Quote from: Bren;823150Well you probably don't want to look up how the House of Orange and their fanatical Calvinist allies arranged the murders of their opponents. It's real history. Real history is messy.

But not every game has to include all the nastiness. Just pick the part you want to focus on and simplify or hand wave some of the nastiness to get a game to taste. As an example, the BBC Three Musketeers uses some actual history (some surprising bits actually), but they choose what to focus on and what to ignore so the protagonists remain enjoyable to watch.

One thing may help is to play the world from the point of view of the protagonist PCs. So if they are on the side of the Dutch Republic you might  include the historical nastiness of Hapsburg and Spanish overlords and gloss over the bickering and infighting of the Dutch and their allies (Protestant and Catholic). I do that to some extent. Since in our Honor+Intrigue game the Protagonists are French, the Hapsburgs are their natural enemies (along with those damn roast beefs on their uncultured little island), so I include or play up cruel, fanatic Spanish inquisitors and iron handed officers of the Tercios. Since several of the PCs are devout Catholics, I include some fanatical Calvinists and I include some sympathetic clergy. Its not a total white wash because the venality of offices in France, including church offices, is important to the social status side of the game that I want to include.

Similarly, you could use a setting of a semi-independent state of the Holy Roman Empire (a landgrave or something) located in a mountain valley that has mostly been missed by the war and the PCs could be keeping the valley safe. Limit the number of refugees, assume the valley is prosperous and is ruled by an enlightened and tolerant ruler and the PCs are now the good guys/gals working for the good guy/gal ruler.

My Lady Rotha: A Romance by Stanley John Weyman basically uses this as the starting point of the novel.

• Buff coat - actually something that was supposed to be worn under armour (like a jerkin or gambeson), but could be worn on its own as lighter armour/protective clothing
• Cuirass - standard armour of the day, usually worn over a buff coat and comprising back and breast plates. More common for cavalry (being richer and not having to walk wearing it).
• Mail - a holdover from an earlier period, but still around (happy to be corrected if not the case).
• Plate - gradually reducing in this period, I think full leg armour went first, but still about for those who could afford it.

• I haven't seen mail in depictions in Western Europe though it still seems common at this time in the East, e.g. Poland, Hungary, Russia, and the Ottomans.
• Shields mostly disappeared for war in Western Europe, though they were still used in Scotland for another hundred years or so. Sword and buckler still existed, but were probably considered old fashioned. The Dutch were big proponents of a more linear tactic emphasizing fire (musket) over steel (pike and sword) so I wouldn't expect to see shields much in their armies.
• Side note: The Dutch armies were mostly mercenaries from other countries. One implication of this is that companies of Eastern cavalry might see service in the Germanies and else where during this time.
• Cavalry mostly switched from the lance to pistol and sword during the time period of the French Wars of Religion in the latter half of the 16th century. Thus cavalry dropped heavy metal gauntlets (at least on the right hand) to make it easier to fire and reload their pistols. Take a look at the caracole for a unique aspect of warfare around this time.