Campaign prep help request

[RexGator]

To All

Been thinking about starting up a TROS campaign to while away the summer doldrums.  Anyway I am leaning towards a "historical setting" of the 1400s (just started reading Mary Gentile's Ash series)  I cannot decide between a German campaign dealing with the politics of the Holy Roman Empire/Burgundy etc OR a campaign based on the struggle in the balkans between the "christian powers" and the advancing turks.  I would greatly appreciate any recommended reading/websites/game material that would support either campaign.  In particular I am interested in:

1.  The relative availabilty, frequency and effectiveness of gunpowder weapons.

2.  Political maps of the regions involved.

3.  General historys of the conflicts mentioned.

4.  Historys of the theological movements and issues brewing during this time (I am looking at religous ideals/controversies as being a prime engine for premise development)

5. Histories of important "non-governmental organizations" during this time period (Ie are the Templars around and up to no good? What about other "crusading orders?)

Then if you could write up my campaign, get some players and run it for me that would be swell :) :) :)

Thanks in advance!

[Mike Holmes]

1.  The relative availabilty, frequency and effectiveness of gunpowder weapons.

Really depends on what part of the century. But in all cases, and in both locales mentioned, they are rare. Very novel, most of their effect being limited to scaring the opponent (because accuracy is non-existant). Bombards, for the Turk, however, are available in some numbers, but limited to the army.

I think either way you can get away with ignoring them. If players really want to play with arquebuses, then let them blow themselves up a couple of times, and they'll give it up.

5. Histories of important "non-governmental organizations" during this time period (Ie are the Templars around and up to no good? What about other "crusading orders?)

The templars hold Cypress (Rhodes at the time) for the entire period, representing the only crusaders left, really. They are kicked off by the Turks later, and move to Malta, bequeathed to them by the Spanish monarch. On both islands, they work, essentially, as privateers. Who are we kidding, they were Papacy backed pirates, just as the Turk backed the pirates of what would eventually become the Barbary coast - North Africa.

A very cool game could be set in this environment. No shipboard cannon yet really available, combat is by catapult at range (pretty ineffective), and by boarding. So you have knights in armor acting as pirates - see what I'm talking about?

Mike

[Valamir]

The templars hold Cypress (Rhodes at the time) for the entire period, representing the only crusaders left, really. They are kicked off by the Turks later, and move to Malta,

Templars?

You mean Hospitlars, no?

It was the Knights of St. John who held Malta against the Turks was it not?

[Andrew Mure]

As regarding your 'Balkan' campaign, the principle regional enemy of the Turks of the period would by the Kingdom of Hungary. The Hungarian Kingdom of 1400s covered a much larger area than modern day Hungary and comprised of Croats, Slovenes, Romanians and some Germans and Serbs alongside the ruling Magyars. Each of these groups had a fair degree of automy within the Hungarian Kingdom and furthermore Hungary's Jagiellon Kings frequently were also the Kings of Poland too meaning Polish knights often came to fight for Hungary and vice-versa.

As well as the Turks the Hungarians frequently wared with the Austrian Hapsburgs on their western frontier.

Anyway putting the below into a search engine should give you a good overview of the conflict with the Turks.

Janos Hunyadi - A lower member of the Translyvannian nobility who rose to become the leading Hungarian general against the Turks and later Regent of Hungary in the first half of the 1400s.

Matthias 'Covinus' - Hunyadi's son, became King of Hungary 1453-90.

Vlad The Impaler/Vlad Dracula - Prince of Wallachia(the Hungarian province that would become Romania). Definitely mad and so evil that he makes the creation Bram Stoker named after him look harmless in comparsion.

Sultan Mehmed II- Turkish Sultan of 1400s campaign.

Battle of Kossovo

Battle of Belgrade

Battle of Varna

Battle of Mohacs

[Mike Holmes]

The templars hold Cypress (Rhodes at the time) for the entire period, representing the only crusaders left, really. They are kicked off by the Turks later, and move to Malta,

Templars?

You mean Hospitlars, no?

It was the Knights of St. John who held Malta against the Turks was it not?

Yes and no.

What happened was that the Templars were banned in the early fourteenth century, and all joined the order of St. John, the Hospitallers, to avoid being associated with their previous order. That said, they continued to act as the order of templars did, in a most military fashion. Any actual members of the Hospitallers didn't end up in positions of power on Rhodes. By the time of Malta, it was what it was, having evolved over a century.

So, in name they were Hospitallers, but it's suspected that they still swore oaths as Templars. This is precisely where all of the conspiracy theory regarding the Templars comes in. Basically they went underground sorta. Well, it was an open secret, basically a way to dodge the Papal order to disband. This tradition lasted long after Malta, and there are lots of legends regarding what became of the templars, including that they were the founders of freemasonry, yadda, yadda.

Very interesting stuff.

Also, that's Vlad Dracul - the "a" was added by Stoker, I believe. Dracul refers to the fact that Vlad, or maybe it was his father, was a member of a christian order "of Dragons".

Mike

[Tash]

Dracul was a title confered by membership in the Order of the Dragon.  It carried a double meaning fo both 'dragon' and 'devil' (the Book of Revelation says that when Satan takes form on Earth during the end times he will come as a great Red Dragon).  The elder Vlad held this title because of his membership in the order and it was used in place of his family name when he reigned (I belive the family name was Tzepech or something like that).

The addition of the 'a' at the end is a sort of patronific, like 'ovich' in Russian.  Vlad Dracul's elder son was killed at the same time as his father when they became embroiled in machinations for the throne of Walachia between the Hungarians and the Turks.  
It was the younger son, also named Vlad, who (after he reclaimed his father's lands and title) took the title Vlad Dracula, or "Son of the Dragon".  He was also know as "The Impaler" and did all those nasty things that inspired Stoker to use his name for the most infamous horror character of all time.

At least that's what my book on the history of vampires in literature says.

Another nasty figure that inspired the modern vampire is Countess Erzsebet Bathory.  She killed an unknown (but very large, some belive more than several hundred) number of women adn young girls so she could bathe in their blood in hope of maintining her youth.  One of her methods was to place several girls into an iron cage with blades on the inside.  The girls would be crammed in so tighly they couldn't move without pressing into one another (and driving themselves against the blades).  Bathory would then stand beneath the cage and have her atendants prod the grils with branding irons.  As they tried to escape the irons they would inevitably cause the rest of the cages occupants to cut themselves deeply and allow the blood to pour down on the waiting countess.

And people think our rulers are sick and twisted NOW....

Edit:  Oh yeah, contrary to the notion esposed in the Cradle of Filth album "Cruelty and the Beast", Erzebet Bathory was not married to Vlad Dracula, she was born almost 100 years after he died.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Anyway I am leaning towards a "historical setting" of the 1400s. (SNIP)

An excellent plan if I may say so.

I cannot decide between a German campaign dealing with the politics of the Holy Roman Empire/Burgundy etc OR a campaign based on the struggle in the balkans between the "christian powers" and the advancing turks.

I have copies of both the Atlas Historique de Départment de l'Ain and Atlas Historique de Départment Actuel du Rhône. These contain maps, delineated by the modern French départments, from the Roman conquest onwards. Parts of Burgundy, Switzerland, and the HRE are covered. The maps show some political detail. More useful, IMO, are the (incomplete) lists of noble families.

If your campaign is going to involve the politics of the church then a must-read is Censure and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200 - 1400 by Thijssen (Penn Press). Amongst other things it explains the process involved in having a doctrine declared to be heretical. If one of the PCs was being attacked politically in this manner by an NPC it would consume an entire campaign with ease as the process was involved and could take years.

If you do decide to do the Wallachia campaign then Arab Historians of the Crusades might give you a bit of perspective.

If you want to do the HRE thing and you want historical accuracy then you probably can't go past Land, Liberties, and Lordship in a Late Medieval Countryside by Hoffmann which covers the Duchy of Wroclaw in reasonable detail. It won't tell you everything you need to know about running a TRoS game in a Germanic Duchy but it covers the area in fine detail which is a massive headstart in an historic campaign.

The relative availabilty, frequency and effectiveness of gunpowder weapons.

By gunpowder weapons do you mean canon or hand weapons?

Historys of the theological movements and issues brewing during this time (I am looking at religous ideals/controversies as being a prime engine for premise development).

Censure and Heresy takes a handful of "classic" cases and analyses them in detail. You could use several of them directly though the reason why the teaching produced a censure motion may well be lost on the players.

History of the Franciscan Order: From Its Origins to the Year 151" by Moorman covers everything you need to know about the Franciscans.

The Monks of War by Seward covers much of what you may want to know about the Christian military religious orders. While he is a sympathiser as well as an historian there are plenty of interesting tales to be gleaned from the text and it covers the Teutonic Order.

Histories of important "non-governmental organizations" during this time period (Ie are the Templars around and up to no good? What about other "crusading orders?)

In the 14th century, our period of interest, you could argue that there are few government organizations and you could equally argue that all organizations are governmental. It all depends on definition. The lack of centralised infrastructure makes governments (by which I mean the administrative bureaucracy that runs a country) and rulers weak. On the other hand you could argue that being noble makes you part of the government and thus your involvement in any organization makes it governmental.

But to answer the intent of your question, in a city such as Lyon in France the Confraternities -- loose organizations ostensibly created to promote a single goal (for instance, to build a new bridge) -- have some power and manage to cross social strata (or at least have members from different social strata). By and large though family is everything and the interconnection of family is at the heart of all alliances.

Our own campaign of seven or so scenarios will probably finish at the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396. While a pipe-dream at this stage it would have made the perfect launching point for your 15th century Wallachia/Hungary campaign.

Cheers,

[[MKF]Kapten]

Vlad the impaler is Vlad Tepec (the c is pronounced -tsch) in Romanian. I think it sounds kind of cool =)

[RexGator]

Thanks for all the feedback so far.  Great site Ian, of course now I am thinking of a 'french" campaign:)  Anyway, based on my initial googling (is that a word?), I am leaning towards the Wallachia/Hungary campaign.  Would be interested in your comments, reactions or twists on the following.

I am looking at setting the game in Wallachia in the period prior to the Battle of Warna (Varna?).  I am going to run it with a "political/faction" style.  In other words there will be lots of intriuge and political jockeying that will effect or involve the PCs.  I think I will limit gunpowder weapons to artillery.  No magic (as far as anyone knows...).  I see the factions in the following clusters:

The 2-Dimensional bad guys-  I will use the Turks as my tool to move plot and create the crisis that will motivate the other factions. This is based primarily on my limited sense of how Turk politics and factions worked.  At a later point I might let the PCs "in" on the Turk side of the game.

The Locals-  These are the Wallachian/Serb/Bulgar types.  The war is on their front door and they are going to be motivated by staving off OR accomadating the 800 lb. Turk gorilla.

The Regionals-  These are the Hungarian/Venetian/??????? types.  They are striving to expand their regional power and address the looming security threat of the Turk advance.

The Faithful-  The church in Rome and the church in Byzantium.  They see the fight with the Turk as a chance to grab the mantle of leadership for all christendom.  

The Opportunists-  Holy Roman Empire/?????/?????? types.  They are not directly threatened by the advance of the Turk but see the struggle as a way to demonstrate their power and ability to project this power.

The Professionals-  The mercernary/merchant types who see this struggle in the cold light of profit and loss.

I am stuggling to coin a catchy Premise to present this game to my players.  I see it as something along the lines of "For who or what are you willing to risk death?"  It just seems kind of generic.  I really envision the game as presenting the players with the challenge of deciding "who is right?" and "What am I willing to do advance their cause?".  Since I am shooting for the moon, I also would like the players to have the freedom to reject all of the above and chart their own new course.

As usual, your feedback is greatly appreciated.

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds pretty neat to me.

On the idea of determining an overall premise, I'd suggest against it. I'm not sure where you got the idea to come up with one, but stating one at the start like you're talking about doing, just isn't neccessary. Somewhere along the line I think that people got the idea that narrativism requires an overt statement of premise up front when that's completely not true. In certain circumstances it might be warranted, but in most cases doing so ranges from pointless to dangerous.

Indeed, just let the players create their own premises. And by that, I don't mean have them state one out loud, I mean just have them make characters. Premise is automatically created by the players selection of SAs.

The only "danger" in this is that the players may ignore some of the backdrop that you're creating. There are two options regarding this.

1.Tell the players what you're doing with regards to the factions and such, and request that they make characters that will make sense in this context. This does narrow their premise choices to a subset of the otherwise infinite choices of premise, but then so does simply selecting the setting. The point is, if you want the game to be "about" these things, you need to present them to the players and get them onboard with exploring them. You need to make sure that the players have the same enthusiasm for the material that you have, by whatever means. If they're not enthused, then you need to think about playing in another situation.

2. You can let the players select their SAs knowing the background, and then alter your choices above about what the game is "about" to revolve around the player choices. For example, if they indicate that their characters are really not about politics at all, but rather about guerrilla warfare or something, then maybe you'd want to focus on them fighting the Turks, and less on things like Holy Roman Empire opportunists.


Basically, before proceeding further, you have to talk to your players, and either get them on board with your background, or discuss with them what the background should be. Once you've got that straight, then let them select SAs (they can create the entire character, but the SAs are the only important part for how you proceed). Once you see the SAs, then you see the selected premises, and you can create conflicts that force the characters to address those premises.

Mike

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Great site Ian, of course now I am thinking of a 'french" campaign :)

Now that is what I like to hear. May there be many others with similar thoughts once our products are released.

Would be interested in your comments, reactions or twists on the following. (SNIP environment framework)

Here are some suggestions:

Immediately pre-1444 the emperor of Constantinople is effectively a vassal of the Turkish Sultan. While the eventual conquest of Constantinople comes as a surprise to the west to the locals (as in those who actually had an appreciation of the Turkish conquest first-hand) it must have seemed inevitable.

As such there must have been some sort of preparation amongst the power-brokers of the Orthodox Church as to what should happen in the aftermath of the capture of Constantinople. Who becomes Primate? After Constantinople which is the most powerful seat of the Church? Which temporal ruler wants the prestige of securing the Primacy in their domain?

The area that is now Russia sees itself as the home of the Orthodox Church and is deeply involved in the conflict.

Beyond this the great maritime city-states of the west -- the Genoese, the Ventians -- must have understood clearly the inevitable fall and sought to protect their Black Sea interests in light of the possibility of Constantinople's conquest. As these states sought closer ties with the Turks Pope Nicolas V and his predecessor Pope Eugenius IV sought to unite Christendom against the Turks. Conflict of purpose was inevitable.

The same ties that brought the French to Nicopolis in 1396 exist 50 years later. The ruling houses are still tied by marriage and thus family to many of the noble houses of the west. While full-scale military expeditions seemed to suffer the same fate as those of 1396, individual knights or small groups of knights often spent a season fighting the Turk in the east.

Plenty of opportunity for scheming and combat to be sure.

More interestingly, for me anyway, are the Janisseries of the Sultan. These are the troops that are likely to oppose your PCs and even if you want to ignore the rest of the Turkish question I think you would do well to research a little about the Janisseries. They will add a lot of Colour and realism to your Wallachian campaign -- IMO, it always helps if the enemy are believable in motive and action.

On the other hand if you do want to examine the Turkish question at a later date you will find a factionalised culture that is struggling to deal with the ramifications of conquest of the Greek people. It is a clash of cultures that are extremely different and assimilation proves to be extremely problematic. Personally I think there is a lot of fun to be had playing on this clash of cultures and misunderstanding.

Anyway, have fun in Wallachia -- it is a beautiful part of the world.

Cheers,

[Andrew Mure]

The 2-Dimensional bad guys-  I will use the Turks as my tool to move plot and create the crisis that will motivate the other factions. This is based primarily on my limited sense of how Turk politics and factions worked.  At a later point I might let the PCs "in" on the Turk side of the game.

As usual, your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Okay as you asked so nicely, I think I could help you a bit on the Turks and their hierachary.

Unlike the feudal order of the European states of the day, the Ottoman Sultan technicially owned all the land in his empire. However as the Sultan couldn't be everywhere at once, much of the day to day adminstration of the Empire was delegated to officials who were granted temporary rights to govern an area, known as 'Pashas'. A Pasha was usually either a nobleman from one of the Turkish clans (this included Royal princes of the
Sultan's own family) or a high ranking slave of the Sultan's palace. The title 'Pasha' was placed after the name of the one entitled to it.

E.G. If the Sultan was to make Yusef Ali, Pasha of Anatolia, he would be addressed as Yusef Ali Pasha.

Titles typically followed the name with the Turks, with a few exceptions. The rank of an officer in the army or 'Bey' is one, however military and land titles were separate. If an individual was both a Bey and a Pasha, one could insult him if you dropped either title.

E.G. Impressed by the way Anatolia has been run (and seeing the Byzantines are trying to take it back) the Sultan has decided to give Yusef Ali a military command. He should now be addressed Bey Yusef Ali Pasha.

Slavery is a rather confusing issue with the Ottoman Turks as slaves technically included some very influential figures, such as the Sultan's wives and the Grand Viser who were direct slaves of the Sultan. The Grand Viser was the second most powerful individual in the Ottoman Empire and would take charge of any important venture which the Sultan was unable to take personal charge of. Therefore the Viser was likely to be in Ankara if the Sultan took personal command of his army on campaign and if there was a major campaign the Sultan (for any reason) wouldn't or couldn't lead the Viser would lead it. Unsuprisingly Grand Visers tended to be very competent in a number of fields as they only got where they were though ability!

Succession in the Ottoman Empire was a rather complicated affair as firstly the inheritance didn't automatically go to the eldest son and secondly because Sultans kept a harem rather than a single wife and could have lots of children. Therefore political factions within the Ottoman empire tended revolve around the favourite wives of the harem and their children. This struggle was further made vicious by the accepted practice that a new Sultan was allowed to execute anyone he wanted to without provocation in the first week of his rule. The usual targets were his siblings and their mothers, typically suggested to him by his own mother.

Other than the Sultan the only men allowed into the harem were the Black Eunuch Slaves who quickly found a ninche of power in Ottoman politics as go-betweens between the women of the harem and influential officials.

Two notable troops in the Ottoman army were the Sipaphi and the Janissaries.

Sipahi were the noble cavalrymen of the Turks. They fought with both lance and bow and were heavily armoured in full chain armour. Unlike European knights they owned no land and could only expect to be granted a temporary governorship. As such they tended to be extremely savage in looting anything of worth (including people to sell into slavery) on any campaign they took part in. The Sultan had an elite regiment of Sipahi called The Sipahi of the Porte.

The Janissary Corps were the career soldiers of the Ottoman army. They were usually children of the christian families within the Empire who taken from their parents in early childhood to be raised to fight for the Sultan. Their entire unbringing from then on was structured to produce a very discliplined and skilled slave-soldier who was fanatically loyal to the Sultan. Janissaries advanced following drum signals and were amongst the first troops in the world to use music for morale and to frighten their enemies. They wore white uniforms and fought with polearms and bows.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

The Janissary Corps were the career soldiers of the Ottoman army. They were usually children of the christian families within the Empire who taken from their parents in early childhood to be raised to fight for the Sultan. Their entire unbringing from then on was structured to produce a very discliplined and skilled slave-soldier who was fanatically loyal to the Sultan. Janissaries advanced following drum signals and were amongst the first troops in the world to use music for morale and to frighten their enemies. They wore white uniforms and fought with polearms and bows.

While the Janissary are a troop type that may well be encountered during a military conflict for me the interest in using them as protagonists comes at the individual NPC level. The Jannisaries were recruited through a form of human taxation known as the devshirmeh.  Roughly 1 in 40 boys between the ages of 7 and 14 were taken through this process (though levels rose and fell with the Sultan's requirement for troops). It would be interesting to set a scene within a village where the devshirmeh is being exacted. How will the Christian PCs react?

Equally interesting for a major Janissary NPC is the possibility that he remained Christian throughout his training. Conversion to Islaam was not a requirement of the Janissaries though it was common of course. Having the PCs develop a personal relationship with such a character would help break down the stereotype. The conflict within such a character may be interesting to explore.

Cheers,

[Andrew Mure]

Hi,

The Janissary Corps were the career soldiers of the Ottoman army. They were usually children of the christian families within the Empire who taken from their parents in early childhood to be raised to fight for the Sultan. Their entire unbringing from then on was structured to produce a very discliplined and skilled slave-soldier who was fanatically loyal to the Sultan. Janissaries advanced following drum signals and were amongst the first troops in the world to use music for morale and to frighten their enemies. They wore white uniforms and fought with polearms and bows.

While the Janissary are a troop type that may well be encountered during a military conflict for me the interest in using them as protagonists comes at the individual NPC level. The Jannisaries were recruited through a form of human taxation known as the devshirmeh.  Roughly 1 in 40 boys between the ages of 7 and 14 were taken through this process (though levels rose and fell with the Sultan's requirement for troops). It would be interesting to set a scene within a village where the devshirmeh is being exacted. How will the Christian PCs react?

Equally interesting for a major Janissary NPC is the possibility that he remained Christian throughout his training. Conversion to Islaam was not a requirement of the Janissaries though it was common of course. Having the PCs develop a personal relationship with such a character would help break down the stereotype. The conflict within such a character may be interesting to explore.

Cheers,

Both certainly have potential. Really how they play out depends on the other npcs presented.

With the first idea the villagers would be your main focus. The devshirmeh as I understand it was some cases a choice for each family between paying money or a son to the Ottomans. Here are some ideas.

A poor family with a single son who cannot afford the monetary tax.

A large, but poor family with too many mouths to feed.

A mean rich father who's far more prepared to give the Turks his children than his money. His wife of course has other ideas...

A family of daughters who are determined to avoid paying the money.

A cruel christian lord (and collaborator with the Ottomans) who wants his tenants to give the Turks their due and him his taxes (while naturally avoiding the devshirmeh for his own children)...


The second idea really needs a very unpleasent Ottoman character for the suggested NPC to rebel against. A Sipahi officer who's in need of some quick cash could work well...

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Both certainly have potential. Really how they play out depends on the other npcs presented. (SNIP adventure hooks)

For the devshirmeh scene I might use an area that has been conquered by the Turks within the last ten years or so, where resentment is still high. An area that the PCs pass through on their way to somewhere else, where they do not speak the local language. For instance, the PCs are a pair of Hainaulter knights and their valets/squires and they have a Wallachian companion who explains what is happening.

A cruel christian lord (and collaborator with the Ottomans) who wants his tenants to give the Turks their due and him his taxes (while naturally avoiding the devshirmeh for his own children)

Personally I prefer all characters -- PCS and NPCS alike -- to be  ambivalent rather than polarised. For me it makes the characters more lifelike. As such I would prefer to see the Christian lord who recognises that resistance will bring swift retribution and thus promotes coperation, whose people mistake his pragmatism for weakness and collaboration.

The second idea really needs a very unpleasent Ottoman character for the suggested NPC to rebel against. A Sipahi officer who's in need of some quick cash could work well...

That would be one approach that would be good if the NPC was to be an ally. I would have the Jannisary as an opponent of the PCs. For instance the Hainaulter knights are in Wallachia to battle the infidel. They are captured by our Jannisary NPC and, in due course, discover he is cultured, educated, and Christian. They are duly ransomed. Thus the NPC remains an enemy, one that the PCs can relate to and admire just as the Jannisary NPC admires the knights. Subsequent encounters in various scenarios would provide opportunities for the Jannisary to both assist and oppose the PCs depending on the occasion and their goals.

Anyway there is plenty of scope for interesting times in Wallachia and its neighbours.

Cheers,