Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[slwoyach]

I don't know how anyone who has seen Pirates of the Caribbean could possibly say muskets and fantasy don't mix.

 

[pawsplay]

Admittedly, I should have defined castles when I made my statement but you are really stretching the definition of castles if you include modern military bases.

By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). Fortifications became purely military and changed considerably in look.

But harkening back to various lengthy threads on the effect of magic on castles (let alone gunpowder), it would be necessary to define more clearly what is meant by castle to take this farther. I will observe that most castle books I can find end their coverage around the 1600s. I would also observe that most gamers won't call any 'modern' fortifications castles probably going back at least into the 1800s and probably much earlier. Vaubhan's forts are cool but not very castle-ish to my eye, for instance and he was active in the 1600s.

Certainly effective cannons meant tall curtain walls were both easily knocked down and unsuitable for mounting cannons. Same for tall dungeons. Those would probably be two important castle-elements for many. If you like, start a new thread but please take a stab at defining what you mean by a castle.

Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly. Everything from a stone-covered mud fort built in the 9th century to a multi-walled coastal fortress is a "castle." But if you add rebar inside the walls, and put barbed wire on top, it's suddently "not a castle." Is that basically where things stand?

Because if you're saying castles weren't built after the 16th century because something built after the 16th century is not a castle, that rather begs the question. The primary difference between a fort and a castle is that someone lives in a castle. While I am willing to accept that some people would not consider the fortified palaces in Baghdad to be Saddam Hussein's castles, I find it difficult to discern a really strong working definition that would exclude them.

But let's sidestep the issue. Even in the face of the most modern weapons, stone and concrete continue to be used as defenses. That's really what we were talking about. If perhaps we have migrated from "castles" to "military bases," I think the strategic situation remains very similar.

 

[Celebrim]

Since, if there's anything I've learned here, people tend not to really know the history in the first place.

If that was what I'd primarily learned from EnWorld, I'd not participate. And presumably, you are excluding yourself from this summary judgment...

But, anyway, it's not what I've learned about EnWorld. What I've learned about EnWorld is basically what I would have expected to learn, namely, that its filled with the usual collection of history geeks and reinactors who revel in and argue about historical minutea almost endlessly. I suppose that you could say that is my bias though, since I discovered only what I expected to discover. If I had a different bias, maybe I'd have confirmed that expectation as well.

In any event, my decision to not have firearms is based on history. A firearm in my setting would be an anachronism.

But, it wouldn't be an anachronism in the way you think, because - as I've emphasized - the relationship of real history to my campaign setting is only tangental. A firearm might not have been anachronistic in 14th century Europe, but it certainly would be anachronism in the 937th year since the fall of the Fourth Empire on the world of Sartha. Not, I might note, because it would be the appearance of something that hasn't been invented yet, but because this is not an era in which magic is sufficiently advanced to have the appearance of technology nor is technology sufficiently advanced to have magical qualities. Of course, on Sartha, they wouldn't make that distinguishment. Magic to them is technology, and conversely technology is magic. Therefore, objects which seem technological are anachronistic - because they belong to the past of the world (and not necessarily, though possibly, its future). Someone might have, indeed someone somewhere will certainly have, a wand that shoots bullets or fiery explosions, but 'magic' as accessible and ordinary as something that is or emulates a firearm isn't current to the world's era.

Now of course, in a sense, a wand that shoots bullets is 'high tech' to an observer from the 21st century of our world. Or at least, its 'arcane', which is roughly the same thing. But the important point is that the 21st century observer doesn't tend to think of it that way, whereas they do tend to think that guns are 'high tech' but not 'arcane' (but rather 'mundane'). This is that tangental relationship that I talked about. I'm not concerned about whether the players think of the campaign world as being 'in the past', because that's a meaningless distinction considering Sartha is not Earth and isn't even in the same universe. I'm concerned with conveying to them the sense that magic is not so prevelant at the current time to be considered by the inhabitants of Sartha to be fully mundane and understandable, and is not employed by them (or leveraged by them) in a way that is industrial, mechanized, and scientific. Magic is at the present time (on Sartha) still a bit more of an art than it is a craft, much less that it is the basis of or element of the practice of every craft (the way technology and science are at present on Earth). The time when magic was equivalent to every craft and every craft was equivalent to magic was long ago. In such an age, something like a firearm wouldn't be anachronistic. But as I said, the Age of the Art Mages was very long ago.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Going by memory, even though the setting book is under a pile of stuff in front of me, in Forbidden Kingdoms firearms have a critical threat range of 18-20, and are only x2 critical. Considering that critical hits go directly to wound points in that setting . . .

 

[Haltherrion]

Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly. Everything from a stone-covered mud fort built in the 9th century to a multi-walled coastal fortress is a "castle." But if you add rebar inside the walls, and put barbed wire on top, it's suddently "not a castle." Is that basically where things stand?

Because if you're saying castles weren't built after the 16th century because something built after the 16th century is not a castle, that rather begs the question. The primary difference between a fort and a castle is that someone lives in a castle. While I am willing to accept that some people would not consider the fortified palaces in Baghdad to be Saddam Hussein's castles, I find it difficult to discern a really strong working definition that would exclude them.

But let's sidestep the issue. Even in the face of the most modern weapons, stone and concrete continue to be used as defenses. That's really what we were talking about. If perhaps we have migrated from "castles" to "military bases," I think the strategic situation remains very similar.

Yes, I think by the time you start putting re-bar in the masonry, I wouldn't call it a castle. I doubt I'm all that unusual in this view.

The problem here is a lack of jointly agreed definition. Your definition seems to tend toward what I would class a military fortification and, no, I do not claim military fortifications ceased to exist in the 1600s. As I already noted earlier in this thread, my definition tends to include a fortification used as a lordly residence, and yes, I am aware this is fuzzy. Royal castles like the Edwardian Welsh ones seem like castles to me but did not host a local lord in the classic medieval sense.

Beyond that, it can be hard to define a castle which is why I started the more light-hearted poll, along the lines of, "I know a castle when I see it."

Despite the imprecision of the word castle, most players I know would tend towards definitions I'm comfortable with. Maybe my players are all odd-balls thus I started another thread where folks can post what they think. But if asked to draw a picture of a castle, how many FRPG gamers are going to draw the Maginot fortifications or Verdun? Or even a 1500s star fort? If given a bunch of pictures of military forts over the ages, it is my suspicious (thus my poll) that people will tend to select stone, lordly castles of the European Middle Ages over forts of other ages. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to stick my neck out and let people vote/comment.

Personally, once trace italienne forts started coming to the fore in the 1450s and on, I don't think of those military fortifications as castles. But I do tend to think of Deal Castle as a castle, albeit borderline and it was almost a hundred years later.

I really don't think my views are too unusual. I can't think of a castle book I've read, casual history or more formal, that runs much past the 1400s. Most fortications (all?) after the 1500s are called forts not castles. There are some palaces called castles built later, but they don't make a pretense of being a military structure.

From the wikipedia article on castle:
"A castle (from Latin castellum) is a type of fortified structure built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. Scholars debate the scope of the word castle, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a fortress, which was not a home, and from a fortified town, which was a public defence, though there are many similarities between these types of construction. The term has been popularly applied to structures as diverse as hill forts and country houses. Over the approximately 900 years that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, although some, such as curtain walls and arrowslits, were commonplace."

This is pretty well aligned with what I hopefully and trying to convey. It doesn't seem to leave room for Renaissance fortifications.

 

[turnip]

...

By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). ...

Even so, firearms were introduced to the West by the late 1300s, as already sourced many times in the thread, and had come into regular use by the mid 1400s. So that leaves us with firearms and castles coexisting for at minimum a good 300 years...

 

[jonesy]

if there are guns and gun powder, why are there castles?

Personally, once trace italienne forts started coming to the fore in the 1450s and on, I don't think of those military fortifications as castles. But I do tend to think of Deal Castle as a castle, albeit borderline and it was almost a hundred years later.

Deal Castle is an artillery fortress. By which I do not mean that it is not a castle. I mean it's a castle specifically designed for cannon warfare. The walls were designed to deflect cannon fire, while giving Deal's own gunners good coverage of the battlefield. So, are you arguing for or against castles+cannons?

 

[pawsplay]

Yes, I think by the time you start putting re-bar in the masonry, I wouldn't call it a castle. I doubt I'm all that unusual in this view.

The problem here is a lack of jointly agreed definition. Your definition seems to tend toward what I would class a military fortification and, no, I do not claim military fortifications ceased to exist in the 1600s. As I already noted earlier in this thread, my definition tends to include a fortification used as a lordly residence, and yes, I am aware this is fuzzy. Royal castles like the Edwardian Welsh ones seem like castles to me but did not host a local lord in the classic medieval sense.

Beyond that, it can be hard to define a castle which is why I started the more light-hearted poll, along the lines of, "I know a castle when I see it."

Despite the imprecision of the word castle, most players I know would tend towards definitions I'm comfortable with. Maybe my players are all odd-balls thus I started another thread where folks can post what they think. But if asked to draw a picture of a castle, how many FRPG gamers are going to draw the Maginot fortifications or Verdun? Or even a 1500s star fort? If given a bunch of pictures of military forts over the ages, it is my suspicious (thus my poll) that people will tend to select stone, lordly castles of the European Middle Ages over forts of other ages. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to stick my neck out and let people vote/comment.

Personally, once trace italienne forts started coming to the fore in the 1450s and on, I don't think of those military fortifications as castles. But I do tend to think of Deal Castle as a castle, albeit borderline and it was almost a hundred years later.

I really don't think my views are too unusual. I can't think of a castle book I've read, casual history or more formal, that runs much past the 1400s. Most fortications (all?) after the 1500s are called forts not castles. There are some palaces called castles built later, but they don't make a pretense of being a military structure.

From the wikipedia article on castle:
"A castle (from Latin castellum) is a type of fortified structure built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. Scholars debate the scope of the word castle, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a fortress, which was not a home, and from a fortified town, which was a public defence, though there are many similarities between these types of construction. The term has been popularly applied to structures as diverse as hill forts and country houses. Over the approximately 900 years that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, although some, such as curtain walls and arrowslits, were commonplace."

This is pretty well aligned with what I hopefully and trying to convey. It doesn't seem to leave room for Renaissance fortifications.

But that's not really the point. The point is high, strong walls that repel cannon-fire.

And as for the manorial system itself, there is no reason to suppose that guns, fireballs, or dragons would preclude feudaliam. The disappearance of castles, in the medieval-y sense, has little to do with cannons, and more to do with the evolution of feudalism into monarchy.

When I said there are still castles today, I was making the point that functionally, the situations that caused us to build castles still do. In politically and militarily precarious regions, we still create fortified, walled enclosures, staffed and provisioned for self-sufficiency, that expresses the political authority of its builder over the surrounding area. What is a police station, if not a castle? An army base? A mlitary dictator's palace?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Actually, when guns came onto the scene, castles first got very large. And guess what? We still build castles now. We just call them forts, or bases, or security zones.

Though the fort changed drastically after the use of cannon became widespread - the snowflake and rose forts of the times of the Tudors through the American Revolution.

Some of the Spanish forts of the period kept the square tower keep design, even in the New World, the blind spots caused more than one fort to fail in its purpose. Getting a ship of the line into the right angle meant that it could fire upon the fort with impunity.

As for the fall of feudalism... part of the blame rests on the crossbow - the key to Swiss independence, among other things. Easy to train, with bolts that could go through a knight's best armor, the crossbowman changed the field of battle.

The Auld Grump

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Though the fort changed drastically after the use of cannon became widespread - the snowflake and rose forts of the times of the Tudors through the American Revolution.

Some of the Spanish forts of the period kept the square tower keep design, even in the New World, the blind spots caused more than one fort to fail in its purpose. Getting a ship of the line into the right angle meant that it could fire upon the fort with impunity.

As for the fall of feudalism... part of the blame rests on the crossbow - the key to Swiss independence, among other things. Easy to train, with bolts that could go through a knight's best armor, the crossbowman changed the field of battle.

The Auld Grump

It wasn't even the crossbow - it was the pike.

1e had five million different polearms that lead to the death of feudalism...and not a single gun, because they wanted to ensure feudalism. ;p