Realistic Temporal Density of Conflict

[VoxRationis]

As I am a devout believer in making settings that are internally consistent and which function properly behind the scenes, I find myself wondering about how many wars I should put into the history of a given High Middle Ages-style kingdom. More importantly, I find myself wondering what percentage of the time should be wartime, and how much should be peacetime. Does anyone have a good handle on the historical data in this regard?

[Yora]

Not to shot down your idea entirely, but in my experience the approach that I've seen working out best in the many settings I've seen is not to make a detailed timeline of every major and minor conflict at all.
A campaign setting or a fiction setting does not actually work the same way as a real world. Good campaign settings consist of plot hooks and material that the GM can use and the players easily understand. It's completely unrealistic, but for an RPG it generally works best to only cover a small handful (say 5 to 10) of conflicts that are either recent or the stuff of legend. Players can not learn the entire history of a world and generally have no interest in doing so either, and the amount of information you can deliver to them as a GM in the game is very limited. (Even if you go into many long monologues and those almost never work well for a game.) By reducing the history of the past century or so down to 4 or 5 main events or war, players can pick up many details about a small number of events, which will be much more interesting to them then getting very few details about a very large number of events. Understanding the nature of 3 conflicts is much more interesting and entertaining than a huge number of small snippets about lots of different topics.
Also, players are best able to remember things when they know what relevance the information will have to them and how it connects to other things they know. Knowing that there was a big battle between two kingdoms 3000 years ago without any other information than that almost certainly won't stick. Two minutes later they won't remember the names of the kingdoms or the kings and when the battle took place. And half an hour later they quite likely won't even remember that you told them of the battle. Giving them a new piece of information that expands on something they already know and understand always sticks much more better.

When creating a campaign setting, you're not writing a comprehensive history book. You are creating an environment to use for adventures. These two really have very different goals and also requirements. There may have been hundreds of wars and battles in your setting over many centuries, but it's generally best to cover only a small selection and ignore the rest. That's how the human brain works. Take for example World War 1. It went over many years and covered lots of big battles with millions of dead and wounded. But everything everyone remembers today is Somme and Verdun. Those are the parts we've decided are the interesting ones and the vast majority of coverage deals with these two battles. Everything else has already been weeded out, and that's just 100 years ago and in a time where we can preserve and access information much better than ever before. Human minds break down complex time periods into a few events we decide are important turning points or prime examples of the entire period as a whole. (Though in fact, these events tend to be exceptional and not representative of the rest at all.)
Roleplaying games are a kind of fiction, and fiction always works best if you work with the way the mind already attempts to make sense of it. Real history is frustratingly complex. When you deal with a world that actually works in the same way like our minds would like the world to work, it makes us happy, and as such the fiction much more enjoyable.

[Mechalich]

In the High Middle Ages war was actually very common, with some states, particularly England and France, engaged in conflict more or less perpetually for decades at a time. Other areas, such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Italian Peninsula also fought many wars, and further east conflict with steppe nomads was essentially constant.

The key here is that warfare in the Middle Ages did not in any way resemble modern warfare. Mobilization was restricted to very small numbers of soldiers drawn from the noble classes and their personal retainers - so even a state with ten million inhabitants (like France) could only muster armies in the low tens of thousands. Additionally, medieval warfare only rarely involved pitched battle - because it was extremely costly to one or potentially both sides and armies spent a lot of time tromping around and besieging castles or conducting chevauchees - essentially large scale raids against the civilian population, not actually daring to fight each other. Even then, with the limitations imposed by the needs to muster the army and deploy it in a relatively short seasonal window, the time frame of combat was highly limited and meant that only a small portion of any given nation was likely to be involved in warfare in any one year.

It was also possible, in certain contexts (such as medieval Japan), for armies to fight a lot without doing a great deal of damage to each other -Japanese terrain and horse types allowed for routed armies to much more easily escape compared to the relative openness of European battlefields - prolonging conflicts immensely. The War Between the Courts lasted for the better part of a century, but the state was undergoing growth throughout essentially the whole period.

Now, the tricky part is that standard fantasy capabilities more or less detonate all known assumptions of medieval warfare in a lightning fast hurry. Area of effect spells and powers in particular have a nasty habit of inflicting mass death on a scale the has no comparison with conventional medieval weaponry. Likewise magic enhances logistical capabilities allowing for prolonged campaigns, rapidly sped-up sieges, and so forth. high-powered magic goes even further, rendering armies functionally irrelevant - The Return of the Archwizards trilogy is a fairly good example of this in action, as it describes a massive war in the heartlands of the Realms mediated almost entirely by spellcasters.

Given that a conflict could lead to extremely high casualties very rapidly - perhaps in a single engagement even if things got suitably hot - the Battle of Mithril Hall in Siege of Darkness inflicts stunningly high casualty rates on both sides - and that it takes a generation to train up a new cadre of clerics and wizards, wars might be considerably less common while being immeasurably more destructive. it really depends on how much magic you're wiling to let into you setting. Being honest, if 15-20th level full casters exist in your setting, they pretty much dictate events on the geopolitical stage.

[VoxRationis]

Not to shot down your idea entirely... [long sermon trying to shoot down my idea entirely]

Yora, it seems that whenever I post something or posit an idea, you respond quickly and with the core message that I am wrong, wrong, wrong, and that I should desist entirely and do things in line with the established doctrine. Please stop it. There is no reason why I should take the Bioware route in creating a campaign setting's history, where every historical footnote in the setting is a) important to the plot, and b) constantly brought up as the topic of conversation at all times. The players do not need to memorize the setting's history, just as people in real life do not memorize all of history, or even all of history relevant to them. However, having that history makes the setting seem real, as well as help set it up to act in a realistic manner. Furthermore, player responses to my previous campaign setting's wealth of historical background have been positive.

@Mechalich: The setting has magic, but not a lot—certainly not to the point where magic would be commonly used as artillery. I could see it happening occasionally, and those battles would end up being bloodier than the average, but most of the conflicts would be quite medieval in tone. Therefore, I'll go with the "continual low-level warfare" route, at least for the core of the setting.

[CavemanDan]

I think the answer is, as much or as little war as you want!

To give a less flippant answer, you can put in whatever you like but that will tell you something about either world or the current stage of history. Also, there will be a difference between the level of detail a historian or politician in your world will know about a war and what will trickle down to the general populous.

To give some real life examples, I'm from England. I'm not a historian so my level of understanding about the Middle Ages onwards is quite simplistic (but does provide a good touch stone of what the peasantry would know/care about).

I know we had the Hundred Years War between us and France. It was a lot more complicated than just us verses them but that's what the peasants would know and it led to us being more distinct from each other (the first English kings of course coming from Normandy and a number ruling from France). It also, obviously, went on for a very long time! (people would get tired of fighting or wonder why it's happening at all). If you had a war like it in your world, it would be about separating two kingdoms that were culturally intertwined, would involve a great number of ongoing conflicts and could cause unrest in the general populous. In essence, it would be a war about identity.

Next was the War of the Roses. It was about 2 houses fighting for control of the throne. If you had one like it in your world, there would be divided and shifting loyalties amongst either the aristocracy or the peasantry. Individuals would matter more, in effect having celebrities that you stake your colours to (I.E. do you follow "The True King Henry" while he is in exile, do you support "The Sons of York", they say "Bad King Richard" has killed the princes in the Tower!). It would be a war about who's in power and whether you can challenge the status quo of royal succession.

Later on you have the Spanish Armada during the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First ("Good Queen Bess" - think about what your kingdoms think of their rulers and the judgements they make on what they've done during their reigns). There was a lot of political behind-the-scenes but all the populous would know is that the Spanish are invading. A war like this would be about defending yourself against a distinct enemy (one that's geographically distant from you and has less cultural touchstones with you).

Other examples are the Civil War, where ideology was the main fuel for it - are we ruled by a monarchy or should we forcefully get rid of them? (also the bitterness of a country divided, brother against brother) or the Crusades, where a specific objective was the rational behind it - "Lets take back the Holy City of Jerusalem from the pagans!".

Basically, what my ramblings are trying to say is, there are lots of different types of wars and having a number in your campaign could help flesh out the world. People in your world will only remember individual battles if they were directly involved or something noteworthy happened in it, like if it was a turning point in the war, or a massacre, or somebody important died, or a supernatural event occurred (the War of the Roses had a parhelion in one of theirs - when it looks like there's 3 suns in the sky).

Hope some of that helps!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I generally limit myself to two to four events, covering Far Past, Near Past, Present, and Future.

Basically, I ask myself "What conflict is mythical in the country?", that will influence it's founding legends, it's attitudes to certain things. "What conflict does the country still rawly remember?", that will influence the racism or xenophobic tendencies of the people. "What conflict are we currently in?" and/or "What conflict is building up?" for of-the-moment plot twists.

So for one example, in my setting, the islands of Inseln had the Sundering, a brutal civil war that split the country apart, as the mythical conflict, yet the people still remember that they were once one people. It has a current civil war in the largest splinter-kingdom of Nureis, and an exterior enemy, the Reikkenorr that may soon invade as a plot point. Vague references are made to wars between the Sundering and the current wars, yet they're only important in-so-far as they vaguely exist to show how certain political actors are historically mediators, swinging pendulums, or other trends like that, they're not actually important in their specifics.

[BootStrapTommy]

The French and English managed to be at an almost constant state of war for nigh on 116 years straight.

War is common. There is a statistic going around about how many years the US has not been at war during its existence, and I believe it's something like only 20 or so...

[sktarq]

Many places in the middle ages had near constant low level wars running with several of their neighbors. If these conflicts rise to the levels of "wars" is another question. These raiding and blustering conflicts could last for very extended period of time. You could well have a dozen or more of these conflicts going without disrupting the overall setting-just close the trade routes. Also having a good awareness of your world's history is good for you if it helps set up adventures- lost keeps to pillage etc.

[Nifft]

In one of my previous settings, I distinguished between War of Honor vs. War of Extermination.

The setting had near-constant Wars of Honor between civilized peoples of different nations. This was standard medieval warfare: you took prisoners, you ransomed them back, you all stopped fighting on holidays and you didn't burn all the women.

Much less common were Wars of Extermination: a war against demons, or goblins, or some other force which had a goal not of conquest or political gain, but rather the utter destruction and subjugation of all mankind. Total war. This type of threat wrecked economies and tainted the landscape.

In some regards, the Wars of Honor could be thought of as training for the Wars of Extermination. In the setting, people didn't really think about it that way, but it was a meta-concern for why there wasn't really a standing professional army, and yet modern total war didn't wipe out humanity the first time it happened.

[Freelance GM]

Wikipedia knows. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1000%E2%80%931499)

Purely based on a cursory glance at those lists, and without any real historical expertise to contribute, I'd argue that 3 to 10 wars per century seems to be an appropriate number. Less wars if they're especially deadly, or last longer, or more wars if they're brief.

Remember that not every war has to be a massive, globe-changing thing like World War I or II. Sometimes, it could just be a peasant revolt in some minor town under the protection of your Kingdom.

Also remember that in the case of a massive, globe-changing war, it may take a decade or two for the kingdom to raise a new generation of potential soldiers after the last war's death toll.

[LudicSavant]

I am reminded of King of Dragon Pass, where raiding was just kinda expected and largely honorable behavior in Fire Season (basically Summer), when people weren't planting (Sea Season), harvesting (Earth Season), or buckling down for the winter (Dark Season). Go in, kill some people, take some of their stuff, maybe feud a little, but you can always kiss and make up and go right back to trading with each other. Interrupting people's harvests or planting in Sea or Earth season was a bigger deal. And you'd start making people really angry if you started doing things like razing the land, burning steads, annihilating populations in such a way that they can't effectively repopulate, and driving people from their land. In that cultural context, these are very different kinds of wars.

Legend of the Five Rings was much the same way, where the clans were just about always fighting in the summer and going to court to have political battles in the winter.

Common conflict seems to be the default condition in much of history, as far as I know. You probably won't want to actually document that many wars in the history of your world. You just would want to point to maybe a few big ones which really frame the present cultural context, and/or allude to a greater number of conflicts than just what you've described. You probably want to avoid the "long era of peace, until one day" trope that some fantasy likes to employ unless you have a compelling reason for why they enjoyed such a long-standing peace.

[choryukami]

I prefer to do with history the same thing I do with geography: I map out the major cities and countries, but I leave the rest of the world largely blank. Either unexplored, or undecided until a PC needs a place to be 'from' so they can make up everything about their backstory, or some place for the campaign to go to.

Same thing, I'll decide the world altering conflicts and movements: '27 years ago the demons found their way to our world and caused a conflict that endangered most of the known world.' You know, the stuff everybody would know about. This works out because most people (you know, characters themselves) would only know the big events and the events that affect their home region.

[dragonfuit88]

I am all in favor of a middle approach. I like to have the major events that shape the current political atmosphere mapped out, but largely abstract the rest. If you have a England/France type relationship, you could simply say there is "on going conflict" between X and Y, but you should know any major battles that have happened recently, or involved a particular region in your world. For example, if you know a major battle took place 30 years ago, there may be very few adult males still alive from that time period. The level of detail you want to put into this may also deal with how long you plan to use the setting for your game. If you will finish the current campaign, then move onto something entirely different, you probably want just enough detail for your current needs. However if you plan to use the same world for multiple campaigns a little more detail may be justified. Work in should be somewhat proportional to expected use in other words.

[jqavins]

Well, Vox, you've received a lot of responses of the "I like to do..." and "Gee, depends..." and very few (which isn't to say none) about answering the question.* I wish I had the answer, based on actual historical statistics, but I don't. What I will say is that, as far as I understand matters, the answer varies widely from place to place and decade or century to decade or century. So widely, I suspect, that you can use any temporal density of conflict that you like and it will be realistic for some time and place or another.

And now here's my own version of the kind of response you didn't ask for; sorry, but I can't stop myself. While I agree with the statement that what is true, or was true, in the real is usually not what works best to make a fun fictional world, I also completely agree with you that a rich history, not crammed down the players' throats but available and noticed here and there, gives a sense that the stories are happening in a real-like world, i.e. a rich and colorful setting. And I like when some obscure detail turns out to be relevant later, and maybe someone remembers it, even though a bunch of other similar details have not been. ("Wait, the ghost's name, Lindelstrom, wasn't that the name of the king of Ruhalt during the War of the Tulips?")

BUT, rich, colorful, and real-like doesn't need to be just like the actually real world. Magic will change things, as Mechalich pointed out, even if only a little; relatively low level stuff like Cures and floating barges could change the nature, and thus the frequency of medieval wars quite a lot. Populations of humanoid races and monsters will also change things. So use what works for you and your players, and you don't need to sweat what's realistic. If you just want to sweat what's realistic, see the last sentence of the first paragraph.

* It's a chronic problem on this and other fora: you ask "How do I do this?" and for every actual answer that you get, you get 5 to 10 "Why would you want to do that?" or "Just do this instead" or "Who cares?" It can be really frustrating and sometimes insulting. And I guess paragraphs 2 and 3 make me guilty too; I hope any potential help there makes up for the negatives. (And, I suppose everybody who does it intends that too.)