This is fascinating.

So, is Manorialism less defensible than farm/centralized communities?

(And you guys have convinced me to pick up ACKS first chance I get.

Defensible in what sense? Militarily?  I should think there are just as many castles either way.

Quote from: Will;784605This is fascinating.

So, is Manorialism less defensible than farm/centralized communities?

(And you guys have convinced me to pick up ACKS first chance I get.

Western Manorialism resulted from the collapse of the roman economy. The only thing that was of true value was land. So the germanic kings warrior buddies all got villas and estates. This evolved over time to the feudal relationship of King and his vassals. For a variety of reason these estates were worked as communal farms creating the manors of the middle ages. In theory each manor had at least a knight as the holder as the grants were contingent on the holder providing military service in exchange for the land.

The reality was that things were shifting all the time. In a few instance for a few decades the feudal ideal was achieved, like William's conquest of England. But Europe was a patchwork of varying setups that depended on how the local economy was going and local custom.

A ideal feudal setup would have at least a knight in charge of each manor. The knight would be capable of mustering five men including himself. One knight, one squire, and three yeoman. A region wide problem would be responded to by the feudal overlord calling up his vassal from a central location.

A ideal farm setup would have regular forces conducting patrols from a central location. The farmers would be part of a local militia with some type of quick warning system so that the militia can be quickly formed within a day. The regulars would join with the militia to deal with whatever the problem is.

There are variation of the above, so much so that the real answer it depends on how you have set it up.

Been debating how to set up a kingdom in my fantasy setting.

It's a sizeable area between two large rivers, gulf to the west (trade), large dangerous mountains to the east, other friendly nations north, dangerous horse-riding slavers/hordes to the south.

So... hrm. It's a March, an old kingdom (it used to be in the middle of similar countries until horse-nomads slowly took over to the south), and I'm trying to figure out how exactly it'll be laid out.

Quote from: Will;784605So, is Manorialism less defensible than farm/centralized communities?

Depends on what you mean by defensible.  Manorialism (the bottom rung of what we think of as feudalism, but technically they're distinct concepts) helped concentrate wealth enough to build castles, which made conquering territory or permanently defeating a lord much more difficult.  On the other hand they didn't always do much for the peasants themselves.  The very difficulty involved in taking a castle diverted warfare towards pillaging and burning your rival's villages and crops, just to try to force him to a settlement.

Fortified farm houses (of which modern generic fantasy and its thriving villages of prosperous peasants don't have nearly enough) do more for their residents against raiders, but less to inconvenience a real invading army.  And free men are more likely to be trusted with useful weapons and fortifications, though standards varied from place to place.  (I had an idea the English law against crenellating a building without a license is still technically in force, but now I look I can't find a good source for that.  May be just a history nerd urban legend.)

Ooo, Bastles would be perfect, I think. The southern folks are characterized by repeated, uncoordinated raiding parties look to hassle the northerners and get slaves.

Quote from: Will;784664until horse-nomads slowly took over to the south), .

That your critical element in figuring out how it is currently laid out.

One possible path.

1) There was people living in the area prior to the nomads moving in. How did they live and were organized?

2) Horse nomads suggest a steppe culture with semi-permanent settlements centred around herding.

3) Horse nomads moving in will likely mean they retain their nomadic culture at first. Likely using the pre-existing as source of luxury items. For ease of control and to clear land for pasture, the nomad will likely drive the native population onto concentrated estates. Each estate will overseen by a nomad clan. Powerful clans will control multiple estates.

The original nobility will be made into subordinates. If they prove too rebellious, the original nobles will be destroyed and collaborators will be elevated to subordinate positions. Likely much of the original rural population will be enslaved or more likely made into serfs with their freedom of movement restricted.

The region's urban centers will suffer as disruption in trade patterns spread through the region. However they will be viewed as THE major source of luxury goods by the nobles so will be more tolerated compared to the rural population. They will also be the nucleus from which nomad culture begins to integrate into the regional culture. The exact mix of the fusion culture will depend on how many nomads there are to how many natives.

If you choose to set the realm in the middle of this then the traditionalist will likely view the new fused culture as a corrupted form of what should be. While the progressives view the traditionalists as stick in the muds who are unable to appreciate the new finer things of life.

Understand that this has nothing to do with morality. It may be that the traditional nomad culture is a bunch of brutes and the fused culture is taking on aspect of the high art and ideals of the native. Or it could be vice versa, the nomadic culture is mostly egalitarian with a strong code of right and wrong while the fused culture is a degeneration into a dog eat dog world. Most cases are in between.

One constant among the variation is that the nomadic is likely to be the less sophisticated. Contact with the original centralized culture with urban center will leave the nomad scrambling for answers to various questions particular those related to ruling a large mass of people with a variety of trades. This is why the likely result will be a fused culture rather than nomads totally supplanting the original culture.

I can give detailed advice if I have more specifics.

If you are willing to entertain neeping about my campaign... sure!

Ok, two continents: Paccitania to the north, Farsvia to the south.

At one point, most of central to lower Paccitania was filled with early European-ish groups. Brisk trade across the narrow sea with ancient, developed nations in northern Farsvia.

Then dragons and their dragonborn minions swept through most of Farsvia, enslaving or killing most of the humans and driving refugees north.

Many refugees traveled by ship into southern Paccitania, filling and then taking over the area.

A radical bunch of horsemen grabbed some Farsvian port cities, then took over parts of southern Paccitania and began to sweep outward.

They are brutal remnants of a dozen cultures exterminated by dragons. Their horse nomadic slaver culture is actually very recent, so ... basically, they are land pirates.



Rianneth is composed of European-like nations that essentially were pushed north (into lands that were once Celt-controlled before they got wiped out by a necromancer empire that the ~Europeans took out). The bit between Rianneth and the Clans was once a crossroads of trade and prosperous middle kingdom. Now it's a march guarding the south, though it's helped by the Clan leaders being distrustful/not adept sailors and two rivers (and the demon-ridden wasteland).

(The light green is deciduous forest, though it's likely to have been cut down in most inhabited areas)

So... thoughts?

How the hell do you pronounce 'Clctapl' with a human set of speech organs, and why isn't it spelled that way?

It's a dragon word, and, in this (20 year old) setting they talk more like parrots. Very... very big parrots.

And actually I can pronounce it... kl-kta-pl

I've been slowly going through and updating names for things into more sensible names, while preserving the original names as degenerate English versions.
So, Germanic nation Misserbrannen is properly Meißerbranheim, the Virdi people are Vårde, and so on. Yay Google Translate!

Lorsa river... been tinkering, making it a degeneration of L'Or de sang (blood gold) river once...

Expanding on the last, decided to go with the retrofit 'l'or de sang' and make the eastern part have once been an olive oil region.

Preliminary map of the Gedwil region, with some info from the demo site:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/803826/Gedwil.png

(It's big so I'm not going to embed it)
Green is light forest (where it's not farmland)/seasonal, yellow is grasslands/maritime, brown is mountains, orange wasteland, cyan is swamp/marsh/rainforest (which is probably stupid, coming back to it a decade later, but whatever)

Scale is one hex = 10 miles.

The red is capital city, black cities are marked.
Fiefdoms of various types are marked in the Kingdom of Gedwil, using the rough idea that 30 mile radius is a day's travel. (Or should it be half that, so that anyone can take no more than a day to get somewhere from anywhere in the district?)

Neat! Mapping is one aspect that I tend to fall flat on. Historically I just do a write up of each regions general terrain and the distances in any direction from one point of interest to another with some tables of possible encounters and wandering monsters. It works ok but this go around I am really trying to be a bit more concrete about these things and actually map them out. I am using the free version of Hexographer and so far I really like it.

I love maps. I suck at them, but I love them.

Yeah, I actually own Campaign Cartographer but every time I start tinkering with it I just... ... stare.

I'm sure if I spent a month exploring it I'd make great maps, but... I... don't really want to spend a month learning how to use an app.

Hexographer might not do everything, but it can work pretty fast and easy. (I find I prefer to switch the normal hex graphics off. I'd rather just have colored areas and occasional symbols)

Quote from: Haffrung;784429It's safe to say most published fantasy settings are dramatically underpopulated by historical terms. Regional maps routinely show 30-50 miles between villages and towns, with several days of punishing forced marches between settlements of all kinds. So if you want a setting with plausible demographics, you would do well to ignore the examples presented in published RPG material.

Don't think that's a bad thing, there's so many things that eat people in D&D-land that it makes sense for population densities to be low.

Think that settlements should look like what you get historically in areas of constant low-level warfare (like the English/Scotland border historically) but even more so, with every last farmhouse being fortified except in very secure locations.

Quote from: Will;785130I love maps. I suck at them, but I love them.

Yeah, I actually own Campaign Cartographer but every time I start tinkering with it I just... ... stare.

I'm sure if I spent a month exploring it I'd make great maps, but... I... don't really want to spend a month learning how to use an app.

Hexographer might not do everything, but it can work pretty fast and easy. (I find I prefer to switch the normal hex graphics off. I'd rather just have colored areas and occasional symbols)

Yes, I agree completely with your assessment of CC3. I've seen several instructional videos, and every time I get done with them I have a headache. It makes the GIMP learning curve look easy at times.