Worlds of Design: Medieval Travel & Scale

We previously established the fundamentals of world-building; with a world’s basic rules down, it’s important to consider how you get around in that world. And travel was very different (read: slower) in a medieval setting.

We previously established the fundamentals of world-building; with a world’s basic rules down, it’s important to consider how you get around in that world. And travel was very different (read: slower) in a medieval setting.

canterbury-tales-1730722_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

It’s Not That Far…

As explained by Rick Stump in “Modern Minds and Medieval Distances,” there’s a psychological aspect to travel that should be considered when role-playing in a medieval world. There’s an old saying that 100 years is a long time to Americans but not to Europeans, while 100 miles is not far to an American but far for a European. The time or distance doesn’t change, of course, but the perception is quite different.

Maps can also be deceiving. Nowadays in Western countries there are usually paved roads from most anywhere to anywhere. So when you look at a map you think of distance as closely related to the number of inches between two points on the map. But this varies with terrain and especially with technology.

I’m in the early stages of designing a game about the American Civil War (ACW), and of course I knew that the war tended to be divided into eastern and western theaters. The reason is obvious on a certain kind of map, one that shows railroad lines or one that shows the Appalachian Mountains as a barrier, as they were in those days when the railroad lines didn’t go through the mountains. Railroads were the vital method of transportation for ACW armies.

Or look at a map of the Roman Empire. What’s not obvious is that water transportation was much quicker and much cheaper than land transportation, even with the fine Roman road network. So if you just look at the map you get a completely skewed idea of how transportation (and communication) worked.

I once found online an interactive map that showed the weeks of transportation from Rome (it's gone now, but Orbis is similar). You can easily see that it would be quicker to transport something from Rome to southern Spain than from Rome to northern Italy, especially because there are not big north-south running rivers in Italy sort of analogous to the Mississippi River in the United States. River transport was much cheaper than land.

Or is It?

The standard method of transportation in medieval times was walking. Even if you had a cart to carry goods you weren’t going to ride on that cart very much, nor would a cart with solid wooden wheels go very fast. At normal walking speed, which about 3 mph, it takes a heck of a long time to get most anywhere!

Yes, we have examples of forced marches by military units in times before mechanization that are sometimes mind-boggling, as much as 50 miles in 24 hours, though more commonly 20 miles in 24 hours. What you don’t hear about such events is that a lot of soldiers did not get to the end of the march, they dropped out for various reasons or struggled along far behind.

The U.S. Army 30 years ago would periodically send their troops on “12-mile road marches,” carrying about 80 pounds of equipment; that really wore out the guys I knew, who of course weren’t doing it every day, and did not look forward to it. I think the farthest I’ve ever walked in one day was 7 miles, without a backpack, and it sure ruined me for a while (thanks partly to flat feet).

Riding a horse would make this somewhat more comfortable but not much faster. Even when you ride a horse, for a significant part of a long journey you’re walking and leading the horse. Or you won’t end up with much of a horse.

You can see how much difference magical automobiles would make in a medieval world (provided roads are available . . .), let alone something like a magic carpet. We lose some of the sense of wonder such items would invoke in medieval inhabitants because we’re accustomed to modern technology. Even something as simple as a walkie-talkie with good range would be a great wonder in a medieval world, and very useful to military operations or dungeon and wilderness adventures. Splitting the party (which as we all know “you should never do”) would be much safer and more useful with a walkie-talkie set.

Yes, our fantasy characters are tougher than we are, and more inured to drudgery, but we should keep in mind the difference between a non-mechanized society and a modern highly mechanized society, both as players and as world builders.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Nytmare

David Jose
I get that the using horses has the drawback that horses need to rest too and therefore doesn't save much time, but a thought recently occurred to me:

What would be the plausibility of incorporating a big horse trailer/miniature stable on wheels into the back of a large carriage? That way horses could be rotated out. Does anybody have any thoughts on whether or not this would be doable? (I suspect that the answer likely comes down to either diminishing returns due to each team having to haul the weight of the other team and/or to the fact that wagon wheels are terrible and might not stand the weight. Does anyone have any data on this?)
This would be akin to using a tow truck to tow around another tow truck.

You're riding for a bunch of different reasons. Horses can move further in a day than people on foot. They travel faster, and can keep at it for longer.

That doesn't mean however that the people riding or driving aren't still working. Just like how driving a car for 12 hours is something that you'd need to take a break from, imagine doing that with no roof and no AC, while you're balancing on a seesaw.

Horses also aren't always keen on spending all day stuck in a little trailer. It's cramped and uncomfortable, and they want to be out and free to walk around and go where they want. Just like how you might want to spend an evening with your feet up in front of a TV or hanging out with friends before going back in to work in the morning.

You're also probably using those horses to haul stuff around. Not even pulling a wagon, a horse is going to easily be able to handle twice the weight that you can lug around. In a wagon you're doubling or tripling that at the very least.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
The wagons you'd need would be impractically large and heavy, and completely useless without a road, and quite possibly completely useless with one. Never mind the host of other impracticalities. What we really need is a small wagon that carries some little pocket dimensions, with each dimension holding maybe 50 or 100 horses and riders. The clown car image of a whole Ala of cavalry riding out of one little wagon back door is pretty delicious.
That seems like a very doable magic item, possibly building on portable hole or bag of holding tech, but instead putting the horses and riders in a place with air and or a state where they don't need them.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
That seems like a very doable magic item, possibly building on portable hole or bag of holding tech, but instead putting the horses and riders in a place with air and or a state where they don't need them.
We can call it Army in a Pocket. Decent gate magic would work nicely too.
 



Myth Master

Explorer
Most people would visit the nearest village on market day. Not that many people would travel over a day to sell their wares on market day and then need to travel over a day to come home. And, again, military service, like Crusades and the like, is still a tiny fraction of the population. Right off the bat, you're excluding women, children and anyone over the age of about 30 (ish) from lengthy military service. Sailors? Merchants? Sure, but, again, we're still talking a tiny slice of people.

Someone might travel for more than a day or two once in their lifetime, but, that was about it. I'd be shocked if more than 10% of your population had traveled much more than that in their lifetime.

I'm not sure why saying that medieval populations were not terribly mobile is an arguable point. Hell, depending on when you want to talk about, a very large portion of the population wasn't allowed to travel - serfs could not leave their land. Farmers can't bugger off for two or three days. I'm a little unsure why this is being questioned.
It's being questioned because it's bollocks.
First, across England for example, serfs and the land-bound (villeins, bordars, cottars) only made up roughly 1/3rd of the population of the shires. Yes, their mobility was limited in theory, BUT it was commonplace for them to pay the fines their lords required for them to go live elsewhere, to go to school, to start a career in the church, to study a craft, marry the mate they desire on a neighboring lord's estate, etc.
There was a great deal of travel on all the roads because business is transacted in person in an agrarian society.
There were chapmen carrying goods into the hinterlands, and shipments of good by regularly scheduled carting services, which commonly accommodated passengers, also. Craftsmen and tradesmen were customarily required to travel for 3-5 years with their work history as journeymen Improvers to finally be recognized as journeymen proper.
Representatives of the various strata of the Church were constant traveling. Nobles traveled from one estate to the next to use up their gathered produce, all the way up to the king and his court.
Those who have sufficient means hire others to take care of the more mundane errands, called "men of affairs" or "factors". They travel back and forth between law courts, markets, allies, even rivals, constantly seeing to their masters' business.
Travel is a fact of life for every social class in an agrarian society.
 

Myth Master

Explorer
Most people would visit the nearest village on market day. Not that many people would travel over a day to sell their wares on market day and then need to travel over a day to come home. And, again, military service, like Crusades and the like, is still a tiny fraction of the population. Right off the bat, you're excluding women, children and anyone over the age of about 30 (ish) from lengthy military service. Sailors? Merchants? Sure, but, again, we're still talking a tiny slice of people.

Someone might travel for more than a day or two once in their lifetime, but, that was about it. I'd be shocked if more than 10% of your population had traveled much more than that in their lifetime.

I'm not sure why saying that medieval populations were not terribly mobile is an arguable point. Hell, depending on when you want to talk about, a very large portion of the population wasn't allowed to travel - serfs could not leave their land. Farmers can't bugger off for two or three days. I'm a little unsure why this is being questioned.
It's being questioned because it's bollocks.
First, across England for example, serfs and the land-bound (villeins, bordars, cottars) only made up roughly 1/3rd of the population of the shires. Yes, their mobility was limited in theory, BUT it was commonplace for them to pay the fines their lords required for them to go live elsewhere, to go to school, to start a career in the church, to study a craft, marry the mate they desire on a neighboring lord's estate, etc.
There was a great deal of travel on all the roads because business is transacted in person in an agrarian society.
There were chapmen carrying goods into the hinterlands, and shipments of good by regularly scheduled carting services, which commonly accommodated passengers, also. Craftsmen and tradesmen were customarily required to travel for 3-5 years with their work history as journeymen Improvers to finally be recognized as journeymen proper.
Representatives of the various strata of the Church were constant traveling. Nobles traveled from one estate to the next to use up their gathered produce, all the way up to the king and his court.
Those who have sufficient means hire others to take care of the more mundane errands, called "men of affairs" or "factors". They travel back and forth between law courts, markets, allies, even rivals, constantly seeing to their masters' business.
Travel is a fact of life for every social class in an agrarian society.
 

Myth Master

Explorer
But, again, you're still talking skilled workers. And, not all skilled workers either - French and German skilled workers.

Look, it's pretty simple. The overwhelming majority of the population in Europe was farmers, fishers, and other workers who would be tied to a specific location. Every exception you mention is still just a drop in the bucket. Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of medieval people would travel, repeatedly, more than a day away from their home?

Once in their lifetime? Twice? Sure. I can see that. But repeatedly? The majority of people? That does not jive with any description of medieval life I've ever seen.
I submit you haven't read all that much regarding the common people of the era.
The traveling journeymen craftsmen weren't just in France and Germany, but England, too, and that practice documented as common all across Europe.
I would surmise you think they were all filthy and undernourished, too, and that there was no such thing as effective healthcare.
 

Emerikol

Adventurer
While I am not disputing that a horse cannot be ridden into the ground, I do dispute the notion that having a horse to ride will not improve the number of miles travelled per day especially in clear terrain or on a road/path. So sure a horse must be walked and rested but even given all of that they will net out better than mere foot travel.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top