HRE and, to lesser extent, in other parts of Europe (including Italy), then i don't see reasons they couldn't exist in Arthurian Britain.

Again, sorry for nitpicking, this matter just to important to me. Tribal culture was misinterpreted way to often!(( This other tribal groups i mentioned also had kings,warlords and chiefs (and some of them too claimed divine descent 😃), but still, they wasn't absolute rulers. In fact, some of them, who thinked too much of themselves, ended up exiled or killed by their "subjects". The way early parts of GPC described (with king and high king positions being elective), in addition to related culture of irish (as described in Pagan Shore), seems to be very similar.

Well, i have inclination for nitpicking. Sorry 😊. But, all this numbers was in rulebooks, so i couldn't resist... As i understand, real Romano-British people, aside city dwellers, were very similar to Anglo-Saxons culturally, they both was essentially just tribal society. Now, while i not intimately familiar with celts and saxon, i know a little bit about other tribal societies, scandinavians and slavs. This tribals was indeed amalgamations of communes of free farmers, with "noblesse" being essentially bands of mercenaries, hired by this communes (and could be replaced if proved inadequate). CAP are supposed to be mix of literature and history, right? DB England is good example of transition from tribal to feudal society, not unlike what happens in GPC.

Hm, unlikely. As was stated, samurai women was expected to fight to defend their homes and families. Doing it on the battlefield was just a little bit odd.

Well, there was just few small regions with such high concentration of noblesse. It should be noted that land in PLC more fertile on average (i honestly don't know hove spanish dealt with it). And yes, some of poorer noblesse had to work on their farms (similarly, some scottish noblesse herded their cattle themself). In less threatened land they would be degraded in status of course. But in the "frontier"... As example, during king elections in Poland such farmer-knight had exact same voting power as any high noble*. I think this situation is quite similar to one before and early during Arthur reign. And more idealistic😉. *obviously, high noblesse could just bribe poorer ones to vote for whom they wanted🤑.

One more thing. As i understand, standard 10L manor* has population of 420 people (500 in BotM), thus, counting family, there 1-1,5% noblesse per population. About average for big and stable medieval kingdom, but it should be noted that in borderlands there was more knights (also more castles and fortified settlements), and in "frontier" kingdoms - spanish kingdoms during/after reconquista, eastern Europe, especially PLC - had significantly more, 15-20% on average, with some regions up to 40%! Ofcourse, most of these was minore noblesse, poor knights. Thing is, Arthurian Britain, with many small kingdoms, dotted with wilderness full of bandits, monsters and evil knights, seems to be way closer to the later than former. And it would be more "heroic", or something like that...😁 *large land holding from BotE and BotW seems to be way more varied...

Well, in 16-17thc fencing manuals rapier wery rarely depicted parrying, my friends (HEMA practitioners) explained that it's becoas dagger are simply faster. Though you are right, for lone dagger +1 or +2 seems more appropriate, but i think sword+dagger should provide +4. I seen about half a dozen HMAs pictures with use of wrapped cloak, and couple of once with sword and knife from EMAs*, so idea wasn't entirely alien for this eras. After all, even knights wasn't wearing armor 24/7 (ans early in campaign only chainmail are available). *and several with dual swords from HMAs. So it wasn't hollywood invention...

Main point here, this warrior training was not for battlefield use, but for selfdefense, which can be useful for women of high nobility too.

Well, in first post i provided links for examples of similar semi-autonomous peasants communes (and peasant republics even) under feudal rule. According to BD this was more common in anglo-saxon times, some of this communes was even direct vassal of the king.

Though i still think that dagger should have parry value, at least 2 (maybe as much as 4, after all daggers became defensive tool for being nimbler than sword...)

BTW, it's strange. IRL it perfectly possible to parry with both hands simultaneously, putting weapon and shield together (or using crossed weapons, for example in fencing with rapier and dagger). Also, why dagger has parry value of 0? It possible to parry with it too:

Well, i have a feeling that this community has its roots from tribal traditions, and Arthur reign was just 2 generations away from tribal times. Besides, it make sense. Such arrangement somewhat reduced peasant obligations, accelerating realm restoration after anarchy and civil war (especially considering gradually reduced external threat). Arthur could introduce such reforms both in his demesne and land he confiscated from saxons and various rebels, before re-granting it.

Understandable, but i had impression that he was considered at least ok-ish king. Otherwise him being Arthur father would be detrimental for the later... Besides, his rule here appear worse than that of normans, already oppressive (relatively speaking. In comparison to late 18thc - early 19thc russia it was virtual paradise 🤣) Yes, but it seems right to use examples of most benevolent and enlightened medieval realms as basis to quazi "golden age". Some realms abolished serfdom fairly early, some never had one in the first place, there was cases of peasants representation in parliaments and so on...