horse barbarian conquest scenarios

[muduri]

Hi all, presented with an interesting dilemma. There's an outside chance that a horse barbarian PC in my campaign will unite his clans over the next five or so game years and manage to invade the civilized world. In general I'd feel good about this - could be loosely modeled as a western version of the Yuan and Qing dynasties, with a caste of warrior nobility maintaining the trappings of their nomadic roots - horsemanship, hunting, falconry, regimented social organization - while slowly being absorbed into the fabric of the empire, and mixed acceptance and tension - emperor-sponsored dictionaries as aspirational pedigrees, nativist intellectual suicides, intermarriage - from the civilized population.

But here's the problem: in the canon history of this world there's already a barbarian tribe that's done the same thing from the north a few years ago! So now I'm a casting about for an alternate model so the two nomad-conquers-civilized nations don't feel rubberstamped.

So, group mind, what would you suggest? I feel like there are plenty of other cases to draw on - the Arabs in Persia, the Magyars in Hungary and of course the Goths and Huns into Rome, maybe even the Ghaznavids into India. But any thoughts on what factors would be common to all of these and what differences in social dynamics and culture could be noted or even played up? Obviously historical parallels have been my first go-to here but speculative possibilities much appreciated also.

Many thanks.

[jason taylor]

Nadir Shah was a borderline character in contact with both types of cultures. Instead of using horse archery he used mounted swivel guns (I don't know why that one never caught on).

The original Hyksos were from an area that had enough artisanship to construct chariots. Chariots are not in the works (if you have effective cavalry by know, chariots are just an expensive fetish). What it tells is how a barbarian invader can arise from borderlands rather then deeper in.

None of China's invaders had any distinct religion. By contrast Arabs were Muslim. Early Persians may have been Zoroastrians though it is hard to tell when that first became popular.

[PTTG]

A few years isn't enough time for the empire to have fully assimilated the old barbarians. Even a couple decades would see the old order sporadically reappearing.

There's a few ways this could go:

*The new barbarians are seen as some kind of continuation of the previous invasion, even if they're completely unrelated. They complete the merger, and supplant the northern barbarians.

*The PC barbarians are seen as "old allies" or "a lost tribe," and are seen as "freeing" the empire from the grip of the northern barbarians, and performing some combination of restoring the empire and adopting it.

*These waves of barbarism are seen as the terminal collapse of the old empire. There isn't a kingdom left for the barbarians to invade, and only independent city-states remain.

*The PC's barbarians are defeated, establishing the northern barbarian's rule of the kingdom as an effective and stable one.

Of course, these can happen in any combination in different locations around the empire.

[Black Leviathan]

Build the road into the game world for the character. If he is a mindless murder machine make him awe the dominant horse clan with his fearsome prowess in battle. If he has some charm let him marry into one of the predominant horse clans and climb the ranks from within. If he's a great leader/diplomat. Let him command the respect of the clans that support the Khan and slowly win them over to his camp. Build the road but not the door. Let his character take him to the climax of that story but winning over the Khan or proving himself worthy of challenging the Khan for leadership, that all depends on the player's choices.

[Michele]

Invaders A are very tribal. For starters, they are nothing but a loose federation of tribes, united in the effort of conquesting, but always suspicious of each other and feuding. A1s look down on A2s, who in turn resent them, and so on. Likewise, no non-A will ever be an equal to them. Non-As have Social Stigma (Second Class Citizen or Subjugated), cannot bear arms or be high Status.
If you want As to be the bad guys in the story, they may be portrayed as proto-racists.

Invaders B are pragmatic, and maybe somewhat meritocratic. They integrate conquered peoples into their growing empire. These ethnic groups can serve the empire in arms, as auxiliaries and specialized troops (thus providing, for instance, the heavy infantry or the siege machinery the horsemen don't traditionally field). And a non-B can rise in the imperial hierarchy - provided he's clever, ambitious, and whole-heartedly faithful to the emperor.
If you want Bs to be the bad guys in the story, they may be portrayed, of course, as ruthlessly imperialistic.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Michele

Invaders A are very tribal. For starters, they are nothing but a loose federation of tribes, united in the effort of conquesting, but always suspicious of each other and feuding. A1s look down on A2s, who in turn resent them, and so on. Likewise, no non-A will ever be an equal to them. Non-As have Social Stigma (Second Class Citizen or Subjugated), cannot bear arms or be high Status.
If you want As to be the bad guys in the story, they may be portrayed as proto-racists.

Invaders B are pragmatic, and maybe somewhat meritocratic. They integrate conquered peoples into their growing empire. These ethnic groups can serve the empire in arms, as auxiliaries and specialized troops (thus providing, for instance, the heavy infantry or the siege machinery the horsemen don't traditionally field). And a non-B can rise in the imperial hierarchy - provided he's clever, ambitious, and whole-heartedly faithful to the emperor.
If you want Bs to be the bad guys in the story, they may be portrayed, of course, as ruthlessly imperialistic.

The first just sound like a more brutal form of Scots-Irish. You can call that "proto-racist" but that is extending a point a bit far.

The second sound like they have to many good qualities to be monolithic bad guys.

Of course you may just want to go "grey vs grey".

[Michele]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The first just sound like a more brutal form of Scots-Irish. You can call that "proto-racist" but that is extending a point a bit far.

Well, sure, that's why I used words like "portrayed as" and "proto". But remember we're not talking about historians discussing Scots in an academic setting. We're talking about players who have PCs listening to speeches like "You Cs cannot even ride a horse properly, so you are clearly inferior to us, and you deserve being our servants". Players in RPGs often see issues like slavery through present-day lenses, and if that's OK for their gaming group, so be it.

The second sound like they have to many good qualities to be monolithic bad guys.

Do they? I think that depends on where the PCs stand. If they are Bs, fine. But, leaving aside the detail of whether the cavalry is the primary or auxiliary arm, what do you think you'd hear about the Persians, the Macedonians and the Romans if you asked Leonidas, Demosthenes and Boadicea?

Of course you may just want to go "grey vs grey".

There's that too, yes.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

None of China's invaders had any distinct religion. By contrast Arabs were Muslim.

That's not the difference between having a religion vs. having none. Every human culture until very recently has had a religion of some sort. The difference is between ethnic-focused religions, and religions with an evangelizing/forced conversion goal. Or between theocratic state religions vs. religions reserved for just a particular group or even kept secret.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

That's not the difference between having a religion vs. having none. Every human culture until very recently has had a religion of some sort. The difference is between ethnic-focused religions, and religions with an evangelizing/forced conversion goal. Or between theocratic state religions vs. religions reserved for just a particular group or even kept secret.

I meant they did not have some religious identity peculiarly distinct from China that was so strong as to prevent them being assimilated by Chinese. I did not say they had no religion.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Michele

Do they? I think that depends on where the PCs stand. If they are Bs, fine. But, leaving aside the detail of whether the cavalry is the primary or auxiliary arm, what do you think you'd hear about the Persians, the Macedonians and the Romans if you asked Leonidas, Demosthenes and Boadicea?

I meant meritocracy and willingness to attract talented outsiders are attractive qualities. Attractive enough that it is hard to present them as a Mordor anyway.

It is true enough that every Bonapartist soldier carrried a Marshall's baton in his knapsack but Hornblower doesn't care about that. They're FRENCH and as any good Englishman knows all French are evil. However the OP requires you to focus precisely on characteristics like that.