Slavery, Rape, Madness and War!

On Medieval War:
I do owe an apology. I came off as a rude know-it-all. I just noticed that rereading it. I am one of those know-it-all people, but I didn't mean to be rude.
Anyway, the War of the Roses is an example of a civil war....

York, Salisbury and Warwick travelled towards London with three-thousand men at arms.

Typical English Longbowman Unit
In battle, the centuries (each with a hundred archers) would line up in formations of up to ten ranks deep. In front of each century would be an experienced (and very well paid) centenaur. A typical English army would have 50 or more centuries of archers available
(That's 5,000 bowmen)

There were never that many yeomen, some 10,000-20,000 were raised for each campaign.
(Never that many bowmen. They were expensive and highly trained, able to get off a dozen arrows in a minute. Each)

This was in 43 AD.....
A well planned invasion by 40,000 to 50,000 Roman soldiers took place in the summer of 43AD.

In BC Times.......
A 10,000 man expeditionary force, under the able Parmenio, one of Philip's most experienced combat commanders, was operating beyond the Hellaspont when Philip was assassinated.
//------//
337BC.
With the support of almost all Greece, Philip declared war on Persia. In the spring of 336 BC, Philip sent Attalus and Parmenion with the army of 10,000 men into Asia Minor to begin with the liberation of Greek coastal cities.
(Please note, this was an EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)

When the Thebans refused to surrender, there were to be no half-measures now; the city was wiped out of existence, he spared only the temples and the poet Pindar's house; 6,000 were killed and 30,000 survivors were sold into slavery for 440 Talents of silver. Greece might now be trusted to lie quiet for some time to come.

The place of concentration was Arisbe on the Hellespont, leaving Antipater, the general and friend of his father as his deputy in Europe with over 13,000 troops. Alexander himself commanded about 30,000 foot soldiers and over 5,000 cavalry, of whom nearly 14,000 were Macedonians and about 7,000 allies of the Greek League. This army had an excellent mixture of arms- the lightly armed Cretan and Macedonian archers, the Thracians, and the Agrianian javelin men; the striking force was the cavalry, and the core of the army was the infantry phalanx, 9,000 strong, armed with shields and five -and-one- half meter long spears, the sarises, and the 3,000 men of the royal troops, the hypaspists.
The army was accompanied by explorers, engineers, architects, scientists, court officials and historians.

The march on Rome began in 218 bc. Hannibal left New Carthage (now Cartagena), Spain, with an army of about 40,000, including cavalry and a considerable number of elephants carrying baggage and later used in battle.....There he almost completely annihilated a Roman army of more than 50,000 men under the consuls Lucius Aemilius Paulus, who was killed in the battle, and Gaius Terentius Varro (died after 200 bc), who escaped with the remnant. Carthaginian losses were fewer than 6000 men.

One of the Hun nomadic bands.....
Modok boasted of an army of 300,000.
China-
Han Emperor Liu Bang led 300,000 cavalry to attack the Huns in 200 BC; the Huns, with an army of 400 thousand, then encircled the precursor army led by first Han Emperor Liu Bang
176 BC. Wendi dispatched prime minister Guan Ying and an army of 85,000 and Huns fled across the river.
By 165 BC, Huns, with 140,000 cavalry, raided into China again, attacked Xiaoguan Pass, killed the Han official 'du-wei' (governing captain) of Beidi Commandary and burnt down an ex-Qin rotating palace (Palace Linguang), and attacked ex-Qin rotating Palace of Ganquan in the Yongzhou Commandary area.
With 200000 cavalry and 100000 soldiers, Han armies attcked the Huns deep into today's Outer Mongolia.
I can keep going.

But, I digress, let's look at some other things.....
We have a multitude of races. And Kingdoms of your average fantasy world are larger, more stable, and better populated than the normal medieval kingdom.
If King Azoun had faced a real army during the Horde wars, with the paltry number of people he had brought with him, the commander of the Horde (who would have have around 300,000 fighting troops, not to mention nearly a million support personell) would have slept in King Azoun's bed.

Well, luck divvying out the other problems bro's.....
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I do know a bit about the medieval period, knowledge that is spurred by a friend who is pursuing a History degree.

He assures there hasn't been a month in the medieval period without a war of some sort somewhere on the european continent during most of the period. They didn't wait for a coalition before settling their difference, and frequently vassals would fight each other while the sovereign closed his eyes as long as the disruption wasn't too great (but even if the disruption became great, he didn't always have the power to do something about it).

The Crusades involved Warriors from just about every christian feudal states and has nothing in common with normal medieval warfare.

What do you think were the numbers on any of the petty border conflicts that occured ever years? You know, these conflicts that are discussed only in awfully specialised history books worth 70$, never translated from their original language and based on the archive of any given minor city?

1,200 VS 500 are good numbers for such battles. Heck, sometime you'd barely have dozens of people taking the field. Five or six knight with their men at at arms. That was the everyday reality of medieval warfare. The Major Conflicts were exceptions motivated by unusually serious political crisis or somesuch. They make the highlights of the medieval wars in a general history book but they hardly are the bulk of it. But obviously, the major conflicts are the only one we have any chance to learn about with a cursory look at medieval history.

EDIT: And obviously I'm talking about medieval Europe. Not that Medieval has much meaning as a time period when discussing other cultures, of course.
 
Last edited:

::sigh::
Those aren't wars. They are Skirmishes. Maybe just battles. They were little better than mass knife fights in alleys.
Militarily, 1,200 vs 500 is a skirmish or battle, not a war. War involves two nations throwing everything they have at one another.

You have your opinion of what constitutes a war in a D&D society, I have mine. Let's leave it at that.
 

Re: Rape & slavery

David Argall said:

"The laws of Islam give a man the right to have 4 wives. They don't give him the nerve." No matter what the law says about his right to hump his slaves, you are going to find durn few men who are going to do it in a way his wife will catch him.

But that's only going to be a factor in a society with relatively egalitarian marriages. I don't know whether a noblewoman could divorce her husband in medieval times (on the grounds of adultery with a serf?), but if you go back to ancient Greece, women were thought incapable of intelligent thought! If you held a party, it was a bunch of men getting together, perhaps with some slave musicians or courtesans. Wives? Not a chance.

It was better in Rome, but not that much better. The head of a household had power of life and death over those in his house.
 

I heard this interesting bit of trivia a few years ago.

There has been only an estimated 7 years of peace on Earth throughout the entire history of mankind.

:eek:

Ulrick
 

On War:

I'd agree with the notion that 1200 v 500 was a pittance. Although my specialty is more geared towards ancient history, the figures from the Roman Empire dwarf these.

When Augustus won at Actium and became the first Emperor, there were roughly fifty legions (approx. 300,000) plus auxiliaries under his command. A defense force of 500 would consitute about 0.1% of the resources, so hardly news-breaking. Heck, the Roman fire brigade was about 8,000 or so.

When three legions (i.e. nearly 20,000) were annihilated in Germany, that *was* news. When Bouddica went on a rampage and slaughtered 70,000, that *was* news. When 100,000 prisoners were taken in the Marcomannic Wars, that *was* news.

A few hundred casualties would be almost trivial.
 


Warlord Ralts said:
::sigh::
Those aren't wars. They are Skirmishes. Maybe just battles. They were little better than mass knife fights in alleys.
Militarily, 1,200 vs 500 is a skirmish or battle, not a war. War involves two nations throwing everything they have at one another.

You have your opinion of what constitutes a war in a D&D society, I have mine. Let's leave it at that.


Just to point out- what a nation is defined as today is not much like what a nation was defined as four hundred years ago.

In the time of the Crusades a man was much more likely to identify himself as being from a specific region of France than as being a Frenchman, for instance.
 

I have had large skirmishes (no large scale wars, though I would love to get to that point), rape, and torture in my games. not to excess (in my opinion at least), and not in graphic detail, but they are there. They add realism.

As for slavery I have only once had the PCs taken captive and put to work. I was running the Northern Journey campaign (excellent stuff, look it up if you haven't seen it) and all the PCs with human blood were taken captive and put to work milling for an ogre mage.

As you would guess the point was to play the heroic rescue of the comrades imprisoned. So, from the accounts of my players, I did a good job of giving the players imprisoned hope of escape, kept them making plans for escape that never quite worked and the other players eventually assaulted and freed their friends.

After the session I got a lot more feedback than normal from my players. The non-humans left to rescue their comrades said it was one of the best sessions they had ever played. Most of the other players, however, found it frusterating though an interesting story.

To me, that means the episode in my game was not a success. The point of the game is to have fun, and not all of the players did. That misses the point and means that I won't ever run a scenerio like that again. In fact, in general I have found it a bad idea to split the group intentionaly and make them work on getting back together. Maybe other DMs are better at this, or maybe other players take it better, but I have learned that in my games it something best avoided (but I don't tell my players that so they work at avoiding it).

Sean Mahoney
acorania
 

Re: Re: Re: Nuaghty

Fenes 2 said:
NoOneofConsequence said:


Man, if this quote is indicative of your attitude(s) to rape, you should leave it out of your campaign. It appears that you have little to no comprehension of the crime and its impact.:(



Not that I share the attitude to rape, but I take objection to the statement above.

I work at court, and I think I have a rather good comprehension of the crime and its impact. I also have a rather good impression of the crime of murdering, or assaulting, and its impact. Neither up close and personal, but a pretty much detailed comprehension of the whole process.

Still, how I present rape and murder in my game is my and my players' business, not anyone else's. I happen to think that I do not need to treat everything as seriously in game as some persons treat it in real life, and no one has the right to tell me otherwise. And imho - and note that I do not assume that you personally do this - anyone who lets his players get away with killing untold amounts of intelligent "monsters" has no right to preach about another's treatment of rape in his game.

Killing someone is a rather nasty thing to do, not some easy thing. Almost getting killed, or getting killed then raised should be a traumatizing event according to modern knowledge. If we can play characters that brave and experience such dangers daily, then we can have a game world where rape is not the end and all of crime, leaving behind broken husks of people.

Heck, do you seriously want me to accept that getting hit with magical acid or fire, charmed and dominated by a mind controller and doing things against your will like a puppet on strings, watching the very souls of your comrades getting captured and used for some evil goal, seeing your dead friends rise as undead and other "normal hazards" is a walk in the park, but as soon as someone is raped it HAS to traumatize the character or anyone else watching?

It is a fantasy world, with superhuman fantasy heroes, not real life. If you can deal with killing, maiming, arsoning and other vile stuff without breaking out the psychologial handbook and dishing out trauma checks, then you can deal with rape in a similar way - as a hazard and a plot device. Note that I do not say that rape can't be a traumatizing event that leaves mental and physical scars for life in a game (although a Heal spell could probably do wonders), but I take objection to the statement that it absolutely has to be such an event.


I agree that murder and violence in general should not be minimised any more than rape should. That being said, I would argue that there are times when murder and violence become almost unavoidable IRL. Rape never experiences this shift in urgency or exigency. There is never a time when "you just have to rape someone!" However there are times when killing, while morally repugnant, becomes virtually unavoidable.

Overall, I found the tone of David Argall's post minimising of rape - his use of infantalising terms such as "lasses" being a prime example. I spoke out against this because I am sometimes motivated to not let the truth sit idle.

I must admit that my comment "Man, if this quote is indicative of your attitude(s) to rape, you should leave it out of your campaign. It appears that you have little to no comprehension of the crime and its impact.:( " was somewhat patronising and on reflection poorly phrased.

David, I apologise completely for the way I chose to say what I did. If you were insulted then you were completely justified in being so and I take full repsonsibility. I said it badly and treated you without respect. To others who found my post offensive in tone I likewise offer my apologies.

I would argue that rape is not like the other traumatising events mentioned above, because unlike being slain and raised or mind controlled by magic, rape is something which can happen IRL and players can experience first hand.

Also, it would be honest of me to mention that I'm one of those extremists who considers rape a crime equal to - if not worse than - murder, and my opinions are formed in accordance with this principle.
 

Remove ads

Top