You have persuaded me to review my approach to squires, and I do suppose it makes more sense; squires fighting at men-at-arms is probably a later medieval development, when they were likely to be grown noble men who could not afford knighthood? You don't want "unfinished" fighters on the field (you want them to stay alive and become the next generation of knights), and you're not going to be buying armor to equip a growing teen boy.
So, I'm now going with "Pendragon squires" - they wait at the rear or with the baggage, and bring you a new horse at need and opportunity, etc.
Though Battlelust allows about 60-70% of the summoned knights to have an additonal knight at their disposal IIRC?
Checking BL, HH knights have a 35% chance of an extra knight/squire-at-arms (25% HH, otherwise MH), MH knights have 20% (MH). I'm going to use this and just average it to 25%. So, for every 4 knights, add one knight for this.
One option also that Redenton and I both favor - a free (freemen) vs an unfree (serf) militia. The free militia would be equipped better, though equipped better probably means spear and shield, not armour, probably a knife as well as opposed to grainflails, pitchforks, falcastra and the like. I look at the unfree militia as somone you really don't even bring to a battlefield, but would do more the work such as foraging perhaps, working on upgrading of a fortress, and maybe trow some rocks down in a siege.
A third thing to think about is not all will answer the summons. An old C&S supplement had some great mechanics for this, where the knights would turn out pretty well at 100% (excepting the few that might be ill or just not reached by the summons, coming out to about 95%), landed people like yeomen might turn out around 75%, and militia would turn out about 55%. Likely the King would at a ninimum fine those that were not able to be there, but perhaps not the local militia.
I think I'll go with this as well, yes, although now I'll need to figure out the numbers. From HMG, it's a 650:180 ratio of serfs:freemen, which comes out to a rough 25% freemen out of the households. That'll work, and HârnManor even agrees.
And I'll probably be using the BattleLust muster table, probably, where the average (7 on 2d6) muster is 60%, with 5% segments (so minimum 35%, maximum 85%), modified at my discretion for circumstances.
Shady Dave wrote:
Not sure where the 77 is coming from.
Working from Kaldor
(CG 5610), on Kaldor 21 I get 77 manors (total acreage 144,755 and 2,890 households) for the Earldom of Neph. I'm not counting individual knight/bailiff manors, because I'm working "top down" with my assumptions: the Earldom of Neph owes the Crown 1 knight per manor, and it's up to the Earl and his vassals to manage their land and contracts to meet this requirement. The muster percentages account for the occasional failures.
With the 25% figure, that's 96 knights total. Although, you are correct that I need to account for bailiffs, Fighting Orders, and now the extra 25%, so I can probably expect no more than to double the number of knights here. I don't want to go to the effort of actually counting the number of knight fiefs vs. bailiffs, etc., honestly.
I'm using the "yeoman/600 acres" figures, rather than the higher rates in Kaldor
which conflict with other sources (I incorrectly implied above that HârnManor was deviating; it's not). That comes to 241.
Can you explain where you get your numbers? I like the 3:1 foot:horse ratio much better.
Good on you for bringing this up, but I think you completely underestimate the importance and variability here. The first test every claimant will face is whether their own vassals will back them. Every vassal will make two calculations: Is the claim reasonably valid, and does the claimant have a reasonable chance of winning. Some vassals will place their loyalty to who they perceive as the true king over their loyalty to their lord. And most vassals will refuse to back a clear loser. Instead the better men among them will advise their lord to throw in with a stronger claimant, and the lesser of them will simply not show up.
This is true; but who supports who goes beyond the muster percentages, and into the intrigue/larger campaign structure. I'm mostly interested in the strategic level of warfare. (Commanding armies in the field, from battle to battle, deciding what keep to invest and with how many men, etc.) Although you do bring up a great point about the ability of sheriffs to muster their knights. I'm going to try to balance accounting for this factor with avoiding even more obsessively detailed work...
I'm well into writing up my "who supports who and how their plots will change it" document, using Thonahexus #9 for help (but keeping my own ideas of the factions/power blocks, generally). I've pretty much decided the factions will form around Conwan, the three bastards, and the earls, with some merging and splitting as the war goes on.