Oleksandr

To be honest, it hard to believe that somebody who able to read could be unable to write... Well, whole GPC is somewhat anticlimactic to begin with 😅. Besides, it depend on what atmosphere desired. When female knights are rare, any woman with a sword are unique, and considered as virtual war goddess by default 😎. Many would prefer this to situation when female knights are usual and commonplace. Well, technically, book collections existed in medieval Europe too. Monks produced quite a lot of books, though libraries was mostly confined to monasteries... However, father of aforementioned queen Anna reportedly had vast library, supposedly more than 1000 books (probably exaggeration)

So, as i understand, when it comes to society, economy and social classes, information from domesday book was used as model for at least early phases, right? The thing is, i noticed that there a very big difference between it (i mostly used analisis from site " Hull Domesday Project", which doesn't work right now for some reasons...) and information from Book of Uther. According to BoU, Logres had only 5% of yeomans/freemans, while domsday England had 15% (mostly villeins); for burghers numbers was 5% in BoU and up to 10% in DB; for slaves it 20% and 10% respectively (and slavery disappeared after few generations); around 40% of population in DB - serfs-villeins, some with income comparable with that of minor noblesse. What also wasn't mentioned in KAP materials is that communes of free peasants could be collectively manor holders (which wasn't unique to DB England). And DB supposed to represent oppressive "norman yoke". Arthurian rule (at least during golden age) are expected to be rather idealistic, and this is quite the uphill road with such starting point...

However, there was episode in his "Lancelot" when protagonist was tricked, captured and held prisoner in the tower... and was saved by passing princess ("in soviet russia..."😆) Also, funnily enough, he worked for female patron, and has written specifically for female audience. It was noted that movies with warrior-women generally more popular with male audience...

Another interesting question is, in GPC, in one of the "gossip" sections, court ladys was shocked and horrified that Morgan is literate... Nowadays it's accepted by historians that people in MA was more literate than was previously believed. It seems that even some peasants was literate. In fact, wikipedia list quite a bit of female writers from EMAs, admittedly, mostly nuns. However, we know that Anna of Kyev, queen of France at the time of norman conquest, was literate (proximity of her homeland to ERE could be a factor though). Among medieval letters that archaeologists digged in Nowgorod (local soil are particularly good at preserving birch bark, which was used as cheep writing medium) was correspondence between middle class women. This was wealthy merchant city, but it's unlikely to be unique case. There was also episod from viking saga when dying poet ask his daughter to write down his last verse. (some other examples 1, 2, 3)

Don't forget that, as early posts there shows, both H/L MAs and Arthurian literature had female knights. Just not as many as would be in more conservatively "dark age" culture.

What do you mean? 🤨 It's all logical. Realms, regularly attacked by raider gangs that include female combatant, may become more accepting of their own amazons. And, since such raiders are less likely to spare women (for aforementioned reasons), women of attacked lands are more likely to learn self defense.

It looks like all period from 410 onward (and, to lesser degree, long period of roman decline beforehand) wasn't much better than Anarchy. Few brief periods of relative stability notwithstanding. Constant raids and attacks from nearly all sides, especially by more conservative celts (i.e. ones who had female warriors in largish numbers)...

Well, as i pointed out earlier, in culture where female warrior are more common, and women don't by default seen as weak and helpless, attacking and killing women seen as not different than attacking man. Glimpses of such attitude remains in oldest celtic literature (even filtered by monks edition), but many women would not perceive this as utopia. There was some research which imply that women on average tend to be less reckless and more pragmatic than men (admittedly, some people find this controversial...). Which suggest that many women would prefer "gilded cages" but with great potential for power behind the scene. Especially when such intrigue and manipulation not just acceptable, but encouraged. Meanwhile, in earlier phases, when "might may right", there is big incentive to be combatant. In other words, it's big, but not entirely unrealistic cultural shift (besides, game is already anachronistic, and compress centuries of changes). On the other hand, rarity of female knights in later phases make them more unique, hence period appropriate amazement and admiration.

Another thing about Anarchy, is that such unstable and violent times is very good incentive for women to learn some combat skills. As example of similar environment, in feudal Japan, while few women fought on the battlefield, all noblewomen was trained as warriors, just in case. I would say that it was more of a roman (perhaps greco-roman) influence on both Britain and Christendom as a whole.

It should be noted that early Christianity was far less strict toward women in comparison with later times (1, 2 (last part particularly)). But yes, Pagans probably seen even less issue with this. And, since Arthur rule brought peace and prosperity (and a little bit of decadence😆), along with idea of Romance (all this "knight serving Lady" stuff, which some researchers interpret as early feminism), which means that lady can advance in society through court intrigue, with much less risk involved.

Yeah, there was also similar adventure, with Morgan Le Fay setting up test for knights (in Blood&Lust). However, realistically, with all this raids from pict, irish and saxons, most knights likely already fought (and killed) female opponent before. As i understand, older editions was closer to romances (and time period this romances was written), where female warriors was somewhat rarer than in real dark age Britain. I also noticed that in some similar threads here many people expressed opinion that in Arthurian time female knights would be more common and accepted than in earlier phases of campaign. I have a feeling that (due to several factors) it would be the other way around... P.s. in such discussion question about physical strength often raised. I read that, before stirrups was invented, cataphracts tied their lances t saddle, thus only strength of the horse was used to strike and bear recoil. Female knight may use same trick.

May i also ask about this additional features i mentioned in first post? (most appeared in BotW) Was there plans to update castle building rules at the time?

There also evidence for similar germanic traditions earlier And later (1, 2, 3). It's entirely realistic that there could be warrior-women among anglo-saxon. p.s. What also need to be pointed out (since it wasn't mentioned in rulebook) is that in cultures like ancient celts, where female combatants and military leaders was more common, attitude to violence against women was way more pragmatic, for obvious reasons. And this not align to well with "classic" chivalry...

Yep. I was shocked how narrow minded such "ideological" reading of history can be. As particular example, in late medieval eastern European manor houses women spent a lot of time in one particular room. Some "researchers" concluded that, of course, they was forced to, like in islamic harem. Obviously, noblewomen couldn't simply choose to spend time in fanciest and most comfortable chamber in the house. 🤣 Whoever made this conclusion probably never met slavic women)) Anyway, to more interesting stuff. Since CAP mix later literature and historical early middle ages, this will be fitting too: from Osprey publishing "Pictish warrior". Realistically, romans couldn't stampp out such traditions completely. Especially with all this picts, irish and hill tribesmen running around.

smiorgan, well, Sikelgaita was among examples in rulebook. That's why i omitted her. 😉 As another example, i read that in early Robin Hood stories maid Marian was excellent archer and better fencer than Robin. P.s. what i find funny is that, in modern highly politicized society, i meat angry comments in similar discussions from member of both extremes of political spectrum. Right-wingers can't believe this because it doesn't align with attitude of "distant past" (a.k.a. last few generations), while left-wingers often reject it because middle ages supposed to be exclusively oppressive and unfair. 🤣

Core rulebook gives several good examples, but i found some more, and wanted to share it. It seams that female fighters was somewhat more accepted than commonly believed. In general, i read that, in defence of castles and towns woman commonly participated by throwing stones and pouring boiling water. But there was also examples of woman operating war machines on the walls ("His head was smashed by a stone from a mangonel, operated, according to one source, by the donas e tozas e mulhers ("ladies and girls and women") of Toulouse"), and fighting more directly. Isabella of France, during her regency once lead her army personally "wearing armour, and mounted on a warhorse". There is another similar example. There also example of noble woman who became pirate leader for revenge sake. (which means that whole crew of 3 ship agreed to be leed by woman). Also example of girl who dressed as knight participated in jousting duel and won. But even more interesting was certain Isabel of Conches: What i find especially interesting is attitude expressed in contemporary sources about all them. It universally amazement and admiration. Quite unlike rejection they was supposed to express according to stereotypes. 😄 Of course they wasn't officially knights, but it turn out female knights (or at least women who was knighted) really existed. While they (usually) wasn't expected to fight, this still was great honor. And i was surprised that among fictional examples was omitted Bradamante, who was knight in both title and function. Another literature example i found is The Adventures of Orlando and Melora (Eachtra Mhelóra agus Orlando), 16th-century Irish romance, where protagonist is Melora (Mhelóra) a.k.a. Knight of the Blue Surcoat, King Arthur daughter (!), who go on adventure to save her boyfriend.

This also rise another question. If keep of small castle protrude enough, people on it can fire at enemies assaulting gate. There are couple of such examples in RL. Could it count as sorta concentric castle (especially if geography limit approach to it)?😎

From BotW, "Castles of the Early Phase" : Same list use term "keep" too.

Thanks you for the answer👍 I also wanted to clarify something. 1) In BotEs, in rules for halls, it said that tile/lead roof provide +1/2 DV. It's mean that tile one provide +1 and lead - +2? or that eigter one provide half DV? (sorry if question sound stupid 🥴). I also curious why roof provide such bonus... 2) Is "great tower"=keep, or it's completely different things? 3) There was rule that half curtain wall can be cheaply upgraded into normal one. It's interesting, what about other similar upgrades? Can rock wall be starting point for half curtain wall, and large stone hall - for keep?

Well, i would argue that it would be somewhat harder to bring in reinforcements, additional arrows, pavises, ladders and all to hill top. Similarly, while on flat ground, you can bring ston trowers closer and bombard motte, while if it's on the hill it would be less effective. Same if castle built on island, and if it on peninsula you can't surround it with siege engines. However, such a difference maybe to small to be noticeable in gameplay. Returning to BotW, there also plenty of earthwork enclosure type castles (historians usually use term "ringwork") with no additional bailey, which many ringworks had historically (sometimes several). Similarly, some castles had just big motte, with no bailey. Castle building was rather unsystematic 😁 Is there some probability that suggestions posted here will reach developers?

There was also some other minor mistakes, where description and DV don't much up. This was just most noticeable one. BTW, i understand correctly that some of the people on this forum worked/working on this books? One other thing i also noticed, in older rules geographic features provided defence bonus for every layer of defence, while in BotW - only for outermost... That's significant reduction 🤨 That's interesting question. Considering that BotEstate give DV for different types of Halls, it implied that it supposed to be stronghold... In examples from BotW some castles has stronghold dv 3 instead of 2, which implies that it isn't just tower. And at least one example hall was explicitly separated from stronghold/keep... Realistically, it more convenient to have (unfortified) hall in the bailey, but, if i remember correctly (can't check right now) Oakeshott in his "knight and his castle" described french wooden castle that consisted of one large, two storey building on top of motte, based on contemporary chronicle. And later shale keeps also had hall and dwellings in it, again on top of motte. I think it's entirely possible for some lords to build their hall or at least bedchambers on the motte…

(first of all, i nead to warn that english isn't my first language, i'm sorry you had to suffer my grammar 😅 .I also mast admit that i never actually played TTRPG (none of my circle of friends are TT player 😔 ), this is just curiosity of mine, especially world building aspect.. So, sorry if my cuestion would sound overly naive) Anyway.I looked thru several sets of rules for fortification building from older editions, and noticed some inconsistencies with examples of castles given in both old and new books. For example, all versions of rules stated that it imposibble to build keep on motte. Yet, in some cases (including example attached to this very rules!🤨) keep of a castle are explicitly build on motte. I also noticed some elements of fortifications (Small and Grand keeps, great towers of various configurations, tall turrets, stone lined ditches/ramparts, motte reveted with stone, rock hewn ditches...) and geographic features it can be build on (like steep hills and river loops) that wasn't in any of this rooles. This rules will be updated in the future, right? P.C. I also noticed that in list of castles from Book of the warlords apparently defence values of Lambor and Lair's castles got mixed, in both Uther and Anarchy period: Новый рисунок.bmp