Worlds of Design: When Nations Expand

When considering how nations expand beyond their borders in your fantasy campaign, there are several options to choose from.

boat-5911762_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Trading Colonies​

We can go back to very ancient times, when the Assyrians had a trading colony in Hittite territory, far from the heartland of Assyria. This colony facilitated trade of Hittite copper for Assyrian textiles. Assyrians lived in the colony, but were interested only in trade, not domination.

Trading colonies often began with trading posts. The explorers of the Mediterranean and Black Seas in times before Alexander, the Phoenicians and Greeks, set up trading posts. But the Greeks also used trading colonies as an outlet for excess population, setting up small towns. Greece is not blessed with much good agricultural land, and its rough terrain naturally divided it into hundreds of often-small city-states. Where would excess population go? When the Greeks set up a colony the usual expectation was that the colony would soon become an independent, albeit small, city-state.

Unlike the Greek city states, Phoenicia was surrounded by empires and rarely independent. About the time that the Persian Empire occupied Phoenicia was when the Phoenician colonies became independent if they hadn’t already.

Military Colonies​

Roman colonies are of a type much less common at that time (though also used less intensely by Alexander the Great). They set up “military” colonies to help control territories acquired by warfare as they expanded throughout Italy. The military colonies were outlets to reward retired soldiers who didn’t have lands of their own, even though inhabitants of the colonies were not granted Roman citizenship. Remember the pre-modern ideal, Land = Wealth.

Notice that the Romans (and Alexander, more or less) were colonizing lands geographically contiguous to their homelands, different from the Greeks and Phoenicians who colonized overseas. Contiguity has great relevance in geopolitics. It is rare in the long run that a colony separated by water from its homeland remains part of that homeland, an important factor when considering if one of your nations plans to annex another.

Mass Migrations​

Military and trading colonies were eventually replaced in medieval times by mass migrations, both on the European continent and in Great Britain. The Anglo-Saxon migrants who occupied England absorbed the population, usually through intermarriage. The same happened when the Danes occupied the Danelaw in eastern England. On the other hand the Norman conquest provided land for the barons.

As an aside, notice that the Danes who were given control of what became the Duchy of Normandy in the 10th century had been almost completely Frenchified by the time of the Norman conquest of England. Sometimes the inhabitants absorb the conquerors, not vice versa. In the end, though the kings of England spoke French for centuries, ultimately the Norman French were absorbed into the English population.

How Nations Change​

It’s often instructive to look at language in relation to colonization and conquest. Where the resident population absorbs the conquerors, the latter take on the language of the former. Where the native population is absorbed by the conquerors, the natives take on the language of the conquerors. In fantasy settings where everyone speaks a common language, one of those nations was likely the originator of the Common tongue.

In the medieval-plus-magic fantasy world that is the typical base RPG setting (see “Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs") military colonies might be most applicable to a typical adventure campaign. A military-style colony set in a wild-and-woolly area might be a good base for adventures. Characters could be hired as guards for a group of Greek-style sea-based trading colonies.

Conversely, a history of expansion may play a bigger role in the backstory of your campaign world. Different groups may have language, values, and currency determined by the dominant nation. And if one nation is ascendant, its influence might explain why there’s a common standard wherever the adventurers go.

Your Turn: How do nations expand their influence in your campaign?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Yet in a fantasy/medieval setting this does not apply and going to war has a lot less downsides than it has today. Trade is also a lot less influential so the disruption of this trade is not all that bad either. And being rich through trade only means people want your land even more.
Mali, who resembles the country your describe, crumbled rather fast when Songhay attacked and the huge trading empires of the Netherlands didn't protect them from France.
Mali was indeed the inspiration for my nation, I was fascinated with Mansa Musa at the time :)


It also allows expansion through marriage. The Habsburgs were masters in arranging marriages which allowed them to control half of Europe (Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia) even through their military successes were rather mixed.
Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube – ‘Let others wage war: thou, happy Austria, marry’.
It also resulted in them probably being the source of the inbred noble stereotype as achieving this sort of hegemony required several close kin marriages.

The marriage aspect is very underused in D&D and RPGs in general. Most RPGs hardly even bother with defining nobles apart from a token king and maybe a baron who either a patron or the BBEG who wants to depose the king. But you hardly have a working feudal system, let alone defined families which have multiple nobles in it or marriage ties to other defined nobles.
If you spend the effort to create such a system it could imo be quite interesting. For example a family like the Habsburgs who expand through marriage could be quite scandalous as they would have a lot of half breeds in them what others might frown upon (or not).
There is also the question what to do with infertile marriages and so on.

I’m reminded of the Tongan Empire which at its height extended from Nauru to Nuku Hiva (imagine a 3000 km radius around Tonga), though primarily centered on the Tonga-Fiji-Samoa core. Tongan hegemony was maintained through inter marriage and the Inasi tribute system, which was witnessed by Captain Cook and involved the vassal islanders making trips to Tonga to present first fruits to the Tui Tonga (King of Tonga) who was deemed a descendent of the god Tangaloa.
The Tongan Empire was eventually forced out of Samoa and Fiji by local rebellions but by that time they were so intermarried that most of the so called Tongans in Samoa were at least half or more Samoan. Tonga is one of the worlds oldest continuous kingdoms and remains the only independent kingdom in the Pacific
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

lewpuls

Hero
Ixal: Yes, the title (from the editor) is misleading. My title was "World-building: Colonies." I had no intention of discussing all kinds of expansion. But perhaps someday I will.
 

GuyBoy

Hero
It’s also worth remembering that the concept of any form of unitary state wasn’t really defined until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Before that, as Ixal says, countries were little more than dynastic constructions (or religious ones; the Pope was still a temporal ruler at the time).
Therefore any form of expansion, in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world, is more likely to be dynastic ( Ferdinand & Isabella’s sponsorship of Columbus and what followed after), religious ( Teutonic Knights in Eastern Europe) or mercantile ( French coureurs du Bois) than by what we might call states.

Once you have Westphalian states, concepts like sovereignty (and later, nationalism) emerge and then territory can become a plum to be picked eg German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.

We tend to think in Westphalian terms about states today, but it’s actually a pretty recent thing.
 



clearstream

(He, Him)
When considering how nations expand beyond their borders in your fantasy campaign, there are several options to choose from.

Your Turn: How do nations expand their influence in your campaign?
My main concern is to move on from the insouciant treatment wargamers have habitually given thuggish empires and their projects of colonisation. And I say that as one such wargamer!

See for example the background implied in my homebrew races in this thread. Set in an alternate-Faerun. In 1589, the City State of Waterdeep intensifies colonisation of a peaceful archipelago...


[EDIT I didn't at first reply to this thread, due to my concerns with the OP, but then decided it was better to join the conversation.]
 
Last edited:

clearstream

(He, Him)
Ixal: Yes, the title (from the editor) is misleading. My title was "World-building: Colonies." I had no intention of discussing all kinds of expansion. But perhaps someday I will.
It seems to me a mistake or whitewashing to suppose that trading and military colonies are not projects of harmful colonisation. @Ixal I feel there is moral hazard in any presumption of terra nullius. There are peoples today deeply harmed - rich cultures disintegrated and made dystopic - by the idea of empty land.


In my next campaign, the primary antagonists are monsters: Waterdhavians, concretely.
 

lewpuls

Hero
"It happens more than we probably know, and seems to happen to Lew fairly often. I guess even this site is not immune to using click-bait titles."

I tend to use longer titles that are precise but not always mellifluous; the changes tend to be shorter titles more likely to attract attention, I suppose, but less precise. This was one of the less successful changes. Some changes have been improvements.
 

lewpuls

Hero
clearstream: "It seems to me a mistake or whitewashing to suppose that trading and military colonies are not projects of harmful colonisation. @Ixal I feel there is moral hazard in any presumption of terra nullius. There are peoples today deeply harmed - rich cultures disintegrated and made dystopic - by the idea of empty land."

I try not to indulge in presentism, that is, the imposition of current standards of morality on historical actors, as though current morality was the only morality that could ever be right. Morality depends so much on the technological situation. "Moral imperatives" were different more than two millennia ago.

And would be in a fantasy world full of monsters, of course.

We can see any conquest or other expansion as harmful to the victims, but only in recent times - with the advent of horrifically destructive World Wars and then nuclear weapons - has national expansion largely ceased. There's little doubt that World War III would have occurred, if not for nuclear weapons
 

GuyBoy

Hero
Not entirely sure about that last sentence. Alternate history is, by its very nature, uncertain, but I think there is reasonable doubt that WW3 would have occurred if not for nuclear weapons.
Even with such weapons, we came relatively close twice: Cuba in 1962 and Able Archer in 1983. It may be that it was the spectre of nuclear war that definitely prevailed, but it may not.
Certainly, plenty of proxy wars were fought anyway during the Cold War and it’s certainly possible to argue that these would have happened anyway, but no further.
Stalin, for all his paranoia and unpleasantness, was realistic enough not to push for a conventional WW3 in 1945 (when he probably had the best chance) and it is far from certain that it was only nuclear weapons that prevented him then or later. I’m not sure that any future Soviet leaders had the will to actively pursue WW3, with or without nuclear weapons.
Certainly no US Presidents did. Where was the gain, particularly since the economic systems pointed to an eventual US win regardless.

Nuclear weapons may well have been a factor preventing WW3, but they weren’t the only factor.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top