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

[Rykion]

I feel you have pretty much everything backwards. For example, the fact that the majority of people's time was devoted to subsistence farming maintained the harsh conditions of serfdom.

The problem is that the serfs didn't own the land and only got to keep what was allowed by the nobles. Plenty of non-nobles in the ancient world had less technology, but lived above subsistence level because they kept more of what they created. Innovation eventually improved the common people's lot, but it was social/political as well as farming innovation.

And the heavy cavalry existed because in the wake of the collapse of Rome, it was the most effective military force in the area. The heavy cavalry created the Counts and Dukes and Barons.

It's still a chicken or the egg kind of dynamic. Nobles needed heavy cavalry to exist, and heavy cavalry wouldn't exist in such numbers without the nobles. Heavy cavalry is certainly elite and probably the best ancient/medieval unit 1:1, but the cost to train and equip each cavalryman compared to other troop types was much higher than that ratio.

I still disagree.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, and let this get back on topic.

During the high period of the Vikings there weren't much in the way of towns in most of northern Europe, and settlements certainly did have local militia - but they were not effective vs Viking warriors. To stop them stealing your pigs - first you had to outnumber the Vikings at least 5:1, then you had to corner them, and then they'd kill or maim several of you for every one of them you killed. It usually wasn't worth it - the cost was too high to kill raiders who'd be gone soon anyway.

I would suggest that well trained and equipped militia would have been more effective, and better serve the purpose. If the Vikings regularly faced armed resistance they would move on to easier pickings.

 

[Hereticus]

Castles make perfect sense, in both low and high magic games. Definitely in low magic, because of their defensive capability. Now for the high magic justification:

No ancient and powerful creature would attack the castle of a known high level character for fear of its own survival. Sure it may do a quick sneak attack or two then run, or a raid on surrounding lands. But it would not stick around long in open combat waiting for the eventual sneak attack to get it. It did not survive a thousand years just to die in futility.

Second, nobody even in today's world builds a military base without its own air cover. Sure a surprise attack by air will do damage, but the defender should have a horde of defenders to fight against an attacking horde. A low to mid level horde attack is no serious threat.

Regarding my first comment, I would not waste my horde against an ancient dragon or a flying lich at night.

In defending my castle, my most valuable assets (henchmen) are well hidden in extra-dimensional rooms. As son as the attack comes, the fodders and some mid-level defenders will be lost. But i will take out the leaders with my own sneak attacks.

 

[Celebrim]

The problem is that the serfs didn't own the land and only got to keep what was allowed by the nobles.

Are you trying to define 'serfdom' to me? Do you seriously think I need a definition of serfdom?

Plenty of non-nobles in the ancient world had less technology, but lived above subsistence level because they kept more of what they created.

Name one. Name any ancient world agricultural civilization were the majority of peoples weren't a) slaves and b) subsistance farmers. Or, name any ancient world agricultural civilization that had less technology and higher standard of living than Europe which also had small amounts of arable land and a short growing season.

Innovation eventually improved the common people's lot, but it was social/political as well as farming innovation.

Well, I'm not sure that the common people were really that much better off under Nationalist Monarchies than they were bondsman to feudal lords. The various changes in the political structure did little to effect the lot in life of peasant farmers, and the most notable result of the collapse of the feudal structure was a great increase in wealth disparity. The rich certainly got richer as income expanded, and a true middle class began to grow, but it was a while yet before slavery would be ended or prosperity reached every level of society. Still widespread serfdom was itself a gradual social/political innovation that replaced the traditional slave based models of the ancient world. The manor was the natural outgrowth of the insula/plantation. The manorial system itself was marked the gradual acquisition of greater civil rights by the coloni, principally the not to be underestimated right not to be sold away like cattle. But I'm highly skeptical of the notion that Northern Europe had sufficient agricultural production prior to the 13th century to support Greek or Roman style heavy infantry militaries made up of free citizens (the free citizens themselves each being supported by the labors of large slave plantations) even if the social/political model had existed, or of the notion that stirrup based heavy cavalry was not the natural dominate military arm from the collapse of the Roman empire to the introduction of massed missile fire, cannon, and so forth during the late middle ages. And I'm highly skeptical of the notion that social/political innovation alone, divorsed from the innovations in agricultural production, would have done much to improve the lot of the European peasantry. If you want to talk about social innovation that had a real impact on the lives of the poor, you have to talk about things like the Cistercians - and even then that folds back into innovations in productivity.

 

[Haltherrion]

This makes treachery by far the most attractive way to take a fortification. This suggests that magic that ensures loyalty will be very powerful -- things like Zones of Truth or a Mark of Justice triggered by treacherous acts. Something like the Oath Rod from the Wheel of Time series by Jordan would be seen as almost a necessity.

I'd add a 4th method: subterfuge and stealth which can look much like treachery (someone opens a gate somewhere). A small group of higher level commandos (aka adventurers) can accomplish the same thing as treachery in many cases. so to your "big brother magic" one would add the anti-intruder magic as well.

Seems to me you couldn't make that bullet proof so, like a modern naval ship, you would also seek to compartmentalize so that the loss of a section of the fortress by treachery or guile did not compromise the whole structure.

Maybe a fortress composed of multiple medium size towers rather than a large keep. This path might separate a lords dwelling from a military fortification since in a compartmentalized scheme, a big open hall and convenient chambers might be best in a separate, non-compartmentalized structure. A fortification that also serves as a lord's dwelling is more a feature of Medieval Europe in any case.

 

[S'mon]

I would suggest that well trained and equipped militia would have been more effective, and better serve the purpose. If the Vikings regularly faced armed resistance they would move on to easier pickings.

The Vikings had the following advantages over their usual opposition:

1. Size/physique
2. Equipment - chainmail especially
3. Weapons Training

Potential disadvantages: inferior numbers, lack of cavalry.

Not much could be done about #1 given differentials in diet, climate etc. #2 & #3 could be countered by developing a class of professional warriors - knights, sometimes themselves of Norse origin (Normans).

It wasn't the case that peasants were deliberately kept disarmed, untrained and helpless in the face of Viking raiders. Usually the opposite was true - the local lord would be trying to get the peasants to train and fight, more warriors for him = more power. And Yeomen and some peasants would themselves be descended from the Germanic warrior tribes who overran the Roman empire.

Look at Vikings vs Saxons in pre-Norman England. The Saxons were not much different from the raiding-then-invading Danes, their ancestors came from almost the same place! And the Saxons were willing and able to fight. Yet for hundreds of years their hirds were not effective against the Vikings; eventually under a great leader they did defeat the last great Viking invasion at Stanford Bridge, only to be then immediately overcome by the Normans: Vikings-with-cavalry.

 

[Rykion]

Are you trying to define 'serfdom' to me? Do you seriously think I need a definition of serfdom?

I'm sorry that you took offense. Nothing I wrote was meant as anything but discussion of a topic, well an off topic.

My position is simply that knighthood started as a way to guarantee that a nation had access to heavy cavalry. Ancient cavalrymen had to be well off to afford horses and gear, but it wasn't until around the time of Charlemagne that they formed a true noble class themselves. It was a good idea that worked, but a little too well. As the practice grew, knights became the dominant professional military force because of their political and social power.

I believe using the resources available to create a more balanced professional military that included well trained and equipped infantry as well as cavalry would have been more effective in most situations and more economical. The vast majority of people would still be serfs, but a freeholder class of relatively small landowners would have been able to provide the soldiery. Unfortunately, that class virtually disappeared as feudalism developed in Europe with the exception of the English yeoman.

The Vikings had the following advantages over their usual opposition:

1. Size/physique
2. Equipment - chainmail especially
3. Weapons Training

Potential disadvantages: inferior numbers, lack of cavalry.

Not much could be done about #1 given differentials in diet, climate etc. #2 & #3 could be countered by developing a class of professional warriors - knights, sometimes themselves of Norse origin (Normans).

It wasn't the case that peasants were deliberately kept disarmed, untrained and helpless in the face of Viking raiders. Usually the opposite was true - the local lord would be trying to get the peasants to train and fight, more warriors for him = more power. And Yeomen and some peasants would themselves be descended from the Germanic warrior tribes who overran the Roman empire.

I certainly agree with all of this. It's also important to point out that feudal states and the concepts of knighthood were still developing in the Viking Age. The concept of knights as the "true" professional soldier hadn't spread throughout Europe. The Vikings themselves were a good indication that a professional infantry force still had a place in warfare.

 

[Dausuul]

As the practice grew, knights became the dominant professional military force because of their political and social power.

That seems backwards. Why would any ruling class want to put itself on the battlefield if it could avoid it? I'm aware of the warrior culture that grew up around knighthood, but cultural ideals that run up against practical necessity tend to lose out over the long term. When crossbows became popular as an answer to armored knights, the Church pronounced anathema on their use against Christian foes; that didn't stop people from using crossbows, though, because they worked.

If a large force of lower-class infantry is more effective and economical than a small force of aristocratic cavalry, then any kingdom relying on the latter is at a double disadvantage. Not only is their army inferior militarily, but they've also got their leaders out in the field getting shot full of arrows and hacked up with swords, while the enemy leaders are sitting safe in camp plotting strategy. It's hard for me to believe that in a fragmented and warlike society such as feudal Europe, centuries would pass without anybody figuring this out.

If the aristocracy is doing the fighting, it's because the state of war-making technology demands expensive weapons and armor... or because the state of agricultural technology is so poor that only the aristocracy can afford to take time away from subsistence.

I find it much more credible that the political and social power of the knighthood arose from their military value than the other way around.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm sorry that you took offense.

I'm seldom actually offended by anything, I just wanted to nudge you away from 'Origins of Medieval Civilization' 101. I've read my Liber Historiae Francorum, my Charles Oman, etc. We can assume we have read our primary sources, taken the survey classes, etc. Let's assume as long as possible that we disagree over interpretation, and not the facts.

My position is simply that knighthood started as a way to guarantee that a nation had access to heavy cavalry.

There won't be much contriversy in that position.

As the practice grew, knights became the dominant professional military force because of their political and social power.

Dausuul has already said this, but that reverses the cause and effect of what you just stated in the previous sentences. The reverse claim, that Knights became the dominant political and social power because they were the dominant military force, follows directly from what you just stated.

The vast majority of people would still be serfs, but a freeholder class of relatively small landowners would have been able to provide the soldiery. Unfortunately, that class virtually disappeared as feudalism developed in Europe with the exception of the English yeoman.

Without getting into a long military disertation, I think you are again reversing cause and effect here. The essential question is, "Why didn't the English Yeoman disappear?" While the answer is complicated by many factors, I think for these purposes the answer, "Because almost alone of the European freeholder class, the English (and Welsh) yeoman offered military advantage comparable to mounted knight." is a pretty good one. And even so, its not clear that English Freeholders would have been wealthy enough to be able to equip themselves as heavy infantry and in the absence of widespread urbanization successfully drilled and practiced as such, or for that matter that small bands of dispersed heavy infantry would have been an appropriate strategic responce to the major military problems of the day. Had this been the case, you have to ask why didn't some enterprising Lord create more 'knights'/'freeholders' on smaller parcels of lands who were duty bound to equip themselves as heavy infantry. Or why did the Normans, having no prior cultural bias, so readily transform themselves in to a heavy cavalry culture instead of a heavy infantry one?

 

[S'mon]

England's lower population density and relative poverty when compared to continental Europe - especially France - might be one reason for the Yeoman's survival. It's notable that in Scotland, even poorer and more sparsely populated, knights were relatively unimportant and the spear Schiltron remained the dominant military element.

Another thought which occurs to me is that England was very unusual in feudal terms, with the whole country supposedly belonging to the King by right of conquest. This gave the King a vested interest in maintaining the 'rights and liberties' of non-noble elements as a counterbalance to the threat of noble power. And in general weaker nobles = stronger non-nobles = yeomen. In a pure feudal system the king is just another noble, perhaps not even the most powerful, and the nobility will tend to seek to turn all the non-urban population into serfs.

 

[Rykion]

That seems backwards. Why would any ruling class want to put itself on the battlefield if it could avoid it? I'm aware of the warrior culture that grew up around knighthood, but cultural ideals that run up against practical necessity tend to lose out over the long term. When crossbows became popular as an answer to armored knights, the Church pronounced anathema on their use against Christian foes; that didn't stop people from using crossbows, though, because they worked.

If a large force of lower-class infantry is more effective and economical than a small force of aristocratic cavalry, then any kingdom relying on the latter is at a double disadvantage. Not only is their army inferior militarily, but they've also got their leaders out in the field getting shot full of arrows and hacked up with swords, while the enemy leaders are sitting safe in camp plotting strategy. It's hard for me to believe that in a fragmented and warlike society such as feudal Europe, centuries would pass without anybody figuring this out.

If the aristocracy is doing the fighting, it's because the state of war-making technology demands expensive weapons and armor... or because the state of agricultural technology is so poor that only the aristocracy can afford to take time away from subsistence.

I find it much more credible that the political and social power of the knighthood arose from their military value than the other way around.

I didn't mean to imply that knights' political and social power came first. The practice I was talking about growing was the practice of heavy cavalryman moving from aristocrat to noble. This certainly happend because cavalry were an effective, and dashing, hammer to infantry's traditional anvil. Their gain in political power also commanded more power and resources for themselves on the battlefield. Limited resources guaranteed that cavalry's gain was infantry's loss, but eventually it led to almost complete neglect of infantry as a fighting arm.

The aristocracy and nobles have historically been a big source of commanders and soldiers. The nobility still largely lived by the sword, but knights certainly weren't the only troops on the battlefield. There were plenty of mostly poorly trained and equipped commoners as well. You'll also find that nobles were protected by chivalry and the system of ransom in ways commoners certainly weren't.

People as a whole aren't logical. Just because an idea or system becomes popular doesn't mean it is effective, economical, or true. Bloodletting was a medical treatment for thousands of years, no matter the fact it hurt in far more cases than it helped. Just because feudalism and knighthood became the status quo, doesn't mean it was one of the most effective systems possible. It was pretty cool though.

I also should re-emphasize that I'm saying the ideal force would be an army made up of a balance of units, not "a large force of lower-class infantry." Crossbows and guns were easy to use and so obviously effective that they served as a wake up call that there were other forms of useful military units. I feel that the military would have been better served and more economical with a better balance of forces all along. I do agree that the constraints of feudal Europe might have made it unfeasible.