# The size of real world baronies



## Gundark (Sep 25, 2006)

In my next campaign setting I'm allowing the PCs to have baronies (using the rules from Fields of blood). I'm curious how big the typical barony was in medieval times. Any history buiffs out there ?


----------



## SWBaxter (Sep 25, 2006)

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.


----------



## Yeovil Andy (Sep 25, 2006)

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 (Sep 25, 2006)

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?


----------



## Woas (Sep 25, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> 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.




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 (Sep 25, 2006)

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.


----------



## SWBaxter (Sep 25, 2006)

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 (Sep 25, 2006)

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.



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 ...


----------



## taliesin15 (Sep 25, 2006)

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.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 25, 2006)

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> 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.




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.


----------



## Thomas Percy (Sep 26, 2006)

From The Forge Studios not published pdf "Barony":

The barony is an area populated by about 20.000 creatures (100 manors and town) and covers an area of about 1000-1500 square miles (about 30 to 40 miles square). Its borders are marked with natural barriers: streams, hills, woods or marshes and political causes. 
The barony’s border is delineated by where the last vassal lives. This juncture is also where the next barony starts and where, due to the ages of wars and treaties, the people are obligated to go with their vows to the ruler of another town. 
Its borders are delineated by economical factors. Every tenant is allowed no more than one day on the road to get to the market in a centrally located town where, a few times a year, he travels to sell surplus harvest, buy clothes, horses, etc.
Its borders are determined by strategic causes. The town and manors have a homogeneous system of defense, communication and a common unit of road wardens.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 26, 2006)

Pretty much already answered.

Size = what it has to be. Generally, a knight would be someone who defended and supported lands within a days ride. A baron in medieval England usually referred to someone who signed the Magna Carta, or their descendants. Interestingly, they were usually called Lord Soandso, Baron X, and addressed as "Lord". France was similar, except that barons there might have large tracts of land. (You could also have the interesting situation of a Duke owning virtually no land.)

I recommend a copy of Life in a Medieval Castle by the Gies, although their scholarship is occasionally suspect. It appears that it's been combined into a single volume along with two other of their books as seen here. 

An excellent pdf is already available called Fief, by Lisa J. Steele, and available through Cumberland Press. (I don't have _A Magical Medieval Society_, but it seemed like it covered similar topics with a more fantasy bent but less detail when I skimmed it.)


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 26, 2006)

It appears that the baronies that you intend are landed so I it may be a good time to note that if you have barons(nesses) AND counts(tessas) that you will need to establish which is higher in social status.  i.e. does a county contain baronies or do baronies contain counties.  In Medieval Europe usually it was the former but in Colonial America it was the later (with barons becoming governors)

One way to figure a good rough estimate is to top down your country.  First you have the king's share (all of it), then the dukes, the counts and vice-counts, the barons and baronets and then knights. (should you choose this particular model (I'm going off England)).
In this case a knight would have a manor, a baronet a manor, a baron 3 - 15 manors, a count 2 -3 baronies and a duke a regional vassalence as dictated by the king.  But really, its all subjective.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 26, 2006)

Knight - 1 Village (Actually Manor and attached population)
Baron  - 3d10 Villages
Count - 1d10 Baronies (3 - 300 Villages)
Duke - 1d10 Counties (3 - 3000 villages)

This way its possible for a Baron to have more holdings than a Count or even a Duke but not likely. And of course villages could be consoldated into towns and cities


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 27, 2006)

Just a word of caution. England was a nonesuch in reagrds the fiefs of nobles. In most other places in Europe a noble's lands were contiguous.

Also, the heirarchy of nobility is something like this: duke, (prince around here save in England) marquis, count (or earl), viscount, baron, knight, gentleman (untitled noble). These titles, other than knight and gentleman, are conferred by the sovereign and those holding them are considered peers of the realm. Barons do not serve viscounts, counts or any other greater noble in such case, the same is true of viscounts, counts, and marquises.

If there is a palatine noble--duke or count or prince usually--that sovereign can indeed enfoeffel lesser nobles that serve him as dukes do a king.

Size of fiefs depended on the location and power of the noble. the Count of Toulouse had far more land than did the Duke of Normandy and many other French dukes. The Count/Duke of Savoy had land that varied in size depending on the fortunes of war and diplomacy. Some German Barons had demesnes as large as counties or duchies.

As a last word, I suggest that in a fantasy world you can do pretty much what you feel is right four campaign.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Nyeshet (Oct 2, 2006)

Another aspect to consider is that there is a tendency (especially when maps are prone to errors, as was often the case in pre-modern times) for lands further from the capital (and 'high civilization' in general) to be larger. Those that grant the lands typically did not have a realistic idea as to how much land was there - only a rough idea based on natural boundaries. 

Also, there seems to be a relationship between how empty (of people) a land is and the size of its boundaries. Thus settlements along sea coasts tend to be smaller than settlements further inland, as sea coasts can often support more people than the drier interior. 

On the other hand, once the density reaches a certain point, lands tend to get sub-divided into more and more partitions - the lot of them gaining an increased uniformity. Thus lands that have been densely settled for centuries show little difference in size regardless of whether they are on a coast, deep inland, far from the capital / population center, or directly next to it. Lands that have been settled for no more than a few centuries - and often less, and lands that are - for whatever reason - very low in density (irregardless of how long they have been settled) tend to vary in size due to natural resources that avail increased population growth and by their distance from the population center from which the land grants likely came or the divisions made / approved. 

There are exceptions, of course, but in general the pattern tends to hold (at least prior to modern times). Now a days the high quality maps and remarkably fast transport system mean that this point is all but moot in some regards. There is no uncertainty amongst those dividing up lands as to how large the lands are. With GPS they can probably measure them down to the square centimeter - and possibly map out all their resources, as well!

In any case, I would recommend reading through the info at this link: 

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Book/contents.html

Chapters 4 - 7 are particularly useful in this regard, although the map of the US in chapter one also helps a bit in understanding this.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

As to applying this to your situation: 

Perhaps the lands are frontier lands, but recently settled. Maybe they were formerly held lands recently retaken after a century or more appart from the kingdom. Maybe some natural disaster or danger caused evacuation of the lands and only recently have they been resettled - decades later. 

If the lands are more or less on the 'edge' of the kingdom - and if there is no kingdom along that border (either that priorly held the lands or that has often had trade or other forms of contact with the first kingdom) then the lands are likely to be notable in size. Not that those settling the area perhaps know this. Maps, as already stated, were quite poor in that time period. 

It is possible that the PCs now have access to lands far larger than they realized they were receiving - or that the Crown (or Duke, or whomever granted them the lands) relized they were awarding. On the other hand, they are likely days away from other notable settlements, and they in all likelihood would have to be fully self-sufficient to survive there - let alone produce enough to fulfill their annual tithes, taxes, etc. 

On the plus side, having access to so much more land - most of it untouched, makes it possible that they may find untapped wealth of various other sources currently unknown. Maybe some hills nearby have good sites for quarrying stone. Not only can they build their dwellings from it, perhaps some of the stone is of such quality (marble, etc) that it can be traded elsewhere (esp if a river or sea shore or other means of swifter travel is available). Perhaps the creatures in the area have pelts that are prized in the capital. Maybe there are salt or even gold desposits nearby. Perhaps the land is unusually fertile or the wood found in the forest is useful beyond mere planks - cedar, maple (syrup), etc. There may be vast sources of potential wealth if their lands are both large and relatively unexplored. 

Now, if they live nearer the capital - the population density center - then their holdings are likely to be smaller, greatly reduced in most resources and sources of wealth (as these have been gathered for generations), etc. Likely they will be faced with more intrigue, as they will be right next to the site where most of the political action is occurring. Out in the frontier they may have to wait as long as a month before even hearing word of some major event (although word will likely arrive sooner - perhaps after a week or so - if the event requires something from them, such as metal for armor / weapons, their presense to swear fealty to the new lord and to attend the funeral of the former lord, their men for a gathering army, new tithes based on a new treaty perhaps, etc. 

On the frontier their time will be spent making certain their settlement can survive, exploring the surrounding lands for new resources or to make new settlements as their current ones grow, perhaps dealing with wandering monsters or nomadic bands of goblins / orcs, etc. Near the population / political center, however, they will likely be facing less of those and more of intrigue with bordering estates, thieves and other crimes more common to urbanized areas, guild factions, scrounging for resources - perhaps forming new trade agreements, etc.


----------

