Kickstarter *Kickstarter* Orbis Mundi 2 fully funded in less than 12 hours!

Orbis Mundi 2 - A Guide to Real Medieval Life, has been fully funded on Kickstarter in less than 12 hours!

It is currently close to achieving its first Stretch Goal with around 7 hours left in the first 24 hours since going live!

The Campaign Home Page is at ...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1009649146/orbis-mundi-2-real-medieval-life?ref=creator_nav

... and a 32 page sampler of semi-random pages from the Core Book is available for free on RPGNow ...

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/22283...ler?src=newest_free_titles&coverSizeTest=true

Thanks to all those who have backed this project!

Phil McGregor

Overnight the second Stretch Goal, a Medieval Manor, was passed ... so now those Backers who have chosen a Reward Level that includes these will get not only a Medieval Village but the Manor to go with it!

At just over $2200 we're well on the way to reaching the third Stretch Goal, a Medieval Castle ... and we're still on Day 2!

What you won't find in a Medieval Village

Virtually all Fantasy RPGs have no idea what real Medieval Villages were like and assume they were like small Villages in modern times - but nothing could be further from the truth.

They routinely have two things present that simply didn't exist in Vilages in medieval times ... a General Store and an Inn or Tavern.

General Store. These simply didn't exist at all -- not anywhere. They don't appear until the 18th century. The closest thing to them are Ship's Chandlers which are just starting to appear in some of the bigger Port Towns (such as London or the Hansa Towns) by the mid to late 14th century.

In a Village there might be specialist craftsmen - usually a Carpenter and a Blacksmith, though they might not work at their trade full time - and you would go to their place of business and order items they routinely produce. The chance they would have anything other than a limited stock of raw materials in stock, however, is minimal - and the sort of gear that the typical adventuring party of PCs would want is close to nil (and they may not even be able to make it in any time frame of use to the PCs, if they can make it at all).

For general items, food and the like, you can go around to the individual households and, depending on the time of year, stocks may be available for sale ... and at prices somewhat cheaper than in the nearest Town. Even so, the best time to source produce and craft goods will be at the Churchyard on a Sunday when the locals will almost universally run an impromptu, informal, Market.

For anything else, well, you'll have to do what the locals do ... head off to the nearest Town and it's Craft shops and/or weekly Market.

Taverns or Inns. Yes, there's a difference. Taverns served food and drink, but were legally prohibited from renting rooms while Inns could rent rooms but were often prohibited from serving meals to non-guests.

Taverns were found only in Towns. Inns were found in Towns and along major roads, generally spaced so that travellers would find them about a day's journey apart.

Neither were found in Villages. Ever. At least, not until after the 14th century ... usually well after,

On the other hand, what you did find, quite commonly (even in Towns, where they outnumbered Taverns and Inns combined) was an Alehouse or Alehouses.

Alehouse. Ale was not normally brewed on a commercial basis (even Taverns and Inns tended to brew their own) and families, usually the wives, brewed their own ... and many of them were happy to sell their excess.

All that was required were some mugs or cups and a bench, often outside, on which the customers could sit. They were not legally allowed to sell food ... but, in a Village, some informal arrangement could usually be made.

So, two enduring tropes of most RPGs bite the dust - the heroic adventuring party can't retire from the Dungeon to the local Village and replenish or repair their weapons, armour, arrows or bolts or buy anything much other than food and the sorts of goods the locals might have on hand more for their own use. Likewise, an evening in the Village Inn after a hard day's delving or travelling ... can't happen (though local families are usually happy enough to rent out space in their Barn or Storerooms to travellers, and feed them, for a mix of news and other stories and pay).

OM2 has now passed the $3000 funding level and achieved all of the initial Stretch Goals ...

So two new ones have been added, A Medieval Monastery (~12 pages) at $3500 and, at $4000, a Regional Book, combining the previous Village, Manor, Castle and Monastery Goals with ~12 pages of additional material which will cover the general region and have some information on the local Town(s) ... if this is achieved the combined goals will be consolidated into a single PDF and, for those at the Baron Backer level, the option of getting them as a Print on Demand book.

They burn Heretics, don't they?

Not really ... really!

Heresy. According to the Codex Justinianus, a Heretic was anyone 'who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and our orthodox Holy Faith.'

By the medieval period this meant anyone who didn't follow or accept Church Dogma. A pretty broad brush.

However, Church and, until the end of the 13th century, Civil authorities were extremely reluctant to even investigate claims of Heresy. Even after that, many (perhaps most) regional Church authorities were even more opposed to doing so and were angry with the Papacy for trying to devolve the power onto them ... they were even more unhappy with Civil authorities pursuing such matters on their own bat.

(The Church authorities were generally quite tolerant of heterodox beliefs - even ones quite significantly at odds with elements of Dogma. As long as the person or who held them wasn't socially prominent, didn't [successfully] attempt to preach their beliefs, and as long as any group who held such beliefs in common behaved similarly - and that was mostly the cases they were faced with.)

Even when they did investigate, as far as they were concerned you were only deemed to be a heretic if you 'obstinately and persistently refuse[d] to recant'

Excommunication. As far as the Church was concerned, the penalty for Heresy was to be made excommunicate ... but ... that was not the first option.

If an accused Heretic recanted their heretical beliefs, that was that as far as the Church authorities were concerned. No harm, no foul. The end of the matter -- maybe a mild penance.

If the former Heretic lapsed a second time they were examined more rigorously and, if they recanted, they were more closely supervised ... and more serious penances would be applied.

Only if they lapsed a third time were they excommunicate and handed over to the Civil Authorities for execution.

Even then, you might not actually burnt - England only instituted burning of Heretics at the stake from 1222 - in fact, being crucified, beheaded, crushed to death with heavy weights, thrown off cliffs or castle walls, broken an a Waggon Wheel and the like were more likely methods of execution. If it came to that.

The Spanish Inquisition. Sorry to burst balloons, but they don't exist. And won't until 1478. And they were 50 times more likely to merely imprison you than burn you at the stake and were less likely to use torture to gain confessions than Protestant authorities during the 17th century!

... maybe Witches, then?

Not so much.

The Church was about as interested in pursuing claims of Witchcraft as it was pursuing claims of Heresy during the 10th-14th centuries, and rarely undertook prosecutions - and even more rarely made convictions.

That remained the case until the middle of the 15th century, and especially after the beginning of the Reformation. The two centuries from 1450 to 1650 or so were they heyday of the Witch burning craze.

Naked does not mean Nude

Ah, 'everyone knows' ... aka urban myths or factoids ... OM2 deals with a number of these. This is merely one of many -

Many books out there claim, for example, that medieval people slept 'naked' and that medieval women didn't wear any underwear ... and many people believe them.

The problem is, it simply isn't true!

The problem arises from sloppy research and a lack of understanding of how language has changed since medieval times.

When medieval chroniclers refer to 'nakedness' in illuminated Manuscripts the accompanying illustrations show men in their braies (i.e. underwear) and the rare written account that is more, ahem, illuminating, makes it clear that men went to bed 'naked' in their underclothes.

Likewise, claims that women went naked under a dress (or two) and a slip (or similar) are based on the fact that most illuminated manuscripts that show 'naked' men show fully clothed women ... again, this is a matter of sloppy research as there are actually a small number of illuminated manuscripts where women are shown wearing panties but otherwise naked. Presumably the whole issue is a matter of monkish prudery (as Monks were the main copyists of such manuscripts).

Heck, there are even manuscripts (very few) where the authors refer to Breast Bags worn by women, evidently something like a modern brassiere ... and there has actually been one found in the floor space of a Castle room that was laid down in the 14th century ... and modern reconstructions by re-enactors claim it is as supportive as a modern Sports Bra!

Be very very careful about those things 'everyone knows ...'

Well, we've blown through the $3000 and $3500 levels - Magical Medieval Europe and a Medieval Monastery - and it looks like we'll get through the $4000 level and the combined and expanded Regional Sourcebook ... I am completely amazed and thankful for the great support for the campaign!

I guess Historical/Fantasy stuff is way more popular than the Modern Military topics(s) that my first Kickstarter covered ...

Horse Puckey ...

Another of those everyone knows things covered in OM2 has to do with the nature and usage of Horses in the medieval period ...

In Agriculture - The Horse Harness Problem. If you believe virtually every source out there, it was only the development of the Horse Collar during the medieval period that freed Horses from being choked by their Harness when pulling heavy loads, making them not significantly more useful than Oxen in ploughing and pulling Carts and Waggons.

Unfortunately this is completely wrong. It is based on the results of an experiment staged in France in 1910 by a Cavalry Officer with no practical experience in Harness making or Horse handling. His results did, indeed, show that a Horse harnessed as he interpreted the evidence (remember, no practical experience!) could only pull 500 kilos while one with a Horse Collar could pull 1500 kilos.

Even at the time this result was widely questioned and completely debunked ... in academic circles. However, the claims had already taken on a life of their own as an 'everyone knows' factoid.

The problem was that there were at least three ancient traction systems shown in art, none of which choked the horses - Shoulder traction and Breast Traction (Greek and Roman) - and the earlier experiment had been done with a harness constructed according to inaccurate composite drawings combining, as it turned out, the worst elements of all three designs!.

Modern re-enactors have shown in real world experiments that there is, in fact, no choking when using these older harnesses.

You have to dig pretty hard to find this information, though, as the 'everyone knows' version is widely repeated even in recent works.

Why was the Horse Collar adopted, then? What actual advantage did it provide?

It allows a lower attachment point to whatever is being pulled than the older systems which were really designed for what we would class as Ponies or small Horses today. This lower attachment allowed the Horse(s) in the team to pull whatever with much greater traction. As the Mouldboard Plough was being introduced at the same time (allowing heavier, clayey, soils to be economically farmed). the greater traction for ploughing was an important economic advantage ... a Horse team with Horse Collars and a Mouldboard Plough could, roughly, plough twice as much land in the same time as an Ox team

Again, beware of what 'everyone knows!'

Well, the $4000 level has been blown through ... so there is a need for more Stretch Goals ...

$4750. A Small Medieval Market Town. ~12 pages. Probably included in the Regional Sourcebook. I did some quick research and I am pretty sure I can do a a fairly good survey of a small Market Town (say 2-3000 people) based on information I have at hand or can access.

$5500. A Major Medieval Castle. ~12 pages. Also probably included in the Regional Sourcebook. This would have a look at a major Regional Lord's main castle and nearby holdings, probably nearby to the Small Medieval Market Town, geographically, and would either be a wealthy Baron or a modest Count or Viscount.

More Horse Puckey!

Some sources claim that it was only with the invention/introduction of the high pommel/cantle Knight's Saddle in the 11th century that made massed Shock charges with lances possible.

The problem is, again, that this 'everyone knows' factoid is not readily supportable.

For a start, the claims that the Knightly saddle was somehow more stable for the rider are not supported by experimental re-enactors ... it has been found that the four horned saddle used by Roman cavalry clamped down on a rider when seated and actually gave them as much effective stability as the later Knightly saddle for shock charges.

The only, generally agreed to be minor, difference is that the Knightly saddle gives slightly more stability in using a sword ... generally in a sideways up and down motion as would be common after the charge has stalled.

The other issue is that, until the 11th century, western European Cavalry used Cavalry Spears - a minor variation on the standard winged/lugged Infantry Spear) and, indeed, the Cavalry Spear continued to be used alongside the lance for at least another century (and beyond, with non-Knightly medium or light cavalry). These Cavalry Spears, like the Roman Kontos/Kontarion were normally used one-handed, overhead, for thrusting but could be used couched, underarm, for a charge,

The Lance really only starts to appear in the 12th century and only becomes recognizably 'modern' from the mid 13th century when a metal ring was mounted in front of the point of grip to prevent the hand from sliding forward on impact, Even so, the designs shown in most Hollywood 'historical' movies with the thickened and flared vamplate in front of the grip only start to appear in the 15th century and, indeed, the ones shown in movies are almost universally a design that was only used in mock tournaments, not actual combat.

The main difference in usage between the Cavalry Spear and the Lance is that the latter is too heavy to be used any way but couched, and was only an impediment after the force of a charge was spent and the cavalry were meleed ... so, even if it survived the impact of any successful 'hit' during a charge they were normally thrown away after it.

Not as big an urban myth as Horse Collars, but a significant difference, nonetheless.

How smelly were the Medievals?

This issue is often raised in books - and the information they present is often misleading for this simple reason that it is based on practises and technology that postdate the medieval period covered by this book ...

Up until 1400, the end date for OM2's coverage, medieval people of all classes overwhelmingly wore clothing of linen or wool ... or as a mix (fustian, for example, which, at this stage, was a linen warp and wool weft, not the post 1400 cotton/linen mix referred to in Shakespeare) ... both of which, even with the technology of the time, could be relatively easily laundered. As far as the limited evidence goes, it seems very likely that all except the very poorest beggars had at least a change of underwear, usually several, if not a complete change of clothes.

It is only later (post 1400, usually well post ... more 1500's) cloths, richer and more complex, more richly dyed with mordants (fixatives) that didn't work well when washed that it became difficult to impossible to wash many fabrics. The best that could be done in those later periods was to change one's underclothes regularly and brush dirt off the clothes and wear them until they were too stinky ... then sell them off (or give them) to someone else, someone poorer.

So the clothes they wore were generally clean, depending on what they were used for and the day of the week ... washing was sufficiently complex back then that it was usually done no more than once a week ... and wouldn't have been noticeably stinky.

As for personal hygiene, again, those sources that claim people didn't bathe and were generally stinky are great for the shock value, but don't actually stand close examination.

The most common claim is that the medievals didn't take baths ... which is mostly true. Outside of Towns, where there was mostly a public Bath-house or Bath-houses, only the wealthy could afford the fuel and labour needed to fill a cut down wine cask full of hot water, jug by jug, and take what we would call a bath.

However, even in the countryside, people washed their hands, feet and faces regularly - it was regarded as good manners, if nothing else. They also washed the bits that rubbed together (armpits and other areas) as well ... they just did it with a wash cloth. In fact, if you look at the surviving wills from the period you will routinely see 'cloths' (no, not cloth or bolts of cloth) mentioned in inventories in even the poorer households and this is now being interpreted as meaning what we would call towels and washcloths (as I've hinted elsewhere, the language has changed ... often markedly ... between then and now) and the surviving medical writings and 'good manners' manuals make it plain that basic cleanliness was expected even amongst the poorer classes.

So, while the Villages and Towns smelled like a barnyard due to all the animals doing their business all over the place (more on that in a later post), the locals ... except for the poorest beggars and itinerants, were very likely not as smelly as many sources would have us believe.

How filthy were Medieval Towns?

Well, they were certainly smelly - an inevitability when you realise all major transport into and, often, within, the Town is by animal ... horse, mule or donkey ... coupled with the reality that most households of any size kept animals (cows and goats for milk, chickens for eggs etc.) ... then there was the matter if industry, many of the processes used with raw materials used smelly materials or caused smells, so much so they were often legally forced to reside in specified areas within or, sometimes, outside, of the Town walls.

So we can agree they smelled.

But how dirty were they?

Not necessarily as much as is usually implied by the sources. See, most popular sources provide shock value snippets that, at first glance, make medieval towns out to be little better than a combination of an untreated dung heap and random garbage dump.

The problem is those snippets are chosen for effect ... often without any underlying research to support the implied conclusion of rampant filth ... or are simply repeated as 'everyone knows' factoids.

Yes, there were ordinances that, for example, Butchers weren't supposed to leave entrails and offcuts laying outside their shops or simply throw them into the road ... so, sure, it must have happened ... but how often?

Modern states have laws that require cleanliness in food preparation facilities ... but, occasionally, some of them are closed down or fined for breaches, probably only a fraction of a percent of the actual number. And check out the alley behind your local restaurant strip, especially in the crowded inner city, and breathe in the ... reek ... of rotting food ... which, yes, will be picked up and removed in a timely fashion, but still ...

So, what was the actual situation in Medieval Towns? For a start, each Ward had a civic official who was in charge of ensuring the streets were, if not pristine, at least as clean as they could be and that refuse and waste didn't block passage or make it too unpleasant ... and he was in charge of 'encouraging' householders and business owners to keep their personal patch clean as well as being in charge of what we can loosely call 'Garbos' in the Australian vernacular (aka 'Sanitation Workers'). In London they were called Rakers and their job was to physically remove refuse and waste from the streets.

No, there were nowhere near enough. But an effort was made ... and most householders did co-operate. As did most business owners ... in fact, in many towns there were specially designated areas outside (and away from!) the walls for use by each Trade as a dumping ground for their refuse.

Many towns had something like a garbage collection service - municipally owned (or contracted) Carts would come around semi-regularly and collect refuse ... unfortunately, details are sketchy and it is not clear how frequently these services were. Still, again, an effort was being made.

Then there were the municipal Lavatories ... which were placed at strategic points around the city and kept clean (and regularly emptied) by the authorities. Larger households had their own and paid for them to be emptied by specialist carters on a regular basis ... and tenants in dwellings (or rooms) too small to have their own used chamber pots or the nearest municipal facility (and they could empty their Chamber Pots there as well).

Sure, there were ordinances about people throwing the contents of their full chamber pots out the window into the street and, possibly, onto the passers-by below ... so it obviously happened sometimes. But probably not as frequently as is implied given the efforts the authorities went to ensure that at least some basic sanitary measures were in operation.

The other thing to be beware of is anachronism - many of the stories of civic filth, and usually the worst and grossest ones, actually postdate the medieval period and by a lot!

Giant dungheaps several storeys high, streets so swimming in ... crap ... that ladies often wore wooden pattens (raised oversoles) on their shoes so they could keep the hems of their dresses (and the soles of their shoes!) above the filth. Street urchins with brooms offering to sweep the piles of ... crap ... out of the way of the well-to-do crossing a street ... that's all 18th and 19th century stuff.

Interestingly, I came across a mention of a report of a major late 19th century Urban Planning conference (an international one) in London where the planners were wrestling with, amongst other things, the problem of horse byproducts (liquid and solid). They were almost literally tearing their collective hair out ... even with the new, expanded, sewer systems they were putting in they were recognising they were fast approaching the absolute physical limit of how much horse ... crap ... they could deal with. And further recognising that the amount of animals needed to move goods and people around massive conurbations such as London (and other places) was accellerating ...

That sort of problem was a very late development for mega-cities with a million or more people ... Medieval London, for example, probably had between 20,000 and 100,000 during the 11th-14th centuries ... and a fraction of the problem.

(Oh, the solution to the Urban Planning nightmare? One they didn't see coming ... the Motor Vehicle. Took all the horse crap off the roads ... but, of course, brought its own brand of pollution with it).

So, medieval towns won't be pristine ... and they won't be smell free ... but you won't be swimming in crap and piss or feeling vomitous from the extreme stench ...

Oh, and the second to last of the current Stretch Goals has gone down! A Medieval Market Town will be added to the Regional Sourcebook!