How much land for new Noble ?

[gizmo33]

I think some of these ideas being thrown around are very much mixing Renaissance concepts into the Medieval/Feudal model.

Yea, I'm ok with that though. It's hard to imagine gold pieces and spell books, for example, being so common in a "Dark Ages" type campaign. I think one of the difficulties in DnD is to maintain divisions in knowledge based on time and distance that existed IRL. "DnD" type cultures would probably mix in some of the influences on the periphery of Europe - such as Roman/Classical and Islamic - influences that IIRC spelled the end of what was "medieval" (or perhaps defined it, depending on how you look at it).

IMO historical periods of time are characterized as much by the direction and momentum of their change as by any static characteristics. This is a problem IMO in DnD because DMs (me at least) want a fairly static culture, for simplicity's sake. So to keep it simple, I like the manor system, but I'm willing to introduce anachronisms where necessary and when they help keep things simple (eg. easily converting grain and military service into money).

 

[gizmo33]

I think a GM has to be clear what "knighthood" means in his campaign.

IMC knighthood is a military title that is independant of rank of nobility. You can be a knight without holding land. Knighthood IMC means an obligation to maintain the traditional equipment of the knight and defend your liege lord - which may be a lesser noble or great king depending on the campaign culture. It's a very "fighter-centric" concept IMC - there are no wizard "knights". I use the term "household knight" to mean a knight without a land that hangs around a castle. "Bachelor knight" for adventuring knights.

The more progressive the area, the less "local" this focal point of service is - eg. a knight of a progressive kingdom would swear an oath to the king, while a knight of a less progressive area would swear an oath to whoever knighted him.

Titles of nobility also follow a similar spectrum when it comes to land ownership. Progressive kingdoms grant titles of nobility pretty freely, while less progressive areas tie noble titles to a requirement of land ownership and military service (or commitment of X number of troops). In fact, in the more "city" oriented part of my campaign world, a group of adventurers exists that have all granted themselves noble titles - which is dangerous in spite of the chaos.

I haven't been very clear on this beyond these general guidelines. I could look at my campaign notes and probably draw a boundary between areas that follow the different customs, but I think of it as somewhat fluid. And I've never really had a player ask about the differences - they usually just need to know what their obligations are, and don't ask about general customs.

 

[Lawrence of Arabica]

A couple of technical points on history:

In the early middle ages the great lords maintained their knights in their household. There was then a transitional period during the 11th and 12th centuries in which some of the knights received grants of land as fiefs.

All these landholders were 'lords'. In England the king called together the greatest of these lords to counsel him -- this became the House of Lords, which really should be called the House of the Most Powerful and Influential Lords. The more modest lords are more or less the ancestors of the post-medieval gentry.

 

[S'mon]

In the early middle ages the great lords maintained their knights in their household. There was then a transitional period during the 11th and 12th centuries in which some of the knights received grants of land as fiefs.

I didn't know it was as early as that, but 12th c makes sense and ties in w what Ourph said.

Re 'lords', AFAIK in Saxon times there were fewer thanes than there were barons under the Normans. Being British I don't think of gentry as lords, like I said Lord is restricted in England to Baron+ - Guy of Gisburne or Robin of Loxley may hold land but are not Lords, because they're not Barons. I don't think we really disagree though.

As with knighthood, a GM should just be clear what he means by 'Lord' in his campaign - eg often in fiction & campaign settings it's used as a default title for aristocracy who are not Barons+.

 

[S'mon]

BTW a feature of my campaign world are the Orders of Knighthood, the way they've developed they're kinda midway between historical Crown Knights (Order of the Garter, Order of the Bath etc) and the Religious Orders (Knights Templar, Teutonic Knights, etc) - they swear allegiance to the King or Lord who heads the Order, but they also have a religious element. Eg the Thrinian Knights are dedicated to the war-god Thrin, there are Chapters of the Thrinian Knights in various realms, in the Overkingdom of Imarr the Thrinian Knights are headed by Archduke Ulfius of Colladel, who encourages the nobles of Colladel to join the Order - thus increasing his own power and the power of the Order. The nominal head of all the Thrinian Knight chapters is the King of the country of Thrinia, King Hansor, so it's also a trans-national body. In a war between the Overkingdom of Imarr and the Kingdom of Thrinia, the Colladel chapter would almost certainly side with Thrinia, so this Lawful-Good order are regarded by the Overking as potential traitors (albeit useful ones).

The Overking of Imarr has his own order of militant knights, the Imperial Knights Bloodhammer, dedicated to the gods Odin-Olorun & Ksarul, who are both a military asset and a way to centralise his own power. Other realms' kings are developing orders of knighthood based on this model that fuses church & state power, eg the Kingdom of Trafalgis' Raven Knights (dedicated to Odin & King Sigurd).

I was wondering if anyone has useful source material I could read up on re anything historically similar? I have the problem that these Orders are clearly not monks/priests like the Templars, but they clearly share many Templar characteristics. I'm thinking Teutonic Knights would be closest?

 

[Rassilon]

Wow, very interesting guys, even if we've strayed a little.

I'm still reading . . .

Rassilon.

 

[gizmo33]

I was wondering if anyone has useful source material I could read up on re anything historically similar? I have the problem that these Orders are clearly not monks/priests like the Templars, but they clearly share many Templar characteristics. I'm thinking Teutonic Knights would be closest?

If there are detailed design issues, perhaps this is a topic for another thread - but I'd be interested in following it so make note of it here if you do. In the meantime, here are my thoughts:

1. I can't image a king hosting a military order within his kingdom headed by another king. I can't think of a RL precedent for that. I think the risks outweight the advantages.
2. I don't know what similarities would be significant with RL orders of knighthood. One feature of the RL versions, for instance, is that they seemed to get kicked out of places and fought with various kingdoms over power. But in your campaign it seems that heads of kingdoms are, in fact, heads of these fighting orders. That would closely tie the policy of the order with the policy of the kingdom - making them identical. And so the fighting orders would not have their own political identities.
3. So given #2, I would move the heads of the orders to be relatives/allies of the heads of state, giving them natural alliances but leaving room for intrigue and seperate policies for the fighting orders. This way if the King of Imarr ticks off Odin, the fighting order can register it's displeasure. Where the knights of the RL orders vassals of kingdoms? Seems to me that even that would lead to conflicts of interest. If the highest goal of the Knights of Odin is to fight for Odin, you would think that membership in the order would trump all other allegiances. If not, you're not doing the will of Odin.

 

[kigmatzomat]

1. I can't image a king hosting a military order within his kingdom headed by another king. I can't think of a RL precedent for that. I think the risks outweight the advantages.

Depends on if the are blurry alliegances at play. The various forces funded by the Vatican have often been examples of "aid sent by your kindly religious sovereign" that kings had to put up with.

But in your campaign it seems that heads of kingdoms are, in fact, heads of these fighting orders. That would closely tie the policy of the order with the policy of the kingdom - making them identical. And so the fighting orders would not have their own political identities.

That's temporary. Wait until the fighting order becomes associated with a family that ceases to be the ruling class. You end up with the Royal Knights that have no love lost to the King.

 

[S'mon]

If there are detailed design issues, perhaps this is a topic for another thread - but I'd be interested in following it so make note of it here if you do. In the meantime, here are my thoughts:.

Good point - I'll start a thread.

 

[S'mon]

Orders of Knighthood IMC discussion continued at:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=133434