Favourite Mediaeval Setting?

[assault]

Suppose you were creating a setting based on mediaeval Europe. (Reluctantly or otherwise.)

 

Where and when would you base your main area on?

Edited January 16 by assault

[tkdguy]

I have a bunch of resources set around 1200 AD, so I'll probably use that time frame. I could do England, but the Holy Roman Empire sounds pretty interesting as well.

[GDShore]

For me, the period between 1180 and 1200 A.D. middle England, Richard the Lionheart, John Lackland and Robin Hood. The sets write themselves, you can do almost anything you want and it will work. can 

[L. Marcus]

Early Medieval Sweden, around the conversion to Christianity, with a dash of the Karolingian Empire without their bloody stupid inheritance laws.

[Lord Liaden]

I've always been intrigued by the Byzantine Empire, so I'm inclined to consider using the reign of the Emperor, Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180). Manuel had particularly good relations with Western European realms, including the Crusaders who held territories in the Middle East. He formed military alliances with those nations and with the Pope, and even adopted some of their cultural traditions such as jousting tournaments. The Empire thus presents an interesting "East meets West" flavor. Manuel's conflicts with Hungary in the Balkans, and the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia, leave plenty of opportunities for scenarios of battle and intrigue. And of course, there's no better location for big-city adventures than Constantinople.

 

The Byzantine Emperor's elite personal force, the Varangian Guard, were recruited from foreign countries with a Norse-Germanic tradition of personal loyalty to the lord they swore to serve. Originally these were from Rus, later Scandinavia, and by Manuel's reign, primarily Anglo-Saxons unhappy with Norman rulership of England. So there's plenty of rationale to have PCs from other lands emigrate to the Empire and experience its unique culture for the first time.

Edited January 16 by Lord Liaden

[Lord Liaden]

18 hours ago, tkdguy said:

I have a bunch of resources set around 1200 AD, so I'll probably use that time frame. I could do England, but the Holy Roman Empire sounds pretty interesting as well.

 

The Holy Roman Empire became an exception to the above-mentioned Manuel Komnenos' good relations with Western European rulers. Both Manuel and the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederik I Barbarossa, had ambitions of expanding their influence over Italy. Manuel provided financial and material support to Italian groups opposed to Frederik, notably the Lombard League. Although their forces never came to blows, relations became quite chilly, with Frederik asserting his succession to the throne of Rome and primacy over Constantinople. Northern Italy would thus make a good site for intrigue between the two leading powers in 12th Century Europe.

Edited January 16 by Lord Liaden

[Old Man]

12th century Europe is the way:

 

• Byzantine Empire
• Castile, Aragon, and Moorish Spain
• Knights Templar
• Second and Third Crusades
• Genghis Khan
• Silk Road
• Merchant Republics of Italy
• English civil wars and wars with France
• Holy Roman Empire
• Teutonic Knights
• Decline of Kievan Rus
• Seljuq Empire

 

About the only thing 12th century Europe doesn't have is Vikings, but you could probably squeeze them in and no one would know any better.

 

[L. Marcus]

The Scandinavian elites of the 12th century had given up plundering and pillaging abroad for using the Christian ideology to increase their domestic influence and power. Early medieval Sweden was still an elective monarchy, and civil war between competing magnates over the crown was almost a yearly occurrence. Our national patron Saint, Saint Erik, was a king who bit it in one of these struggles. He started a crusade against the Finns and was murdered in a church, they say, so he must've been very holy, even if he ended up more holey.

 

Not that the coalescing kingdoms didn't engage in a little light conquest -- the Danes tried for Balticum, while Sweden managed to snag Finland.

Edited January 17 by L. Marcus

[Lord Liaden]

Sounds like we're approaching a consensus.

[L. Marcus]

Nuh-uh!

[assault]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

About the only thing 12th century Europe doesn't have is Vikings, but you could probably squeeze them in and no one would know any better.

Scandinavian Scotland was still pretty wild.

[L. Marcus]

Deep-fried Mars bars aside, the Scots are alright.

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Sounds like we're approaching a consensus.

 

Wrong!  The other best setting is 5th century Europe:

 

• Arthurian myth
• Attila the Hun
• Fall of the Roman Empire
• Continued Existence of the Byzantine Empire
• Conquests by the Merovingian kings leading to the founding of France
• Founding of the Kingdom of Italy
• Vandals and Visigoths
• Anglo-Saxon migration into England
• Celts in Ireland and Scotland (and Christianization thereof)
• Still no Vikings although there was plenty of raiding going on in and around Scandinavia

 

This Europe is quite a bit darker, even postapoc from a Roman perspective.  It lends itself to a more sword-and-sorcery type of campaign as various barbarian tribes fight over the scraps of the Roman Empire while its knowledge and secrets are lost to the ages.

 

[Lord Liaden]

You just had to yell at us to get off your lawn, didn't you.

[assault]

5th Century is good, but I've kind of trapped myself into Knights & Stuff. (And Scots, Poles, Albanians...)

Still, I'm going to be filing off the serial numbers anyway.

Edited January 17 by assault

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

Wrong!  The other best setting is 5th century Europe:

 

• Arthurian myth

 

I never cared for Arthurian myth within an historical context. The anachronism is just too extreme, but if you don't have all the conventional elements you lose the charm of the setting.

 

Now, Carolingian legend requires less of a stretch to adapt. You're much closer to the age of chivalry, you have the Frankish kingdom which is the basis for France, and Charlemagne and his Peers aren't far from Arthur and his Round Table. That's why for my Champions games I shifted the Arthurian origin of Giles de Morphant, the Black Paladin, to Carolingian.

[Lord Liaden]

26 minutes ago, assault said:

5th Century is good, but I've kind of trapped myself into Knights & Stuff. (And Scots, Poles, Albanians...)

Still, I'm going to be filing off the serial numbers anyway.

 

Well, if you're filing the numbers off, you can still have Vikings in your 12th Century analogue. 👌

 

It's probably because I grew up during the Cold War, but I have a fondness for "superpower" conflicts, two great powers maneuvering for position, with lesser states between them struggling to preserve their independence, as vassals or allies, or forming leagues for mutual defense. I'm visualizing something comparable to the Holy Roman Empire as it would have been without the division of Charlemagne's territories among his descendants; and the Byzantine Empire not having lost so much territory to the Arab Conquest. Two realms, differing in society, culture, religion, and governance; but each claiming to be the legitimate heirs to the mighty Empire that preceded them, and followers and champions of the One True Faith. Everyone else in the Euro-analogue has to either pick a side, or make a stand.

[Rich McGee]

6 hours ago, assault said:

Scandinavian Scotland was still pretty wild.

My family history on the paternal side of things tends to agree.  Although we still can't quite figure out how our twig of the tree went from starting out in Norway to living in 1950s California and then squatting in a ICBM launch silo in Plattsburgh NY during the Cuban missile crisis.   Some gaps in the record, to put it mildly.

 

I don't think I'd ever do a properly historical European game, but if I were forced to set something there maybe Italy or Germany during the Black Plague would do.  Just run it as a post-Apocalypse campaign, with depopulated settlements to scavenge, paranoid survivors to deal with one way or another, constant threat of disease, and of course plenty of religious mania - not all of the pro-Christian variety.  Not normally a fan of PA stories, but doing it with actual medieval equipment would be a change of pace from the usual kitbashed modern-day junk with a scattering of firearms as trump cards.

[DShomshak]

11 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Wrong!  The other best setting is 5th century Europe:

 

• Arthurian myth
• Continued Existence of the Byzantine Empire

One of Kenneth Hite's excellent "Suppressed Transmissions" columns, "Justinian and Arthur: Historical High Fantasy," described a campaign based on bringing these two together, with Justinian as Evil Overlord. Dead tree publication in Suppressed Transmission: the First Broadcast.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Christopher R Taylor]

I usually use late medieval, but without gunpowder.  So there are some advances like compass and even pocket watches, but no guns or cannons.

 

If I was going to use a historical setting it would probably be the 14th century because it was such a turbulent, eventful time period.  Always plenty to do.

[GDShore]

Ah. LL you must be referencing the "Lancelot"  era of the myth, which appears in the twelfth century by French writers adding romance and love and other such "garbage"  to the legend. The origional legend has it's roots in Wales not England, and deals not with the stopping of the Saxons, but rather the repulsing of the Britons who were being pushed west by the arrival of the Saxons. 

[Lord Liaden]

Indeed it does. But even the legendary Welsh sources are very thin in detail, and would require much elaboration to use in a RPG context. The actual historical existence of a real person inspiring the legend is highly doubtful. And that legend includes practically none of the iconic elements of what most people consider Arthuriana.

[tkdguy]

15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I never cared for Arthurian myth within an historical context. The anachronism is just too extreme, but if you don't have all the conventional elements you lose the charm of the setting.

 

Now, Carolingian legend requires less of a stretch to adapt. You're much closer to the age of chivalry, you have the Frankish kingdom which is the basis for France, and Charlemagne and his Peers aren't far from Arthur and his Round Table. That's why for my Champions games I shifted the Arthurian origin of Giles de Morphant, the Black Paladin, to Carolingian.

 

 

[GDShore]

Your right again L.L. , the Welsh tales are woefully slim, mostly because they were oral and the few surviving were not written down for at 3 to 4 hundred years after first told. I was involved in a series of debates on medieval personages just before the turn of the century, Existence of Robin Hood, existence of Arthur, and who fulfilled there word more completely Richard III or Sa-al-a-din I argued for Robin, lost, against Arthur, won, and split on Richard vs Sa-al-a-din taking Richard.  I am not sure that I would win on Arthur with the new evidence that somebody drove the Britons out of Wales sometime late 400's early 500's forcing the Briton's to confront and pin the Saxon's to the coast for 50 to 75 years. That somebody(s) is probably the basis of the Arthurian legend. It has been a quarter of a century since I lost the Robin Hood debate and I still rankle, they disallowed my evidence from the Nottingham/Barnstable azzises (courts) as the photo copies were illegible [mostly]. My contention was that Robin Hood was not a single person but rather the leader of the largest outlaw band in the old forest. There are stories dating to just after the Norman conquest, all oral, and none written down until the mid 1200's. 

     The Robin stories come in two forms, when faced with the common Saxon peasant he loses often in humiliating fashion, but when facing the Norman overlords and there minions he succeeds brilliantly. The two sets are concurrent, the wording, pacing indicates the same origan bardic format.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Almost all legends have at least some slight basis in reality: there probably was a guy Robin Hood is based on (possibly more than one), for example.  There probably was an Aurthurian king (not called arthur) but the later Norman stories are probably based at most on noble ideals, types of knights known in the past, etc rather than anything real.  There was no Lancelot, but there probably were some knights people knew in the past that were that kind of ideal knight who failed because he took the chivalrous ideal of love too far with his noble lady.