Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luca Cherstich

Trying to make sense of Salisbury Maps and names

Recommended Posts

In the end, it's just a game.  I like all three books for various reasons.  I don't like the funky place names. 

In terms of handing out manors, when it is time, I'd suggest letting the knight have the manor that the player wants. I just always liked the name Netheravon.  My PK doesn't really care about the name, but I do...so that is the manor I got.  It had no real affect on the game, I just liked the name. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh... The Names.

I spent countless hours matching all those bloody names and locations so you darn well better use them! And then there was a decision to go back to modern names which is a "hot topic" amongst some of us. But said discussions were rendered moot by executive (ie. Stafford) telling us to shut our yaps 😉 

I will say that I originally and vehemently hated the old-style names because I wanted to be able to use the older, hand-drawn maps with Pendragon and figured other GMs would too. However, it was not long before I got totally sold on the older names. Now, I would rarely, if ever, use the modern names since the “old names” are so evocative.

Everyone's Mileage Varies on the names and maps exist in both styles.

However, I may be of some assistance but need to check with the Knight of the Lark. (Cleared by the Lark!)

First, isn't the list in the back of Warlords and Estate? But it may be a limited list...

FINDING HUNDRED BOUNDARIES

1-If you want to see Hundreds transposed over modern geography, here is how you can get a "Feel" for it. As mentioned, Stafford tweaked NON-STOP so consider these "guidelines".

A) Go to Family Search Website

B) See the tab on the left, click on "Layers"

C) Select "County" & "Hundreds"

D) See the drop-down that says "Click Map To Select"

>Go to "Hundred"

E) Now zoom in on the map where you want to go.

These are the "guideline" Hundreds although Arthurian counties are different so you need to move them into their proper GPC county. Also, some names have changed. Note that these may change in future supplements but should be very close if not spot-on for Salisbury (Wiltshire).

MODERN v. OLD NAMES

2-If you still need assistance, please PM me with a list of confusing locations and I can try to push you in the right direction.

(NOTE: Not on here all that often so be patient but I will make a point to stick my head in for the next couple weeks... on Discord channel more often)

3-Also, the Discord channel is an excellent place to compare/contrast locations and names as well as inquiring from true sages about placing things/estates/manors that may be impacted by future GPC events if you haven't memorized the bloody thing. Which you shouldn't try to do.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Ugh... The Names.

I spent countless hours matching all those bloody names and locations so you darn well better use them! And then there was a decision to go back to modern names which is a "hot topic" amongst some of us. But said discussions were rendered moot by executive (ie. Stafford) telling us to shut our yaps 😉 

I will say that I originally and vehemently hated the old-style names because I wanted to be able to use the older, hand-drawn maps with Pendragon and figured other GMs would too. However, it was not long before I got totally sold on the older names. Now, I would rarely, if ever, use the modern names since the “old names” are so evocative.

The major problem with the "old names" is that nobody out side of the writers knew where or what the locations were. It was as if we were suddenly transported from Brtitian to some fantasy world. It was similar to how US schools ties to covert kids to the metric system a few decades back, with the same result. I think the "old names" would have worked better if at least some of the better known names, such as Sarum, were kept to help people navigate. 

Pendragon had generally been good with the way it integrated Roman place names with the later names places are known by today. I think a similar approach might have worked to introduce the new "old names", but the approach used pretty much doomed the "old names" to failure. Most people will rather stick with the names they know than to a bunch of names they do not, especially when there is little incentive for them to do so. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2020 at 10:17 AM, fulk said:

In terms of handing out manors, when it is time, I'd suggest letting the knight have the manor that the player wants. I just always liked the name Netheravon.  My PK doesn't really care about the name, but I do...so that is the manor I got.  It had no real affect on the game, I just liked the name. 

I typically find a manor that looks interest ing is in a good spot (ie. close to someplace important or near a spot for adventures) and then research the history of the place and see if there is anything interesting about it, before deciding. That British history site I linked to previously is good for that sort of stuff. In my current campaign:

  • One PK got Broughton due to it being near the border and there being a widow, and border raids from Sparsholt. 
  • Another PK got Durnford after being raised to deputy Marshal, in order to be close to Sarum. I had originally earmarked the PK for Montisfont and casteallncy of Du Plain, but the player declined the castellancy to continue adventuring. Something that slowed his advancement by decades.
  • A third PK got Grateley Manor after defeating an evil knight who had slain the previous land holder and his family. As the evil knight had a band of followers, including a redcap, the place was difficult to reclaim, and the Count granted the knight the manor. After some research I discovered there was an old Roman villa nearby and the PK cleared that out and used it as his home. After his death, it was damaged by Saxons and his heirs moved to the manor at Grately proper.
  • The fourth PK never got his own manor, but instead was made seneschal of Little Langford, by his knightly order, who in turn were granted the land by the Count. THis was shortly after the PKs had helped to cure a plague, and were granted the ruins of the  hillfort at Groverly Castle.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think there are discrepancies between AP 5.2 and the Salisbury map in Warlord, don't obtain the Map Folio book - more headaches!

 

Share this post


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

@7dot62mm I've always been curious about the map folio, but considering I like making maps, it seemed like a waste. Are there any maps in there not shown in the books?

Not that I can recall. IMO it's pretty much a waste. It's the same maps but in higher resolution, but not without any increased detail to take advantage of it.. The fact that the maps use the BoW era place names doesn't help it either. I'd say save your money for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2020 at 4:29 PM, Morien said:

WARLORD, p. 97: "Salisbury has hundreds held by Clarence (Hillfarm), the Marche (Mere), Bishop of Venta (Chalkhill), Thornbush Castle (Swans), and Caercolun (Studfold)."

Regarding "Chalkhill" (hundred administered by the Bishop of Venta): where is it?

I am probably blind, but it's impossible for me to find it in the Salisbury map in Warlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Regarding "Chalkhill" (hundred administered by the Bishop of Venta): where is it?

p. 196: Southern border of Salisbury, the source of Ebble River, where Broad Chalke is.

Or p. 13 for that matter.

Edited by Morien
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

p. 196: Southern border of Salisbury, the source of Ebble River, where Broad Chalke is.

Or p. 13 for that matter.

It's Broad Chalke in Wiltshire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

p. 196: Southern border of Salisbury, the source of Ebble River, where Broad Chalke is.

Or p. 13 for that matter.

Ah!

Thank you.

I really was blind, it really is in Warlord book.

I thought that the map that I was checking really was from that book but, in reality, it was from "Map Folio".

The same hundred in Map Folio is called "Churchford" and not Chalk Hill.....what's the real name?

 

EDIT:

I also realized that Chalk Hill is held by the Bishop of Venta (= Andronicus, quite an interesting Roman Warrior/Bishop), so maybe at some point maybe Greg or somebody else decided to turn the name into Churchford?

Edited by Luca Cherstich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

The same hundred in Map Folio is called "Churchford" and not Chalk Hill.....what's the real name?

Chalkhill.

But this does explain why there is a Churchford Hundred which does not appear in the WARLORD maps: it is a duplication of Chalkhill.

Edited by Morien
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What came first?

I guess it was "Warlord" first and "Map Folio" later.

In Warlord we got maps with "Chalkhill" and mentions of the Bishop having ChalkHill on page 97, but also there are also clear mentions of Churchford on page 12.

In Map Folio we got the map with "Churchford" and no Chalkhill at all.

 

So, I guess, did maybe Greg changed idea while he was working on Warlord, while giving the final name "Churchford" name in a map only in Map Folio?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

What came first?

I guess it was "Warlord" first and "Map Folio" later.

In Warlord we got maps with "Chalkhill" and mentions of the Bishop having ChalkHill on page 97, but also there are also clear mentions of Churchford on page 12.

In Map Folio we got the map with "Churchford" and no Chalkhill at all.

 

So, I guess, did maybe Greg changed idea while he was working on Warlord, while giving the final name "Churchford" name in a map only in Map Folio?

What's strange is that the original hundred in medieval Wiltshire was Chalke hundred. I wonder if Churchford derived from a messy piece of handwriting Chalkhill > Churchford could look pretty similar, particularly if scribbled in pencil.

Share this post


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

the original hundred in medieval Wiltshire was Chalke hundred.

That is partially why I think that Chalkhill is the correct name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original estate name was just Chalke. It was latter divided into Broad Chalke and Bower Chalke

Information can be found here.

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...