D&D General Travel In Medieval Europe

[Hussar]

/snip


Most people probably traveled less than 50 miles from home for much of history. But there have always been exceptions.

Thank you. This was the only point I was actually trying to make. It’s nice when we agree.

 

[Hussar]

.


And it may very well be a major undertaking with guards, and nobody has claimed it isn't. Literally nobody has said that some 0th-level peasant can walk that distance unarmed and alone and never be harmed.

Didn’t you claim exactly that by saying an overland trader could travel and forage? Doesn’t sound like a caravan to me.

But in any case we actually all agree on the main point in that travel isn’t very easy. So cool.

 

[Faolyn]

Didn’t you claim exactly that by saying an overland trader could travel and forage? Doesn’t sound like a caravan to me.

But in any case we actually all agree on the main point in that travel isn’t very easy. So cool.

How is a trader traveling and having beasts of burden (or beasts up for sale) not sounding like activities a caravan could engage in? Or that it wouldn't involve guards?

 

[Ixal]

Most people probably traveled less than 50 miles from home for much of history. But there have always been exceptions.

Why? Its certainly not true for the real world in history.
Many professions required travel. Traders, couriers, in central Europe also craftsmen, etc.
Then there were all the religious travels. Small local pilgrimages for special events like weddings, births, etc. which might or might not be within 50 miles. And once in a lifetime travels people undertook like going to the Holy Land, Rome, Santiago or Mecca for example.

 

[Oofta]

Why? Its certainly not true for the real world in history.
Many professions required travel. Traders, couriers, in central Europe also craftsmen, etc.
Then there were all the religious travels. Small local pilgrimages for special events like weddings, births, etc. which might or might not be within 50 miles. And once in a lifetime travels people undertook like going to the Holy Land, Rome, Santiago or Mecca for example.

A lot of people even now rarely travel more than 50 miles from home. When I lived in Folsom CA (outside of Sacramento) we were about an hour's drive from Tahoe, the world famous ski resort. Some of the people in my D&D group had never seen snow. I grew up in a family that took regular road trips across the country, but many people simply don't have the means, opportunity or desire.

Did a significant percentage travel? Sure. More than 50%? That's what I doubt. The head of a family may take that once in a lifetime trip, but did they take their wife? Did every head of a household make that trip? Much like today I'm sure some people traveled widely. Some people did a once in a lifetime trip. Many people never left their home town or city.

Or take Otzi the Iceman. I happened to read an article about him and based on analysis, odds are he never traveled much more than 30 miles from home. It's not that people didn't visit nearby villages, just that to get more than 50 miles for most people would likely take at least a couple weeks of travel. A lot of people couldn't do that.

Even if people are only visiting and trading with nearby villages, they still need roads to get to that next village which establishes a network of road. It's just probably not that common that someone would traipse the entire trade route.

 

[Ixal]

A lot of people even now rarely travel more than 50 miles from home. When I lived in Folsom CA (outside of Sacramento) we were about an hour's drive from Tahoe, the world famous ski resort. Some of the people in my D&D group had never seen snow. I grew up in a family that took regular road trips across the country, but many people simply don't have the means, opportunity or desire.

Did a significant percentage travel? Sure. More than 50%? That's what I doubt. The head of a family may take that once in a lifetime trip, but did they take their wife? Did every head of a household make that trip? Much like today I'm sure some people traveled widely. Some people did a once in a lifetime trip. Many people never left their home town or city.

Or take Otzi the Iceman. I happened to read an article about him and based on analysis, odds are he never traveled much more than 30 miles from home. It's not that people didn't visit nearby villages, just that to get more than 50 miles for most people would likely take at least a couple weeks of travel. A lot of people couldn't do that.

Even if people are only visiting and trading with nearby villages, they still need roads to get to that next village which establishes a network of road. It's just probably not that common that someone would traipse the entire trade route.

In the US maybe, but in other countries travelling is much more common.
Also, don't forget that you can't really compare todays society. Religious pilgrimages were much more important in the past, even when they were only performed to go on sort of a holiday.

Many professions had to travel, either regularly like merchants, envoys, nobles or mercenaries, or occasionally like priests needing to be blessed by higher priests, ect.
In central Europe it was law that most craftsmen had to travel around for 2-3 years to collect experiences before they can become a master (a tradition still alive today, but not required by law anymore). That why the term journeymen has the word journey in it.
If a pilgrimage site was "nearby" (which does not have to mean within 50 miles) people travelled there close to annually for special events (marriages, births, ect.). And yes, long range pilgrimages were also undertaken by all kinds of people and not only the rich elite as least once in their life. For Muslims the pilgrimage to Mecca is one of their pillars and every muslim is supposed to do it once. Which is why the roads and infrastructure there were created to handle thousands of pilgrims.
Christians too had big pilgrimage destinations, not only Jerusalem but also Santiago and Rome which were frequented often enough for pilgrimage to be a economic factor in those areas.

 

[Oofta]

In the US maybe, but in other countries travelling is much more common.
Also, don't forget that you can't really compare todays society. Religious pilgrimages were much more important in the past, even when they were only performed to go on sort of a holiday.

Many professions had to travel, either regularly like merchants, envoys, nobles or mercenaries, or occasionally like priests needing to be blessed by higher priests, ect.
In central Europe it was law that most craftsmen had to travel around for 2-3 years to collect experiences before they can become a master (a tradition still alive today, but not required by law anymore).
If a pilgrimage site was "nearby" (which does not have to mean within 50 miles) people travelled there close to annually for special events (marriages, births, ect.). And yes, long range pilgrimages were also undertaken by all kinds of people and not only the rich elite as least once in their life. For Muslims the pilgrimage to Mecca is one of their pillars and every muslim is supposed to do it once. Which is why the roads and infrastructure there were created to handle thousands of pilgrims.
Christians too had big pilgrimage destinations, not only Jerusalem but also Santiago and Rome which were frequented often enough for pilgrimage to be a economic factor in those areas.

Record keeping is pretty iffy for much of history, so I make no claim of authority.

However, assume 30% of people went on pilgrimage in their lifetime. Another 5% were traders that went farther than a few villages over (for most of history 90% were farmers). It's a lot, but still less than the majority.

To get a majority you'd have to have more than half the adult men and women going on these long pilgrimages. I just don't see it happening, it's one of the reasons there are so many holy sites scattered around.

Even my Norse ancestors, many of whom traveled far and wide may not hit the majority because women rarely went along for the ride, or at least not as far as we know.

In any case, the simple fact is that we just don't know. It may also not be indicative of how many people travel in any given campaign world.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why wouldn't it impact the nature of travel by road and footpath in a pseudo-late-medieval fantasy world?

Because most of the world doesn't have the geography of Ulster?

Even the discussion between the "realistic" travel considerations between Calimport and Water Deep. Almost nobody made that trip, those who did, almost nobody did the entire trip on foot or horseback, compared to those who travel between those by ship. Considering Forgotten Realms is a magical realm, the number of walkers or riders which is probably less than 1% of those who traveled between those cities, or probably significantly higher than the number of people who have "flown" or teleported between the two. Magic certainly exists in a fantasy setting, but unless it's gonzo magic that everyone has access, the likelihood of the number of people who travel via arcane means as immensely less than those who travel via mundane means. Thus what's the real difference between real world cultures, and those of the Forgotten Realms, at least for the majority of people?

I’m having trouble parsing some of this, but my point is that Dal Riata just isn’t indicative of general norms, pretty much anywhere.

There have always been well travelled roads with plenty of small trade (eg farmers taking goods to market, etc) by foot even along coastlines. If the city doesn’t make sure the road that leads to them is functional, they don’t get goods from the local farmers, and they’re screwed.

Also, who said anything about people walking from Waterdeep to Calimport? No one’s position relies on the idea of frequent trips across the entire length of the Trade Way.

Many people never left their home town or city.

A small quibble, I’ve heard from a few sources over the years that it wasn’t uncommon at all to go to the next town over in Medieval Europe, or most times and places. Including for women and children, depending on the social dynamics. (Women had a lot more freedom in pagan Northern and Western Europe than in Christian Europe or Hellenic Pagan Europe, for instance)

It’s just that the next town over was a day’s walk in good weather. Farmers often traveled to the nearest actual town to trade, or went a week out to several towns over, trading along the way, coming home just as laden but now with stuff they needed and didn’t grow/raise/make themselves.

 

[Tonguez]

Record keeping is pretty iffy for much of history, so I make no claim of authority.

However, assume 30% of people went on pilgrimage in their lifetime. Another 5% were traders that went farther than a few villages over (for most of history 90% were farmers). It's a lot, but still less than the majority.

While this thread has concentrated on pilgrimage, the most common reason for travel was in fact war with regular musters of normal folk being led north to fight the Scots, or south to fight the French. Its estimated there were maybe 15,000 English troops at the Battle of Crecy (and that was just one battle in the Hundred Years War).

We also see many mercenary ‘Free companies’ rising from the 11th century following the fall of feudalism, population increase and Muslim conquest of western mediterranean (Italy, Spain etc). The population increases meant that many younger sons of noble families were spare and pursued mercenary work to occupy their time.

War also lead to displacement of farmers who were forced to flee the warzones to the city and subsequent rise of bourgeoisie (both merchants and mercenaries) free from the landbased nobility and instead working in a market economy. IMHO DnD adventure parties are mercenary companies of this type, the idea that PCs are peasants another anachronism.

Also In England at least you have the meeting of Parliament and gathering of the House of Lords and their retinues. The Royal Court was also highly mobile (and still is)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While this thread has concentrated on pilgrimage, the most common reason for travel was in fact war with regular musters of normal folk being led north to fight the Scots, or south to fight the French. Its estimated there were maybe 15,000 English troops at the Battle of Crecy (and that was just one battle in the Hundred Years War).

We also see many mercenary ‘Free companies’ rising from the 11th century following the fall of feudalism, population increase and Muslim conquest of western mediterranean (Italy, Spain etc). The population increases meant that many younger sons of noble families were spare and pursued mercenary work to occupy their time.

War also lead to displacement of farmers who were forced to flee the warzones to the city and subsequent rise of bourgeoisie (both merchants and mercenaries) free from the landbased nobility and instead working in a market economy. IMHO DnD adventure parties are mercenary companies of this type, the idea that PCs are peasants another anachronism.

Also In England at least you have the meeting of Parliament and gathering of the House of Lords and their retinues. The Royal Court was also highly mobile (and still is)

While you can argue that war is the most common reason for travel, I think it ignores a lot of factors. Like, most farmers traveled short distances once or more a year, at some points in pre-modern history.

As in many aspects of history, war gets the headlines, but trade arguably has at least as much, if not vastly more, of an impact on how history plays out, and especially on how people live their lives and organize themselves.