Town or Camp?

[Bael]

I am wondering, historically speaking, where do you suppose the nobles (with their men) set up when inside of their realm? In a town themselves, with the men camped outside, or both outside/inside or somewhere else?

[MaleMaldives]

I think for cites and towns the nobles will stay somewhere nice and the troops in a barracks. Maybe for towns the troops camp. For all other regions I usually think they camp with noble having a nice luxury tent. The great part thing is it is always up to the player.

[Fleugs]

I realize it's been over a month since this thread was active, but:

Standing armies did not exist in the middle ages. Armies would be assembled in times of war and they would set up in "camps", either surrounding a fort where the nobles could enjoy a rather luxurious shelter, or on the field (where nobles and sometimes the common soldiers would enjoy tents for shelter).

[Haerthorne]

Feeding them could be a right bitch too.

[Fleugs]

Ah yeah. Looting the farmers was a common activity. Or looting a city that is seized. Although, very frequently, armies pulled a chain of merchants with them that would deliver food.

[Haerthorne]

Ah yeah. Looting the farmers was a common activity. Or looting a city that is seized. Although, very frequently, armies pulled a chain of merchants with them that would deliver food.

We might be getting off topic here, but this is a very interesting subject. One of the most intriguing events in terms of logistics was the First Crusade, where tens of thousands of soldiers, women and children and horses travelled across the entire European continent overland to reach Jerusalem - military campaign and pilgrimage in one. Looting the local population was actually incredibly rare except in a few cases in Greece. When the main armies of Godfrey de Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse went through Hungary, they arranged with the Hungarians to be sold food. The same happened (with considerably more difficulty) in Byzantine lands, where they would arrange to have the local markets opened to their armies so they could buy supplies. At this point in time the Crusaders didn't have any big army chest or pool of resources; the markets they visited and the markets that followed them were... almost completely ruled by "free market principles". Each knight and foot-soldier bought what he could with his own money, though sometimes lords would help out their vassals.

They suffered a lot in the hostile lands of Anatolia and the Levant.

[Fleugs]

Yes, but the crusades were a rather different setting, where the Christian world would unite against the muslims (for, really, more political reasons than "retaking the Holy City"). However, I was referring more to smaller wars, sometimes even internal, between two disputed counts or smaller entities. Looting occurred. Maybe I expressed myself a bit wrong. It wasn't /that/ common after all, but it certainly happened.

I think depending on what period you look at, merchants were more and more common for food supply.

[Haerthorne]

Yes, but the crusades were a rather different setting, where the Christian world would unite against the muslims (for, really, more political reasons than "retaking the Holy City"). However, I was referring more to smaller wars, sometimes even internal, between two disputed counts or smaller entities. Looting occurred. Maybe I expressed myself a bit wrong. It wasn't /that/ common after all, but it certainly happened.

I think depending on what period you look at, merchants were more and more common for food supply.

I think you underestimate the piety of the medieval world. Except for the Normans. They were totally in it for the lands.

But yeah, in small wars between counts and stuff you'd be less likely to keep a train of merchants simply because you'd travel a few dozen miles, commandeer peoples houses and food, bring a bit of your own, maybe hunt if you're lucky, then fight. Or you'd already be looting since thats what most war boiled down to. In wars between kingdoms you'd be a lot more likely to work with merchants than to loot them simply because a large concentration of men and horses can very quickly eat everything in a small area.

[Vellos]

I think you underestimate the piety of the medieval world. Except for the Normans. They were totally in it for the lands.

But yeah, in small wars between counts and stuff you'd be less likely to keep a train of merchants simply because you'd travel a few dozen miles, commandeer peoples houses and food, bring a bit of your own, maybe hunt if you're lucky, then fight. Or you'd already be looting since thats what most war boiled down to. In wars between kingdoms you'd be a lot more likely to work with merchants than to loot them simply because a large concentration of men and horses can very quickly eat everything in a small area.

And realistically, you don't burn down the fields and uproot orchards in lands you hope to annex.

Widespread looting to support "armies" is actually more common in and after the Hundred Years War than before it. Prior to that, the "classic" example of looting is the Vikings... who weren't supporting vast armies in most cases. The wars between Wessex and the Vikings of the Danelaw might provide some good material concerning looting to support armies, but, if it exists, I am ignorant of it.

Of course, this discussion may hinge around a definition of "looting" as opposed to "taxation."