Re: Re: (TFT) P.O.E. attacks and economics

[srydzews@ix.netcom.com]

> I think your [Jay's] first answer is the best one, 
> if you posit industrial age civilization (driven 
> largely with magic) then perhaps the time of castles
> is over. 

I'm not sure I'm following this.  In the early 
medieval period you had this notion of feudalism,
in which, broadly speaking, the local strongman 
would build a castle and the local population 
would support him in exchange for occasional 
protection from brigands and other strongmen.

Now as feudalism declined and nation-states, guilds,
and mercantilism became more important, you did indeed
have less and less 'castles' in the formal sense. 
But I think this is NOT a result of economics, except
indirectly. As the nation-state became more developed
there was less need to protect people from random
brigandry and the depredations of other strongmen (er,
'nobles') nearby.  The threat was now that country X
would invade.  Scattered, localized castles weren't 
the answer to such a threat, instead massive Vaubaun
fortress systems like Liege came into vogue.  

So I guess I'm in agreement with the basic premise, so
long as by 'castle' you mean essentially a privately-
owned fort intended solely for defense of a particular
point, rather than being part of a purpose-built system
of national defenses.

But its not like the basic idea of a fortress or secure
place ever really becomes outdated.  I mean even today
you have installations like Cheyenne Mountain, the 
Underground Pentagon, and ICBM silos that still represent
the basic concept of a 'strong place'.

So I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with the basic
proposition, but either way perhaps this clarifies 
what the question is.  Or maybe not.  Like I said at
the beginning, I'm a bit confused about the basic
proposition.

=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"