Throughout history, wars have raged in all regions of the globe over the lines that divide nations. Wars have almost always occured because one nation demands a piece of land that another nation occupies. The middle ages are defined by this concept, as Europe was carved into quantified domains of the various kings. Look at the map of Europe in 1453 and you'll see what I mean.
Medieval games just do not feel real enough when the maps do not show distinct national boundaries. I'd like to recommend to Wizards that..finally...after 3 editions of Forgotten Realms, that the maps come in both Topographical and Political forms. I want to know exactly where the boundary between Sembia and Cormyr lies (and the line of fortifications that would be found there). I want to know where the border between Amn and Tethyr lies. This is an incredibly important element that needs to be included.
For three editions our maps have only been physical/topographical maps. I'd like to see both, because the political boundaries are far far more important than displaying the 4 different terrain types we see.
Plus, I'd really like to see how the borders of Cormyr have grown in 100 years. Such changes can definitely influence long lived characters who may have had to take drastic measures to survive the 100 year leap.
-The existence of City-States, such as Waterdeep, or Luskan, make this much more difficult. Their boundaries end with their walls, and yet, their area of influence is much greater than that.
Historical City-States such as Venice, Milan, Genoa, Bremen, Leon, Orleans, Toulouse, etc worked similar to Waterdeep, but they had definitive realms shown on maps. They extend father than their walls into the lands around them where the peasants work etc.
Waterdeep controls a large territory, but we never get to see it on the maps. If Waterdeep never exerted control over its realm, then they are basically a city that would be constantly under siege. Armies cannot fight from behind walls if they have no food or water.
Historical City-States such as Venice, Milan, Genoa, Bremen, Leon, Orleans, Toulouse, etc worked similar to Waterdeep, but they had definitive realms shown on maps. They extend father than their walls into the lands around them where the peasants work etc.
Waterdeep controls a large territory, but we never get to see it on the maps. If Waterdeep never exerted control over its realm, then they are basically a city that would be constantly under siege. Armies cannot fight from behind walls if they have no food or water.
-Yes, which is why I specifically said, "their area of influence is much greater than [their physical boundaries]."
-Yes, which is why I specifically said, "their area of influence is much greater than [their physical boundaries]."
We'll use your terminology then,
Show me their "area of influence" on the map.
For three editions our maps have only been physical/topographical maps. I'd like to see both, because the political boundaries are far far more important than displaying the 4 different terrain types we see.
As long they're not poster-sized. It would be nice to have full-page maps showing the changes in boundaries in key years (including the Horde Invasion).
We'll use your terminology then,
Show me their "area of influence" on the map.
-There is no set area of influence. These things ebb and flow as the city-states themselves grow and decrease in relative power and influence. Which is why it is so murky, as has been stated.
-There is no set area of influence. These things ebb and flow as the city-states themselves grow and decrease in relative power and influence. Which is why it is so murky, as has been stated.
Yeah, but the FRCS is a snapshot in time, it doesn't have to track any changes over time...it's set to one specific date. It's up to the DM to use the baseline information and make any changes he wishes.
I don't understand why this idea is receiving any kind of criticism. I live in Wisconsin, which is just a landscape dotted by cities now and then. If I am traveling across the wilderness, it might as well be Russia because the lack of human contact makes the borders irrelevant - but it is still technically claimed by a political entity even though they do not extend constant attention to the region. But if I'm on the highways, I can expect that they are patrolled by Wisconsin State Troopers. If I cross into Illinois via the wilderness, again, it doesn't matter because I'm not gonna see any people, but if I'm on roads, it matters greatly because I might be accosted by evil patrols from Illinois who seek to do me great harm.
Just outline the political boundaries, or explicitly show that nobody has political claims on a particular region of land. I like to utilize the political divisions of the world to create cool conflicts, and I find my games are always hampered by the maps for FR. Sometimes a good king in one land goes to war with a good king in another land - not all wars have to be explicitly good vs. evil, in fact in the real world, none are - they are merely interest vs. interest.
True, it's a bit of a roughly outlined map, but the lines usually run very close to mountain ranges, forest rims, rivers, or similar things, which will most probably be the real borders. But as I hardly doubt that chasing guards will simply let you slip when you cross a small bridge in the middle of nowhere, it doesn't make that big a difference.
FRCS, p.29.
True, it's a bit of a roughly outlined map, but the lines usually run very close to mountain ranges, forest rims, rivers, or similar things, which will most probably be the real borders. But as I hardly doubt that chasing guards will simply let you slip when you cross a small bridge in the middle of nowhere, it doesn't make that big a difference.
Thats a map of regional boundaries, not political boundaries. The Moonsea is not a single political entity, it contains states.
Thats akin to putting a map of USA out there that has pacific northeast, New England, Mississippi basin etc listed, not Washington, Massachusetts, Louisiana, etc.
Also, not all states are contained withing a single geographical area. Take Zhentarim, which had its main base in Zhentil Keep, but also exerted power and control from Darkhold.
------------
The state of Mulhorand invaded the state of Unther, but never did we know where the borders were, what portion was occupied, etc, aside from stating that so-and-so city was under their control.
Note: By "state" I mean nation-state or city-state, not a state in the way The United States embodies states. The United States is a nation-state.
I don't understand why this idea is receiving any kind of criticism. I live in Wisconsin, which is just a landscape dotted by cities now and then. If I am traveling across the wilderness, it might as well be Russia because the lack of human contact makes the borders irrelevant - but it is still technically claimed by a political entity even though they do not extend constant attention to the region. But if I'm on the highways, I can expect that they are patrolled by Wisconsin State Troopers. If I cross into Illinois via the wilderness, again, it doesn't matter because I'm not gonna see any people, but if I'm on roads, it matters greatly because I might be accosted by evil patrols from Illinois who seek to do me great harm.
:D <-- Lives in Illinois
Cormyr, for instance...they "claim" the land between the Stormhorns and the Sunset Mountains, and you will find patrols there BUT Darkhold claims that region too and you'll most definantly find their "interests" there. Cormyr also "claims" the Stonelands but that "political boundary" only extends as far as the sword points of their latest patrol through there.
My opinion, not only would you have to have a new geographical redraw but you'd also have to redo all the nations "political expression"...what THEY claim as theirs. But, then again, they made an entire new game and pasted an old name on it for marketing reasons so maybe they did do all that
Please, give the new Forgotten Realms maps and nations actual defined borders, like nations in real life.
Throughout history, wars have raged in all regions of the globe over the lines that divide nations. Wars have almost always occured because one nation demands a piece of land that another nation occupies. The middle ages are defined by this concept, as Europe was carved into quantified domains of the various kings. Look at the map of Europe in 1453 and you'll see what I mean.
There are two big problems with this version of history.
First off, medieval kingdoms did not have anything remotely resembling fixed borders. For one thing, a king typically did not have absolute power over his kingdom. Lets look at Medieval France for example. The King of France only had direct control over a small part of France directly around Paris. The rest was controlled by Dukes and Counts, who did not necessarily listen to the king. On top of that, the Duke of Normandy was also the King of England, who in his role as Duke was technically the vassel of the King of France.
Furthermore, there were plenty of pieces of land between the lands of different lords where the rule of law was very weak, even though they were smack dab in the middle of France. Medieval politics was a very, very messy affair that completely defies the concept of clear borders.
You second mistake is that medieval kingdoms were not nations in the modern sense. Those only began to evolve in the Early Modern period following the rise of absolute monarchs like Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, who undertook efforts to centralize political power and foster a sense of unity throughout their kingdom (sometimes at great cost in human suffering).
Overall, your vision of political boundaries is more modern than medieval.
EDIT: Since you want justifications for political war, here is some tips. Many wars in medieval Europe were started not on the basis of disputed borders, but on the basis of disputed inheritance claims to land. For example, two or three powerful rulers claimed to be the legitimate successor to an English king, which sparked a war that culminated in William the Conqueror invading England from Normandy.
The best example comes centuries alter at the outbreak of the Hundred Years war. At that time, the Kings of England had through inheritance and marriage gained control of over half of the provinces of France. So dozens of lords in France paid homage to the King of France, but were actually in the service of the King of England. Even the King of England technically was a vassal of the King of France even though the King of England had more real power. This led to England's invasion of France to try and get the whole country.
Inheritance disputes, succession issues, conflicting oaths of loyalty and the like are all great ways to trigger really complicated wars.
There are two big problems with this version of history.
(snip)
Inheritance disputes, succession issues, conflicting oaths of loyalty and the like are all great ways to trigger really complicated wars.
Hmm. While the King might not have full control, individual baronies, etc did have pretty well defined borders. Yes, there were disputed borders, but most people did have a solid concept of a border.
The fight between England and France wasn't due to lack of borders. It was a power struggle over who yielded to whom, and how much control who exerted over a fairly defined area, based upon (as you mentioned) inheiritance.
You are right that the reasons you listed for war exist, but you can still have boundries.
Hmm. While the King might not have full control, individual baronies, etc did have pretty well defined borders. Yes, there were disputed borders, but most people did have a solid concept of a border.
The fight between England and France wasn't due to lack of borders. It was a power struggle over who yielded to whom, and how much control who exerted over a fairly defined area, based upon (as you mentioned) inheiritance.
You are right that the reasons you listed for war exist, but you can still have boundries.
True, although I never meant to imply that a lack of borders was a cause of anything.
However the problem is that defining the borders of countries is a tricky problem when the political situation is as complicated as it sometimes got in the real world. Trying the draw the area of influence of England and France in the years leading up the Hundred Years War would result in a Venn Diagram.
True, although I never meant to imply that a lack of borders was a cause of anything.
However the problem is that defining the borders of countries is a tricky problem when the political situation is as complicated as it sometimes got in the real world. Trying the draw the area of influence of England and France in the years leading up the Hundred Years War would result in a Venn Diagram.
Exactly. The spheres of influence shifted back and forth depending on how effectively the territory was held. For example, the "Angevin Empire" crossed the English Channel into Anjou and Normandy until Philip II broke it up and brought it under the royal demesne of Ile de France. The county and duchy were points of contention, no one would have drawn a map the same way at that time.
Also there are many cases of a landed aristocrat pledging to another lord, or even multiple lords, leaving many areas on a "border" in constant flux.
Considering how many spheres of influence and city-state type areas there are in Faerun, pinning down borders is both difficult and sort of unnecessary.
Obviously this will be easiest to show with transparencies, but even with multiple solid paper maps from your printer you can still make it work rather well.
I can't imagine that there are a lot of places where it's clear that one has crossed a border from one country to another--Aglarond and Thay is certainly one, but even the Cormyr/Sembia border is probably pretty hazy.
Additionally, in some of the most places where some would want to have a boundary, I doubt it quite works out in such a clear manner on the ground... along the Dragon Reach, Cormyr's King is no doubt an acknowledged overlord to most of the towns and city states, with the important exception of Westgate, but there probably aren't any Cormyran tax collectors or soldiers on the ground.
Najara isn't really a country--it's a region. How would the cartography of that area work out? The same could be said of the Vilhon Wilds, and even High Imaskar, where the civilized are extremely thin on the ground.
In general, I think the 4E guidebook gave a good description of where countries exert control and where they don't... but that's just my $0.02
Overall, your vision of political boundaries is more modern than medieval.
Bingo. Wars in the ancient and medieval world (and presumably, Faerun) could indeed be fought over disputed cities and regions, but you have to understand that the most sophisticated maps created in the pre-modern world generally looked like this: www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/EMimages/213A.J...
"Borders" were almost always permeable and fluid, due to the limitations in speed of travel and communication. Of course empires warred over land, but the king/shah/emperor/caliph/etc generally gauged their relative holdings by asking "which cities pay their taxes to me?" The spaces in between could not be measured with precision. Humorously enough, "points of light" are a good way of describing real life ancient and medieval empires and kingdoms. Imagine a web of points connected by strands of maintained roads or sea routes. Any map of the medieval and ancient world you see today is a modern approximation. It only has sharp, delineated borders for convenience and legibility.
Keith