d&d and terrorism

[Imperialus]

Terrorisem is a terribly ill defined word praticularly in a quasi medeval setting where little or no distinction would be made between civilians and combatants. It was concidered common practice to slash and burn crops, wipe towns off the map and all maner of other nasty things. Unconventional warfare was also almost unheard of. Remember up untill the late 18th century nationalisem which is the root cause of most terrorist acts today simply didn't exist. There wasn't much point in fighting your opressor since chances were your opressor lived across the continant and couldn't really care less if you set fire to a village or burned a few crops. Remember all of europe was devided between a half dozen or so royal families who in the case of the Hapsburgs for example held most of Eastern Europe. Do you really think they could care less if a bunch of Romanian farmers were angry that they were being ruled from Vienna? No. Would the aformentioned farmers have the means to get to Vienna and either have their grivances heard or to set fire to the city? No. Your average pesant traveled less than 20 miles from his home over the course of his entire life. I know people who's commutes are longer than that. If two states or even provinces or duchies or whatever within a state went to war with each other then the peasants were usually caught in the middle but the higher ups couldn't honestly care less if the pesantry lived each day in absolute fear for their lives. Fear of terrorisem even if it did exist would probably rank pretty low on their list of fears of famine, desease, wild animals, war, witches, Satan, faries, bandits, injury, and all the other factors that cheerfully made the average life expecancy of the 3rd estate somewhere around the ripe old age of 35. If they heard stories about bad men with torches burning crops and murdering villagers their responce would probably be something like; "You mean we're at war again? Who's side is killing us?"

 

[MaxKaladin]

{SNIP}There wasn't much point in fighting your opressor since chances were your opressor lived across the continant and couldn't really care less if you set fire to a village or burned a few crops. {SNIP}

Well, the more immediate lord might have cared because it meant less income and, if it went on, made him look like he couldn't protect his lands.

I think the one reason you didn't see so much terrorism in the old days is that people back then were much more ruthless and brutal in dealing with it. I think a medieval or ancient population under attack by terrorists would have simply started killing anyone identifiably from whatever group the terrorists were supposedly associated with, regardless of guilt or innocence and with no regard for anything approaching civil rights. They would protect their safety by getting rid of the whole group and, hopefully, the terrorists among them. Likewise, I think rulers faced by a group using terrorism to advance a particular cause would be perfectly willing to commit unspeakable crimes against those thought to be connected with the terrorists or their cause in any way, including things like depopulating a whole region or killing or deporting everyone of a particular region if the cause was regional or religious.

Basically, I think terrorism works these days because terrorists aren't dealing with the likes of Imperial Rome.

 

[jester47]

My definition was:

Any politically or economically motivated action that makes a spectacle out of the death of a target.

I just want to point out that that capital punishment, anti-abortion rallies, and bullfighting can all be construed as terrorism by this definition.

Quite right. Bad wording on my part. Here is what I meant to say:

Any politically or economically motivated attack that makes an intentional spectacle out of the death of the target and is typically associated with a demand of some sort.

Aaron

 

[Munin]

Hmm, so much goodness I don't even know where to start...

Steel_Wind, good point about escalation: you don't need to start off with fancy magic spells to wreak havoc. For a terror offensive like that, though, I imagine an oppressed minority or racial group as the main culprit. Imagine the lowly yet cunning kobold or goblin resorting to something like this. Given the rate of reproduction among them, sacrificing a few shock teams would seem like a small price to pay to hold a human city in the grip of terror.

Another aspect of modern terrorism that we haven't touched on is religion. Almost every terrorist group in the past 50 years has had some connection to religion. Which only makes sense; people likely find it easier to send themselves to the afterlife if they think there is something awaiting them on the other side.
In d&d, this could neatly solve the problem of funding. A mainstream religion may be willing to secretly fund a radical offshoot with magic and gold in order to achieve its own ends at a safe distance.

Now the wagons filled with oil blocking off the exits, that's good stuff, bro.

Making the situation morally iffy will satisfy some of the roleplayers in my group who love to tangle with such questions, and oppression of the exploited minority by the Powers That Be will most certainly come in to it. But I find it more satisfying to have the terrorists themselves be the ones who are using the minority group to its own ends.
After all, at the end of the day, my group just wants to whack the bad guy, and I'm all for giving them what they want!

 

[jester47]

I think by necessity war in the medieval ages was more terroristic than it was durring and after the english renaissance. Making a spectacle of death to strike fear into the populace was part of the course in those days. Ghengis Khan comes to mind. Word still travelled, and when you have a rep for being nasty, people become more submissive.

Aaron.

 

[Munin]

All archeological evidence points to the fact that Nazareth was not a town until 150CE

Not exactly.
The fact is, Jesus was called "Nazarene" because he was from Nazareth.
But, I see you've played the Fancy Title card, so I acquiesce to your superior education.

Those are all relatively readable for the layperson.

Thanks.

Munin
Some guy.

 

[DM_Matt]

A vampire who is able to produce the appropriate weaponry can pull off the delivery quite well. He can quickly and efficiently turn any com1 into, certain restrictions aside, what would be the ultimate delivery system. Between great sneaking, domination, senses, DR, FH, and offensive powers, it isnt hard to get to the target. And either the weapon can do enough damage to kill most of the targets but not enough to kill the vamp, or he blows himself up, thus turning gaseous and getting away. Of course, even still, they are 100% loyal, expendable, and easy to produce anyway, so he doesnt have to be able to escape.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Terrorisem is a terribly ill defined word praticularly in a quasi medeval setting where little or no distinction would be made between civilians and combatants. It was concidered common practice to slash and burn crops, wipe towns off the map and all maner of other nasty things. Unconventional warfare was also almost unheard of.

First off, I think there were is a fortress called Massada and a big monument to William Wallace north of Hadrian's Wall that demonstrate that people certainly DID care who their rulers were. Be it under a Roman Emperor or an English King. There are dozens and dozens of other examples.

While we might equate one robber baron with another using a Marxist class analysis, for the most part, the inhabitants of the era did not see it that way. They had other concerns as to how to keep score. (Religion as ideology, primarily; language was also important in the late medieval period.)

Terrorism played a role there too, as the wars became more "popular" in sentiment, and less motivated by mere greed. The focus of the terror was not necessarily aimed at destabilizing the state (though sometimes it was). It certainly was aimed at driving out the unwanted. Sometimes they called it persecution or pogroms when it was state sponsored. Sometimes we now call it mob violence or sectarian when it was not. (America was initially settled by crackpot religious fanatics for a reason). Most of the time - they just called it rebellion.

As for not drawing a distinction between combatants and non-combatants in medieval times - this is patently untrue. There certainly was such a distinction, throughout Europe, Arabia, China and throughout Japan. You've been watching too many movies.

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of "total war" in the 20th century was a relatively unheard of targeting of civilians and industry as legitimate military targets.

While scorched earth and what might be termed as "ethnic cleansing" certainly did occur - and frequently in European history - ethnic cleansing primarily occurred when a foe could not be conquered and occupied, or language groups and religions greatly differed. But as the Dark Ages ended (Fall of Rome to end of the Viking invasions) and the medieval era began, these sorts of cleansings were rare within Western (Catholic) Europe.

To some extent that continued in Eastern and South Central Europe - but that's when you throw Christianity vs. Islam and Caucasian vs. Turk into the mix. Add the Hun for spice. Whatever justified massive ideological and cultural difference made inhumanity easier to justify. Then it got ugly.

But in the areas we think of as "Medieval Europe"? No.