Do castles make sense in a world of dragons & spells?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

... the less they seem like impenetrable fortresses in a world with dragons, gryphon-riders, and spells.

And therein lies the flaw in the original question.

Real-world Castles, more often than not, were not meant to be "impregnable fortresses." It would be great if things turned out that way but the use of castles was to serve as strong points from which local forces could sally forth and engage the enemy (who would not have such protection to retreat to).

Castles were meant to secure territory but if they didn't have a capable garrison then the enemy could just plunder and raze the surrounding countryside and keep the garrison bottled up inside the castle. Still, the garrison would be a thorn in the attacker's side that could not be ignored (consider what would happen if reinforcements arrived; they'd have a secure base from which to operate... not a good thing for the attacker).

The idea that castles should be "dragon proof" is, IMO, a flawed one. Castles weren't designed for that so it's no surprise that they aren't as effective against dragons. That being said, it's better to be in a castle than in an unprotected village.

Just because there are fantastical beasts doesn't mean there won't be "normal" threats that the castle would be useful against.

In my mind a dragon is just a different form of siege gun that, if you let it, can tear a castle down piece by piece. It's all in how effective the garrison is in combating the dragon. Specifically, the garrison should be taking the battle to the dragon ASAP. And a dragon must sleep sometime...

 

[Celebrim]

And therein lies the flaw in the original question.

The other flaw in the original question is that the questioner has a very narrow definition of 'castle' that seems to encompass only the classic Edwardian border fort in their partially ruined state. Thus, he thinks that all castles have a large bailey, temporary wooden hoardings or none at all, and unroofed towers.

But, that's a very specific sort of castle.

Marksburg

It's not hard to imagine anti-dragon castles with very little modification to the technology available in the high middle ages or early reinnaisance.

 

[WayneLigon]

I usually feel the problem is so rare as to not be worth bothering with. Dragons of a size to seriously harm a castle are pretty rare, and the ones that ARE that big and powerful, I have no problem with them occasionally razing a castle to the ground. That's their job.

Similarly, wizards of a power level to do much actual structural damage are almost as rare, and they run out of spells really fast. There's all sorts of things they can do to get at the people inside a castle, but nothing that a decent 8th, 9th level rogue couldn't do almost as easily - just quicker.

 

[Anton85]

A few house rules

After reading this thread, I started thinking of some guidlines I would use in my own world.


Hirelings

1. PC classes are not available for hire on the open market. If you want a 5th level wizard to protect your castle, you have to track one down, convince him to work for you and then negotiate pay. This keeps PCs special.

2. NPC with NPC classes of all level are available for hire. Want to hire a 20th level adept to guard your castle, just pay the cost and your good to go. For the purpose of flavor, Racial Paragon classes are also available.

3. Castle are staffed by veterans, usually 6th level NPCs.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

For fun I worked up my thoughts on how much it would take to feed a griffin for an aerial force. Lots of ways to estimate this but I came up with 15 to 30 cows per year per griffin. That could get very expensive so maybe you just keep a small scouting force if any at all. But on the other hand if circumstances demanded aerial forces for some reason, you might not have much gold left over for fortifications.

The economics side of things is where I think this all comes together. If it is too expensive for a lord to maintain a force of griffins, the odds are good that an enemy force would have similar problems. Defenses are built on a cost-benefit scheme. The chances of being attacked by a dragon or a large force of spell-casters is low because they are not as common. While the threat level is higher, the cost of building defenses against them is even higher.

In the end the best defense is a matched offense. Soldiers to neturalize soldiers, mages to neutralize mages, aerial forces to neutralize aerial attacks etc. Now, put your forces behind mundane walls, on towers with line of sight etc. and you are still one up on the enemy in the open.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

For fun I worked up my thoughts on how much it would take to feed a griffin for an aerial force. Lots of ways to estimate this but I came up with 15 to 30 cows per year per griffin. That could get very expensive so maybe you just keep a small scouting force if any at all. But on the other hand if circumstances demanded aerial forces for some reason, you might not have much gold left over for fortifications.

My thoughts on feeding griffins are on my blog if anyone is interested.
EN World D&D / RPG News - World Design Notes

The economics side of things is where I think this all comes together. If it is too expensive for a lord to maintain a force of griffins, the odds are good that an enemy force would have similar problems. Defenses are built on a cost-benefit scheme. The chances of being attacked by a dragon or a large force of spell-casters is low because they are not as common. While the threat level is higher, the cost of building defenses against them is even higher.

In the end the best defense is a matched offense. Soldiers to neturalize soldiers, mages to neutralize mages, aerial forces to neutralize aerial attacks etc. Now, put your forces behind mundane walls, on towers with line of sight etc. and you are still one up on the enemy in the open.

The problem is that economics is based on some assumptions about magic. If the create meat ritual is cheaper than a cow then the economics changes.

 

[Haltherrion]

In the end the best defense is a matched offense. Soldiers to neturalize soldiers, mages to neutralize mages, aerial forces to neutralize aerial attacks etc. Now, put your forces behind mundane walls, on towers with line of sight etc. and you are still one up on the enemy in the open.

That's not the end of the economic discussion by any stretch though.

Fine- walls are a good barrier for many threats but what exactly do you build?

Given a set pot-o-money for military expenditures, do you build a wooden or small stone fort and spend the rest on a more mobile strike force, perhaps in a fantasy setting also paying for mages or more exotic troops? Or do you spend most of it on an elaborate concentric castle?

Degree matters. I doubt fortifications go away, they have their place. But they may not look much like castles of the high middle ages. They might look more like Roman fortifications- often low cost temporary forts, sometimes turned to stone but whose strength lay in a significant garrison.

While I like big castles and use them in my setting, if I were a real king in a fantasy setting, I would expect that my budget would be skewed away from big static defenses since I would find militarily justified ways to spend money on options a medieval ruler, for example, did not have. But without a better definition of the setting, it seems impossible to take this much further.

 

[Haltherrion]

The problem is that economics is based on some assumptions about magic. If the create meat ritual is cheaper than a cow then the economics changes.

Many things change if the create meat ritual is much cheaper than a cow

As I've said, further discussion would require a better definition of the problem. But while it is hard to define the exact balance without a better definition, clearly economics would affect the choices of rulers. And given that many fantasy settings would give rulers a lot more choices than a medieval ruler had, it is not unreasonable to assume said rulers would make different choices and very well might not invest in a classic high milddle ages castle.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's not the end of the economic discussion by any stretch though.



Degree matters. I doubt fortifications go away, they have their place. But they may not look much like castles of the high middle ages. They might look more like Roman fortifications- often low cost temporary forts, sometimes turned to stone but whose strength lay in a significant garrison.

This I agree with, especially in the middle ages the orgainational abilities of the state was poor and there are accounts of the besiegers starving out before the defenders sonething that would not happen to the Romans. Magic portals and stuff like that could really change the logistics of supplying an army or a city.