A Collaborative Crime Against Humanity: Creating the Siege and Sack of Constantinople in The Remaking of the Medieval World, 1204

John Giebfried (University of Vienna)

Transcript:

Hello. Today I will discuss a Reacting to the Past game I co-wrote: “The Remaking of the Medieval World, 1204.”

First, what is Reacting to the Past? Think of it as a highly-researched, historical, classroom LARP. Students explore key moments as historical figures, engaging with texts that their alter-ego would have read, and debating others in written and oral arguments.

So my game is set during the Fourth Crusade – here’s the recap of that crusade in meme form. The game begins in March 1204, with the army outside Constantinople debating whether or not to attack the city. In our gamebook, we frame this debate around two key questions – is attacking Constantinople ‘just’ by the standards of medieval Just War theory? and can this be considered a ‘crusade’ if you are attacking fellow Christians?

Now, my colleagues all ‘get’ the debates, which mirror classroom discussion. But playacting as crusaders?—isn’t that weird? Sure, but it’s integral! This is where the rubber meets the road. Students understand siege principles and tactics by playing through and, as in real life, being subject to chance. For example, dice-rolling on the siege gives a sense of how hard it is to attack Constantinople – and why an attack on the sea walls ultimately made the most sense.

So, how does the game play out? There’s a game within the game. We divide the city into six regions. Each one has a set of five “choose your own adventure” prompts, and each prompt has three distinct questions. The prompts are tiered, with the highest potential reward for prompt 1, and the lowest for prompt 5. Chance, or dice rolls, decides who gets over the city walls first. That person picks their region, say the Merchant’s Quarter, and can then pick the prompt there with the ‘best’ reward.

Where does this leave the others? For them, we created a system of ‘influence points’ called fama. Characters, based on their social standing, have a variably-sized pool of fama which they spend to influence outcomes. But they can also gain fama by achieving objectives. Characters with high fama get priority in the sack. And everyone can increase fama with money acquired during the sack. If you have the most fama by the end of the game, you win—if you are still alive!

The result of this gameplay models the primary sources. The leaders tried to make the common soldiers wait while taking the best spoils for themselves. Tired of waiting, the imbittered lesser knights eventually took what they could for themselves. Both sides then accused the other of embezzling treasures which were to be divided collectively. How do you know how much loot your character has acquired? By answering the three questions specific to your prompt. Now, you must secretly decide how much of that loot to turn in. It’s a prisoner’s dilemma. Do you think everyone else is cheating? Then keep more loot to increase your fama. But doing so makes collective failure more likely. Because, students, like the historical crusaders, need to repay the Venetians. If 100 marks of silver per student is not paid into the common pot – the crusade cannot go onto Jerusalem.

Finally, within the framework of the sack, students need to decide whether or not to treat Constantinople’s people and cultural heritage with respect. Scandalous decisions earn ‘nefas’ — infamy points. Those don’t matter immediately, but in the endgame, nefas points make collective defeat more likely.

As you see, the game puts students into difficult moral scenarios that faced the crusaders themselves. What’s best for the crusade? What’s best for me? And how much to squeeze the city of Constantine to serve the cause of Jerusalem?

I hope this piqued your interest, and I look forward to discussing it further through questions.