I was reading the Weyrth chapter and settled on Dardanet. It sounded like an interesting place for a campaign, what with the religious tensions and the threat of Otamarluk.

I read the Otamarluk section and it even described how they were putting lots of money into a war on the border of Dardanet. Sounds good. I'm getting nice crusader state-type ideas.

Then I look at the map. Otamarluk is like 500 miles away and there's a big, Imperial religion country between Otamarluk and Dardanet. Am I missing something? How is Otamarluk supposed to be waging war on Dardanet with another country in the way?

See this similar thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4642

The conflict between the two is actually extremely important, and a little bit of tweaking should be made so that it can exist.

Jake

And, thus, you have a campaign.

They're running over the middle country. I don't have the book in front of me (so I don't know what that country is) but I don't need it. Make that middle country weak and reliant on both neighbor countries, and then set your campaign there. The tensions from the local people, fighting over which way to go in a war, are perfect.

Thanks both of you for the quick response.

I originally just though "screw it, I'll ignore Taveruun," but the writing just sounds so darn earnest when it asks you to run Weyrth as is at least once that I feel like I'm kicking a puppy when I decide that Otamarluk can get by that wall and everything as described in Taveruun.

Now I won't feel bad about the puppy.

I still think I'll put the campaign in Dardanet though Clinton. I like the idea of the campaign being in one small but well-fortified city that depends on support from the Imperial Church to survive. (I'm thinking that the leader of the city has been captured in a recent battle and is being ransomed at a much higher rate than the city can pay without Church money. The campaign begins with the ship from the Seat going missing in a storm.)

Well, a thought. One thin g that the crusades are famous for is the swathe of destruction they left across Europe. The feudal lords often thought that the would-be cursaders were presenting a ruse just to get access to their territory for nefarious purposes, so they balked. This was interpreted as sabotage of the holy mission to be punished. However, the next time the whole thing was more plausible and ther transitions were easier (although note the regularity with which armies on the move strip the countryside of everything edible). The better planned expeditions went by sea to obviate this sort of problem.

So, as mentioned above, if the precedent for allowing large forces on both sides to transit had been established - or for one side only, perhaps - it would be quite possible to establish a "local war" around some p[articular point and rason that the assaulting army was able to cross the intervening land, or went by sea. It adds a huge logistical problem into the mix for the contending sides, but that might be a source of suitably dramatic conflicts.

OK, history lesson. The Polish and the Turks went to war more than once. Look at a map. Is the then Turkish empire anywhere near Poland? They were both larger then, but there were intervening countries. Who either got involved or didn't. And not small countries either. We're talking Crimea, all the principalities of what's today Rumania, all of Hungary. Etc. And that's after the Turk had already conquered all of the lower Balkans and was knocking on the door of Vienna.

The Turkish Sultans were never daunted by the idea of war over long distances of land in Europe, or intervening countries. Nobody else had an army even half as large. Everybody just got out of the way for the most part.

Mike

Very true, Mike, very true. Some of the coolest museum stuff I saw in Poland was turkish.

Jake

I like the explanation, from the link above, on how Taveruun ended up there. It makes a lot of sense that Otamarluk would be fighting to capture the coast of Taveruun. That's where the wealth is to pay for the army. Also, the trade opportunities and harbors.

But why would they then go for mountainous, guerrilla fighting, balkan Dardanet? There are lots of richer prizes (the rest of Taveruun and Numeria, etc). I'd place an important trade and invasion route between Dardanet and Taveruun, leading to the wealthy cities of Sea of Fallen Gods.

If you want to make it a real prize for the Marluks, put an important religious site(s) there. A temple, or a tomb, or a holy mountain. Then attach a prophecy to it ("He who rules the Mount of Jinsheq shall rule the world!").

Anyhoo, that's it for tonight.

Gene Ha

The conflict is based on the Real-world conflict between turkey and albania. You'll find that they are (1) not neighbors and (2) turkey has very little to actually gain from taking Albania, but they really really really wanted it anyway.

Jake

"For the next 25 years, operating out of his stronghold in the mountain town of Kruja, Skenderbeg frustrated every attempt by the Turks to regain Albania, which they envisioned as a springboard for the invasion of Italy and western Europe."

The Turks saw the invasion of the Balkans as a necessary step for further conquest. So for Weyrth, I'd suggest that the mountains of Taveruun be nigh impassable and easily defended. Except at a "Cumberland Gap" seen on the map between Taveruun and Dardanet.

I'm not saying that this my ideas become TRoS gospel. But for this one campaign, it could add a lot of drama. One side acts as the Spartan 300, defending civilization at the pass. The other side is on a mission from God to convert and conquer the world.

Gene

Jake Norwood wrote: The conflict is based on the Real-world conflict between turkey and albania. You'll find that they are (1) not neighbors

Here's a cool set of links:

http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/conflicts/conf01.htm
http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/conflicts/conf02.htm
http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/conflicts/conf03.htm
http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/conflicts/conf04.htm

Turkey had no less than four wars with Poland starting at the end if the fifteeth century, and lasting throughout the renaisance. They came through Moldavia mostly, and through Crimea, often with the support of the Tatars. There were occasional battles fought in places like Moldavia, but for the most part, the Moldavians were happy to let the Turks through in return for not squashing their kingdom flat. Oh, yeah, and Moldavia was Christian.

The point is that countries would either browbeat intervening countries to let them through, or the country would go to war with the smaller nation just to get from point A to Point B.

Basically I see Taveruun as a satelite state of the Marluks that maintains it's sovergnty at thier pleasure. And, yeah, the gap is a great reason why they'd want to get a foothold there. It's a stumbling block in their way like Vienna was for the Turks.

Mike

Not to derail the topic but all of this can be seen replayed in full living color in the PC game Europa Universalis II, where you actually get to watch countries like Moldavia in fear of their existance granting "Military Access" to the Ottoman Empire. Where you see Poland try anything and everything from vassalizing Moldavia to outright conquering them (and then trying to keep them from rebelling) to stop the invasions. Where you see things like the Ukraine rebel against Poland who are unable to reconquer them because the Ottomans and Crimea "Guarentee their Independence" only to have them absorbed decades latter by Russia.

If you are interested in seeing all of the Byzantine politics of this corner of the world played out in true "what if" fashion, I'd advise grabbing a copy (available in most discount bins now) the game is chock full of historical events with several different possible outcomes so you can choose the historical course, or fight history and try something else. Those events will graphically demonstrate the inevitable implosion of Poland as everything you try to do consistantly gets undone by local politics.

Its fun stuff, and the game would likely generate all kinds of events that could be ported to a TROS campaign.

Actually I knew about the Poland/Turkish wars from playing the boardgame version of EU. So, yes, I agree it's a great way to understand the potential political situation in Wyerth.

In fact the most interesting thing, I find, is how (depite the fact that travel is still hazardous to say the least) worldwide the political arena is by the end of the fifteenth century.

Mike

Boardgame... Heh. I wonder if the manufacturers of EU would be amenable to being approached about a fantasy version of the game based in a little known, but highly developed fantasy setting called "Weyrth"...

Mike Holmes wrote: Turkey had no less than four wars with Poland starting at the end if the fifteeth century, and lasting throughout the renaisance. They came through Moldavia mostly, and through Crimea, often with the support of the Tatars. Oh, yeah, and Moldavia was Christian.

Basically I see Taveruun as a satelite state of the Marluks that maintains it's sovergnty at thier pleasure.

MrGeneHa wrote: One side acts as the Spartan 300, defending civilization at the pass. The other side is on a mission from God to convert and conquer the world.

Well, I guess the side with the invading army must be trying to block the invasion at the pass. It wouldn't make any sense for the natives to defend their land against an invasion ; )

Seriously, the post of mine you quoted assumed that Albania and the Ottomans were the model for the situation. Note my quote about Albania and the Turks. If you alter the nature of Dardanet (not ruled by divided warlords, unified by a Genghis Khan or Attilla) the situation could easily be reversed. Small barbarian nations have often ravaged great empires.

So a small band of Marluks could fend off a Dardanian horde at the pass. But that gets rid of the TRoS description of Dardanet's politics completely.

Gene