# Geographical Warfare?



## TrustMeImRudy (Dec 21, 2013)

So I thought a thread about how ancient peoples waged war in certain places, like deserts, plains, hills, arctic areas, etc. would be useful. If you're asking you should also include technology level so that answers can be more helpful to your setting. Ill begin of course.

How would a society that lives in a mountain range, with cities built either on small mountain's tops, or into the sides of the large mountains wage war? There are hills between the bigger mountains, but not plains or open area, as the range is on a peninsula. Different cities means different kingdoms and the tech level is around the same as the Greco-Persian war I'd think. 

What I have so far is that the society doesnt use bows and arrows due to high winds making the aim less effective, instead they developed chakrams that they hang on the inside of their shields. Cold winds also make covering up more important than armor, so they wear robes with an iron chestplate, iron and leather greaves [almost up to knee, not beyond] and leather bracers. Lightly armored, they instead use a tower shield to protect their bodies. Spears for combat and a gladius at close range. Do you think this is good? Would it be feasible? Any other suggestions?


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2013)

There's a pretty good historical precedent: the Peloponnese. From Corinth to Argos to Sparta you've got a mountainous region with strong city-states. But they exhibit few of the characteristics you describe. For another parallel you could try Macedonia.

Then again, you don't need to hew to historical reality. It's your story. 

Wouldn't a chakram be just as susceptible to high winds? 

Light armor is fine, though I would think mobility would be a more important factor than climate. Certainly what you describe is feasible.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 21, 2013)

Hi,

Weight is going to be critical, and having hands free for holding on to things as you climb. A tower shield would be a major impediment to their mobility. They were really only used in formation attacks where the could become a wall of steel against enemy archers. 

My thought would be lighten the armour as much as possible. It should be nearly all leather and cloth so that the soldiers are mobile and warm. Steel would be a particular problem as it chills in a chill wind. You couldn't wear it anywhere near your skin. Cloth would be preferable. Shields unless they're arm shields that are tied to your arms and don't have to be held would be out. You need two hands free. Spinning ring weapons would be incredibly vulnerable to wind - much more so than arrows. I would suggest a short bow - double recurved and with as large a draw on it as can be managed. A long bow might get tangled as you clamber around hills. Slings would also be a possibility. Swords, axes and short stabbing spears should be worn on the back so as to not get in the way when walking.

Now because your guys would be foregoing shields I would suggest duel wielding - though it is a complex discipline to learn. But an off hand parrying blade if you can use it would be a good choice. The blade can also double as a knife for the routine parts of life where you don't want to use a sword - say in skinning prey.

Last, there would be no formation type warfare possible. Attacks would be skirmishes more or less with every man doing his own thing as best he can. You need open land for formations.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## TrustMeImRudy (Dec 21, 2013)

Well according to wikipedia: Because of its aerodynamic circular shape it is not easily deflected by wind. So thats good. It cuts right through it.

I was thinking something similar about the formations. These people would have paths in the mountains, but not really passes. I was thinking there would be no formations, warfare would be warrior on warrior out of neccesity. The paths mean less for climbing however. The tower shield was to make up for the lack of armor other than basic, like what I described. The armor they wear, probably leather with some iron studs would make more sense than an actual iron chestplate. But it is worn over robes, the robes dont cover the feet though, about a couple inches above the ankle. Shields would be tied, good idea there. I suppose I can see tower shield failing in that respect, so how about the shields used by Spartan warriors but with the tie-on?

On a side note, I wrote this while reading your responses, so I just say you're last comment psychotick, we had the same thought on formations, nice.


----------



## Erudite (Dec 22, 2013)

I'd have to wonder about a lot more than just the fighting.

Where are the food sources? I'd assume they'd need arable land, and as such would have to have some sort of pastures, fields, probably much further down the mountains.

Thoughts? To wage a war, one would simply cut off the path to the food, siege a city, and likely win (unless the mountain is wealthy in secret passages).

I'd agree that the armor would need to be fairly light, but would post the counter-argument that I can mountain climb with around 40-50 kg on my back. Couldn't they just use ropes and what not to hold pieces of armor to their backs and take heavy armor along? Or you could always go the route of "super-human strength" because they were trained in the gear from childbirth.


----------



## eliec (Apr 13, 2014)

They'd still need to to be able to get that gear on in a hurry, if they were hauling it up using ropes. And "super strength" is always an iffy way of explaining things, because you're bound to run into a limit where it simply becomes unfeasible.

I'd suggest using shorter weapons designed for close quarters, since they likely won't have enough space for ranged battles. Short spears, hatchets, kama, gladii, that sort of thing. If you want ranged weapons I vote for slings or bolas, heavy and compact projectiles that won't be too affected by the wind. I don't recommend dual wielding, both because it's overused in fiction and under-used in reality. You could use small bucklers for defense: bucklers don't have straps, just a handle so they could snatch them off their belts in a hurry.


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 15, 2014)

I have played ski frisbee, an exciting and unpredictable sport, and will maintain that an arrow or crossbow quarrel will fly better than a flat disc in mountain winds (OK, I spent more than half of my time seated on the snow, but that's my skiing standard. And I never even attempted the version using worn out circular saw blades.)

I've been to several mountain-top walled villages and forts, and basically the problem is water. You need cisterns, as traditional pumps (apart from Archimedes screw) have major difficulties with lifting water more than ten metres. If you have a reasonable annual rainfall, and not too many effete bathing habits, you can store drinking water, but not enough for agriculture. 

If you put the walls further down a taller mountain, so as to be on a spring, attackers can take the high ground and drop rocks or avalanches onto the defenders (yeah, nowadays they let off dynamite to trigger avalanches but our ancestors weren't stupid, they had their ways). If the place started as a mine – normally for crystal, as lack of charcoal-making possibilities render smelting impractical, and would you want to transport cartloads of ore down that declination? – the lightless, ill-ventilated back rooms are used for storage, until they are the only defensible point. 

For anything I would class as a mountain, you don't charge up it, you climb it. Which means your shield has to be suitable for slinging on your back, all your weapons hung around you, so no huge infantry shields or pikes. No cavalry charges and, unless you're very lucky, no sappers undermining the walls. There will be a path up the mountain for muletrains of supplies and replacement fighters, but this will be narrow, and winding enough that it goes five to ten times the distance the fly crows, if one could train crows as combattants. Easily defended and frequently with a drawbridge over a crevasse or river gorge. Often twisty enough that you can't get timbers up there for rebuilding bridges, or constructing siege engines. (which leaves you wondering how, before the advent of helicopters, they got the roof beams up there for the houses.)

All in all, without surprise or treachery, storming the place is not a viable option. Starving it is. Eze, Alpes Maritimes, fortified village in mediaeval times, now artist's colony, had maybe a dozen goats, two donkeys and a mule, no local hunting and more of what they grew there went to feed the animals than the inhabitants, could never have sustained a military holding force without continuous deliveries from the lowlands. Even straight wood for arrows or spear hafts has to be imported.

Since stone is much more easily available than vegetable matter, most of which is fed through goats anyway (main fuel for cooking and heating; goat pellets. Human wastes and urine soaked straw go onto fields) the place is almost entirely fireproof, so a wide range of standard weaponry is useless.

All the arguments for getting _force majeur_ up to the gates holds just as well for getting a sallying force out, so generally the easiest solution is to ravage the more accessible valley settlements (which are richer anyway) and just ignore the by now overcrowded, undernourished mountain retreats.


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 15, 2014)

How important is the "high winds" component of it? I don't know how often winds really get so strong that bows become not worth trying. If they are, anything like a chakram that's both heavier and shorter range would be a better idea, plus a sling has the advantage that stones (and leather) might be cheaper than wood for arrows in the mountains. If the winds are really strong, a shield would be a extremely bad idea, the way it catches in the wind. (And shields are wood too.)

If shields are bad, the best weapons might be long spears (if they can get wood, again), with swords or axes for someone who gets past them. You might not be able to move around the trails easily with your pikes, but if you lifted the weapons to a prepared spot they'd be nasty for holding people off.

And, the idea that you can't use formations in tight terrain is relative. If you can only get a few people up a trail at a time, the two men with pikes blocking it _are_ a formation.


----------

