For my DnD campaign, I'm thinking of one rather large region being in the grips of a succession war. Specifically one that...well, has been going on for maybe around 3 centuries.
At least that's the idea. Sometimes an outright pitched fight, sometimes a long ceasefire or cold war. New generations of claimants being born and the like(one claimant some sort of higher undead).
I was just wondering, how long could a succession war actually go on for realistically? I know it's DnD, but having something IRL as a frame of reference would be nice. How long until people say "Fuck it, lets make a smaller kingdom/free city?"
The idea is that at least half the claimants have been killed, their branches of the family tree pretty much outright gone, but still around 5 claimants remain. Some areas have become autonomous (free cities and the like), one area has become something of a march for another foreign body, one has become its own small country etc. But all the while these princes and pretenders, or their heirs, are still slugging it out.
How feasible is this?
Levi Torres
>How feasible is this? All of that comes down to manpower and the quality of land. If this is in the middle of the Arabian desert it makes no sense. If the wars are resulting in massive population declines it makes no sense. Otherwise, it could absolutely happen.
Kevin Adams
If the war has been going on for centuries, then the factions involved are now impoverished, insular shadows of their former selves populated by bitter, fractious nobles, a jaded, brutal warrior class, and starving, hopeless peasants. War is a massive drain on any economy, and the longer it goes on, the worse conditions get.
Given periods of ceasefire or cold war: The political establishment will be absolutely cutthroat. Entire generations of nobles will have been raised with either a black and white 'victory at any cost' mindset, or a greyscale 'take what you can, give nothing back' one. At the level of the 'common man' there would be rampant, constant suspicion of neighbors and even friends. Constantly questioning the loyalties and motivations of everyone you meet. Strangers or outsiders would be treated with distrust at best, and, more likely, overt hostility. Look into America as it was during the Red Scare (late 40's through the 80's with a peak in the 50's) or any of the Soviet republics/satellites that had a secret police. Oh yeah, there would be Secret Police and spies, absolutely everywhere. The societies and communities of the region would be a dystopian nightmare.
Realistically, the longest a succession war could last depends on the size of the kingdom in question, and how centralized the previous government was. If if was a coalition of powerful Princes/Dukes swearing fealty to an Emperor/High King, well, that shit will last until Nationalism develops and a powerful/popular enough leader unites the people under a common banner. Check out Otto von Bismarck.
If the kingdom was more centrally controlled it might end up looking more like the War of the Roses or the Angevin Empire's crisis following the death of Richard I and the Noble Rebellion against poor John Lackland.
If you're set on having a three century conflict, then it would be about 30-40 years, max, before people said "Fuck it." And that's if there's a religious element in play.
Nolan Brooks
Generally speaking, succession wars lasted as long as the claimants did.
Honestly, I'd just write up the region as being in general turmoil, instead of a single civil war. Think the Sengoku Jidai period in Japan, the Warring States period in China, or post-Roman Western Europe. All different families constantly claiming legitimacy and taking swipes at each other, but no-one ever succeeding in fully conquering the region.
John Cox
>Generally speaking, succession wars lasted as long as the claimants did. Yeah, the Plantagenets died out not too long after the Hundred Years War.
Benjamin Torres
>All of that comes down to manpower and the quality of land. If this is in the middle of the Arabian desert it makes no sense.
There is no desert region, it's all...pretty fertile land, forests and the like.
>If the wars are resulting in massive population declines it makes no sense
This is what I was concerned about, and looking to maybe dance around in some way. As the land itself relies on levies with some small bits of landed warrior aristocracy, I was wondering at how bad it could be for depopulation.
So I'm currently weighing a few little 'cheats' ie heir is rather defensive, as they knows that foreign powers are like to exploit the regional instability and have grown wise to their crap, especially since that one area became a march, maybe most of them are loathe to engage in full-on total war, as ruling a nation of ashes isn't worth it. Or maybe there are instances of long ceasefires and peaces.
This is good advice, but I am wondering if the claimants, when ceasefire or bits of 'cold' happen maybe wouldn't turn their gazes towards the cities that broke away
>Generally speaking, succession wars lasted as long as the claimants did.
Some of the claimants aren't really human, or rather can live longer than a human, so that was my...y'know, my kind of excuse.
>I'd just write up the region as being in general turmoil
Could you elaborate?
Anthony Foster
I could go on, at length (like I do), but I think I might have overdumped there.
Check out the political changes that things like the Thirty Years War and the Anti-Pope Crisis wrought.
Also worth looking at:
Henry II vs. Eleanor of Aquitaine (she won, sort of, or at least her favorite got the throne)
The wars over control of the Shogunate in Japan.
The Balkan Peninsula. I know it's to the point of a meme, but if you want a template for a social/political/religious clusterfuck that lasts for centuries, there is no better example.
Also worth looking at the succession line of the Roman Emperors following the death of the last of the Five Good Emperors (Marcus Aurelius).
And don't forget: In extended periods of war, the military caste will gain a great deal of power.
Ethan Wilson
"How long until people say "Fuck it, lets make a smaller kingdom/free city?""
depending on who you look at in history.
In russia during the early Rurikid reign it took less than a generation after the first succession conflict for the rurikids calling a huge "fuck it" and making tiny princedoms.
The Mongol empire shattered pretty much instantly after the death of Genghis's first successor.
The romans though, they fought for decades sometimes before unifying again.
So it all depends on the culture and on how tied together the people of said nation are
Lincoln Campbell
I don't know enough history to tell if you're sarcastically contradicting me or not.
Jacob Ramirez
Sounds like things may have devolved into constant boarder skirmishes and raids. There would be 'Marches' that have gone largely wild save for the areas around hillforts or castles. Between the marches of the territories would be areas of no-man's-land and lawless neutrals. Bandit Kings and/or Robber Barons would be very common. Forests that covered more than one defined territory would be wild, claimed by all, used by none (save for basic forestry and timber industries likely run by people who are as hard as nails) The forests that covered Central Europe in the Middle Ages are a good example.
This is, in fact, an awesome setting for a D & D campaign. Civilized lands torn by strife with swaths of bandits, Dark Lords, and peoples who have gone barbarian between.
An excellent example.
Levi Jones
>As the land itself relies on levies with some small bits of landed warrior aristocracy, I was wondering at how bad it could be for depopulation. In the Thirty Years war disease was considered most responsible for what depopulated the German cities and countryside. So even if battles are in the order of 10k vs. 10k with about four thousand mortally wounded, the armies leaving the field, traveling, and setting up camps will really cause the massive devastation to the locals. This is even a problem in modern conflicts.
Leo Murphy
Oh, don't forget to look up historical accounts and estimations of the succession wars of China. Gnarly shit
Caleb Lewis
>>I'd just write up the region as being in general turmoil >Could you elaborate?
Yeah. Basically, instead of a succession war, what you're describing is more the like the outright collapse of a state. After three centuries, you wouldn't still have people fighting over the right to rule the kingdom. The kingdom would have splintered into multiple successor kingdoms, all claiming rightful descent from the original kingdom, and brawling with their neighbours out of irredentism.
All these successors would frame their wars as continuations of the original succession war, but the time-scale would be so long that the war would take on more of a mythical feel in the eyes of the commoners. Think of how post-Roman European lords would claim descent from the Romans to make their rule seem more legitimate. That's the sort of mythical narrative people would be clinging to by this point.
Jonathan Wilson
Don't forget that massacring entire villages or even large towns was commonplace during the Thirty Years War. Not to mention the explosion of rat and fly populations due to open mass graves and lack of funding/interest in sanitation. Being a peasant wasn't always a horrorshow, but it sucked hard in times of war, and harder the longer it went on.
Liam Ward
Had a thought: It might be fun to throw in one area of the region where the merchant/tradesman class have had enough of the endless wars disrupting things and have overthrown their lords. It could be a Mercantile kingdom, like Sicily or Venice, or even something more extreme, like the French Revolution (which was led by the middle class). That could be a common threat that the rest of the warring claimants have to balance with the risks of attacking each other. It could also be a way to open up more choices for the players besides 'side with the most Lawful Good claimant, for the cause of a good king' and 'side with the strongest claimant, for personal gain'.
You could also go with the somewhat cliche idea of the 'true heir' having abandoned the succession war to fight and provide for 'his people' outside of the bounds of the law. Ain't no Robin Hood like a Royal Robin Hood with both the moral high ground and a seemingly insurmountable foe.
My only caveat here is that if there are any players in your group who can't handle realpolitik in a mature way, don't bother.
Also, figure out what kind of campaign you're going to run.
If it's going to be adventure heavy, I'd recommend focusing on the wild woods and the forgotten lands. Plenty of mysterious druid circles, overgrown ruins and dungeons now home to monsters and bandits, mythical creatures that are flourishing in civilization's absence, that sort of thing.
If it's going to be combat heavy, involving them in skirmishes/raids and larger military ventures can take you from encounter to encounter without making it seem forced in the RP.
If it's going to be about politics/intrigue, check out some good spy novels/movies. Stuff like The Scarlet Pimpernel, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Name of the Rose, or (if you can stomach it) the Wheel of Time series (g'damn it RJ, we just wanted more awesome). The politics of the Byzantine Empire or the Italian Princes would be a good historical source.
Samuel Harris
Further thought, if you want to go with a more High Fantasy thing:
The Crown Jewels (or King's Regalia, or whatevs) could be magical artifacts that each grant certain powers, but recognize the one who holds the complete set as "King of All ______". The one who holds them all might be capable of bending the nobles to their will (by force or magical bonds) or even become a sort of Fisher King (where the very land and environment itself reflects the person of the ruler).
The strongest claimants could be the ones who possess one, or more, of the artifacts and the balance of power would shift radically depending on their ability to hold onto them.
I'll stop 'helping' now.
Kayden Diaz
I wasn't.
Tyler Flores
OP here
That could be a thing.
I was thinking about it, and if there was one claimant left standing, but NOBODY wanted that claimant, would that still be a reason for continuation of hostility and turmoil?
I'll be talking about the setting in another post just to give you guys a little better of a mental picture
Alexander Gutierrez
>I was thinking about it, and if there was one claimant left standing, but NOBODY wanted that claimant, would that still be a reason for continuation of hostility and turmoil? Yes. When William the Conqueror stood victorious over Harald of Norway (dead), and Harold of England (dead), two Anglo Saxon Earl brothers (Edwin and Morcar) revolted and tried to give the crown to a teenage boy with a tenuous claim named Edgar. Their lands were the size of about half of England, and William infamously marched north and murdered and burned the shit out of Morcar's land of Northumbria which forced Morcar out of England. Edwin was betrayed by his men.
Wyatt Cook
And during and after this, William was depriving all of the Anglo Saxon nobles he could of their land and replacing them with Normans loyal to him. During this entire time another revolt could've happened.
Hunter Baker
>If the war has been going on for centuries, then the factions involved are now impoverished, insular shadows of their former selves populated by bitter, fractious nobles, a jaded, brutal warrior class, and starving, hopeless peasants. You do realize that pre-modern war wasn't some sort of perpetual conflict where armies were clashing daily. The Hundred Years War had numerous periods of peace during it, the War of the Roses was just a series of periodic campaigns as opposed to any protracted conflict.
Angel Peterson
Ok, because like I said, one of the claimants is Undead, and they would outlast the rest of them. But nobody would want some rotted, bony fuck for a monarch, so instead they would get behind any living mortal relative of the late monarch. I actually remember learning about this. Wow user, thanks! That lecture was a long, long time ago.
Anyway, to give you a bit of a mental picture
>King fucks around alot. ALOT alot, with both noble women and peasant women. Bastards all over > Has no legit heir, just a sibling of questionable birth and even more questionable morality. Dies. >Shit hits the fan as various people come forth trying to lay claim to the throne, some with support of certain nobles or factions, some without. >Big war erupts >shit splinters >Half the goddamn claimants die in rapid succession >Sibling to the late monarch becomes a goddamn higher undead >Hard as fuck to maintain anything, and chaos all over the place. >Some cities break off entirely. One an island off the coast, pretty much NOT!Venice >One in the North, who's claimant marries an Orc princess in order to lift the siege. It becomes pretty much "Orcmandy" and the children of the claimant have claims that are suspect at best >One city full of mages says "aw nah fuck this civil war horseshit" and closes off everything, hurling fireballs at any noble-looking nigga with a flag >Claimants get whittled down to around 6ish, Undead one included >A handful of cities in the west, far from the capital and near the frontier break off entirely and become their own nation, who actually have a sort of "Adventuring Hero" tradition to them. They are not a monarchy. In later years, they would annex a city or two and set up a march >Remaining claimants, or children of claimants, still occaisonally slug it out in boarder skirmishes, but due to everything rapidly getting fucked, their taking a breather
Brandon Sullivan
>a country to the east is making incursions into the shattered realm, which makes the small kingdoms and free cities nervous >That new political body to the west is engaging in under-handed horseshit, probably with the ambition of absorbing the once-kingdom >There are now corrupt Paladins running all over the place > And that goddamn Undead claimant who, while the most 'legit', is a fucking evil critter >Bandits everywhere >Mercenaries here and there > All is fucked.
Pretty much.
doesn't sound too tarded, does it?
Kayden Young
bump
Christian Reed
aaaand a final friendly bump. If nothing else, then thanks Veeky Forums!
