Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Username

Spoiler Maps! Based on the GPC and Others

Recommended Posts

So, I'm attaching a map here, it's based on Abraham Ortellius' 16th century map of Europe. Some of the icons come from an Ortrllius map of Belgium. And others come from a few versions of the Cambriae Typus. 

Cities and locations come from the Pendragon main book map, the GPC, and some historical and current research into land use and ancient city placement. I tried to keep additions to a minimum, but Scotland was just a little too barren.

Some notes, it's scaled to either 24x36 or 36x48 inches. Let me know if you have any suggestions or improvements. The only thing that will likely be done by me at this point is a look for a usable historical scale bar to duplicate. The year of the map is, 502 I believe. It may be for 503. If anyone else has some maps they'd like to share, I'd like to see them. I'll share the other maps I've made in another post.

Links:

Europe-https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Ortelius_Map_of_Europe.jpg

Belgium-https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ortelius_Belgii_Veteris_(1594).jpg

 

Britain Political Compressed 502(1).pdf Britain Compressed 485.pdf

Edited by Username
New maps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks nice. I noticed you have given each power its own land. so all the lands of Escavalon are together. But in that case you should divide Logres as well. There is no king and there are some strong lords: Duke Lindsey in the north and Duke Silchester in the south. The map of 495 gives the strongest political parties at that moment, although other powers have shifted the ones in Logres do not. So they are not unified front. In fact in 503 according to the GPC Malahaut and Escavalon fight over the spoils (being Duke Lindsey).

Also Kent and Essex join together to take London.

Not sure if Garloth is part of Lothian. The maps in the GPC say so, and  the text says King Nentres is King Lot's right hand man. But 512 Nentres is present at the battle at the the Bassus river (and killed there) as an ally of Malahaut, but Lot is apparantly not present. He could be there on his liege's orders, but I am not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 10:01 PM, jeffjerwin said:

Cambenet is essentially part of Malohaut; it includes the valley of the Eden or what is now eastern Cumbria.

I left Cambenet out because it seems to be wilderness in the GPC. Though, perhaps that was a mistake. Do you know where I could find a map or anything to readjust the borders accordingly?

On 8/9/2019 at 8:26 AM, Cornelius said:

It looks nice. I noticed you have given each power its own land. so all the lands of Escavalon are together. But in that case you should divide Logres as well. There is no king and there are some strong lords: Duke Lindsey in the north and Duke Silchester in the south. The map of 495 gives the strongest political parties at that moment, although other powers have shifted the ones in Logres do not. So they are not unified front. In fact in 503 according to the GPC Malahaut and Escavalon fight over the spoils (being Duke Lindsey).

Thanks! I left Logres as one unit because I wanted people to know where the current boundaries of the land that would be considered Logres is. Also, we use the Book of the Warlord County maps as the county political maps, they work really well for the interior politics. It's difficult to make all of the distinguishing splits for all of the counties and maintain readability for all of the other smaller divisions. I've done some individual county maps for Rydychan, Ascalon, and Salisbury, but I don't have it done for everywhere yet. When I get all of the counties drawn, then I'll post one with the county divisions and we'll see how it looks

 

On 8/9/2019 at 8:26 AM, Cornelius said:

Not sure if Garloth is part of Lothian. The maps in the GPC say so, and  the text says King Nentres is King Lot's right hand man. But 512 Nentres is present at the battle at the the Bassus river (and killed there) as an ally of Malahaut, but Lot is apparantly not present. He could be there on his liege's orders, but I am not sure.

This confuses me too, it almost seems like he's independent at times and a vassal at times. It could be a very true medieval experience of chivalry here, but KAP feudalism is usually much cleaner. I opted to say he was a vassal and not list him independently. If anyone else has some thoughts on this one, I wouldn't be against split him off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Username said:

I left Cambenet out because it seems to be wilderness in the GPC. Though, perhaps that was a mistake. Do you know where I could find a map or anything to readjust the borders accordingly?

Perilous Forest has detailed maps of the area. You'll find (early) boundaries detailed also in the Book of Sires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

You'll find (early) boundaries detailed also in the Book of Sires.

The Cumbria map in p. 116 of BoSi is valid for Uther Period. Just to clarify that it is earlier than Perilous Forest (which is more around Romance), but it is late in BoSi's scheme of things. :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check the Book of Sires then and update this when i get the chance. I did make some resizing and cleaning of the imagery changes, when I printed it, I noticed some of the photoshopping issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the Book of Sires map for Cumbria. It's quite different from other maps. Which made me wonder. How are those maps drawn up? How are boundaries measured, how are roads drawn, and how are cities picked for inclusion? I have some data layers from a project that show roman roads from a UK archaeological database and those are different, I can't remember exactly how different, without looking at a map, but I'm certain their not so well dispersed geographically.

Edited by Username

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Username said:

It's quite different from other maps.

Which other maps?

18 hours ago, Username said:

How are boundaries measured, how are roads drawn, and how are cities picked for inclusion?

IIRC, Greg provided a list of things to include and then we discussed things a bit. The main thing for those maps was to provide context, i.e. where is a certain battle happening or when we reference to a place, that place should show up in the maps, too. But they were never intended to be complete, as in 'include everything'.

The roads are based on the Roman road network, but again, not all roads are shown. I do remember that I specifically asked for the Catterick - Durham - Carduel loop to be shown, simply because it would be the dominant road for the Wall and Nohaut.

As for the boundaries, the main map we were looking at was GPC p. 127. Those little tiny maps in GPC were often contradictory, so we ignored those most of the time. Since in 480s, Nohaut and Deira are quite powerful, we wanted to show that. Whether Holderness is part of Deira or Malahaut , and whether the Yorkshire Moors are part of Nohaut or Malahaut, can be debated, but since the former is still sparsely populated marshlands and the latter is deserted moors, it didn't really matter. Making the boundaries simpler made sense.

Edited by Morien
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also need to remember, Book of Sires covers the years 439-484.  As Morien pointed out,

9 minutes ago, Morien said:

Those little tiny maps in GPC were often contradictory, so we ignored those most of the time. Since in 480s, Nohaut and Deira are quite powerful, we wanted to show that. Whether Holderness is part of Deira or Malahaut , and whether the Yorkshire Moors are part of Nohaut or Malahaut, can be debated, but since the former is still sparsely populated marshlands and the latter is deserted moors, it didn't really matter. Making the boundaries simpler made sense.

During the years of Uther, Anarchy, and Boy King, one can imagine the boundaries changing. You will also notice that each map is dated to some extent so you know when we say what the borders are.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Morien said:

Which other maps

I was specifically talking about the GPC maps, but those were, as you mentioned, often contradictory. I'll look into doing one based on Book of Sires since that seems to be the more accurate.

5 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

During the years of Uther, Anarchy, and Boy King, one can imagine the boundaries changing. You will also notice that each map is dated to some extent so you know when we say what the borders are.  

Ha, it's so bad, I spread out that map for everyone to see and the group said, "Looks good, in 5 minutes it'll be obsolete though." 

The other thing that makes any sort of medieval mapping difficult is that power projection was limited in earlier times as well as the inability of the kingdoms to firmly establish anything but a fluid boundary. There are many conversations about how to properly describe the kingdom or other political units of a medieval period or any period pre-industrial nation-states. So, any of these boundaries should be considered and presented as very fluid or at least I try. Still there's something useful in trying to present boundaries as if they were a static thing.

5 hours ago, Morien said:

IIRC, Greg provided a list of things to include and then we discussed things a bit. The main thing for those maps was to provide context, i.e. where is a certain battle happening or when we reference to a place, that place should show up in the maps, too. But they were never intended to be complete, as in 'include everything'.

I didn't imagine they would be, as that would be a cluttered mess. I was just interested in how the decision was made. I  The roads I figured were some Roman as there was a mention of the King's Road being an old Roman road in an early book.  

Morien and Hzark10, thanks for the info. Let me know what you think when I get the next one done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Username said:

The other thing that makes any sort of medieval mapping difficult is that power projection was limited in earlier times as well as the inability of the kingdoms to firmly establish anything but a fluid boundary.

 

Not to mention the relatively poor state of cartography. Most maps would probably be very good at detailing the areas and things close to a lord's center of power, and get less detailed and less accurate as it moved  further out - especially in regards to rough terrain such as forests and mountains. Chances are the maps we can use in the RPG are better and more accurate than what they might have had at the time. 

When running I note that all maps "in game" are subject to error and have, at times, used contradictory maps. In some cases I've seen groups go the long way from Point A to Point B simply because they were not aware of the true distances and directions between the two. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Morien@Hzark10

How's it look now? I also added another map I did a while back for 485. I updated the Roman Road network I pulled from to reflect your comments about the loop near Hadrian's wall.

I added Ireland as it was in 531 with Dal Riada being as it is in the early part of the GPC. I noticed the Irish kingdoms line up really well with current Irish territorial subdivisions (counties?).

Also, where did the county borders come from for Book of Warlords and the like? It would help me to draw the counties if I could get access to those materials.

Edited by Username
Counties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 4:04 PM, Atgxtg said:

Chances are the maps we can use in the RPG are better and more accurate than what they might have had at the time.

You're without a doubt right, I'm very tempted to instead of making maps like these to give the players something like the Tabula Peutingeriana. Which, itself, would have been rare. My understanding is that many "maps" would have been little more than an itinerary like list of major locations with rough subjective distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...