StarDestroyer.Net BBS

RPG - Arthur Pendragon's conquest of Rome
(If found inadequate please move to the appropriate forum).

Background:
I am the GM for a Pendragon campain and I have a huge problem.
According to the fairytale that we follow Arthur Pendragon will conquer Rome.
This in itself isn't the actual problem since it is a fairytale, but rather that I myself would like to tell the story with a lot of correct historical info thrown in for fun.

The request:
I need people's input on how Arthur Pendragon should execute this conquest and which historical figures should be prominent in it. Think of it as if someone was writing a movie script the needs are the same.


Premesis:
To fit the fairytale, these changes are necessary:
I've renamed the Ostrogothic kingdom as the Roman empire.
The capitol is Rome
Theodoric the Great is the roman emperor, of a west rome in decline.
The byzantine empire will not aid Theodric against the invasion, but will instead send gratulations when it is done and then as Arthur's reign declines steal it.
The Franks are loosely allied with Rome, so that our heroes know that if Arthur defeats the Franks he must fight Rome.
Sickness and attrition will not affect Arthur's army. This so that the conquest only takes 2 years to fit the campain and the fairytale.

With those small "corrections" continental history is historically accurate up until 524.


These are my ideas so far:
The invasion of the continent will occur in 525-526 as a direct response to the events of 524.
I'm going to have Arthur invade Frankish territory as a response to them defeating his friends and allies in the Battle of Vézeronce 524. (and also for defeating the visigoths in 507)
At the battle one of the frankish king brothers die, the three remaining Frankish king brothers,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotaire_I]Chlothar I[/url], Childebert I and Theuderic I are fighting over the spoils and their brother's inheritance and can not keep their alliance together. Clothis murders his dead brother's children to get to the inheritance. They will be bad guys and are allied with Rome.
This is my timeline:
Arthur ships his army over to Little Britain (Bretagne) which is his ally. It consists of of his fameous knights, all the armies of Britain, but also his Pictish and Anglo-Saxon subjects (I know this is not historical but its in the fairytale).
Arthur gets Amalaric of the spanish Visigoths to attack through bordeaux while arthur attacks le mans and surrounding territory. They meet at Orleans and attack Paris together.
Then they defeat the three frankish king brothers in the field together. One by one.

So far so good, all this is plausible, etc.

But now comes the tricky part and I'm stumped...

how should Arthur proceed from here against Rome? All I know is that Theodric the Great should die fall 526.

Go through the pyrinees? Get the help of the Vandals?


Please help me.

What the hell?

Theodoric the Great was never the emperor of Rome!

Is this an elaborate troll?

The request:
I need people's input on how Arthur Pendragon should execute this conquest and which historical figures should be prominent in it. Think of it as if someone was writing a movie script the needs are the same.


Premesis:
To fit the fairytale, these changes are necessary:
I've renamed the Ostrogothic kingdom as the Roman empire.

Idiotic.

The capitol is Rome

Equally idiotic.

Theodoric the Great is the roman emperor, of a west rome in decline.

Downright ridiculous.

The byzantine empire will not aid Theodric against the invasion, but will instead send gratulations when it is done and then as Arthur's reign declines steal it.
The Franks are loosely allied with Rome, so that our heroes know that if Arthur defeats the Franks he must fight Rome.
Sickness and attrition will not affect Arthur's army. This so that the conquest only takes 2 years to fit the campain and the fairytale.

...so in other words, you are having brit-wanking 101?

These are my ideas so far:
The invasion of the continent will occur in 525-526 as a direct response to the events of 524.
I'm going to have Arthur invade Frankish territory as a response to them defeating his friends and allies in the Battle of Vézeronce 524. (and also for defeating the visigoths in 507)
At the battle one of the frankish king brothers die, the three remaining Frankish king brothers,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotaire_I]Chlothar I[/url], Childebert I and Theuderic I are fighting over the spoils and their brother's inheritance and can not keep their alliance together. Clothis murders his dead brother's children to get to the inheritance. They will be bad guys and are allied with Rome.
This is my timeline:
Arthur ships his army over to Little Britain (Bretagne) which is his ally. It consists of of his fameous knights, all the armies of Britain, but also his Pictish and Anglo-Saxon subjects (I know this is not historical but its in the fairytale).
Arthur gets Amalaric of the spanish Visigoths to attack through bordeaux while arthur attacks le mans and surrounding territory. They meet at Orleans and attack Paris together.
Then they defeat the three frankish king brothers in the field together. One by one.

So far so good, all this is plausible, etc.

No it is not. the British army is absolutely pitiful. It cannot even hold a candle to one third of the frankish nation.

But now comes the tricky part and I'm stumped...

how should Arthur proceed from here against Rome? All I know is that Theodric the Great should die fall 526.

Go through the pyrinees? Get the help of the Vandals?

How about....wake up from the masturbatory fantasy?

You all die horribly as the Franks slaughter your pitiful troops.

As does this thread.

On second thought - I'll just move it to a more "deserving" place.

Some questions about the Pendragon rpg system since the wiki link was lacking. Is there spellcasting, attribute boosting items etc ? Or Pendragon intended to be bit more on the "hard" side like Gurps ?

Sarevok wrote:Some questions about the Pendragon rpg system since the wiki link was lacking. Is there spellcasting, attribute boosting items etc ? Or Pendragon intended to be bit more on the "hard" side like Gurps ?

Its a d20 fairytale, so I'd rather say that its on the softer than ADD. It is based upon Le Morte d'Arthur from the 15th century.

Thanas wrote:Is this an elaborate troll?

Not quite the response I thought that I would get.

Thanas wrote:On second thought - I'll just move it to a more "deserving" place.

Now there is the response I thought that I would get.

ray245 wrote:What the hell?

Theodoric the Great was never the emperor of Rome!

Of course. Which is why I said that it was a necessary change to fit the fairytale.
It is only one of my smaller problems compared to the whole conquest thingie which I'm clueless on how to try to explain.

Thanas wrote:Is this an elaborate troll?

Nope. Quite serious in fact.
But for you to suggest that this would be trolling makes me think that either you have to be unfamiliar with RPG's or the legend of Arthur Pendragon. Now admittedly the latter part is confusing since there are so many different versions. So to be specific the one that this fairytale is based upon is Le Morte d'Arthur.

To quote myself

Spoonist wrote:I need people's input on how Arthur Pendragon should execute this conquest and which historical figures should be prominent in it. Think of it as if someone was writing a movie script the needs are the same.

Maybe the word fairytale did not register, but I thought that adding the movie script allegory would help. So I will be even clearer.
Think of it like this. A hollywood script writer has made a draft for a movie based on a book (the RPG) which in turn is put in a specific historical era (520s). But the book and thus the script is filled with inconsistencies and flaws. This draft has been handed to the director (me) but when reading it the director thinks it is a disaster and wants to at least put in some decent historical references from the era while being aware that the funding for the movie relies on it being 'true' to the fictional book.
Now that director comes to this board and asks for help with those references.

Think of it as a "suspension of disbelief", where I have to follow the fairytale. But I still want to throw in some real historical data and figures for the heroes to meet.

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:Premesis:
To fit the fairytale, these changes are necessary:
I've renamed the Ostrogothic kingdom as the Roman empire.

Idiotic.

Agreed.
The idoicy comes from Malory which in turn gets it originally from Historia Regum Britanniae, which is really idiotic.

Which is why I pointed out that to fit it into the fairytale those changes was necessary.
If it helps, you can ignore what I call it and still refer to it as the Ostrogothic kingdom.

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:The capitol is Rome

Equally idiotic.

Again, agreed, see above.

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:Theodoric the Great is the roman emperor, of a west rome in decline.

Downright ridiculous.

Yes. Hence it having to be in the suspension of disbelief premises.
But this is one of the parts which I have the least problems with, since Theodric is such a lovely character as the "barbarian" turned civilized ruler of italy.

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:The byzantine empire will not aid Theodric against the invasion, but will instead send gratulations when it is done and then as Arthur's reign declines steal it.
The Franks are loosely allied with Rome, so that our heroes know that if Arthur defeats the Franks he must fight Rome.
Sickness and attrition will not affect Arthur's army. This so that the conquest only takes 2 years to fit the campain and the fairytale.

...so in other words, you are having brit-wanking 101?

Exactly, or well to be a bit precise, its worse, its brit-wanking 1130 and 1480 with a little bit of retro-americano-brit-history-wanking 1980.

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:These are my ideas so far:
The invasion of the continent will occur in 525-526 as a direct response to the events of 524.
I'm going to have Arthur invade Frankish territory as a response to them defeating his friends and allies in the Battle of Vézeronce 524. (and also for defeating the visigoths in 507)
At the battle one of the frankish king brothers die, the three remaining Frankish king brothers,Chlothar I, Childebert I and Theuderic I are fighting over the spoils and their brother's inheritance and can not keep their alliance together. Clothis murders his dead brother's children to get to the inheritance. They will be bad guys and are allied with Rome.
This is my timeline:
Arthur ships his army over to Little Britain (Bretagne) which is his ally. It consists of of his fameous knights, all the armies of Britain, but also his Pictish and Anglo-Saxon subjects (I know this is not historical but its in the fairytale).
Arthur gets Amalaric of the spanish Visigoths to attack through bordeaux while arthur attacks le mans and surrounding territory. They meet at Orleans and attack Paris together.
Then they defeat the three frankish king brothers in the field together. One by one.

So far so good, all this is plausible, etc.

No it is not. the British army is absolutely pitiful. It cannot even hold a candle to one third of the frankish nation.

If you could be a little more specific it would really help even if you are not on the SoD bandwagon. What makes the frankish such formidable foes? Would the brits have to have hordes of saxons to help them? Maybe mixing in danish revenge for killing of Chlochilaich by Theuderic's son Theudebert? Would it help if the remains of the burgundians rallied again?

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:But now comes the tricky part and I'm stumped...

how should Arthur proceed from here against Rome? All I know is that Theodric the Great should die fall 526.

Go through the pyrinees? Get the help of the Vandals?

How about....wake up from the masturbatory fantasy?

You all die horribly as the Franks slaughter your pitiful troops.

Now while I do like the occasional masturbatory fantasy every now and again, they usually don't include large quantaties of men in armor.

But as you can see, it is a big challenge. But I still need to make this fairytale work, and I would like to have as little magical plot devices as possible, but yes I know it is impossible without at least some. Who of the powers of the mediterranean could be convinced to help against Theodoric the Great? I'm thinking that the obviuos one is the vandal king Hilderic. What is wrong with the help from the visigoths?

Thanas, I am still hoping that you could give me some hints at least, I know the historical situation is utter rubbish but I really want to make it work in the real 520's and not do like Mallory and use the fictional Lucius Tiberius which would be the easy way out. Instead I want to treat myself and my players to some real historical dramatis personæ. I was thinking that would count for something.

The Pendragon setting is a quasi-mythical one (535 AD full-plate knights, etc) that takes the 13th century romance and puts it in a (very strange) dark age context. It's fantastic and romance-driven (all about grail questing and christian faith and such). It's not even remotely realistic or historically plausible; I believe the sourcebook timeline even has a time at which 'history takes hold' after Arthur's death.

I'm actually kind of interested to see if the elaborate and nonsensical construct the Pendragon guys synthesised out of romantic fiction could be made remotely plausible, but somehow I doubt it.

Thanas wrote:Is this an elaborate troll?

I take it you're not familiar with Le Morte d'Arthur, then? In it, the Romans demanded tribute of King Arthur, to which Arthur responded by going apeshit on Rome. The story in question.

If this is so obviously an alternate reality, why do we need to merge things up as close as possible to real history, besides the personal preference of the GM? Why not just state its an AU and there you go. I mean Gary Gygax for the Mythus setting just simply stated that his versions of ancient civilisations were in an AU call Aerth as opposed to our Earth, hence its no longer weird that an Egyptian, er I mean AEgyptian priest would visit India.

Stark wrote:The Pendragon setting is a quasi-mythical one (535 AD full-plate knights, etc) that takes the 13th century romance and puts it in a (very strange) dark age context. It's fantastic and romance-driven (all about grail questing and christian faith and such). It's not even remotely realistic or historically plausible; I believe the sourcebook timeline even has a time at which 'history takes hold' after Arthur's death.

All true. It also lists the effect of "the enchantment of britain" which is the magic plot device for these ahistorical changes. During the age of Excalibur the britons get to be fantastic. After it they are back to mote-and-baileys(sp?) and bad blacksmiths again.

But right now, yes they have chainmail armor and ride horses with saddles & lances. The plate armor does not appear until after they "discover" them in rome.

Stark wrote:I'm actually kind of interested to see if the elaborate and nonsensical construct the Pendragon guys synthesised out of romantic fiction could be made remotely plausible, but somehow I doubt it.

Which is why I am stumped and seeking aid.
I mean defeating the franks with a million to one shot I can see since they are at a specific vulnerable spot with the death of Chlodomer and the murder of his children. They are also still facing attrition after the battle against the Burgundians and have border skrimishes with almost anyone surrounding them. They are also a culture where if you in a battle take out the leader it is a terrible loss of morale. Which is very helpful if you need a plot device.
But to go from there to actually attacking the italian peninsula... It's a totally different game.

mr friendly guy wrote:If this is so obviously an alternate reality, why do we need to merge things up as close as possible to real history, besides the personal preference of the GM?

Because that poor GM asked very nicely? *hands over tea, crumpets, marmelade and cookies*...


My random ideas so far:

After Thanas outburst I was considering having the roman vs ostrogoth thing as a failure of communication. That the britons simply do not think that Odoacer's overthrow has changed anything and that they refer to Theodoric as emperor as a linguistical remain rather than a factual one. They simply can't believe that the roman empire can end since it has existed for milleniums. This would also be fun to play upon when the players reach italy and everything they thought they knew about the romans is wrong.

Since the Battle of Badon Arthur has a truce with the saxons and the saxons/angles/jutes in britain are his vassals. (Albeit not trustworthy). Through them he strikes a bargain with the continental Saxons and Jutes against the northern franks. In reward they are to rule Frisia and the Rhine delta. (Something that they will later use against Arthur).

The britons also play a cruel game on Amalaric of the visigoths. The youthful Amalaric (~23 years at the time) aids Arthur's campain against the south and western Franks in 525 and helps Arthur seize paris and kill/capture first Childebert I and then Clotaire I. In exchange he is to rule gascony and bordeaux. Happy after these battles he returns in the summer to hispania and sends his army to consolidate his new territories and thinks that Arthur will stop there. He is totally unaware that Arthur will viciously attack his grandfather Theodoric the great. (His revenge will be saved to a later plot).

After the fall of Paris the last of the frankish brothers Theodric, instead of fighting yields and swear loyalty to Arthur in exchange for the inherited rights to some of his now dead brothers' lands. (He does this knowing that Arthur eventually must return to britain and hopes to rebel at a later time). It is Theodric the frank that then invites Arthur's court and spread vicious lies about Theodoric the great and eventually persuades Arthur to attack the ostrogothic empire believing him to be the heathen usurper on the roman throne. So Theodric gets the franks to muster again on his side and follows Arthur. (Again hoping to decimate Arthur's troops to ease his rebellion while at the same time hoping to hurt the ostrogoths - later he can blaim it all on Arthur).

In the ostrogothic empire there is internal strife between the ostrogoth ruling class from ravenna and the old aristocracy of rome, where the old romans aids the invaders. Maybe adding religious tention between the catholic italians and the arian goths. Where Arthur comes to the aid of the catholic faith.
This would mean that some parts of the country will aid the invader instead of defending against him.
I am also thinking that Theodoric the great's plans for the revenge on Hilderic the vandal for his daughter's imprisonment is attempted in the spring of 526. (Somthing which Theodric the frank, knows about.) This so that the elite/major parts of the ostrogoth army and fleet is engaged over seas when Arthur shows up.

For the byzans the persians are restless and since Theodoric of the ostrogoths has been more and more independent vs the old, sickly and dying byzantine emperor Justin I (~76 years at the time) they fear a two fronted situation. So the byzans will send diplomats to Arthur to advice on his attack on Theodoric preemptying that the strong ostrogoths could sieze the opportunity presented by the death of Justin and the inheritance of Justinian.

Oh and of course after having made enemies everywhere and no lasting alliances, Arthur's conquest on the continent will slowly crumble one by one. So that history resumes.

In a few words as possible:
a) It is impossible for the Britons to form an alliance with the saxons.
b) It is impossible for the Britons to neutralize the saxon threat. You do not seem to be aware of the scope of the saxon invasion.
c) The franks could call upon a larger population base and unlike the brits, did not have a crumbling economy and population decline.
d) The franks are formidable adversaries due to their ruthlessness and skilled troops. Of all the germanic people, the franks are probably the most ruthless and deadly adversaries their are, due to their skills and discipline.
e) Why don't you draw up some numbers for the british army? The franks can field several tens of thousands of troops, if need be. That is the obstacle the british have to overcome, while still defeating thousands of saxons, angli and Jüten.

Thanas wrote:In a few words as possible:

Nah, I could summorize it further:
Impossible.

Which we already know.

I think that you are mistakenly assuming that I think it is possible historically. If so I can dispel that idea and say that I agree that it is impossible for the britons to do this.
However as I have said, I will have to suspend my disbelief and try to come up with some plot devices to make the fairytale come true.
The britons will defeat the franks in 525 and they will win the city of rome in 526, that is the scenario.

Thanas wrote:a) It is impossible for the Britons to form an alliance with the saxons.

A lasting one is impossible. But a temporary one is possible.
If we assume that the battle of badon actually happened and that Gildas got it somewhat right. Then there was a brief moment in time where the saxons where temporarily halted by the britons and after the saxon defeat the britons and saxons lived side by side on the british isle for a couple of decades, probably with the romano-british as rulers.
So calling it an alliance would of course be a exaguration, it is just the saxons gathering time for the inivitable.
But during that time the franks and the danish/jutes had several battles. So I'm using that as a my enemy's enemy plot. Where the danish/jutes are willing to attack the franks with the britons and then they in turn bring along the saxons of saxony.

Thanas wrote:b) It is impossible for the Britons to neutralize the saxon threat. You do not seem to be aware of the scope of the saxon invasion.

Oh, I am quite aware of the scope, the britons will lose. The saxons will win. After the temporary respite of badon is over all remains of the romano-british culture will be wiped out when the saxons unite against them. The Pendragon saga is a tragedy after all, on so many levels. What the Pendragons are, in the legend, is a relatively short reprieve in the tidal wave of saxons.
The attack on continental europe is the beginning of the end of that reprieve.

Thanas wrote:c) The franks could call upon a larger population base and unlike the brits, did not have a crumbling economy and population decline.

Right. But the franks are also a divisive and visciuos bunch with assassinations, kinslaying and sons fighting their fathers. "For this nation in matters of trust is the most treacherous in the world", Procopius , Also the Salian(sp?) tradition of dividing the inheritance among the living sons cause great division throughout their realm. The frankish realm was conquered by their father and is not yet that stable.
524 is a weak point for Clothis sons' in the north and west. Their mother has convinced them to attack burgundy which they do first, then are beaten back, then they are victorious again. In a fight where Godomar of Burgundy got some aid from the ostrogoths. So Clotaire and Childebert's armies are consolodating burgundy in the south east and can not leave without the whole region going into rebellion. Broher Chlodomer was killed at the Battle of Vézeronce and his brothers are searching for his killer Godomar of burgundy. And even before their brother is cold in the grave they are plotting to kill the heirs to get the inheritance.
Their father drove back the visigoths into hispania.
Clothar has raided and exacted wargeld from the saxons in the north.
Theodric has a claim on half the kingdom of Thuringian which are wary of a move against them. He has also fought the jutes and (according to some sources) killed the king of Geats who want revenge.
Since most of Gaul was conquered by their father there are plenty of internal enemies which could seize an opportunity given.

Thanas wrote:d) The franks are formidable adversaries due to their ruthlessness and skilled troops. Of all the germanic people, the franks are probably the most ruthless and deadly adversaries their are, due to their skills and discipline.

True. But the brothers are surrounded by enemies, some of them within their own borders and they are themselves busy elsewhere.

Thanas wrote:e) Why don't you draw up some numbers for the british army? The franks can field several tens of thousands of troops, if need be. That is the obstacle the british have to overcome, while still defeating thousands of saxons, angli and Jüten.

The saxons and jutes are joining the britons against the franks. That is one of the main plot devices.


Now since you are ignoring the source of the legend (Le Morte d'Arthur) and ignoring the parable of the hollywood script I'm deducting that you are unwilling to do a suspension of disbelief in this case. Fine by me.
But then instead maybe you could just help me with a few questions I have on the era? Point me to sources so that I can research some of this myself?

1) What is the big deal with the frankish throwing axe? There is a lot of references to it, but I was under the impression that this is something which was widely used by all the germanic tribes of this era. Would the franks employ them in a specific way that was unique? Or was it the quantity that the franks had them in that was unique?

2) I have difficulties getting good description of the frankish tactics of the era. Anything I found is about later tactics by Charlemagne or Merovian tactics.
What I have got is that it is eclectic because of the different troops coming from the different parts of their realm. But that they probably have a large contingent of cavalry and that they use their horses not only to get to the battle but also in the battle. Why this would be unique for the franks I don't get but its pointed out by several sources. Is this a reference to saxony saxons not using their horses in battle? I thought that was a myth disproven? But I digress, what I was going for is that I don't have any good sources for the battletactics of the early franks.

3) In the third Gothic War (535?) between the ostrogoths and Justinian. The death of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius in 524 is mentioned several times as a point of dissention between the ostrogoths and the old roman aristocracy. It is mentionened that Boethius was executed charged with treason for plotting against Theodoric the great (sometimes emperor Justin is mentioned as a coconspirator). But that is all.
I can find no good sources for what this plot entailed. A simple assassination? A rebellion?

4) What happened to the vandals? They go from a major force in 450-475, then they decline into some third rate punching toy by the 520's. Was it only the personal ineptitude of Thrasamund or is there some greater scheme I am missing? Is it the rise of the berbers? I could not find any reliable sources to this.

5) How big a deal would the ostrogoth Arianism be to the catholics in italy? How big a deal is the imprisonment and death of pope John I by Theodoric and the forced appointment of Pope Felix IV?

I can summarize what needs to happen for this mythical thing to come to be.

Merlin appears and destroys all opposition. And yes, I know the legend, have written papers on it, but this means shit in the fact that it is full blown on wanking. The thing is only possible if you reduce one side to brain dead mongrels and the other side in gods of warfare for their regular foot soldiers. If you don't want to hear that? Make an fantasy world without trying to give this farce a supposed historical background.

Ghost Rider wrote:I can summarize what needs to happen for this mythical thing to come to be.

Merlin appears and destroys all opposition. And yes, I know the legend, have written papers on it, but this means shit in the fact that it is full blown on wanking. The thing is only possible if you reduce one side to brain dead mongrels and the other side in gods of warfare for their regular foot soldiers. If you don't want to hear that? Make an fantasy world without trying to give this farce a supposed historical background.

So you are saying go with the fictious Lucius Tiberius and simply be done with it? Well I have considered it, but reality is so much richer, especially when my players get the in-depth historical tales of double-crossing, political intermarriages and conflict instead of some flat and boring made up thing with no background, no conflicts and no drama. If so I'd rather go with the army of gods vs the mongrels if I can get the rich personae dramatis from history.

Also being interested in real history I see this as an opportunity to read up on the era and learn something new. My players are the same, so if I start throwing real historical characters at them they will appreciate it more and also put in the effort to read up on it.

I know that for people who have actually invested the time and the effort into the actual research, that it feels like a sell-out to do the speculative what-if scenarios. I also realise that this is the equivalent of the italians winning WWII on their own or ST vs SW. So just scratch that bit, if you don't want to play, you don't want to play, I respect that.
But would it be too much to ask for some good sources on the era, or, some interesting anecdote, or, pointing out where the historical references is outdated/wrong? I know I would if an amateur would show interest in my area of expertise, albeit for me that happens so very seldom and for people who have read up on the end of rome I imagine you get it all the time.

Spoonist wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:I can summarize what needs to happen for this mythical thing to come to be.

Merlin appears and destroys all opposition. And yes, I know the legend, have written papers on it, but this means shit in the fact that it is full blown on wanking. The thing is only possible if you reduce one side to brain dead mongrels and the other side in gods of warfare for their regular foot soldiers. If you don't want to hear that? Make an fantasy world without trying to give this farce a supposed historical background.

So you are saying go with the fictious Lucius Tiberius and simply be done with it? Well I have considered it, but reality is so much richer, especially when my players get the in-depth historical tales of double-crossing, political intermarriages and conflict instead of some flat and boring made up thing with no background, no conflicts and no drama. If so I'd rather go with the army of gods vs the mongrels if I can get the rich personae dramatis from history.

My head aches. On the one hand, you refuse to use mythological average footsoldier = Ares and want to stay somewhat realistic, on the other hand you are hell bent on using a vastly unrealistic premise - a British empire spanning in essence the complete western roman empire. This is not doable unless you have vastly unrealistic soldiers - and I am talking about the "can take 20 spears to the gut" type of guys.

Also being interested in real history I see this as an opportunity to read up on the era and learn something new. My players are the same, so if I start throwing real historical characters at them they will appreciate it more and also put in the effort to read up on it.

I know that for people who have actually invested the time and the effort into the actual research, that it feels like a sell-out to do the speculative what-if scenarios. I also realise that this is the equivalent of the italians winning WWII on their own or ST vs SW. So just scratch that bit, if you don't want to play, you don't want to play, I respect that.
But would it be too much to ask for some good sources on the era, or, some interesting anecdote, or, pointing out where the historical references is outdated/wrong? I know I would if an amateur would show interest in my area of expertise, albeit for me that happens so very seldom and for people who have read up on the end of rome I imagine you get it all the time.

I would suggest you read:
Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425.


Really, if you want to have some great anecdotes, do not use the ahistorical premise when real history is far more richer. There is the story about a roman officer/germanic prince who took on the whole gothic army with nothing but his bodyguard. history is full of anecdotes, do not demean them by having such a wanktastic premise.

So if I were you I would scale back and say something like "The Britons try to save a city in france from falling into the hands of the franks for as long as possible". Make it an easily defended coastal city like Brest or something where the brits can get supplies in and out relatively unoppsoed and then you have a good game.

Thanas wrote:

Spoonist wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:I can summarize what needs to happen for this mythical thing to come to be.

Merlin appears and destroys all opposition. And yes, I know the legend, have written papers on it, but this means shit in the fact that it is full blown on wanking. The thing is only possible if you reduce one side to brain dead mongrels and the other side in gods of warfare for their regular foot soldiers. If you don't want to hear that? Make an fantasy world without trying to give this farce a supposed historical background.

So you are saying go with the fictious Lucius Tiberius and simply be done with it? Well I have considered it, but reality is so much richer, especially when my players get the in-depth historical tales of double-crossing, political intermarriages and conflict instead of some flat and boring made up thing with no background, no conflicts and no drama. If so I'd rather go with the army of gods vs the mongrels if I can get the rich personae dramatis from history.

My head aches. On the one hand, you refuse to use mythological average footsoldier = Ares and want to stay somewhat realistic, on the other hand you are hell bent on using a vastly unrealistic premise - a British empire spanning in essence the complete western roman empire. This is not doable unless you have vastly unrealistic soldiers - and I am talking about the "can take 20 spears to the gut" type of guys.

Ah, there are some small misconceptions here.
First, I said that if I must "I'd rather go with the army of gods vs the mongrels if I can get the rich personae dramatis from history." So yes, I'd take an army of ares with 20 spears each to the gut if I'd have to, to get to use the real historical continental europe.
Second, the britons will never get to actually rule anything. At the most they will get weregeld from a couple of them.

Thanas wrote:I would suggest you read:
Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425.

Great, thanks for the tip, I will definately pick that up. But isn't that off by a century?

Thanas wrote:Really, if you want to have some great anecdotes, do not use the ahistorical premise when real history is far more richer. There is the story about a roman officer/germanic prince who took on the whole gothic army with nothing but his bodyguard. history is full of anecdotes, do not demean them by having such a wanktastic premise.

So if I were you I would scale back and say something like "The Britons try to save a city in france from falling into the hands of the franks for as long as possible". Make it an easily defended coastal city like Brest or something where the brits can get supplies in and out relatively unoppsoed and then you have a good game.

Since the RPG in question is about Pendragon as defined by Le Morte d'Artur and we have already played this specific campain for three years (from before Uther) I don't have that option.

Spoonist wrote:Ah, there are some small misconceptions here.
First, I said that if I must "I'd rather go with the army of gods vs the mongrels if I can get the rich personae dramatis from history." So yes, I'd take an army of ares with 20 spears each to the gut if I'd have to, to get to use the real historical continental europe.
Second, the britons will never get to actually rule anything. At the most they will get weregeld from a couple of them.

In that case, I do not think I can give you any advice on warfare at all, because the only thing that would kill your people at that point would be a direct hit by a catapult rock. Seriously, your people must have such strong skin that a tank would be flattened in a frontal crush.

Great, thanks for the tip, I will definately pick that up. But isn't that off by a century?

Considering the sorry state of equipment the brits and saxons used, not really.

Since the RPG in question is about Pendragon as defined by Le Morte d'Artur and we have already played this specific campain for three years (from before Uther) I don't have that option.

Then any advice I can give you will not help you at all, as you are going to ignore it either way (see the above example about the strength of your soldiers).

Thanas wrote:Then any advice I can give you will not help you at all, as you are going to ignore it either way (see the above example about the strength of your soldiers).

I am seriuosly confused about your position. After you (and Ghost Rider) made it clear that you where not interested in speculation I clearly noted that I respect such a position and I dropped it. Instead I asked for advice on sources on the era and stated some real life history questions that I wanted some help on, to do the research myself. After that you point me to one source (a hundred years off but for which I am still grateful for) but then you continue to rail against the fairytale premise which I thought that you did not want to discuss.


I can assure you that I certainly will use any tidbits of data that I can get from the 520's era and the historical figures living in it (and I think that other GM's in historical RPGs can second this that they have done similar things). I would definately use and be grateful to sources for the 4 questions above or for any other data pertaining to Gaul and Italy in the 520's.

With that said, since this topic seems to rub you the wrong way for some reason I see no point in pursueing this any further. If you don't want to help, you just don't want to help. Lets leave it at that and let this topic die.

If any other poor GM's want to know how it went send me a PM and I will send you a short synopsis of how I/we played it.

Spoonist wrote:

Thanas wrote:Then any advice I can give you will not help you at all, as you are going to ignore it either way (see the above example about the strength of your soldiers).

I am seriuosly confused about your position. After you (and Ghost Rider) made it clear that you where not interested in speculation I clearly noted that I respect such a position and I dropped it. Instead I asked for advice on sources on the era and stated some real life history questions that I wanted some help on, to do the research myself. After that you point me to one source (a hundred years off but for which I am still grateful for) but then you continue to rail against the fairytale premise which I thought that you did not want to discuss.

You cannot use any historical examples in your time because they would not be of any use. For your premise is so outlandish that the Europe it plays in is not the Europe of history. For example, anecdotes about logistics would not help because clearly the British army has logistics that rival modern ones. Anecdotes about the franks would not help because the franks you face are clearly not the franks of history.

The same about - for example - the eastern emperors. For your premise to work, they would have to be idiots of the highest caliber. Therefore, no historical tidbit I could provide you with would actually fit within your universe. Because the universe would be highly inconsistent otherwise.

Thanas wrote:Therefore, no historical tidbit I could provide you with would actually fit within your universe. Because the universe would be highly inconsistent otherwise.

I hear you but disagree fully.
You are saying the equivalence of "no tidbit of history can fit in a hollywood movie" or "as long as it is a hollywood movie no amount of historical tidbits can make it better".
If I go and watch a hollywood production of an era that I know something about, the more historical tidbits that check out make it that much of a better experience for me. (You have said similar things yourself in other topics).

If I see a movie about the fall of rome and they do the turtle and wear the segmentata it distracts from my experience. If I see a WWII movie and the germans actually speak german and the russians actually speak russian it increases my experience of the movie. Regardless if the hero is a typical hollywood hero...

Spoonist wrote:

Thanas wrote:Therefore, no historical tidbit I could provide you with would actually fit within your universe. Because the universe would be highly inconsistent otherwise.

I hear you but disagree fully.
You are saying the equivalence of "no tidbit of history can fit in a hollywood movie" or "as long as it is a hollywood movie no amount of historical tidbits can make it better".
If I go and watch a hollywood production of an era that I know something about, the more historical tidbits that check out make it that much of a better experience for me. (You have said similar things yourself in other topics).

If I see a movie about the fall of rome and they do the turtle and wear the segmentata it distracts from my experience.

But that is exactly what you have happening in your story.

So if the movie is fictional or its premise is fictional then it does not matter how historically accurate it is for you? I think it does. Using Ivanhoe or Robin Hood as examples, two clearly fictional characters set in real history, do you not care if hollywood goes blatantly against the era? Do you not like it when they get it right?
Take this comment from you:

Thanas wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Thanas wrote:The roman side of tactics in Gladiator was actually pretty well done. The rest was rubbish, but you cannot fault the movie for one thing though - it is one of the few movies that accurately captures the vastness of the empire.

Well done in what way? The flanking cavalry attack was OK, but I seriously doubt Roman infantry would break the line as nonchalantly as they did in the movie; they did not even seem to try to keep a cohesive line. Also, I'm sure they did not use burning arrows and other projectiles in field battles, what would be the point of it?

The bombardement was accurate and resembled numerous roman attacks. The infantry was stupid, but better done in most movies about rome where they did not even attempt to form a cohesive line - Spartacus, for example.

Seems to suggest that you have a hard time disconnecting your rational knowledge of the era while watching movies dealing with rome. So that if something blataly wrong would show up it distracts from your experience.


So lets try this on for size: which is your favorite Arthur Pendragon/Merlin/Avalon film/tv? Which is your least favorite?
Did the way that they portrayed the era or its props have anything to do with your evaluation of them? (Or if you prefer take the two characters above).

Spoonist wrote:So if the movie is fictional or its premise is fictional then it does not matter how historically accurate it is for you? I think it does. Using Ivanhoe or Robin Hood as examples, two clearly fictional characters set in real history, do you not care if hollywood goes blatantly against the era? Do you not like it when they get it right?
Take this comment from you:

Thanas wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Well done in what way? The flanking cavalry attack was OK, but I seriously doubt Roman infantry would break the line as nonchalantly as they did in the movie; they did not even seem to try to keep a cohesive line. Also, I'm sure they did not use burning arrows and other projectiles in field battles, what would be the point of it?

The bombardement was accurate and resembled numerous roman attacks. The infantry was stupid, but better done in most movies about rome where they did not even attempt to form a cohesive line - Spartacus, for example.

Seems to suggest that you have a hard time disconnecting your rational knowledge of the era while watching movies dealing with rome. So that if something blataly wrong would show up it distracts from your experience.

There are so many things wrong with your unrealistic brit-wanking that it really does not matter if you would have the most realistic setup at all, because the premise is so outrageously stupid....in short, I cannot tell you anything, no anecdote, nothing, because your made-up history would make any such anecdote to have happened at all. Why is this not going through your head? I could tell you the most elaborate armor setup. But it won't matter, because your Brits are already immune to weapons.

So lets try this on for size: which is your favorite Arthur Pendragon/Merlin/Avalon film/tv? Which is your least favorite?
Did the way that they portrayed the era or its props have anything to do with your evaluation of them? (Or if you prefer take the two characters above).

The 2005 King Arthur is a good example how an idiotic premise can ruin an otherwise excellent movie - the movie was very well done and except for the use of the lorica segmentata in a throwaway scene and Guinevere's outfit the costumes were mostly accurate. Heck, they even made an excellent representation of late Roman infantry and heavy cavalry. It also did a great job with Roman mentality and the scope of the empire. However - and this is the same problem I have with your story - it was such a sloppy job on the history and made so many easily avoidable mistakes - that the movie ended up completely worthless.

Remind you of anything? The best historical representation is useless if the story does not fit.