Anti-glorantha rant to moongose.

[Exubae]

Dan True wrote:

Now I'm only talking of the core books, as I have not read anything about Glorantha. I am merely elaborating on a point I agree on in general, but I cannot say anything specifically about Glorantha.

I think your right, Mongoose do need to co-ordinate their internal illustrations to their products-
I suppose the big problem with the core books is they're system neutralish we could mean they end up a bit on the bland side, on a whole the though the style of the art work in the core rule book isn't too bad, though it fails to be relative to the text on occasion. At a guess such co-ordination and a more regulated body of art comes at a much greater cost.

Non-core books, ie Elric,Glorantha, etc really should be setting specific, the cultures/look should be nailed down. Should we get splat books on specific cultures you'ld hope that it would all be done in the style of the culture...Orlanthi Knot work and wood cuts throughout. Godlearner illumated text and tapestries etc.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

And my original point is that in order to be realistic Glorantha shouldn't HAVE a "look". Glorantha is an entire world. Would you complain in an account of 11th Century Earth that a picture of a Norman knight, a Mayan footsoldier and a Chinese archer had different "looks"?

Then I would suggest that each region/civilization get an art style appropriate to the culture. Bland old-school rpg-esque art doesn't inspire me. Art should help me want to play the setting, not put me off.

For better or worse, MRQII is competing against some pretty stylish games, and Glorantha against some pretty stylish settings, like 'em or not. I think because Glorantha is mythical, cultural, and historical, the art should evoke those aspects.

This.

Plus the fact that those various cultures should also make some sense in their relationship to each other. Cultures that interact influence each other. Looking at the Glorantha book we seem to have 14th century knights living in close proximity to early iron age Greeks and Assyrians, with Victorian street lighting thrown in somewhere along the way. If that's an accurate reflection of Glorantha - fine, but it's far too eclectic to grab me.

 

[DigitalMage]

Looking at the Glorantha book we seem to have 14th century knights living in close proximity to early iron age Greeks and Assyrians, with Victorian street lighting thrown in somewhere along the way. If that's an accurate reflection of Glorantha - fine, but it's far too eclectic to grab me.

Funnily that is the same sort of reason I am not a big fan of Golarion, the world used in Paizo's Pathfinder Chronicles - it seems too much of a mish mash of mini-settings - but I haven't noticed it so much in Glorantha, probably because I haven't played as much Glorantha.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Looking at the Glorantha book we seem to have 14th century knights living in close proximity to early iron age Greeks and Assyrians, with Victorian street lighting thrown in somewhere along the way. If that's an accurate reflection of Glorantha - fine, but it's far too eclectic to grab me.

Funnily that is the same sort of reason I am not a big fan of Golarion, the world used in Paizo's Pathfinder Chronicles - it seems too much of a mish mash of mini-settings - but I haven't noticed it so much in Glorantha, probably because I haven't played as much Glorantha.

I haven't looked at Golarion so can't comment on that - but I think it's been a problem to some extent in a number of settings - dumping a pseudo-ancient Egypt (Mulhorand) into the otherwise fairly soldily medieval Forgotten Realms, for example.

I'm not sure if it really is a problem with Glorantha - or just a problem with the art. But the impression is off-putting enough that I don't really feel the urge to investigate more deeply.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Tastes are certainly not a subject for debates or arguments, but may I ask you what is wrong in putting 14th century style knights close to an Iron Age civilization?

For the worst enemy of the real 14th Century knights - the ones who consistently kicked the back of their armour, so to say - were the Mongols, a culture that was definitely less advanced than Iron Age Egyptians. Not to mention the Balts or the Kipchaq, non-nomadic peoples who were still at a barbarian state of civilization in the late 13th Century.

You may find Glorantha eclectic, but it is not more eclectic than actual history.

 

[Dan True]

Tastes are certainly not a subject for debates or arguments, but may I ask you what is wrong in putting 14th century style knights close to an Iron Age civilization?

For the worst enemy of the real 14th Century knights - the ones who consistently kicked the back of their armour, so to say - were the Mongols, a culture that was definitely less advanced than Iron Age Egyptians. Not to mention the Balts or the Kipchaq, non-nomadic peoples who were still at a barbarian state of civilization in the late 13th Century.

You may find Glorantha eclectic, but it is not more eclectic than actual history.

The difference here being that 14th century knights are in no way close to Mongolia... The mongols were only close to Europe in a very short time span (from around 1250 to 1280 when they were beaten back again and stuck to asia. Which actually is not the 14th century), not nearly enough to alter their technological level or culture significantly. Their heartland are no way near Europa (about 4.500 kilometres away). On the other hand the mongols learned a great deal of the chinese over centuries of occupation - it would be unrealistic to think they wouldn't.
Maybe you are thinking of the timurids which were in the late 14th-16th century. But they never got remotely close to the european heartland of France and Germany.

There is a huge difference from this, and then to having cultures who have lived side by side for centuries being completely technologically different. A bronze age culture living beside a medieval culture for 2 centuries might retain a lot of their own culture, but technology and items of craftmanship will cross over - and as a result also change the society in the area in question.
This will allow for great adventure ideas and setting dynanism as when societies are altered and new powergroups arise are often very interesting periods in history. Sadly many Settings (forgotten realms, I am looking at you!) avoided this by simple stating "even though adventurers are everywhere, people travel a lot and trade is vibrant - some cultures simply won't move on and accept new ideas even over looong peiods of time".

Some may like it because when they have a "thing for egyptians" for a period of time, they can still stick to their old setting. I personally don't like it, as it makes the setting feel too artificial.

Regardless! Sorry for off-topic. This is not a "Glorantha vs. other settings"-thread. It is a thread discussing whether or not RuneQuest would benefit from distancing itself from Glorantha or not, sales-wise. My belief is that it would be hard to make Glorantha any more introduced in the rulebook - if if should, maybe remove runes and cults and make some chapters that are more general. But personally I don't think it's a big problem, I just largely ignored those chapters.

- Dan

 

[Exubae]

if it should, maybe remove runes and cults and make some chapters that are more general

The core book has got very little Gloranthan material:
The runes aren't so bad and you kind of loose the rune in runequest without them. they're presented in a very neutral manner.
And as far as cults go there is only one Gloranthan cult in the core book, that of Orlanth the Dragon - the other two cults seem to be setting independent.
Monster/other sentient races-wise, they're all presented in a very neutral manner.

So its only Orlanth the Dragon that has any real link to Glorantha, and frankly he's not presented in much depth.

I do agree with you though- in the core books we shouldn't be getting setting specific info.

 

[Dan True]

if it should, maybe remove runes and cults and make some chapters that are more general

The core book has got very little Gloranthan material:
The runes aren't so bad and you kind of loose the rune in runequest without them. they're presented in a very neutral manner.
And as far as cults go there is only one Gloranthan cult in the core book, that of Orlanth the Dragon - the other two cults seem to be setting independent.
Monster/other sentient races-wise, they're all presented in a very neutral manner.

So its only Orlanth the Dragon that has any real link to Glorantha, and frankly he's not presented in much depth.

I do agree with you though- in the core books we shouldn't be getting setting specific info.

And I agree with you, my point was that if any Gloranthan material could be removed from the book, it's runes and cults. But I believe it myself to be unnecessary.

- Dan

 

[PhilHibbs]

You may find Glorantha eclectic, but it is not more eclectic than actual history.

Well, roleplaying games never were supposed to be about history. They're about fun, and if an eclectic mix of cultures doesn't appeal, then it doesn't appeal. Any appeal to historical precedent is irrelevant if it doesn't feel truthy to a lot of people.

On the flip side, in defense of radically different tech levels in close proximity, magic is a great leveller of the playing field. Those knights might have better armour and weapons and horses than the barbarians, and the magic that their sorcerors cast on them may be impressive, but all the barbarian warriors have their own individual divine magic that they can use as the situation requires.

 

[Mugen]

It's the healing salves that really annoy me. What sort of idiot came up with them? Why not just give people more hit points in the first place?

Actually, Hit points in D&D are very close to the concept of "Action Points" from HeroWars/HeroQuest : an abstract measure of one's status in a fight, and not only its body condition. It's always been the case since the very first edition of D&D, but it's the first time the system truly reflects this.

In this way, "indie"/"forgey" games had a big influence on D&D4 design.

 

[Exubae]

In a way Orlanth cult description in the core book is a bit of a waste of space. There just isn't space to give his cult adequate description, and they also run foul of confusing the hell out of people who haven't looked much in to the second Age stuff- especially since it combines both Draconis elements and traditional Orlanth.

Runes, you can't ditch runes - though its a shame there wasn't a way to reconcile the runes from the Vikings, Elric, and Glorantha in to a more simplified set.

The core rule book does suffer a little;
1.More cult examples (I haven't looked but does empires expand on cults?)
2.More spirit magic examples and spirits (Nice idea for a book perhaps)
3. Generic Mysticism, it would be a nice to have.
4. Could do with changing the sleazy (but well drawn) art work that appears on several occasions through the book.

Expansion/inclusion in these areas would have been cool, but even if they removed Runes (which I hope they don't) I don't think there would have been enough space in the book to present enough clear examples.

Don't get me wrong I'm still impressed by the Core Rules.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The difference here being that 14th century knights are in no way close to Mongolia... The mongols were only close to Europe in a very short time span (from around 1250 to 1280 when they were beaten back again and stuck to asia.

Beaten? Europeans have never beaten Mongols. They just found China more appealing.

There is a huge difference from this, and then to having cultures who have lived side by side for centuries being completely technologically different. A bronze age culture living beside a medieval culture for 2 centuries might retain a lot of their own culture, but technology and items of craftmanship will cross over - and as a result also change the society in the area in question.

This is absolutely false. For example, think of the Germans and the Old Prussians. They lived side by side until 1250-1300 without the superior farming, crafting and military technologies of the Holy Roman Empire ever penetrating the forests of Prussia until the Prussians were subjugated. Please note that the Balts did not even know stonemasonry (they only built wooden buildings) until the Germans taught them this art in the 13th century.

I am sure you can find dozens of other examples in European history. If you switch to Africa, OTOH, I think it happened even more frequently.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Any appeal to historical precedent is irrelevant if it doesn't feel truthy to a lot of people.

The point is not whether it is mandatory for him to like it. Of course, he is absolutely free to dislike how Glorantha is presented. Many people here play RuneQuest but do not like Glorantha. But, as I read it, he did not say "It does not feel right to me", he said "It is unrealistic". And it is not.

 

[Dan True]

Beaten? Europeans have never beaten Mongols. They just found China more appealing.

They were beaten at Legnica, not a major victory - but the Mongols always had the problem of them being an elite force of mongols trained in the saddle since youth. They took heavy casulaties in Poland, even though they won most of the battles. These casualties were instrumental in Subutai (the local Khan) to decide to return to Mongolia on Ogedei's death instead of breaking tradition and continuing the conquest before returning.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica#Conclusion

Nonetheless, whether they beat them or not does not make my point invalid. My point was that the mongols were only in Western Europe in such a short timespan that they can in no way serve as an example of cultures living close to each other and not intermingle.

This is absolutely false. For example, think of the Germans and the Old Prussians. They lived side by side until 1250-1300 without the superior farming, crafting and military technologies of the Holy Roman Empire ever penetrating the forests of Prussia until the Prussians were subjugated. Please note that the Balts did not even know stonemasonry (they only built wooden buildings) until the Germans taught them this art in the 13th century.

I am sure you can find dozens of other examples in European history. If you switch to Africa, OTOH, I think it happened even more frequently.

They did not live "side by side". There were constant raids, crusades and wars from Germany, Denmark, Sweden and other countries into these areas from the 1100 to the 1250s, it is a major part of Scandinavian history. Of course when the ones with advanced techniques are viewing the others as pagans, infidels and unworthy they will not share their technology with them. BUT, that does not mean that they did not have an impact - when every summer a raiding force of Christians arrives, does a bit of battle, burns down a wooden fort and force-converts some locals, that IS an impact. They may not have taught them how to build castles or better farming techniques, but to say that 150 years of constant warring and forced-conversion to christendom does not change a culture is pretty wrong. Even though the christians always sailed away again at summertime.
My example was of peaceful co-existence, but the above is of constant warring - which also changes cultures, just in a different way. Besides, the technological level between the Germans and the Balts were not THAT far off, like iron age compared to medival times. In some settings we're seeing Bronze Age cultures living beside people who have gone through the first bit of the renaissance, which is a bit more extreme.

But of course there are some examples around the world where there have been little to no contact, especially in Africa where the distances are so wast and the terrain so tough/dangerous to travel in for stone-age/bronze-age cultures that new ideas will spread extremely slow.
HOWEVER in a lot of fantasy settings we have wizards flying around in the sky or teleporting everywhere - but for some reason NO ONE ever uses this to travel to the other country 200 miles away who has found a solution to some big technological problem. In a world driven by realistic mechanics, why would some goods be rare or unobtainable, when there are tons of adventurers with lots of gold wanting the good, and there are lots of mid-level wizards capable of casting teleport several times a day who could go and get it and earns tons of cash?

Btw, do you have a source on the "not knowing stonemansonry" thing? It just sounds pretty wild compared to what I know of the Danish crusades in the 1100-1250s and their experiences in the Baltics (Estonia, where Denmark got it's flag among other places) - So I'd like to learn more.

If a persons likes a setting that does this, fair enough. If they want to introduce some good that is extremely rare or expensive (for story-purposes) for no reason, fine. These are settings for having fun, not for educating economists or antropologists. I was just elaborating on a point someone made above: that these settings don't work for SOME people including me. Whether this is true for Glorantha I honestly don't know, as I know next to nothing about the setting. I am commenting in general (and a bit specific (Forgotten realms)...)

But again, we really are moving off-topic.

- Dan

 

[soltakss]

There REALLY needs to be a "Glorantha for Dummies" or somesuch. I have no clue, and I even played RQ back in the days of Chaosium.

Amen to that!

Either Mongoose or Moon Design needs to produce one that doesn't put people off.

Trouble is that Moon Design would produce one that is so complex and deep that it wouldn't help and Mongoose would do one that rewrote most of Glorantha so that it wouldn't be recognisable.

 

[kintire]

The difference here being that 14th century knights are in no way close to Mongolia... The mongols were only close to Europe in a very short time span (from around 1250 to 1280 when they were beaten back again and stuck to asia. Which actually is not the 14th century),

The Mongols are only one tribe of the collection of technologically similar Turkic, Mongolian, Indo-persian and other nomad tribes who inhabited Asia from the earliest record down to the renaissance. None of them bothered to acquire European technology: or indeed Near Eastern.

Please note that the Balts did not even know stonemasonry (they only built wooden buildings) until the Germans taught them this art in the 13th century.

In the 11th century the Germans began widespread use of heavy cavalry as the rise of the mounted knight reached them. Their neighbours, the Wends, thought mail armour so amazing they used it only to dress the idols of their gods. Not to mention the empires of the Fertile crescent and the nomads of Arabia (about 5,000 years of living next to each other - so far), Egypt and the Bedouin or even the Lowland and Highland Scots.

They were beaten at Legnica, not a major victory - but the Mongols always had the problem of them being an elite force of mongols trained in the saddle since youth. They took heavy casulaties in Poland, even though they won most of the battles. These casualties were instrumental in Subutai (the local Khan) to decide to return to Mongolia on Ogedei's death instead of breaking tradition and continuing the conquest before returning.

Do not, under any circumstances, go to Wikipedia for anything to do with history! Contrary to determined rewriting of history by the Germans and Poles the Mongols took at worst moderate casualties during their completely successful European campaign, which was primarily aimed at punishing Hungary for giving shelter to the Cumans. Hungary was overrun, the Cumans subjugated and its king reduced to hiding on an island to avoid the Mongol army. In the meantime the Mongols had launched a diversionary attack into Poland to prevent the other Eastern European armies from supporting the Hungarians. Meeting a combined German/Polish army at Legnica/Leignitz, they won a crushing victory.

The Mongols retreated because their mission was accomplished, their conquests in Russia were too recent and unstable to make conquests in Europe practical, and because Europe does not provide enough grazing for a nomad army to operate there for long.

They did not live "side by side". There were constant raids, crusades and wars from Germany, Denmark, Sweden and other countries into these areas from the 1100 to the 1250s, it is a major part of Scandinavian history

They did live side by side, and there were constant raids, crusades and wars. Funnily enough, in Glorantha relations between the Western Knights and their neighbours operate on a similar principle!

In a world driven by realistic mechanics, why would some goods be rare or unobtainable, when there are tons of adventurers with lots of gold wanting the good, and there are lots of mid-level wizards capable of casting teleport several times a day who could go and get it and earns tons of cash?

The Middle Sea Empire does exactly this! Other people dont have teleports that are long enough ranged and allow you to carry enough trade goods to be worth it.

 

[RosenMcStern]

They did not live "side by side". There were constant raids, crusades and wars from Germany, Denmark, Sweden and other countries into these areas from the 1100 to the 1250s, it is a major part of Scandinavian history. Of course when the ones with advanced techniques are viewing the others as pagans, infidels and unworthy they will not share their technology with them. BUT, that does not mean that they did not have an impact - when every summer a raiding force of Christians arrives, does a bit of battle, burns down a wooden fort and force-converts some locals, that IS an impact. They may not have taught them how to build castles or better farming techniques, but to say that 150 years of constant warring and forced-conversion to christendom does not change a culture is pretty wrong. Even though the christians always sailed away again at summertime.

Which means they had co-existed peacefully for the previous 1000 years or so. The 100 years of the Baltic Crusades reshaped Prussia, but the Prussians had been there since the Roman times. The Colosseum was lined with amber chunks from Sambia.

Besides, the technological level between the Germans and the Balts were not THAT far off, like iron age compared to medival times.

Oh no, they were!

Btw, do you have a source on the "not knowing stonemansonry" thing? It just sounds pretty wild compared to what I know of the Danish crusades in the 1100-1250s and their experiences in the Baltics (Estonia, where Denmark got it's flag among other places) - So I'd like to learn more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Meinhard

If you check the Osprey books, or the history books by Urban or Christiansen, the tale is even funnier. Apparently, the Lithuanians (whom you just described as not so technologically different from Germans or Danes at that time) had no idea of what mortar was, and tried to use ropes to dismantle the stone walls (!), thinking the boulders would slide upon one another. Please note that these people had lived some hundred kilometres from Roman aqueducts and amphiteatres, at the height of the Roman Empire. But had learned NOTHING from this.

Do not be fooled by the fact that the Prus and the Lithuanian eventually gained the upper hand over the Germans or the Danes: this happened _after_ they learned how to build steel armour, fortifications and crossbows.

 

[Dan True]

Do not, under any circumstances, go to Wikipedia for anything to do with history!

I did not learn this at wikipedia but in a book I've read once about the Mongolian advances. Sorry I cannot give proper citing, but I don't remember the name or author. I merely cited wikipedia to at least cite some source.

Contrary to determined rewriting of history by the Germans and Poles the Mongols took at worst moderate casualties during their completely successful European campaign, which was primarily aimed at punishing Hungary for giving shelter to the Cumans. Hungary was overrun, the Cumans subjugated and its king reduced to hiding on an island to avoid the Mongol army. In the meantime the Mongols had launched a diversionary attack into Poland to prevent the other Eastern European armies from supporting the Hungarians. Meeting a combined German/Polish army at Legnica/Leignitz, they won a crushing victory.

The Mongols retreated because their mission was accomplished, their conquests in Russia were too recent and unstable to make conquests in Europe practical, and because Europe does not provide enough grazing for a nomad army to operate there for long.

Well, seems the book I read and whatever you've read disagree. Your version is more detailed though, so it is probable you know more about the specifics than I. However, this really is a tangent to the original discussion and irrelevant to my original point.

They did live side by side, and there were constant raids, crusades and wars. Funnily enough, in Glorantha relations between the Western Knights and their neighbours operate on a similar principle!

To me living "side by side" means exisinting peacefully, but that may be because English is not my first language. I did not mean that they are not close, merely that they did not live peacefully.

The Middle Sea Empire does exactly this! Other people dont have teleports that are long enough ranged and allow you to carry enough trade goods to be worth it.

I say again: I am not speaking about Glorantha!!! I was elaborating on a point made some posts ago, that some settings really seems to be mini-settings randomly placed next to each other to allow for broadness instead of specifics making sense. The mentioned posts thought this to be a problem with some settings (if he meant Glorantha also, I don't know), I agree. Whether this is a problem in Glorantha I really have no idea at all, and I have not mentioned Glorantha as a setting with this problem at any point.

Oh no, they were!

Nothing compared to some of the differences you see in some fantasy settings, was my point. Technology spreads slowly but steadily, but an area with a egyptian-level of tech living less than 100 kilometres from medieval-style countries who again are not far away from cities with streatlamps, is simply too much. (The above is from the Forgotten Realms). In this context, the difference between the balts and germans were not that great, as they were both still in an "iron age or above" period. Going from bronze age to iron age (and the development of townships instead of large farmsteads) is a greater step than going from iron age to a medieval society.

There are some factors than can justify extreme technological differences in nearby areas, I agree with that - just look at South America. My general point is that these are always justified in the real world. People don't just decide (unless for some political reason - such as China or Japan) never to visit the neighbours and learn from them. It is either because the society is very closed (dogmatic theocracies or similar), because the area is inaccessible or because the basis for technological progress is simply not present in the undeveloped area - maybe there is no iron, or the soil cannot sustain more output regardless of farming techniques, maybe they live in a desert or some such. If this is the case, it should be reflected in the background - not just be "because some other dude made the neighbouring country"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Meinhard

If you check the Osprey books, or the history books by Urban or Christiansen, the tale is even funnier. Apparently, the Lithuanians (whom you just described as not so technologically different from Germans or Danes at that time) had no idea of what mortar was, and tried to use ropes to dismantle the stone walls (!), thinking the boulders would slide upon one another. Please note that these people had lived some hundred kilometres from Roman aqueducts and amphiteatres, at the height of the Roman Empire. But had learned NOTHING from this.

Thanks, wonder why that was not described in a book I've got "Danish Crusades". I'll try to get one of the mentioned books.

Can we get back to topic now? regardless of how interesting the historical discussion is

- Dan

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

As one of the people at least partly responsible for the sidetrack, I'll try and bring us back round to at least one of the topics ... but maybe in a rather roundabout way.

I probably haven't expressed myself very well further up thread (the perils of firing off quick replies while at work!).

I don't really mean to say that I find Glorantha "unrealistic" - it's a fantasy world after all. And although I did say that it's "too eclectic", in some senses I don't really mean that either.

To try and explain. Some of the illos in the Glorantha book are genuinely "fantastic" - in the sense of clearly not being based on real world originals - the prime example is the one of the guys on the back of a dinosaur. Now, I have no problem with this - even though I'm sure we can all agree that ain't ever happened in this world.

I think the problem is - and this brings us back to the issue of Mongoose's art direction - is that not all the illos are like that.

Some one said up thread that as it's a fantasy world you can't appeal to historical precedent. Quite right. But ... some of the illos in the Glorantha book seem to me not to be illustrations of a fantasy world - they are quite clear fairly narrowly based on real world examples. Thus, we have the knight in front of Edinburgh Castle (or is it Stirling - I'm pretty sure it's based on something Scottish) and recognisable Greek hoplites.

My problem with this is that as soon as you include illustrations that appear to be so closely modelled on real world history, you create expectations based on the viewer's knowledge. So, while I have no problem with a culture with roughly high medieval technology living in the same world as a culture with technology similar to that of ancient Greece, I know that medieval Scottish knights and Greek hoplites did not co-exist.

I'm probably not making myself much clearer, but I hope you can see what I'm trying to get at.

I think the Glorantha book would therefore have been far improved by ensuring all the illustrations were clearly "fantastic". That's where the lack of any apparent direction to the artists really comes in, to my mind.

 

[cerebro]

They did not live "side by side". There were constant raids, crusades and wars from Germany, Denmark, Sweden and other countries into these areas from the 1100 to the 1250s, it is a major part of Scandinavian history. Of course when the ones with advanced techniques are viewing the others as pagans, infidels and unworthy they will not share their technology with them. BUT, that does not mean that they did not have an impact - when every summer a raiding force of Christians arrives, does a bit of battle, burns down a wooden fort and force-converts some locals, that IS an impact. They may not have taught them how to build castles or better farming techniques, but to say that 150 years of constant warring and forced-conversion to christendom does not change a culture is pretty wrong. Even though the christians always sailed away again at summertime.

Which means they had co-existed peacefully for the previous 1000 years or so. The 100 years of the Baltic Crusades reshaped Prussia, but the Prussians had been there since the Roman times. The Colosseum was lined with amber chunks from Sambia.

Besides, the technological level between the Germans and the Balts were not THAT far off, like iron age compared to medival times.

Oh no, they were!

Btw, do you have a source on the "not knowing stonemansonry" thing? It just sounds pretty wild compared to what I know of the Danish crusades in the 1100-1250s and their experiences in the Baltics (Estonia, where Denmark got it's flag among other places) - So I'd like to learn more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Meinhard

If you check the Osprey books, or the history books by Urban or Christiansen, the tale is even funnier. Apparently, the Lithuanians (whom you just described as not so technologically different from Germans or Danes at that time) had no idea of what mortar was, and tried to use ropes to dismantle the stone walls (!), thinking the boulders would slide upon one another. Please note that these people had lived some hundred kilometres from Roman aqueducts and amphiteatres, at the height of the Roman Empire. But had learned NOTHING from this.

Do not be fooled by the fact that the Prus and the Lithuanian eventually gained the upper hand over the Germans or the Danes: this happened _after_ they learned how to build steel armour, fortifications and crossbows.

Can you please take it else were, professors?.