Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Zaheer on 24 July 2016, 11:07:35 AM
-
The title puts it in a nutshell really. I'd love to get around to making a few more 'celtic monastic' buildings eventually, but the historical pedant in me keeps asking whether there may reasonably have been any two-sided action in these locales. Did the monks fight back? Did they ever succeed in repelling the raiders? Were lay brothers present and might they have been used as security? Were secular forces ever involved on the monk's side? Of course, a little wiggle room is fine (and probably sought for) I do have some awareness of how bare the evidence of the period can be.
I apologise for the no-doubt naive questions, and look forward to any replies.
-
Well, at least in 794 they were repulsed when sacking the monastery at Wearmouth in Northumbria
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/durham/vol2/pp79-85#h3-0006
-
Local militia style forces were sent to track down raiders after they left the target.
-
There is a lack of evidance to support 8th Century British monasticism being linked to militant Christianity, i.e. the monks seemed to have embraced a non-violent lifestyle. So I suggest sticking with troops from neighbouring villages and/or a mounted force (dismounting to fight) from a nearby royal garrison.
-
I imagine most confrontations taking place in a monastery would be very one sided, and very quick. Of course, that's true for the majority of 'battles' in the Dark Ages. For every Clontarf or Maldon or Brunanburh, there would be thousands of small raids on vulnerable targets, where the defender stood no chance at all.
But those battles are a bit boring to represent on the table-top, so we sensibly make the assumption that the defenders have had enough notice to gather their forces and move to a suitable location for battle. In which case a monastery makes a perfect place to defend!
I say go for it, not least because your terrain buildings are always of an exceptional quality and I want to see more!
-
Haha, thank you Gracchus. Yes I think I'm convinced. I'll go back to them one day, we are lucky enough to have a big grey area to play in! Thanks for the replies everyone.
-
Gripping Beast make armed monks in 25/28mm.
-
Those irascible Irish... ::)
Raiding and Warrin in Monastic Ireland (http://www.historyireland.com/gaelic-ireland/raiding-and-warrin-in-monastic-ireland/)
-
I imagine most confrontations taking place in a monastery would be very one sided, and very quick. Of course, that's true for the majority of 'battles' in the Dark Ages. For every Clontarf or Maldon or Brunanburh, there would be thousands of small raids on vulnerable targets, where the defender stood no chance at all.
But those battles are a bit boring to represent on the table-top............
There are some ways to make them a little more interesting. Putting all players on the Viking side with the aim of maximising their personal loot, having one or two Viking players have the 'bully' brief where their success depends on beating up one other Viking player and stealing their loot to maximise their own personal prestige (your players may already have this trait of course :)), rampaging pigs/cattle running around with a random chance of crushing an unfortunate looter, running the monks as random/umpire controlled with a chance of ganging up on an isolated Viking, or the monk who's an ex-warrior/pyschopath, or the Saxon chief enjoying a quiet retreat who just happens to have his favourite Viking-slaying sword with him. Adding drunken Vikings can also be a lot of fun.
-
Or you could place the game post looting. With the Vikings having just "rescued" all the women and valuables from the burning buildings. When all of a sudden the Saxon rescue force shows up.
-
or the monk who's an ex-warrior/pyschopath, or the Saxon chief enjoying a quiet retreat who just happens to have his favourite Viking-slaying sword with him.
For some reason now I'm imagining running this as a version of 7 samurai. Would be 7 knights then right. (actually one of them would secretly be peasant then) lol
-
Or you could place the game post looting. With the Vikings having just "rescued" all the women and valuables from the burning buildings. When all of a sudden the Saxon rescue force shows up.
What kind of a monastery is this? Those dirty monks!
-
It could be a monastery filled with nuns in stead of munks...
Anyways it is a proud viking heritage to save women and valuables from burning buildings.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t75/Fredejensen/353863e3c4c085f91c4c757d294b2051_zps2651d27f.jpg) (http://s157.photobucket.com/user/Fredejensen/media/353863e3c4c085f91c4c757d294b2051_zps2651d27f.jpg.html)
-
I the longships were seen from a distance you could have a 'drip feed' of Saxons as the word goes out raiders are on the loose.
Anyways it is a proud viking heritage to save women and valuables from burning buildings.
lol lol lol
cheers
James
-
For some reason now I'm imagining running this as a version of 7 samurai. Would be 7 knights then right. (actually one of them would secretly be peasant then) lol
The Magnificent Swein? lol
-
Putting all players on the Viking side with the aim of maximising their personal loot,
One of the best games I ever played was like that about thirty years ago know. The players were raiders and the opposition run by GM and random actions. Wit the right players it runs really well.
-
Ah, yes, Kristmanbogga, a rather odd past time of the era.
a wee bit for the Old Norsk scholars. Or careful readers of our hobby's magazines. :o
-
The Seven Samurai / The Seven Magnificent / De Syv Pragtfulde is a great idea! ;)
-
As others have said, Viking raiders would prefer to attack undefended targets, and avoid taking unnecessary risks if possible — as a fox quickly raiding a hen house. ;)
But it's quite easy to make scenarios where the raiders are not immediately spotted, and local people can react only when they have spotted them, and the Vikings have a short time to act before defending forces sent by a nearby lord arrive.
An exemple here (with no monks in it, but some could easily be added) :D
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=84126.msg1033648#msg1033648
-
Perhaps a minor lord and his retinue are making a pilgrimage to a monastery when an attack is launched.
Maybe there are a few sick warriors being cared for at the monastery who could be persuaded to rise out of their sick beds and grab their spears.
Perhaps the abbot isn't as holy as he could be and harangues the several dozen monks into taking up staves and gardening tools to defend their relics!
-
The thing about Vikings is that historians made out they were great warriors.
Yet all the times they are mentioned the are killing priest or they are slaughtered in
large and important battles!!!!
Lindesfarne was contested in Vikings TV series!!!!!
-
Oh no, they did plenty of slaughtering of armed warriors too. Militarily they were powerful. But they were also very wary of taking casualties, partly because their ships needed men to row them out of danger; if too many men were killed or wounded, the ship wouldn't have enough oars to get away quickly. But also because raiding forces tended to be relatively small and a jarl's power was defined by how many warriors served him. He would have to weigh up the risks and decide when to get away with the loot to preserve his numbers. It's just good sense to attack the weakest target that gets you the most gain for the least risk.
-
The thing about Vikings is that historians made out they were great warriors.
Yet all the times they are mentioned the are killing priest or they are slaughtered in
large and important battles!!!!
Lindesfarne was contested in Vikings TV series!!!!!
Well, as far as warriors went they were pretty standard for the times. They won some, they lost some. However in terms of attitude they were miles ahead of anyone else.
Sure, they lost some of the land they claimed, but in between times they conquered all of England, and held onto York/Northumbria/Dublin for like, 150 years? Every battle they fought was either in enemy territory, or against their Scandinavian allies. No one ever had the stones to kick them out of their captured territories and take the fight to them on their own terms. They fought on practically every continent in the northern hemisphere, including North America, sold Irish slaves in Africa and African slaves in Ireland, they were known in the lands south of the Baltic as the Rus, and Russia bears their name to this day, they formed the famed Varangian Guard, and this dare-devil attitude allowed them constantly project force onto ALL their targets, quickly recovering from defeats and either winning battles, or extorting truly enormous amounts of wealth from their foes. It was a cultural attitude practically never to be repeated.
-
Well, as far as warriors went they were pretty standard for the times. They won some, they lost some. However in terms of attitude they were miles ahead of anyone else.
Sure, they lost some of the land they claimed, but in between times they conquered all of England, and held onto York/Northumbria/Dublin for like, 150 years? Every battle they fought was either in enemy territory, or against their Scandinavian allies. No one ever had the stones to kick them out of their captured territories and take the fight to them on their own terms. They fought on practically every continent in the northern hemisphere, including North America, sold Irish slaves in Africa and African slaves in Ireland, they were known in the lands south of the Baltic as the Rus, and Russia bears their name to this day, they formed the famed Varangian Guard, and this dare-devil attitude allowed them constantly project force onto ALL their targets, quickly recovering from defeats and either winning battles, or extorting truly enormous amounts of wealth from their foes. It was a cultural attitude practically never to be repeated.
Well said! ;)
-
Oh no, they did plenty of slaughtering of armed warriors too. Militarily they were powerful. But they were also very wary of taking casualties, partly because their ships needed men to row them out of danger; if too many men were killed or wounded, the ship wouldn't have enough oars to get away quickly. But also because raiding forces tended to be relatively small and a jarl's power was defined by how many warriors served him. He would have to weigh up the risks and decide when to get away with the loot to preserve his numbers. It's just good sense to attack the weakest target that gets you the most gain for the least risk.
I think this point isn't ever said enough.
One thing that struck me about the Vikings is they were generally quite keen to preserve their troops, something that doesn't seem to be the case necessarily for the people they were fighting against.
Its been nearly 10 years since I read alot about them, but I remember something that when Wessex went on the offensive and started getting really aggressive, the Vikings tended to back off.
In terms of attitude I'd have said they were more a peoples who were incredibly savvy (read sneaky) in how they went about their business.
I also have to point out that in order for a group of people to repeatedly conquer a territory, they also have to repeatedly lose it. ;)
-
Only two kinds of people can manage to have most of their troops killed to reach an objective: wargamers, and kings/governments. Clan leaders and petty chiefs who earn their living with small-scale raids must avoid casualties if they can. :D
-
Only two kinds of people can manage to have most of their troops killed to reach an objective: wargamers, and kings/governments. Clan leaders and petty chiefs who earn their living with small-scale raids must avoid casualties if they can. :D
Very true! A force may be able to win a battle, and handily, but the estimated casualties may be high enough that the attacker doesn't consider the battle worth-while.
-
The Seven Samurai / The Seven Magnificent / De Syv Pragtfulde is a great idea! ;)
I'm glad you agree. :D