History Chick

Depends on what type of game you are going for. By gore I assume you mean graphic violence?

An action game you might struggle to not have gore/graphic violence, since 6th century Saxon world was a fairly brutal and violent world (I'm thinking of games like Assassin's Creed). Yet this was the type of game I immediately thought of when I read your first post.

An adventure or action/adventure could have no gore/graphic violence, but my understanding is purely adventure games are declining in popularity, and an action/adventure game will probably have to have some violence, though it doesn't have to be gory (I'm thinking of games like Zelda, King's Quest, etc). I'm not sure how well the Saxon world would lend itself to this type of game - certainly, you could do one but I don't know how prevalent the historical setting would be since adventure games are more about the story than the setting.

A strategy game may not require gory violence, but you might be limiting yourself to just the Saxon world (I'm thinking of games like Age of Empires).

There might be other options, to be fair, I'm not the biggest gamer ever.

Commodus

Nasty Cornishmen, more like. Some of whom seem to hate the English on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Swagganaut

Gore means guts and brains and stuff like that, right? If so it really would be no problem of course. However, if there were no splatter, ie blood, then it would be pretty atmosphere-breaking.

johnincornwall

Bastards!

Seriously that Cornish nationalism really annoys me. Most people just say it for a laugh, but the tiny band of Cornish Nationalist types are getting funding for a language nobody speaks and have got all the road signs in bi-lingual, which nobody can read.

They've got some of our US cousins on here thinking everybody spoke Cornish until about 1900.

Utter insanity, bring back the Saxons.

Peter Graham

It was undoubtedly a world with brutality and violence in it, but for the most part, those actively involved in the violence represented a fairly small sector of society - basically the secular leaders and their coteries of armed thugs. The vast majority of people were involved in farming and although the nature of the warband model led to looting and pillaging, I'd say that we should look at better recorded times (such as the Anglo Scottish border in the sixteenth century) to see how the raiding might have impacted on the rest of the population.

The picture which emerges is one of endemic violence and feuding between the various raiding families. There were larger scale government-backed invasions from time to time, but for the most part, it was mean-spirited robbing, extortion and burning. The farming population were often involved in it to a greater or lesser degree, but when they were on the receiving end, the usual tactic was to leg it until the raiders had gone home again. Most raiding bands were to small to be 'invasions' and most raids were a smash and grab - get in and out quickly before the countryside was raised against you. Larger raids could have a greater impact (one, known as Carleton's raid, is especially well recorded and makes fascinating reading), but even Carleton had to dump much of his booty and do some very fast talking when he outstayed his welcome.

Of course, the border is a large area with a scattered population, so even though raiding was endemic, most people could reasonably expect not to be pillaged at any given time. For most people, houses were built to be essentially disposable and food production was pastoral - so at least you had a chance of driving your animals away if a raid was coming and you got wind of it.

If a similar model pertained to the sixth-century, the game designers could therefore do some interesting stuff which didn't just involve mass battling.

They shouldn't forget the Church either. Although writers like Cornwell like to present all clergymen as weedy little prigs who are only fit to be slaughtered by one of the mighty heroes, the early medieval clergy was essentially in a power sharing arrangement with the secular elites, an arrangement which was strengthened by close family ties.

johnminnitt

Yes, it's one thing when it's humorous, based on affection for a place that does have a distinct character and traditions (a bit like Yorkshire people? Though they also have quite a good cricket team as an excuse). Beyond that I agree with you.

History Chick

Peter, it's a video game, not a documentary...

Peter Graham

...more's the pity!

Aelfwine

The 5th and 6th centuries in post-Roman Britain may have been more violent than you suppose, Peter. In fact, the nature of the warfare may probably have been more sophisticated than has been thought. Recent research by the former soldier turned academic, Jim Storr, has this to be the case. He certainly has the support of the noted historian Catherine Hills.

Peter Graham

Without wishing to derail this thread, it'd be good to have your take on Storr. You've mentioned him twice in recent days, which has pricked my curiosity. I'd discounted him previously for two reasons. Firstly (and least reasonably, I concede), his book is called 'King Arthur's Wars', which is not a title which inspires confidence. I saw it and assumed we were dealing with just another pseudo-historian. I couldn't find it via COPAC (the database of library catalogues for about 90 academic institutions), which I took as supporting my assumption, at least to a degree.

Secondly (and hopefully a little more reasonably), I saw one of his blog posts about Y Gododdin and Catraeth. It wasn't good. Although blog posts are necessarily brief, I got the impression that he was unfamiliar with any of the scholarship and arguably unfamiliar with the poem itself. In a few short paragraphs, he pulled two of the tricks which I suspect you find as troubling as me. Firstly , there was an uncritical, face-value acceptance of the historical accuracy of the poem. Secondly, there was a unashamed plea to 'sounds-like' etymology in order to move Catraeth from Catterick (an identification which, whatever else it might be, has comprehensively been demonstrated to be philologically sound) to somewhere up near Hawick.

But, I'd have to accept that this isn't much to discount him on. It looks like his core views are diametrically opposed to mine, so if he is a solid writer, I should probably get hold of it. So, it'd be good to know if you think he's any good in terms of academic rigour and research.