I was wondering as I looked at Harn Manor more closely - does Harn distinguish between manors that are held for the lifetime of the knight only versus holdings that are held in perpetuity for as long as there are heirs alive for a given holding?

For instance, suppose you have a manor listed as Quintas, held by a landed Knight, of the family Horab. If Sir Horab should die for any reason, how is it distinguished between a manor that is held for the lifetime of Sir Horab, or is held such that Sir Horab's son inherits the holding?

Is this something that is specific to "p-harn" where there are no fast and hard rules in the matter, or is there something specific in the rules?

Also? As I look at the number of Bailiff held lands, I can't help but think that those manors still owe military service to a liege lord. For example, if I have a player character knight who is granted two separate manors - for which I hold direct ownership/stewardship for the one, and then farm out to a Bailiff to run on my behalf - I still owe knights service for the land I hold direct, plus the land held for me by a Bailiff. I just can't count on the Bailiff to provide service for me as a knight. Consequently, I have to hire a knight to provide such service (or hope my son is of age to provide service, etc).

Thoughts? Comments?

I've always held that in the beginning the fief may have been for a lifetime or several lifetimes, but over the centuries and custom adapting to the same clan holding certain lands that it has become more of a heredity fief as of 720. With Harn and environs being as clannish as they are, this could also mean that if manor holding knight dies without issue his clan may install another member as the hereditary receipiant of the fief.

As for all other lands, the lord holds them for knights service and court. This means if he chooses not to enfeof that land to another knight that he still has to provide one if the feudal muster is called. There are some who have suggested that since the bailiff may be a noble that he provides the service. I hold that if a bailiff is required to do so and still pay a larger share of the proceeds per the rules how can he maintain himself as a mounted knight? In addition, what man would provide knights service for managing someone else's land with the prospect that he can be bounced whenever the lord desires a change in management. No, most of these extra knights are household knights in the baronial households and knighted landless clan members in the clans that hold such lands.

As in parts of southern France, some regions did not partition their lands to support younger members but held the land in whole and supported those members within the household. Maybe some of our French members can shed some light on this.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

I was looking for specific notations in published material, which is why I wondered if there was anything official, or if it was essentially a "P-Harn" Issue (ie varies according to the GM). However, based on what you've written above, I thought I'd pass my thoughts on your ideas, and see if said ideas make sense one way or another

First - if we're dealing with something that has a tradition behind it (ie many generations), we're also likely talking about something that tends to be either cultural, or has been established/set in law and followed in that fashion. Keep in mind here, that there are "customs" which are unwritten "laws" and can have effectively the force of law, and then there are written laws that are in fact, laws. Customs can be circumvented (usually with vast disapproval) while laws are effectively NOT supposed to be broken. It is a subtle distinction to be sure, but it is one. One can't really go to court to enforce a custom, while one can go to court to enforce a law. That groundwork having been laid (ie definitions), let's see what the above takes us to.

"I've always held that in the beginning the fief may have been for a lifetime or several lifetimes, but over the centuries and custom adapting to the same clan holding certain lands that it has become more of a heredity fief as of 720"

If you go with the idea that Kaldor came into being around 238 TR (with the combination of the four petty kingdoms into one entity known as Kaldor), then we're dealing with roughly 482 years of history overall. The legal question then becomes one of "with whom does an enfeofing noble have a contract with? Does he have a contract with the immediate Knight that holds a manor, or does he have a contract with the entire clan? Does a "clan" have a legal status that a contract made with a clan member, is binding upon another clan member? Another problem that arises is this:

Does one need to have forebears who were noble, in order to be deemed noble? For instance, in a mature feudal society, one that has been around for centuries, it could come to pass that one needs to be noble to inherit a holding, even if one is descended by blood to a noble. Just as an individual with a given surname may not necessarily inherit the right to a coat of arms, so too might a distant relative not legally be deemed to be a sufficient claimant to property belonging to a noble. For your campaign world (aka P-Harn), you can have it come to pass that a knight dies, and his second cousin inherits the holding simply because he's a member of the clan. However, if it is possible for a commoner to be knighted (and thus enobled) while his cousins, uncles, and even father - remain commoners. A baron for instance, might have a manor that he enfeofed to a knight, but would not honor an uncle taking over the manor by "clan rights" - simply because the uncle is not a noble born individual.




If you look at the information given about baliffs in published Harn material, it does indicate that the bulk of them are usually family members. When you consider that one can hire a knight for one's household by paying 3200d per year, and that one can have household members take over the role of a Yeoman, it would appear that the distinction between a Bailiff and someone who "owes" military service is very definite. If a noble owes military service for the land he holds, then he holds the land as his own. If he maintains it for the benefit of another - he is exempt from military service and obligations - and as you mention, be summarily removed at the will of the landholder.



I had always believed that the English version of feudalism, was a variant of the Continental version simply because of William the Conquorer's assumption of the English throne by conquest, and subsequent imposition of French nobility upon the anglo-saxon population to the extent that French was the court language of England in the early years, and continued on well past that start. While the variations are there to be sure, I hadn't really thought it would be all too different than the English feudalism. Mind you, the French had a lot more "allodial" issues than did England did - but that's a story of another kind

And William was a Norman, and not that far removed from his Norse fore-father Rollo, IIRC. The French in the south of France had many differences from the Normans and their neighbors to the north, just as the Germans, Flemmings, etc to the north and east. One thing I have learned about medieval feudalism over the years is that there was no set standard and every region, even within the same kingdom had its own form.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Recollecting from memory as I haven't have my notes at hand:
Well, the late Norman Dukes Richard I. and Richard II. before William sought to emulate West-Frankish and Capetian power & social structures. There is a passage in the 'Gesta Normannorum Ducum' by William of Jumieges, where the late Richard II of Normandy has his men demolish a "Thing", which convenes after Richard I.'s death to re-establish the law of the land and the rights of the pagi. And Richard I. was accused of being too Frankish by his warriors. For some good information on the extended family-relations of the Normans see Eleanore Searle: Predatory Kinship.

The southern Frankish duchies were not that heavily 'Normanized' or 'Germanized' in the reigns of the mayors of the palace and Charlemagne. The fundus and latifundus structure sort of remained in possession the distinct clans and families that rise in power after the Carolingian Empire is divided after Verdun in 843. Around that time, as far as my memory is reliable, the Counts of Toulouse rose in power - see Raymond of Toulouse who presumably leads the First Crusade and is more powerful than the French king of that time.

There has been extensive research on Anglo-Saxon institutions and how they were integrated into Norman feudalism - I shall see if I can find a summary.

My 2d.
Sinclair

The original canon materials make this quite clear - the clan relationships predate the manorial system. There are no manors granted for merely a lifetime. Manors belong to clans, not to the individual clanhead, and therefore the tenure is indefinite.

There is no perfect parallel in Europe for this system. Harn is, it seems, not in Europe. Summa Venarive goes into the issue at some length. To summarize, Harnic feudalism is a veneer of chivalric idealism laid over an ancient clan structure. I believe NRC wanted to simulate "movie" feudalism - i.e. the highly romantic form we see in "Ivanhoe" and "Robin Hood" - with all that entails. On Harn, it seems as though every third lord claims descent from some ancient king.

Cite Please?

Am trying to create an SQL database and keeping track of various information regarding the Kingdom of Kaldor. When I look at HARN MANOR for guidance in what it is I'm keeping track of - I'm not finding specifics either way. I raised the issue regarding the two forms of a knight holding a manor based on actual Medieval history - one for the lifetime of the knight, and one for as long as the Knight shall have heirs of his flesh and blood (ie direct descendants). However - inheritence laws are rather "muddled" in Harn's Kaldor...

Succession is described in "Law", which describes feudal succession as purely a clan matter. The whole "Kaldor Succession Crisis" is predicated on the fact that even kingdoms ultimately belong to the clan, not the clanhead, and therefore primogeniture is not assured. I'm not up for a search to find all the examples of petty kingdoms that became baronies in Kaldor, Kanday, and elsewhere, but Sarkum comes immediately to mind.

I'm wondering if Scandanavian cultures of the Early Viking period used a Harnic type of sucession?

Perhaps also the Germanic tribes of the 5th-8th centuries possibly?

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I agree. The parallels there are closer than the former Roman provinces.

Closest thing I can think of is the Old Saxon Witan, which had the right to choose the sucessor to the King (from the Kings clan), though standard primogeniture was just about always followed.

And the Witan was a selection of the nations leading nobles, incuding Earls and Thegns, Priests, abbots, etc., membership was not limited to the clan

I forget. Is Harnic membership of their version of the Witan limited to clan members?

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

The Early Vikings: As far as research can show, the current "ruler" chose his successor from a pool of legitimate and illegitimate sons - usually the best and brightest of the 'aettir'. However, it seems that rulership also depended on the men led and their decision:

Example as seen through the eyes of a Frankish historiographer :
Rollo of Normandy chose William and presented him before his men as a POTENTIAL candidate


(from the Felice $#@!'s Translation (http://www.the-orb.net/orb_done/dudo/dudindex.html)


The Carolingians had a different kind of succession: every son got his share of the realm.

Look at Clovis' wars against his fellow reguli and his lamentations, that he had no kin left in the country. To gather power, you have to get rid of contesters to that power. This only changed post-900 with stronger kings in the Eastern Frankish Empire, the Ottonians, and the contest between The Capetinians and the Carolingian kings in the West.


Best,
Sinclair

In Harn basically whether or not the Manor is a Bailiff Manor. The Liege Vassal Chain in the various kingdom modules indicates that pretty clearly but one can do whatever they want in their P-Harn.

Interesting in a few cases there is a Landed Manorial Knight (Perhaps like the real world where a vassal died and the lands reverted back to the noble) reporting to a Bailiff Manorial Knight who reports to another Manorial Knight or Noble like a Baron or Earl.

Bailiffs are the manorial managers (Not always Knights) one can basically get rid of without cause, although one reason for making them a Bailiff of a Manor was so they could support and raise a family so there could be consequences since there is a shortage of manors to knights.

Harn Player Page 4 Feudalism and how one interprets Barons describing landholding by Vassal Knights and Bailiffs. Followed by more in depth description of Feudalism between Liege and Vassal Knights on page 5. Note Wards have their Inherited Estates estate placed in trust with their Lord who will often over work the estate until their Majority at 21.

Harn Manor Manor Bailiffs pay more to their feudal liege than Manorial Knights.

Personally I think that this distinction were generally a formality, nothing really applied, if not in really unusual situation.

Once a knight received a land concession, his lineage retained it.

_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I Signori della Guerra: http://www.isignoridellaguerra.com