Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Username

Spoiler Maps! Based on the GPC and Others

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

I like your map. Brittany is accurate by the way. Maybe you could color Leon and Cornouaille in purple like Corwall, to show their allegeance. Otherwiste, there is no need for a specific county of Rennes, or Nantes. the kingdom of Vannetais is enough, and works just fine.

Thanks, I did end up adding Nantes and Rennes as new counties and including them in Brittany. There's a lot of wars in France and it seemed right, plus @jeffjerwin mentioned Tristan's victories. 

51 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

With France, I am a bit surprised. Why didn't you make Burgundy a part of the kingdom? Same thing with Languedoc or Provence

Burgundy is separate because of attestations to the kingdom of the Burgundian's in 525. Though it was conquered in 533... I left it partly because it didn't seem like Claudas could manage it at the time considering the setbacks he was facing with the west. Languedoc and Provence are to the Visigoths because of historical control of the region. Though it's probably more likely to see Provence shift to the Ostrogoths at this point, but I felt considering they were dealing with Justinian it seems justifiable to leave it in Visigothic control. Historically, the Frank's conquered most of western France in this period and by 508 controlled all of Ganis and Benwick. Arthur's reign sees them lose it. 

Trying to balance the sources against the history of it and what seems likely

51 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

You mention Auvergne or County of Toulouse, which is good, so maybe you should mention the duchy of Normandy, the counties of Flanders or Champagne, the big names.

I actually was thinking the same. I hesitated because the borders wouldn't be accurate and time involved, but I figure they should be included now. Toulouse and Auvergne were included because they changed hands during this time and we're likely the places of conflict between the de Ganis and the Franks. This is after the Frank's took them from the Visigoths of course.

56 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

Otherwise, it's a wise move not to bother with the merovingian kingdoms (Austrasia, etc.). The frontiers change all the time.

I'll probably represent them as county level holdings, sadly, in France.

59 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

By the way, Anglia and Caercolun are joined into an unique duchy (Anglia).

Anglia=Caerwent and Essex=Caercolun. I believe canonically it stays Anglia/Essex. This is a personal change for my table. I felt it odd that all of the counties kept their Saxon names after conquest. So, I turned back the clock on the names of some. 

1 hour ago, Tizun Thane said:

Hartland became Hertford after Uther's reign? Is it canon in the GPC ?

Hartland is the original name before the renaming. I repeatedly referred to it as such and everyone knows it as Hartland now. So...I can't change it... I was running of the GPC for a bunch of it in game and used the old names and the old names stuck. I did good in the surrounding of Salisbury, but you'll notice Lindsey=Linden, Huntington=Huntland, Dorset=Dorsette are all different. Honestly, it's the worst mish-mash possible, but I'm stuck with it at this point. 

Share this post


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

Is there a canonical date for the sinking of Gwaelod?

No. In 1E it drowned early in the campaign, before Arthur became king. Welsh stories have Taliessin in the 540s (before 547) as the foster son of Gwyddno's son Elffin, but Elffin is living in what KAP calls Gomeret, suggesting it happened before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cambenet should be south of the wall, not north of it. Perilous Forest, p. 13, Kingdoms of West Cumbria. Or Book of Sires, p. 117, Cumbria.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Morien The GPC maps and the player map shows it above the wall. Not normally a great argument considering their usually loose on the details, but this time we have a Cumbrian map, a few annual maps, and the player's map from the main book showing it there. We also have Scotland maps from the earlier editions (4th, I think) showing it north of the wall. The first edition shows it straddling the wall, I believe. Malahaut and Cumbria are pretty busy considering everything else jammed in there. 

I'm very hesitant to move it because of this. I saw it when correcting the borders of Malahaut and adding Deira and the minor Cumbric nations. in the earlier maps, but didn't place it there purposefully. Why was it moved south of the wall anyways? In the books, it's in Wales (like many places it seems).

@jeffjerwin Thanks, I'm going to show it as sunk in the 544 map, but consider it tentative. 

To everyone, is the naming issues a big problem for most people? I can make the Caercolun= Essex since we're still early enough in my game for it to be sensible. The remainder I could change the names on this map, but since it's reworking the text, it's pretty time consuming. What names do people use? How often do you slip? For those who have ran the game before and after the name change, did you go with the new names? Are the new names officially staying? Especially the city names (I'm personally not a huge fan. Their more difficult to spell/pronounce, I have difficult remembering their spelling and have to think about pronunciation and I spent 4 years studying classics/Latin.)

Share this post


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

, I'm going to show it as sunk in the 544 map, but consider it tentative. 

It's really depends if you want to play the adventure "the best wine in the word" in the Savage Mountains.

43 minutes ago, Username said:

To everyone, is the naming issues a big problem for most people? I can make the Caercolun= Essex

I am for Essex, Wessex and the like, because they are real places even today, so your players (if they are not english) can learn something from the game. Personnaly, I am accustomed to the old names (Hertford, Somerset) and will not change it, but I suppose more recent players are more confortable with new names.

Share this post


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

Cambenet should be south of the wall, not north of it. Perilous Forest, p. 13, Kingdoms of West Cumbria. Or Book of Sires, p. 117, Cumbria.

This is correct. Carlisle is its capital and Cambenet straddles the Wall.

Share this post


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

This is correct. Carlisle is its capital and Cambenet straddles the Wall.

Yeah, I should have been clearer in saying that MOST of Cambenet is south of the wall. It does have a bit north of the wall, too.

As for GPC, the text says: "Cambenet. A dukedom of Cumbria in the northwest, centered on the city of Carduel. The ruler is Eustance." Cumbria is generally thought to be between Humber Estuary and the Wall (although this simply means that culturally and geographically, Cambenet is more in Cumbria than north of the wall).

Anyway, the maps on GPC p. 127 and the players' map of KAP 5.x, should not be taken to mean that Cambenet is solely North of the Wall. The placement of the Kingdom name was probably dictated by available space (it would have been better to switch the name of the city, Carduel, and the Kingdom, Cambenet, to make it more plain, but...).

The reason Cambenet is missing its northern extent on BoS is the same as why only its northern extent is shown in KAP 4, p. 87 map of the North: all maps stop at the Wall, whether coming from the South or coming from the North. The separate map of KAP 4 shows Cambenet clearly straddling the Wall.

Perilous Forest map actually shows a bit of Cambenet (incl. Gilsland) poking north of the wall. It is just that the orientation of the map (not aligned neatly to the north) threw me off a bit.

 

 

Share this post


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

@Morien and @jeffjerwin do you know why Cambenet doesn't have a hard country border in the Book of Sires? Is the border the river on the east?

Because at the time of BoS, Cambenet is not independent but part of Malahaut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Morien said:

Because at the time of BoS, Cambenet is not independent but part of Malahaut.

Ah, got it. I should have guessed enough from the term dukedom. Is the border the river then? Seems a little big.

Share this post


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

Ah, got it. I should have guessed enough from the term dukedom. Is the border the river then? Seems a little big.

It is being used more as a geographical designation in BoS rather than a dukedom. Basically, it is saying that the family is from NW Cumbria, past the Pennines. The actual Duchy of Cambenet is smaller than this (at least by the time of the Perilous Forest). I am not sure why the river was taken as the border in the map... Could have been just convenience and not considered a big deal since it was all part of Malahaut anyway still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it better defined in the Perilous Forest Map? I've been looking at buying a hard copy, but haven't done so yet. If so, is it possible someone could take a picture and share it here?

Share this post


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

Ah, got it. I should have guessed enough from the term dukedom. Is the border the river then? Seems a little big.

The border of Cambenet in Perilous Forest is roughly the modern eastern boundary of Cumbria.

 

2 hours ago, Username said:

Is it better defined in the Perilous Forest Map? I've been looking at buying a hard copy, but haven't done so yet. If so, is it possible someone could take a picture and share it here?

yes. It's only $8 for the pdf from Chaosium, however... (The political map is separate from the terrain map in that book. I really recommend just getting the pdf).

Share this post


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

yes. It's only $8 for the pdf from Chaosium, however... (The political map is separate from the terrain map in that book. I really recommend just getting the pdf).

I am adding my recommendation as well. Not only will you get the maps, but you will also get a few nice adventures, as well as a load of geographical and rulers information you can use to enliven your campaign. There is significant overlap with the Wasteland section here and the ones in GPC (particularly the Adventures of Boiling Girl and Black Hermit), but don't let that stop you, that is just 12 pages of the whole book. 

Frankly, all Pendragon books are well worth the money. PDFs are so cheap.

Edited by Morien
repetition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the recommendations! I've enjoyed all of the other regional books, (Ireland, Cambria, the North), so I figured I'd like this one. I found some of the old books being sold on the internet, and Perilous Forest is one of the least expensive. I really prefer hard copies and will probably buy it soon. It's one of the few I don't have that has adventures in it. I'd still love to see a hardcopy version of the Book of Feasts released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd move Dal Riada label off Pomitain, and instead shade the sea around it like you do with Dal Riada itself. It is very much part of Galeholt's kingdom.

In Cambria, Buluth should be Builth.

As for Cumbria, you are missing Appleby (Vassal of Arthur Pendragon [as is Cambenet], roughly the rest of the valley from Cambenet to the Pennines) and Rheged is a titular vassal of Cambenet, but independent in reality. It is not the vassal of Malahaut. That is, assuming we go by Perilous Forest information.

As for Anglia, I thought it is bigger than that, in Blood & Lust. There, the border of Essex and Anglia seems to be the Stour river, just north of Colchester. You can see River Stour on the 485 colormap. It is also a bit strange that you have Caercolun on the map, too, rather than Essex. Since you have Anglia there (as you should, in 544). Essex I think should eat up some of Thamesmouth, too, which I don't think exists as a county anymore... However, who knows what would have happened with Greg's revision of the AD 531 maps. I am just talking more what I see based on 4th edition and the like.

EDIT: Yep, I suspect Greg probably went with the modern Essex county limits in 3rd edition Knights Adventurous, and then folded that into 4th edition. It covers Colchester, Chelmsford and Maldon, explicitly. Also Ipswich, but this is corrected in Blood & Lust explicitly as being part of Anglia, disregard Knights Adventurous.

EDIT2: Also, Gloucester/Glevum is part of Escavalon, not Logres. (4th edition, but also on GPC p. 287, AD544 map)

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

I'd move Dal Riada label off Pomitain, and instead shade the sea around it like you do with Dal Riada itself. It is very much part of Galeholt's kingdom

I debated that when I did it. I put it on there since it's such an outlier.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

In Cambria, Buluth should be Builth

Ya, that's another name change between editions. Builth in the GPC up. I assume Bulith is official? Since it's the one in Book of Sires. We've called it Buluth so the map reflects that.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

As for Cumbria, you are missing Appleby (Vassal of Arthur Pendragon [as is Cambenet], roughly the rest of the valley from Cambenet to the Pennines) and Rheged is a titular vassal of Cambenet, but independent in reality. It is not the vassal of Malahaut. That is, assuming we go by Perilous Forest information

When does that come into existence? I don't see it on any other maps. I'm not sure it's notable enough to be included. Rheged doesn't seem to be regularly shown as independent. I think their a Pennath sort of king. Malahaut has been carved up many times, but their supposed to be a regional power throughout the game. I'm not really in favor of cutting it up more.

All of the lands are surrounded by a green dotted outline to show them as part of the Arthur's Empire. That's why the title goes across them. I think that's sufficient.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Yep, I suspect Greg probably went with the modern Essex county limits in 3rd edition Knights Adventurous, and then folded that into 4th edition. It covers Colchester, Chelmsford and Maldon, explicitly. Also Ipswich, but this is corrected in Blood & Lust explicitly as being part of Anglia, disregard Knights Adventurous.

I just made Caercolun Essex since I was unsure of the border. I changed the name since with seemed odd that the Cymrics would leave the Saxon names, but I had mentioned all of this earlier. There's other naming oddities, most reflect our naming conventions and the lettering is annoying so most won't be changed. For this though, I'll change the name and I'll move the border on this one south. 

 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

think should eat up some of Thamesmouth, too, which I don't think exists as a county anymore...

I think Thamesmouth may be renamed to London as in the GPC, but I think I'll probably leave it. 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Also, Gloucester/Glevum is part of Escavalon, not Logres. (4th edition, but also on GPC p. 287, AD544 map)

It is shown as a part of Logres in the Book of Warlords. In the Book of Sires it is also shown as part of Logres. I think that it switches hands. Early it is Logres taken as Escavalon and returned post-Nanteleod to Logres. I believe it's established that the GPC maps are not very accurate as it shows most of Cambenet north of the wall on pg.287 with only the smallest dip south.

Here we are for my Cambrian Map. It's based on Irish manuscripts and 16th century map of Ireland. If there are any hugely important locations missing, let me know. I tried to cut down on the number of locations compared to Savage Mountains.

 

Cambria Map 518 Compressed.pdf Britain Political Map 544 (official) compressed.pdf

Edited by Username
Added maps

Share this post


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

It is shown as a part of Logres in the Book of Warlords. In the Book of Sires it is also shown as part of Logres.

Yes, since both of these are in 485. Gloucester swears allegiance to Escavalon during the Anarchy (in GPC p. 84, although GPC is a bit uncertain whether Gloucester is part of Escavalon already in 485; however, thanks to BotW and BoU, we know that Gloucester is part of Logres at least until 495, and probably until the GPC date of 504), and since King Alain is one of Arthur's early allies (and gives the city of Carlion to Arthur, Savage Mountains p. 42), Arthur obviously doesn't make an issue out of it. In 3th & 4th editions, which concern themselves with AD 531, Gloucester is explicitly part of Escavalon. I included the GPC map to show that it is consistent with the 4th edition statement.

35 minutes ago, Username said:

When does that come into existence?

Barony of Appleby exists as part of Malahaut at the start of Boy King (GPC p. 128 text). Given that it is the Vassal of Pendragon in Perilous Forest, I think it is easiest to assume that it, and Cambenet, got chipped off Malahaut during the Rebel Kings' War. The map on p. 122 implies that both Cambenet(+Rheged) and Appleby are still part of Malahaut at the start of 510, although the map in p. 134 implies that Cambenet (but perhaps not Rheged?) rebels against Malahaut and supports the Boy King. Which is a rather risky thing to do, given how they are sandwiched between the Northern Kings and Malahaut proper.

I do agree that using GPC maps to infer such changes is somewhat risky, since we know that they are not always the most accurate, and that they omit places from time to time. For instance, Wessex/Hampshire is shown as part of Logres on p. 134 map. Regardless, Cambenet, Appleby and Rheged should no longer be part of Malahaut in 544, if Perilous Forest is to be believed. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be. And if you are including subdivisions of Malahaut, no reason why Appleby should be omitted from the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morien said:

Yes, since both of these are in 485. Gloucester swears allegiance to Escavalon during the Anarchy (in GPC p. 84, although GPC is a bit uncertain whether Gloucester is part of Escavalon already in 485; however, thanks to BotW and BoU, we know that Gloucester is part of Logres at least until 495, and probably until the GPC date of 504), and since King Alain is one of Arthur's early allies (and gives the city of Carlion to Arthur, Savage Mountains p. 42), Arthur obviously doesn't make an issue out of it. In 3th & 4th editions, which concern themselves with AD 531, Gloucester is explicitly part of Escavalon. I included the GPC map to show that it is consistent with the 4th edition statement.

I was looking at the Book of Warlord's map on page 35. It also shows the realm of Arthur in his 8th year. Gloucester is part of Logres. I think there's plenty of reason to think that it falls back under Arthur's rule after the end of Nanteleod. Though it is rather explicitly missing from the list of county armies in 4th edition. I don't have the 3rd edition book, so I can't really look there. 

I also noticed that Essex's border's match up well with Caercolun's. I think I'll move the border back, since Anglia ends up oversized this way. 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

And if you are including subdivisions of Malahaut, no reason why Appleby should be omitted from the map.

True, the Malahaut counties are oddly rectangular at this point. I have made Rheged a Kingdom like Deira and will add Appleby. While I'm at it, I'll look into putting Hexamshire, and Tynedale in too as cut outs of Rheged. Searching through the GPC, the last reference to Rheged we have is it's close relationship with Malahaut in the Boy King period. I'm thinking that Rheged is split from Malahaut in 512 like you've said. So, I'll make the change after cutting it down with the eastern counties. 

I assume Ripon is the renamed version of Burgshire? 

 

I also went back and looked at the political map of Beyond the Wall and noticed Surluse should have been separated after the explosion of Lothian. Gallloway also needs to be a county level division in Gorre. I'm also sure I saw Orkney in control of Caithness, but now, I'm not sure where that was. 

Edited by Username
Looked at Rheged some more.

Share this post


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

Ya, that's another name change between editions. Builth in the GPC up. I assume Bulith is official? Since it's the one in Book of Sires. We've called it Buluth so the map reflects that.

Buellt is the Welsh and Builth is the English name of this place; Bulith is a typo. I don't know how it became part of KAP.

Share this post


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

I was looking at the Book of Warlord's map on page 35. It also shows the realm of Arthur in his 8th year. Gloucester is part of Logres. I think there's plenty of reason to think that it falls back under Arthur's rule after the end of Nanteleod. Though it is rather explicitly missing from the list of county armies in 4th edition.

Look at Cambria in 4th Edition, it is explicitly a vassal of Escavalon.

Alas, I don't think the maps of BotW got the amount of vetting that they should have, when it came to the borders. The main purpose of the maps was to show the location of the castles. For instance, if you look at the map in p. 33, Essex is missing Colchester (compare with GPC 503-504 map p. 86). Also, by 505 (tenth year of Anarchy), Gloucester and Wuerensis are vassals of Escavalon (Year 502, GPC p. 84), and on the same 502, Escavalon conquers Bedegraine and Lambor, and welcomes Lindsey in 503 (GPC says alliance, but I think it is clear who is the stronger party in that arrangement). So if the BotW maps would be showing the exact borders, then most of Northern and Western Logres would be part of Escavalon. Instead, I think it is simply showing the same geographical area (Logres in 485), and the Saxon borders are guestimates by the mapmaker, not carefully vetted.

Now, speaking of county/duchy borders, it is very possible that Greg would have done away with the territorial duchies and counties of 4th edition, like he wiped away the territorial counts of GPC in BotW. So it is possible, even likely, that the Count of Essex would actually not hold all the land in Essex and even that the old county names and borders would be restored (as implied by the BotW maps, but see above).

The non-canon Scilly Island Lyonesse thing has already been discussed earlier.

 

10 hours ago, Username said:

I'm also sure I saw Orkney in control of Caithness, but now, I'm not sure where that was. 

KAP 4th edition, p. 88, under Orkneys: "This Pictish kingdom includes the northern islands and Caithness, the northernmost part of Britain."

Beyond the Wall (p. 56) does explicitly state that Caitheness is a vassal of Queen Margawse of Orkney.

Share this post


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

So if the BotW maps would be showing the exact borders, then most of Northern and Western Logres would be part of Escavalon.

Good points, for west Logres. Though I find the Saxon lands generally much more accurate in border movement. The 10th year map shows the borders of the Saxon lands pretty well, I feel like at least where those lands were concerned it seemed like a purposeful decision. Still, the Colchester omission makes it seem like a mistake for Essex border to move back North.

3 hours ago, Morien said:

, speaking of county/duchy borders, it is very possible that Greg would have done away with the territorial duchies and counties of 4th edition, like he wiped away the territorial counts of GPC in BotW

I'm glad he didn't. It's much easier dealing with a few dozen counts as important folks then the many randomly scattered holdings represented in the Book of Warlord. I'd rather see a more idealic feudalism which is what Ive been doing with some random other landholders to complicate things when needed.

3 hours ago, Morien said:

Beyond the Wall (p. 56) does explicitly state that Caitheness is a vassal of Queen Margawse of Orkney

There it is. Thanks. Looks like a subdivision is needed. I'll run through this one more time, but since I'm making some of these other changes, Lyonesse is usually in Penwith, right? Represented as a king level vassal of Cornwall. 

I'll try to make an alternate map from the one that my game has been using that incorporates some of the changes that are official, but conflicting with my game. (Lyonesse, Builth, and Gloucester though I'm still not totally onboard with that one. I may, if feeling ambitious rename the other counties to their BoW names instead of my mishmash)

Edit: I realize I could just check the kingdom profiles in Savage mountains. Gloucester is part of Escavalon. Though, I find it very odd it doesn't have any information or blurb in that book. Not that that changes anything of course.

Edited by Username

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...