Seeking info on Border Raiders

[Futhark]

I have been looking for some real world examples of something like Borderland Barons raiding their neighbours. Unfortunately, all Google wants to give me is the Border Reivers of the 13th to 17th on the Anglo-Scottish border, which is similar to what I am looking for. However, I am seeking other examples from earlier times and different cultures too.

Any help is much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[skip.knox]

What sort of information are you looking for? I don't know what "Borderlands Barons" is -- I've played all the Borderlands games.

There's a whole literature on border regions in medieval Europe, everything from Spain and the Moors to the pagan Slavic peoples east of the Elbe River. This is academic literature; you're not likely to find much on the Net, alas. Stupid academic publishing monopoly.

Within that, though, there's how communities lived, how they arbitrated disputes, how the contest evolved over time, and so on. You're not likely to find much about weapons and tactics.

 

[Futhark]

I have some assumptions and I was just looking for some facts to confirm or deny them, so I’ll describe what I’m thinking.

The border between two kingdoms that have similar cultures but their own identity. They have fought wars in the past as one or the other becomes more dominant, usually due to a strong leader, or adapting new technologies and tactics faster. There is a series of border forts that control strategic locations. These forts have been held by one side or the other at various times. I believe that in this lawless area there would be a fair bit of switching sides to avoid being dispossessed, meaning that some nobles from kingdom A would be fighting alongside kingdom B and vice-versa, depending on circumstances.

I imagine that there would be raids conducted on enemy held forts. These would be opportunistic, autonomous decisions rather than being passed down the chain of command. I believe that there would also be raids on ‘friendly’ forts, leading to family feuds, or because of them. The question I come up against regards the politics of plausible deniability. Would, or could, a raiding party go to the effort of appearing to be enemies to conduct a raid on a friendly. Is it possible that it’s a case ‘everybody knows it the Smiths, but we can’t prove it.’ I assume that there would be limits on the damage they would want to cause in the raids, too. Enough to make it worthwhile, but not enough to warrant real attention from the higher ups.

There is also the political repercussions between the two kingdoms, and this is probably where the plausible deniability comes in to it even more. I assume a lot would depend on what the leaders are doing or care about.

So, to focus on a specific area, I guess I’m looking at how they arbitrated disputes. The pagan Slavic people might be a good example for me.

Thanks.

 

[skip.knox]

That helps. I don't think the pagan Slavs would be appropriate, at least not the ones I studied (Abodrites, Pomerani, Prussi - along the southern Baltic coast). More relevant, I should think, and certainly better documented, would be something like the Welsh border castles of the 14thc and 15thc or the frontier between Moors and Christians in Spain, especially in the 11thc and 12thc.

The key is that your situation has both sides sharing more or less a common culture and understanding of law.

Another place to look might be 15thc England. I'm thinking particularly of the Paston letters, which talk about any number of what were essentially raids on neighbors. There've been a number of books about the English gentry of the 15thc in general and about the Pastons specifically. I don't know the literature because it fell too far outside my research interests. Southern Italy--Calabria, Sicily--might hold some potential, too.

What you describe is certainly both plausible and historical. As for arbitration, look to the causes to find the solutions. If the causes were fundamentally personal and familial, then resolution will be found in vendetta and a formal settlement, often involving some sort of symbolic or ritualistic act to signify peace. And payment in cash!

If, otoh, it's more about strategic political and military advantage--it's not personal, it's business--then settlement might well involve a formal recognition of peace by overlords. They may not have started it, but they need to agree it's finished. For this month, anyway. <g> Those kinds of settlements often contain the seeds of the next outbreak--the exchanging hands of a castle, for example, along with appurtenances and privileges, provides fertile ground for claiming a grievance in the future--a payment not made, squabble over a boundary, trespass, a servant killed, and so on.

 

[Futhark]

Thanks, that’s useful. It’s not a large part of my story, but I’ve been developing the MC’s backstory. He’s a little more independent and anti-establishment than many of the other characters, and I was thinking that growing up in this environment will provide that. With the examples you’ve given me, I’m sure I can find what I need now.

Thanks

 

[Eleanor Konik]

If you're particularly interested in border forts and border barons from a historical perspective, you're limiting yourself pretty much to societies that had, well, forts. Forts are expensive and difficult to maintain and not terribly useful to a lot of ancient socieites because they don't do much trading.

That said, a useful search term might be: Marcher Lords.

From Wikipedia: The Welsh Marches contain Britain's densest concentration of motte-and-bailey castles. After the Norman Conquest, William the Conqueror set out to subdue the Welsh, a process that took well over two centuries, and was never permanently effective. During those generations the Marches were a frontier society in every sense, and a stamp was set on the region that lasted into the time of the Industrial Revolution

For a potentially-useful high fantasy example, check out L. E. Modesitt's Spellsong Cycle. It does a really nice job of detailing the job of the Lord of the Western Marches.

 

[MythicLearner]

Ok, I see Futhark try to create a rebellious character.
If you are really like the concept of a raider, do not forget Mongol and the Hun raiders. Remember the plain and desert are easy for offensive than defensive. I almost forget the Timurid dynasty also the skilled raiders you should look into this empire.

 

[Aldarion]

I have some assumptions and I was just looking for some facts to confirm or deny them, so I’ll describe what I’m thinking.

The border between two kingdoms that have similar cultures but their own identity. They have fought wars in the past as one or the other becomes more dominant, usually due to a strong leader, or adapting new technologies and tactics faster. There is a series of border forts that control strategic locations. These forts have been held by one side or the other at various times. I believe that in this lawless area there would be a fair bit of switching sides to avoid being dispossessed, meaning that some nobles from kingdom A would be fighting alongside kingdom B and vice-versa, depending on circumstances.

I imagine that there would be raids conducted on enemy held forts. These would be opportunistic, autonomous decisions rather than being passed down the chain of command. I believe that there would also be raids on ‘friendly’ forts, leading to family feuds, or because of them. The question I come up against regards the politics of plausible deniability. Would, or could, a raiding party go to the effort of appearing to be enemies to conduct a raid on a friendly. Is it possible that it’s a case ‘everybody knows it the Smiths, but we can’t prove it.’ I assume that there would be limits on the damage they would want to cause in the raids, too. Enough to make it worthwhile, but not enough to warrant real attention from the higher ups.

There is also the political repercussions between the two kingdoms, and this is probably where the plausible deniability comes in to it even more. I assume a lot would depend on what the leaders are doing or care about.

So, to focus on a specific area, I guess I’m looking at how they arbitrated disputes. The pagan Slavic people might be a good example for me.

Thanks.

In addition to what skip.knox said, it would also help to look at Byzantine-Arab and Byzantine-Seljuk border warfare, as well as Hungarian-Ottoman/Croatian-Ottoman warfare. All of these involved a lot of raids and counter-raids, in fact most pitched battles were a consequence of a raiding force getting caught as opposed to battle itself being a goal.

 

[Futhark]

Aldarion
Thank you. I will definitely look into those. The main cultural/ethnic peoples of my WIP don’t have professional armies yet, so most warfare (amongst the clans at least) is just raids and counter-raids.