Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[Haltherrion]

I don't know how to refute you, since I would just be quoting the same passages back at you, which describe the transition from mid-14th centurty to the 16th century, during which time cannons became increasingly effective against castle walls. But long-barreled cannons are definitely 16th century and on. That's more than two hundred years of bombards, grapeshot, wall cannons, and hand cannons in action, all of which coincided with feudalism, and castles.

Selectively coloring text in Wikipedia doesn't make you right, I'm sorry. You're cherrypicking quotes from a very general overview, written by a team of amateurs and edited by no one, and you're still not making your point, anyway.

The coloring simply comes through from the cut-and-paste from wikipedia. The articles provide plenty of references if you want to research them, some included in the cut-and-paste and the rest available on the page links provided.

These quotes and the overall articles are in-line with everything I've read on this period. I could go dig up some direct quotes but I think they make the case pretty clearly: while cannons did not change things over night, they had a clear and profound change on fortifications. The type most often seen as castles were shown to be very weak against cannons, not the early anti-personal weapons called cannons but anti-fortifications cannons available in the mid 1400s.

I guess we'll just leave it as my admittedly casual attempt to provide supporting material for my position versus your bald assertions. You could call it cherrypicking; other's could call it backing up their statements.

 

[SKyOdin]

I just had a thought about the castle issue. The general claim is that castles fell out of use because cannons made them obsolete, and Europeans instead switched to a mix of dedicated forts and nonmilitary palaces. However, the segregation of palaces and forts was hardly a new thing in the world at large. The ancient Romans had palaces and dedicated forts, but didn't build true castles for the most part. Ditto for the Chinese dynasties. When you look outside of Medieval Europe, there is a wide mix of civilizations that either built castles or built separate palaces and forts, and cannons cannot be used as a reason for why these various civilizations made the choice one way or another.

I would actually suggest that cannons had nothing to do with why Europe switched from building castles to building palaces and fortresses. If you look at the broader picture, castles tend to be built in periods and places where power is heavily decentralized or where conflict is common. On the other hand, well-organized societies where power is centralized seem to tend to build a mix of civilian palaces and military fortresses.

Europe just happened to arm its armies with guns and cannons around the same time that it was making the transition from a decentralized feudal society to organized nation-states with absolute monarchs.

 

[luckless]

I just had a thought about the castle issue. The general claim is that castles fell out of use because cannons made them obsolete, and Europeans instead switched to a mix of dedicated forts and nonmilitary palaces. However, the segregation of palaces and forts was hardly a new thing in the world at large. The ancient Romans had palaces and dedicated forts, but didn't build true castles for the most part. Ditto for the Chinese dynasties. When you look outside of Medieval Europe, there is a wide mix of civilizations that either built castles or built separate palaces and forts, and cannons cannot be used as a reason for why these various civilizations made the choice one way or another.

I would actually suggest that cannons had nothing to do with why Europe switched from building castles to building palaces and fortresses. If you look at the broader picture, castles tend to be built in periods and places where power is heavily decentralized or where conflict is common. On the other hand, well-organized societies where power is centralized seem to tend to build a mix of civilian palaces and military fortresses.

Europe just happened to arm its armies with guns and cannons around the same time that it was making the transition from a decentralized feudal society to organized nation-states with absolute monarchs.

Those are interesting points, and we could get into writing series of books to get into all the details over the divides and trends between palaces, fortifications, and whether or not they are built as different structures. However the development of the cannon had an undeniable effect on how fortifications were designed and constructed.

In all honesty, against a dedicated force that is up to the task of placing siege to a modern fortification with cannon, an out dated castle is likely more of a drawback and danger to the defenders than it is a bonus. You limit your movements, and the opposing army would know exactly where you were. You would likely be better off trying to run through the hills and escape than you would holding your death trap after an opposing force trained a few of its cannon on the very limited exits, and then brought the walls down with the rest.

Now, that said, I really don't think cannons would have a greater effect on castle construction than things like: Dragons who can fly over the walls and roast everything. Magic users who can silently pass through even the highest or thickest walls, or bring them down in roaring thunder. When you consider all the things even a 5th level magic user can do against a castle's defenses in D&D,... Frankly cannon aren't really something that are going to matter in the big picture.

Just picture how well a great castle is going to hold up against a nice bank of obscuring fog or something to cover a few hundred armed warriors quietly walking up to the front gate, and then having a wizard cast Knock on the front gate?

 

[SKyOdin]

Those are interesting points, and we could get into writing series of books to get into all the details over the divides and trends between palaces, fortifications, and whether or not they are built as different structures. However the development of the cannon had an undeniable effect on how fortifications were designed and constructed.

In all honesty, against a dedicated force that is up to the task of placing siege to a modern fortification with cannon, an out dated castle is likely more of a drawback and danger to the defenders than it is a bonus. You limit your movements, and the opposing army would know exactly where you were. You would likely be better off trying to run through the hills and escape than you would holding your death trap after an opposing force trained a few of its cannon on the very limited exits, and then brought the walls down with the rest.

Now, that said, I really don't think cannons would have a greater effect on castle construction than things like: Dragons who can fly over the walls and roast everything. Magic users who can silently pass through even the highest or thickest walls, or bring them down in roaring thunder. When you consider all the things even a 5th level magic user can do against a castle's defenses in D&D,... Frankly cannon aren't really something that are going to matter in the big picture.

Just picture how well a great castle is going to hold up against a nice bank of obscuring fog or something to cover a few hundred armed warriors quietly walking up to the front gate, and then having a wizard cast Knock on the front gate?

Of course castle design would change in response to new technologies. But they don't stop being castles because their appearance changes.

As you mention though, magic would have an impact on castle design. A wizard could do a lot of damage to a non-magical castle. The simplest solution would be to upgrade to a magical castle. A high fantasy castle might just be a fancy house surrounded by a force wall and numerous other magical wards. Of course, exact changes would vary based on edition, rules, setting, etc. Discussion of magic vs. castles mundane and magical is probably a topic for its own thread though.

 

[Umbran]

I think you're going to have to show your work on tht last sentence.

Okay, fine. By your own admission, in the historical world firearms were common to uncommon contemporary with the technology for making full plate. So, common is reasonable. Uncommon is reasonable. There's clearly some spectrum of reasonable choices.

You tell me when I become unreasonable: Firearms are...

...common, uncommon, very uncommon, rare, unique, nonexistent.

Can you demonstrate that this point is not arbitrary, or a personal preference? If not, my point is made.

And here's the thing. You can introduce any element you want by fiat. If it is an anachronism, it will be fine with anyone who is unaware. It will also be fine with anyone who is aware, but does not find it jarring. But if someone is aware, and finds it jarring, that's a disadvantage in creating your imaginary world.

You find the absence jarring in the face of historical reality. Other gamers will find it to be in violation of genre. So, the designer cannot please everyone. Rock and a hard place.

Choose an element you can include in a game. For every element you choose (or choose to exclude), there will probably be someone in the gaming community who feels your choice detracts from the game - either by being an anachronism, thematically inappropriate in their minds, or just the wrong shade of orange.

So, all elements are disadvantages to someone.

 

[Haltherrion]

I just had a thought about the castle issue. The general claim is that castles fell out of use because cannons made them obsolete, and Europeans instead switched to a mix of dedicated forts and nonmilitary palaces. However, the segregation of palaces and forts was hardly a new thing in the world at large. The ancient Romans had palaces and dedicated forts, but didn't build true castles for the most part. Ditto for the Chinese dynasties. When you look outside of Medieval Europe, there is a wide mix of civilizations that either built castles or built separate palaces and forts, and cannons cannot be used as a reason for why these various civilizations made the choice one way or another.

I would actually suggest that cannons had nothing to do with why Europe switched from building castles to building palaces and fortresses. If you look at the broader picture, castles tend to be built in periods and places where power is heavily decentralized or where conflict is common. On the other hand, well-organized societies where power is centralized seem to tend to build a mix of civilian palaces and military fortresses.

Europe just happened to arm its armies with guns and cannons around the same time that it was making the transition from a decentralized feudal society to organized nation-states with absolute monarchs.

There's several issues regarding the progression of castles to fortifications. The classic castle definition I have been able to find is basically a fortification used as a residence for a local lord. By this definition, it would rule out the Edwardian Welsh castles that I think most people are happy calling castles so perhaps that really isn't a great definition.

On the other hand, calling any masonry (or even non-masonry) fortifications castles dilutes the definition of castle beyond what I'm pretty sure most gamers have in mind. It does for me.

But I think it is indisputable that effective cannons caused fortifications to change in character. I've posted enough basic links there and it doesn't take much study of military architecture to see that.

Combining the "lordly residence issues" with the "cannons caused forts to change" issue and you find by the 1400s you have two trends in Europe driving you away from high middle ages castles as states grew stronger and eliminated a placed for fortified lordly residences and cannons changed the nature of fortifications.

To the original post of gunpowder in a game setting, most settings I see and most artwork I see has fortifications like high middle ages castles. Many players aspire to build such a castle as well. Add gunpowder and it would seem that such style fortifications would change in a reasonably short period of time, forts would have to change their nature. It would not follow that cannons would necessarily change lordly fortified residences though. The former is technological and the latter is societal. Societies have their own dynamic and a new weapon system doesn't necessarily change the society (although it can). But ignore something demonstrable like the ability for a cannon to knock down high, thin walls and your castles will be rendered useless and you will lose any military advantage from their construction.

As to appearances and styles, yes there is certainly a subjective element to it. But I ask you, if you are "going to Europe to see castles", how many woud go to see star forts or roman forts? Some may add that to the itinerary (I would) but I wouldn't consider them castles.

I'll also ask you this, if a referee has a game setting that includes cannons and he also has a high middle ages style castle and you the PC want to get into the castle, wouldn't you be kind of annoyed if your cannon couldn't break down the curtain wall and even the keep in short order? They are good at that; the evidence for their efficacy is clear cut. If he does let you do so, it then begs the question why was such a vulnerable fortification there? They aren't exactly cheap.

Gunpowder changed fortifications. If you still want to call the result castles, in the end, I suppose that's an aesthetic issue. My aeshetic sense prefers fortifications that look more like high middle ages fortifications and I don't think that is especially unusual for the gaming population.

If I am going to modify foritifications for the gaming world, I'd rather do so for magic and monsters, not for gunpowder. I don't see what gunpowder weapons really add to the setting, personally.

 

[Haltherrion]

Of course castle design would change in response to new technologies. But they don't stop being castles because their appearance changes.

Ultimately, that is my only point although I would observe that many people would not be so happy with the aesthetic of the resulting change. IIRC I started this subthread off with something like "add gunpowder and castles go away." I will rephrase that to "add gunpowder and fortifications change dramatically".

The difference being due to what one means by castle. In my original statement, I do admit I was using a short hand definition. You may consider subsequent fortifications castles but they aren't considered such in the literature I am familiar with. But I didn't define castle and I knew it at the time I made the post so my bad.

I doubt most folks playing with gunpowder change their fortifications to match. Game settings require a certain suspension of disbelief. Even so, as a ref, I'm not willing to add gunpowder without changing fortifications and as a player, it might suffice for a light, short duration game but not something I'd be all that happy with in the long run. It would raise questions for me about the ref's ability to sustain a credible game. I'm sure I'm just picky that way.

As you mention though, magic would have an impact on castle design. A wizard could do a lot of damage to a non-magical castle. The simplest solution would be to upgrade to a magical castle. A high fantasy castle might just be a fancy house surrounded by a force wall and numerous other magical wards. Of course, exact changes would vary based on edition, rules, setting, etc. Discussion of magic vs. castles mundane and magical is probably a topic for its own thread though.

Certainly a discussion for its own thread but if you think this thread was heated, such threads can get extremely heated I'd be up for such a discussion though but it would need to have someone (not it!) define the ground rules. It's a fascinating concept but since many people read it as an attack on how they implemented their game setting, it raises hackles.

One way to frame it might be more of a 'what if exercise'. Not magic MUST change fortifications but instead given assumptions X,Y,Z, how would you see castles? The assumptions would need to define magic (perhaps with respect to a D&D edition) but also some demographics, specifically, what incidence of casters. The later can also be contentious since it combines raw rules items with societal elements.

Would be very fun though.

 

[JoeGKushner]

after having just read the Gunslinger Fall of Gilead, yeah, I'm convinced that there is a place for 'em in the fantasy genre. I'm thinking that if we ever see a Gunslinger movie series, people are going to be changing their minds real quick.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Not a fan.

There are things that tend to work well for fantasy, IMO, and others that don't. This is most certainly a "don't".

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For my own world, on a scale of Bloody Rare to Common, I would have to say that they are Uncommon bordering on Common - waiting for the flintlock to become truly Common weapons. About one out of three or four military units are equipped with arquebus.

They have already replaced both the bow and most of the crossbows. With the flintlock they will become common as hunting weapons, and bows will fade from the scene entirely. Already muskets are commonly used for hunting by soldiers and sailors alike.

I will admit that I have never understood the gaming bias against guns - to me they are very much part and parcel with magic, as is the age of Elizabeth I. Maybe because I grew up on Shakespeare and stories about pirates.

The Auld Grump