Medieval Warfare and its Effects on Society/Economics

[Celebrim]

So what I largely take away from this, is to just do as I see fit in my world.

That is and always has been the prerogative of the Game Master.

Since it's not really going to be set to any time period it doesn't really matter how historically accurate I am trying to be.

Any historical rigor you apply to the setting is always only to make yourself happy. My advice on this is usually to use history as a resource to increase the richness and texture of the setting, and not as a straight jacket that limits your creativity. For a fantasy game, history ought to be inspirational and not proscription.

That said, part of the reason the Greyhawk map is such a better map than many of the fantasy D&D maps that came after it, was Gygax was through his background in historical wargaming much better prepared to create a pastiche of historical and Medieval culture in particular in all of its richness than many later authors were.

I guess I just think of WW1 and WW2 and how much they effected entire countries and I want to carry that over into my world.

It's my opinion that most people are incapable of truly imagining a culture more than one or two centuries removed from their own, and so whenever they create 'historical fiction' they almost inevitably imagine that the historical world they are imagining was a lot like what they think the world was like 100 or 200 years ago. Thus, Greyhawk was at the same time both a Medieval culture (based on Gygax's writing) and at same time the Old West of 19th Century America, which was the romantic past as Gygax understood it. Gygax however was at least conscious of this, where as many other D&D writers (and many writers in other mediums as well) haven't had the education to actually be conscious of their anachronisms.

Write what you know, but I would encourage you also to read widely in history - it helps you be a better GM by helping you present a more believable, more alive, and more interesting world.

 

[Celebrim]

I may be wrong but I think historians claiming eastern-Roman Late Antiquity and western-post-Roman Dark Ages for the Middle Ages is a fairly recent development. It doesn't make much intuitive sense to lump the migration period in with feudal & bastard-medieval societies, but they do it anyway.

Since the people living in the period didn't think of it as the Middle Ages, the whole question is highly subjective and is not and cannot be a settled question among historians. I was careful to define the Middle Ages as I define it. I'm happy to defend why I define it as that to anyone, and why I don't accept that the 'Early Middle Ages' or 'Dark Ages' really are not distinctive enough from the 'High/Late Middle Ages' that they should not be thought of as a separate period.

I mean, this whole demarcation ultimately comes down to us by way of Renaissance propaganda writers who were wanting to justify their break from the past, and so wanted to denigrate the whole period which came before them. They weren't really interested in actually analyzing that period as much as advocating for cultural revolution.

And my choice of 'The Black Death' is that is really what killed the culture. You'll note that some historians will date the start of the Renaissance much earlier than they date the end of the Middle Ages, which really doesn't make a lot of sense. The Renaissance, however you date the start, represents a 'clean break' - a deliberate cultural upheaval by a group of people asserting that they belong to a new historical era and very often saying just that.

 

[S'mon]

I think AD 800 Coronation of Charlemagne is a reasonable start point, though large parts of western Europe are still pre-feudal at the time, so AD 1000 is popular; AD 1066 in England for the Battle of Hastings. As for the end, 1453 Fall of Constantinople is popular, in England it's more 1485 Battle of Bosworth.

Most academic historians seem to want to go straight from the end of the Western Roman Empire - which most of them call a 'transition' (LOL) - to the Middle Ages.

 

[Umbran]

Any historical rigor you apply to the setting is always only to make yourself happy. My advice on this is usually to use history as a resource to increase the richness and texture of the setting, and not as a straight jacket that limits your creativity. For a fantasy game, history ought to be inspirational and not proscription.

There is something to be said for referring to history not for "rigor" but for verisimilitude and plausibility. History can help us build a world in which in-game events have consequences that make sense.

While noting...

It's my opinion that most people are incapable of truly imagining a culture more than one or two centuries removed from their own, and so whenever they create 'historical fiction' they almost inevitably imagine that the historical world they are imagining was a lot like what they think the world was like 100 or 200 years ago.

...that this is a fair point. This extends to your players, and their expectations. If you employ what seems to you to be reasonable consequences to events based on more distant history... they are less likely to be things your players will be able to plan for and interact with.

The point is to provide a rich and interactive world for your players - historical precedent may result in results that are plausible to a historian, but feels arbitrary and unexpected to the players, as they are more steeped in the romantic view of it, rather than the realistic view.

Write what you know, but remember your audience.

 

[jasper]

Viking Weapons & Warfare ~ J. Kim Siddorn
War of the Roses: A Concise History ~ Charles Ross
The Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the "Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Ricardi" ~ Translator - Helen Nicholson
The Conquest of Constantinople ~ Robert of Clari, Translator - Edgar Holmes
The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation ~ Peter W. Edbury
Here are some titles

 

[dragoner]

Once you get to the mongols, the warfare is purely apocalyptic; however, I'd also put disease and religion as top influences on the era.

 

[Bluenose]

Once you get to the mongols, the warfare is purely apocalyptic; however, I'd also put disease and religion as top influences on the era.

The Black Death certainly killed more people and disrupted society more than any of the wars - possibly all of the wars combined, with the exceptions of one or two local campaign specifically aimed at the total eradication of a particular society (Charlemagne against the pagan Saxons, roughly where I'd start the "middle ages"; the failure of the Hussite crusades at the other end).

Something to consider is that warfare in the medieval period is characterised not by battles or sieges, but by raids. That doesn't always mean the raid is restricted to a region close to the border. The Great Chevauchee (led by John of Gaunt of Shakespeare fame) crossed France from Calais to the English king's territories in Gascony, looting and pillaging much of the way. Other armies covered equal or longer distances in their raids (in eastern Europe, Mongol successor states raided extensively, and did so for centuries). In other parts of the world raiding was more local, but where the borders were stable it could go on for long enough that the border regions basically developed farmer-warriors who lived in fortified villages and expected to engage in a certain amount of raiding or raid-defence every year. The impact on the population and wealth of eastern Europe was much greater from those centuries of persistent raiding for loot, slaves and random destruction than the effect on France of one great expedition. Yet persistence over time isn't necessarily going to do that much damage - the Viking raids lasted for a couple of centuries and England came out of them as one of Europe's wealthier kingdoms (Scotland didn't, but Scotland was poor before they began and didn't regress noticeably). Effectively you can say there's no "front line", and an army can appear anywhere; but that unless you're unlucky enough to be in that army's path you probably don't notice much effect; and if it comes by again next year and rides over you, then you're going to develop defences to make that harder and a society where most people are able to defend themselves and those that aren't have moved somewhere safer.

 

[dragoner]

The Black Death certainly killed more people and disrupted society more than any of the wars ...

... in eastern Europe, Mongol successor states raided extensively, and did so for centuries ...

The Black Death was one of a series of plagues, classical urban civilization is often considered to have fallen due to the Plague of Justinian: Plague of Justinian - Wikipedia

As an Eastern Euro, I can say the coming of groups, such as the Avars, which conquered many states and forced them into vassalage in the early middle ages, ends with the Apocalypse of the Mongols where entire states, and peoples are destroyed, such as Vladimir: Mongol invasion of Europe - Wikipedia Countless times there are cities, castles, and such were one reads this was a thriving place until destroyed in the 13th century and did not recover, or did so many centuries later. Yes, the Tatar powers lasted well into the 19th century; Moscow is stone because the Tartars with Turkish artillery burned it to the ground, leading away thousands of captives, millions over the centuries. In comparison, western history is almost viewed as Charle-who?

 

[Sotik]

@Bluenose that's pretty much what I had in mind. The idea is that the two kingdoms use to be at war over land rights. They fought many wars along this channel where now stands many war torn buildings.

Recently the High Priest of the ruling religion kingdom A had the long killed and disguised it as an assassination by kingdom B. The High Priest due to a old by law that gives him control until a successor can be found now rules as the King Priest, a role he doesnt intend to give up. He plans to ensure this with the war so hes gave decree to all of the Lord's of the kingdom to send their forces to help aid those along the border.

So when the players come in, there will be this area that sees constant fighting, raiding, quick in and out attacks, small scale stuff. My only thing is that I want this war to feel big, and huge to my players to the poimt that even if they're within the heart hundreds of miles away, they can still feel it.

But as has been said, I guess that's just me looking at WW1 and WW2 and feeling that wars always had an effect. I still plan on doing this, but clearly what I had in my head has no historical bearing lol. Oh well, I'll embrace the romanticism of it and run.

 

[Bluenose]

Recently the High Priest of the ruling religion kingdom A had the long killed and disguised it as an assassination by kingdom B. The High Priest due to a old by law that gives him control until a successor can be found now rules as the King Priest, a role he doesnt intend to give up. He plans to ensure this with the war so hes gave decree to all of the Lord's of the kingdom to send their forces to help aid those along the border.

So when the players come in, there will be this area that sees constant fighting, raiding, quick in and out attacks, small scale stuff. My only thing is that I want this war to feel big, and huge to my players to the poimt that even if they're within the heart hundreds of miles away, they can still feel it.

Take a look at Spain, either in the era of the Allmoravids or Almohads (or some of the wars of the Reconquista). Make the two sides a little more united than they historically were, but keep the central monarchy rather weak (not unreasonable for the period). Most wars will be between local rulers, and there's a shifting border across which raiding is quite common. Then one side gets an influx of religious fervour (perhaps including outsiders) and a leader who promises to finally destroy the infidel. There's your extreme national effort with effects felt across the whole region (on both sides) building up to some form of climactic experience (and then fizzling out into more of the same, just with different people in charge and a larger change in the borders).