Pseudo war ritual

[Quizatzhaderac]

For context this isn't for a game setting, just a story in my head I enjoy doing excessive worldbuilding on. I came here to bounce ideas around.

So in my setting the warrior caste of the nation of focus is organized into clans. Clans serve as redundant family structures (soldiers die, or are often deployed away from home, mothers often serve). An also a unit of political power.

Clans have differences, sometime these are talked out, sometimes settled by voting (weighted by rank). Sometimes they want to settle matters with bloodshed but realize that isn't quite a good idea. (in a war, these people would probably be on the same side, so it's prudent that their opponents survive.)

So the idea is that they engage in non-lethal combat that approximates who would win in an actual fight.
My working name right now is Falseblood, but I'm not thrilled with it.

So the way it works in my first draft is that the conflict is declared, and a place and time set by clan chiefs.
Individuals decide if they'll fight and on what side. Though typically members of the clans principle to the conflict will almost always fight on their clan's side. Pretty much any individual that would care about the conflict and shows up is allowed to fight.
The combatants bring any weapon from a known list of less-lethal or "practice" weapons. Metal armor is not permitted.

Each match ends when one combatant surrenders, is surrendered by the chief on their side, falls unconscious, or dead. Being pinned or disarmed almost always results in immediately surrendering. Fleeing (though extremely) rare) would result in being forfeited. Killing your opponent carelessly is a great way to start additional trouble. Intentionally killing your opponent is guaranteed to start additional trouble after the event and may even result in your own clan executing you.

After each match the winner can "stand" or "retire". If they stand they immediately fight the next opponent without rest, or medical treatment. If they retire they cannot participate in the Falseblood any further. The losers are also permanently out.

There are no referees (they're doing this because they can't agree on stuff in the first place). There a no fiddly rules like you fight expect in sports that require interpretation/ careful observation. For example there are no ring outs, minor joint manipulation is allowed, and fighting doesn't stop when one opponent is downed. However everyone in is aware that the next stage of escalation involve piles of bodies and that the real goal is to convince the other side that you won.

Magical combat isn't really a thing (magic is, but magical attacks would be too slow and indiscriminate). The setting is iron poor, so everyone bringing chainmail or plate isn't feasible. Without universal armor sparing with sharped swords isn't possible. Sparing with dull swords (a la fencing) isn't possible without referees to judge who hit who first. Also fighting to the first drop of blood seems like it would fall apart very badly and quickly with a variety of weapons in use and no referees.

Magical medical treatment is a thing, but not a same day thing.

[brian 333]

I thought you were talking about great melees in which the opposition leaders rallied masses of 'voters' to their sides and attacked en masse until one side won. Fighting continues until each individual yields and offers his 'favor' to the victor, followed by a party in which favors are returned in exchange for a drink and a bragging session.

This way takes one day and ends with everyone celebrating together. Having a series of individual combats might allow 6-20 fights an hour, with the occaisional fight lasting over an hour. At best 480 combatants would participate in a given day, so if your clans number in the thousands it will take weeks or else champions will be hired and most of the clan members will simply watch.

[Martin Greywolf]

So the idea is that they engage in non-lethal combat that approximates who would win in an actual fight.
My working name right now is Falseblood, but I'm not thrilled with it.

This is essentially trial by combat combined with early forms of medieval tournaments - the ones that had melees and LARPing instead of jousts as the main draw. You should probably check out Osprey's Knights at Tournament for a basic overview of how things were done historically.

So the way it works in my first draft is that the conflict is declared, and a place and time set by clan chiefs.
Individuals decide if they'll fight and on what side. Though typically members of the clans principle to the conflict will almost always fight on their clan's side. Pretty much any individual that would care about the conflict and shows up is allowed to fight.

This could well be a logistical nightmare, and could result in some very lopsided fights. It's a matter of time until someone decides to employ bribery and blackmail to strongarm other clans into fighting for them.

I'm not saying you can't do this, what I'm saying is that you need to be aware of these loopholes in the system and probably also know why they haven't been patched. Histtorical trials by combat went to extraordinary lengths to ensure both sides were evenly matched on paper - equal weapons, equal numbers, if it was man vs woman the dude got dunked into a waist-deep

The combatants bring any weapon from a known list of less-lethal or "practice" weapons.[/QUOTE]

Sure, sounds good. Federschwerts and padded swords were often used, as well as blunted steel swords. You will probably need a team of referees that check the weapons beforehand, because, well, cheating did happen in reality, and will happen here as well.

Spoiler: Flower of Battle, ~1400AD

Show

This poleaxe of mine is filled with a powder and is hollow and perforated. And this powder is so strongly corrosive that the moment it touches your eye, you will no longer be able to open it, and you may be permanently blinded.
[...]
My most noble lord, my Marquis, there are some vicious things shown in this book that you would never do. I show you them purely to aid your knowledge.

Metal armor is not permitted.

Things to remember is that, with non-steel weapons, lamellar leather armor is as good as metal, so you will still see a lot more grappling in these fights than you otherwise would. Thrusts to the face will also be very popular, and possibly cause permanent injuries. You can't really ban them, because people with lives/money/honor on the line and adrenaline in them will probably default to them anyway. Hell, it rarely happens even in modern re-enactment, sometimes as a messup, sometimes as an accident because someone slipped.

That aside, one metal bit of armor that will have to be permitted is the helmet, if you don't permit it, you will end up with cases of blunt head trauma and permanent injuries that would make American football look tame. It will probably be some kind of crevelliere or norman helmet, possibly with a mask to protect the face to stop those eye thrusts?

Killing your opponent accidently is a great way to start additional trouble. Intentionally killing your opponent is guaranteed to start attritional trouble and may even result in your own clan executing you.

Accidental killing can't result in further trouble - these fights are far too dangerous. We know there was a noticeable death toll in medieval tournaments, and it was seen as tragic but unavoidable accident. Fact is, if you grapple and throw someone, there is almost nothing you can do to ensure a resisting opponent will not fall badly and break his neck. Or that mutual charge won't result in a broken rib piercing a lung or some such.

There are no referees (they're doing this because they can't agree on stuff in the first place). There a no fiddly rules like you fight expect in sports that require interpretation/ careful observation. For example there are no ring outs, minor joint manipulation is allowed, and fighting doesn't stop when one opponent is downed. However everyone in is aware that the next stage of escalation involve piles of bodies and that the real goal is to convince the other side that you won.

This is... not gonna work.

You need referees in any sort of trial by combat, especially since you're not allowed to kill opponents. You will also need some referees in the ring to separate the combatants once the surrender from the chiefs is given - not because the combatants don't want to follow rules, but because you are very likely not to hear them in a helmet, or in a headlock, or after being bashed in the head or... you get the picture.

As for who they would be, probably a neutral clan, or maybe some sort of clergy. Historically, these were neutral parties, representatives of higher rank judicial power (duke or a king) or even dukes or kings in person.

Ring outs must, by necessity, be a thing, because there is nothing stopping the two combatants to trample merrily all over the spectators - again, people will resort to loopholes and cheating immediately, no matter how honor-based society this is supposed to be. History has shown this with remarkable consistency.

Without universal armor sparing with sharped swords isn't possible. Sparing with dull swords (a la fencing) isn't possible without referees to judge who hit who first. Also fighting to the first drop of blood seems like it would fall apart very badly and quickly with a variety of weapons in use and no referees.

Read Knights at tournament to find out how these things were really done. You have a lot of misconceptions here about how these things work that would take a lot of time to go through.

[Quizatzhaderac]

I thought you were talking about great melees in which the opposition leaders rallied masses of 'voters' to their sides and attacked en masse until one side won. Fighting continues until each individual yields and offers his 'favor' to the victor, followed by a party in which favors are returned in exchange for a drink and a bragging session.

This way takes one day and ends with everyone celebrating together. Having a series of individual combats might allow 6-20 fights an hour, with the occaisional fight lasting over an hour. At best 480 combatants would participate in a given day, so if your clans number in the thousands it will take weeks or else champions will be hired and most of the clan members will simply watch.

Hmm.... the big battle all at once and the all day event each have their dramatic advantages. I can certainly see the big battle making a good movie scene.

As for the party and celebrating you mentioned, now that it think about in context, I'll say the winners would want to very much appear gracious (so this is a settled matter, not a simmering grudge); feed them; booze them up; talk about how well and honorably they fought.

BTW, I'm imaging the clans each being having about 60 fighting members. But rare issue might daisy chain multiple clans on each side. The absolute biggest issues were addressed by actual wars decades past.

Read Knights at tournament to find out how these things were really done. You have a lot of misconceptions here about how these things work that would take a lot of time to go through

Thanks, I think I will.

And thank you for your criticism.

This could well be a logistical nightmare, and could result in some very lopsided fights. It's a matter of time until someone decides to employ bribery and blackmail to strongarm other clans into fighting for them.

I think maybe I'm not conveying some aspect of my idea clearly. Lopsided fights would be more like a parliament holding a 99-1 vote than a sporting event between toddlers and adults.

Maybe the rules could be designed to avoid that 99-1 vote, and not waste everybody's time, but ultimately deciding things by vote is what the parliament is for. Even if there's no rule against it, that one person with no allies might decide that it's not wise to press the issue.

As for getting other people to fight for them in the ritual: Are these people different than the ones that would fight for them in the mini-war? If different, how so? If they're the same, I'd say their absence would be a problem.

That aside, one metal bit of armor that will have to be permitted is the helmet, if you don't permit it, you will end up with cases of blunt head trauma and permanent injuries that would make American football look tame.

Very good point.

Tangentially, the analogy is kind of weird since Rugby football almost exactly the same ruleset as American football, except rigid helmets are disallowed, but paradoxically has a much lower rate of head trauma.

This is... not gonna work.

After additional thought, I've decided the "no referees" part is needlessly extreme. Although, I will still try to to avoid having unimpeachably neutral parties.

Non-principle partisans (akin to a duel's seconds) could do a lot of the things like checking weapons (the enemies) and separating fighters (their own). Whatever neutral arbiters are available (I'm thinking members of the other noble castes) would make basic judgements like confirming that that wooden sword is full of acid or that one guys is really two dwarfs.

Also I imagine the MC would best be neutral.

Ring outs must, by necessity, be a thing, because there is nothing stopping the two combatants to trample merrily all over the spectators - again, people will resort to loopholes and cheating immediately

As I see it, winning by ring out is a loophole itself, and it encourages people to cheat the spirit of the event.

But yeah, I can't think of a simple rule that would contain the match to an reasonable extent, but not be gamed. Although, in an actual depiction, this should be easy enough of an issue to avoid.

you're not allowed to kill opponents

Trivial point:

You are technically allowed to deliberately kill opponents, in the sense that, under the rules of association football, bringing a gun to the field and shooting your opponents is only a red card.

Outside of that event's rules however, there will still be consequences.

[brian 333]

The Skalds, (for lack of a better name,) are an organization of lore keepers, teachers, researchers, historians, and diplomats who have cut all ties to their clan and instead owe fealty to the overall culture. They are held to be untouchable by the clan leaders so long as they observe a set of codes they have established, among which are the prohibition of taking sides in any dispute and asserting the truth of a lie.

A skald caught telling a lie can have the lying tongue or lips removed with a red-hot knife while the skald that takes one side against another can be cut in half and each half delivered to the clan leaders involved in the dispute.

Skalds can officiate at clan disputes to insure the rules are (reasonably well) obeyed.

[Martin Greywolf]

I think maybe I'm not conveying some aspect of my idea clearly. Lopsided fights would be more like a parliament holding a 99-1 vote than a sporting event between toddlers and adults.

Maybe the rules could be designed to avoid that 99-1 vote, and not waste everybody's time, but ultimately deciding things by vote is what the parliament is for. Even if there's no rule against it, that one person with no allies might decide that it's not wise to press the issue.

As a weird voting system, maybe. As a means to settle legal disputes, it won't work all that well, because this system doesn't have even an option of pretense of fairness. If you have more bodies to throw at the other side, you are almost guaranteed to win.

And if one of the clans gains enough of an advantage to be untouchable, even for a very short while, they will be able to change the entire system into monarchy. Theoretically. Either way, they will cause a possible civil war over it.

As for getting other people to fight for them in the ritual: Are these people different than the ones that would fight for them in the mini-war? If different, how so? If they're the same, I'd say their absence would be a problem.

The thing with a war is that it gives you options. A smaller force can and frequently does win over a larger one. With this tournament, if we assume real people and not DnD characters, numbers advantage will almost certainly carry you. Going battle after battle against fresh opponents, and all of that being a duel? Even the best fighters will last only two or three rounds before they get taken out.

That means that, should a smaller clan have a grievance, they will opt for war, because that has a better chance of success with similar costs (you are effectively deploying your entire army for the tournament anyway, and you get no plunder from it). Trials by combat were a thing because they were, at the end of the day, cheaper than blood feuds, and gave the underdog a shot.

Very good point.

Tangentially, the analogy is kind of weird since Rugby football almost exactly the same ruleset as American football, except rigid helmets are disallowed, but paradoxically has a much lower rate of head trauma.

Well, yes, but that doesn't apply when the application of blunt force trauma is done by a swiftly swung object directly to the cranium. There are two main ways a helomet protects you, first being not letting bad thing touch head, which is not relevant here. Second is the weight of the helmet, once hit, the helmet moves first, and since it is heavier and larger tha the sword, that slows down the impact and distributes it. I've used nasal, kettle hat and great helmets, and you can really feel the difference, even against swords.

The difference between a nasal helmet on the light side and a heavier hettle hat you feel when hit with a daneaxe is... significant. Nasal helmet is painful, kettle hat is more like a medium-strength shove. I can't really tell you how it feels without having a helmet, because I like my skull not crushed by an enthusiastic axeman.

After additional thought, I've decided the "no referees" part is needlessly extreme. Although, I will still try to to avoid having unimpeachably neutral parties.

Non-principle partisans (akin to a duel's seconds) could do a lot of the things like checking weapons (the enemies) and separating fighters (their own). Whatever neutral arbiters are available (I'm thinking members of the other noble castes) would make basic judgements like confirming that that wooden sword is full of acid or that one guys is really two dwarfs.

Oh, I meant neutral in a very technical sense of the word - namely, they are ostensibly supposed to be, but are very influenceable, and potentially gloriously corrupt. Not to mention likely opposed to any newcomers because societies like this are an old boy's club.

Figuring out how to get the right neutral party will probably be a major thing.

As for seconds, you will still likely need an arbiter on top of them, seconds in trials by combat were not supposed to actually interfere with the combat, and for a good reason. Their role was negotiation before the combat, and potentially surrendering for their fighter by some remmote means, e.g. throwing in the towel.

You are technically allowed to deliberately kill opponents, in the sense that, under the rules of association football, bringing a gun to the field and shooting your opponents is only a red card.

Outside of that event's rules however, there will still be consequences.

The problem is this: fighter of side A accidentally kills a guy of side B. Side A claims it was deliberate, side B claims it was not. With no arbiters and no other legal recourse, you will either have another tournament to settle this, where you potentially enter into a tragicomic cycle of perpetual tournaments, or both sides decide to settle it once and for all with a good, old-fashioned war.

Thing is, people will die in these, and regularly. If we believe medieval monks, every tournament had several fatalities. The real numbers were probably lower, but it still happened often enough to make people in charge concerned about the loss of life, and this was in recreational tournaments with nothing more than personal glory on the line. With actual stakes, it will be worse.

[brian 333]

Death in a tournament makes you a hero and you get to officiate at the tourneys in the afterlife. Plus you get an upgrade coupon for the private bar with bottle beer service.

[Quizatzhaderac]

And if one of the clans gains enough of an advantage to be untouchable, even for a very short while, they will be able to change the entire system into monarchy. Theoretically. Either way, they will cause a possible civil war over it.

I actually have two specific civil wars in mind.

One before living memory that created the caste system; which is an a-historical system where nobles are divided by what they do (stratocracy (war), minocracy (land), plutocracy (trade, banking, certain crafts), and ecclesiocracy (religion, education, and magic)). Previously, most of the military was directly beholden to various minocrats.

The second time was basically an attempted military coup d'état: the majority of the stratocracy decided they should be in charge of everything. This nominally succeeded at first, but the soft power of the other castes and the actions of the commoners made it untenable.

As a weird voting system, maybe. As a means to settle legal disputes, it won't work all that well, because this system doesn't have even an option of pretense of fairness.

It is not meant to be fair, unless the question is "who is stronger?". The term "weird voting system" fits pretty well.

Within the stratocracy there are several other means of resolution. Aside from the stratocracy, there are many cases where other nobles' authority might matter. Above the stratocracy is the king and senate.

About the only thing I'm specifically imagining this being used for is deciding "major clan" status, which means the clan appoints a senator and gets a say in picking generals. A major clan's "right" to do these things comes by virtue of military strength.

Well, yes, but that doesn't apply when the application of blunt force trauma is done by a swiftly swung object directly to the cranium.

Hence the "paradoxically". I can't imagine any controlled scenario where getting hit on the head without a helmet is better that with one.

[Laserlight]

I have to say that this sounds like it's one bad morning away from someone saying "Oh yeah? Forget the play fighting, get the war axes and we'll settle them once and for all!"

Perhaps do a muster. Each side simply shows up with their troops. Properly armed light infantry counts as one, heavy as two, light cav as four, heavy cav as six -- of whatever proportions you think are right. You count how many guys are really there (not "he's on leave, sick call, AWOL, detached") and that's your vote. No fighting, although I imagine there'd be some tournaments--archery, races, that kind of thing.

Note also that, depending on what tech level you have and how much magic is involved in agriculture, calling out the army (whether for voting or war) is a pain, and if you're gathering at the Grand Parade Grounds for the vote then you're not off defending the border against the ogre raiders.