Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rowelio

A question about Eschilles.

Recommended Posts

I just realised that combined, my player Knights command 5.5 eschilles (roughly). Is that 5.5 Eschilles part of Earl Roderick's 14 Eschilles (Book of the Warlord pg. 38) as they are his vassal Knights. OR does Roderick command 14 Eschilles AND whatever Vassals he has. 

A couple of my players er on the side of mischievous and calculating and would like to know if they have enough army to stage a coup at some point even though it is not the honourable thing to do. But our Pendragon session follows a weird Game of Thrones-y style political tone at times, contrasted with the world's emphasis on honour and loyalty to your Lords at all cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your PKs hold 5.5 eschille (which means roughly 55 knights). They are estateholders? Assuming you have about 5 PKs this means each has an estate of about 100 Librum?

This would mean imho that they hold about 1/3 of Earl Roderick's army. This means they are very important men in the court of Earl Roderick.

By the way on page 110 Earl Roderick has 15 eschille. In book ofthe Estate though the number is at 14 (page 36).

Also be wary. Staging a coup during Earl Rodericks life is something that is seen as non knightly. Loyalty between liege and vassal is a sacred bond.

Aside from that they will need to have some strong backing for this. Not only do the need to deal with the other part of the vassals of Earl Roderick, but also his benefactor King Uther. Earl Roderick is always seen as a loyal vassal of the king, so he would not like to see him removed by someone who may be less loyal. So even if you get a majority ofthe vassals on your side, they also need to deal with King Uther, and his remaining 248 remaining eschilles (not counting Earl Roderick's).

Things change of course if or when Earl Roderick dies. Homage and fealty is between persons, not families. Of course there are rules of inheritance, but since it is a 'might makes right' period King Uther may be pursuaded to accept your new Earl, instead of a mere boy. Of course you will need the other vassals on board for this as well. The ideal period is of course to do this during the Anarchy phase, as there is no King and all the other lords are dealing with their own problems. You still need support from the other vassals and it may plunge the copunty into war. Then other lords may get involved as some hold lands within Salisbury county. Of course the arrival of King Cedric will get him involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much like Cornelius said. The exception would be if they somehow got the other knights from elsewhere along with income from outside of Salisbury. Early on eschilles can be a little smaleer in size, but that's still a lot of knights.

 

At £4 per knight, 55 knights would cost them £220/year to maintain. How did you PKs manage to afford such an army?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've got 5 PKs.  But I started the game with only two PKs. And when I started I gave the first two £50 Estates instead of the Standard £10 Manor. Kinda followed suit with the additional party members. 4 of them had excellent marriages and how have two estates totaling around £100. Two of them included enfeoffed manors who swore allegiance to the knights as well. 

I really like the idea of my Players being the backbone to Roderick's Army - Like a sizeable enough chunk of it to definitely have him wanting to keep them all on his good side. But only if they all band together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then in that case, you succeeded. Together they control a solid third of his army. That still gives Roderick a 2:1 advantage should something go wrong between him and the PKs, but they still have a sizable force. 

That is something of a double edged sword though. On the one hand they are powerful together, but on the other they are a potential threat as well. Roderick will want to keep them happy to some extent, but if he feels threatened he can still crush them, especially if he goes after them piecemeal or could keep them from working together. With such a powerful force, Roderick will be much more concerned about their Loyalty/Homage scores than with most knights.. Especially if the PKs estates are very compact, close together, or all along a border.. For instance, if they were to turn against him, could they open up a border to an neighboring lord?

At this point the PKs will probably be some of his most loyal knights, or he might worry about them gaining too much power and step in to prevent their power from growing. As would other knights and officers at court.And any enemies they have at court (which would be quite a few, with that much power) are going to be working hard to reduce their status in the eyes of the count.  So their actions will be under much more scrutiny.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Cornelius and Atgxtg already said.

Estates, by RAW, are pretty much only granted by the King. It is pretty much impossible (by RAW) that Roderick would have five £50 estates AND additional four £50 heiresses. Roderick himself controls something like £800 in Salisbury, IIRC (too lazy to check), so if all those lands are concentrated in Salisbury, Roderick is an idiot and has pretty much reduced himself to just an ordinary Baron from the Great(est) Baron in Logres. And that is the charitable description of him.

It would be much more likely (but Your Pendragon May Vary) that the heiresses would be from estates directly under Uther, and that would dilute the power base some what. Roderick might have even helped to get those heiresses to his loyal knights, in order to elevate them even more and figuring that if push comes to shove, those loyal PKs would bring extra knights from their non-Salisbury estates (where their liege is the King, not Roderick).

As for Loyalty and Honor, as Cornelius points out, it is a two way street. Uther likely would take it amiss that someone is backstabbing his loyal vassal, but also consider what kind of an example the PKs set for their OWN vassals and household knights? Stab the liege and steal his lands, eh? Don't mind if I do... That being said, as Cornelius points out, lots of bad stuff happens during Anarchy. Given how strong the PKs (even without those extra estates, which might be elsewhere and entangle PKs into problems outside Salisbury too) are in Salisbury, they can probably seize the Regency of Robert, and even arrange 'an accident' and marry Jenna off to whoever they wish to give legitimacy to their powergrab. But who would end with the grand prize for their family? Hmm... *sounds of knives being sharpened*

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What Cornelius and Atgxtg already said.

Estates, by RAW, are pretty much only granted by the King.

Actually by RAW estates are not granted by the king. That's why they changes the  definition of baron and bannerette to exclude estate holders. If they are granted by the king then the character is a baron or bannerette, now. I figured estate holders were those characters in KAP4 who managed to acquire land over time through successive marriages over the generations. They got a half dozen or so manors scattered throughout Britain.

 

As far a Roderick weakening his power base and prestige, yes that would be a big problem if all the manors were his. I could see it possibly happening but only under exceptional circumstances. It would be much more likely that only a fraction of those manors lie is Salisbury with many coming from elsewhere. 

In my own campaign, I had the Count actually pause and remove ae PK as castellan of DuPlain castle when another PK expressed a desire to and requested permission to fortify nearby Broughton manor. Especially as both PKs were members of a Knightly Order that had relative related to and could soon include a Bannerette in Hampshire, right on the border.. The thought crossed the Counts mind that if war to to break out between him and the Banerette then the PKs would have a conflict of loyalties and could conceivably betray him and side with the Bannerette, giving a potential enemy control over two castles on the eastern border of the country. Now all the PKs in the order were known for loyalty but they didn't all have 20s, and  the threat was too great  to risk, so I had the Count make the first PK castellan at Devizes (where he's raided Marlborough/Sparrowhawk several times and has no goodwill with the neighbor), and put the knight in Broughton (with Loyalty 20)  in charge of duPlain. 

If the PKs started to work on fielding a third of the Counts forces I'd have probably had the Count step in to prevent it. They would probably need to be incredibly loyal, beyond all suspicion, won tons of glory, and be an inlaw to get that sort of trust. THat might account for one or even two such knights but probably not four.

 

But since Rowelio wanted that set up to start with, I'd just assume they were all powerful clan warlords who grabbed the land back around 413 when the Belgae were wiped out as a tribe, and just managed to hold onto the land and power this long. I wonder if the country will survive the Anarchy Period? With such a powerbase any of the PKs could opt to expand thier holdings during the Anarchy.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Actually by RAW estates are not granted by the king.

Pretty sure you are wrong about that. See Book of the Estate p. 19. It specifically talks about the new £50 estates that are granted by the King.

If you have a £50 estate from the King, you are not a Baron, since the minimum for a Baron is £100.

All estate holders are not Bannerets. Bannerets have two special distinctions over the 'mere' estate holder: 1) they are elevated specifically by battlefield heroics, and 2) they are direct vassals of the King. But Bannerets still hold ESTATES, not honours. So it is still the King who grants the estate, which is what I stated.

Whether the title is 'estate holder' or 'banneret' depends on the circumstances and the pleasure of the King. He doesn't have to make a new banneret even if the estate is a reward for a battlefield heroics (although I don't see why he wouldn't). But he could just as easily reward a favorite with an estate without any heroics whatsoever.

It is much harder for a baron to create a new estate, simply because it is a much larger portion of their own patrimony (especially if they are not Great Barons). Besides, many barons hold parts of their honours only for life, so naturally they can't make a new estate out of that. It is not impossible, but I would expect the vast majority of the vavasour estates to be inherited rather than newly granted, and the majority of the current estates to be vassals of the King, not of the barons. Gifts (i.e. for life) I could see much more easily.

 

Share this post


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

Pretty sure you are wrong about that. See Book of the Estate p. 19. It specifically talks about the new £50 estates that are granted by the King.

But The Book of the Warlord, page 6 states:

An estate holder is a nobleman of rank higher than a knight, with an estate-sized holding. If he holds the estate from a baron, he is also a vavasour (see below). Knight Bannerets are estate holders who are direct vassals of the King, and have won their rank due to battlefield heroics. Unlike in King Arthur Pendragon 5.1, this term is no longer synonymous with an estate holder.

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

If you have a £50 estate from the King, you are not a Baron, since the minimum for a Baron is £100.

Not according t othe  Book of the Estate, page 19:

If the king grants an estate, the recipient is promoted to the rank of baron — a nobleman set apart from lesser knights by his personal relationship with the king

and

Since the estates in this book are valued at about £ 50, Player-knights do not hold the estates given in this book by barony, but by knight’s service. Only estates
from the King can be held by barony

 

 

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

All estate holders are not Bannerets. Bannerets have two special distinctions over the 'mere' estate holder: 1) they are elevated specifically by battlefield heroics, and 2) they are direct vassals of the King. But Bannerets still hold ESTATES, not honours. So it is still the King who grants the estate, which is what I stated.

If the King granted the estate then they are are baron or bannerette perk the quote above. And the "if he holds the estate from a baron, he is also a vavasour" line shows that someone can hold a estate that does not come directly from the king. That is a Baron could give or grant someone an estate. Frankly I do see this are bing all that likely for anyone below the rank of Duke, as it would take up too big a chunk of thier estate to be able to reward many other knights with land.  

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

Whether the title is 'estate holder' or 'banneret' depends on the circumstances and the pleasure of the King. He doesn't have to make a new banneret even if the estate is a reward for a battlefield heroics (although I don't see why he wouldn't). But he could just as easily reward a favorite with an estate without any heroics whatsoever.

That is not how it is worded in the text. In fact, the distinction between estate holder and bannerette would then be meaningless.

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

It is much harder for a baron to create a new estate, simply because it is a much larger portion of their own patrimony (especially if they are not Great Barons). Besides, many barons hold parts of their honours only for life, so naturally they can't make a new estate out of that. It is not impossible, but I would expect the vast majority of the vavasour estates to be inherited rather than newly granted,

Exactly. While a Baron could do it, he usually had little desire to do so as it limits his ability to gift or  grant land to other household knights who distinguish themselves, or eat into her personal demesne. I could see someone like Count Salisbury, with 150 manors and 30 avilable for landed knights to be able to have one or two minor estate holders taking up a third or so of those 30 manors, but much more than that  

45 minutes ago, Morien said:

and the majority of the current estates to be vassals of the King, not of the barons. Gifts (i.e. for life) I could see much more easily.

I don't dispute that the majority would be vassals of the king, only that according to how estate holder and bannetette and baron are defined, if they are estate holders they are not holding land directly from the king. This is the only distinction between estate holders and bannerettes.  

Share this post


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

Not according t othe  Book of the Estate, page 19:

If the king grants an estate, the recipient is promoted to the rank of baron — a nobleman set apart from lesser knights by his personal relationship with the king

and

Since the estates in this book are valued at about £ 50, Player-knights do not hold the estates given in this book by barony, but by knight’s service. Only estates
from the King can be held by barony

You missed this thing in the middle:

"If the estate is worth £100 or more, the vassal’s term of service changes from being held through “knight’s service,” which means having land in return for military service, to being held per baronium (“by barony”)."

And sidebar: "The income threshold for a baronial estate is £100."

There are two things here:

1. Can a King grant an estate? Obviously he can and does. Hence my original statement stands.

2. What is the title that the King grants with the estate? It can be Baron (if £100 or larger), Banneret (if for battlefield heroics and less than £100) or estate holder (less than £100 for non-battlefield heroics reason). Only the King can make a Baron or a Banneret. There is a distinction between a banneret and an estate holder, you quoted the relevant text yourself in WARLORD p. 6 (emphasis mine): "Knight Bannerets are estate holders who are direct vassals of the King, and have won their rank due to battlefield heroics." There are three qualifications in that sentence, and you keep ignoring one of them, the main one that sets them apart from other estate holders.

If my memory serves, Greg also clarified that the title of the Banneret is not inherited, even if the estate is. It is a personal title for the battlefield heroics, granted to the man, not to the family. As it says, the rank needs to be WON, not inherited.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Barons and Estates...I agree with Morien...

(1) Estates are a single, integral unit (with outliers). It cannot be split up.  Multiple manors acquired over time are not an estate. 

(2) Kings or other lords can grant estates.

(3) You are a Baron if you are granted the estate by the king per Baronium.  You are not if the land was granted per Knight's Service

(4) You are only a Baron if you hold land (here 100L or more) from the King.  You are not a baron if you hold land from Earl Rodderick, even if you hold a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, fulk said:

Re Barons and Estates...I agree with Morien...

(1) Estates are a single, integral unit (with outliers). It cannot be split up.  Multiple manors acquired over time are not an estate. 

(2) Kings or other lords can grant estates.

(3) You are a Baron if you are granted the estate by the king per Baronium.  You are not if the land was granted per Knight's Service

(4) You are only a Baron if you hold land (here 100L or more) from the King.  You are not a baron if you hold land from Earl Rodderick, even if you hold a lot.

Where Mortien and I seem to disagree is on point (2).

According to Morien

21 hours ago, Morien said:

Estates, by RAW, are pretty much only granted by the King

I think, logistically a King (note I said a, not the) King has more land and thus can afford to grant more estates than a lesser lord, but Dukes, Counts and Barons could do so, and there are probably a few floating around.

 

9 hours ago, Morien said:

"Knight Bannerets are estate holders who are direct vassals of the King, and have won their rank due to battlefield heroics." There are three qualifications in that sentence, and you keep ignoring one of them, the main one that sets them apart from other estate holders.

SO in other words a worthless distinction between estate holders and bannerette knights  that wasn't worth making the change in the first place. I had thought that the difference was that bannerettes were made by the king and estate holders not, but if the difference between the two is just one got his title through battlefield heroics and the other not, and the two are otherwise identical, then what difference does it make? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that Greater Barons COULD, in principle, grant estates. I said that it is pretty much only the King who actually does so. It is a huge deal to even get granted a new manor by a Baron and an estate would be an ever bigger deal.

As for the difference between estate holder and banneret, the differences are right there: All bannerets are estate holders who are direct vassals of the king and who have won the estate through battlefield heroics. That is three criteria, two of which separate them from vavasour estate holders, and one from tenant-in-chief estate holders. As for was it a change worth making, Greg apparently thought so. It does mean that the living bannerets are at least former badasses in some way, so I guess there is some value in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on your Pendragon (YPMV), being a Banneret means you did SOMETHING on the battlefield that was NOTICED and the King rewarded that knight.  As far as Estate holders, please think upon what the estate means.  Holding from a/the KING.  And a king trumps the lesser nobility. True, you might be true to Earl Rodderick, but an Earl is not a King. A Baron has lands totaling at least 100.  So, a Baron could, in essence, give someone an estate, but in doing so lessens his own. And, how many  Barons would be willing to do that? For what price?

Share this post


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

I don't disagree that Greater Barons COULD, in principle, grant estates. I said that it is pretty much only the King who actually does so. It is a huge deal to even get granted a new manor by a Baron and an estate would be an ever bigger deal.

Yeah, I think we all agree that the idea of Roderick parceling out 20-40 manors among four knights is pretty much not happening under remotely normal circumstances. About the only ones who I could see doing something like this would be Kings and maybe Dukes as they got enough manors to be able to had out five or more to a knight without it impacting so heavily into their "available manors". For any lesser warlord it just isn't feasible. 

2 hours ago, Morien said:

 As for was it a change worth making, Greg apparently thought so.

I don't really see why. 

2 hours ago, Morien said:

It does mean that the living bannerets are at least former badasses in some way, so I guess there is some value in that.

Or that their ancestors were. I just wish there was some difference between the two titles. It seems like banneret is supposed to be a step up, but the glory award and other game stuff is identical. It seems like the difference between Count and Earl. 

11 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

being a Banneret means you did SOMETHING on the battlefield that was NOTICED and the King rewarded that knight. 

So it might not be battlefield heroics, per say but just something that a King (or possibly a Duke) noticed and considered significant enough to reward. 

11 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

As far as Estate holders, please think upon what the estate means.  Holding from a/the KING.  And a king trumps the lesser nobility. True, you might be true to Earl Rodderick, but an Earl is not a King. A Baron has lands totaling at least 100.  So, a Baron could, in essence, give someone an estate, but in doing so lessens his own. And, how many  Barons would be willing to do that? For what price?

Yeah. I think that we all agree that the situation presented by the OP is not something that would happen. The Count is basically subdividing his county, weakening his own power base, and lowering his status just to benefit four PKs. Roderick is essentially reducing Salisbury from being a sort of "super county" down to the level of the other counties or even a barony. I'll accept that the OP wanted it that way, so he got it that way. No problem. But it wasn't something that would happen naturally. 

I was mostly puzzled and concerned about the reclassification of bannerets and estate holder. Frankly I don't like the new definition.It doesn't seem to add anything to the game besides complexity and a "weak' title where is wasn't needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Or that their ancestors were.

No, because then the estate would be inherited, not won on the battlefield. A banneret's son who inherits the estate would be just an estate holder. At least that is my understanding of it, and I am pretty sure Greg clarified it at some point... Alas, I can't go and search the old Nocturnal Forum for Greg's statements at this point.

13 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I just wish there was some difference between the two titles. It seems like banneret is supposed to be a step up, but the glory award and other game stuff is identical. It seems like the difference between Count and Earl.  

See above. Part of the issue is that there are limited 'rungs' on the ladder and it is complex enough as it is. I would have personally have been fine having Knight Banneret = estate holder and thus get rid of the clunky 'estate holder' or simply use 'estate holder' as an umbrella term to cover all the landholding nobility. But it is as it is. It is more significant distinction than Count and Earl, which are simply the same rank, just from different roots (and, as far as I know, Earl is no longer in use due to its Anglo-Saxon origins).

Share this post


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

No, because then the estate would be inherited, not won on the battlefield. A banneret's son who inherits the estate would be just an estate holder. At least that is my understanding of it, and I am pretty sure Greg clarified it at some point... Alas, I can't go and search the old Nocturnal Forum for Greg's statements at this point.

I really wonder why he brought up a distinction at all then. We get what amounts to a meaningless distinction that won't last long in play and essentially makes no difference.

4 hours ago, Morien said:

See above. Part of the issue is that there are limited 'rungs' on the ladder and it is complex enough as it is.

Then why bother with it at all? Greg put the additional rung on the ladder. This was something that was deliberately added to the game, after five+ editions, to accomplish what? It could have easily been ignored or just simpled to "a banneret is an estate holder who won his title on the battlefield from the King", or just have an extra 50 glory tacked onto the title. 

It is complexity that wasn't there until Greg decided to change things, but I don't see any reason for the change. 

 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

I would have personally have been fine having Knight Banneret = estate holder and thus get rid of the clunky 'estate holder' or simply use 'estate holder' as an umbrella term to cover all the landholding nobility.

Which was the way it was until the change. What I don't understand is what the purpose was for the change. I really can't see a reason for it. We don't bother noting the distinction between   which vassal knights get knighted on the battlefield, and which do not. 

 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

But it is as it is. It is more significant distinction than Count and Earl, which are simply the same rank, just from different roots (and, as far as I know, Earl is no longer in use due to its Anglo-Saxon origins).

I'd say it was less of a distinction, as at least Earl has a cultural distinction (it's a Saxon title). I see this as the least significant distinction between ranks in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 9:41 AM, Morien said:

I don't disagree that Greater Barons COULD, in principle, grant estates. I said that it is pretty much only the King who actually does so. It is a huge deal to even get granted a new manor by a Baron and an estate would be an ever bigger deal.

Historically, I agree this is unlikely.  I could see it in cases where a father was subenfeueding to a second son or something like that where the lands would stay withing the immediate family.  Nevertheless, it would be rare. 

I think what matters is playability.  If you want to reward PKs but keep everyone a vassal of Earl Rodderick for game purposes, just do it. 

On 5/6/2019 at 9:41 AM, Morien said:

As for the difference between estate holder and banneret, the differences are right there: All bannerets are estate holders who are direct vassals of the king and who have won the estate through battlefield heroics. That is three criteria, two of which separate them from vavasour estate holders, and one from tenant-in-chief estate holders. As for was it a change worth making, Greg apparently thought so. It does mean that the living bannerets are at least former badasses in some way, so I guess there is some value in that.

Historically, there are also ranks of household knights.  So some one like William Marshall could be granted the rank of Banneret of the household and have his own set of followers. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I really wonder why he brought up a distinction at all then. We get what amounts to a meaningless distinction that won't last long in play and essentially makes no difference.

What I think everyone tends to forget is Greg grew with each edition of the game as he did more and more research.  For example, the Belgae tribe has historically been the tribe of Salisbury. Yet. as Greg delved deeper into history, and more recent archaeological evidence came forth, he felt the Belgae disappeared as a tribe much earlier. Book of Sires tried to take that into account.  So, likewise, at one point, Greg felt there was a distinction between Count and Earl and wanted Roderick to be a bit different, so he made him so, and decided to keep it that way.  Me? I am perfectly fine with it being in the game, and although one can argue, there is no real distinction, I rule that there is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

What I think everyone tends to forget is Greg grew with each edition of the game as he did more and more research.  For example, the Belgae tribe has historically been the tribe of Salisbury. Yet. as Greg delved deeper into history, and more recent archaeological evidence came forth, he felt the Belgae disappeared as a tribe much earlier. Book of Sires tried to take that into account.

I'm sorry but while I'll accept that the game eveolved over time as Greg did more research, nd also as he decided between different paths to take - i.e. going from a semi-histroical Cadbury Castle Camelet to a more Malloryesque(?) Winchester. What I won't accept is the Belgae tribe. Frankly I don't even think any of the old Celtic tribes were even given a mention before they were "downgraded" in SIRES. 

55 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

  So, likewise, at one point, Greg felt there was a distinction between Count and Earl and wanted Roderick to be a bit different, so he made him so, and decided to keep it that way.

More like the opposite. Salisbury was perhaps the  only Earl mentioned in the game. I think it was changed to Count because Earl/Jarl is a Saxon term and he was working on replacing the Saxon titles and place names with more British ones. 

55 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

 

  Me? I am perfectly fine with it being in the game, and although one can argue, there is no real distinction, I rule that there is one.

And it would be? Other than how the title is awarded, there is no difference. I don't see it enhancing a campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please check out "Britannia, the Failed State," by Stuart Laycock. Greg sent it to me during my writing the history and development of Book of Sires.  He was wondering if I should just drop the tribe as coinage distributions did not show any coinage directly to them, rather to the Atrebates and Dobunnis. But, as Greg was oft to say, YPMV.  I am not trying to start an argument. I was just giving my two denarii on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Please check out "Britannia, the Failed State," by Stuart Laycock. Greg sent it to me during my writing the history and development of Book of Sires.  He was wondering if I should just drop the tribe as coinage distributions did not show any coinage directly to them, rather to the Atrebates and Dobunnis. But, as Greg was oft to say, YPMV. 

My bad, I was vague. What I meant was that I do not believe that the Celtic tribes had been mentioned in Pendragon (other than maybe a throwaway distant history reference to Boudica somewhere)  prior to Book of Sires. So I didn't see any "Belgae tribe being tied to Salisbury" in KAP.  I was actually surprised that various Celtic tribes were given the space they got in Sires. Maybe Greg had them play a bigger role in the background, but none of that came through in any of the published stuff. 

Now historically, yes they were significant, but as far as Pendragon goes I can't recall a mention. There might have been some vague references to tribal Cymri in Savage Mountains or some such, but no real mention of any historic tribe. 

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

I am not trying to start an argument. I was just giving my two denarii on this.

No argument, just trying to get my head around the revision to the ranks and what it will mean in play. I think there is a pretty solid consensuses that the situation presented by the OP is highly unlikely to occur, but as it was what the OP wanted in his campaign, he could and did made it so. Which he certainly in allowed to do, since it's his campaign. I'll be curious as to how that change will affect the course of his campaign, too. A group of estate holders with 55 knights between them gives the PKs a pretty significant power block, both militarily and politically. That will let them accomplish things that were unlikely or not possible to typical vassal knights. A PK might even have a decent chance of taking over the county during the anarchy! I could also see other knights banding together to oppose the PKs power block. The possibilities are very interesting. 

 

Share this post


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

Now historically, yes they were significant, but as far as Pendragon goes I can't recall a mention.

Two things I wanted to bring to the table. The first was the tribes hindered the unity of England. The Romans, Vortigern, Hengest, and others were able to capitalize on this. So, the tribal structure was brought in, which slowly evolved into the county structure. So, a little bit of history was necessary. Second, the migrations that occurred during Vortigern's reign did two things: it brought a unity amongst the various peoples as they had one thing in common at least. Aurelius used this to build his invasion army.  More importantly, he held the army together throughout the 3 year span in dealing with Vortigern, further uniting the various people. Both aspects were somewhat new to Greg, but he actually like how it was all put together.

 

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

A PK might even have a decent chance of taking over the county during the anarchy! I could also see other knights banding together to oppose the PKs power block. The possibilities are very interesting.

This has always intrigued me and would like to see this portion expanded upon.  During the anarchy and perhaps in Cambria or the far north, a campaign could be set which would see this as the major theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Two things I wanted to bring to the table. The first was the tribes hindered the unity of England. The Romans, Vortigern, Hengest, and others were able to capitalize on this. So, the tribal structure was brought in, which slowly evolved into the county structure.

That's an interesting point. It was certainly what allowed the Romans to take over. I'm not certain how much of a factor it played into Vorigerns situation, as least in Pendragon terms. JUst how tribal or feudal Britian is in the early years is a bit hard to pin down. I don't think it can really be the full 11th Century medieval Britain at the start as there are too many hold overs from earlier eras. The general impression I've gotten is that the further out you are from Logres/Salisbury the less historically advanced it is.

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

So, a little bit of history was necessary. Second, the migrations that occurred during Vortigern's reign did two things: it brought a unity amongst the various peoples as they had one thing in common at least. Aurelius used this to build his invasion army. 

Yes, common enemies. In Europe the Huns pretty much forced various other tribes west. In Britian the Picts, Scotti, Irish and Saxons kept encroaching. 

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

More importantly, he held the army together throughout the 3 year span in dealing with Vortigern, further uniting the various people. Both aspects were somewhat new to Greg, but he actually like how it was all put together.

I think the ability to hold the army together for three years was probably possible becuase this was a generation that had grown up unified under one king. From what I've read, it really looks like Constatin coming over and becoming High King allowed the Britis to unifiy as a nation, and keep unified, in order to hold off the invaders. I also thing the reason why Constantin could do this was becuase he was an outsider. The various leaders at the time probably would rather accept an outsider king than give power to a rival.

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

This has always intrigued me and would like to see this portion expanded upon.  During the anarchy and perhaps in Cambria or the far north, a campaign could be set which would see this as the major theme.

Me too,. A knight expanding into a minor or major lord is an very interesting story arc for the campaign. I'm not sure how well it works for multiple PKs, or just what to do with it should a PK become successful, but it's interesting. Hypothetically, if one of those PKs were to marry Countess Ellen and take over the County, elevate the other three PKs to his major officers and go through the rest of the campaign as Lord Salisbury it would be a very different but interesting campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

A knight expanding into a minor or major lord is an very interesting story arc for the campaign. I'm not sure how well it works for multiple PKs, or just what to do with it should a PK become successful, but it's interesting. Hypothetically, if one of those PKs were to marry Countess Ellen and take over the County, elevate the other three PKs to his major officers and go through the rest of the campaign as Lord Salisbury it would be a very different but interesting campaign. 

Agreed.

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...