![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
These are some questions tied into my current research for game world development. If anyone can answer them, fantastic. If not, some speculation is welcome. It doesn't have to be logical, or even meaningful.
1) What governed the conduct of warfare in the Enlightment era (18th century)? There were plenty of them, and there seem to have been accepted ways to fight them, but obviously they weren't governed by, say, the Geneva Convention, and chivalry, if it ever existed in that context, was if not dead then well forgotten.
2) What is the major (historical, pre-trains) barrier to overland trade from Europe to China? Is it down to the terrain between here and there, the people along the way, or just the fact that it's a bloody long way?
3) Are there credible, or even semi-credible alternatives to the Westphalian nation-state system in the modern era?
I'm going to do the dishes, and I expect some entertaining answers by the time I get back. Sunny weather is no excuse.
EDIT: Woah, answers! Thank you all. Individual replies to follow...
1) What governed the conduct of warfare in the Enlightment era (18th century)? There were plenty of them, and there seem to have been accepted ways to fight them, but obviously they weren't governed by, say, the Geneva Convention, and chivalry, if it ever existed in that context, was if not dead then well forgotten.
2) What is the major (historical, pre-trains) barrier to overland trade from Europe to China? Is it down to the terrain between here and there, the people along the way, or just the fact that it's a bloody long way?
3) Are there credible, or even semi-credible alternatives to the Westphalian nation-state system in the modern era?
I'm going to do the dishes, and I expect some entertaining answers by the time I get back. Sunny weather is no excuse.
EDIT: Woah, answers! Thank you all. Individual replies to follow...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
On the second, don't you count the Silk Road as overland trade? It was never easy, but never impossible either. If you mean, why didn't it run further north through Siberia, I guess the answer is that the gravitational attraction of centres of population and economic activity were further south.
On the third, of course the European Union is attempting to engineer such an alternative, and some in the African Union would like to follow suit. But it's also worth considering the existing micro-states; or the more innovative arrangements among the officially recognised dependent territories; or likewise among autonomous areas. The most interesting inovations right now are happening (on the radar screen) in the Dutch Caribbean islands, where three of them are about to be fully integrated into the Netherlands and two established as semi-independent (as Aruba was in 1986); and in the Russian Federation, where there are all kinds of funny constitutional goings-on not generally reported, including billionaires who collect both regional governorships and football teams!
From:
no subject
3) Those are some excellent links, I'll dig in.
From:
18th cen Rules of War
Basically, the idea was not to topple the opposition's government, but to limit military actions to areas away from civilians and more urbanised areas. The goal of most troop maneuvers was to secure surrender, without regard to controlling the enemy's position. Frederick II of Prussia had some innovative ideas, including the oblique order of battle.
Total war didn't come about until the citizen-armies of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
As far as naval warfare, it was governed by the British Articles of War.
From:
Re: 18th cen Rules of War
From:
Re: 18th cen Rules of War
All-out war is just so much more risky. You have a little to gain, and everything to lose.
From:
Trade with China
Customs tolls were another obstacle, especially through the Muslim lands. That's what motivated the colonization of India, actually--trying to get around the tariffs imposed by the Muslim states of the Middle East. Currency itself might be an issue, as exchange rates fluctuated between regions with the devaluation/reform of coinage and regime change.
And there are always problems of piracy and brigandage.
From:
Re: Trade with China
From:
no subject
3) well, you either have to go larger, as other posters have mentioned, or smaller. You might want to have a look at Christiania in Copenhagen. In short, small hippie commune occupies abandoned military area and sets up a free state with own government. Still there today, semi accepted by the local council. It's not 100% separate, as there is not enough population to have their own schools etc. The idea would go back to the citystate, I guess, if you want to use that for your games.
From:
no subject
I've been looking at various intentional communities, but they all seem to suffer from scaling problems, particularly once they get past Dunbar's Number. I've used the city-state a lot in other games, but I'm looking (for the current set of game world development) at a high population across an area larger than the size of the US, so coast-to-coast city-states (probably?) wouldn't hold up. Although I'll think more about it.
From:
no subject
From:
Alternative States
The Zollverein is a fun example of a customs union. The idea may be able to be expanded into a "trade empire," but I think it may work most effectively as did the historical Zollverein, with several weaker states dominated by a more powerful state (otherwise policy would be difficult to determine).
As a negative example, he Ottoman Empire was constantly on the verge of crumbling; pashaliks are unstable even under Islam. I don't think dynastic states, with borders made fluid by marriage and treaty, are conducive to republicanism and universal suffrage, as they really hearken back to absolutism.
From:
Re: Alternative States
For the time-and-place I'm currently developing, I'm working around the idea that inherited rulership is seen as being very dodgy, even immoral.
From:
Re: Alternative States
Another factor you might want to consider is the balance of power within your theoretical continent. Nineteenth-century Europe was dominated by several major powers, who, especially after the Congress of Vienna, ignored self-determinism for smaller states, partly out of reactionary conservatism. Would the outside powers have been able to impose monarchy, and how long would it take to effect revolution?
From:
no subject
As mentioned, the Silk Road is the prime example of this trading route, of course, though there were variations in the routes traveled and a lot of things fall under that category. In short, really, the answer is all of the above.
I'm pre-coffee at the moment, but I should have some information for you, considering how often I've studied the cultures and ideas of the area.
Water was probably the greatest limiting factor. As mentioned, the rivers flowed the wrong way for easy travel, there was a lot of desert and semi-arid areas that led to traveling from one oasis or trading town to another with as much water as you could carry and animals that would drink as little of it as possible. The Taklamakan is the perfect example of this - there are no water sources within it and it was extremely dangerous. The name even comes from the idea that if you go in, you won't come back out. Caravans skirted it and still often fell victim to it.
The Taklamakan illustrates another problem as well - temperature and weather extremes. It can be painfully hot during the day and freezing cold at night, even during the height of summer. During winter, it's just freaking cold. The sandstorms were notorious, the "singing demons" of the desert, destroying any caravan in their path that wasn't completely battened down and prepared.
Think about it - the Taklamakan was near the end of a lot of trips, as China's somewhat fluid borders often reached out that far and there was huge variety of terrain before it. You had to cross the traditional Land of Fire, the hot and dry lands of the middle east and Asia, depending on your route, as well as frequent elevation changes, the steppes, and the mountains. If you wanted to avoid the Taklamakan, you had to travel in the high mountains, sometimes over the Roof of the World, the Himalaya. It was fire and ice, huge variations in hot and cold environments.
In addition to the water, the terrain, and weather, consider the people! Depending on when you're talking about traveling, you have cultures from many different religions and ethnicities that you had to pass through, all of whom would often exact a toll and make demands upon any travelers. There were marauding mobile tribes, there was a surfeit of brigands, and one group was always warring on another. Ownership of the various lands and cities was in constant motion and many socities were a mix of various cultural remnants from previous conquerors.
Even in the end, you could make a trip all the long way, successfully passing through storms and wars and up and down over terrain, and then find that China had fallen back into one of its xenophobic phases, shutting out and possibly even killing foreigners.
Extreme luxury items were the only thing that made these trips worthwhile and the lighter they could be, the better.
From:
no subject
From:
war in the Age of Reason
Armies did not generally live off the land, but were supplied from depots. There was an aspiration not to completely lay waste the area of operation, in order to maintain its economic worth. This also affected attitudes towards battle - soldiers were expensive, so you didn't want to waste them getting them killed.
Marlborough only fought 4 major battles, although he anted to fight more, but his Dutch allies wouldn't. Fred fought a couple every year, but mostly because he had to - Prussia was surrounded by enemies and kicking them off the field, whatever it cost, was vital to survive.
Battles could be bloody, but since it took time to get armies organised in the morning, it was often too late for an effective pursuit once the fight was over. Also, most cavalry wasn't worth much. People had neither the means nor the doctrine to turn a victory into a major whupping of the other side
Fred was the exception to almost all the "rules" and if he hadn't been around, Prussia wouldn't have taken on all of Europe, and would have always been second to Austria
right -back to work
From:
no subject
From:
no subject