The size of real world baronies
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
It kinda depends, the title meant different things in different places and times. In medieval Britain, a Baron's holding could range from landless to as large as a major noble's holding. If you're setting the PCs up as the lowest rank of landed nobility, then a holding with a few hundred peasants is probably about right, and you can work out size from there.
You might want to pick up A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe, it's got a pretty decent discussion of the feudal system as it might apply to a D&D-style setting.
You might want to pick up A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe, it's got a pretty decent discussion of the feudal system as it might apply to a D&D-style setting.
Yeovil Andy
First Post
Remember as well that unless the area was very small, the land that a Baron owns would not be a contigious piece of land. The Baron might own three villages here, another about a mile away separated by a piece of land owned by a church, then another two villages about 10 miles distant that was inherited through a grandmother. Something like that anyway.
Odhanan
Adventurer
In France the size and shape of the departments was decided after the Revolution (1789) according to the borders of the previous fiefs and one simple idea: one would have to be able to go from one border of a department to the other on horse back in a day. It didn't work out exactly the same way in each instance, but it was the base idea.
Maybe organizing fiefs on the same basis in a D&D setting would add to its believability?
Maybe organizing fiefs on the same basis in a D&D setting would add to its believability?
Woas
First Post
Odhanan said:
Boy would it suck if you happen be the baron of a really hilly/mountainous area. Not only would you have less land since a days travel is shorter distances-wise through those types of terrains, but you'd be the king of rocks and boulders.
But like others have mentioned, it really depended. Look at the old medieval maps of the Holy Roman Empire for instance. That thing is CONFUSING to say the least. But in the end, a Barony could be as little as a couple acres and include just a single manor. But onr the other hand, could be as large as some small states. And of course as SWBaxter mentioned, some barons had no land at all. Or where part of the church and happen to be a baron due to their services to a greater noble since the actual title of Baron was usually handed out as a gift from higher ups to honorable/prestiagious followers for particular deeds and what not.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
The greater barons in, say, France ruled areas that would qualify as large nations in most D&D worlds. Barons in such context were considered the social equal of any king.
The least barons were any noble landowner who had at least one noble landowner who owed military service.
There is lots of room in between.
The least barons were any noble landowner who had at least one noble landowner who owed military service.
There is lots of room in between.
Just pulled out my copy of Shorkyne to see what they say on the subject. Shorkyne is part of the Harnworld line, which is a fantasy setting pretty firmly grounded in real world feudalism. In Shorkyne's feudal system, the smallest fief is the manor, which is basically a knight's holding and comprises about 3000 acres. A baron holds 10 to 30 manors, either directly or through vassals. So that type of barony would be on the order of 60000 to 80000 acres, or up to 125 square miles or so. At medieval population densities, that could support 6000 to 8000 people (90% or more of whom would be peasant farmers), big enough to do a bit of rulership but not so big as to get too far out of hand.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Heh, that's how the barony in my campaign got established. The knight who was the first baron was important enough to get a barony, but not connected enough to not get the one with the dragon next door and lots of dangerous and unsettled woods in the non-dragon areas ...Woas said:Boy would it suck if you happen be the baron of a really hilly/mountainous area. Not only would you have less land since a days travel is shorter distances-wise through those types of terrains, but you'd be the king of rocks and boulders.
taliesin15
First Post
As for hilly/mountainous terrained baronies, those are potentially the ones where most of the mines exist...ranching and some farming would thrive there too, depending on soil, rain, sun...
Generally, Dukes were the most powerful nobles outside the royals (though many Dukes were of royal blood)--then you have Counts and Barons. But, really, there were many exceptions, and as some have pointed out, these things are rather fluid. Another one up to the DM, really.
Generally, Dukes were the most powerful nobles outside the royals (though many Dukes were of royal blood)--then you have Counts and Barons. But, really, there were many exceptions, and as some have pointed out, these things are rather fluid. Another one up to the DM, really.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
SWBaxter said:
A fellow Harniac!
In Harnworld, practically speaking, a baron is anyone who owns a proper castle. 10 to 30 vassals is a reasonable bare minimum.
For purposes of D&D, that seems like a reasonable starting point. Each vassal would provide ~40 days of military service per year of 1 professional cavalryman (i.e. a knight) and ~3 yeoman.
I was just trying to point out that 'Baron', 'Duke', 'Earl', and 'King' can be effectively interchangeable concepts in some contexts.
Similar Threads
