D&D General Travel In Medieval Europe

[Hussar]

Yes, I agree @Faolyn. That was my point. Why would trade travel from Waterdeep to Baldur's Gate overland? There's zero reason for it. So, all those towns and hamlets would feed into those centers, sure. But, why would there be major travel overland to a different major port? Why would communities around Daggerford, for example, travel overland to Baldur's Gate instead of Waterdeep which is FAR closer and safer? Then, from Waterdeep, goods are loaded onto a ship for various ports. And, if you'll notice, most of the inland commuities are on major waterways. Goods would still be shipped by barge, rather than overland.

There is absolutely no reason to have a major overland trade route that runs parallel to a water route. There's a reason that you have a road from Paris to Rome - going by water would be far, far longer and Roman ships couldn't really navigate in the open Atlantic Ocean. Perfectly fine for the relatively calm Mediterranean, but not very good in open ocean.

So, again, what traders? Why would you take goods from Neverwinter to any point south by land? Or Waterdeep for that matter?

The problem is, these maps and whatnot are drawn first and the creators simply draw in cities and whatnot because they think they "look good". There's no sense of any sort of natural growth. Then, people have to come along afterwards and try to justify these notions that have absolutely no basis in anything resembling actual thought other than artistic.

 

[Composer99]

Gee, I wonder why people might prefer overland travel for short or medium-haul trade along the Sword Coast?

Maybe... oh, let's see...

(1) The sea goddess is Umberlee. One can appease Umberlee, but she's capricious and temperamental, and therefore unreliable on that score. You probably have to make offerings to Umberlee plus Waukeen plus one or two other gods before embarking on a long sea journey in order to petition them for protection or appeasement, and you just can't be sure Umberlee will remain appeased. Overland travel takes Umberlee out of the equation. (Also, if Umberlee pitches a fit and sends a storm someone's way, how many other ships will be caught in it despite not having earned her wrath? It's not like she's going to care.)

(2) At least when a wyvern attacks your caravan, if you can't see it off with some trusty archers it'll probably make off with one of your pack animals and maybe trash a wagon (or two). By contrast, traveling by sea adds the risk that a monster attack will sink your ship, meaning the entire cargo is lost along with some, most, or all of the crew depending on the circumstances.

Those two factors are in addition to all the normal risks of oceangoing nautical travel. So much for safer.

Also:

(1) Never mind tiny hamlets, there'd be plenty of mid-size towns running between, say, Daggerford and Baldur's Gate that aren't on the map, most of which require overland travel to reach - and that will hold true across the length of the overland road.

(2) It's far more likely that the Trade Way is simply an organic outgrowth of a series of north-south roads connecting towns and villages. If you travel one day's worth of trip from Daggerford to the next town south, that town will in turn have a road leading south to the next town, and so on all the way to Baldur's Gate, none of which requires a commitment to massive overland travel between Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate. Over the years, people notice that those road connections by happenstance form a north-south roadway and give it a fancy name.

---

At any rate, I don't disagree that fantasy game settings don't accurately simulate real-world economics and logistics. But why should they? That's not what they're for. (And the setting offending one's personal sensibilities viz. worldbuilding or verisimilitude is, bluntly put, nowhere near a good enough reason.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I don't do fisking. Can you boil down your point? And, possibly without the ad hominem attacks?

Feel free to point to any specific ad hominem attacks in my post.

I’m not fisking, I’m just challenging your assertions. If you don’t care to answer those challenges, that’s up to you.

 

[Hussar]

Again, hyperbole to the point of direct misrepresentation.

Sorry, you didn’t say this? I guess calling me a liar isn’t an ad hominem in your book. Good to know.

 

[Hussar]

Funny. Overland travel is so safe. But trade by water, the main way that all trade is done, is so dangerous that it’s better to travel by land.

Yeah, Not really buying it. The main reason we have a “Trade Way” is because the writers were either Canadian or American and can’t imagine a world where you don’t drive everywhere.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Gee, I wonder why people might prefer overland travel for short or medium-haul trade along the Sword Coast?

Maybe... oh, let's see...

(1) The sea goddess is Umberlee. One can appease Umberlee, but she's capricious and temperamental, and therefore unreliable on that score. You probably have to make offerings to Umberlee plus Waukeen plus one or two other gods before embarking on a long sea journey in order to petition them for protection or appeasement, and you just can't be sure Umberlee will remain appeased. Overland travel takes Umberlee out of the equation. (Also, if Umberlee pitches a fit and sends a storm someone's way, how many other ships will be caught in it despite not having earned her wrath? It's not like she's going to care.)

(2) At least when a wyvern attacks your caravan, if you can't see it off with some trusty archers it'll probably make off with one of your pack animals and maybe trash a wagon (or two). By contrast, traveling by sea adds the risk that a monster attack will sink your ship, meaning the entire cargo is lost along with some, most, or all of the crew depending on the circumstances.

Those two factors are in addition to all the normal risks of oceangoing nautical travel. So much for safer.

Also:

(1) Never mind tiny hamlets, there'd be plenty of mid-size towns running between, say, Daggerford and Baldur's Gate that aren't on the map, most of which require overland travel to reach - and that will hold true across the length of the overland road.

(2) It's far more likely that the Trade Way is simply an organic outgrowth of a series of north-south roads connecting towns and villages. If you travel one day's worth of trip from Daggerford to the next town south, that town will in turn have a road leading south to the next town, and so on all the way to Baldur's Gate, none of which requires a commitment to massive overland travel between Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate. Over the years, people notice that those road connections by happenstance form a north-south roadway and give it a fancy name.

---

At any rate, I don't disagree that fantasy game settings don't accurately simulate real-world economics and logistics. But why should they? That's not what they're for. (And the setting offending one's personal sensibilities viz. worldbuilding or verisimilitude is, bluntly put, nowhere near a good enough reason.)

Also…there have always been overland roadways that are used for trade, even when all the major settlements were coastal or riverside. Why the heck would you charter a ship from New York to Boston if you don’t already have a boat? You just send it down the road. It’s cheaper, and not actually that much slower, and can make stops along the way.

That’s the thing. Trade roads aren’t just A to B, they’re many-staged journeys with trade happening at every town and crossroad along the way. They serve different ends than trade via ship, and both are vital.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, you didn’t say this? I guess calling me a liar isn’t an ad hominem in your book. Good to know.

Pointing out that a statement is egregiously hyperbolic is directly aimed at your argument, not at you. If you really believe otherwise, report it. Either way, please stop detailing the thread over it.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes, I agree @Faolyn. That was my point. Why would trade travel from Waterdeep to Baldur's Gate overland?

Why did people in the real world use merchant caravans instead of boats?

There's zero reason for it.

And yet, people in the real world did it.

So, all those towns and hamlets would feed into those centers, sure. But, why would there be major travel overland to a different major port?

Because there's no reason not to. They're already nearby; why not continue a little bit further?

Why would communities around Daggerford, for example, travel overland to Baldur's Gate instead of Waterdeep which is FAR closer and safer? Then, from Waterdeep, goods are loaded onto a ship for various ports. And, if you'll notice, most of the inland commuities are on major waterways. Goods would still be shipped by barge, rather than overland.

I imagine that Baldur's Gate has things you can't get in Waterdeep, and vice versa. And no, most of the inland communities are not on major waterways because there are countless small farming communities and hamlets that never made it onto the map.

There is absolutely no reason to have a major overland trade route that runs parallel to a water route. There's a reason that you have a road from Paris to Rome - going by water would be far, far longer and Roman ships couldn't really navigate in the open Atlantic Ocean. Perfectly fine for the relatively calm Mediterranean, but not very good in open ocean.

So how smooth an ocean is the Sea of Swords? With a name like that, and knowing that an evil god (Umberlee) gets annoyed at sailors who don't pay her enough respect, and what one site I found called "rampant pirate attacks," I wouldn't be surprised if that body of water is rougher than the road. At least when you go overland, the ground itself probably doesn't want to kill you.

So it's quite likely that going by boat is considered riskier than going by land.

So, again, what traders? Why would you take goods from Neverwinter to any point south by land? Or Waterdeep for that matter?

We've already pointed out the traders. If you don't want them to exist, then go ahead. But they cannonically do. In fact, there are about a zillion named merchant companies in the Realms, and I don't feel like going through all of them to determine which ones travel via the ocean.

The problem is, these maps and whatnot are drawn first and the creators simply draw in cities and whatnot because they think they "look good". There's no sense of any sort of natural growth. Then, people have to come along afterwards and try to justify these notions that have absolutely no basis in anything resembling actual thought other than artistic.

So... why not make your own, more realistic D&D world, then? Once you realistically take in the account all of the magic, nonhumans, friendly monsters, and active gods that this world would have.

 

[Faolyn]

Funny. Overland travel is so safe. But trade by water, the main way that all trade is done, is so dangerous that it’s better to travel by land.

Yeah, Not really buying it. The main reason we have a “Trade Way” is because the writers were either Canadian or American and can’t imagine a world where you don’t drive everywhere.

Please point out one person who said that overland travel is super-safe.

 

[Hussar]

Please point out one person who said that overland travel is super-safe.

The response to my point about sea trade was that overland was significantly safer.

And it’s funny you would mention trade from Boston to New York when the vast majority of trade between those points would be by ship. Until you had trains, no one in their right mind would walk between those points. You certainly wouldn’t have significant movement of trade goods going overland between Bodtonand New York until after railroads.