Jump to content

Number of Manors in Salisbury


Recommended Posts

I'm sure this has been covered. (Probably extensively!) But my searching has failed.

How many manors are there in Salisbury? Does the County-Salisbury map in Book of the Warlord show all the manors? 

I know KAP shows the manors immediately available for the the Player Knights. But I assume there are more manors in the county. But maybe I'm wrong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the Book of the Warlord, there are about 250 manors total in Salisbury County, but the Count has control of about 14 eschilles (about 140 knights,) in 485. So you can probably assume around 140 manors or so under his control.The County makes about  £1600 of which £1400 is spend to maintain knights, giving the count about £150-200 in discretionary funds.

The thing is, a nobleman only give out around 20% of his manors to knights, and keeps control of the rest. So out o f 140 knights, only about 20-30 of the, are landed,  with their own manors, and the other 110-120 would be considered household knights. 

 

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Per the Book of the Warlord, there are about 250 manors total in Salisbury County, but the Count has control of about 14 eschilles (about 140 knights,) in 485. So you can probably assume around 140 manors or so under his control.The County makes about  £1600 of which £1400 is spend to maintain knights, giving the count about £150-200 in discretionary funds.

Objection. It is actually 15 eschilles and a bit, but more importantly, not all those lands supporting the knights are in Salisbury. Quickly eyeballing, it is about £1000 in Salisbury, including recent conquests, not £1400.

Also, I am not sure were you get the number 250 manors from? I am guessing you are basing it on the 25 hundreds that are within Salisbury (p. 12). Unfortunately, not every hundred equals £100, and indeed, they tend to be significantly less than this (just see the listing of them in Roderick's charter, just one is in three figures). I think I did a quick averaging of the total income of Logres divided by the number of hundreds, and it was closer to £50 per hundred. Which would mean about 125 manors in Salisbury, not 250, and about 100 of those would belong to Count Salisbury. About 20 of them would be vassal manors, the other 80 would be demesne manors (of the Count).

Now, there is a small issue, which is that according to page 12, Roderick controls 15 hundreds, leaving 10 hundreds unaccounted for. If they are an average of £25 a piece, they are amongst the smallest hundreds we see. Indeed, Swans Hundred is almost £70, and Wereside has its own Baron, so one would assume at least £100. Thus, the average of £50 per hundred of Salisbury is probably an underestimate, and the true number of manors is probably at least 150, to prevent the remaining 8 hundreds from being too tiny. 250 seems too much, though.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Okay. Checking... there's no source that simply states how many manors there are? It's all retro-calculating based off financial numbers?

 Mostly. The rule of thumb  is that  1 eschelle = 10 knights. and that it  costs about £10 per knight. This also accounts for footmen and other expenses for the manors that the Count keeps himself. But is is still just a rule of thumb, so you can vary the numbers a little without problems. The population as well as the size of the eschilles tended to be smaller in the early years too.

 

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Cool. Thanks.

And those "20-30" manors the count does not control are the manors shows and listed in the core rules.

Pretty  much. There was a table I did up a long time ago that listed more manors, and  I still use it to mix things up a bit, give alternates and such. But basically there are a couple of dozen  powerful families in the county that  hold the available manors, produce most the household knights and so on. So t he PKS are essentially one of major powerblocks in the county.

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Morien said:

Objection. It is actually 15 eschilles and a bit, but more importantly, not all those lands supporting the knights are in Salisbury. Quickly eyeballing, it is about £1000 in Salisbury, including recent conquests, not £1400.

It's 14 eschiles on page 38 of Warlord, along with £1416 average  render, and  £1630 total render.

49 minutes ago, Morien said:

Also, I am not sure were you get the number 250 manors from? I am guessing you are basing it on the 25 hundreds that are within Salisbury (p. 12).

Yes a s well as t he 261 eschilles listed on Warlord, page 38, and t he rule of thumb of 1 knight serivce owed per £10

49 minutes ago, Morien said:

 

 

 

Unfortunately, not every hundred equals £100, and indeed, they tend to be significantly less than this (just see the listing of them in Roderick's charter, just one is in three figures). I think I did a quick averaging of the total income of Logres divided by the number of hundreds, and it was closer to £50 per hundred. Which would mean about 125 manors in Salisbury, not 250, and about 100 of those would belong to Count Salisbury. About 20 of them would be vassal manors, the other 80 would be demesne manors (of the Count).

Again, Warload page 38:

Total Render: 32229, Total Eschilles: 261, So at 10 per knight then 261 eschilles would comprise of about 2610 knights and cost £26100 to maintain. Which seems to be in the right ballpark. 

 

49 minutes ago, Morien said:

Now, there is a small issue, which is that according to page 12, Roderick controls 15 hundreds, leaving 10 hundreds unaccounted for. If they are an average of £25 a piece, they are amongst the smallest hundreds we see. Indeed, Swans Hundred is almost £70, and Wereside has its own Baron, so one would assume at least £100. Thus, the average of £50 per hundred of Salisbury is probably an underestimate, and the true number of manors is probably at least 150, to prevent the remaining 8 hundreds from being too tiny. 250 seems too much, though.

Yes it does seem a bit much. I was expecting Salsibury to hold closer to 75% of the manors in the county, not 60%. So how about 200 manors total, with the Count holding around 150. THe other 50 would be held by other lords, and some  might change hands over the decades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

p. 38 is actually in error (need to add it to the errata; Ulfius' income & eschilles are off, too). Nor could you use it directly to go back to Salisbury, since as we see in p. 112 the exact land holdings of Roderick, the Count of Salisbury. Again, I just eyeballed it, but it should come to about £1000 in Salisbury for him, and about £600 outside of Salisbury. Thus, assuming £10 manors, the Count should hold about 100 manors in Salisbury and 60 manors elsewhere.

Now, this doesn't actually tell us exactly how many manors total there is in Salisbury County, but given that Swans is about £70 and I am guessing Wereside is at least £100 as a (minor) barony (alternatively, Wereside is just part of the whole Barony of Wereside, which is possible as well, but I think the text supports reading it as more of a single entity), and we still have like 8 hundreds unaccounted for, it seems to me that 150 manors total would be a minimum value.

Looking at the Salisbury map (p.13 and p. 196-197), Kingsguard and Ambrius are huge, comparable to Thorngate, which is about £100. Of course, size isn't everything, since Vagon Hundred is huge but according to p. 112, it actually provides very little income. Thus, it is very difficult to assign a clear value. Assuming the high values, we'd get about £300 for Wereside+Kingsguard+Ambrius, £130 for Swans+Studfold+Beautyfields, and £40 a piece for Hillfarm, Chalkhill, Milkfield and Mere, you'd end up with £590 + Count Salisbury's £1000 or so = £1590 = 159 manors (a £10).

Now, that is of course just a quick and dirty way of doing it, but I'd be happy with ~150-160 manors in Salisbury, 100 of which are held by Count Roderick. 200 would be stretching it, though. You would need all the other 10 hundreds to be £100 each, which is simply too much.

Actually, the £1000 for Count Roderick also includes all the hundred court profits and such, too. So you could probably knock about £100 off it, making it just 90 manors or so, and thus bring the total number of manors down to about 150 again, 60% of which (90) are held by the Count of Salisbury.

For a more accurate answer, I think we will have to wait for the Book of Salisbury.

 

EDIT: One caveat, though... The £1000 for 15 hundreds does not account for land held in those hundreds by other people, who are not vassals of the count. There is an entry like this in the Manors 1: "Bordermark: £12; Salisbury, Hillfort H.; £12 food render. £24 is held by Ludshall Castle (Sheriff ), £18 by Count Salisbury, £12 by Ramstown Manor." However, in the write-up of Count Salisbury's lands in p.112, we get: "Hillfort Hundred, Salisbury* £61.3", which is in clear contradiction of the previous £18 statement. Since p. 112 was one of the last things we worked on, I am much more confident in it being right, though. Still, it does mean that there is more wiggle room in the total number of manors. 200 manors still seems somewhat high to me, but if you wanted there to be that many manors in whole of Salisbury, it is your game.

In our campaign? 120 or so, named and numbered from Thijs' fine map (which I posted in this thread: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10085-spoiler-maps-based-on-the-gpc-and-others/page/3/#comments ), which was based on the old 'x marks the spot' manorial map (KAP 5.2, p. 78). And yes, I don't care that it contradicts BotW. A fine map is worth more to me than the intricacies of the intertwined baronies in BotW...

 

Edited by Morien
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, creativehum said:

Does the County-Salisbury map in Book of the Warlord show all the manors?

No, it does not. See KAP 5.2, p. 78 for a more complete manorial map, or the link in previous post. Although as the discussion in there shows, even that map doesn't reflect BotW accurately.

EDIT: I think the map legend got dropped off for some reason from Salisbury Map in BotW, p. 196-197. The barren trees are hundred court sites, not (necessarily) manors. The dotted circles with a spike on top are villages around the potential PK manors (KAP 5.2 p. 34 Current Home table & p. 78 map).

Edited by Morien
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Morien said:

In our campaign? 120 or so, named and numbered from Thijs' fine map (which I posted in this thread: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10085-spoiler-maps-based-on-the-gpc-and-others/page/3/#comments ), which was based on the old 'x marks the spot' manorial map (KAP 5.2, p. 78). And yes, I don't care that it contradicts BotW. A fine map is worth more to me than the intricacies of the intertwined baronies in BotW...

The version of this on Stafford's old Pendragon site noted that there were another 30 or so manors not shown on the map, which would fit with your estimate of 150.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than content with this summary. I needed a ballpark to get me going, and this will do. Thanks all. 

  • 150 manors.
  • The count has 90.
  • 20 belong to knights and their families, including the PCs, making them, indeed, important families in Salisbury. (The relative importance of the Player Knights is why I asked about this, so I've got my answer.
  • And another 40-50 controlled by other lords, some outside of Salisbury. 

Also, I really like Krijger's map. I downloaded it a while back and plan to print it on a large board for my game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I'm more than content with this summary. I needed a ballpark to get me going, and this will do. Thanks all. 

  • 150 manors.
  • The count has 90.
  • 20 belong to knights and their families, including the PCs, making them, indeed, important families in Salisbury. (The relative importance of the Player Knights is why I asked about this, so I've got my answer.
  • And another 40-50 controlled by other lords, some outside of Salisbury. 

Also, I really like Krijger's map. I downloaded it a while back and plan to print it on a large board for my game.

I'm going with similar figures in my game, except about 30 vassal manors -- 20 single-manor grants (for the potential PK manors), half a dozen gifts/grants for officers, and a couple of bannerets. 

There's no need to assume the 20 potential PK manors are all held at the same level, of course; ones that don't go to PKs can be assigned to officers and/or bannerets, keeping to 20 manors held by Salisbury's vassals within Salisbury county.

Another benchmark from BotW is that Salisbury has subinfeudated 264 libras' worth, so about 26 manors. Again, not all of those have to be in Salisbury, of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the 20 or so vassal manors would be INCLUDED to the 90-100 total manors held by the Count in Salisbury.

@Uqbarianmakes a good point that once the PK manors have been assigned, the rest of them can be used for NPCs as desired.

This also illustrates why the heiresses' lands are way too generous in KAP 5.2 and why Greg was revising them in preparation for Book of Salisbury.

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

This also illustrates why the heiresses' lands are way too generous in KAP 5.2 and why Greg was revising them in preparation for Book of Salisbury.

You've brought this up several times now across threads. Do you have any thoughts on what a better allotment of lands might be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great! Thanks! And I appreciated your rant under Greg's post as well.

For anyone who is interested, here is Greg's post:

Quote

I have had to make some changes to the holdings of these fine women. I had forgotten that Wheelwell was conquered shortly before this list was made, and hence the ladies would not have held land from Count Salisbury there. 

Chief Heiresses of Salisbury County
Many women live in the county, but these are the one who are available and have holdings sufficient to be worthy of marriage to a vavasour. 
The holdings (and a few other minor things) have been changed from those in KAP5.1. The original holdings were much too large, created before the detailed economic system had been developed. These are more appropriate, but Gamemasters may choose to change them as they see fit.

Custodians of Heiresses
When all male family members die and leave an heiress her holdings are assigned to the care of a custodian. Such custodianship is considered to be a valuable prize. He oversees her land and collects its profits as long as she is unwed. He also decides who she will marry, and will collect money, called a relief, from whomever he decides will get her hand in wedlock. A custodian who is single may choose to marry her himself. 
Count Roderick is the default custodian, but he may also grant custodianship to whomever he wishes, as he has to * and * here. 

Lady Adwen
Glory 740; 46.3 Glory per year
APP 18
The young, underage daughter of Sir Bles, who was killed in battle, has inherited a considerable holding. She is heir to one manor of her own, plus three occupied by knights in vassalage to her.
Custodian
Open
Servitum Debitum
Four knights, three of them vavasours
Four Spearmen
Four Crossbowmen
Four garrison crossbowmen
Holdings £43.8
Aldertree Manor (£13.7, Alder H.)
Swallowcliff Manor (£11.1, Hillfort H., held by Sir James)
Sedgehill Manor (£8, Hillfort H., held by Sir Dylan)
Downriver Town (£13.4, Elmstump H., held by Sir Baldwin) 

Lady Indeg
Glory 2,840; 23 Glory per year
APP 12
Lady Indeg is 45-year-old woman has been widowed twice and so can choose her own husband this time. But she is lonely and would like a knight to keep her company. Lord de Falt, father of her second husband, contests (and holds) her widow’s share of land from her second wedding.
Custodian
None
Servitum Debitum
Two household knights
Four guardsmen
Two garrison guardsmen
Holdings £25.4 (+£3.2, possibly)
Annas Manor (£9 Annaswater H.)
Straightford Manor (£13.4 Barehill H.)
Westrocky (Widow's Holding; Gift; £3, Barehill H.)
Southtown (£3.2; disputed, widow’s portion) 

Lady Gwiona 
Glory 856; 15 Glory per year
APP 16
She is the second handmaiden of Countess Ellen. She has never been married. Her last four suitors all were killed in war shortly after proposing to her, but the priest says she is not really unlucky.
Custodian
Open
Servitum Debitum
one
Holdings £15.5
Forest House Manor (£16.4 render, Vagon H)

Lady Elaine 
Glory 258; 10 Glory/year
APP 18
Elaine is a beautiful woman whose father was killed by her mother’s lover who was subsequently hanged for killing a knight. Her mother was sent to Ambrius Nunnery in shame, leaving this manor to her only child.
Custodian
Open
Servitum Debitum
One knight
Holdings £9.8
Tinyhouse South Manor (£9.8, Annaswater H.)

While I have you here, @Morien, you have also stated you think the marriage table from KAP is too generous. Can you talk about that as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, creativehum said:

While I have you here, @Morien, you have also stated you think the marriage table from KAP is too generous. Can you talk about that as well?

Getting an heiress should not be easy, and the 1d20 is way too random. The new marriage table is in (revised) Entourage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uqbarian said:

I'm going with similar figures in my game, except about 30 vassal manors -- 20 single-manor grants (for the potential PK manors), half a dozen gifts/grants for officers, and a couple of bannerets. 

There's no need to assume the 20 potential PK manors are all held at the same level, of course; ones that don't go to PKs can be assigned to officers and/or bannerets, keeping to 20 manors held by Salisbury's vassals within Salisbury county.

Another benchmark from BotW is that Salisbury has subinfeudated 264 libras' worth, so about 26 manors. Again, not all of those have to be in Salisbury, of course. 

Thanks for the comment, and @Morien's clarifcation as well.

So, for my own notes, acknowledging there is wriggle-room for any GM and I am going to be building a campaign with enough information to give my Le Morte D'Arthur-inspired game a grounding of reality, but won't be going down the rabbit-hole of doing college level wok of understanding all the intricacies of feudal society:

SALISBURY MANORS

  • 150 Manors
  • Of those, the Count of Salisbury controls 90
  • Of those 90 manors the Count retains direct control of 70 manors
  • Of those remaining 20 manors, the Count has given them as single-manor gifts and grants to officers and a couple of bannerets (The Player Knights, using the KAP Family History rules, will draw their manor from this pool. The Player Knight's father married a woman who inherited the manor from her father, who in turn was an officer to the count, or whose father was, and was granted the manor years before the Player Knight was born. The Player Knight grew up as a child in this manor and considers it very much his, knowwing it is his to inherit one day.*)
  • Of the remaining 60 remaining manors from the 150 manors and outside the Count's control, they are controlled by other lords, some inside Salisbury and some outside.**

Quetsions:

* What is it like for a page/squire/knight growing up in a manor that he knows his father married into? In a society built on passing things down from father to son, is there any kind "Well, we didn't quite earn it," quality? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? It might not matter, but I was curious. 

** What sorts of people own the manors that are not controlled by the Count? 

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

Getting an heiress should not be easy, and the 1d20 is way too random. The new marriage table is in (revised) Entourage.

Maybe I'll be getting a copy of BoE, I guess. I'll think on that.

I'm not sure that marrying an heiress is that easy. The only way to use the table is make a successful Courtesy roll. So right there the odds will be against most knights, who start with a Courtesy 3. 

But one cannot marry an heiress unless one rolls a 20+. The only way to do this is to make a successful Courtesy roll, then "bank" that roll for a year, gaining a +1 if and when one makes a roll on the Marriage Table. If one succeeds on the first courtesy roll, one then has to make a second Courtesy roll the following year. If one makes that Courtesy roll then one has 5% chance of marrying a heiress. But this assumes one made two successful Courtesy rolls over two years. I'm not quite sure I see this as easy odds!

But I've only run one-shots with KAP, so I might well be missing some points.

You also might be saying that marrying an heiress should never be left to random die rolls.

PS: I just looked over the Marriage Table and Modifiers in BoE. I like it! A lot! I really honors the work a Player Knight will put in to get the rep he needs to marry well!

Edited by creativehum
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

You've brought this up several times now across threads. Do you have any thoughts on what a better allotment of lands might be?

I think several of us have.

In the old days,  a PK would marry an heiress with several manors and get not only about £18-24 in income pretty much free and clear, forever,, but also lock down 10-25% of the available manors in the county.  Now, with the additional knight service and expenses most of the  money is gone, and the scarcity of manors makes an heiress with  three to five manors much less  likely, and  less permanent.

It used t o be that the best way to "get ahead" in Pendragon was to  marry, kill off  your wife through childbirth and repeat the process, eventually amassing  a dozen manors or so over the years.  Now that's been  mostly closed off, thankfully. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, creativehum said:

* What is it like for a page/squire/knight growing up in a manor that he knows his father married into? In a society built on passing things down from father to son, is there any kind "Well, we didn't quite earn it," quality? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? It might not matter, but I was curious. 

Well, I very much dislike the 'dad married an heiress' for various reasons: 1) It cheapens how easy it is to get an heiress (these guys managed one each, when they were still fresh out of knighting; at least KAP 5.2 added that their fathers' managed to be favored by the Count, although this might not get born out by the events of the history...) and hence established a very unfortunate precedent (at least here we have the Night of the Long Knives sorta giving an excuse why so many male family members got wiped out), 2) It cuts the manor off from the Family history, 3) It cuts the family off from patrilineal descent. In other words, if the 1st PK and his siblings die, his uncles and paternal cousins have no claim to the manor whatsoever, and furthermore... 4) Since Mom was a sole heiress, there won't be any legitimate maternal uncles or cousins to inherit it, either. (Where does it say, actually, that mom's father was specifically an officer to whom the manor was granted?)  (Also, the Bride's Glory is way off. Since KAP 5.2 calls them Widows, they ought to be flat 1000 Glory each. Not that I agree with that approach, either. Widows are not tossed around willy-nilly, either.)

In short, A Very Bad Idea, which is why we did not follow it in Book of Sires. Now, if it is a special case (like one or two of a larger group) to bring a foreign-born PK in at the start, sure, I will stomach it to allow wider backgrounds. But that it happened to all PKs' fathers who were already living in Salisbury? Why would we need to do this?

As for 'well, we didn't quite earn it', I don't think that would enter into the thought process, really. Sure, if you are the liege's favorite and get favors and lands showered on you, you might elicit some jealousy and antipathy (Piers Gaveston & the Despensers come to mind). But if we go by KAP 5.2, clearly the intent is that Grandfather was favored by the Count who organized the marriage between the Father and the Mother. So Grandfather kinda 'earned' the manor for his kid. The problem here is that both the grandfather and the (old) Count died in 463 (at the latest for the Grandfather, who is very likely to snuff it before 450s, actually). Roderick himself is only 12 at this time, himself a minor, who would have very scant memories of the Grandfather (if any) and not be in a position of power to gift anyone anything, being a minor. Sure, you could insert Roderick's Mom there as a regent, which might work out. Shades of Ellen and Robert later...

4 hours ago, creativehum said:

** What sorts of people own the manors that are not controlled by the Count? 

Other Barons & the King, mostly, as per BotW. There might be some vassal knights sprinkled around, too, owing fealty to these other barons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KungFuFenris said:

Urgh. If ever there was a time to desire Book of Salisbury...

Does anyone know how there's so much income in Swans as compared to the rest of the hundreds?

I'm currently trying to get an overview of the Vassal Knights in Salisbury, to actually have an NPC List. But, damn if it is not difficult.

Swans Hundred provides 66.6L to Sir Staterius in BotW. For the Salisbury hundreds held by Count Roderick, I get an average of 60.52L. (This count doesn't include the free manor of Ebble (14.6L) or the fee farm of Elmstump Hundred (46.5L?).) They range from Vagon at 22.7L to Thorngate at 102.1L, so the income of Swans looks reasonable to me.

(There's also the wrinkle that these values may not always be for the whole hundred. For example, the hundreds 'held' by Count Roderick may still contain pockets held by other lords. FWIW, Stafford had a preview draft of Swans for the Book of Salisbury up on his old site which had Swans at a total render of 97L, with 72.8L belonging to Staterius or his vassals. Something similar could explain the low value of Vagon Hundred.)

EDIT: Re Salisbury NPCs, I think we have names for about a dozen senior/notable knights, but we don't know for sure which of them are vassals and which are household knights.

 

Edited by Uqbarian
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uqbarian said:

Swans Hundred provides 66.6L to Sir Staterius in BotW. For the Salisbury hundreds held by Count Roderick, I get an average of 60.52L. (This count doesn't include the free manor of Ebble (14.6L) or the fee farm of Elmstump Hundred (46.5L?).) They range from Vagon at 22.7L to Thorngate at 102.1L, so the income of Swans looks reasonable to me.

Sincere question to most of the posters here:

When I see information like that in the quote above Ihave no idea what I would do with it.

But many people here are obviously familiar with the numbers, have thought about the numbers. I'm curious: What do you do with this information in play? How does it help? (I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking how, because my imagination can't cough something up.)

How do the Player Knights interact with it? Is it for battles?

Is it required for certain types of KAP campaigns? And so on. 

Very curious about how this level of detail is utilized in play.

Thanks!

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

Sincere question to most of the posters here:

When I see information like that in the quote above Ihave no idea what I would do with it.

But many people here are obviously familiar with the numbers, have thought about the numbers. I'm curious: What do you do with this information in play? How does it help? (I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking how, because my imagination can't cough something up.)

Mostly I find such numbers useful for determining how much wealth a given noble has, how many knight he can support and so on.  It helps when determining and evaluating rewards, estimating size of armies and so forth.

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

How do the Player Knights interact with it? Is it for battles?

I can think of threemain ways they react with it. First off w hen they get some sort of expensive gift, the numbers give us a ballpark as far as how much of his income the noble in putting into the gifts. If a noble is has £50 or £100  in discretionary funds, then a gift horse worth 40 is really a sizable percentage of the noble's free income and shows how important the receiver is to him. The second way that players might interact with it is when that income gets used to hire  men, that the PKs might fight alongside or against. Lastly, t hat income could become plunder if the PKs can raid the noble's holdings.

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Is it required for certain types of KAP campaigns? And so on. 

Very curious about how this level of detail is utilized in play.

Thanks!

I don't think it is actually required, but it certainly helps  in figuring out how many knights and other men a noble could afford, ond also how rich a noble must be to support X  number of knights. Basically the 10 for 1 rule means that each manor supports one knight, provides £10 in income, and £1 in discretionary funds. Thus a estate holder with 10 manors, has a army of about ten knights and 20 footmen, and has an income of around £100 with about £10 in discretionary funds. Perhaps another £2 per manor in funds since there wouldn't be wives and children to  maintain.  But the estate holder would probably have a couple of vassal knights, and so lose some discretionary funds to those knights, and maintain himself at a higher standard of living.

So I don't  think the info in necessary, per say, but  kinda helpful in figuring out just what sort of army the noble has,  how wealthy he is, ransoms, plunder and that sort of stuff.

Note that some of the  more esoteric stuff is only useful in an academic sort of way. It's kinda useful to have an  idea of the size of the servant staff, how many carts a manor could have around, and  that most manors can afford a chaplain, who can act as a scribe for the manor.

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...