The question of society

[Oleksandr]

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...

[fulk]

I don't know that it was used to represent society in general. Regardless, its a game, so it doesn't necessarily match perfectly. It was a guide. 

However, I think that Greg did use the values from Domesday to set the values of the various holdings from  individual 'manors' to the full hundreds for Estate and Warlords. If I remember correctly, there was some scalar involved. He didn't use the absolute values. He set the total value of lands to support the total number of knights he wanted. I don't remember whether the values were 'value' or 'geld' or what-have-you. 

[Morien]

4 hours ago, fulk said:

I don't know that it was used to represent society in general. Regardless, its a game, so it doesn't necessarily match perfectly. It was a guide. 

Yep. There are definitely lots of things that Greg lifted from the Norman England, but at the same time, Uther Period is NOT a carbon copy of late-11th/early-12th century Norman England. You don't have to go further than the British vs. Roman Churches. Or the 'Roman' cities. Or the presence of Saxon Kingdoms, or the independent Cumbrian and feudal Cambrian Kingdoms.

Also, to answer to Oleksandr, Uther Period is not supposed to be all sweetness and light, quite the opposite. That makes Arthur's shine much brighter, but all men are not equal in Arthur's kingdom, either. A knight is a knight and a serf is a serf. Now, Arthur hands out justice tempered with mercy, and it is a much better place to live, but it is not an egalitarian utopia.

4 hours ago, fulk said:

However, I think that Greg did use the values from Domesday to set the values of the various holdings from  individual 'manors' to the full hundreds for Estate and Warlords. If I remember correctly, there was some scalar involved. He didn't use the absolute values. He set the total value of lands to support the total number of knights he wanted. I don't remember whether the values were 'value' or 'geld' or what-have-you. 

That is my recollection as well.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Morien

[Ali the Helering]

On 11/5/2021 at 12:20 PM, Oleksandr said:

 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".

Villeins were tied to a Lord, and whilst having more freedoms that a serf had fewer than a freeman.  Slavery was normative on this island until around 1200 due to the Norman (not Arthurian!) influence.  In 1086 the institution of freeholder communities being manor holders was frequently due to the distinct minority in which the Norman nobility found themselves.  Expediency often triumphs over intent!  This would not be normal practice in either Norman England nor Arthurian Logres. 

It is worth noting that serfdom had disappeared in Normandy by 1100, although it remained in England into the 1600s.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Ali the Helering
additional info

[Oleksandr]

On 11/6/2021 at 12:24 AM, Morien said:

Also, to answer to Oleksandr, Uther Period is not supposed to be all sweetness and light, quite the opposite. That makes Arthur's shine much brighter

Understandable, but i had impression that he was considered at least ok-ish king. Otherwise him being Arthur father would be detrimental for the later... Besides, his rule here appear worse than that of normans, already oppressive (relatively speaking. In comparison to late 18thc - early 19thc russia it was virtual paradise 🤣)

On 11/6/2021 at 12:24 AM, Morien said:

but all men are not equal in Arthur's kingdom, either. A knight is a knight and a serf is a serf. Now, Arthur hands out justice tempered with mercy, and it is a much better place to live, but it is not an egalitarian utopia.

Yes, but it seems right to use examples of most benevolent and enlightened medieval realms as basis to quazi "golden age". Some realms abolished serfdom fairly early, some never had one in the first place, there was cases of peasants representation in parliaments and so on...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Oleksandr

[Oleksandr]

On 11/6/2021 at 1:57 PM, Ali the Helering said:

In 1086 the institution of freeholder communities being manor holders was frequently due to the distinct minority in which the Norman nobility found themselves.  Expediency often triumphs over intent!  This would not be normal practice in either Norman England nor Arthurian Logres. 

Well, i have a feeling that this community has its roots from tribal traditions, and Arthur reign was just 2 generations away from tribal times. Besides, it make sense. Such arrangement somewhat reduced peasant obligations, accelerating realm restoration after anarchy and civil war (especially considering gradually reduced external threat). Arthur could introduce such reforms both in his demesne and land he confiscated from saxons and various rebels, before re-granting it. 

[Ali the Helering]

Your Logres Will Vary, but the Romano-British functioned under local tribal kings and 'strong man' warlords.  Despite Python's 'King Arthur and the Holy Grail' there weren't anarcho-syndicalist communes studding the land.  

[Oleksandr]

15 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

but the Romano-British functioned under local tribal kings and 'strong man' warlords.  Despite Python's 'King Arthur and the Holy Grail' there weren't anarcho-syndicalist communes studding the land.  

Well, in first post i provided links for examples of similar semi-autonomous peasants communes (and peasant republics even) under feudal rule. According to BD this was more common in anglo-saxon times, some of this communes was even direct vassal of the king.

[Oleksandr]

One more thing. As i understand, standard 10L manor* has population of 420 people (500 in BotM), thus, counting family, there 1-1,5% noblesse per population. About average for big and stable medieval kingdom, but it should be noted that in borderlands there was more knights (also more castles and fortified settlements), and in "frontier" kingdoms - spanish kingdoms during/after reconquista, eastern Europe, especially PLC - had significantly more, 15-20% on average, with some regions up to 40%! Ofcourse, most of these was minore noblesse, poor knights. Thing is, Arthurian Britain, with many small kingdoms, dotted with wilderness full of bandits, monsters and evil knights, seems to be way closer to the later than former. And it would be more "heroic", or something like that...😁

*large land holding from BotE and BotW seems to be way more varied...

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

One more thing. As i understand, standard 10L manor* has population of 420 people (500 in BotM), thus, counting family, there 1-1,5% noblesse per population.

This is ignoring siblings, nieces and nephews and older generation who might still be alive. BoU says the nobility has about 3% slice of the population*.

* Although the population figure in BoU seems to be just for the adults, as otherwise there won't be enough children to replace the knights in the next generation. Doubling the number of people in all categories to account for the kids would take care of that, and also allow for more monks and village priests.

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

in "frontier" kingdoms - spanish kingdoms during/after reconquista, eastern Europe, especially PLC - had significantly more, 15-20% on average, with some regions up to 40%!

I seriously doubt that any region was self-sustaining a 40% of the population as nobles, especially given the medieval farming efficiency. The oft quoted numbers are 75-90% of the population needing to work the fields to support the rest. Now if it gets its food from elsewhere in the kingdom, I could believe it, but then it is not really fair to claim that the 40% is the representative of the society as a whole. 15-20% seems rather high, too. 

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that what might get translated as 'noble' might not have quite the same meaning as it does in KAP.

For example, the medieval Swedish nobility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nobility#Medieval_nobility:_Frälse

Most of them would be more appropriately classified as cavalrymen in KAP, not as knights, and when not at war, they would work their own farms.

[Oleksandr]

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

I seriously doubt that any region was self-sustaining a 40% of the population as nobles, especially given the medieval farming efficiency. The oft quoted numbers are 75-90% of the population needing to work the fields to support the rest. Now if it gets its food from elsewhere in the kingdom, I could believe it, but then it is not really fair to claim that the 40% is the representative of the society as a whole. 15-20% seems rather high, too. 

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that what might get translated as 'noble' might not have quite the same meaning as it does in KAP.

For example, the medieval Swedish nobility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nobility#Medieval_nobility:_Frälse

Most of them would be more appropriately classified as cavalrymen in KAP, not as knights, and when not at war, they would work their own farms.

Well, there was just few small regions with such high concentration of noblesse. It should be noted that land in PLC more fertile on average (i honestly don't know hove spanish dealt with it). And yes, some of poorer noblesse had to work on their farms (similarly, some scottish noblesse herded their cattle themself). In less threatened land they would be degraded in status of course. But in the "frontier"... As example, during king elections in Poland such farmer-knight had exact same voting power as any high noble*. I think this situation is quite similar to one before and early during Arthur reign. And more idealistic😉.

*obviously, high noblesse could just bribe poorer ones to vote for whom they wanted🤑.

[fulk]

While I find all these conjectures re population distribution etc fun, KAP is not Harn. My suggestion is to not over think it.  😉

[Morien]

4 minutes ago, fulk said:

While I find all these conjectures re population distribution etc fun, KAP is not Harn. My suggestion is to not over think it.  😉

What, we are not supposed to track the number of egg-laying chickens and how many hides of different vegetables and grains we have growing and when? Madness! 😛

(Yes, I have HarnManor, and no, I would never try to actually run a game with it, unless it was specifically geared towards the PKs starting as humble farmers' sons and trying to improve their lot in life by climbing up the social ladder within the village...)

Edited November 10, 2021 by Morien

[fulk]

38 minutes ago, Morien said:

I would never try to actually run a game with it, unless it was specifically geared towards the PKs starting as humble farmers' sons and trying to improve their lot in life by climbing up the social ladder within the village...)

What? I find calculating the exact number of kernels of wheat necessary to plant my fields to make an exhilarating night of gaming...😜.

[Morien]

11 minutes ago, fulk said:

What? I find calculating the exact number of kernels of wheat necessary to plant my fields to make an exhilarating night of gaming...😜.

"No, we are not having porridge this morning since we need the rest as seeds coming Spring! So shut up and eat your moldy turnip! It will put hair on your chest, my girl!"

[Ali the Helering]

10 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Well, in first post i provided links for examples of similar semi-autonomous peasants communes (and peasant republics even) under feudal rule. According to BD this was more common in anglo-saxon times, some of this communes was even direct vassal of the king.

Whereas my post related to the Romano-British, therefore not feudal.  The Romano-British weren't Anglo-Saxons, and would dislike any comparison with them!

As I said, YLWV.

[Oleksandr]

On 11/10/2021 at 6:32 PM, fulk said:

While I find all these conjectures re population distribution etc fun, KAP is not Harn. My suggestion is to not over think it.  😉

Well, i have inclination for nitpicking. Sorry 😊. But, all this numbers was in rulebooks, so i couldn't resist...

On 11/10/2021 at 9:30 PM, Ali the Helering said:

Whereas my post related to the Romano-British, therefore not feudal.  The Romano-British weren't Anglo-Saxons, and would dislike any comparison with them!

As i understand, real Romano-British people, aside city dwellers, were very similar to Anglo-Saxons culturally, they both was essentially just tribal society. Now, while i not intimately familiar with celts and saxon, i know a little bit about other tribal societies, scandinavians and slavs. This tribals was indeed amalgamations of communes of free farmers, with "noblesse" being essentially bands of mercenaries, hired by this communes (and could be replaced if proved inadequate). CAP are supposed to be mix of literature and history, right? DB England is good example of transition from tribal to feudal society, not unlike what happens in GPC.

[Ali the Helering]

The Romano-British were a blend of the Romanised urban dwellers and large land owners with the less Romanised rural tribal groupings.  The urban societies still functioned under Roan-style magistrates and bishoprics, and the rural under kings and warlords.

The Anglo-Saxons had their own kings and chiefs who claimed descent from a variety of Biblical or other religious beings (depending on their degree and immediacy of Christianisation!) or historical characters.  Significantly different, IMHO, and easily simulated using KAP.

However, as I have said from the beginning, Your Logres Will Vary.  That is a good thing, not bad, and I wish you well in your campaign.

[Oleksandr]

4 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

The Romano-British were a blend of the Romanised urban dwellers and large land owners with the less Romanised rural tribal groupings.  The urban societies still functioned under Roan-style magistrates and bishoprics, and the rural under kings and warlords.

The Anglo-Saxons had their own kings and chiefs who claimed descent from a variety of Biblical or other religious beings (depending on their degree and immediacy of Christianisation!) or historical characters.  Significantly different, IMHO, and easily simulated using KAP.

Again, sorry for nitpicking, this matter just to important to me. Tribal culture was misinterpreted way to often!((

This other tribal groups i mentioned also had kings,warlords and chiefs (and some of them too claimed divine descent 😃), but still, they wasn't absolute rulers. In fact, some of them, who thinked too much of themselves, ended up exiled or killed by their "subjects".

The way early parts of GPC described (with king and high king positions being elective), in addition to related culture of irish (as described in Pagan Shore), seems to be very similar.

[Ali the Helering]

I don't think you are nitpicking, but I do think you are in great danger of romanticising non-egalitarian social structures.  That, however, is your right.

[Oleksandr]

On 11/10/2021 at 2:32 PM, Morien said:

I seriously doubt that any region was self-sustaining a 40% of the population as nobles, especially given the medieval farming efficiency. The oft quoted numbers are 75-90% of the population needing to work the fields to support the rest

There was olso other people who produced food. Many monks was engaged in agriculture, many burghes and military garnisons worked small plots of land in free time. DB provides examples of soldiers who was given small farms by their lords.

On 11/13/2021 at 7:24 AM, Ali the Helering said:

I don't think you are nitpicking, but I do think you are in great danger of romanticising non-egalitarian social structures.  That, however, is your right.

Well, for what we know about historical tribal cultures (and their more recent counterparts) they was quite egalitarian, especially in comparison to some other systems, like absolute monarchies, or ussr 😆.

Besides, if, as we can see, such commoners communes existed in Norman's England, HRE and, to lesser extent, in other parts of Europe (including Italy), then i don't see reasons they couldn't exist in Arthurian Britain.

[Morien]

6 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

DB provides examples of soldiers who was given small farms by their lords.

And these would not be nobles, in KAP definition, but yeomen.

[Oleksandr]

9 minutes ago, Morien said:

And these would not be nobles, in KAP definition, but yeomen.

of course, my point was that they contributed to food production while not being peasants, therefore making 15-20% of noblesse sustainable.

You see, my main point is, the less peasants per noble - the more noblesse depend upon their peasants. Somebody who rule over thousands of serfs may afford to not care about them, meanwhile somebody who is a "lord" of single village had to be more benevolent😁. 

[Ali the Helering]

10 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Besides, if, as we can see, such commoners communes existed in Norman's England, HRE and, to lesser extent, in other parts of Europe (including Italy), then i don't see reasons they couldn't exist in Arthurian Britain.

No reason at all that they couldn't.  I never suggested that.  Simply that such historical evidence as there is gives no support to the idea that they did.  If you want them to in your Logres, then make it so!  

As I said earlier, in 'Monty Python ik den holie grailen'  "Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Unfortunately not the case in Logres in the RW.  If you want such in your Logres, that is fine.

[Oleksandr]

On 11/15/2021 at 8:17 PM, Ali the Helering said:

No reason at all that they couldn't.  I never suggested that.  Simply that such historical evidence as there is gives no support to the idea that they did.  If you want them to in your Logres, then make it so!  

Well, we all are entitled to our own opinions, however, i must point out that, given how widespread such feature was, even in far more oppressive states then Uther's Logres, it would be even somewhat unrealistic that something like this didn't existed. Please note also that, as described in linked articles, such communes gradually diminished in number through MA, along with gradual rise of social gap, which may somewhat warp perception of this phenomenon😉. And in KAP itself, judging by number of castles built by commoners for self defense during Anarchy (according to BotW) and other sources, commoners aren't so passive and pliable in this setting.

BTW, you think that this doesn't feet Arthurian story?🤔 I mean, In GPC Arthur allowed commoners representation in parliament...

On 11/15/2021 at 8:17 PM, Ali the Helering said:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Unfortunately not the case in Logres in the RW.

Well, i would argue that Arthur (at least in GPC) had "mandate from the masses"😉. All commoners present during sword drawing, churchmen, and almost all noblemen of Logress (and many from outside) submitted to him. Large cities and market towns had some amount of self rule, and (theoretically) could defy him along with rebellious lords (and yes, such thing happened in real MA). In fact, while researching this subject, i , to my surprise, discovered that elective monarchies was very common in MA, especially early on. Way more common than direct primogeniture. In some cases representatives of free commoners participated in election.