Founding a Religion (part III)

 The holidays are a beautiful time for food and family.  One of the highlights for me is getting to spend time talking with my brothers.  Conversation, for us, covers a broad range of topics.  We share, discuss and elaborate ideas.  Happily, this year we spent some time talking ancient faiths and how we view them today.

When the modern reader looks back on religions, we tend to view them as being birthed all at once, as if they came into being complete.  In truth, many of the religious traditions of the world are composites of various belief systems all gathered together under one umbrella.  Decostructing the evolution of belief systems and how they adapt to changes in the real world is a fascinating study.  However, when creating your own world, your creation myth could very well be the truth (or a veiled version of it).  The mythology your population believes in may be right.  Hell, somebody in ours might be right.
    Every religion has a creation story.  It answers the basic questions that we still struggle with.  It tells us how we came to be as well as (often) what our creator wants from us.  When the focus of creation, the gods have a design for their worshipers.  In some cases (Greek mythology), humans were not the intention of those in charge.  Humans then have to find their way into the favor of the gods.  This basic relationship will influence all other aspects of your religion.
    Interaction with the gods will be defined in part by their nature.  Extra-terrestrial beings may not be available for their petitioners to reach, or they may use high level science which seems like magic to the population.  Extremely powerful or long lived creatures (like dragons) may be revered as gods.  Ethereal creatures (spirits, ghosts, etc) could also be the objects of worship.  Gods often seem to have the ability to change forms as serves their purpose at the time.
    Morality for humanity, who is trying to get to heaven, is not the same as morality for those that created heaven.  Traditionally, the gods act according to their whims (including the Old Testament god).  These gods may seem cruel, sadistic and capricious to those of us below, but they are not human.  Zeus liked to go around impregnating Greek maidens.  Thor liked to pick fights with giants.  Gods have their own reasons and their own priorities.  What they ask of their followers may be tests of faith or part of a scheme to tweak the nose of one of their enemies.  What is good for the gods is not always what is good for you.
    "God works in mysterious ways," is a favorite saying for many ministers.  It suggests a larger plan and asks for faith from the believer.  Miracles make it easy to believe (an interesting, somewhat modern, meditation on this is the movie "Oh, God!").  Believing in something without evidence (faith) is the most difficult aspect of religion.  People want to believe that there is a force directing and shaping all things.  They will do everything in their power to convince themselves that this power exists.  If your gods start to produce tangible and observable miracles, the word will spread.
    When shaping a religion (and the power of gods in general) in your world, defining the relationship between creator and created is paramount and often defined in the creation story.  Once you know what the gods want from their worshipers, you can have a better understanding of their relationship.  The gods motives will guide how much and how often they interact with their followers.  What the gods want will define the methods of worship.

Founding a Religion (part II)

Apart from basic research into other forms of worship, the following is in no way a scholarly text.  It is based almost entirely on the reading of history (and/or mythology), followed by conjecture and wishful thinking.  I hope you like it.

There are two basic formats of religion: monotheistic and polytheistic.  The concept of monotheism (one god) is inherently exclusionary, while polytheism is inclusive.  An important detail to note is that polytheism does not require the worship of more than one god, only the acceptance of their existence.  This basic facet of religion seems to be a defining feature in how one's faith relates to others'.
    The idea of all power being contained within one God seems to have a very narrow history.  Judaism, leading to Christianity, leading to Islam is the only tradition I know of which espouses this theology.  All of these admit no paradise to those outside of their faith.  Any opposing force was created by this all powerful god, as a test for god's faithful.  All of these religions believe those outside their faith to be misled and lost.  Judaism seems to shrug its shoulders at this.  Christianity and Islam have, throughout their history, aggressively sought to bring others to their faith through proselytizing and the sword. Christianity has gone so far as to incorporate "pagan" holidays (signs and symbols of Christmas and Easter most obviously) to encourage the traditionalists.  Belief that all others are "unholy" has led to much bloodshed in human history.
    Polytheism has a much richer and more tangled tradition.  A worshiper might be a devout follower of one god who is directly opposed to another.  Additionally, a believer might be a devotee of one god (related to their life or trade), but pray to another on a special occasion (like the birth of a child), depending on that god's specific realm of influence.  The idea of warring groups of gods (for example: Roman against Egyptian) would not have been unreasonable to a believer at the time, though usually carried out in the mortal sphere. 
    In Europe (Roman/Greek, Norse, Celtic, Germanic), these gods primarily had the form of humans, each having some defining virtue to which humans aspire.  It was possible for gods to have sex with humans and produce offspring (demigods) in some traditions.  Some of these gods could change shape when it suited them.  Usually this was in order to test or play tricks on mortals (tricks for the gods can seem pretty harsh to mere mortals).  As an outsider, there seems to be a god appropriate for every occasion and profession.  
    Egyptian gods famously merged human and animal figures for their visual representations (though some had purely human form).  This would seem to separate the worshipers from the deities, while still making the gods somewhat comprehensible.  These gods are clearly not "us" and will not be held to the same moral or ethical standards.  Isis and Osiris (human figures) seem to tell the most human of tales (well, apart from her reassembling all the bits of him to try to bring him back from the dead), but they are functioning in a world controlled by these creatures we can not fully understand.   
    Some gods are represented by different aspects of nature, whether they be animal, vegetable or geographic.  These cultures do not venerate mountains and rivers only because a special event occurred there (like the Tiber in Italy), but because of the nature of the thing itself.  An oak tree may be just as venerated as a mountain.  These things are not usually thought to actually be a god, but simply a symbolic representation (an example may be the cow, in Hinduism) of a greater being.  Gods represented by natural beings are often consulted but rarely demand anything from their followers.
    All of these forms have been used in fantasy worlds.  In Fritz Lieber's Nehwon, there is a whole street in Lankhmar filled with temples to the various gods (and one temple for the gods of Lankhmar of course), where faiths rise and fall with regularity.  One of my favorite moments in the movie Conan: The Barbarian takes place as the titular character and his thief friend discuss their elemental faiths.  George Martin's series has both monotheistic and polytheistic believers (which will hopefully soon come into conflict).  The gods worshiped in our stories say much about the cultures we create, assuming the gods don't literally speak to the people.  When they do... I'll leave that for another post. 
   

Reference I Love IV (Castles)

I'm sure there are thousands of books that have been published on the subject of castles.  Lots of these have big glossy photos of their remains or perhaps artistic renderings of how they would have looked at the time of their construction.  As a writer, anything that can fire your imagination is a wonderful thing.  However, one book I thoroughly enjoy, and keep returning to, is Castles: Their Construction and History, by Sidney Toy.  Originally published in 1939, this book has a number of features that make it useful in my work.
    There are 199 illustrations (as well as a number of b&w photographs), by the author, supporting the text.  These illustrations detail map and plan views of fortifications from 1600BC to 1600AD.  Personally, this allows me to better visualize how these structures fit together.  When I'm stuck in my writing, I create maps and sketches of the scene as a tool to follow what my actors are doing.  The level of detail that the author includes really helps in my visualization of life inside these spaces.
    "The object of this work is to trace the development of the art of fortification throughout Europe and the Levant..." (pg xiv, Preface).  A list of illustrations and a useful index allow easy access as a reference work.  This is not a broad work of history.  It remains focused solely on these defensive structures and the wars fought around them.  However, the author does go into significant detail about how these defensive structures evolved as a result in advances of science (as related to warfare).  The author does not claim to be exhaustive in his work, but all of the sites depicted in the work are detailed from first-hand observation.   
    I find the writing style to be a bit dry, but this is primarily the result of a large amount of detail packed into the text.  The texts describes, not only the fortifications, but the geography surrounding.  He also goes into detail about the materials and techniques used in construction.  Taken as a whole, it can feel relentless in its attention to detail.  On the other hand, when you think about describing one given location (or feature) in a story, Mr. Toy creates a clear and evocative image.
    In general, I find that reading this work allows me to explain my own world better.  Through the use of language and diagram, the author invites the reader to explore the history of these massive structures.  He deconstructs the goals and intentions of the different styles of fortification, filling in the details that are easy to forget when you view such immense constructs.  This is clearly a work of passion and a joy to read (if only a chapter at a time).
http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Their-Construction-History-Architecture/dp/0486248984/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385234096&sr=1-1&keywords=Sidney+Toy

Founding a Religion (part 1a)

Due to a question on the last post, I thought I'd expand upon this portion with examples before moving on.

1)    The most important facet of any successful religion is that it be exclusive:  
In the Old Testament the Jews are referred to as the chosen people.  Judaism still does not actively recruit new adherents.  Islam offers specific benefits for believers, especially those who die in its service.  Hinduism is a broad description of a number of collected belief systems, but in general seem to agree on the idea of reincarnation and that by following their teachings you can eventually reach some form of heaven.  Buddhism is generally considered a philosophy, not truly a religion, but also offers methods to be good and skip off the cycle of reincarnation.  One exception to this exclusivity may be with permitting entry into Valhalla for warriors (who die in battle) from other cultures, but I'm honestly not sure on that one.

2)    Within each religion, there is normally a hierarchy connected to the piety (or whatever characteristic is considered most essential) of the clergy: 
Augury was practiced by the Delphic Oracle in ancient Greece as well as by the Hebrews.  Asking gods or spirits for a glimpse of the future has been a part of traditions great and small, probably since religion began.  Great learning connected with an intimate knowledge of holy texts (Sutras, Scripture, Vedas, Qur'an, etc.) has long been venerated as have those who have a direct connection to the gods (often through asceticism).  If you're the great Caesar, maybe you're related to a god.

3)    Not every member of a religion can be a priest, but there are roles of distinction for those who show devotion: 
In some Christian church services, there are lay leaders who read from the Bible or deal with the business of the church.  Human sacrifice is an old favorite from many ancient belief systems, like that of the Aztecs (okay, only some were voluntary).  Native American ceremonies included many members of the tribe as dancers and participants.  A Hazzan is a Jewish cantor, who helps lead the congregation in the singing of prayer.   

4)    Ritual is a defining feature of religious practice: 
Rituals can take a wide variety of forms.  It is said that the druids would sacrifice humans by building a large wicker man (see the earlier movie, not the one with Nic Cage) and then burning it with the fellow inside (though there were no records left by the druids themselves, the Romans say some things).  Religious meetings of all kinds are conducted according to rituals (just look at the wedding rituals of different cultures).  Muslims are called upon to pray five times per day (though it's flexible) as one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

5)    Music and art have also been used to create a mood in the congregation appropriate to the needs of the situation: 
Music and rhythm are extremely important in religion as tools for memorization.  Think how many catchy tunes get stuck in your head.  If you attend any religious service, listen to any section where the congregation speaks and you will hear a rhythm (public speakers will also do this).  King David wrote songs of praise.  What about the call to worship in a Muslim dominated area?  Art was traditionally used in all traditions because many could (or can) not read, to remind the viewers of religious stories and their lessons. The symbolism was much more complex than in modern times (try understanding The Garden of Earthly Delights, by Hieronymous Bosch, without a written guide), but understood by its audience.

Founding a Religion (part I)

Ah the seeds of heresy...  let us begin.

I've written a fair amount, to date, on creature culture (see blog entries of the same name).  In these, I've covered some basic biologic and environmental stresses that help to shape a society.  When finally the creatures of your world (be they human or otherwise) start to become self-aware, they will begin to ask, "Where did we come from?" and "Why are we here?"  The answers authors invent probably provide interesting clues into our respective psyches, but there are certain trappings that seem universal.
    The most important facet of any successful religion is that it be exclusive.  The worshipers of a being (or beings) are members of the elect and chosen by that deity (or deities), who offers some more pleasant form of afterlife.  Unbelievers and others outside of this group are destined for despair, probably in this life, but most definitely in the next.  Threats related to being expelled from this group are used as a tool to keep worshipers following the religious leader (excommunication was an exceedingly powerful tool in the Medieval Period).
    Within each religion, there is normally a hierarchy connected to the piety (or whatever characteristic is considered most essential) of the clergy.  These religious titles are theoretically not associated with political acumen, even if this may historically be true.  The priests are believed by their followers to have a higher level of understanding of that deity's wishes.  This may be from a more direct connection to the deity or a deeper understanding of religious texts, practices and so on.  One form of direct connection may be the result of casting augury (asking for direction) or the interpretation of signs (taking direction).  Religious leaders have knowledge of some kind that is unavailable to the rank and file.
    Not every member of a religion can be a priest, but there are roles of distinction for those who show devotion.  Some members may lead parts of religious services while others may handle the money.  Sacrifices of a ritual or physical nature may be exacted from the faithful.  Failure to submit may result in expulsion (or worse, depending on the religion).  Often these roles have been designed to take advantage of the talents of the devotees and ease the burden on the clergy, but may become purely ceremonial and/or available for purchase.
    Ritual is a defining feature of religious practice.  Often there is ceremonial garb associated with the priests.  There may be traditional wear for the practitioners as well. Specific days of the year, month, or week may be held holy for a specific religious group (or even multiple times per day).  Ritual usually relates to showing devotion and subservience to the deity of choice.  Recitation from a holy book or a speech from a priest are also common facets of a religious event.  Participation in these events may be restricted by gender or rank within the organization.
    Music and art have also been used to create a mood in the congregation appropriate to the needs of the situation.  Architecture is the simplest example of this.  Cathedrals were designed to dwarf the visitor, making them feel small in comparison with the great works of the faithful (or the Church, or was that God?).  While in most modern religions, the mood of this music is often somber, it is not necessarily the case.  Christian "Praise Bands" have seen a surge in popularity while bringing electric guitars and drums into the church.  Gospel choirs have also long had a more joyful tenor than traditional Catholic services.  Many other religions also have colorful and energetic forms of worship.
    Alright, that is enough of the bare bones descriptors for religions.  Next time we will delve a little more deeply into developing some of these ideas, where they may take you and how they can interact.  I'm as excited as (I hope) you are to find out where my mind may wander.  If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know.  I'm interested in what you think.

The Nature You Know

Today's post was inspired by a drive up here in the Poconos.

A classic piece of advice for every new writer is, "Write what you know."  What is produced on the page is a synthesis of all the various input the writers has tapped into.  How we discover ourselves and the world around us shapes our way of thinking.  One of the great American methods of experiencing our own country is the road trip.  This country is so broad that there is no way to absorb it all in one lifetime.  Unfortunately, for the writer of fantasy, the experience of roadside ecology is a lie.
    The interstate highway system in the United States enables the car culture that exists today while transforming the landscape.  I had a professor in college who called it the single greatest boon the government every gave geology.  To understand what he meant, next time you're driving, take a gander at the many road cuts along the shoulder as you pass through a mountainous region.  However, this does not give

http://strike-slip.geol.ucsb.edu/KESSEL/palmdaleroadcut.html

the observant passerby an accurate vision of what the world naturally looks like.  The image included is a pretty spectacular example, but we have blasted many a mountain and hill to smooth the way for transit.
    The system of roads in this country is also responsible for filling large areas of land.  In my personal work on the New Jersey Turnpike around Newark Airport, I found swamp material immediately under the base material for the roadbed.  This might not seem like a big surprise for fans of The Godfather, but it seems like the Meadowlands Arena would more properly have been named the Marshlands.  Filling marshlands was popular through much of American history (well, we used to drain them, but that was harder).  My old High School was built on fill material generated by local industry (which they remembered only when they broke ground the second time to expand it).  The important thing to remember here is that the water still has to go somewhere, so it swells the size of nearby waterways (and also causes more damage during flood events).
    Controlling the natural world on a large scale is one thing humans have worked on for a long time and not just to build roads.  Recently it has been suggested that many of the rivers in the eastern US weren't created by nature, but by Colonial farmers.  Specifically by damming streams to create mill ponds. Read more about it here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18228525).  If you thought rivers always wanted to meander, don't feel bad.  Until the associated article came out in the journal Science, geologists thought the same.  The tradition of building ponds continues even today as we continue to seek more lakeside acreage for the watersport enthusiast.
    A short form for all of this is simply: you can not trust all you see.  Humans have long been altering the landscape to best fit our needs.  In the natural world there are less clear passes through the mountains.  Numerous marshy lowlands might befoul our adventurers' boots.  Then again they may just go swimming in a mill pond.  Fantasy civilizations will impact their worlds too.   

Creature Culture (part 2)

This article focuses on designing the lives of sentient creatures.  

Where and how creatures live is largely a function of what they eat.  Humans, being omnivores, are able to live in a variety of regions, on diverse diets.  For most of the history of our species (apologies to any others in the audience), humans were primarily hunters and gatherers, wandering the land in search of their next meal.  The developments of agriculture and animal husbandry (no, that is not connected to bestiality, at least not inextricably) forever changed how humans interact with their environment.  It was this change that made it possible for humans to stay in one place and proliferate. 
    It is not necessary for creatures to follow the same pattern as humans have.  After all, there are a seemingly infinite number of methods creatures use to survive in the real world.  However, these creatures are all connected to, what is these days referred to as, the food web (yes, we have complicated the idea of the food chain).  Most numerous in this web are the Producers (plants and algae) who essentially convert chemicals and sunlight into an energy source available for the consumption of others.  A significant amount of total energy is lost between the layers (indigestible bits and energy use for things other than reproduction). Consequently, the total biomass decreases significantly as you ascend the layers.  Dependance on natural balance of the food web, as a top predator, is a significant limitation on population.    

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biology/biology-iv/ecosystem/food-web.php 

    The important idea to recognize here is that the system is self-regulating (which is why extinction and non-native species are such big concerns in the modern day).  In a simple example: maybe a rainy year increases the number of terrestrial and salt marsh plants.  Insect multiply rapidly because of an increase in habitat and food supply and in turn fill the rats' tummies (and inspire large litters in response).  This goes up the web.  When the snake population will explode proportionately as a result.  If the rat population begins to decrease (because of less insects in a dry season, or too many snakes) the snake population will as well.  Top predators serve to cap this system, but are subject to all of the conditions that govern those "below" them.  Therefore, every group requires the development of agriculture or animal husbandry to stably increase population (without moving into a new environment).
    Large carnivores require large territories to feed their family groups.  A pride of lions will cover somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 square miles (http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/african-lion/).  A male black bear may cover 200 square miles (http://www.black-bears.org/).  The smallest recorded area of a gray wolf pack is 25 square kilometers (thanks wikipedia).  The point is, that if you want to create a group of goblins living up in the hills, they either tend some animals (humans are a reasonable food supply) or they spend a lot of time walking (as everyone knows, goblins only have pointy teeth, which is highly suggestive of a carnivorous diet). It's also probably a pretty dang small group.
    While writing and rewriting all of this, I recognize that most of my fixation on this topic connects to the idea that these other civilizations have to be in direct competition with humans (sharing the same environmental niche).  Traditional orcs, goblins, lizard-men, and so on could not exist in large enough numbers to compete with humans without learning about how to grow things and raise animals.  It seems that if we want to include creatures like these as competitive cultures, they must be more advanced than we traditionally view them as being.  However, this does not preclude beings from filling other niches.
    Large populations of sentient herbivores (of any size) could exist without this restriction.  Perhaps creatures in the midst of the food chain would be more philosophical about their place in the world (like those green guys from "The Dark Crystal").  These creatures could migrate or tend their own crops if they liked and band together to protect against predators (like herds do now).  After all, vegetarian does not mean pacifist.
    Similarly, creatures of a smaller size might rise create a culture as a secondary or tertiary consumer.  They would have to be of smaller size, because they would otherwise be higher level consumers.  The creatures of Brian Jacques' world certainly fit the bill here.  Sprites and fairies might also fit in this role (though perhaps too flighty to tend to plants or animals).  Again, the place they hold in the food chain would certainly impact their POV.  While they probably would have trouble competing with humans for ascendancy in the world (agriculture is tough with owls around), they could certainly make for some fine adventures.
    Goodness, this has all taken much longer than I anticipated and accomplished less than I'd hoped.  I suppose in general we've covered the idea that for a carnivorous creature culture to threaten humanity as a whole, they need to be raising animals and/or planting crops.  Maybe I've even gotten you to think a little outside the traditional fantasy box.  I know I'm going to be introducing some thoughtful herbivores to my world. 

Currency

Exchanging cash for goods and services makes it much easier for adventurers on the road.  Otherwise your barbarian's muscles might be put to use chopping wood, your thief's deft hands to washing dishes and your bard singing for his supper (well, maybe that's not such a bad idea).  So in this world of ours we need some way to pay for things without bringing along a flock of sheep or equivalent bulky trade goods.
    Originally, currencies had value due to the content of its material.  Gold, silver and bronze are the three materials we think of for use as traditional currencies.  These materials were used as coinage for three basic reasons: intrinsic value, malleability and durability.  The value of these materials (at the time of their use as currency) came mostly as a result of their rarity and beauty.  This malleability added to the value by enabling materials to be employed in a variety of decorative ways (jewelry and so on).  Malleability is also important for currency due to decreased waste in the course of production, uniformity of coinage, and the ability to print pretty pictures on it.  Durability is also important to maintain the shape and integrity of the coins.
    Historically, currencies produced by different countries (or even just different mints) were of different values for material reasons.  Coins were produced of different sizes and thicknesses, obviously using varying quantities of material in their production.  Purity of the materials was also a question.  One of the reasons the coins were stamped was as a promise regarding the composition and uniformity of the coin (whatever it may be).  
    Currency in a fantasy world does not have to be made of these specific materials, but should follow the same guidelines.  Metals tend to be the best choices for the reasons listed previously.  However, it is certainly reasonable that gold is not valued on your world, or that it is abundant (therefore less valuable).  One of the things to be careful of is in making a commonly used material into coinage.  If you use steel as currency, the value of that helmet you are wearing should be much higher than its weight in coins (otherwise you'd probably melt it down and use it for trade). 
    Representational currencies can take many forms.  The first were probably I.O.U.s or their kin.  The concept behind this form of money is that the note (or bill or what have you) can be taken to the issuer and exchanged for material of a certain value (usually precious metals, though Heinlein had some interesting suggestions on the topic).  Consequently, these currencies lose value the further from the source you get.  I probably can't give a farmer a bill from another country, though a trader or banker might find more value in it.  The same is generally true today (though today's currencies are not representational).  
    The last thing to keep in mind is that precious metals are not available everywhere.  A small country may not have mines large enough to generate as much currency as it needs.  Not every country needs its own coin (indeed, some countries today still don't have their own currency).  These countries simply utilize money coined elsewhere.  Currency of intrinsic value was freely circulated in the Medieval world.  After all, gold is gold.

Reference I Love III (Odd History)

For Christmas a few years ago, my brother gifted me with The Great Cat Massacre (and other episodes in French cultural history), by Robert Darnton.  While I'm not much of a francophile and it focuses primarily on the 18th C, contained within are simply some fascinating stories and unusual viewpoints.

Chapter List
1) Peasants Tell Tales: The Meaning of Mother Goose
2) Workers Revolt: The Great Cat Massacre of the Rue Saint-Severin
3) A Bourgeois Puts His World in Order: The City as a Text
4) A Police Inspector Sorts His Files: The Anatomy of the Republic of Letters
5) Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: The Epistemological Strategy of the Encyclopedie
6) Readers Respond to Rousseau: The Fabrication of Romantic Sensitivity 

The work is fairly readable for a general audience, only rarely getting bogged down by scholarly rigor and notation.  Because they are entirely separate articles, the reader can skip whole chapters to jump right into specific subjects of interest with no loss of context (though there is a seven page Conclusion to tie them all together).  Taken as a whole, it lends a window into the different social strata of French society at a specific time.
    For the fiction writer, the utility of such a work come in numerous forms.  First it provides a peek into the everyday life of its subjects, not just the major historic events.  Additionally, it shows how different levels of society viewed portions of their world and interacted with it.  The first chapter demonstrates how different cultures modified universal tales to different ends.  Each chapter holds a lesson and a multitude of story ideas for the open mind.  Knowing how minds operated in an appropriate time period helps the writer to differentiate characters in a believable way.  Knowing what drives them, generates opportunities for conflict and thus story.

Building Design (materials)

Which materials are used by which societies are determined by many contributing factors.  Certain materials are only prominent in certain geographic areas (no bamboo in Medieval Europe).  Others require technical sophistication (quarried stone).  Primarily it is the combination of the forces of availability and economics that make the choices for the builders. 
 
BRICK
Bricks have been used in construction since ancient times both with dry fitting and mortar.  Bricks may be formed by simple air drying (usually in the sun) or by being fired in a kiln.  Air dried bricks (like adobe)  require a high clay content to maintain their shape and strength after drying and are much more likely in regions where wood is scarce.  Mortar can be made from a variety of materials, including: mud, lime, pitch, gypsum, lime, bitumen and portland cement (invented 1794).  However, constructing large buildings (especially more than one story) requires a great deal of knowledge and skill. 

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



WOOD
Utilized for shelter since the beginning of time, wood is a readily available building material in some geographic settings.  There are a few issues connected with its use.  The first problem is, of course, fire.  The closer together the buildings are, the greater an issue this is.  As cities grew, many adopted ordinances restricting building materials (especially for roofs).  An additional difficulty is the popularity of the material.  Forests near population centers are quickly decimated.  Historically, this encouraged the gentry to privatize the forests for their own uses, though generally allowing the commoners to collect dead wood "by hook or by crook."  Buildings constructed entirely out of wood would therefore be much more common in smaller rural communities. 

http://blog.schuttelumber.com/whats-going-on/historic-wooden-houses-in-kansas/

WATTLE & DAUB
This construction technique is a sort of blend of the above materials.  Most commonly known for its use in "half-timbered" houses, a lattice is constructed of wood (wattle) and plastered (daub) to create walls within the wooden frame.  As seen below, it was common to seasonally lime wash exposed beams.  Because this construction technique utilizes secondary limbs, it is much less timber intensive, allowing it to be economically viable as well as regionally pervasive. 


http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/wattleanddaub/wattleanddaub.htm

STONE
Thought of as the most durable building material, stone has been widely used throughout history.  Like brick, stone can be either dry-fit or mortared.  However, the qualities which make stone a prized material also make it a pain in the ass.  Its durability makes it much more difficult to manipulate than wood.  Density, which makes it resistant to weather, makes it heavier than bricks.  Quarrying stone is also an extremely laborious activity.  Consequently, stone construction has long been a luxury in many areas, used for only the most important buildings. 
    Non-quarried stone (field stone or river stone) is much less labor intensive to acquire, but also less abundant.  Fieldstone typically derives from material deposited by retreating glaciers.  This is then usually collected when clearing land for cultivation (which is not an easy process).  In New England, fieldstone has been used extensively to build stone walls.
    Cannibalizing stone is also a long held practice.  When stone buildings are abandoned or fall into disrepair they may be torn down to build something new.  In England, after the fall of the Roman Empire, some of the roads and even parts of Hadrian's Wall were disassembled to reuse the materials (probably by the locals).  Some homes even incorporate part of the original structure to save on labor.

http://www.visitnorthumberland.com/hadrians-wall/the-roman-wall

As a final note, defensive structures (forts, castles, walls, etc) have historically been constructed of all of these materials (excepting wattle & daub).  Most early castles in Europe featured wooden palisade walls and earthen berms.  The walls of Vysehrad (ca 10th C), in Prague, are made of brick.  Stone examples are the most commonly depicted fortifications, but do not allow them to limit your world.  




 

Reference I Love II (combat)

I've been pretending to have sword fights ever since I was old enough for my brothers to be forced to play with me.  These days I exorcise that need from time to time by playing at the same with my brother's kids.  However, I've always wanted to learn the true art of swordplay.  Modern fencing is an incredibly difficult sport, but it's not what I was looking for.  Some groups dress up in full armor and whack the shit out of each other, but that wasn't my goal either.  Quite recently I was directed to the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (theARMA.org).  This group feels like it is on the right track.
    The organization's website has all of the right kinds of information.  Contained within the Features section is a huge list of articles and essays relating to the martial arts of Western Europe.  In the Resources section are links to a wide variety of original historic fencing manuals (though now available for members only), as well as book reviews and a reading list.  The highlight of the site (also primarily in the Features section) is the extensive list of videos wherein the director of the organization explains and demonstrates a variety of the movements and the reasons behind them. 
    Honestly this site is packed with information that will take me quite some time to explore fully. It's really exciting to see people exploring this area of history using both scholarly rigor and practical physical application.  Now I just need to find some friends and form my own training group...