Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MasterRookie 05-05-05, 09:18 AM	I'm trying to create a country with both a comishend army and remnant Feudal military. So far I have one knight for every 50 fyrd and about 4,700 houscarls. I'd like recomendations for dukedoms and lesser lords. As well as any other tips you may have.
CzarGarrett 05-05-05, 09:32 AM	Normally I'm good with this stuff. What, exactly, is a Fyrd and Housecarl?
mcnoo 05-05-05, 09:45 AM	Normally I'm good with this stuff. What, exactly, is a Fyrd and Housecarl? *rolls a 1 on his bardic knowledge check* Oh, i've heard of them, a Fyrd is a sort of bavarian goat charmer and a housecarl is a 1950's onion peeling tool. Alternately http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=housecarl and http://www.answers.com/topic/fyrd
Draco Strang 05-05-05, 10:23 AM	I'm trying to create a country with both a comishend army and remnant Feudal military. So far I have one knight for every 50 fyrd and about 4,700 houscarls. I'd like recomendations for dukedoms and lesser lords. As well as any other tips you may have. Actually, your knights should be acting as the lesser lords. You forget that Dukes and Barons are pretty high up on the nobility foodchain. Remember that in order to retain the fighting services of a knight, his lord had to grant him a pretty decent chunk of land, and rule over at least a few peasants to support him. Am I correct in assuming that houscarls are peasants or serfs? What's a fyrd?
Fraser1986 05-05-05, 11:47 AM	I thought a housecarl was a professional soldier?
MasterRookie 05-05-05, 06:45 PM	Actually, your knights should be acting as the lesser lords. You forget that Dukes and Barons are pretty high up on the nobility foodchain. Remember that in order to retain the fighting services of a knight, his lord had to grant him a pretty decent chunk of land, and rule over at least a few peasants to support him. Am I correct in assuming that houscarls are peasants or serfs? What's a fyrd? You have it quite backwards a Fyrd is a peasant soldier and a Houscarl was the elite anglo saxon and I belive Danish fighting soldier. As for the lesser lords someone else mentioned. Your right that a Knight had considerable political power. However the chain of command went King Duke, Count, and Earl, then Vecounts and Barons, then nights. So technically the nights are on the bottem of the food chain just above the peasants, of coarse just one step above the peasants was a lot in those times. Knights were indeed powerful but the lesser lords come first.
MasterRookie 05-05-05, 06:45 PM	I thought a housecarl was a professional soldier? Right you are.
Draco Strang 05-05-05, 06:57 PM	You have it quite backwards a Fyrd is a peasant soldier and a Houscarl was the elite anglo saxon and I belive Danish fighting soldier. As for the lesser lords someone else mentioned. Your right that a Knight had considerable political power. However the chain of command went King Duke, Count, and Earl, then Vecounts and Barons, then nights. So technically the nights are on the bottem of the food chain just above the peasants, of coarse just one step above the peasants was a lot in those times. Knights were indeed powerful but the lesser lords come first. So the OP is saying that he's got 50 peasants to support 4700 professional soldiers and a knight? Someone's got something bogered up, either in translation or a transposition of figures.o
MasterRookie 05-05-05, 07:01 PM	So the OP is saying that he's got 50 peasants to support 4700 professional soldiers and a knight? Someone's got something bogered up, either in translation or a transposition of figures.o NO fifty per town. There's hundreds of towns. There's 25% more fyrd then there are houscarls.
Draco Strang 05-05-05, 07:52 PM	NO fifty per town. There's hundreds of towns. There's 25% more fyrd then there are houscarls. Alright...you're starting to confuse me. Use the words soldiers and commoners, and try again. Then I can help.
clarkvalentine 05-05-05, 08:17 PM	Remember that in order to retain the fighting services of a knight, his lord had to grant him a pretty decent chunk of land, and rule over at least a few peasants to support him. Not necessarily. Some wealthier lords could support a number of landless knights (who would expect, in return for their service, material support including equipment, and opportunities for advancement).
EvilVegan 05-05-05, 08:25 PM	OK the peasantry should be called Customer Service Specialists, the Town Mayors should be called Shift Leaders, the Manor Lords should be called Assistant Managers, the Country leaders should be called Manager, the Kings called District Managers, the Emperor's assistants should be called Regional Managers, and the Emperor should be called CEO. Ahhhh the joys of modern corporate structure and feudal government combined.
Palin the Wizard 05-05-05, 08:33 PM	A fyrd is the military force of an entire nation. It counts every man who can bear arms. As for housecarl, it's a name for a soldier who served as bodyguards for nobles (as well as household troops).
Fixxxer 05-05-05, 08:33 PM	Alright...you're starting to confuse me. Use the words soldiers and commoners, and try again. Then I can help. Alright, let me see if I've got this right. What I think MasterRookie is trying to say is that within the boundaries of this nation, there are about fifty common soldiers (Fyrds) for each individual knight with enough power to own land and title. On top of that, there are about 4,700 landless knights and other professional soldiers and mercs (houscarls) tossed into the mix here and there. Have I come close to hitting the mark?
Draco Strang 05-05-05, 08:39 PM	Not necessarily. Some wealthier lords could support a number of landless knights (who would expect, in return for their service, material support including equipment, and opportunities for advancement). Yea, Knight-Errants. Definitely a fixture in history. That's what happened to all the 3rd and 4th sons in the family of a minor noble. Not enough land/cash to go around, so they bought some armor, got a sword, saddled up, and rode out.
celtredleg 05-05-05, 08:40 PM	One problem relating to RW models is that you are mixing systems. In Norse society, housecarls are roughly equal to knights in a fuedal society. There are enough differences to sort of squeeze them in there. It tales a lot of peasants to su[[ort a single knight. Peasant levy gemneraly where pretty useless, but there where lots of them. Fyrd on the other hand, tended to be better soldiers due to differences in life style and the attitudes of the lords. Fyrd where more like yeomen than peasants, which always make for better soldiers. You obvoisly meant to to combine these two systems. Hve you thought of seperating them socialy??? One group has knights and levys, and the other has carls and fyrd??? In the RW this happened when you had mixed ethnic groups in the same area, but one or the other dominated fairly quickly. But that quickly was in historical periods of time, in took several generations to play out. If you are looking for intenal political tension, sounds like you have a great basic ingrediant there. Or if you just like the names, hey have fun, its a game not a history lesson.
Draco Strang 05-05-05, 08:40 PM	Alright, let me see if I've got this right. What I think MasterRookie is trying to say is that within the boundaries of this nation, there are about fifty common soldiers (Fyrds) for each individual knight with enough power to own land and title. On top of that, there are about 4,700 landless knights and other professional soldiers and mercs (houscarls) tossed into the mix here and there. Have I come close to hitting the mark? I can see how that would work. I was thinking that he said there was 1 knight and 50 men-at-arms for every 4700 of the common folk.
Palin the Wizard 05-05-05, 09:10 PM	Housecarls were a rank above common militia (or fyrd, if you must call it so) in that they were professional soldiers, but they were not as high up the social ladder as knights were. Knights were lesser nobles--often nobles with a somewhat fair share of land and wealth.
CzarGarrett 05-06-05, 09:16 AM	Now I'm getting it, although I'm more familiar with the term Huskarl. Generally, I'd go with the following: 1 Fyrd/common militia man per 25 citizens 1 Huskarl/elite militia per 50 fyrd Minor lords would probably have 25-40 Huskarls as their personally army, with the resources to partially equip a militia. Most of the equipment would probably be armor, as the militia could easily bring boar spears and pitchforks as weapons. A mid-level lord, such as a Baron, would probably have about 100 Huskarls as their personal army, plus 1/4 of the militia as a standing army. As well as a handful of minor lords to call upon for more troops. Higher lords, such as a Duke, would probably have something like 500 Huskarls of their own, an appropriate number of militia at the ready (something like 1500) plus at least half a dozen mid-level lords to call upon. And then a King, besides having a large number of personal elites, would have a dozen or more higher lords to call on. Although all the above is based on the idea that the lower lords aren't trying to overthrow a higher lord.
MasterRookie 05-06-05, 05:59 PM	Alright, let me see if I've got this right. What I think MasterRookie is trying to say is that within the boundaries of this nation, there are about fifty common soldiers (Fyrds) for each individual knight with enough power to own land and title. On top of that, there are about 4,700 landless knights and other professional soldiers and mercs (houscarls) tossed into the mix here and there. Have I come close to hitting the mark? Not landless knights. The Houscarls are comishened soldiers.
Loftower 05-06-05, 10:11 PM	House Karls (no matter how you spell them) are Dark Age, not feudal anyway. Knights are the socio-economic successors of House Karls. Start with the idea that feudalism is personal, not national or territorial. The duke obeys the king if and only if the duke’s power and lands come from the king. A single person can be a king somewhere, a duke somewhere else, and a lord of another area entirely who owes fealty to a baron for only those lands. By the time a society has advanced to the idea of a nation, feudalism is gone. “Feudalism was a desperate improvisation reflecting the incapacity of the central power” (S. E. Finer, The History of Government II, P873.) Virtually anyone who owns land is a knight, lord, or better. Generally a landed knight does not have a castle, but a manor. Castles are too expensive at that level. Yes, wealthier nobles would have house knights that did not have land. The feudal knights, lords, earls, barons, dukes, etc. were all nominally fighting men. In D&D terms then, powerful members of adventuring classes. They are not politicians or administrators – those can be hired. They are powerful and distinct enough that large armies of peasants are superfluous. Picture one 15th level character against 100 peasants; it’s not pretty. This is really the backbone of feudalism. A knight might have two or three militarily significant retainers (in game, they would come from complementary character classes). Guards would just be peasants with weapons. Their job is to keep watch and alert the knight to anything “bad” happening. In history and in game it would be a waste of the knight’s time to command them in battle. The lowest of the knights would not be able to afford them anyway. Once again, if you can afford a meaningful standing army, you’re not feudal anymore. The number of peasants per knight is simply a matter of economics. How profitable are farms in your world? How heavily are they taxed? 100 peasants per knight plus 20 per retainer is probably workable. As low as 40:1 (ten or fewer households) is still possible with high enough taxation. Higher nobles would have their own lands, plus fees from all of the fief holders. This allows them to pay for things like stone keeps and the luxuries of their station.
FriendoftheDork 05-07-05, 08:33 PM	I think you have a few right points there Loftower. But I also think your statements are a tad too imperious. Armies did indeed exist in the Dark Ages and early to mid medieval times. And in alot of battles the commoners of a lord played a critical role. Even if these armies were far from the structured and disciplined armies of the Romans, and later, Napoleon, the footsoldiers played their part while the knights got the glory. What's the point of bringing thousands of armed and armored commoners to the battlefield if they're just going to whatch a few hundred knights duke it out? Well, just wanted to point that out.
The Wasp 05-08-05, 02:42 AM	An important point in the Germanic / Saxon society (such as existed even in France and Germany until the 900s), the Fyrd were free landed peasants. their military service was based on the amount of land they owned - multiple poor landowners could combine their resources to field one soldier. It was quite egalitarian really. Being free, they owed their military service directly to the Count, Earl, or King, not a local lord. Housecarls are effectively knights without their own land. Their status is probably highly dependent on whose housecarl they are. If you are the personal bodyguard of the King, chances are you are equivalent to a baron or minot count, if you aren't one already. A minor Baron's Housecarl, on the other hand, is basically a hired thug. As per the original post: A good way to model a kingdom exiting feudalism is to look at 16th century France. Over the last few centuries, the royal family, through marriages and annexation, has maanged to give itself direct sovereignty over large areas of the country (say 50%) Although a nobility still exists in that 50%, most of them don't wield excessive military power, aristocracy is more of an economic benefit. The king's sovereignty in that area allows him to directly levy taxes, which gives him enough money to maintain a small standing army. The other 50% of the country is still ruled the old way, with three or four major lords desperately maneuvering to maintain their sovereignty for their descendents. Both the king and the lords have small numbers of elite professional retainers (gendarmes, or housecarls) and in times of need, they conscript the peasantry. perhaps some provinces have a tradition of a free, armed peasantry. or perhaps large towns are free, and have their own free militias.
MasterRookie 05-08-05, 03:02 PM	House Karls (no matter how you spell them) are Dark Age, not feudal anyway. Knights are the socio-economic successors of House Karls. Dark age and Feudal are the same thing.
The Shaman 05-08-05, 07:21 PM	Dark age and Feudal are the same thing.That's not exactly correct - it's a bit like saying capitalism and the Industrial Revolution are the same thing. Feudalism and capitalism are terms describing social and economic systems, not periods of time per se - as capitalism extended beyond the Industrial Revolution, so did feudalism extend beyond the Dark Ages.
Fixxxer 05-08-05, 08:51 PM	Dark age and Feudal are the same thing. So what you're saying is that Japan was in the dark ages from the twelfth through the nineteenth centuries? The "Dark Ages" is a period of time from the very beginning of the Middle Ages to somewhere in the early 1400s. "Feudal" is a term used to address anything relating to the governmental system known as Feudalism, which is defined by dictionary.com as "a political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture." If you were trying to say that the Dark Ages conincided with the use of Feudalism in Europe, you're about 400 years off, as Feudalism came into usage in the 9th century, but the Dark Ages started after the fall of Rome in the 5th century.
MasterRookie 05-08-05, 08:55 PM	So what you're saying is that Japan was in the dark ages from the twelfth through the nineteenth centuries? The "Dark Ages" is a period of time from the very beginning of the Middle Ages to somewhere in the early 1400s. "Feudal" is a term used to address anything relating to the governmental system known as Feudalism, which is defined by dictionary.com as "a political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture." If you were trying to say that the Dark Ages conincided with the use of Feudalism in Europe, you're about 400 years off, as Feudalism came into usage in the 9th century, but the Dark Ages started after the fall of Rome in the 5th century. The two still overlap
Fixxxer 05-08-05, 08:59 PM	The two still overlap So does the carpet in my house and the floor rug on top of it, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing.
The Shaman 05-08-05, 09:43 PM	The two still overlapThat doesn't make them the same thing - one can talk about feudalism without talking about the Dark Ages. MasterRookie, going back to your original post, you asked for recommendations and tips. My recommendation is to be more precise in how you define your terms to avoid creating confusion, which in turn will help to get your better answers. Sometimes citing a resource is helpful as well. Good luck!
Loftower 05-08-05, 09:55 PM	My earlier post does read more like a lecture than I intended, sorry about that. I wanted to jump on some of the confusion from other posters. I will stand by the concept that non-knights were rarely, if ever, an effective fighting force in a feudal society. Before this statement turns into a troll, what do you mean by “feudal”? I noted my source partially because I’m not certain what definitions people are trying to use. The idea of “landed freemen” is not consistent with the strict definition of feudalism. Yes, it did happen at the same time and in some cases in the same place, but it is not feudal. The argument (which I appear to have sparked – sorry again) about Huskarls is really not important. If you want them in your campaign, that’s fine. If you want a feudal feel in game: Make the political hierarchy based on personal relationships, not physical borders. Make the divisions between “those who work” (peasants, etc.), “those who fight” (IRL: knights & nobles), and “those who pray” (non-combatant clergy). Place severe restrictions on what each caste can do. (E.g.: peasant’s can’t change their residence without approval, nobles can’t do any labor) Remove the middle class as much as possible. Make “those who fight” very much more dangerous than “those who work”. At least 10:1, 100:1 would be better. Remove most, if not all, codified law. The local lord is law in his own territory. Make “those who work” subservient and submissive (in general). In order to be able to move through this society at least some of the characters should be from the aristocracy. Being the sixth son or daughter of a lesser noble will allow them to interact will all classes.
Swiss619 05-08-05, 10:30 PM	Originally posted by Loftower I will stand by the concept that non-knights were rarely, if ever, an effective fighting force in a feudal society. Actually, they were the bread and butter of any army. Due to their costs, Knights and cavalry where a small minority of the battlefield. In RL, an English longbow could only penetrate full plate at about 30-50 yards, but archers still savaged the French at Ajencourt (sp I think). This wasn’t because they got the knights, it’s because they got the horses and the infantry. (Also because tactically, the longbow wielding English were better armed than the crossbow wielding Frenchmen.) Battles were won and lost with the infantry. Knights in armor were nice, but hardly decisive – the more so the larger the battle became.
Fixxxer 05-09-05, 01:25 AM	but archers still savaged the French at Ajencourt (sp I think). Agincourt. This wasn’t because they got the knights, it’s because they got the horses and the infantry. (Also because tactically, the longbow wielding English were better armed than the crossbow wielding Frenchmen.) Well, let's not forget that the English had the higher ground. And the French heavy cavalry got bogged in the mud, which many drowned in. And the French got caught in a severe bottleneck and reduced their progress to nil. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the English victory at Agincourt was probably more than 90% terrain.
The Wasp 05-09-05, 02:10 AM	I will stand by the concept that non-knights were rarely, if ever, an effective fighting force in a feudal society. Then you've never heard of the Swiss? They managed several defeats of knightly armies with nothing more than phalanxes of pikes and halberds. Before this statement turns into a troll, what do you mean by “feudal”? I noted my source partially because I’m not certain what definitions people are trying to use. The idea of “landed freemen” is not consistent with the strict definition of feudalism. Yes, it did happen at the same time and in some cases in the same place, but it is not feudal. While landed freedmen were not common at the height of feaudalism, it is easy to imagine a mixed system. Indeed, the explicit decentralization of a feudal society implies that different political arrangements will exist in different aprts of the country. The strict tripartite division of society (those who farm, etc.) was only an ideal. If you want a feudal feel in game: Make the political hierarchy based on personal relationships, not physical borders. Make the divisions between “those who work” (peasants, etc.), “those who fight” (IRL: knights & nobles), and “those who pray” (non-combatant clergy). Place severe restrictions on what each caste can do. (E.g.: peasant’s can’t change their residence without approval, nobles can’t do any labor) Remove the middle class as much as possible. Make “those who fight” very much more dangerous than “those who work”. At least 10:1, 100:1 would be better. Remove most, if not all, codified law. The local lord is law in his own territory. Make “those who work” subservient and submissive (in general). The lack of codified law is actually inaccurate to medieval law. nevermind that a division into those who work, those who fight, and those who pray is a law in and of itself. Finally, recall that OP wanted only a remnant feudal military - not a feudal ssociety.
The Shaman 05-09-05, 02:29 AM	If you want a feudal feel in game: Make the political hierarchy based on personal relationships, not physical borders. Make the divisions between “those who work” (peasants, etc.), “those who fight” (IRL: knights & nobles), and “those who pray” (non-combatant clergy). Place severe restrictions on what each caste can do. (E.g.: peasant’s can’t change their residence without approval, nobles can’t do any labor) Remove the middle class as much as possible. Make “those who fight” very much more dangerous than “those who work”. At least 10:1, 100:1 would be better. Remove most, if not all, codified law. The local lord is law in his own territory. Make “those who work” subservient and submissive (in general). In order to be able to move through this society at least some of the characters should be from the aristocracy. Being the sixth son or daughter of a lesser noble will allow them to interact will all classes.These are very good tips. I will stand by the concept that non-knights were rarely, if ever, an effective fighting force in a feudal society.It's just too broad a period to discuss with sweeping generalities. Agincourt was preceded by Poitiers and Crecy, and each battle demonstrated the capability of a common-born bowman over a noble-born knight, though the English advantage of choosing good ground certainly contributed some measure to the victories. However, if we go further back to Tours, we find the ability of the Frankish footmen to withstand a charge by mounted and barded Moorish knights was the exception not the rule both before and after the battle. I think of it this way - cavalry/armor takes ground, infantry holds ground. A line of knights or M1A2s can break a battle line, but it takes the pikemen or infantry grunts to hold that line and support the knights/tanks or the latter risk being overwhelmed.
FriendoftheDork 05-09-05, 07:48 AM	Knights were very important on the battlefield, no doubt about it. Only long spears and very high discipline could stop a charge completely, and the technology ad training for that only evolved in the later periods of the middle ages. Still, everyone else was also critical for winning a battle. An army with a few knights and loads of infantry could easily win against a force of knights, if nothing else for sheer numbers. I really like the comparison of modern armor and knights. They are both highly mobile, heavily armored and highly powerful so they can punch holes thorugh enemy lines. But try to make a modern army comprised entirely of tanks and you'll see a costly failure. Infantry is still needed to hold ground and defend, as well as take buildings and castles. And just as infantry with AT weapons can take down a tank for a much lower cost, so can a bunch of half-trained commoners armed with billhooks, halberds and even long farming tools take down an armed and armored knight from his high horse. And when the knight is down and surrounded by his bloodthirsty lessers he's as good as dead. Still, both tanks and knights are essential parts of any army. And they often clash with their peers, such as at Kursk in WW2 in the major tank battle or in alot of medieval battles were the knights charged eachother, eager for ransom while ignoring their lessers. In any feudal style battles you run it is important that the traditions of ransom and heraldry is pointed out. And any PC nobles should know that there are rules of conduct when fighting peers. Although medieval combat was a lot less chivalrous than the stories imply, chivalry should not be forgotten even if it was the culture of the minority it was also the elite. In the end, if you plan to do feudal campaigns etc. and be somewhat true to history, you should pick a real historian time and learn what you can about it. A Dark Ages warlord campaign will be very different from a campaign set in the time of Chivalry, as will one set in late medieval times where cities and the middle class arise and gain power, where a Guild might have more power than important Nobles. The worst approach IMO is to throw everything together as it is often done in D&D, because nothing will make sense then. The time I think is most similar to FR for example, is late medieval/early renaissance without the abundance of firearms (they even exist there too!). Greyhawk is more feudal style I think, but I'm not that familiar with the setting. Of course, it also matters alot from country to country, just like it did in RL. You can't really compare China to medieval europe in say 1200s, and expect the same political and ecconomical system.
Fixxxer 05-09-05, 09:01 AM	Knights were very important on the battlefield, no doubt about it. Only long spears and very high discipline could stop a charge completely, and the technology ad training for that only evolved in the later periods of the middle ages. Great, now I'm going to have stats for a schiltron floating through my head all day. :D
Carn Vandoril 05-09-05, 09:13 AM	As mentioned: Different lords, different laws, different habits. Keep track of those outstanding few! This is quite fun! *one lord who has a special way of collecting taxes. *a lord who has special laws on travelling. *special laws on animals. *the one lord who demands that corpses are burned, not burried. Greetings
The Shaman 05-09-05, 10:01 AM	The worst approach IMO is to throw everything together as it is often done in D&D, because nothing will make sense then.I agree with FriendoftheDork. Until I started my new homebrew which draws more from Asia and Africa than from Europe, my default game-world was closer to Dark Ages social relations and institutions on the cusp of the Carolingian renaissance. This is a world without powerful guilds or much in the way of a middle class at all and confederations of warlords rather than nation-states are the norm. There are no romanticised notions of chivalry - nobles and knights survive on plunder and tribute, not land grants.
Palin the Wizard 05-09-05, 02:28 PM	Now I'm getting it, although I'm more familiar with the term Huskarl."Huskarl" is pure Danish. "Housecarl" is a direct translation.
Loftower 05-09-05, 06:49 PM	Yes, there were many battles during the period where non-noble soldiers were very effective against knights. There are no instances that I know of where those non-noble soldiers came from a feudal society. The yeoman archers of Crecy, Poiters, and Agincourt, and the Swiss bergers were not part of a feudal system. In the case of the English there were feudal aspects to their country. The mercenary crossbowmen on the losing side were not part of a feudal system either, though they fought for paymasters who were. Feudalism, by the definition that I am using, is a system of leveraging power based on vassalage. It is not a time period or a country. It is possible that Japan was the only country that was ever purely feudal. If you disagree with my definition you will also disagree with my points above. That’s OK, there’s just no point in arguing about it.
Draco Strang 05-09-05, 07:11 PM	Agincourt. Bravo. Someone got it right. Well, let's not forget that the English had the higher ground. And the French heavy cavalry got bogged in the mud, which many drowned in. And the French got caught in a severe bottleneck and reduced their progress to nil. Indeed they did. However, the reason the French got caught up on themselves was because of a lack of organization and tactics. Also, let us remember the 5000 archers the English were rocking. The open ground joined with ranks upon ranks of French knights pretty much gave them a perfect killing field with which to work with. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the English victory at Agincourt was probably more than 90% terrain. Don't forget French incompetence. That has to count for more than 10% of the English victory. Seriously, had the French sat back and allowed starvation to rear its ugly head, the English army would have been decimated by famine, disease, and casualties while it fought a running battle all the way back to the coast. Allow me to link you to the following. It's quite possibly one of the best condensed, modernized accounts regarding Agincourt that I've ever read (and I've read a lot of them). Barring you coming to my house and opening one of my books, this is the best information I can give you. Dig This (http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html)
MasterRookie 05-09-05, 09:05 PM	My earlier post does read more like a lecture than I intended, sorry about that. I wanted to jump on some of the confusion from other posters. I will stand by the concept that non-knights were rarely, if ever, an effective fighting force in a feudal society. Before this statement turns into a troll, what do you mean by “feudal”? I noted my source partially because I’m not certain what definitions people are trying to use. The idea of “landed freemen” is not consistent with the strict definition of feudalism. Yes, it did happen at the same time and in some cases in the same place, but it is not feudal. The argument (which I appear to have sparked – sorry again) about Huskarls is really not important. If you want them in your campaign, that’s fine. If you want a feudal feel in game: Make the political hierarchy based on personal relationships, not physical borders. Make the divisions between “those who work” (peasants, etc.), “those who fight” (IRL: knights & nobles), and “those who pray” (non-combatant clergy). Place severe restrictions on what each caste can do. (E.g.: peasant’s can’t change their residence without approval, nobles can’t do any labor) Remove the middle class as much as possible. Make “those who fight” very much more dangerous than “those who work”. At least 10:1, 100:1 would be better. Remove most, if not all, codified law. The local lord is law in his own territory. Make “those who work” subservient and submissive (in general). In order to be able to move through this society at least some of the characters should be from the aristocracy. Being the sixth son or daughter of a lesser noble will allow them to interact will all classes. Well the society has an emerging comishened army. I'm looking for something in transition between Feudal and Central governments.
Fixxxer 05-09-05, 11:34 PM	Allow me to link you to the following. It's quite possibly one of the best condensed, modernized accounts regarding Agincourt that I've ever read (and I've read a lot of them). Barring you coming to my house and opening one of my books, this is the best information I can give you. Dig This (http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html) Whoa...that is pretty good. Now I'm on my way to your house to rifle through your books.
Draco Strang 05-10-05, 02:03 PM	Whoa...that is pretty good. Now I'm on my way to your house to rifle through your books. Seriously? Give me a little time...I have to hide my financial information and get my old batting helmet ouf of the closet. Other than that, you're welcome any time.
Fixxxer 05-11-05, 12:31 AM	I have to hide my financial information and get my old batting helmet ouf of the closet. Be honest. It's a hockey helmet, isn't it? Like the kind one wears while sitting in the back of a short bus? :D
FriendoftheDork 05-11-05, 04:52 AM	Great, now I'm going to have stats for a schiltron floating through my head all day. :D For us non-native English speakers... what's a schiltron? Sounds like a villain from Transformers or something... ;)
Fixxxer 05-11-05, 09:18 AM	For us non-native English speakers... what's a schiltron? Sounds like a villain from Transformers or something... ;) It does, doesn't it? :) A schiltron is a large, thick, heavy wooden pole with a sharpened end. It was used by the Scottish against the English cavalry to great effect. If you've ever seen the movie Braveheart, the "spears twice as long as a man" they used (which were not actually used until a later time in real life) were a poor shadow of schiltrons.
Draco Strang 05-11-05, 10:27 AM	Be honest. It's a hockey helmet, isn't it? Like the kind one wears while sitting in the back of a short bus? :D No...it's a batting helmet. Played baseball for 13 years. I was pretty good. Not Division I NCAA good, but pretty damn good nonetheless. My hockey helmet on the other hand....I used it to brain Special Fred, and so I got my own private bus to school.
chrobry 05-12-05, 02:27 PM	This is very interesting discussion. Personally what you should do is remember that D&D is based on fictional feudal times that never really existed. You have to always keep that in mind as you create your world, and follow what makes sense in it. In reality (with maybe exception of Japan) feudal system as such didn't exist on wide scale. It was mostly a nationalist + feudal system where king was more then just a lord of vassals he was also leader of a country (a very important distinction). This means that there were both standing armies and feudal armies (knights etc..). In the begining the feudal armies were the top dog, and they persisted until armies got larger. in large fights the advantage of heavy cavalry is deluted and the archers/foot sodiers take over. On top of that knights were extremly expensive in both of monetery as well as political value. That meant that you didn't really want your knights getting hurt. That is why early in the Reinessense (sorry never can spell that) even thought the armor was developed to be darn need unstapable knights were mostly delegeted to tournies and not all that powerful in real fight. A peasent with a long pike can pretty much negate a well arm knight. This is ESPECIALLY true once the standing armies became standard and that peasent was actually a well train soldier. now to your question, it really depends on your economy. if you have poor farms with farmers starving you will need more of them per your standing army/nobles. if you have very rich farms then you can have less farmers per army/nobles. Then you have to also take into account how much magic influances your world (does everybody has access to healing?). If it was me on a standard D&D world I would say it be about 50 or so peasence to a soldier and about 100-150 for a lower noble (knight). This takes into account about 4-5 farms per soldier (extended famlies per farm of course).
MasterRookie 05-13-05, 04:46 PM	Well right now I have about 50 peasants to a knight and 1.5 peasants to a soldier. So it looks like my peasants are richer from what your saying.
Bluntpencil2001 05-13-05, 08:25 PM	It does, doesn't it? :) A schiltron is a large, thick, heavy wooden pole with a sharpened end. It was used by the Scottish against the English cavalry to great effect. If you've ever seen the movie Braveheart, the "spears twice as long as a man" they used (which were not actually used until a later time in real life) were a poor shadow of schiltrons. The schiltron wasn't the spear, but the hedgehog-like formation used by the Scottish spear/pikemen. And Bravheart is awful! THe Battle of Stirling Bridge (minus the Bridge....)
chrobry 05-13-05, 09:56 PM	Well right now I have about 50 peasants to a knight and 1.5 peasants to a soldier. So it looks like my peasants are richer from what your saying. Well your peasants are either very rich or extremly taxed :) Still though think about this, is it 1.5 peasent males or 1.5 peasents? if later then you have to remember that good portion of pesents are non-working (old/too young) then you have to take into account that if your soldiers are male where would they come from in population? Finally how are you going to justify having sooo many hands that are not working in the fields? Who will feed them? So look at it this way you have a population of 10,000 now you have 5,000 soldiers that those 10,000 have to feed plus another 200 knights. That pretty much means that you have 5,000 mouths to feed, not quite possible. Now if you are talking about peasent army that's could be different, still not sure about this ratio but more believable.