As the title says, I am planning a campaign based upon the above conceits. I would like to ask for help/opinions. My goal is to set up a realm with a ruler who is opposed by one of his smaller vassal lords. Still not sure that I will persist with the wooden palisade hill forts of that era. But I am trying to set up demographics that would produce military forces representative of the period. My question is this. Would the bulk of their forces have been militia? I am using a population density of 125 families per 6 mile hex (20 people per square mile).
My base realm is a duchy with a population of roughly 23,000 families. I calculated able bodies warriors as 1 per 5 families. Even with average domain incomes the lords could easily afford to train all of the able bodied individuals available. I guess I could scale down the incomes, but I am worried that when the players run a domain, they will end up too cash strapped for improvements. As per PedanticDemography’s posts, I do want to push the players towards adventuring. That being said, I do not want the domain management side to be too difficult either. And by trying to target a “Dark Ages” style, maybe that will not work too well? Any suggestions/ ideas welcome and thank you!
On the ACKS Discord, Helgeran has a model for knightly manors that you might find useful, as sub-barony domains that field 2nd level knights with their 1st level squires, in lieu of tribute. I’d definitely recommend checking it out.
But I am trying to set up demographics that would produce military forces representative of the period. My question is this. Would the bulk of their forces have been militia?
You can go either way on this and things will work out alright. Historically, there was some militia, though I don’t know that it was the bulk of their forces; in the Arthurian romances, there isn’t particular reference to a militia as I recall.
Ultimately, the key adjustments that yield the much lower army sizes we see in Medieval as opposed to Classical contexts are smaller realms, composed of non-henchman vassals, without senates; lower land values in a place like Britain can also help. Smaller realms naturally have smaller armies, and smaller markets, so it’s harder for rulers to get loans to cover the supply cost of a large army they want to lead, or to anchor that supply cost in markets that can pay it. Non-henchmen non-senatorial vassals are disloyal and hard to keep in line, and can’t be relied upon to muster and provide a lot of troops up the feudal hierarchy.
Even with average domain incomes the lords could easily afford to train all of the able bodied individuals available. I guess I could scale down the incomes, but I am worried that when the players run a domain, they will end up too cash strapped for improvements.
I’m curious how you’re figuring that a minor lord could easily afford to train dozens of conscripts, but even if it is theoretically feasible, the question arises of whether he’d actually do it as opposed to elevate his upkeep spending and throw lavish banquets. Recall from the JJ that ACKS recommends a setup where most people in power are either incompetent or unable to solve their overwhelming problems, corrupt or venal or decadently self-interested, or Chaotic and actively working to undermine civilization. ACKS encourages a setup either pre- or post- Uther, when the great men are gone and civilization is failing, so that PCs can rise as Uther and Arthur do to conquer and reunite the kingdom.
Thank you for the response! I have tried to simplify some of the domain management rules, at least until I see if my players will lean into that aspect of play. Maybe I made some errors in my assumptions that are throwing off the math. If I just increase the domain expenses per family, that would probably solve my problem. It also seems that I need to choose a smaller area so that the calculated population would be a County or Principality instead of a Duchy?