Thanks for the reply Caspian.

Shouldn't any nobleman be able to bestow titles lesser than their own? There won't be that many Dukes or Kings, and theoretically there should be hundreds of knights. It seems unreasonable that such a small group would have the responsibility for evaluating and knighting all of those people.

I mean, if I'm a Baron and I must get the permission of the Duke above me before I can subdivide my land to bring on knights that could be a bit problematic. That's even assuming that the Duke basically likes me and wants to cooperate. He still has a lot of other Barons constantly hanging on his door trying to get their people knighted too.

By that logic Counts cannot award Baronies independently either with similar issues.

The process of becoming a knight generally included these stages:

Page — A child started training at about the age of seven or eight, learning obedience, manners, and other skills. Squire — At twelve to fourteen the young man would observe and help other knights. Occupying a position comparable to an apprenticeship), he managed equipment and weapons such as arrows. He learned the use of weapons while hunting with the knights. He went into recruit training to learn how to become a military fighter. At age 21, if judged worthy, he was bestowed the accolade of knighthood. Knight — A special kind of trained soldier, often cavalry, serving a lord (nobleman or royalty). Knights had particular status in feudal society.

Also most knights are sons of noblemen.

I'm not sure a Baron is going to have too much land to be carving up? There will be info in the next day or two but, so far, my feeling is anyone who wants a good parcel of land, especially to be carving up and giving others (or leasing to others) will be Count and above.

No, not everyone deserves to be a Knight. This keeps the game from being flooded with "Knights" and keeps the title in somewhat of a lofty, respected state. You should have to prove your worth of the title and responsibility that goes along with it, and only a Duke or King should be the ones to bestow it.

If that's the case then the Barons should be downgraded to Knights because that's the level of income they have.

I didn't say everyone deserves to be a knight. No one said that. Also, it's going to be a bit hard to really be a knight if you don't have enough income to support your occupation, and by income I mean land. Ergo, there's only a limited number of true knights possible. Historically there were thousands of knights... thousands. Of course not everyone deserves to be one, but it shouldn't be /that/ uncommon.

I wouldn't say that at all... the Baron pledge buys either a 'stronghold' or a 'village' (in which case the player is a Mayor), which is far more of a holding than a Knight would have.

I'm just saying I don't think there will be much, if any, land outside of that stronghold or village, which can be given away (or sold, or leased). So, again, it's far more than a Knight, but it might not be what you're hoping for - which would seem more in line with the Count tier. But let's wait and see what Caspian announces in the next day or two.

Let's go straight to the authoritative source on this subject -- Hollywood. Good Knight Sweet Darling

A Count's County is split between Barons. A Barony is not large enough to support any knights? Apparently, there won't be any knights. A Baron needs warriors. Specifically a Baron needs mounted elite noble warriors ie knights. The entire point of feudalism is military service. If the Baronies are too small to even support a couple or three knights apiece then you've defeated the purpose of a Barony.

Um, not what I'm hoping for? Excuse me but I'm "hoping" that a knight will be exactly what the definition of a knight is. I think you're confused about what a knight is supposed to be. If a Baron cannot support any knights he isn't a Baron. If a Count is splitting up his land between Barons and the Barons don't have room for knights then the Barons are the knights and the Count is a Baron. It's literally that simple because that's the only way that the definitions of the words can be satisfied.

I'm sorry, a Baron will have "far more of a holding than a knight?" Yet somehow "don't think there will be much, if any, land..." Land is money, money is land. If there's no land then there's no money. If there's only enough land to support a single warrior, ostensibly the Baron, then that warrior is a knight. If you call him a Baron that doesn't make him a Baron, because his income is equal to that of what a knight's income should be. The entire point of holding a Barony is to have enough income to support multiple elite warriors and lesser warriors besides. A Baron should be able to field a small army. Do you know why? Because that is the literally purpose of a Baron. The entire reason for the existence of his title and standing is to provide a small military force for his liege lord.

But you're saying that the Baron won't be able to support any significant military of his own because his holding will be too small... you know... there's a word for that... it's called a knight.

I'm sorry to become frustrated with you but I can't get over this post. Please look up Feudalism on Wikipedia or something.

Barleyman, like I said, let's wait and see what Caspian announces in the next day or two. You obviously have some very real world stuff you need to see play out in the game. I've told you what I know. Again, we wait and see at this point.

It has been a while since I studied feudalism, but if I recall, knights without titles were the lowest nobles in the court. Below that of a baron, however, historically anyone with a court rank of baron or higher could knight someone.

The point of knighting someone was to essentially have an indebted warrior of skill with mounted combat, their liege lord would provide them with lodging, food, weapons, armor, and mounts. In return they would serve for 40 days a year at minimum, more if they chose or in special cases, but 40 was the requirement. Knighthood did not guarantee land holdings whatsoever, the title of knight bestowed court rank and privileges, and was a military office similar to that of a modern lieutenant.

The confusion that seems to have occurred is over vassalage. Vassalage is when a person of baron rank or higher bestows upon another individual a piece of their land (commonly referred to as a fief) in return for specific services, normally military services, which is why knights normally received vassalage, but this boon was not a requirement.

There were many knights without lands of their own, normally knights who had just gained their rank but were otherwise unproven in battle. Knights without land of their own and no one under their command, thus no banner of their own, were referred to as a knight bachelor, which is the lowest rank of knight and were the most common. A knight who owns land and leads men into battle, have their own banners and were referred to as a knight banneret which is the highest ranking knight, at which point knights progressed through acquiring higher court ranks and titles, all the way up until the rank just below their liege lord's.