# Ask me about Warfare



## thecoldembrace

Hello there everyone. At the behest of Ankari and Sheilawisz, I wanted to offer my services as an adviser on matters dealing with the military. To give some background so you know at least were I come from, I have my doctorate in Military History with my personal focus being on the Ottoman Empire (my dissertation being on Suleiman the Magnificent's campaign against Vienna). I am now a professor of what I learned and work at a local university. 

Beyond the period that the Ottoman Empire encompassed I also had to learn warfare from its beginning to what it is now, and across the globe. 

  Mind you I am an expert on military history and military theory. I have not been in battle personally. If I do not know something, I will gladly learn it to help anyone asking the question. 

  Beyond this, I have spent a great deal of my personal time writing my own story, wherein I use the knowledge I have to delve deep into the fantasy battle sequences, and learning and theorizing how magic and other fantasy elements can be effectively used in full scale military operations. 

  I hope my extensive knowledge can be of use to someone here, and would welcome any questions that you have to how something might work in your own worlds. Just try and give me a good scope of the scenario so I can help you as best as possible.

If known, let me know the culture if any you model off of... the types of arms and armor... magic involved and so forth and I will do my best to answer.


----------



## Gurkhal

Here's a first question! 

May be big but its something which I have long sought for an answer to. 

During the Early Middle Ages (say, 800-1000 AD) what would you say where the major differences and common similarities between Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Norse, Frankish and if possibly Slavic armies in terms of tactics, weaponry and types of troops? And what social and cultural dynamics lied behind each culture's approach to warfare?


----------



## Gurkhal

Shame you can't edit. 

But I realize that my question is probably to big and thus I would ask if you could, if you want to, make a short overview regardingb one of the cultures that I mentioned, instead of all of them?


----------



## thecoldembrace

Haha, yes quite a large question put in a small context. That is quite alright. You are basically curious as to the properties of those who succeeded the Romans and managed to carve out those well known European kingdoms.  So first off a very briefly I can tell you that for the Anglo-Saxon/Irish/Nordic/Frankish forces they fought in a similar style. The style in which they developed was very effective for the time period.
The shield wall was the common way to fight, front to back in a very clustered formation of raised shields interlocked to protect against barrages of missile fire. It was also extremely effective in warding off frontal cavalry attack. Warriors in these clustered formations used the spear as the primary weapon of choice, one because it didn't cost a hoard to make, as swords were the dominion of those with riches or prestige enough to have them. The other was a dagger or axe which could be used in more individual combat should the spear be broken or lost.

   Most tactics of the day were not that of formal engagements. I had a very successful debate with several professors one time that in effect the tactic was to use small groups of effective warriors, (war bands for lack of a better term that I prefer) who would raid and or seek and destroy an opposed raiding force. Mind you these men were not professional soldiers. The use of heavy armor was lost for some time and was only really used by those who truly needed to be protected and those who could afford the extravagant cost. Most men had simple leather (cheap and effective) and cloth to protect them, using the prized shield for most of their defense.

  The tactic in battle, after an initial skirmish was to smash the shield wall against the other, pushing the enemy to displace their ranks, or pulling the enemy into you to kill and further displace. This was a grueling and tiring type of combat. Most casualties were only received when the line broke, the wall shattered and men withdrew from the field. Until that point it was a contest of wills and stamina akin to mountain goats smashing their heads together or a deadly version of tug-a-war.

I use the term multi-weapon systems a lot, which generally means the inclusion of four main elements in a military force, defined as light and heavy infantry, and light and heavy cavalry.
  For the early period of which you ask about cavalry was used sparingly and not to great effect until the couched lance and stirrups. Also most horses were not the well bred warhorses of knights, but smaller animals. The cavalry of the day was not really for the most part used as a means of combat, instead as a means of transport to combat which then led to the rider dismounting and fighting on foot. 
  So thus, the main systems used were light and heavy infantry, heavy infantry being those men in the shield wall, and light infantry being the skirmishers, the archers, the javelin throwers. It was the light infantry that began the battle and usually made the foray when the shield wall was broken and chased down fleeing foes, as most men in the wall by that point were exhausted.

The Slavs on the other hand who were further east had greater use of the horse, and still maintained a very good cavalry fighting force, though not in the traditional sense of heavy cavalry. The Slavs used to effect, lightning attacks and withdraws to harass their foes before closing in when they were weak in the lines or morale. They had a more (and I know one other professor that would argue the point) a mob mentality when it came to infantry combat. They used to limited degree a cluster of men in formation with shields, but more often then not infantry combat devolved to individualized mayhem rather quickly. 

As to the reasons for warfare.... they remained traditional. Land and power by local chieftains or for the need of external goods that could only be obtained in trade reverted to being taken in armed conflict. Do you envy your neighbor's goods... well yes of course you do, go take them. The incentive to join the expedition was to share in the spoils, gain glory and fame, and for the non-christians to be seen by the Gods. Now mind you this is a brief overview of what drove men to raid and plunder, for conquest. But, to this point I could write a book in and of itself for just this alone as I would for delving deeper into how these peoples fought. 

I hope its a good start to your question.

-Cold


----------



## ascanius

thecoldembrace said:


> Mind you I am an expert on military history and military theory. I have not been in battle personally. If I do not know something, I will gladly learn it to help anyone asking the question.
> 
> Beyond this, I have spent a great deal of my personal time writing my own story, wherein I use the knowledge I have to delve deep into the fantasy battle sequences, and learning and theorizing how magic and other fantasy elements can be effectively used in full scale military operations.



This may be a stupid question but what is military theory?  What would be the theory during the Roman republic and for the various powers at that time.

What about organizational structure besides what the Marius reforms established. 

And lastly.  How would magic change warfare, my magic system doesn't really permit mass destruction more on the level of a shotgun for the average battlemage.  The more skilled individuals would be able to get more of a claymore effect going.  Most magic would also be close quarter combats with raged attacks more difficult.  Any thoughts?  What would be the civil and political implications of magic? (Don't get me wrong magic is useful but has limits)


----------



## thecoldembrace

Military theory is applied tactics and strategy. Today in a modern sense, theory is the application of knowledge to understand the flow of combat in and effort to predict an outcome. Basically, its how it SHOULD work. Since we ourselves, you, me and all of us alive were not alive in the time of the Romans, and even though we have detailed accounts of how the Romans conducted their warfare, we have reconstructed what we know from all the various places. They should say, it is understood that it was done thus, but I was drilled at early study that we say, it is theorized that is was done thus. 

The Marian reforms were instrumental into turning Rome's military from a conscript army to a professional standing army that could take on its mounting list of external threats. 

Magic, I have found, depending on how powerful the Art is can change the battlefield. Now this doesn't have to be destructive in nature. When most people think of magic in a battlefield sense, they picture a mage hurling fireballs into masses of men and so forth. To be honest magic with a utilitarian aspect can be extremely beneficial. It is because of magic's broad aspect that it can accomplish a ton of things. Need men with natural armor that wards off arrows? Done, theres a spell for that... usually. 
  I was speaking with Ankari the other night, and his simple use of basically a water walking spell or prayer changed what would have been a very difficult battle into a virtual rout at first impact. 
  So the question is... what is the true limit of magic in your world. Can your mages create a wall of fog? (Useful in screening your forces so they can get into position) Can your mages scry... i.e. serve as battlefield scouts and intelligence to provide a commander a literal visual view of what he/she is facing? 
   As to your shotgun effect.. can this spell (if it is a spell) be placed on say a shield for a short duration of time? I ask because before moving forward a mage can go across the front lines of his army and put this spell on their shields... right before first contact the spell goes off and like a shotgun explodes in the face of the foes, and if it doesn't kill outright it would definitely disorient and create enough disruption in the enemy line to be exploited.
   I find that some of the most basic, slightly laughable... low powered spells can be just as effective as a ritual that takes all day to cast. Battles are not long drawn out affairs typically, and a simple, explosive advantage at the get go could turn a battle rather quickly. 

As to your final question, the civil and political implications of magic. First of all magic only has limits that you yourself set (very good to have to avoid a single mage from annihilating a whole army of decked out soldiers). If you are going to use magic in combat, on the battlefield then you have to treat magic like any other weapon system. It has to be countered, it has to be increased. The very act of having magic alongside soldiers spins into creation the attempt by enemy mages to counter magical effects, to protect their cities from falling to an earthquake ritual that topples towers and walls with equal ease. 
   The result is... people want to be protected, people want security, and magic can provide ample security. It would be in great demand regardless of how powerful magic is in the world, because magic is... well... magic.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Is your dissertation published online? I ask because I'm very interested in Ottoman culture and warfare (and particularly in the Yeneceri/Janissaries) but I find it hard to come across good material (on the internet). If it is I'd love to read it. I'm very interested in a dissertation on a longer campaign. If not, then I'd still appreciate it if you could point me to some good books. I'm interested in all things Ottoman, with Suleiman, the Janissaries and Sipahis in particular.


----------



## thecoldembrace

The dissertation has not yet been published. I don't know if it is because I only recently (within the last year) graduated with the doctorate. And agreed, it is hard to come across some good material on the internet, and most of it most can't access due to the information being on secure university databases. The best, most comprehensive book I've found and still go back to from time to time is _Osman's Dream_ by Caroline Finkel as a history of the Ottoman Empire. She did an amazing job of including large amounts of primary sources and secondary sources and it is usually carried by a local bookstore. 
  For my own research I spent months (off and on) in Turkey at the great libraries in Istanbul and Ankara. Mind you most was in Old Ottoman script which I had to take time to learn. Its honestly sad for those like you and I to realize how difficult of a field of study the Ottoman Empire is, it is largely passed over for more European fields of study. That was one reason that I chose it however, besides my natural love of the culture. 
  I have continued my own work on the Ottomans and did not stop with my dissertation. My current research is on the organizational structure of the Janissaries, from the time they were taken as boys till they were professional soldiers, as well as trying to find good first hand accounts of war, written by the Janissaries themselves. I know I have a long way to go, and a lot of digging to do but if I can do it, it would clear up a lot of gaps in current research, and bring them to a larger field of view by others interested like yourself.


----------



## Ravana

Second the recommendation on _Osman's Dream_.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Ah well it's something. But if your thesis gets published in the future, send me a message! I assume a copy of your thesis will be available in your university's library (that's standard for a thesis here) but that doesn't do me any good. Maybe it'll get an online publication later. 

Until then I might check out Osman's Dream. I hope it has detailed descriptions of some campaigns in it. Those are especially hard to find as most primary sources are incredibly vague (e.g. "And the great sultan gathered a large body of men and armed them with spears and muskets and swords and then...") and therefor of limited interest.

I am however impressed you learned Ottoman.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Ottoman was a chink in my learning chain for a long period... I forced myself to bunker down and learn it. Glad I did


----------



## Gurkhal

thecoldembrace said:


> Haha, yes quite a large question put in a small context. That is quite alright. You are basically curious as to the properties of those who succeeded the Romans and managed to carve out those well known European kingdoms.  So first off a very briefly I can tell you that for the Anglo-Saxon/Irish/Nordic/Frankish forces they fought in a similar style. The style in which they developed was very effective for the time period.
> The shield wall was the common way to fight, front to back in a very clustered formation of raised shields interlocked to protect against barrages of missile fire. It was also extremely effective in warding off frontal cavalry attack. Warriors in these clustered formations used the spear as the primary weapon of choice, one because it didn't cost a hoard to make, as swords were the dominion of those with riches or prestige enough to have them. The other was a dagger or axe which could be used in more individual combat should the spear be broken or lost.
> 
> Most tactics of the day were not that of formal engagements. I had a very successful debate with several professors one time that in effect the tactic was to use small groups of effective warriors, (war bands for lack of a better term that I prefer) who would raid and or seek and destroy an opposed raiding force. Mind you these men were not professional soldiers. The use of heavy armor was lost for some time and was only really used by those who truly needed to be protected and those who could afford the extravagant cost. Most men had simple leather (cheap and effective) and cloth to protect them, using the prized shield for most of their defense.
> 
> The tactic in battle, after an initial skirmish was to smash the shield wall against the other, pushing the enemy to displace their ranks, or pulling the enemy into you to kill and further displace. This was a grueling and tiring type of combat. Most casualties were only received when the line broke, the wall shattered and men withdrew from the field. Until that point it was a contest of wills and stamina akin to mountain goats smashing their heads together or a deadly version of tug-a-war.
> 
> I use the term multi-weapon systems a lot, which generally means the inclusion of four main elements in a military force, defined as light and heavy infantry, and light and heavy cavalry.
> For the early period of which you ask about cavalry was used sparingly and not to great effect until the couched lance and stirrups. Also most horses were not the well bred warhorses of knights, but smaller animals. The cavalry of the day was not really for the most part used as a means of combat, instead as a means of transport to combat which then led to the rider dismounting and fighting on foot.
> So thus, the main systems used were light and heavy infantry, heavy infantry being those men in the shield wall, and light infantry being the skirmishers, the archers, the javelin throwers. It was the light infantry that began the battle and usually made the foray when the shield wall was broken and chased down fleeing foes, as most men in the wall by that point were exhausted.
> 
> The Slavs on the other hand who were further east had greater use of the horse, and still maintained a very good cavalry fighting force, though not in the traditional sense of heavy cavalry. The Slavs used to effect, lightning attacks and withdraws to harass their foes before closing in when they were weak in the lines or morale. They had a more (and I know one other professor that would argue the point) a mob mentality when it came to infantry combat. They used to limited degree a cluster of men in formation with shields, but more often then not infantry combat devolved to individualized mayhem rather quickly.
> 
> As to the reasons for warfare.... they remained traditional. Land and power by local chieftains or for the need of external goods that could only be obtained in trade reverted to being taken in armed conflict. Do you envy your neighbor's goods... well yes of course you do, go take them. The incentive to join the expedition was to share in the spoils, gain glory and fame, and for the non-christians to be seen by the Gods. Now mind you this is a brief overview of what drove men to raid and plunder, for conquest. But, to this point I could write a book in and of itself for just this alone as I would for delving deeper into how these peoples fought.
> 
> I hope its a good start to your question.
> 
> -Cold



Very interesting and just what I was looking for. A thousand thanks.


----------



## SeverinR

The author should decide the frequency of dealing with magic in wars.
If magic is not common or never faced, it would be hard for the defenders to deal with the new weapon.
If it is common, then the command element would have plans on how to deal with magic, counter magic, and probably their own combat mages.
WWI the machine gun kept both sides in the trenches, and thousands of lives were thrown away with the traditional charge to battle. But by WWII they figured out better ways to face a machine gun.

Fog, wind, would be great to cover the enemy in a fog, or if possible a irritating gas? More powerful a deadly magical mist? But this would be very powerful magic to extend too far.  Then there could be in little or no wind areas, a flammable gas enemy charges into it at night with torches, boom. Or during the day, the defenders simply ignite it.  Less powerful magic but still very effective, ecspecially if multiple mages cover a battle field.

Any good leader would use all the weapons of war to work together at their best. Archers and mages would work together, heavy weapons and mages would work together, leaders would use the mage to maximize their forces while minimizing the enemies forces.

The army that isn't prepared for magic in combat, will suffer low morale, will panic quicker, and more likely to mutiny and flee the field. Of course the more seasoned warriors the less likely this happens, but they will still be less effective then if they were dealing with known tactics.

I would think the mage would find ways to deliver his talents on natural weapons so as to lessen the drain on his limited magical energy.  So instead of blasting a fireball into the center of a charging army, they simply place it on a ballista missle or catapult missle, and it explodes on impact. Alot less energy used but still damaging to the enemy.

I do like the magic endowed shields that blast the enemy first hit.


----------



## Ravana

Purely technical aside: since this is the "Research" forum, discussions of magic _per se_ don't really belong here.

No, I'm not going to be a jerk about it. In fact, I'm about to violate that guideline myself. 

•

What _would_ be appropriate here—and what I believe was intended by the initial question—would be discussions of how magic can replicate real-world effects (e.g. poison gas, as already mentioned), or how it might interact with real-world tactics. Leaving aside the obvious—a "fireball," depending on size, is similar to a grenade or artillery—there are a number of possibilities, some seemingly minor, which could have profound impact in actual combat.

Enchanting bowstrings to stay dry in the rain, for instance. Enchanting blades so that they do not bend, notch, dull or rust. Enchanting armor straps so that they do not break randomly. Or horseshoes, so that they do not fall off. Or saddles, so the riders don't. These alone could give one force a significant advantage over another… all without mages tossing spells about on the battlefield with abandon. Or at all. And all without "enhancing" the base properties of the items in question: they're no more "magical" than any similar item, in terms of what they can cut through, how much damage they can deal, etc. They allow the items to be used as intended, with identical effects… the items just don't fail the user at critical moments.

Keeping the soldiers themselves from "failing" is even more valuable. Want to make a _real_ difference in a drawn-out campaign? Have mosquito-repellant spells. Water purification spells. Food preservation spells. Glamorous? Not so much. But neither is being laid up with fever or dysentery while your buddies are forming a shield wall.

One terribly important factor often glossed over or ignored when writing about battles is C[SUP]3[/SUP]: command, control and communication. Not to put too fine a point on it, but in pre-modern times this was problematic to say the least. Commanders deployed their forces, gave them tasks, hoped they could carry them out, and if they were lucky could somehow get messages to the right people at the right moment to react in a timely fashion when something went contrary to plan. Usually, this involved message-runners (or riders). Flag signals were sometimes possible, but only worked when the signaler was in a place he could be seen by the recipient… and the recipient was watching to see the signal. Sound signals (trumpets, drums) were somewhat better, since no one had to be watching for them… but of course they needed to be audible over the noise of battle. One can easily see how a magical form of communication—"throwing voices," perhaps, so that a spoken command was heard as if the recipient were standing next to the sender, a rough equivalent to short-range radio—could completely change the complexion of a battle. Or, failing that, messenger birds which unerringly located their targets. (No, mundane carrier pigeons _won't_ work on a battlefield.)

Even the best C[SUP]3[/SUP] fails if the commander does not have good information. Magical scrying—someone with a mirror or crystal ball sitting next to the commander—would be of inestimable value. Or someone with a flying familiar through whose eyes he could watch the battle from above. One can imagine the sort of elaborate dance a battle might become if both sides had scryers and reliable communication, and continually reacted to the other's moves in real time.

Looking beyond replicating modern tech with magic, there is still a plethora of "subtle" possibilities available—far too many to even start into. Here's one I've never seen before: tents which cause their occupants to fall into a comfortable slumber five minutes after their heads hit the pillows—from which they can awaken, fully alert, at the sound of reveille. Most of the time, an army will _know_ it's "on the eve of a battle"… a condition not historically connected to getting a good night's sleep. Imagine having a fully-rested army when your opponent does not.

The point is to know your subject—i.e. warfare—first, then consider how magic might interact with and enhance it, rather than starting with the magic. It's easy to write about a battle where opposing mages are blowing things up left and right. You don't need to know much of anything about real-world combat: the magic will be exactly as dominant as you want it to be. Far more interesting is writing the combat as realistically as possible, and allowing the magic to add extra dimensions, _without_ overwhelming the basic fact of masses of armed soldiers trying to slaughter one another. 

And, of course, the mages, if they can reach them.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Ravana, you have hit the nail on the head. I'm not a mage nor an expert on anything magical. I have theorized how it could possibly benefit a battlefield commander. I prefer to have people ask, "If this happened, magey did this spell, (describes its effects and yada), how would this theoretically effect the battle?) At this point, taking in account of the other details of what is going on I can make a better prediction of the effect. 
  Magic is its own weapon system, as is aerial combat. Unhealthily, I might have done too much theory into this field, but hey I love magic and I have an academic love and understanding of warfare. Fantasy has become very flushed with the fields of magic and battle, sword and sorcery. It adds interesting dynamics and challenges, and these I say we should all better understand to make sure when we are writing such a thing it comes out so that it makes sense and not muddled through.


----------



## Shadowfirelance

As my current world is dealing with the repercussions of a massive scale war, (And quite a few small ones) I've a few questions.
Thank you, if you can get through all these! :biggrin: Also, Most, if not all, of my knowledge of warfare and such have been taken from games like AoE, and Empire earth, so forgive me if I ask a basic question.

How much would Airships (Basically blimps with added weaponry) actually change the course of a war, assuming both sides had equal numbers?
How much does gunpowder weaponry actually change, in small numbers? Would it make the battles more chaotic, Or much easier for the side that has them?
Does economy change the size of an army?

How well would, to use real world equivalents, Roman soldiers fair against an army similar to Vikings, but with better armor? (I'm assuming they had leather, or something other than iron/steel armor.)

Would raiding tactics actually damage an army, or would they just be an annoyance? 

Would an army that specializes in Artillery (They've invented gunpowder first) be any different than an army that specializes in infantry? (Same numbers of troops, expected kills, etc?)

How much does fear affect the outcome? Would an army incapable of fear beat an army capable of it?

Again, thanks for reading this!


----------



## thecoldembrace

Wow... lots of questions.. I love questions.. time for some edumacation. I'll try to work my way to them all here.

*1:*


> How much would Airships (Basically blimps with added weaponry) actually change the course of a war, assuming both sides had equal numbers?


So since we are assuming both sides have equal numbers of these airships we are throwing out the thought that one side could suddenly pull them out as a surprise. Both sides would have them both sides would prepare for them. Also, these I have thought a lot about in my own world where my dwarfs have their airships and are the only ones with them. These can be used for quite a few scenarios, but their main use is scouting to give accurate information to battlefield commanders or for commanders to command in above a battlefield. The other would be to use them as quick fly over attacks on a battlefield, knowing that they can't stay stationary long or they become a vulnerable target. 

If you are talking air to air combat, both sides have them in equal numbers thus, it depends on the crews manning them and the use and general skill of their pilots and commanders in deploying them in order to win a direct fleet vs. fleet battle. If used on a battlefield at the right time, when the enemy are fully engaged on the ground they can cause a great deal of mayhem. Airships are also very good at relieving sieges, attacking supply lines, and deploying specialized teams of men behind enemy lines.

So to put it, if these weapons of war are used correctly and at the correct times they can turn the tide of a battle, and get supplies to beleaguered men being sieged with no hope of land or naval resupply anytime soon. Their greatest strength is their long reach and the ability to hide in the clouds above the enemy and strike at the most opportune time to turn the tide of a battle. They are excellent for forward scouting missions, as well as putting troops down behind lines of contention. 

*2:*


> How much does gunpowder weaponry actually change, in small numbers? Would it make the battles more chaotic, Or much easier for the side that has them?


  Gunpowder weapons if used in small numbers, I'm assuming you are talking about small units of men using them while the vast majority of others are not. 

This question comes with one question of my own.. How well known is the gun in your world? I ask, because if being showcased for the first time it can cause quite a panic in men that are not used to the sudden explosion of fire and hot death being thrown at them as they are charging. Horses not used or trained to not panic on the sound of gunfire also have to be dealt with.
 The sound and sight of a gun can unnerve opponents, especially the more primitive the opponent is. Take the Spanish against the Aztec and Incan civilizations. Mind you, guns were at a very early stage at this point and were very slow to reload, highly inaccurate, but it put into the native's minds that these guys can create thunder. 

  If we are talking a battle against similar foes though I would have to say that a small unit of men using gunpowder weapons would do very little in the scheme of things. Unless these guns are rapid repeaters or have amazing range, they just take too long to reload before the first impact of the lines. They need to generally be used in mass with training and discipline before they wreak any kind of large scale panic and disorder. If the cannon is introduced however that would change the ballgame quick. The devastation of the cannon in even the beginning age of gunpowder was a force to be reckoned with, that even if it wasn't laying out a small team of men with a shot, it would cause a great deal of disruption and fear in enemy ranks. Arrows didn't shred bodies, cannons did, its quite a bit more psychologically damaging than the average shower of arrows.

  Bows and crossbows were used until large scale forces of men could be equipped with guns because an arrow can fire several shots a minute compared to typically one bullet, and could penetrate armor and acceptable distances.

*3:*


> Does economy change the size of an army?


The short answer, yes. To use a quote from Abraham Lincoln “I can make more generals, but horses cost money.” 

  Economy drives war. Historically, the nation with the best infrastructure and a powerful economy fields the largest army (notice I did not say the best army), and can afford to equip its soldiers with the best weapons available. An economy in peacetime can be transformed in wartime to a powerhouse to supply the war effort. The best example of this is the United States in WW2 that virtually overnight became a coast to coast manufacturing plant for everything needed to win the war.

  When economy does not change the size of an army is when there is not enough people at home to press into service. You can have an extremely rich people, but if there are not enough of citizens at home they themselves can't field a large army, this forces them to hire men to fight their wars for them, mercenaries, sell swords and the like. This also applies to nations who are rich but don't want their own sons and daughters fighting and dying, and thus hire out to avoid this.

   Lastly on this point, men don't go to battle and risk their necks for pride of nation alone, that may be one contributing factor but not enough to risk getting a sword in the gut and dying a slow agonizing death. Soldiers want to be paid, either by promises of spoils of war or by payment as a soldier.

*4:*


> How well would, to use real world equivalents, Roman soldiers fair against an army similar to Vikings, but with better armor? (I'm assuming they had leather, or something other than iron/steel armor.)


Pitting the equivalent of the Roman army against a Viking host would in most scenarios bring the Romans out on top. With their very, very well organized military, with disciplined men in formation and using their traditional tactics would for lack of a better word, dominate. Is it any wonder why Rome became what it became? 

  In this it doesn't come down to what armor you are wearing, it comes down to style of combat. The Vikings did not have well articulated heavy infantry, heavy infantry yes but not articulated. After the initial shock attack by a Viking force against the battle squares of the Romans, it would quickly devolve into the traditional meat grinder of Roman infantry fighting style.

 For the Vikings to win they would have to do what other barbarian forces had to do, catch the Romans by surprise (which was not very easy most of the time). The Battle of Teutoburg Forest is the prime and one of the best examples of a battle that caught the Romans with their pants around their ankles. This battle annihilated three whole legions of men as well as the auxiliary force. 

  Against the powerful Roman legion, the Vikings would have to do what they do best, avoid a full scale engagement of army to army, and instead use guerrilla tactics of hit and run to slowly wear down their foe. In pitched battle and most other scenarios Rome has the advantage.

I will get to the rest of your questions tomorrow, as it is 4:30am here haha.


----------



## SeverinR

> Would raiding tactics actually damage an army, or would they just be an annoyance?


I'd say our Revolutionary war would be an example of raiding tactics.

The enemy expected our army to walk out and meet them in a field, face each other and continue to stand there while each side traded volleys of musket fire.
Our forces laid in wait and fired from cover, killing/injuring a few, then running off.
This didn't cut down the numbers of enemy quickly, but it did cut morale and undermined leadership. The commanders were letting the enemy hit them frequently and not doing anything to strike back.  So after enough times, even the most seasoned veteran will charge off on their own. Probably adding to the numbers of dead or injured on their side, rather then racking up numbers for them.

Never fight the war your enemy wants or where he wants it, fight the war you want, where you want it. 

Magic could help with Command and control. Being able to contact sub commanders quickly would help for quickly changing tactics. Even more hitting all the officiers with one message would be great also. The more people that know the objective and the tactic employed the more likely it will be obtained.

Old signal systems: Our US calvary used the bugle, Some European areas used bagpipes, some used other horns, I believe most towns had alert bells, there were signal flags, but once engaged few looked back to check on flags.
The signals were limited to common movements: charge, retreat, assembly(regroup), I believe they probably had signals to move to the left, to the right, to flank an opponent or to protect from a flanking movement.  

I don't know if the engaged groups had a horn for signaling to their squad or back to leadership, I'm thinking orders flowed one way.


----------



## Devor

Hey coldembrace, thanks for all the cool information.

What kind of tactics would an army use to deal with difficult terrain?  How quickly could they cross a river, or climb a mountain, or cut through a jungle?  What kind of equipment would they use, and would they have special units just for dealing with the terrain?

My story is based in a fantasy Asia, with influences from India, China, Tibet, Japan, Mongolia and Indonesia.

Thanks.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Alrighty back at it
*5:*


> Would raiding tactics actually damage an army, or would they just be an annoyance?


So continue off of what SeverinR said.

Raiding tactics are used when a pitched battle is beyond the means of one side because of limits of army size/technology etc..  It can damage an army, but not in the toll of death dealt (if that is what you are looking for) Raiding can greatly undermine the power of an army in a region, even its home turf. It sows discord, lowers morale and MOST important... puts the larger force on the defensive.

Modern warfare has Vietnam, with the NVA and the US slugging it out. See how that ended? How many true engagements were there in that war (by the book engagements)? The number is frighteningly low.

If raiding can be done across large areas of land against the enemy army or the enemy lines of supply and communication, it can do quite a bit more than simply annoy. At first, yes commanders will try and shrug it off as nothing more than stinging nats. However, its not the commanders that are the issue, its the regular soldier who has to prepare for these surprise attacks. They are the ones who get less sleep at night, they are the ones looking over their shoulders. And pity the poor messengers running from camp to camp... they are fast moving target practice. 

To finish this, I love Sun Tzu quotes: _"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." And "If you are far from the enemy, make him believe you are near."_

Keep the enemy on his toes and destroy him from within, this is the hallmark of a true commander. This is heavily applied when forces are under heavy pressure from home to do something. Politicians.. Kings get impatient, especially from hearing this morning's raiding reports. How many men did I lose yesterday? How much of MY stuff was stolen?
You get the idea.

*6:*


> Would an army that specializes in Artillery (They've invented gunpowder first) be any different than an army that specializes in infantry? (Same numbers of troops, expected kills, etc?)



This is a curious question. Mainly because I don't think I understand it. Are we talking literal artillery I.E. cannons/mortars? Or are we using artillery in a broader sense of all firearms? If I can get a better gist of what is being asked here. I don't want to go off on some tangent and not have it pertinent to what you need. 

*7:*


> How much does fear affect the outcome? Would an army incapable of fear beat an army capable of it?



An army incapable of fear... gods If i had an army that stands without fear the things I could conquer ... 

SO hehe... Fear my friend is the thing commanders dread most in their men. When push comes to shove, are my men going to hold their ground or run? Even the most veteran soldiers will brake if pushed too far. Napoleon's Old Guard in the battle of Waterloo, his elite men who had campaigned with him virtually everywhere were being shot to pieces, they hit the marker that every man has and broke. 

Now presuming that both armies are the same (never happens but for the SAKE of argument) and the only difference is one with fear and one without.. I would generally place my bets on the one without. Of course things do happen in battle that turn the tide, but an army that has no fear cant have fear put into them, thus they will fight until they are too exhausted or are told to retreat. Self preservation is taken out of the equation for one army. 

Now.. before everyone shouts... Fear makes you do amazing things. TRUE... fighting for your life can make men do incredible things in the face of adversity. The fear that if you fail your friends, your family could die will make a man worth ten, and allow him to carve a bloody path.

Fear of embarrassment kept men in line of battle in the American Civil War, where most of those by your side were people you knew growing up, sons, fathers, brothers and neighbors. Men would stay in the line for fear that they could never return home in shame if they ran.

The reason I stick to the army without fear is, if they are not mindless drones and can still think, they can still fight. Fear does some amazing beneficial things but it also makes men weak. Historically, if a SINGLE man ran it could cause an increased 45% chance of others running who see him run (This added onto what they already feel inside). They get in their head... he might be right, I'm not going to die for this.

The army without fear is more consistent in at least they are not getting this same penalty. 
Now, the scenario I would switch my bet onto the army with fear side would be in that back against the wall scenario. You run you die regardless, so you better fight and take as many of these guys with you as possible. This scenario while, rooting out fear still has self preservation. That natural human instinct to kill your attacker is paramount to survival. Men would fear death, and with no option to run, no escape, back to the wall they would fight for their lives or know 100% that they will die if they don't. Even if its a 1% chance of survival, by hacking your way through enemy lines and getting to safety on the other side.

It's a simple question, but it has a lot behind it.

Hope some of this helped Shadowfirelance

-Cold


----------



## Shadowfirelance

Wow, I really can't thank you enough for all of that, every bit helped!

On the Artillery, I mean;

They literally are massive range specialists, cannons, and the like were invented by them, as well as some of their own creations (Such as Greek Fire 2.0, things like trebuchets meant for infantry/calvary, and to be extremely simple, a primitive tank) They're also an extremely prepare-focused army, and they've been defeated before because they couldn't prepare fully.

Would the actual composition of the army Change than an Infantry based army, other than the amount of artillery?

How many non-combatants typically traveled with an army?

And one more I forgot; So sorry.
How much did calvary change? Would an army with loose to one with it?


----------



## thecoldembrace

First of all thank you, Devor  glad I could help.

To help you on your own question of:


> What kind of tactics would an army use to deal with difficult terrain? How quickly could they cross a river, or climb a mountain, or cut through a jungle? What kind of equipment would they use, and would they have special units just for dealing with the terrain?
> My story is based in a fantasy Asia, with influences from India, China, Tibet, Japan, Mongolia and Indonesia.



Most armies have an engineering corps whose main job would be to do exactly what you are asking. Their whole purpose was to path find. They would be the ones who search for the best cross points of a river and would do what is needed to construct a bridge across (if necessary). 
Typically however, an army will do it's best to avoid massive terrain entanglements. They would search for a pass through the mountain rather than over it. The same applies for a jungle. This is mainly because of one thing, the longer you spend hacking your way through weeds the more time you are giving to your enemy. Time is the most precious commodity in war. 
Its also very unfeasible for a large army to scale a mountain or cut through a jungle, especially because this in most cases leaves the supply lines behind. Getting men up the side of a mountain is one thing... getting a wagon loaded with provisions is something else entirely.  

The times when this drastic course of action is used is for a surprise attack on an enemy (especially if you are not yet at war). If this is what you are seeking, than it becomes a little different but not entirely.  If time is not a worry than the only worry is being discovered. I would still stay away from a mountain climb if possible and find an old goat path or something of that nature that can move men even single file through to the other side.

As to your river crossing question... how long would it take to cross a river? First of all how big is the river?
In 55 and 53 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the Rhine river twice. The distance between shorelines was around 800- to I think 1000 feet with the river being around 16-17 feet deep. Caesar's engineers constructed a fully functional bridge in about 10 days... incredibly fast considering the challenge at hand. 

If you are talking about just crossing a river... no bridge building... it depends on the site of crossing. Mostly commanders look for a point where they can get their whole army over to secure the other side in a few hours, so that a bridge can be built from behind to bring the supply train across. 

As to equipment they used, that is a good question. Being completely honest my field of expertise on this is rather limited. I would imagine however that they would use what is most efficient. Short hacking blades and axes would be used to clear shrubs and trees, bamboo and reeds. Picks and so forth for rocks that need to be cut down to size or displaced. They would have teams of work animals to haul away whatever was needed to be moved. And they would probably have teams working day and night to cut through difficult areas and keep steady pace in order to not be caught or to save as much time as possible.


----------



## thecoldembrace

@ Shadowfirelance
Ah I see now, alrighty.


> Would the actual composition of the army Change than an Infantry based army, other than the amount of artillery?



Armies are primarily always infantry based, it is the core, the backbone. An army that has access to gunpowder weapons, cannons, handheld firearms and the like would slowly undergo the same metamorphosis that changed the world when guns came on the scene in Europe. The fighting style changes to best use the advantage guns give you. 

For a nation that has exclusive access to firearms and their foe does not, the change would be noticeable. Soldiers would likely wear less armor, but not a ton less because they are still facing off against men who fight in the style before firearms, and thus they need the protection when battle gets to hand in hand. (Those stories and pictures of armies standing across a field from one another firing at each other over and over... that is wrong, a few shots were let off and then a general advance and charge would be sounded and hand to hand would begin.) Your force with the firearms would have to be trained on both the hand to hand aspect of fighting as well as the new firearm tactics and disciplines. The composition of your army would change from heavy infantry and light infantry into a singular infantry block that is generally uniform across the board.. save for special units like grenadiers and skirmishers.

I can see how they could be defeated if caught unprepared, or not given enough time, but at the same time they would be drilled in the regular fashion of old warfare, because well... they are still fighting against it. It may take your artillery time to position itself for battle, or to get your primitive tank ready to steamroll, but your common soldier, your infantryman could be mustered in little time and buy that necessary time needed for its other aspects to arrive on the field to win the day.

To go along with this, you can equip more men and train them rather easily, and more quickly than an army comprised of old fashioned warrior types. Take the way Japanese warfare completely did a massive transformation when they got brought up to speed on technology. The samurai may have had hundreds of years of tradition on their side, but in almost no time at all they could be overwhelmed by a vast influx of basically peasants taking up arms and trained. A single samurai lost could not be replaced, and it didn't matter that he could kill ten men before he died, there were ten more to take the place of the fallen.



> How much did cavalry change? Would an army with loose to one with it?


If we are talking from beginning to end, how did cavalry change, that might take a very long time. In order to save your eyes a ton of reading and my fingers tons of typing I will give some examples and see if this helps out your question.

Ancient cavalry took a long time to arrive on the scene, and it took a long time further for it to go from east to west. Cavalry for a long time was limited to the steppe peoples of Central and East Asia, who perfected the use of the horse in combat. 

The horse before it became a single horse and rider started out in the Middle East with the war chariot. Two to four or more horses would be hooked to a chariot that could then be used in mass for flanking and harassment, or full on shock combat to finally exploit a weak spot in the enemy lines. 

Before it could be used effectively on the battlefield in the west a significant piece of technology had to be invented, the stirrup and the saddle. This gave the rider a great deal of stability and leverage. Riders could shoot bows, throw javelins, and use lances. It turned the cavalry unit into a multi-functional weapon system with the power and speed of a horse added to the skill of its rider. 
Horse archers and skirmishers could be extremely annoying, and extremely deadly against well packed infantry units. A heavy horseman with lance and armor turned into a massive fist that could be used for powerful shock attack, crashing into enemy lines and opening gaps. 
Light horsemen could run down fleeing troops, exploit gaps to ride through and attack the rear or flanks of an enemy battle line. 

Cavalry has many advantages, so many that it lasted until WW1 before the use was finally abandoned because against the machine gun it was far past its prime. 
Now as to your question of would an army without cavalry lose to one with it: This is situational. Cavalry has to have a lot of area to operate in effectively. In narrow or difficult terrain, uneven and rocky, cavalry was very ill suited. 
However, even on battlefields were cavalry can operate effectively doesn't mean that the army with would automatically win the day. Tightly packed units of infantry could resist a frontal assault by cavalry. Rear troops with long spears could ward off attacks from the rear or the flank. 
It is when cavalry and infantry work in tandem that it makes life extremely difficult for the army without. 
Preparation of a battlefield would also be key for a force without cavalry to win, as in laying down traps, or choosing the best terrain in which to fight.
So as I said... situational.

-Cold


----------



## Trick

How much do you know about the real Vlad Dracula? Since you are an Ottoman aficionado I assume you must know something but I don't want to assume. If you say you know little, totally fine. If you know quite a bit, especially from the Ottoman perspective, I will have a lot of questions! (Consider yourself forewarned, ha ha!)


----------



## Ravana

thecoldembrace said:


> Most armies have an engineering corps whose main job would be to do exactly what you are asking. Their whole purpose was to path find. They would be the ones who search for the best cross points of a river and would do what is needed to construct a bridge across (if necessary).



If I had to enter into a war and was allowed the selection of only a single type of troops, it would be engineers. Hands down. Every time. 

---

@Trick: unless you are specifically asking about Vlad Tepes' warfare tactics (and only those), that might be better served by its own thread.


----------



## Trick

Ravana said:


> @Trick: unless you are specifically asking about Vlad Tepes' warfare tactics (and only those), that might be better served by its own thread.



I'm hoping to get the Ottoman impression of his tactics specifically from this thread. Also, I'd like to know if the tactics (both war and fear) that he used are likely something he learned while he grew up as a ward of the Sultan. If his tactics are actually similar to theirs, it will probably lead to a separate thread.


----------



## Ravana

thecoldembrace said:


> Armies are primarily always infantry based, it is the core, the backbone.



Also the cheapest to equip and maintain, and the easiest to train, especially on short notice. And, ultimately, it is the _only_ force capable of occupying and holding ground over the long term.

In fact, an army might consider something else to be its "backbone" (e.g. artillery)… but it's still going to require infantry, and quite a bit of it, even if they are viewed as auxiliary troops rather than the "main" force, simply because the artillery won't be able to kill masses of charging opponents rapidly enough to protect itself. That will be true regardless of how effective the artillery is. There's one command that every gunner dreads hearing, right up to the present: "Fire over open sights." Look it up.

Also, look up the Charge of the Light Brigade… and find out what _actually_ happened there, not what's remembered courtesy of a few decontextualized verses of Tennyson. Short version: the charge itself _succeeded_. And that was against 19th century artillery firing from three sides.




> For a nation that has exclusive access to firearms and their foe does not, the change would be noticeable. Soldiers would likely wear less armor, but not a ton less because they are still facing off against men who fight in the style before firearms, and thus they need the protection when battle gets to hand in hand. (Those stories and pictures of armies standing across a field from one another firing at each other over and over... that is wrong, a few shots were let off and then a general advance and charge would be sounded and hand to hand would begin.) Your force with the firearms would have to be trained on both the hand to hand aspect of fighting as well as the new firearm tactics and disciplines.



Yep. The bayonet, for example, was standardized by the English army because the Scots weren't smart enough to realize their swords and targes were obsolete tech, the days of the "Highland charge" were past, and they wouldn't lay down and die when they were shot at like responsible victims ought to. 

The bayonet remains in use to this day. By every military on the planet. Which should tell you something about how often things _will_ come down to hand-to-hand combat.




> Ancient cavalry took a long time to arrive on the scene, and it took a long time further for it to go from east to west. Cavalry for a long time was limited to the steppe peoples of Central and East Asia, who perfected the use of the horse in combat.



I would add that this varied to some extent with cultures even in the West. Macedonia, in Alexander's time, had some excellent heavy cavalry. The Celts had fairly effective cavalry during Roman times, as did the Germanic tribes; both would probably be best described as "medium," based on their armament and the ways they were employed, rather than light or heavy. The Romans, by contrast, had shifted their focus so far away from cavalry by the late Republic days that they generally hired locals to serve as auxiliaries for their all-heavy-infantry army… often from other tribes of Celts or Germans. All of these were with comparatively "primitive" saddles, and were prior to the introduction of the stirrup. (The actual effect of the stirrup on warfare is a hotly debated topic among military historians: some maintain, with fairly good reason, that it had almost no effect whatsoever on the "shock" value of cavalry charges. Certainly, lances were in use far earlier than stirrups were.)

I would also add that cavalry was not abandoned entirely during WWI. There were still cavalry units in WWII which were employed _as cavalry_–i.e. making mounted sabre (not lance) charges against infantry forces–and not merely as mobile infantry (which was by far the more common use for them at that point). This was, admittedly, exceedingly rare by this point, and yes, a few well-emplaced machine guns with overlapping fields of fire could rip a charge to pieces. But they were still sometimes used with success. Which, again, points out how difficult it is to completely halt a charging opponent in the time available before they reach your lines.

(In fact, there was even one battle in the opening days of WWII which saw cavalry from _both_ sides engaging one another on horseback… the last such engagement in history.)

Light cavalry has uses which range far beyond the battlefield, the foremost being scouting. As mentioned in the magic discussion, knowing where your foe is and what he's doing is invaluable. Cavalry can harass troops on the move, where they are strung out and incapable of easily forming up into invulnerable defensive formations. It can disrupt supply, both regular provision trains and foragers (who may or may not be light cavalry themselves). One major use, even during actual battles, was to get behind the opposing force and raid its camp, a tactic which usually compelled the opponent to redeploy some of its forces… at least if they wanted to eat the following day. Or if they didn't want to see the war chest with all their troops' pay carried off. Or see their tents burned, their sick and injured slaughtered, etc.

The psychological impact of knowing there is an enemy in your rear should not be underestimated, either. You may know consciously that your pike squares can repel any cavalry charge… but surrounded is still surrounded. Worse, if you see some of your own guys redeploying to the rear to deal with the threat, you know something isn't going according to plan. And any troop movement to the rear looks to the guys in the fighting lines like a retreat, and once part of the army appears to be retreating–whether or not it actually is–the rest is gonna want to join it. Fast. If you don't have good command and control, this can turn into a rout in no time.

Which is a partial answer to the question of whether or not an army lacking cavalry will lose to one which has it: if the situation allows the cavalry to be employed, then, yeah, probably, the army with it will win. Only the best-disciplined forces will maintain order in the face of an enemy which can strike them from any side at will. Which has happened historically, more than once, but it is the exception, not the norm. Even the best-disciplined forces will likely lose out in the long term: they might win every battle they fight, but if they're paralyzed into immobility and can't receive supply, they'll lose the war. So unless the situation is such that cavalry cannot be employed, or is severely restricted in the roles it can perform, at a minimum you'll want to have some sort of force capable of running it off whenever it tries to pull something on you. Historically, generally meant having your own cavalry… which is why, for instance, Rome bothered to augment its otherwise-invincible legions with local cavalry: they _had_ to have some, even if for no reason other than to deal with what their opponents could do to them if they didn't.

(Here's another opportunity for those looking to incorporate fantasy elements into real-world military activities: how do you counter enemy cavalry if you have none? The answer is left as an exercise to the reader.  )


----------



## thecoldembrace

> How much do you know about the real Vlad Dracula? Since you are an Ottoman aficionado I assume you must know something but I don't want to assume. If you say you know little, totally fine. If you know quite a bit, especially from the Ottoman perspective, I will have a lot of questions! (Consider yourself forewarned, ha ha!)





> I'm hoping to get the Ottoman impression of his tactics specifically from this thread. Also, I'd like to know if the tactics (both war and fear) that he used are likely something he learned while he grew up as a ward of the Sultan. If his tactics are actually similar to theirs, it will probably lead to a separate thread.


I laughed so hard when I read this. Just this morning after one of my lectures I had one of my students come up to me with almost the same question. 

  While I am not an expert on Vlad III Țepeș from the Wallachian POV, I have done personal studies on how the Ottomans viewed him, and more importantly how they eventually dealt with him and killed him. In my graduate years I had to view his impact on the buffer between the Ottoman Empire and the kingdoms of Europe, that buffer was Vlad. 

   To start off, during his wardship in Edirne with the Ottoman court, Vlad received the finest education as well as being taught the Ottoman perspective of warfare (which he would later use to great effect).

   Ottoman tactics are defensive oriented. They were the first to incorporated guns and cannons, leaving other European powers to lag behind for awhile. 
   Vlad's tactics however, were far different. Vlad had an offensive mindset for a commander. And being trained by the Ottomans on warfare, he secretly studied ways to defeat them should the day arrive that he had to enter battle against them. 

   The day did arrive, and he used his own personal tactics against them. He became almost immediately a master at guerrilla warfare, ambush tactics, and most importantly a superb night attack commander. Vlad was also a proponent of the scorched earth policy, burning land, and unharvested crops as well as poisoning clean water sources. One other thing he did was to divert small rivers to specific areas, creating hard to travel through marshes. 

  It is good to note that Wallachia did not have a very strong army. Most were irregulars (peasants and sheepherders, the boyars and paid mercenaries. It is because of this reason that Vlad chose to avoid as much as possible open engagement with the Ottomans who with their powerful tactics and strong military would crush him in hours. 

  So Vlad opted for a hit and run strategy, one that worked very well. The most successful was the infamous Night Attack on June 17th 1462. Vlad used his learned knowledge of Ottoman warfare and the Turkish language to go himself disguised into the main Ottoman camp. He did this to find weak points and most importantly to find where the tent of Sultan Mehmed II was so that he could try and kill the Sultan with the coming attack.

  Strategically he placed his men around the Ottoman camp at three different places. They announced their presence with torch lights and bugle horns before invading the unprepared encampment. (Some historians would fight me on these next few points but meh.) Attacked from several angles and caught by surprise there was a great slaughter of man and beast. Vlad's personally led force aimed for the Sultan's tent... how he failed to remember what was what I don't know but he missed the Sultan and hit the tent of two of Mehmed's Pashas. 

   Vlad retreated before dawn with minimal losses. When the Ottoman's pursued with Janissaries they were finally able to inflict some damage to Vlad's forces.  It was soon after that Mehmed decided to siege the capital, (and reports on this part vary) but regardless the Ottoman host found around 20,000 impaled Turks and a Pasha. (Some say it was inside the capital, others say it was out in front.) But this gruesome scene was enough to force Mehmed's hand, forcing him to order a withdraw.. (a very quick one by all accounts)

  The use of such brutal tactics did a great deal to help Vlad's victory. He struck fear into the hearts of the Turks for good reason. Yet, it was not enough to discourage further expeditions by the Ottomans into Wallachia, mainly to rid themselves of a very, very nasty thorn in their side.

I hope this answers some questions. If you have more let me know.
-Cold


----------



## Ravana

thecoldembrace said:


> One other thing he did was to divert small rivers to specific areas, creating hard to travel through marshes.



Like I said: give me engineers any day. 




> Vlad's personally led force aimed for the Sultan's tent... how he failed to remember what was what I don't know but he missed the Sultan and hit the tent of two of Mehmed's Pashas.



Just goes to show how confusing combat can be, even to the best minds, using the best preparation and planning.

Were I to make a (highly uncharacteristic) guess…: he might not have "missed" the Sultan's tent. It's possible the Sultan was already somewhere else when he got there, and Vlad moved on to the number two target on his list. But that's only a guess. It could have happened any number of other ways–including, of course, Vlad flat-out getting confused, as the account suggests. (I'm also guessing that reliable reports of that night's events are somewhat difficult to come by, eh? Okay, _that_ part isn't all that much of a guess… heh.  )


----------



## thecoldembrace

> Just goes to show how confusing combat can be, even to the best minds, using the best preparation and planning.
> 
> Were I to make a (highly uncharacteristic) guess…: he might not have "missed" the Sultan's tent. It's possible the Sultan was already somewhere else when he got there, and Vlad moved on to the number two target on his list. But that's only a guess. It could have happened any number of other ways–including, of course, Vlad flat-out getting confused, as the account suggests. (I'm also guessing that reliable reports of that night's events are somewhat difficult to come by, eh? Okay, that part isn't all that much of a guess… heh. )



The funny thing is that the Sultan's tent is of course the most extravagant in the whole encampment. To miss it entirely is hard to comprehend. As you said it could have been a number of things, especially if battle in the camp forced Vlad's force to enter areas less well controlled, and it was night after all and smoky, with the hell of battle going on, so I suppose it could be missed.


----------



## Trick

thecoldembrace said:


> I laughed so hard when I read this. Just this morning after one of my lectures I had one of my students come up to me with almost the same question....
> 
> ...I hope this answers some questions. If you have more let me know.
> -Cold



Thanks so much! Yes, this is very helpful. I knew some of this information but all my sources are short blurbs and not as informative as your information. 

I have one remaining question that pertains specifically to tactics. I read from one source that the practice of impalement was something Vlad learned from the Turks and then used on a far grander (and more brutal) scale. Do you think this is accurate?


----------



## thecoldembrace

Impalement was a rare tool used by the Ottoman state for a long time, mainly to deal with rebels, highwaymen and such. It cemented their rule in several places and put a great deal of psychological fear into dissidents. Yet, the practice wasn't Ottoman alone, several states in Europe also practiced the same thing, all to a very limited degree because it was such a brutal punishment. 
For Vlad, I do believe that he saw the effects of this during his wardship, and for a lack of a better phrase perfected the art when he returned to Wallachia. Vlad did not discriminate like the Ottomans, who would normally behead followers and impale the leaders, while Vlad impaled everyone... only making the leaders stand out by being higher up.


----------



## Ravana

It's also possible most of his "impalements" were simply mounting corpses on sticks. Especially that grand gesture of 20K at once: the normal process of execution by impaling would have required far too much time to be carried out as history presents it. I'm not even sure how many man-hours it would take to cut 20K stakes and set them up—let alone round up and convince that many (living) people to mount them.

On the other hand, considering how rapidly the Romans could build things when they set themselves to it… maybe.

(Of course, some historian somewhere might also have added a zero to the number for effect. Ahh, I'm probably just being cynical; no one would ever really do anything like that.)


----------



## thecoldembrace

Well reports say that the corpses of the 20k were at various stages of decay, with the ones closest to the Danube being "fresher" than the ones further inland. So it was a process of capture and kill and slowly build up to the effect that it was.


----------



## Trick

You have no idea how refreshing it is to get information like this from an authority on the Ottomans. Can you recommend good sources on this area of history? Anything from the Ottoman point of view, though it will likely be as biased as European accounts, is just the perspective I need for my research. I get the impression that the Ottomans kept better records.

Also, what weapons were most common for 1. cavalry and 2. infantry among the Ottomans of Vlad's time?

Thanks again!


----------



## thecoldembrace

Information in the States is very hard to come by, mainly because those who usually study the Ottomans are from the east. Most of my research was forced to be done in Ankara or Istanbul where the archives are kept... and having to learn the old Ottoman script pretty much by myself... to my knowledge few know it and fewer still teach it. And yes, they generally are very biased, but that is common in most historical texts and you have to learn to ignore it and use what is needed i.e. actual facts.

  In the 15th century the Ottomans had already begun using the gun very extensively, and by Vlad's time it was the standard issue weapon for Ottoman infantry. The typical Janissary had a musket, a sword like the Kilij or Shamshir, and depending on the part of the army he belonged to could have a halberd. They also loved to use grenades, pistols and hand-cannons. Azabs had muskets, and axes traditionally.

  The cavalry of the Ottoman military had several elements. They had a core of Akıncıs who were typical raiders, who went ahead of the army and sowed chaos, raided villages and enemy encampments and generally scouted for the main body of Ottoman troops. They were fast moving, still using the traditional bow, and curved sabers. Next was the Timariot, which was part of the Sipahi cavalry corps and were also mounted archers, though they had lances for shock combat. The Kapikulu Sipahis were the final tier, the household bodyguard to the sultan, and the heavy cavalry, a more advanced version of the classical cataphract, basically armored mounted lancers who had elements of horse archery, but could hold their own in melee with maces, axes, and using round shields and the traditional cavalry sabre.


----------



## Trick

Perfect, thanks again! I was really hoping to find references to the yatagan from that time but it seems they didn't even exist until after Vlad's death. And apparently they weren't standard issue until even years after that. The Kilij will have to do for my purposes.


----------



## Ravana

thecoldembrace said:


> They had a core of Akıncıs



Heh. Another thing I bet it took some time to learn–how to produce the non-standard-keyboard characters.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Lol don't get me started on using different languages characters in modern English text. That should be a separate academic course


----------



## Queshire

Hm~ I'm not sure if this goes here, but I'm curious about your opinion on how mages would affect the compositions of armies and how wars are played out. I don't have any specific type of mages, just whatever you think of when you hear the word mage.


----------



## thecoldembrace

> Hm~ I'm not sure if this goes here, but I'm curious about your opinion on how mages would affect the compositions of armies and how wars are played out. I don't have any specific type of mages, just whatever you think of when you hear the word mage.



My world happens to be a very high magic world but a low enchanted item world. Therefore, mages can cast spells with tremendous force and are devastating to anyone facing them. I've had to plan a lot with my battle scenes to deal with their ability to change the game.

   When I think of a mage, it can be someone who uses simple cantrips to awe a crowd at a fair, or an archmage that can summon a demon lord or call down fire and lightning to smite dozens of foes. 

   To put it into use on the battlefield you have to think of magic as nothing more than another type of weapon. When gunpowder began to be effectively used on the field of battle, armies compensated, integrating the new technology with specialists... developing an artillery corps, building earthen barriers and trenches to avoid the deadly fire. Mages are no different. Armies compensate, integrate or perish. In our case they would simply involve mages amongst the ranks, because of their broad aspect of use they can do a multitude of things to aid. Commanders would also realize that they are very valuable units, and would have men guard them, because well a sword to the heart is still a sword to the heart with a mage. 

   Each army would try to out magic the other, setting defensive spells against other spell casters and devising ways of getting their men into melee without having them just smoking husks because of errant fireballs. They are also well learned men and women, who also offer great benefits off the field as surgeons, medics and the like. 

  In my world my main nation has a core of warmages, specifically trained to do what they must on the battlefield to offset enemy spell casters and aid their own soldiers. A mage has to know when you let loose a spell so that it won't endanger his/her own comrades. A mage has to know the inner workings of the military machine to operate effectively. 
  Because of all this, the composition of the army doesn't change. You still have your light and heavy infantry and light and heavy cavalry, your engineers and so forth. The mage is just an added element that integrates the flowing magic of the world into a military purpose.

   To give an example from one of my own battles. I had the army my character was part of go against an army about five times its own size, but it used its spell casters to great benefit. The enemy had black robes, users of the dark magics dealing with shadow, death, and summoning demons and devils. Clerics, using divine magic were able to suppress the dark ones just enough to force melee between my main troops and theirs, while at the same time my mages concentrated on full destructive magics on the enemy flanks, forcing the enemy ranks to bulge in the center, taking away their advantage of numbers. This combined with horrendous weather caused a lot of men to fall into the muck and be trampled on by their fellows. When the first lines hit, the enemy were already tired, while the main army was fresh and could do their deadly work without much fear of being flanked and thus annihilated. I termed it "Carver's Gambit" for the man that came up with the idea.

Now mind you there were other elements to the battle that were a contributor to the success of the battle, but I'll let readers see those XD. 

I hope this answers some questions. If you have a specific frame of battle to start with, I could help more with basically going over it with you, as in.. what would happen if my mages do this? 

-Cold


----------



## Trick

Sorry to interrupt, this is my last post on this subject.



Trick said:


> I was really hoping to find references to the yatagan from that time but it seems they didn't even exist until after Vlad's death. And apparently they weren't standard issue until even years after that. The Kilij will have to do for my purposes.



It seems I was wrong and the Yatagan existed in the 12th century, possibly under a different name. But only according to a source I found through Wikipedia. Does this seem accurate to you?


----------



## thecoldembrace

Definitely not accurate... there may have been something that looked similar but the Yatagan was created and perfected in the 16th century. I wince sometimes on Wikipedia entries, some are good don't get me wrong but others don't have sufficient proof or research to back up their claims.


----------



## Trick

Too bad. Thanks again!


----------



## thecoldembrace

No worries, glad I could help, Trick.


----------



## hots_towel

wow, so much great info in this thread! ill have to go through it a second time to take some notes. i'll probably be making a few stops to this thread as this is the area of my WIP that i really want to be authentic.

my first question for you coldembrace is: How much did firearms affect warfare in the late 16th/early 17th century. i realize that's a very broad question, but what i mean by that is were matchlock units just seen as archers with different weapons? i would imagine that firearms could only be effective if they are being used from atop a hill (as bullets have a much higher trajectory than arrows, and cant simply be flung over their own soldiers and into the enemy).

im also curious about cannon artillery. i noticed around the 18th century an up, we begin seeing artillery deployed into open field battles. but if you were to try and bust out the artillery in an open battle a few centuries earlier, that would be pretty nonsensical. What im asking here is, around when do we see artillery being used in open field battles. Is there still to some degree a "defender" in these battles, thus making it a bit more practical for them to bring in some extra muscle?

this im imagining would be a fairly short answer (unless theres a lot more factors im not considering). around what size would you consider armies to be small, medium, large, and so large that the author clearly doesn't know what they're talking about? I have in mind a few skirmishes, medium scale engagements, and 2 large scale ones. however, i feel like i might be coming up with ridiculous numbers (as im pretty much just mimicking the numbers ive read in other various history sources). I know numbers can be tricky because there have been a few times where armies outnumbered 5 to 1 have come out on top (which still makes me scratch my head).

last one (for now, mwahaha). are there any books or history blogs you recommend? i frequently check up on http://militaryhistorynow.com/
The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps

but just those two. and i recently picked up "What i'ts like to go to war" by Karl Marlantes. When im finished with that I'll probably check out "On War" by Mr.Clausewitz, and I read the art of war a long time ago but i think i may have to dust that off again. But what do you suggest?

thanks for your time


----------



## Queshire

While designing the demonic hordes that humanity is at war with in my latest setting idea I've come up with some problems and I've come up with possible solutions for those problems which I'd like your take on.

Now first off my setting is a science fantasy setting where humanity has figured out how to make a bunch of cool toys through understanding the rules of the universe enough through science that they're able to break them through magic. It's basically Cthulhu Tech only with less mind rape-y despair and more hope if that means anything to you.

*Problem 1:* As part of the nod to the fantasy aspect of it, I want to make combat up close and personal again, which means making most conventional weapons ineffective and melee weapons viable again. That I think the warhammer 40k chainsaw swords are awesome may or may not have an influence on this desire.

*Solution 1:* The demons are fake, made out of magic. They have no internal organs, veins, or muscles to be destroyed. Think of it like pouring plastic into a mold to make a toy and then painting it up, say a toy soldier. The toy soldier has arms and legs and eyes. If it was moving around like a living thing, it wouldn't be strange to think that the toy soldier would have muscles, skeletons, blood, etc and so on. However when you chop it open it's just solid plastic. It's the same concept with the demons, only they're made out of a black Ichor instead of plastic.

Now, my idea behind this is that the average bullet wouldn't be effective against them. No matter where you hit it'd be like the bullet only hitting muscle and nothing vital because they don't have anything vital. It'd be perhaps even less effective then hitting muscle as they wouldn't have real nerves to cause pain or blood to bleed, just the ichor. The damage done by a bullet would be limited to the cut of the bullet hole and having the bullet itself lodged into it.

As a result of this, the most viable ways to fight them for the average human would be chopping them to bits, (melee weapons made viable again, goal achieved) explosions to blow them to bits (not ideal, but hey, explosions are cool) and something to get rid of the bits. (I’m thinking fire. Fire is cool.)

Is this viable?

*Problem 2:* Unfortunately as a consequence of making the demons vulnerable to explosions as a result of solution 1, the logical solution to a demonic invasion would be to use planes dropping bombs and ships firing missiles to blow the shit out of them, but that ruins the fantasy-ish intimate form of warfare that I want.

*Solution 2:* The demons emit a miasma. The miasma doesn’t do much at short range. Mildly poisonous to the point that if you don’t have a gas mask you’re dead in three days or so from breathing it, but it’s main purpose is to act as a barrier cutting off the demon’s turf from the outside world. Cell Phones won’t connect, TV, Internet, and Power goes out. Even running a physical cord to something inside it from outside it would only produce a fuzzy, static filled picture.

The idea is that missile strikes and bombing runs wouldn't work because there’s no guarantee of accuracy and with the miasma mucking around with electronics there’s no promise of the bombs going off at the right time or at all.

Is this viable? Or would they still try bombing runs despite the setbacks? If so I had an idea for a more solid Barrier serving the same role which the bombs and missiles wouldn't be able to penetrate.


----------



## thecoldembrace

@hots_towel


> How much did firearms affect warfare in the late 16th/early 17th century. i realize that's a very broad question, but what i mean by that is were matchlock units just seen as archers with different weapons? i would imagine that firearms could only be effective if they are being used from atop a hill (as bullets have a much higher trajectory than arrows, and cant simply be flung over their own soldiers and into the enemy).


late 16th, early 17th century changed the course of warfare for that of firearms from old bow and crossbows. During this time you have the rise of the great kingdoms of Europe, and subsequently a lot of wars between them. Prussia would be the easiest to link to, who incorporated firearms into its military and had reformed its units into that gunpowder era of battle. It was a revolution of technology. Castles and cities could be torn down with cannon shot rather quickly, forcing the need to change defensive tactics and standards. 

  At first musket armed men were laughed at. Yet, as the technology improved and the weapon became more accurate and devastating it was the other way around, plus it was a lot easier to train someone with a gun than with a bow, resulting in larger and larger armies.

  As to the final question on that, warfare at this time was still a melee affair. Men did not stand across the field from one another and fire till the other fled. Several volleys were let off, usually 3-5 before a charge was sounded. Most men died in melee, not by being struck down by a musket ball. Men were drilled extensively on how to fight with the bayonet attached to their gun. For the gun itself men just had to be drilled to stand in line, reload and aim at a massively packed group of men and hope they hit. (Lots had tendencies to fire above the enemy ranks.) The rest was the charge and melee.



> im also curious about cannon artillery. i noticed around the 18th century an up, we begin seeing artillery deployed into open field battles. but if you were to try and bust out the artillery in an open battle a few centuries earlier, that would be pretty nonsensical. What im asking here is, around when do we see artillery being used in open field battles. Is there still to some degree a "defender" in these battles, thus making it a bit more practical for them to bring in some extra muscle?



Actually the cannon came to be used more than the handheld gun for a long period of time, because it took time to learn how to cast a smaller, thinner barrel that wouldn't blow up in your face more often than not. The oldest notable cannon was made and used in China around the 13th century, and was used by both the Chinese and the Mongols, hand cannons were also used on the field.

In the middle east the hand cannon and cannon were used about a hundred years later and used quite extensively. (First against the Mongols and then against each other)

By the siege of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, the Ottomans had made massive cannons, and I mean massive to break down the walls of the city. They weighed a little more than 16 tons and could fire a ball of around 1500 pounds over a mile. They made sixty eight of these to reduce Constantinople's walls to rubble in 53 days. 

  Against Europeans who were rather slow catching up to the Ottomans, they used cannons and hand cannons extensively, which is one reason why for a long time the Ottoman's were extremely fearsome to enter battle against. (There are other reasons of course but the great cannons of the Ottomans were devastating.) So about mid 15th century the cannon was already well in service and getting better every year by gunsmiths. Because, it was at this time a direct fire weapon, it was generally used as the open salvo against enemy ranks, before the infantry got in front and obstructed the view. Though moving the cannon to higher ground so it could lob rounds over friendly heads and into enemy ranks became more and more common and a standard tactic until cannons that could be moved up and down on their seat were invented, along with the mortar. 

  Defender battles did not change, and in most cases the defender has most of the advantages. They have picked the terrain (usually) and set up earthen bulwarks and the like to protect against enemy fire.



> What size would you consider armies to be small, medium, large, and so large that the author clearly doesn't know what they're talking about?


If we are talking about the same time period for armies and their size it varies. A skirmish is generally defined as a small group of men fighting another small group of men or disrupting a large group of men in combat. So for this, size wise would range between 100 to a little above 1k men across a broad space of land or a small piece of land. 

A small army of this time period would be around fifteen to twenty thousand, medium around 30-35 thousand and a large reaching up to the 100k mark or above.

To give an example, when the Ottomans invaded Austria in 1529 at the Siege of Vienna they had around 120k men. The Austrians who had been dealt several large defeats had around 20-24k men. The defenders were so successful at detecting and defeating the Ottoman sappers and using the rubble of the city defenses to best advantage were able to hold off until relief arrived from several other European nations who brought in another 80k men to push the Ottomans off the field and end the siege. 

So unless you are the Spartans at Thermopylae where you are facing down hundreds of thousands and holding... I would stay in the realm of 100k or less for a single side. Even in battles with 80k or above, only a central chunk would actually do any fighting at any one time. When you get into these size ranges, battle becomes very unwieldy, and generally falls into the laps of commanders under the main guy. 



> Last one (for now, mwahaha). Are there any books or history blogs you recommend?


This depends on whether you are looking for books on military theory or actual tactics. I always recommend Clausewitz, and I force my own students to read _On War_ because it is the most comprehensive book for the whole encompassing theory on how war works.

If you are actually looking for tactics and strategy, what I always encourage my students to do are to find and pick up the memoirs/journals and the like written by the actual generals, I.E. someone wanting to know Roman warfare should pick up _The Gallic Wars_, by Julius Caesar. You get the idea. Getting into their heads gives you a very good view of how things were conducted in their times... and while they do tend to embellish, it gives you a grounding to go off of.

Hope this gives you some help. 
-Cold


----------



## Gryphos

Ayup. I have a query. What was warfare like during the 19th century? Specifically, toward the latter part of the 19th century.


----------



## hots_towel

thanks a lot for the info cold! i really appreciate how you gave both the answers i was looking for as well as some historical context in which it fits.


----------



## thecoldembrace

@Queshire

If you want your demons to be safe from large scale bombing runs, you'll probably have to go with your last point of providing some wall or barrier that they explode upon instead of on and amidst the demons themselves. The reason for this, regardless of the electrical interference, bombs can be set to explode on impact, avoiding the need for lots of high tech gadgetry that could get screwed with. And accuracy is only a recent improvement on our bombs. Carpet bombing was the mainstay of tactics for awhile... and honestly we still do use it because of the mass spread when it is needed, like not in areas where military commanders are worried about collateral damage.
At the same time people will ask... why is this force field type of thing protecting against bombs and missiles but allowing me through? That is up for you to answer, but I honestly feel sorry for those facing your demons if they are forced to get up close for a hack and slash match, it would be horror untold. -shivers- It would honestly through us back to the age of melee combat though, and this is where you have expressed interest in revitalizing for your story. 
  And my own thought is... I bet on your demons unless your humans have some wicked skill with swords and knives or magic


----------



## thecoldembrace

Gryphos said:


> Ayup. I have a query. What was warfare like during the 19th century? Specifically, toward the latter part of the 19th century.



Hello, Gryphos.
  This is a rather broad question. Is there a particular part of the world you have an interest in getting information about?


----------



## Gryphos

thecoldembrace said:


> Hello, Gryphos.
> This is a rather broad question. Is there a particular part of the world you have an interest in getting information about?



Yeah, sorry, realise now that is very broad. I was thinking land warfare in Europe. What was the general strategy? How were cavalry used? How different was it from the line battles of the previous century? Etc.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Gryphos said:


> Yeah, sorry, realise now that is very broad. I was thinking land warfare in Europe. What was the general strategy? How were cavalry used? How different was it from the line battles of the previous century? Etc.



19th century land warfare in Europe was the building block for those later great wars that so devastated nations across the globe. It was the testing grounds for new methods of war, and the term "total war" came into effect, though it was not named so until WW1. Total war meaning, even non combatants are effected, in order to sap the strength of your enemy. Armies would burn areas to the ground, tear up tracks and displace the civilians.

   Muskets were upgraded to breech loading rifles with more aerodynamic designs for accuracy, leading to a much higher rate of fire and a much higher hit to miss ratio than before. Technology was changing the way wars were fought on every front. 

  Europe itself enjoyed relative peace for a time after the Napoleonic wars of 1803 to 1815, till 1848 which fell into a mass of civil wars, wars of independence and revolution. 

   Battle tactics remained the same until the American Civil War and the Crimean War introduced trench warfare. At this point guns were accurate enough to be fired impersonal, meaning you really don't have to see someone across a field to shoot them anymore. Field artillery became a major player, forcing a change of tactics to avoid its devastating range and power. This was also dawning of a transportation revolution, allowing whole armies to be swiftly moved by train to battle sites.

   Whole nations could now with the industrial revolution be conscripted and armed, fielding larger and larger armies.
   So at this point the idea was to pin down your enemy and either by force on the field or by slowly breaking his resistance you would defeat your foe. 
  However, in the scale of large wars there were not many conducted in the European theatre, save for those revolutions. Most were fought in the new world or in areas of colonization such as Africa, India and China. 

I could probably go on and on about each individual war, but the tactics hadn't fully shifted, it would take WW1 to do so.

-Cold


----------



## wordwalker

Here's a question I don't think gets asked enough: how common were two-handed weapons, really?

I suppose it's really two questions. One is, when and how completely did soldiers phase out spear and shield for pikes or polearms? 

The other one is, how often did knights and other less formation-based warriors give up their shields for bigger swords or axes? I know there was a major replacement as plate armor started coming out (when one arm just couldn't beat through your foe's armor as well, and the shield seemed more redundant), and of course there's Japan's whole shieldless approach to war. But how common was it really?

(No, this isn't a Captain America-inspired question for the weekend. But Cap does seem like the only character in popular fiction that knows what a shield is...)


----------



## Malik

Most two-handed swords, right up until the end of swords as primary weapons of war, were greatswords, optimized for use with two hands (handle length and balance), but perfectly functional with one. Another class of swords, the bastardsword, was designed for use with one hand but had room on the handle for two; you could drop your shield and really nail someone with it in a pinch. 

An entire school of combat developed around the two-handed sword, reflected now in the ARMA / HEMA longsword schools, and texts like Fiore Dei Liberi's _Flos Duellatorum_, Hans von Speyer's _Fechtbuch,_ and the Gladiatoria Group (which would be a great name for either a rock band or a professional military contracting firm). It was really in vogue only during the absolute last phase of heavy armor, late 1400's-1500's, right before guns became a thing. 

And as I've said before, warswords and greatswords weren't really used for beating _through_ your opponent's armor, but rather for beating him up _inside_ it.


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

Hi, this isn't so much a request for this world knowledge, but to get some opinions on a "revolutionary" set of tactics in my own world, ones that's allowing one of the main threats, an empire (relax, they're not that evil) to defeat all there opponents. 

For a bit of background; the World is a lot like early modern/renaissance Europe, battles being fought mainly with the use of pike and halberds phalanxes and tericos, backed up with sleeves of crossbows and muskets, mainly matchlock- flintlock cost an arm and a leg. and headed by plate clad men with two handed swords to hack into the pikes, cavalry on the flanks ect. 

Now this tactic is to have a double rank of flintlock armed musketeers, firing at around British speeds of three a minute, firing into the approaching formations, destroying the cohesion of the  pikes, and then to have heavily armed roman style legionaries (mail +segmented plate, curved shields, broad bladed short swords) smash through the phalanx. 

there are other nuances, like magic (which is pretty small, more like shotgun than nuke) and galloper guns, but is the basis for this tactic sound, and do you think it would work against large blocks of professional, armoured pike men??


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

Hi, this isn't so much a request for this world knowledge, but to get some opinions on a "revolutionary" set of tactics in my own world, ones that's allowing one of the main threats, an empire (relax, they're not that evil) to defeat all there opponents. 

For a bit of background; the World is a lot like early modern/renaissance Europe, battles being fought mainly with the use of pike and halberds phalanxes and tericos, backed up with sleeves of crossbows and muskets, mainly matchlock- flintlock cost an arm and a leg. and headed by plate clad men with two handed swords to hack into the pikes, cavalry on the flanks ect. 

Now this tactic is to have a double rank of flintlock armed musketeers, firing at around British speeds of three a minute, firing into the approaching formations, destroying the cohesion of the  pikes, and then to have heavily armed roman style legionaries (mail +segmented plate, curved shields, broad bladed short swords) smash through the phalanx. 

there are other nuances, like magic (which is pretty small, more like shotgun than nuke) and galloper guns, but is the basis for this tactic sound, and do you think it would work against large blocks of professional, armoured pike men??


----------



## thecoldembrace

wordwalker said:


> Here's a question I don't think gets asked enough: how common were two-handed weapons, really?
> 
> I suppose it's really two questions. One is, when and how completely did soldiers phase out spear and shield for pikes or polearms?
> 
> The other one is, how often did knights and other less formation-based warriors give up their shields for bigger swords or axes? I know there was a major replacement as plate armor started coming out (when one arm just couldn't beat through your foe's armor as well, and the shield seemed more redundant), and of course there's Japan's whole shieldless approach to war. But how common was it really?
> 
> (No, this isn't a Captain America-inspired question for the weekend. But Cap does seem like the only character in popular fiction that knows what a shield is...)



This is a good set of questions wordwalker. I would like to address your second set first, the phasing out of the spear and shield.

What most scholars agree on is that around the turn of the 14th century the use of the (short) spear was all but abandoned. Soldiers had begun adopting heavier armor, mainly to try and halt the power of ballistic missiles as a threat.. (they all but failed). The spear was too short for a soldier to use as a defense, and against heavy armor was virtually useless. It was meant for a man to combat the rise of the horse mounted soldier, who now with the additions of some very heavy armor was just an armored fist that could punch through any line of spear infantry with ease. 
The problem was addressed by increasing the length of the spear into the pike which stretched to about 10-15 feet in length. The unit of men was also reformed into the pike square which had several advantages of being a movable, yet static defensive group that could if ordered be an extremely aggressive and deadly attacking force.

The shield was never truly phased out until musket had become a staple of the battlefield. For a time when guns had the accuracy of a windblown leaf the shield was still used effectively, because the battle still was met by melee based infantry. When accuracy improved the shield became a liability for mobility and did not offer sufficient protection against the ballistic force of a bullet. 

Now as to your first question flowing into your final. If we are specifically talking about European combat as opposed to Japanese then we get into the specifics of when a two handed weapon was used and not used as a battlefield weapon. The answer in short is, the two handed weapon did not fair well on a battlefield. Now mind you, it was used, mainly by units of men trained specifically to use it. It could be used and had been shown to be a very powerful shock weapon. However, because of the narrow and often cramped confines of an infantry battle it lost it's power. It was also heavy, and regardless most men would tire very quickly with it's use, which was only increased when they wore heavy armor that could repel likewise attacks. 
  Units associated with the forlorn hope were usually units of men that would likely die in the coming battle for their role as a shock based assault unit. Men of these units were notorious for using heavy two handed weapons in their bid to hack through an enemy battle line to make it to the weaker units behind. In this sense the weapon was used to it's greatest effect.
  Probably the best use of the two handed sword came with the ZweihÃ¤nder which was basically a sword meant to chop through a wall of pikes and wasn't too bad when it came to chopping through men either. It was a sword-pike, and when worked in tandem with pike infantry could be particularly devastating. 
  For the most part however, the two handed sword while loved was not a weapon most chose to wield because it was so cumbersome, and extremely taxing. If the battle came down to a more dualist type of combat, say knight vs. knight then yes it was actually used more often. Its advantage when allowed the room needed to wield it became very apparent in these types of scenarios. 
  Malik does add some good information on this as well.


----------



## Malik

I am going to respectfully argue with thecoldembrace. I have fenced against rapiers with a two-handed sword, choking up on the handle and using the ricossa. They are neither heavy nor cumbersome. The smaller, two-handed Type XIIIa greatswords that predated the big Type XX monsters of the 15th Century were graceful and are a joy to wield. Good modern steel replicas are spirited and lively in the hand. 







Not a child's hand. A grown man's hand on the handle of a Type XIIIa (3-4' blade) greatsword.​
Even the big, six-foot Type XX's topped out at 5-6 lbs and were beautifully balanced. 

Plus, you also had to hit someone a lot less with a bigger sword. You actually got more done, with less work.






"How many times you figure I gotta hit you wit' dis? I'm thinkin', once."​
In armor -- any armor -- a two-handed sword could cause fractures, contusions, and crush injuries; a hit from a sword that big could drive a shield edge into a helmet like a billiards ball and knock someone cold. They are astonishingly powerful. 

In my SCA days, I once hit a guy with a rattan greatsword in a tournament and dented his 12-gauge steel helmet -- which would have been WAY stronger than any iron helmet of the time -- with the metal edge of his shield. I was surprised at the damage; you could lay your finger in the crease. (To be fair, I am immensely strong and he was being a ****; no matter how hard I hit him he wouldn't accept it as a disabling blow, so I kept turning it up.) Everyone present agreed that had it been an authentic, riveted iron helmet, he would have been playing with dolls and making funny little noises for the rest of his life.


----------



## thecoldembrace

I don't exactly know what you are disagreeing with me on, Malik. Two handed swords do have their merits, that I do not deny. However, while I understand your position on their devastation I am very sure that a man in full armor, padding, chain and plate mail would after several minutes in the fury of battle, begin to struggle to be as effective wielding such a weapon against a foe or foes decked out the same with a lighter more agile weapon. 

  However, yes I will state I am not a swordsman as you are, if I picked up the weapon I'd be more likely to hurt a friend or myself rather than an enemy. What I do have are accounts of battles that these weapons were used in. Were they used? Yes. Were they used very widely or commonly? No. Those that wielded two handed weapons often chose the hammer over the sword because of its punch against an armored foe. This does not mean that everyone chose the hammer and neglected the sword, as we still have accounts of its use, and it stands out because the sword remained the iconic weapon for a very long time. People remember the swords, the hammer is forgettable. 

  But perhaps you can answer a question for me Malik, you actually have the knowledge, skill and tools available. How great is style of two weapon fighting hampered in the small confines and press of battle? Meaning, with very little swing room to achieve the desired lethal force of a swing is the two handed weapon at a disadvantage? I would honestly love to know this, as would one of my old professors who had a personal love of swords. I would very much enjoy the chance to drop some new knowledge upon him haha!

Thank you Malik!

If the above is seeming to be harsh or disrespectful, I did not mean for it to sound like that. 
-Cheers


----------



## Malik

Great question.

The two-handed swords, especially the bigger Type XX, had a blunted section of blade ahead of the crossbar called a ricossa. You can grab this and "choke up" on the blade, reducing its length by a foot , or even more if you half-sword it, which can turn it into a shorter (and stiffer, i.e. stabbier) sword, or a pretty good spear depending on how you use it. In close, it can be used for tripping and disarming, you can punch with the counterweight at the pommel like brass knuckles (and ditto the crossbar, which could be a foot long or more), and there was a whole school of greatsword / longsword grappling, believe it or not, with principles that you'd swear were borrowed from Judo or Hap Ki Do. 

You can trap a weapon with the blade (or your adversary's neck, see below) and grab the end of the blade and hip- or shoulder-throw your opponent -- or, if I was doing this, I'd pull him forward and drive the crown of my helmet into his face hard enough to make him forget the third grade. 






 And there's always swinging it by the blade and nailing someone with the heavy end . . . 






Seriously. Who saw that coming?​
. . . the possibilities are pretty much limitless.


----------



## Malik

Something really nasty you can do with a big sword is clinch and bind, and with your hand on the tip, you can scissor your blade to pinch your opponent's thumb, and either cut the thumb off (if it's in a glove or you get the blade under a lap of the gauntlet) or crush it if it's in mail. It hurts like a sonofabitch even in gauntlets. You can thank Fiore.







EDIT: Keep in mind, you didn't have to kill the guy. You just had to render him combat-ineffective and move on. Whether you're breaking his foot, denting his visor so he can't see, or cutting off his thumb, it all takes a man out of the fight just as handily as cutting off his head lightsaber-style. It doesn't make for the same caliber of heroic reading, though.


----------



## Ankari

First, I love this stuff. I read all of your (both Malik and Coldembrace) posts on your respective areas of expertise. Thanks for adding such excellent value to this community.

Malik, wouldn't the depicted fighting style be more for singular combat instead of mass combat?


----------



## Malik

Not at all. In mass melee, you'd still take what you can get; probably moreso, as you'd want to take out as many people as you could with as little effort as possible. If I had a chance to neutralize a badguy's weapon, and then headbutt him and stove in his visor, or break his thumb, instead of engaging him and trading blows sword to sword? I'd take it in a heartbeat. That's a return on investment I can live with.

I would imagine that nothing would earn you some space on the field like leaving a swath of weeping, screaming bodies around you. Nobody would stop to figure out that the guys you dropped weren't mortally wounded; they'd all be too busy getting the hell out of your way.

I have enjoyed coldembrace's contributions and continue to do so. Your insights and research are valuable, my friend. Cheers.


----------



## thecoldembrace

WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade said:


> Hi, this isn't so much a request for this world knowledge, but to get some opinions on a "revolutionary" set of tactics in my own world, ones that's allowing one of the main threats, an empire (relax, they're not that evil) to defeat all there opponents.
> 
> For a bit of background; the World is a lot like early modern/renaissance Europe, battles being fought mainly with the use of pike and halberds phalanxes and tericos, backed up with sleeves of crossbows and muskets, mainly matchlock- flintlock cost an arm and a leg. and headed by plate clad men with two handed swords to hack into the pikes, cavalry on the flanks ect.
> 
> Now this tactic is to have a double rank of flintlock armed musketeers, firing at around British speeds of three a minute, firing into the approaching formations, destroying the cohesion of the  pikes, and then to have heavily armed roman style legionaries (mail +segmented plate, curved shields, broad bladed short swords) smash through the phalanx.
> 
> there are other nuances, like magic (which is pretty small, more like shotgun than nuke) and galloper guns, but is the basis for this tactic sound, and do you think it would work against large blocks of professional, armoured pike men??



I have been hoping for a question like this. Stuff like this gets me all giddy inside. So, thank you WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade.

So, you have many weapon systems trying to work in tandem, which is very good and very formidable on the battlefield. What I first need to address is the fact that has to be remembered, the musket is a line of sight weapon. If you are allied infantry in front of the path of the bullet you are in grave danger. So you must have your musketeers out in front until practically the point of impact, firing. The moment the enemy stops getting shot at, officers will do everything in their power to put men into the holes that you created, basically wiping out the disruption you caused in the battle line. Now, this isn't instantaneous, and most men are often reluctant to fill the spot previously vacated by a man who just got shot, but we are talking professional soldiers here, and most would move to fill the gap without being told. 

  Fire and impact combat need to be achieved so that melee begins when the firing all but stops, and as I said before, muskets need clear line of sight to avoid the risk of shooting friends in the back. Crossbows can be arced and can still be of use. 

  Also before I forget, to use your musketeers to best advantage make them three ranks deep, not two. Two ranks were notorious for periods of lull with nobody firing to keep a near constant barrage.

  This alone with three ranks of muskets firing would devastate an approaching core of pikemen. After this point it wouldn't be much of an issue for your infantry to move in to basically mop up. 


  BUT, lets SAY that your musketeers are horrible shots, their muskets are wet and are prone to misfires and that the guns are not rifled and have absurdly horrible accuracy. In this scenario where maybe 3 in 10 hit their mark, then the battle comes down to a rather unmolested line of armored, professional pikemen and your own melee infantry we can get into a bit more to talk about eh? I'm sure you wanted more from me than yeah that'd work .

  Against this your infantry would find the going very, very costly. Pike squares were designed to be effective both to infantry and cavalry. Its basically a walking wall of impalement. Kept at a distance your infantry would be murdered. The first line of pikes would in effect hold your infantry at bay. The second line would jab at feet, weak spots and the head of foes. The third and fourth lines, provided their pikes are long enough would jab at those behind your first line of infantry, putting them off balance and defending themselves rather than doing their job which is pushing the first line forward and filling gaps. 

  You would need a second type of infantry to lead the advance, probably your two handed infantry who would in effect act like zweihÃ¤nder wielding infantry to hack down the heads of the pikes. 

   After hacking your way to the enemy line, who would by now have drawn secondary weapons, you would be on a much more advantageous playing field, with your two handed infantry causing disruption in the enemy lines for your core infantry to do it's deadly meat grinder work.

Now thats that without your enemy pikes supported by anything else. It might answer a few questions for you though.

-Cold


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

Cold, thanks very much for that, the feeling of giddiness is quite mutual, I do love a good discussion of tactics. I am using smoothbore muskets, and am fully aware of how terrible a weapon they are for accuracy (thank you Bernard Cornwell.)  

I forgot to mention, that after the musketeers unleash their third or fourth blast of musketry, there'll be canister poured into the pike square; more chaos!!!!  

To shorten the time from last round fired to impact of my swordsmen, then I might have the swordsmen lined up behind the gunners, who split ranks to allow wedges to charge the (hopefully) still disrupted square.  

And once they get past the pikes, its gona be chaos. 'Cause the swordsmen(and women) are going to be fighting proper roman style, punch shield forward, stab, punch, stab, punch, stab. And they're going up against  men who aren't trained to fight close combat, armed with all sorts; Catgutters, cutlasses ect.  

This army is very professional, small, but extremely well equipped and trained. 

* also just realised that I spelt "their" wrong in my previous post. I am mortified. 

But thanks for the answer, lots of delicious brain food there, and you can rest assured that I'll be back to pester you with more half-baked ideas!!!


----------



## wordwalker

Thanks for all the help.

So swords tended to get longer, at least for better-equipped warriors (not the courtiers who weren't facing armor, and not the levies or spear ranks). The way you make it sound, it doesn't seem like there was a true "two-handed sword" that pretty much *had* to be used that way, at least until the days of plate armor. So the acid test is, how often did people take those swords to two-handed mode, and how often did they keep their shields?

And, were two-handed axes (or hammers) used much? We think of the Vikings as trying them, but were they really used, besides the proper halberd and other polearms?


----------



## thecoldembrace

wordwalker said:


> Thanks for all the help.
> 
> So swords tended to get longer, at least for better-equipped warriors (not the courtiers who weren't facing armor, and not the levies or spear ranks). The way you make it sound, it doesn't seem like there was a true "two-handed sword" that pretty much *had* to be used that way, at least until the days of plate armor. So the acid test is, how often did people take those swords to two-handed mode, and how often did they keep their shields?
> 
> And, were two-handed axes (or hammers) used much? We think of the Vikings as trying them, but were they really used, besides the proper halberd and other polearms?



Two handed weapons date back a very long way, to ancient Egypt as a matter of fact with two handed bronze axes and equipped units of men with them and set them at the center of their armies as a shock unit. The two handed weapon was meant for shock, to punch a hole in enemy lines. The shield however was a staple of warfare since the earliest times. Often it was the most prized possession of a warrior because it kept him alive and had a tendency to be cheaper than everything else. 

   During the Roman Empire two handed weapons were usually the product of less "civilized" or more barbarian oriented cultures. Individual prowess was often more important than acting as a single cohesive unit, and in these instances larger groups of men would wield two handed weapons, axes mainly, as two handed swords were owned by the elite or honored of the society. 

   During the time of Charlemagne, the various kingdoms had a spread of mixed units, with men armed with a one handed weapon for the shield wall, while having specialized men set with axes to break shields and disrupt enemy formations. 

   The Norse loved using two handed axes and hammers, but they always had a shield handy. The legendary Varangian Guard used two handed weapons, especially swords (being an elite unit of the powerful Byzantine Empire allowed men to wield expensive two handed swords) and helped maintain the empire's borders in several battles. Their ferocity is well documented by those they fought. 

   Probably the most two handed sword oriented culture was the Scots and Irish after Nordic colonization. The clans developed a devastating shock-charge combat system that they kept well into the era of the gun, led by men wielding great axes and two handed swords. Check out the Gallowglass if you are interested.

   So basically what I am trying to get at is that the use of two handed weapons is situational and is heavily dependent on the wealth of an individual or the unit to which he belongs. The shield was *THE* item that every soldier and warrior needed because of its ability to keep him alive. 

   As armor increased weapons changed to crack the steel shell, or just hammer it. Two handed hammers and axes could be afforded by many more people and were rather simplistic in their use, not requiring years upon years of practice to wield. To boot they could take down an armored knight... after he was overwhelmed by numbers usually...

  To basically sum up, two handed swords had to be afforded, and trained with to be effective. It is because of this that we don't see very many instances of these large swords used. Were they used, very much so, but by select individuals, and usually (from the records) they were situational. I have no doubt that a man wielding a great sword was very effective, and extremely imposing, but it wasn't as widespread as fantasy is. The shield remained the staple of melee combat until guns rendered them obsolete. Especially in an age were bows were as common as spears and could pierce armor at a distance, the shield was the logical, non second thought choice to keep your blood in your body.

-Cold


----------



## Shadowfirelance

How badly would an army that used biological warfare, (covering their weapons in a highly contagious disease), affect the morale of the enemy army?


----------



## Pemry Janes

I have a hard time imagining such an army surviving for long, unless they're immune to the disease?


----------



## chrispenycate

Shadowfirelance said:


> How badly would an army that used biological warfare, (covering their weapons in a highly contagious disease), affect the morale of the enemy army?



There is no disease — certainly no contagious disease — which can develop symptoms and spread in the one day that is all a single battle lasts. Basic reasoning; any mutation that operates that fast kills its host before spreading, and so dooms its species to rapid extinction. And any longer period, the victim would not associate the wound with the infection. After all, pestilence and war frequently team up, and all battlefield damage has a tendency to fester. 

So psychological effect would be much lower than envenomed darts or blades, or throwing scorpions (); something that even somebody who is attempting to avoid radical surgery is liable to notice.

Throwing plague infested corpses from a ballista is for more sustained phases of warfare, such as siege.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Shadowfirelance said:


> How badly would an army that used biological warfare, (covering their weapons in a highly contagious disease), affect the morale of the enemy army?



This is one of those questions that when asked, requires more questions to be asked. 
First of all the army employing this weapon better be immune as poison and disease work both ways. Second, for the army facing this they would have to know in advance that hey those guys over there are sick freaks that coat their weapons with whatever it is... for the moral effect to set in. Battle is battle, no one wants to go in and fight and possibly die unless they are missing some very important brain cells. 

If they know in advance that the enemy does this, it would be a 50.50 effect of either causing some panic (probably not much) to where people who had already had thoughts of desertion would take the chance to do so, or it would grant a moral boost. Human beings generally despise those that cheat, that throw sucker punches and are down right bastards. In this instance I would bet this would be the actual effect, instead of lowering moral it would boost it, as men would while fearful of their own health would very much enjoy putting this type of enemy six below. 

It is not during the battle that this disease is a worry, it is after the battle when it sets in and gets transferred around from host to host. I would also suspect that camp physicians would quickly quarantine those affected to avoid having the whole army overrun by this disease and limit the casualties as much as possible.

My bet, and my honest opinion would be that by doing this type of biological warfare would hinder the army employing it to make it not worth the while or the risk. Typically the biological agent is used in advance of an attack to sow discord and fear into enemy ranks to sap their will to resist, and is better often used (though I hate saying it) upon those that soldiers protect, the innocents under their charge. When you see your family dying by a disease inflicted by your enemy, you want to stim the tide of that quickly, and if surrendering grants this, men will often take it.

-Cold


----------



## Queshire

the question about the disease one made me wonder, what about if instead of disease they use some sort of magical acid type deal? The dead melt to flesh colored goo, even a non lethal attack could cause limbs to schloop off, and just a scratch causing horrific disfiguration as the acid burns their skin, etc and so on. (Naturally they'd be immune to their own weapon)


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

There are easier ways to spread disease than coating weapons. One of the easiest would be to simply contaminate the food supply - if you can get to the wagons. My thought, simply get some chicken entrails and smear the goo over the supplies. Time frames will vary of course, but salmonella can strike within six hours. Some food poisoning organisms are faster again - staph aureus within an hour.

As for morale, if the army's sick, poohing themselves constantly, wracked with fever, and a few even dying, they aren't marching. And if they realise they can't eat the food than they're starving as well. I don't see them as being filled with confidence at that stage.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Malik

Most diseases wouldn't have been that big of a deal, and unless the onset was immediate, the soldiers likely wouldn't know that the enemy caused it. Throughout history, disease has killed many more soldiers and been a factor in many more wars than combat. 

Soldiers have always accepted disease as part of the job. In today's military, we walk around with fungal skin infections (tinea corporis) and low-key chronic diseases and no one blinks at it. I'm trying to think of any recently-deployed soldier I know personally who wasn't or currently isn't treated for tinea, psoriasis, dermatitis, or some other skin problem. 

Diarrhea is rampant downrange even today; MRE's specifically have low fiber content to combat this. (MRE = "Meal, Ready to Eat" which is three lies for the price of one. We also refer to them as "Meal Refusing to Exit" because of their tendency to constipate you when they're all you eat.) 

When I was in Africa last time all my toenails fell off. It's not unusual for the locker room of a high-speed (elite) unit to look like a leper colony. You go to weird places, you come back with weird things. 

It would have been a hundred times worse in the days before antibiotics; I'd think your military's wizards would have full-time jobs treating food poisoning, skin problems, blisters, fallen arches, broken toes, etc. (I shiver to think about marching any distance in medieval boots. I wear expensive boots by Danner and Nike with custom insoles, and my feet still look like Fred Flintstone's.) Just keeping an army moving and deployable would take teams of sorcerers and healers. Because of this, though, your wizards would be ready for any kind of bioweapon that showed up; again, they probably wouldn't even attribute it to the badguys.

If the "evil" army had some kind of magical weapon that caused immediate disease, though -- if your skin started falling off immediately after getting hit with an axe, for instance -- there would be an intense psychological effect and massive panic. You'd probably see a rout of a good chunk of the affected military. For this reason, biological and chemical weapons are considered "area denial" weapons in our current military. People get the hell out of the area and stay out.

What would be interesting would be the aftereffects of such a weapon on the afflicted army; the officers and the sergeants pacifying the troops and convincing them to stand up against the badguys the next time. That would be a fun set of speeches to write.


----------



## wordwalker

The worst of it might be if the disease was highly visible and contaigious, and had slow but unpredictable ways of spreading from soldier to soldier. Looking at your buddy next to you and wondering "Should I stay a step or two further back from him?" has to be its own kind of poison for unit cohesion.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Actually up until the eighteenth or even nineteenth century disease probably killed more soldiers than fighting. The big ones were of course cholera from drinking faeces contaminated water and tetanus. You can shudder about the last one - it is a truly horrible way to die. The issue was that soldiers tended to get cut and any soil getting into the wounds could carry Clostridia tetani. Various contaminated foods could give you anything from staph (a short lived but quick acting and painful form of diarrhoea) to campylobacter (think five days on a toilet excreting green slime instead of pooh while suffering horrible stomach cramps - one of my fondest memories!) and all the salmonellas. (The salmonellas include typhoid and paratyphoid as well as the more common food poisoning which means diarrhoea, fever, dehydration and sometimes death.)

Add to that some of the other bugs out there - and probably the worst would be the blood born malaria. This disease absolutely devastated soldiers during the earlier Asian wars and the various India campaigns, even when they did have basic treatment available. (Moral of the story - don't go to a foreign tropical country to wage war - it will literally bite you! And suck!)

And last - but only because it isn't really a soldiers disease - is the Minister of Death - Smallpox. This probably wiped out more North American Indians than bullets.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

I'm going to change the topic here,  

My question is, how effective would war hounds; big mastiff like things with leather armour and spiked collars, be against pike phalanxes, halberd hedges or shield walls?  

I don't mean would the dogs be able to break the soldiers by themselves, but would they be able to open a big enough breach to allow infantry, and or cavalry to close. 

And would this work without all the dogs dying? My idea is that the dogs would be low enough to get under the halberds or pikes, as well as the physiological effect. I know that dogs were used in Celtic tribal warfare, but their undisciplined charges were different to the solid might of pike squares.  

Any ideas?


----------



## Malik

I have a 130-lb. American Bulldog with eighteen months of professional protection training. I would absolutely hate to fight him, armor or no. The guy in the big padded suit used to complain to his boss about needing a raise when he'd see my dog coming for his lesson. He said it was like fighting off something with the jaws of an alligator and the body of a python. Tor (my dog) could knock him completely over at a run, even if he was braced for it. Tor used to knock him over, and THEN go for the hold. He loves knocking things over. Even at his size, he can clear our fence with a good run.







On the battlefield, the dog would have been a distraction, something akin to a swarm of bees. In home security, the dog exists only to screw up the plans of an intruder long enough so that you can fall back, bolt the saferoom door, and hit the alarm button. The reality is, if an armed intruder broke into this house, the dog would go down fighting. That's his job. (Frankly, I don't think he'd mind. He LOVES fighting.)

I imagine that, on the field, if the dog got inside the range of the halberd or pike, the guy would have a whole lot of problems and you'd have a weak spot in the wall right there. Again, think of a swarm of bees. Big dogs move really fast and the good war dogs are Hodor stupid and suicidally fearless. My dog ran into a house fire to find me and was nearly killed trying to fight a steamroller that was packing down our driveway. They're bred for this; they are not Labradoodles. 

The spearpoints wouldn't dissuade him the way they would a warhorse, and once he was inside, the guy would have to deal with him, which would make a temporary hole. Or, if the pikeman stabbed the dog, he would have to get the dog off the end of the pike before the horses came. The horses would be right behind the dogs, and wouldn't allow him the time.

These dogs would die. A lot. Bulldogs that are used for hog catching are bred for pain tolerance and will let a total stranger suture them. The ones that didn't die would likely be covered in scars.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

My thought is that if the dogs got through the line of pikes - which they could quite easily since they're fast, agile and compact, then you'd have them inside the lines causing major havoc. I wouldn't put them in armor - it'd just slow them down. But there is a reason that dogs generally haven't been used as foot soldiers - in battle they'd have a friend or foe issue. They might know their master - but everyone else would be foe. Defending territory or pack mates is one thing. A full scale melee is something completely different. If you use them they'd have to be incredibly well trained.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Queshire

I can't really see dogs being useful against pikemen. Pikemen have the advantage of reach. I don't see them risking the spear points to get within a pikeman's reach. Furthermore even if they did they'd be countered by armor. I heard that wolves fight by having some of the pack members distract the prey and then having another wolf attack from the prey's blindside while they're distracted. Against a group of trained and armed pikemen that tactic wouldn't work, I mean, the pikemen could just put their backs to each other and act like a spiky sea urchin or something. The time it would take to raise and train war dogs compared to their potential weaknesses in battle wouldn't be a good use of an army's resources.


----------



## thecoldembrace

WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade said:


> I'm going to change the topic here,
> 
> My question is, how effective would war hounds; big mastiff like things with leather armour and spiked collars, be against pike phalanxes, halberd hedges or shield walls?
> 
> I don't mean would the dogs be able to break the soldiers by themselves, but would they be able to open a big enough breach to allow infantry, and or cavalry to close.
> 
> And would this work without all the dogs dying? My idea is that the dogs would be low enough to get under the halberds or pikes, as well as the physiological effect. I know that dogs were used in Celtic tribal warfare, but their undisciplined charges were different to the solid might of pike squares.
> 
> Any ideas?



War dogs were used effectively by various cultures across the ages. Most of the time they were limited to patrols and scouting missions, but in certain situations they were used to great effect.

 In the mid 7th century BC a war was fought between Ephesus and Magnesia, two Ionian Greek city-states. Magnesian horsemen were said to be each accompanied by their own war dog and would be released in advance of a cavalry charge against the enemy phalanx to soften it up and disrupt the densely packed formation. Because they were so low to the ground, and the hoplites fearing both the dogs and the oncoming cavalry would slip and break rank, allowing the dogs to do some rather devastating work on the soldiers just as the cavalry struck home.

   The written records all have dogs used in conjunction of attacks by other soldiers or their masters. Most dogs simply joined their master in combat as an ally to watch his back. Even if the master died the dog would almost always stay by his side fending off enemies, crows and other carrion birds until it starved to death. 

   Probably their best use is against cavalry, not infantry. Their ferociousness scared the living hell out of horses, and powerful jaws were said to break the legs of horses, throwing a rider to the ground to then be set upon by a well trained dog. 

   Lastly, they were used after the battle to chase down, fleeing enemy soldiers or hunt them down the next day. 

   Truly the most loyal of animals.

-Cold


----------



## Queshire

This is more about on the strategy level when it comes to warfare but I was inspired for a setting by a Civ V mod and I'm wondering how the geography of the setting would affect warfare. The idea is that once upon a time in the past there was one continent. I don't have a good enough head for scale to know if it'd be a pangea-style mega continent or a more modern day North American sized continent. In any case one day in the distant past WHAM! a meteor slams into it. The crater would form an inland sea sort of like the gulf of mexico and would shatter the continent like fine china, with thin channels connecting the inland sea with the outer sea. I'm worried how the inner sea and the channels would affect strategy in warfare.

By the way, what I had in mind is something like this; http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/3281179238052529356/B67FA9A7FA51B29F446E91D64252E91A9ACA2691/ only with a larger inner sea than in that one, something that would look like it resulted from a meteor hitting it.


----------



## wordwalker

It affects things hugely.

(Let's start by assuming the cataclysm was prehistoric, so the region isn't ruined or even considered "cursed" in old memories.)

Best example I can think of is the Vikings, who raided practically everywhere in Europe at least once because they could always get there by sailing up a river. If you have that many little rivers, that could be what happens-- and you might end up with the same thing that happened to Europe: a land covered with defensive castles and warriors ready for trouble. 

It's also been argued that many of the nordic peoples themselves were tribally fragmented because their land was fragmented, by all the fjords cutting the land apart. It was much harder for a leader to unite a people than for anyone with issues to hole up on their side of the "moat" and dare him to reconquer them.

By the way, if that sounds like the rivers are both helping and hurting attackers, the difference is in _sustaining_ the attack. It's easy to sail in and hit the weakest target you can find (hence the castles, you'd skip anyone who wasn't that weakest target) when you're just going to zip away with the  loot. It's harder to keep bringing in enough troops and supplies to hold that land.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Queshire said:


> This is more about on the strategy level when it comes to warfare but I was inspired for a setting by a Civ V mod and I'm wondering how the geography of the setting would affect warfare. The idea is that once upon a time in the past there was one continent. I don't have a good enough head for scale to know if it'd be a pangea-style mega continent or a more modern day North American sized continent. In any case one day in the distant past WHAM! a meteor slams into it. The crater would form an inland sea sort of like the gulf of mexico and would shatter the continent like fine china, with thin channels connecting the inland sea with the outer sea. I'm worried how the inner sea and the channels would affect strategy in warfare.
> 
> By the way, what I had in mind is something like this; http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/3281179238052529356/B67FA9A7FA51B29F446E91D64252E91A9ACA2691/ only with a larger inner sea than in that one, something that would look like it resulted from a meteor hitting it.



One thing about rivers that holds true to civilization, is that they are excellent land and territorial markers. So first off I would say that instead of many large nations you might have clusters of many, all using the winding rivers to dictate their territories. 

  Another change would be that nearly every nation or culture would not be landlocked and thus they would all have to almost even levels a river faring force of ships to a seafaring one. Trade from one culture at the end of the continent would be very easily accessible to another on the other side. Because of this, technology and ideas would spread from one area to another with rapid ease. A culture with a superior rise in technology would lose that advantage rather quickly and would have to act before others rose to challenge it with the same level. 

  As to the trials and obstacles of military maneuvers in a world like this, the army would and could be easily provisioned, and moved along river routes to a battle site much faster than by traveling over roads at the speed of feet. To further this battles would have a much higher rate of happening near bodies of water, allowing full navies to be integrated into weapon system, preforming operations alongside armies that fight on land.

  Because of everyone's close proximity to these water systems, they would develop ways of conducting successful offensive and defensive campaigns. In a war, the side that controls the water system best would be able to dictate their will upon another, forcing men to have to use cross able points to invade. At these crossing points you would probably find some heavy set fortifications, keeps and bridges that control both the crossing point and that river or body of water. 

  Nations would have separate fleets that would dominate in either deep bodies of water or river like conditions. The nation that would first develop a ship that could do both things would probably dominate until their secret way of shipbuilding was uncovered. 

   Lastly you would see a massive rise in the need for nations and armies to have well trained and educated engineers and craftsmen, for the massive task of crossing these bodies of water and building vehicles to transverse them.

-Cold


----------



## Queshire

Well, I wasn't really thinking rivers, something closer to the English channel though maybe a bit thinner than that. A couple of those dividing the land into three to five (not sure on the exact number I want) subcontinents.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Queshire said:


> Well, I wasn't really thinking rivers, something closer to the English channel though maybe a bit thinner than that. A couple of those dividing the land into three to five (not sure on the exact number I want) subcontinents.



Regardless if you have a landmass with rivers or a landmass with larger channels, you have similar issues plaguing the same people, across the map. Depending on how far you are from these large channels of water things would change of course. More landlocked nations won't have to devote time and energy in developing navies and their merchant-marine. 

For those with access to the sea, they have what one of my old professor's called Beached Paranoia. Because the waves are only ruled by those with the largest navy, fastest navy and the like the game can switch extremely fast, and invasions by sea are far harder to see coming than by land. Those nations that have a well developed early warning system will fare better of course, giving them time to mobilize a defense force to greet any unwelcome guests. Think of England when they were threatened by the invasion of Spain in 1588. The British Isles as a whole had developed a well defined system of early warnings, to protect against mainland invasion forces from just about any rival power.

  Strategically, there would probably be more naval battles if the main landmass has these significant grooves that divide it. Control of the channels would determine rise and fall of nations, and those with the most control would also be richer from the trade that such a natural system brings.

Overall, lots of things to consider... If you have something more specific I might be able to help further.

-Cold


----------



## TywinLannister

Hey thecoldembrace. My problem is, I always hear of kings breaking their backs to raise money for their war, but I never quite know where all that money goes. I hear that knights and troops brought their own gear, so what was all the money spent on?

Also, I love logistics, so a couple of questions :3
1) Were smiths dragged along with the army? What about medical specialists? Where did they and all the whores, bards and merchants trailing after the army go during combat time?
2) Was gear normally dumped off somewhere far behind the army or did the army keep it tight and close to them? Also, how were the crates and wagons to carry them in acquired?
3) Is there a book you could recommend on the economics and logistics of war? Or a nice way to learn it? I would gladly read it/follow your learning method.


----------



## Queshire

Cold can probably answer these better than me but here goes; The knights might come pre-equipped but the majority of the troops were essentially drafted men equipped with perhaps light armor and a pike or some other form of weapon. Training and equipping them costs money. There's a general maintenance cost from blades going dull, armor straps giving way, wagon wheels breaking, and so on. You also need to feed an army which costs a lot, also to answer one of your later questions buying the crates and wagons or the wood to build them costs a pretty penny. 

I think it would be a combination of bringing doctors and smiths along and teaching some of the soldiers what blacksmithing and medical skills they need. Swords still need to be sharpened, but that doesn't take a full forge or a proffesionally trained blacksmith, both of which might be in short supply while on the march. For doctors there's a similar combination of lack of proper tools and reduced need for proffesional medical skills. Even up to the civil war war time surgeons had a reputation for just chopping off damaged limbs, giving booze or tincture of opium to numb the pain then hoping for the best or a painless death. As for the camp followers to my knowledge they didn't really go anywhere. Sure, it wasn't like they were right there on the battlefield, but the idea of total warfare was a pretty recent convention so the camp follower of the losing side didn't have to worry about being raped and pillaged any more than any other town in the face of a winning army right after a battle. 

Keeping the gear with them seems like it'd make more sense. It would be easier to get at, easier to guard, and easier to destroy in case your side is losing so bad that you'd rather destroy the gear than see the enemy get it. That said though, I imagine it'd be kept at the very back of the back lines so it wouldn't get in the way in a fight. As I said before, wagons and crates were bought or made as neccesary.


----------



## thecoldembrace

TywinLannister said:


> Hey thecoldembrace. My problem is, I always hear of kings breaking their backs to raise money for their war, but I never quite know where all that money goes. I hear that knights and troops brought their own gear, so what was all the money spent on?
> 
> Also, I love logistics, so a couple of questions :3
> 1) Were smiths dragged along with the army? What about medical specialists? Where did they and all the whores, bards and merchants trailing after the army go during combat time?
> 2) Was gear normally dumped off somewhere far behind the army or did the army keep it tight and close to them? Also, how were the crates and wagons to carry them in acquired?
> 3) Is there a book you could recommend on the economics and logistics of war? Or a nice way to learn it? I would gladly read it/follow your learning method.



First of all, welcome to Mythic Scribes 
   So as to your first question, Queshire was actually right on the money. 





> knights might come pre-equipped but the majority of the troops were essentially drafted men equipped with perhaps light armor and a pike or some other form of weapon. Training and equipping them costs money. There's a general maintenance cost from blades going dull, armor straps giving way, wagon wheels breaking, and so on. You also need to feed an army which costs a lot, also to answer one of your later questions buying the crates and wagons or the wood to build them costs a pretty penny.


  An army is not all knights, they are just a relatively small core of men in historical armies. The backbone of a kingdom was professional foot soldiers, mercenaries and the main one, levies. Sellswords and knights would of course supply their own weapons, but professionals and levies had to have their weapons and armaments supplied to them, and professionals, mercenaries and levies at times had to be paid. 

   Take into account food, fodder and firewood as well as other things that are easy to gloss over such as banners, tents, cookware, fresh clean water and other odds and ends. Knights supplied their arms and armor but they rarely supplied their own fodder for their horses. Other animals had to be supplied as well such as the mules, oxen, horses that hauled the baggage train and well as the siege train. 

  Training levies costs money and time in and of itself. Keeping them fed and outfitted was extremely expensive. 

  As for the camp followers, blacksmiths were hired or they followed voluntarily in the certainty that they would make a pretty penny repairing damaged gear, shoeing horses and mending a massive list of items that would inevitably break or wear down during a campaign. 
  Camp surgeons were usually under the employ of the king, but you also have a great deal of members of the cloth that would go along with the army, especially those with medical or herbal knowledge to help combat a plague of injuries, diseases and so forth. 

  For the others, and to where they went, they often kept a very respectable distance from the main encampment and in the event of a battle would withdraw even further away to avoid being caught up in any ensuing mayhem. In the event that they were caught up with by enemy troops, they were actually fair game to kill and loot, and for the women, they could be caught and raped, or killed, sometimes both. It was not a very safe place for those who were defenseless. 

  Provisions were very well guarded and kept close to the camp to best prevent enemy sabotage. The army also had a very keen sense of protecting their supplies because, if they didn't they knew they would go hungry very quickly. In most sense it was kept a close, well protected rear point of the army's encampment. In times when a battle was being lost, provisions could be ordered to start getting away and in the chance that they couldn't they were often destroyed to deny them to the enemy. 

  The wagons and crates, along with those who drove them were purchases and employed at the beginning of a campaign, with more often picked up along the way in times of need. Barrel makers, wood workers and carpenters made a good deal of money creating storage for armies and were always high in demand. Nothing really ever came free, regardless of oath to a king. 

  As for a good book to pick up, I'll have to look for a few... I'll even see if I can find something free for you to download or something.

-Cold


----------



## TywinLannister

Thank you so much Queshire and thecoldembrace, I appreciate it 



> Nothing really ever came free, regardless of oath to a king.



Aaaah, that's the main thing I see. Sometimes you get the impression that the king could just get whatever he wanted, lol.


----------



## Creed

Hello,
I'd like to start by saying YOU'RE ALL AWESOME. This information is invaluable and I wish I had all of this locked away in my brain.
Could you describe the conventions of naval warfare before gunpowder was in use?
I'd very much like to use a naval battle sequence or two in one of my books, and I'm thinking of giving them something akin to Greek fire. How would this be used?
Thanks!


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Greek fire is one of those mysteries fromthe past about which little is known for certain. However there are depictions showing sailors basically pumping the stuff by hand through the equivalent of fire hoses. Not sure how far they could spray it like that, my best guess would be that it would only be twenty or thirty feet. But when ships had no range weapons at all (or few - the Roman scorpion a sort of large war machine / crossbow was designed to be ship mounted) but instead battled mostly by having men basically jump across with swords in hand that would be enough.

The other option was the fire ship which may be complete fantasy, which was in essence one ship filled with Greek fire which was rammed into another.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Creed said:


> Hello,
> I'd like to start by saying YOU'RE ALL AWESOME. This information is invaluable and I wish I had all of this locked away in my brain.
> Could you describe the conventions of naval warfare before gunpowder was in use?
> I'd very much like to use a naval battle sequence or two in one of my books, and I'm thinking of giving them something akin to Greek fire. How would this be used?
> Thanks!



Hello, Creed. The Greek fire question has been in question for so long. Some believe the claims to be over exaggerated while others like myself point to quite a few first hand sources that claim its truth. Regardless everyone agrees that SOMETHING was used to burn down several fleets, especially in the Byzantine period around Constantinople. The Byzantines had a penchant for murdering their Emperors, who kept the full secret of their Greek fire close to the royal family and trusted advisers. No one outside of that inner circle ever had the real picture.

  As for how they were used, the ships carrying the flame were generally smaller, quick moving vessels that could dart in and out with tighter turning so that they could do a run through and hit several enemy ships in one go. From about fifteen feet off they would hurl the liquid fire from siphons which would burst into flames on contact. The ingredients are unknown but most agree that a crude.. though possibly a refined petroleum was used, and the end result was very much akin to our modern napalm.

   As psychotick also said about the ramming, there were specialized boats that were rammed into enemy vessels and exploded on impact. They were used less frequently though.

   One of the most probable methods though was the clay pot rammer. Basically a ship would be outfitted with a ram at the bow and two clay pots were hung by cables off to the starboard and port sides were the ship would ram. When rammed into the side of an enemy vessel the force of the impact flung the pots onto the enemy ship to shatter and spread the suddenly very combustible fire over men and wood. Being nearly impossible to put out at that time, the result would almost surely destroy the enemy vessel and send the enemy into a state of pure terror... left with either drowning or burning to death. 

As for conventions of naval warfare before the rise of gunpowder, there were several different tactics used. Fleets would have smaller, quicker ships that carried crews of archers who would in effect do circles around larger ships or chase down smaller ones. Those smaller ships would rain arrows at enemy sailors, or light their arrows on fire to try and burn down sails or if possible set fire to the ship itself. 

  Medium and larger vessels were outfitted with powerful rams and a contingent of soldiers to board, as well as a core of archers to do their own work. Some ships had their on-board ballistae or ship mounted catapults, these would fling stones to breech enemy hulls, kill crew or when set ablaze be burning projectiles that added fire to the mix. The most used tactic was to ram and sink the enemy ship, but if not able to, they would line up alongside and set down gangplanks and charge across for melee. The Roman's used an extremely well defined of boarding tactics and had their gangplank's lined with teeth to bite down on an enemy vessel's deck so it couldn't easily be dislodged, before having their marines storm across, basically turning the two ships into one battlefield for the Roman meat grinding infantry.

The main thing was to either be extremely maneuverable and fast or large enough to were you could crush all resistance. Most fleets combined the two to work in tandem to envelope, slow and harass, before hammering home.

-Cold


----------



## Creed

Thank you both so much!
What sort of device and manpower would be needed to pump out this substance like a hose, though?


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Cold, thank you for all the valuable information that you are providing for us.

I have a question: What can you tell us about the legendary Giant Bombard that the Ottoman army used at the Siege of Constantinople in 1453?

As I understand it, the better-known Dardanelles Gun was a smaller version of the Giant Bombard. They say that the monstrous cannon from 1453 was 8.2 meters long and had to be transported by 60 oxen and 400 men... the thought that this weapon could fire a 270 kilograms stone ball to a distance of a mile is terrifying, and it's hard to imagine the fear that it caused in the inhabitants of the city.

Do you know if the Giant Bombard was really that large and powerful?

It would be great to feature the Giant Bombard in a Fantasy setting- I bet that if the forces of Mordor had counted with one, they would have destroyed Minas Tirith in a single day.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Sheilawisz said:


> Hello Cold, thank you for all the valuable information that you are providing for us.
> 
> I have a question: What can you tell us about the legendary Giant Bombard that the Ottoman army used at the Siege of Constantinople in 1453?
> 
> As I understand it, the better-known Dardanelles Gun was a smaller version of the Giant Bombard. They say that the monstrous cannon from 1453 was 8.2 meters long and had to be transported by 60 oxen and 400 men... the thought that this weapon could fire a 270 kilograms stone ball to a distance of a mile is terrifying, and it's hard to imagine the fear that it caused in the inhabitants of the city.
> 
> Do you know if the Giant Bombard was really that large and powerful?
> 
> It would be great to feature the Giant Bombard in a Fantasy setting- I bet that if the forces of Mordor had counted with one, they would have destroyed Minas Tirith in a single day.



Actually, from what I heard, the bombard was pretty ineffective. It took a really, really long time to reload, it overheated (so it couldn't be fired around the clock) and it didn't do _that _much damage to the walls. The walls weren't breached until the final assault and I think the infantry did some of the work. 

As a psychological weapon, I would rate the bombard as more valuable. Loud noises are very terrifying.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Creed said:


> Thank you both so much!
> What sort of device and manpower would be needed to pump out this substance like a hose, though?



It was probably a rudimentary water type pump. We don't know for sure what was actually used but it is theorized that it was something akin to a hand powered pump that could be used to irrigate farmland. It probably took several people to get the whole pump going at a constant rate to shoot out the liquid, and several more to aim it and make sure that it wasn't splashing onto their own ship which could obviously have some severe repercussions. Beyond that its all speculation since we haven't been able to reconstruct either the devices used or the combustible agent itself.

-Cold


----------



## thecoldembrace

Sheilawisz said:


> Hello Cold, thank you for all the valuable information that you are providing for us.
> 
> I have a question: What can you tell us about the legendary Giant Bombard that the Ottoman army used at the Siege of Constantinople in 1453?
> 
> As I understand it, the better-known Dardanelles Gun was a smaller version of the Giant Bombard. They say that the monstrous cannon from 1453 was 8.2 meters long and had to be transported by 60 oxen and 400 men... the thought that this weapon could fire a 270 kilograms stone ball to a distance of a mile is terrifying, and it's hard to imagine the fear that it caused in the inhabitants of the city.
> 
> Do you know if the Giant Bombard was really that large and powerful?
> 
> It would be great to feature the Giant Bombard in a Fantasy setting- I bet that if the forces of Mordor had counted with one, they would have destroyed Minas Tirith in a single day.



I spent several months in Turkey actually viewing these magnificent guns. The originals that were used against the walls of Constantinople have not been found, so what I viewed were later versions. I had always been fascinated by the stories told of how impressive the bombard was, and seeing it firsthand it definitely made the picture clear. The gun itself was actually two separate pieces that screwed together, a barrel and a powder chamber. Together the weapon weighed from 16 to 19 tons with a caliber of 63cm to 75cm. It could blast a ball of around 300kg which is around 660 pounds just over a mile to bury into a stout stone wall about 2 meters deep. It was cast of bronze and because of it's design and the powder used it had to be cooled using olive oil to avoid the barrel cracking. It took an hour to cool down enough to even begin to be reloaded and fired. On average each gun was only fired around six times a day.

   Because of their size the gun could not be elevate or aimed once it was assembled. It was basically set up, loaded and fired and the crews manning it both prayed it would hit where they wanted it to as well as hoping it wouldn't explode and kill them all... which is thought to be the thing that killed the cannon's creator Urban. Because of this inaccuracy the Turks did several things. They had smaller, more accurate guns that could be elevated and aimed to focus in on the areas were the bombard hit. The bombard broke the shell of the wall, which the Turkish gunners then took apart by using smaller cannons. 

   By the end of the 53 day siege entire sections of the walls had been reduced to rubble, allowing the soldiers to storm the once impregnable city. It was extremely loud, and it instilled a massive sense of panic into the citizens and defenders of the city, as they had never seen anything like it. If there had been a way of aiming the bombard so that it struck sections of the wall over and over the city would have fallen even quicker. 

   Minis Tirith was built to be both beautiful and resist a siege. However, if Mordor had been able to construct and use something like this, they probably could have done some amazing damage to the walls and city that trebuchets could not replicate. Would it have fallen in a single day? Probably not.

  As to Abbas-Al-Morim's post 





> Actually, from what I heard, the bombard was pretty ineffective. It took a really, really long time to reload, it overheated (so it couldn't be fired around the clock) and it didn't do that much damage to the walls. The walls weren't breached until the final assault and I think the infantry did some of the work.
> 
> As a psychological weapon, I would rate the bombard as more valuable. Loud noises are very terrifying.



I was lucky to have actually been witness to a replica's firepower firsthand. The damage it caused to a wall we constructed, one that took us three weeks to set up for a full glimpse at its power, was tremendous. It powdered the stone, with its kinetic energy cracking the entire length of what we built... stones almost 50 feet away from the impact had felt the impact and were damaged. The following sand, and rubble in subsequent sections absorbed some of the force but were also reduced. Regardless of its accuracy, the bombard would have allowed quick destruction of the wall by lesser cannon's after it did its work... which all the accounts point to. 

  It was ineffective by itself, but the Turks were smart, using it basically as a breech machine to allow the many other lesser cannons to do their work. Even though it took a long time to cool down and reload, the Turks employed a massive set of these grand bombards to fire at a near continued pace throughout the day and night. If they had rolled up to the walls with only one, it most definitely would not have done much of anything.

  I remember it took several days before the ringing in my ears to stop, even though I wore ear protection. People manning it at the siege must have been deaf at the end of the siege.

-Cold


----------



## Shadowfirelance

Here's two that I think you might be able to answer;

1) What was the longest known siege?

2) The Great Bombard, built with today's technology, would be an equivalent to...?


----------



## Queshire

Well building off of Cold's description of the Bombard used as a tool to create an opening in the target's defenses that more convential weapons can take care of and the fact that today's primary form of defense is information based; radar, electronic communications to provide foreknowledge, etc and so on, I would say that the modern equaivilent to the bombard would be an EMP. This would cripple the target's information gathering abilities and severely hurt their infrastructure. In fact, you can create an EMP by detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere/edge of space. However considering that this requires, ya know, detonating a nuke and that an EMP doesn't distinguish between knocking out a radar system and knocking out the machines that keep someone on life support alive.... not really the best tactic.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Shadowfirelance said:


> Here's two that I think you might be able to answer;
> 
> 1) What was the longest known siege?
> 
> 2) The Great Bombard, built with today's technology, would be an equivalent to...?



1) I think that'd be the Siege of Leningrad in WWII. That would also be the bloodiest siege in history. Or perhaps the Siege of Troy, but then again, that city wasn't really sieged continuously for 10 full years (according to several historians). 

2) That's quite hard to answer. Because if you'd build that bombard with today's technology, then it would take away all its drawbacks and it'd just be any long-range artillery piece.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Shadowfirelance said:


> Here's two that I think you might be able to answer;
> 
> 1) What was the longest known siege?
> 
> 2) The Great Bombard, built with today's technology, would be an equivalent to...?



Luckily for me, some of the longest sieges in recorded history belong to the Ottomans. The longest was twenty one years long on the island of Crete that started in 1648 after the Knights Hospitaller foolishly attacked the Ottoman navy bringing the plunder they obtained and part of the Sultan's harem to the city. Its now in what we call Heraklion. In the end the siege could not be broken by outside interference on the side of the knights, and the Ottomans could not breach the defenses. In the end Crete was ceded to the Ottomans in return for the safe passage of all Christians wishing to leave out of the area. It also led to several noisy naval engagements between the Ottoman navy and the Venetian navy.

As to what the great bombard with today's technology would be... thats an interesting and very difficult question. It wouldn't be anything close to the original, it would be a cannon and that's about all they would have in common. I'll have to think on this one.

-Cold


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Oh wow, I sure missed on that first question. Leningrad was only two years and a couple of months if I recall correctly. That's only a difference of nineteen years or so. Oh well!


----------



## TywinLannister

Hey, I'm back again  sorry to change the topic but I have a new question.

I was learning about formations for soldiers on the battlefield (things like the wedge and the line) then went on to learn about maneuvering. I know the Romans used a checkerboard-like system and in one of the battles in Game of Thrones, Tywin put his weakest rabble at the front to tire his enemy before charging with his strongest knights. I also know that attempting a pincer maneuver is a classic going way back to Marathon, but my main question is, what other maneuvers throughout history would commanders attempt after they had deployed their soldiers into formation?


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Double envelopment is a good technique, and you don't even need disciplined troops to do it. You just put the mellowest soldiers at your center, have your enemy push inwards (so your line becomes concave) and then the sides of you line will wrap around his. Hannibal Barcas used that technique at Cannae, but it has been used quite a lot in history. 

Oblique order is another good one, favored by Frederick II of Prussia. Basically, you use overwhelming force on one end of the line to rout it, while using a smaller portion of troops to hold the rest of your line. Routing their flank will not only cause a panic, it will allow you to flank the enemy. You do, of course, have to rely on your men to hold the center and the other side of the line against superior numbers (in the hypothesis both armies have about the same numerological strength). 

Advance en echelons was used in gunpowder times, but I suppose it might work without guns too. I'm not too familiar with this formation, so I'll just leave this to people more knowledgeable on this.

Edit: I just wanted to add this: for more information on formations, tactics and strategy, you could read J. F. C. Fuller's "Decisive Battles of the Western World". It's a bit of an old book (from the 60ies I think) but it's a very in depth look at tactics and battles of the world (from Marathon to Leuthen), with diagrams. It was written by a general who fought in the Great War. He was also a military historian and quite respected at that.


----------



## thecoldembrace

TywinLannister said:


> Hey, I'm back again  sorry to change the topic but I have a new question.
> 
> I was learning about formations for soldiers on the battlefield (things like the wedge and the line) then went on to learn about maneuvering. I know the Romans used a checkerboard-like system and in one of the battles in Game of Thrones, Tywin put his weakest rabble at the front to tire his enemy before charging with his strongest knights. I also know that attempting a pincer maneuver is a classic going way back to Marathon, but my main question is, what other maneuvers throughout history would commanders attempt after they had deployed their soldiers into formation?



Books have been written on this very thing, and it would likely take a book to answer such a broad question. Usually what I tell my students to do is pick up the journals and memoirs of the great commanders of the past. Armies across the ages have adapted new tactics and formations for their particular terrain, their type of arms and so forth. New weapons required new tactics, new formations to best use those weapons. The gunpowder age saw a shift in standard tactics and battlefield formations to best use muskets, grenades and the cannon. The American Civil War towards the end developed the first well versed use of trench warfare that lead into WW1 as a way of trying to adapt to the new accuracy of rifled guns and airburst shells fired by cannons. 

   What I would say is, if you have a specific period in time you would like me to focus on I can go into a much greater detail of formations, maneuvers, tactics and the overarching strategy. Say you want to know something about Alexander the Great and how his formation differed from traditional Greek battle tactics and formations, I would be able to in depth go into it for you. I want to address what you prefer to learn rather than ramble on about something that might not interest you.

-Cold


----------



## Shadowfirelance

I'd personally love to hear about Alexander's, I love the time and the fact he was just so awesome he beat most of the world.


----------



## TywinLannister

Hey, thanks Abbas, I've actually read some of those things. and I'll check out the book!

And thanks thecoldembrace, I guess I'll go digging for some journals then. And I wouldn't mind Alexander, but I was more curious on medieval Europe.


----------



## Jabrosky

What kind of missions could a special-ops commando force carry out? I have an order of highly-trained elite warriors who function as special-ops commandos for their king, but the mission I originally assigned them (assassination) seems better suited to espionage.


----------



## Malik

Modern-day SOF (Special Operations Forces, not to be confused with "Special Forces," which are a mission-specific SOF element) carry out missions that, by definition, the rest of the conventional military is not tooled to do. 

Modern SOF capabilities include:

Direct action / commando (seizing a key piece of terrain, infrastructure, or a person, and holding it for a short time until "management" moves in; the Rangers excel at this. . . and, frankly, little else. Sorry, Rangers. DA is not war. It's the world's coolest hobby.)

Airborne or air-mobile operations (in our world, choppers, fast-ropes, or parachutes; so, maybe mounted on gryphons or pegasi?) 

Counterinsurgency (defense of the realm against internal armed threats, i.e. revolutionaries, paramilitaries, rabblerousers)

Unconventional warfare (which is the opposite of counterinsurgency; UW is training revolutionaries and paramilitaries until they can stand up for themselves; at which point SOF shakes hands and makes themselves scarce -- Rambo was a movie; this is Special Forces' bread and butter)

Covert operations (operations planned in secret but with publically-visible and attributable results; in our world, the raid on bin Laden was covert)

Clandestine operations (the opposite of covert ops; in clandestine ops no one ever knows who did it, or sometimes even that it happened at all; midnight snatch-and-grabs, "making it look like an accident," you get the idea. Also, unconventional warfare is usually clandestine.) 

Counterterrorism (whacking badguys - this is ACE / Jack Bauer stuff; kicking down doors and blowing baddies away -- the stuff the Rangers like to think they do.) 

Personnel recovery (finding lost or captured people; a series about a team of ranger-types _[EDIT: Aragorn-types]_ who just find lost people in a fantasy wilderness would be AWESOME)

Intelligence Operations (gathering information, reconnaissance, special reconnaissance -- SR is recon while forward deployed [beyond reinforcement or supply lines] in hostile territory without being seen -- and human reconnaissance, which is just going out and asking people what's been happening lately. In a fantasy setting, IO would also include transporting secret information.)

Civil Affairs (winning hearts and minds; in our world, CA teams do humanitarian work and conflict mediation in places the Peace Corps would run away from screaming; in a fantasy world, they'd be sent by the king or government to help out after a disaster or crisis to show that the ruler was still "the good guy.")

PSYOP (winning hearts and minds through manipulation of the "official" story; the Catholic Church were the masters of this throughout the Middle Ages)

Foreign internal defense (training foreign militaries to stomp out revolutionaries)

Asymmetric warfare (guerrilla tactics; tactics and strategies used to defeat an opponent who has a significant advantage in capabilities or numbers. Often taught hand-in-glove with unconventional warfare.)

Terrain-specific operations (desert, riverine, naval [think SEALs] jungle, mountain)

Interdiction / countersmuggling / counterpiracy.

I would add a cartographic team to this; in a fantasy world, somebody has to go out there and make maps for the ruler of the place. It would be hideously dangerous and really cool. 

So, yeah. Pick one or two, and have fun. Most First-World armies have an array of Special Ops units that each specialize in one of the above. Most of the armies in the developing world have one type of SOF, if any at all, with a capability set dependent upon the nation's most urgent military need. _[EDITED AGAIN: "Urgent" is highly subjective, of course. Qaddafi's "Green Nuns," AKA "The Amazonian Guard" -- his all-virgin female personal security detail armed to the teeth in high heels and fatigues -- were Libya's only real, functional SOF.]_


----------



## thecoldembrace

TywinLannister said:


> Hey, I'm back again  sorry to change the topic but I have a new question.
> 
> I was learning about formations for soldiers on the battlefield (things like the wedge and the line) then went on to learn about maneuvering. I know the Romans used a checkerboard-like system and in one of the battles in Game of Thrones, Tywin put his weakest rabble at the front to tire his enemy before charging with his strongest knights. I also know that attempting a pincer maneuver is a classic going way back to Marathon, but my main question is, what other maneuvers throughout history would commanders attempt after they had deployed their soldiers into formation?





> Shadowfirelance
> I'd personally love to hear about Alexander's, I love the time and the fact he was just so awesome he beat most of the world.





> TywinLannister
> Hey, thanks Abbas, I've actually read some of those things. and I'll check out the book!
> 
> And thanks thecoldembrace, I guess I'll go digging for some journals then. And I wouldn't mind Alexander, but I was more curious on medieval Europe.



   So lets take a look at Alexander the Great. I apologize for taking so long to get to these posts, but research papers from my students came in and I was drowning there for awhile. 

   I call Alexander the Master of the Anvil and Hammer method. There was a reason he conquered so much land in so little time, and remained undefeated until his death at the young age of 32. Alexander was gifted with the ability to almost instantaneously read the battlefield and come up with a workable plan that would grant his forces advantage regardless of usually being outnumbered. I will get into the hammer and anvil shortly.

   We will start with the battle of Issus which took place not long after the battle of Granicus in November 333 B.C.E. This was the second battle in a series of three against the Persian Emperor Darius III. On one side of the Pinarus River, which stretched from Mediterranean Sea to foothills stood the enormous army of Darius and his Persians/Greeks while on the other side had Alexander and his Macedonians/Thessalians/Greeks. The Persians had chosen a solid defensive position, however it was in a narrow stretch of land which denied them the ability to use their superior numbers.

   Because of this the Persians deployed in a double echelon which is basically two main lines running parallel to one another. Darius did two main things, he moved one large core of cavalry to attack Alexander's right in the foothills, and moved his other large core of cavalry to his right flank to an area better suited for horse combat and charges. 

   So we have a very large core of Persian cavalry on the Persian right (Alexander's left)  which would face off against Greek cavalry and Thessalians. On Alexander's left he countered by using the flying column in ad hoc with Agrians (Agrains being fast moving, crack javelin throwers that excelled in hilly and mountainous terrain) and a small core of light cavalry to combat the core of Persian cavalry. 

   On the Persian side we have Darius set in the center amongst Greek mercenaries which were flanked by Cardace infantry (Persian heavy infantry) with teams of archers set out in front along the banks of the river. The second line was made up of less reliable infantry. 

   Alexander used the oblique battle order, which is to strengthen a single flank and weaken the rest in order to achieve a local superiority of numbers while the rest of the army attempts to pin the enemy against them and hold out. This takes an extremely disciplined army to achieve, as weakening the line anywhere can have grave consequences if the troops fail to hold the enemy in place. He put his heavy infantry in the center, in the traditional Macedonian phalanx which pitted them against the Greek mercenaries on the Persian side. At Alexander's right he placed his hammer, himself with his Companions and the disciplined hypaspist corps along with archers and more Agrians. 

   Using his Macedonians to pin the Persians in the center they operated as the anvil. The Persian right pressed forward against the opposing force of Greek cavalry and Thessalians putting Alexander's left in great peril. However using the strength of his hypaspists and combined Companions and skirmishers Alexander smashed the Persian left with a rapid ferocity. He used this momentum to roll his force 90 degrees to attack the Persian center which was holding very well against the Macedonian phalanx (which was fighting in the water while the Persians held the shore). Alexander attacked the Persian center at its rear, front and left flank against the Persian Greek mercenaries. They could not hold being attacked at every direction and began to break.

   Seeing his left completely disintegrated and his center being surrounded, Darius abandoned the field, which the rest of the army saw and followed as an example. The Persian right had very nearly won the right flank but upon seeing their king flee along with the rest of the army they too withdrew.

   Thus by using the oblique battle order and the hammer and anvil, Alexander was able to beat the numerically and defensively superior Persian force AT a river battle. Using his Macedonians as the anvil (to set the enemy in place) and using his elite Companions and hypaspist infantry he smashed the Persian left and brought his force around to act as a hammer to the anvil attacking the pinned Persian center between his Macedonian phalanx and the rest of his army.

  Alexander used the hammer and anvil tactic yet again at the final battle of Gaugamela against an even larger Persian host, which subsequently destroyed the Persian Empire and gave Alexander the crown. 

There is a bit of information there. It might quench the thirst of some minds. 

-Cold


----------



## TywinLannister

thanks thecoldembrace, that was pretty good insight into the mindset of a commander, I appreciate it. hope grading those papers wasn't a killer!


----------



## thecoldembrace

TywinLannister said:


> thanks thecoldembrace, that was pretty good insight into the mindset of a commander, I appreciate it. hope grading those papers wasn't a killer!



Glad I could help, Lord Tywin. I did see that you were interested in medieval commanders. Is there anyone in particular that you'd like me to talk about?


----------



## Shadowfirelance

That's extremely impressive and detailed. I think I love you now.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Shadowfirelance said:


> That's extremely impressive and detailed. I think I love you now.



Meh, I could have gone into more detail, but that was the gist of the battle. Alexander was a simplistic commander that used normal battle order with unique twists to gain the upper hand. I'm glad that it was helpful though.

-Cold


----------



## TywinLannister

How about Charlemagne thecoldembrace?


----------



## Gray

I've been trying to find out, without much success, about warfare in the 18th century, specifically the point at which matchlock and flintlock had been introduced but melee combat with sabers and pikes was also still going on. Could you tell me:

*How large scale battles would typically play out

*The various strategies used to help in this regard

*The various formations of soldiers

*The types of protection worn by soldiers

Sorry if any of this is vague. As you can probably tell, knowledge of warfare isn't by strong point.


----------



## thecoldembrace

TywinLannister said:


> How about Charlemagne thecoldembrace?



Ah Charlemagne, the great man that waged war across Europe and yet we have almost no first person or second written sources. Luckily for you, I hated not knowing about Charlemagne's battle tactics, other than from third to fifth person sources, which suck by the way. So for seven months I pieced together my own personal theory on what made Charlemagne the main man, and why he beat so many foes. 

   I won't go into a battle here, but I can explain what he used to win and why his emergence at that specific time contributed to his victories.

   So first of all we need to understand the world that Charlemagne lived in and what he inherited when he took the crown in 768 alongside his younger brother Carloman. The following year, Charles had to deal with a rebellion by himself, as his brother would not come to his aid. There was not much familial love in these times, and both men wanted to rule by themselves.

	The Dukes of Aquitaine and Gascony would be swiftly put in their place when Charles mobilized his army and marched. He went immediately into the stronger of the two's lands, Aquitaine, building a fort at the border from which he would launch his campaign and to supply his army. 

	Using swift almost force marches and night marches Charles surprised the Duke of Aquitaine who promptly fled to Gascony. Gascony now without an ally was ordered by Charles to hand over the Duke, which it did rather quickly. This destroyed the rebellion in just a few weeks, while it was still in its cradle, a marvel of the time period. 

	This would dominate how Charles conducted his campaigns. While Alexander was a master of battle, Charles was a master of logistics and speedy movements. He had one of the best logistical systems ever organized that kept his men from foraging which Charles hated as it forced his men to spread out over an area at the expense of the local population which he always tried to keep intact. This allowed his men to be ever present in their bulk to confront their enemies, while moving at a rapid pace that surprised his enemies time and time again.

	A short time later Carloman died of natural causes, or so the reports read, leaving Charles with sole control and rule of the Frankish Empire and a very, very powerful army.

	Since this is probably why you are reading aside from the history lesson on Charlemagne, lets delve into what made his army so formidable. 

	The army that Charles inherited from his father and grandfather was extremely organized. It had been hardened by near constant warfare. The main component of the army was what amounted to a professional army: the royal _scara_. Young nobles recruited from the wealthiest families in the kingdom formed this part and were organized into three tiers according to a type of seniority of trust and experience. They were full time soldiers, which meant with the resources of their nobility they were extremely well equipped and very well trained. 

	One thing to note about Charles's army was that every part of it provided its own equipment, which gave Charles a sort of break on having to fund it from his own pockets to do so.

	The _scara _was all mounted, and most had the use of the stirrup, saddle and used the lance and dressed in mail and had metal helmets (which most men in this time period never had, most never even had helmets.) These men also had short swords and wooden shields, some of which that I have seen had metal bosses. 

	The next level of the army was pretty much the standard feudal levy called the _lantweri_. (The German _Landwehr _very likely came from this. What made this up was those under the Frankish system owed their lord around ninety days of service a year, and you did it because the penalty of not doing so was death. However, apart from the other feudal systems in practice at the time the Frankish system did something different than what we call a universal levy to a district levy. Each district was required to field a single man, armed and trained, a professional soldier. This did lower the size of the army but gave it the advantage of quality and also fed into Charles's logistical system, making it easier to feed and supply the army.

	When fully levied the Frankish army had a very large core of mounted men at arms, who had been trained very well and armed with the best weapons and armor. However, most of the army was still on foot soldiers who while had better armaments than most, were not as well trained. 

	Charles also used archers regularly, a tactic at the time that most other territories often despised as a coward's weapon. 

	Throughout Charlemagne's reign he fought many wars against his neighbors, expanding the Frankish Empire. Every defeated foe brought a new element to his army. Saxons provided very powerful light infantry troops and archers. Bretons used javelin throwing cavalry that would do fake charges, throw and ride away to rearm and do it again. Gascans also fielded light infantry and light cavalry meant to harass. 

	What gave Charlemagne the edge however was the full shock of mounted combat. In an age when cavalry in Western Europe was just beginning, he used it to best advantage. He would hammer home and harass and ride away and do it again until the enemy broke. This combined with a very powerful scouting force and logistics allowed the Franks to move quickly against their enemies, many times catching them barely organizing and smashing them to the winds. Also in an age when few had helmets, Charles's use of archers wreaked a heavy toll on thick enemy formations.

  Put everything together and you have a very powerful army that can basically march extremely quickly to a target area, build a fort to launch operations and steamroll the enemy. In all of his time Charles was only really beaten by the Saxons in Northern Europe and the Moors in Northern Iberia. It took fifteen years to finally pacify the Saxon tribes, but the Song of Roland gives us the account of the Moorish troops attacking the Frankish rearguard and destroying them.

I know its alot, but it should give you some extra information, and what kind of history professor would I be if I didn't take time to give you a small history lesson?

-Cold


----------



## TywinLannister

Wow! That was pretty nice  A lot of it actually reminds me of how warfare was conducted in the 14th century; I'm surprised at the similarities. Thank you so much for the information, I appreciate it


----------



## thecoldembrace

Gray said:


> I've been trying to find out, without much success, about warfare in the 18th century, specifically the point at which matchlock and flintlock had been introduced but melee combat with sabers and pikes was also still going on. Could you tell me:
> 
> *How large scale battles would typically play out
> 
> *The various strategies used to help in this regard
> 
> *The various formations of soldiers
> 
> *The types of protection worn by soldiers
> 
> Sorry if any of this is vague. As you can probably tell, knowledge of warfare isn't by strong point.



No worries to the vagueness, Gray. Welcome to the Scribes! I apologize for taking so long to get to your question.

Large scale battles in the 18th Century played out according to force size, and discipline as much as strategic and tactical skill on the part of the commanders and generals. 

Terrain was key, as armies moved across the landscape to meet each other head on. Statistically there were far more pitched battles in the 18th and 19th centuries than in the past. Generals were far more concerned with decisive victories and sought those on the battlefield rather than sitting down and bombarding a city or fortification into submission, though this was still highly common.

So in this age, when gunpowder was becoming the staple of weaponry and weapon systems morphed to add it and detract from older versions, the pike infantry was a very heavy and inexpensive core of troops to maintain. Also in this age, weapons were slowly becoming more accurate, but still had a very, very high inaccuracy. Because of this, battles were still decided in the melee.

  Armies would march in a set of lines (gunpowder troops) and battle squares (pike infantry) with cavalry on the flanks. Musket troops would stay near the battle squares of pike infantry so that they could fire and retreat in the case of oncoming cavalry. The pike squares would destroy any kind of cavalry assault and had hollowed centers for the musket armed soldiers to flee to, reload and leave from when ready.

Muskets would fire with cannons until close proximity (usually 2-5 volleys) and then a general charge would be called for all soldiers. The two armies would clash with the cavalry on the wings trying to quickly smash their opponents in order to ride around and strike the vulnerable rear of the enemy army.

This moment depends heavily on the training and discipline of the men in each army. Elite troops and veterans would generally be held in key areas or in reserve to strike and inspire as the right times in battle, to deal with crises as they arose. The best use and amount of these men would generally win the final push and break the enemy army. As each army fought, the soldiers who survived gained a great deal of experience to help them resist the urge to flee, but even the most elite soldiers would break and run if all hell was falling around them.

As to protection worn, it was a slow morph from the heavy armor seen in the past with chain mail and plate. Musketeers generally wore little except cloth and leather, using mobility to their advantage, as a slow musketeer was generally butchered by swift moving cavalry. Pikemen wore a mobile yet protective breastplate and helm, some with greaves (though few) over heavy padding. They could wear this and move rather quickly and it might spare them from the bullet of a musket at long range. The cavalry wore light armor, with heavy breastplates, helms and leg protection.

It's not a whole lot, but I can delve more into it if you'd like.

-Cold


----------



## Gurkhal

I have a question concerning crossbows and longbows. If I want to have a world where for some centuries at least knights have doiminated the battlefield, is it a necessity to say that there are no crossbows and longbows or can knights maintain a social, political and military dominance for a prelonged period despite the existance of these weapons?

I suspect that the answer will be "yes, you can" but I wanted to get another, more informed, opinion on it.


----------



## Queshire

In my opinion it wasn't longbows and crossbows that doomed the knights, it was guns.


----------



## Gurkhal

Queshire said:


> In my opinion it wasn't longbows and crossbows that doomed the knights, it was guns.



I tend to agree, but you never know, and it seems to me that the crossbow started the long slide down into oblivion for the military concept of knights.


----------



## wordwalker

It wasn't simply guns that ended knights; they continued for I think centuries after guns appeared, and then never exactly disappeared, only stopped dominating the battlefield in person. (Armies became more professional and less feudal, but were still lead by "an officer and a gentleman.")

As I understand it, it was the economics of maintaining classic knighthood that squeezed them out, but I'm not sure which parts of that had the strongest or first effect. Which ranged weapons (and anti-cavalry pikes) made replacing your warhorse more common, and maintaining thicker and thicker armor? When the cost of training--and equipping--a more modern private army, couldn't balance against how your king could do the same with larger resources and make lesser nobles its officers because they were loyal to him? Or just the understanding that weapons and organization were making the troops the real power in war, not just the knights taking the spotlight?

It wasn't a simple answer, like shooting one knight out of his saddle.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Gurkhal said:


> I have a question concerning crossbows and longbows. If I want to have a world where for some centuries at least knights have dominated the battlefield, is it a necessity to say that there are no crossbows and longbows or can knights maintain a social, political and military dominance for a prolonged period despite the existence of these weapons?
> 
> I suspect that the answer will be "yes, you can" but I wanted to get another, more informed, opinion on it.



   Knights can still dominate a battlefield with a wide use of longbows and crossbows, provided they have terrain key to their use of mobility and speed, to avoid atrocious losses. They still played a major roll in warfare up to the point to where guns became mainstream, used in mass volleys, and then the roll of the knight became switched to meld with the new tactics. Many would still lead cavalry units, dragoons and the like, though wearing much less armor, usually keeping with a cuirass and helm to protect the vital organs with some extra protection.

  Another thing you can do, is simply to cheat and not have your archers use bodkin points which had a higher chance of armor pen. 

  The thing with archers in general in the middle ages was that even with their great success on the battlefield they were still treated with contempt even by their own armies. Knights remained the golden warrior, and the iconic symbol. 

  With a wider use of ranged weaponry, knights have to choose their battles better. Open field for horses is one, and surprisingly enough tight forested areas were also chosen sites because a knight could move from tree to tree, with lines of protection, and could engage with less fear of being picked off. (Unless you throw the archers IN the trees. Which isn't feasible for a large force.) 

Knights remained the warrior of choice, tho fewer in number and could have difficulty against large cores of pike and crossbow levies they were the hammer to the anvil. Both armies generally used large levies and so the knights were often used as that final use to break the enemy lines, or ride around and slaughter unprotected archers who didn't have pikes or stakes set up. Along with the lanced charge, they were still extremely devastating, until a volley of guns leveled the playing field. 

Basically, make your knights smarter. They must pick and choose their battlefields with more care when large numbers of archers and crossbows were arrayed against them.

-Cold


----------



## Gurkhal

Thanks guys, it helps me plan out things alot.


----------



## Nagash

I may have a question for you about chain of command on battlefield, Cold. I have this sovereign nation in my WIP, which resembles the Romans in their martial aspect - they are extremely organized on battlefield, and are ruthlessly efficient, thanks to their large numbers and natural strength.

Now the thing is i may have been a wee-bit excessive on numbers. The Sehras have an operational force of thirty millions troopers (mostly because every citizen received extensive military training, and is numbered as an available soldier) but generally use between five hundred-thousand and three-million mens for most of their wars - which is still ridiculously huge for medieval times (it seems important to point out i've adapted demographics in order to make this number logical). Such an army can't be efficient unless it has a strong chain of command, which is why i designed some idea of "military hierarchy".

Regular Troops : 3 millions

Ka-Shahn (Supreme Generals) : 8 members, ruling the legions (two or three each)
Shahn (Legion Generals) : 17 individuals, ruling one legion each
Sakhet (Army leaders) : ~ 50 ruling the armies composing the legions
Hakan (Corps d'armÃ©e leaders) : A few hundreds, leading the "corps d'armÃ©e"
Major (Division leaders) : Several hundreds, leading the divisions
Serpent-guards (Brigade leaders) : Thousands ; they lead the brigades within the divisions
Colonel (Regiment leaders) : Thousands ; they lead the regiments
Tesketh (Battalion leaders) : Thousands ; they lead the battalions
Captain (Company leader) : Thousands ; they lead the companies within the battalions
Adjudant (Chef de troupe) : Thousands ; they lead the troupes
Sergeant (Squad leader) : Tens of Thousands; lead the squads
Caporal (Group leader) : Hundreds of thousands; lead the small groups (5 - 10 men)
Trooper (basic infantry) : Hundreds of thousands

I figured a very strong chain of command implemented at each level of an army was the good way to make sure it is efficiently used on the battlefield, and that the lowest level follows the order of the highest. Does it seem probable that such an enormous army could be a working on battlefield, keeping in mind that the Sehras are taught respect, order, fidelity and honor, from cradle to grave, and are therefore psychologically extremely martial ?


----------



## thecoldembrace

Nagash said:


> I figured a very strong chain of command implemented at each level of an army was the good way to make sure it is efficiently used on the battlefield, and that the lowest level follows the order of the highest. Does it seem probable that such an enormous army could be a working on battlefield, keeping in mind that the Sehras are taught respect, order, fidelity and honor, from cradle to grave, and are therefore psychologically extremely martial ?



   The whole issue with massive armies has always been logistics. Keeping even 10k men supplied prior to mechanized transport was a daunting task. Food, fresh water, fodder for animals, and equipment for the soldiers all had to be taken into account.

   Historically medieval armies were small because of several reasons. The structure of feudal society created an elite class of warriors. This gave you your mounted men and their retinue of men at arms, all armed and armored. Against an armored warrior with extensive training a peasant with a hoe doesn't stand much of a chance. Feeding scores of peasants was difficult and because they were mainly useless on the battlefield this left armies rather small. 

  Also the medieval period was an age of fortification, using castles as a force multiplier. Those inside did not want a large core of men, because supplies would vanish practically overnight. At the same time a small army in a keep can withstand and hold out against a much larger host outside the walls.

   Historically the early and late medieval periods saw the largest fielded armies. Before the development of heavy plate, large levies could be used extensively to kill even well trained soldiers. The peasants in this time period weren't completely useless and you have a broader sense of the warrior class. 

   Toward the late medieval period the eastern armies fielded hundreds of thousands of Muslim warriors. The Mongols also were known to field massive armies, because with an entire population mobile, every able bodied man was generally added to the military strength of the horde.

   Logistics had to be well defined to field massive armies.

   However, it is possible. Your awesome lizardmen could be extremely capable at maintaining supply lines to allow this many men to operate. 
   With the amount of troops you describe you could theoretically field a massive front against any enemy, while not worrying about if you have enough troops on a battlefield. 

   I generally have a rule of thumb for my world. Keep it below half a million. I once wanted to field an army of 250k dwarfs, but I thought about that number and it was entirely unfeasible.

   With yours, I can understand why you have so many, and I truly feel sorry for those who decide to mess with your Sehras.



-Cold


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Cold, I have a few curious questions for you.

1- What can you tell us about incendiary weapons in Medieval times? I would like to know what types of liquid or what ingredients could be used with this purpose. I know that Greek Fire was very powerful and it was capable of destroying ships easily, but its exact composition has been lost.

Was it possible to manufacture incendiary grenades or bombs of some kind? Also, the fiery balls that are shot by Trebuchets in some movies... Are those realistic at all?

2- What do you know about the use of Sulfur fumes as a primitive chemical weapon? I have heard that Arsenic fumes were used as well sometimes, with the intention to harass a fortress.

How effective would that be in a Fantasy setting?


----------



## mowque

I am most interested in siege warfare. Do you what books or webpages might give me insight in this area of knowledge? I'm looking for , roughly, roman era information.


----------



## chrispenycate

Greek fire involved naphtha (unrefined petroleum, though what grade is not clear; the same word was used for anything from bitumen to kerosene. I imagine from the more liquid end of the spectrum). Salpetre (saltpeter, potassium nitrate, extracted from dung heaps), so it contained its own oxidant, required no air to burn and couldn't be extinguished by water,  and apparently sulphur, so the blazing mixture stuck to skin 'like Satan's urine' (never having been micturated on by Satan I can not judge this qualitatively, but probably similar to napalm). The 'syphon' I saw illustrated was bronze (with a relatively low melting point, so the fire wasn't that hot) and apparently manned by two operators to aim, and another two to pump. Even this would give a fairly short range, so it was surprising there was no major protection from arrows - cataphract archers were known for power and range. I imagine the deck of the ship – oh, yes, this was almost exclusively a naval weapon, not mobile enough for land engagements - would have copper plate or something to protect it from splatter.

Several versions of Roman artillery fired balls of flaming pitch, or what were essentially giant fire arrows from ballistae. But these were mainly siege weapons, not antipersonnel.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Sheilawisz said:


> Hello Cold, I have a few curious questions for you.
> 
> 1- What can you tell us about incendiary weapons in Medieval times? I would like to know what types of liquid or what ingredients could be used with this purpose. I know that Greek Fire was very powerful and it was capable of destroying ships easily, but its exact composition has been lost.



So as Chris said, a crude petroleum was generally the main ingredient used.

The Crusaders used their own version of greek-fire, but was better known as wildfire. Sulfur was one ingredient, along with saltpetre, antimony, turpentine, rosin and tallow.

Other ingredients known are quicklime, resin, bitumen and others. I heard one theory that an active ingredient was a calcium phosphide made by heating lime, charcoal and bones.



> Was it possible to manufacture incendiary grenades or bombs of some kind? Also, the fiery balls that are shot by Trebuchets in some movies... Are those realistic at all?



Bombs were used quite frequently in warfare from ancient to modern. The ability to saturate a target with pitch, or other flammable material and then light it aflame gave advantage to both besieger and besieged. Walls of wood could be burned down, gates could be torched, and oncoming ladders and other siege equipment could be destroyed with flames.

Many cultures used pots filled with flammable liquid with a cloth torch tied to the outside that would ignite the material when the pots broke apart upon impact. This was used often in both siege and battlefield scenarios. Romans would litter a treeline of a battlefield with flame by hurling pots behind enemy lines to trap their foes or force them into areas where killing could be better achieved. 



> 2- What do you know about the use of Sulfur fumes as a primitive chemical weapon? I have heard that Arsenic fumes were used as well sometimes, with the intention to harass a fortress.
> 
> How effective would that be in a Fantasy setting?





I know that Sulfur fumes were used in the battle beneath sieges in the sapper's tunnels. The fumes had to be used in confined spaces because they dispersed so quickly and it was more used by the defenders than by the attackers. Of arsenic fumes I'd have to do a bit more research on that. I can't recall any instances off the top of my head of the use of such.

Anything that can be used in our world can easily work in a fantasy setting. It might even be more common place in worlds where there are larger military operations going on underground. The ability to drive your foe away from your tunnels would be a clear tactic that most races would employ given the chance.


-Cold


----------



## Starscream

This thread will be most helpful , hats off to the op for his foresight!


----------



## thecoldembrace

Starscream said:


> This thread will be most helpful , hats off to the op for his foresight!



Thank you for reading the thread, Starscream. If you have any questions feel free to add them for everyone.


-Cold


----------



## Bortasz

I have world where Romans from 140 A.D. transfer to world where Dwarfs, Trolls, Goblins and Elfs. Where is Magic. And Have some questions. 

1. Does any pre Gunpowder army be difficult enemy for Roman Legion? 
I want know does my Humans could easy conquer the World. Does any tactics/strategy/army/unite will be hard to counter for Romans? 

2. Do you know any think that could easy stop or nullify Gunpowder? 
My main Character is from 21 century. So he know that some stuff is possible, even if he just know that he must use coal, sulfer and nitrate, he have chance to create pretty good guns. I wonder how create something that will keep battlefield in the pre Gunpowder times. 

3. Does something like modern Special Forces exist in ancient Rome? 

When I will create solid basic for my magic I will ask about Magic and war


----------



## Jabrosky

If you have a fortress on a national frontier guarding against barbarian incursions, would it make sense to send patrols out of the fortress to keep a closer eye on the barbarians?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Jabrosky said:


> If you have a fortress on a national frontier guarding against barbarian incursions, would it make sense to send patrols out of the fortress to keep a closer eye on the barbarians?



Patrols always make sense. The number one reason for a patrol is to keep the enemy from preparing attacks in the vicinity without the defender's knowledge.


----------



## Bortasz

Jabrosky said:


> If you have a fortress on a national frontier guarding against barbarian incursions, would it make sense to send patrols out of the fortress to keep a closer eye on the barbarians?



Like Allen said. 
Patrols/Scouts even Spy is good. Because Information is good. 
Knowing when enemy will approach is great advantages. You can plan harvest of crops from local farms. Slaughtering the catel and sheep. Extra training for militia. 
Information is always vital to warfare. So send those patrols. And hire spy from local tribes.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Bortasz said:


> I have world where Romans from 140 A.D. transfer to world where Dwarfs, Trolls, Goblins and Elfs. Where is Magic. And Have some questions.
> 
> 1. Does any pre Gunpowder army be difficult enemy for Roman Legion?
> I want know does my Humans could easy conquer the World. Does any tactics/strategy/army/unite will be hard to counter for Romans?



   Hello, Bortasz, thank you for this question.
   So you have the Roman Legion in it's prime, awesome. 
   Throughout the history of the Roman Empire, the legion always struggled greatly in three scenarios.

1.) Legionaries are molded to fight a specific way, that is to say as a cohesive unit with room to maneuver. When this is not achieved we can see time and time again the slaughter that occurs. In the *Battle of the Teutoburg Forest* in 9 C.E. against the Germanic tribes and the *Battle of Adrianople* in 378 against the Goths are two moments where the ability to maneuver was taken away. The legion was flanked and pressed together, unable to pivot to meet new challenges.

2.) In moments when the legion is denied the ability to fight as a whole cohesive unit, i.e. using guerrilla tactics, forcing the legionaries to range out from their more expansive units where they are forced to fight one on one the losses will be significantly higher and statistically the chance of defeat will be immensely high. To go along with this to deny the Roman legion the ability to fight a pitched infantry battle will deny them their greatest strength. If you can keep them at a distance and whittle away at them with hit and run tactics or shower them with arrows you can effectively nullify their military strength.

3.) The final scenario was proven time and time again as a heavy weakness of the Roman war machine, the heavy cavalryman. From Hannibal at *Cannae*, the Parthians at *Carrhae*, to Attila and his Huns. Rome severely lacked the ability to field and deal with large amounts of enemy cavalry, especially heavy lanced cavalry employed by Parthia.



> 2. Do you know any think that could easy stop or nullify Gunpowder?
> My main Character is from 21 century. So he know that some stuff is possible, even if he just know that he must use coal, sulfer and nitrate, he have chance to create pretty good guns. I wonder how create something that will keep battlefield in the pre Gunpowder times.



So there are several ways to limit or nullify the use of gunpowder. One initial way is to simply limit the ability to gather the resources necessary to produce gunpowder. However, this would only limit it, my solution: he needs to be an expert to produce actual guns. A random joe smoe will not know how to produce a gun that can work well with black powder. Casting barrels is an art form that even the best in the early days failed at, resulting in a lot of documented moments of disaster, often involving the death of the gunsmith during trials. 



> 3. Does something like modern Special Forces exist in ancient Rome?



Rome did not have anything that we could really consider equivalent to modern special forces. Almost any type of soldier could be picked out for special assignment, but in terms of what we deal with nowadays they really didn't have anything "special."

Someone might throw the Batavi at you, saying they were Rome's Navy SEALS, but they were extremely limited, and only operated in very, very, very specific times in Roman history. They were specialists in two things, swimming across rivers that others thought impassible to strike against an enemy on the other side, and training their mounts to swim the same waters, giving them an edge with sudden cavalry attacks. Other than them, theres not much else.

I hope this information helps out.



-Cold


----------



## Bortasz

To sum up. 

1. Take away there manoeuvrability. With means they were not able to put shield wall in my way. 

2. Guerilla tactics. Hit, run. Repeat. 

3. Heavy Cavalry with lances. 

Tree the worst think that can happen to Roman Legionaire. 

Having knowledge of gunpowder will allow only produce gunpowder but Guns that shot them is something different. 

There were no Spec-Ops unites in Ancient Rome. 

Got it. Thank you for help. 

Another Question: 
Do you know when something like special - forces show up in the history? 
I know Polish Lisowczycy
Lisowczycy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I'm curious does something other unites exist in the Pass. 

And one more time Thank you.


----------



## CupofJoe

Bortasz said:


> Another Question:
> Do you know when something like special - forces show up in the history?
> I know Polish Lisowczycy
> Lisowczycy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> But I'm curious does something other unites exist in the Pass.
> And one more time Thank you.


Specialist troops have always existed, Mountain Troops, Scouts, Assault  Troops, Reconnaissance Cavalry, even Riflemen and Grenadiers in their  beginnings...
And every/most armies seems to have had its elite units, even if only if this elite status was in the eyes of those in the unit... [UK Guard regiments are standard cavalry regiments in the British Army but they are only 4 [5?] that get to officially guard the Queen...]
But as we would understand them Special Forces are a fairly recent invention, in the last hundred years or so.
I've always thought that what we now consider Special Forces begin about WW2 with the likes of the SAS and Commando Forces or maybe the Zulu and Boer Wars where irregular Scout Forces were used widely.
A case could be made for Native American cavalry as being unconventional troops as compared to their western derived and trained opponents.
Ninjas should be in that list and possibly Assassins...
I do not doubt that others will have different opinions...


----------



## thecoldembrace

Jabrosky said:


> If you have a fortress on a national frontier guarding against barbarian incursions, would it make sense to send patrols out of the fortress to keep a closer eye on the barbarians?



A frontier post would be nothing without the work of scouts and spies. The function of such a place, besides being the first line of defense guarding against incursions is to sniff out plots across the border. Information is funneled from frontier posts as they are often also trade hubs between peoples, and sent to the capital to be evaluated. Traders and merchants like to talk, and conversation can and will often give information of the state beyond the border, feelings, comings of war and the like.

Patrols are the flex of the military to project itself into the sight of all those along and across the border. A frontier post without patrols will succumb rather quickly to attacks, and not achieve what it was built for. Patrols can also investigate the rumors brought in by traders, and launch raids to keep enemies on their toes.


-Cold


----------



## Gurkhal

Here's a quick question. What are the main aspects of chariot-based warfare? I'm thinking of the Ancient Near East here.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Gurkhal said:


> Here's a quick question. What are the main aspects of chariot-based warfare? I'm thinking of the Ancient Near East here.



Hello again, Gurkhal! Awesome question that I am often asked, though for the first time on here.

So we have three main tactics to use the chariot, The Frontal Charge, The "Caracole," and what is called the Parthian Shot.

The frontal charge is what we think of a chariot doing mostly, with images of the scythed wheels cutting legs out from beneath lines of unlucky infantrymen. 








*The Standard of Ur*​
With the war standard of Ur we can clearly see down at the bottom the frontal charge. The tactic would be last minute, after having the charioteers loose all their missiles at the enemy ranks before rolling toward them with allied infantry either alongside or right behind. The rear of the chariot had to be protected especially. The charioteers would take up axes and maces and use the momentum of the chariot to break up enemy formations. Only foolish commanders ever sent in their chariots alone, and were rewarded with their chariots being slaughtered after the initial plunge had been absorbed.

The Caracole or the Cantabrian Circle was a method of pure harassment. This tactic is to line up the chariots one after another and ride almost single file in a large circle just out of range of the enemy infantry. Missiles would be loosed to disrupt and kill as many enemy as possible, doing this until they ran out of munitions. They would then return to their lines to rearm before going out again.

The Parthian Shot was similar to the Caracole and Cantabrian Circle, yet it was used in conjunction with infantry right before the main lines hit. This method most required light chariots and their speed to move at an enemy line then turn about and fire while riding away. This tactic was used to open slight breaks in enemy lines right before the infantry hacked into it.

During the fury of battle chariots who hadn't been thrown at the enemy line in a frontal charge would circle around, picking off enemy troops when and where they could. They were best used as a mobile firing platform, harassing the enemy troops and picking off targets of value. 

Also they could be used as a "taxi" like service to transport elite troops to the battlefield quickly, especially in a time when riding horses didn't really exist.

-Cold


----------



## Gurkhal

Thanks thecoldembrace! 

As it is I am torn between Medieval Europe and ancient Near East inspired settings and that's the reason for me asking question of rather different periods.


----------



## Jabrosky

What was the historical utility of the testudo ("turtle shell") technique most famously used by the Romans? That's the one where they covered their entire formation with shields. Here's a photo for illustration:







I ask because of a story I recently outlined in the MS Brainstorming section. I have the protagonists' forces inventing this technique and using it against an onslaught of Latin tribesmen, with the core idea being that the Romans had picked it up from enemies sometime in their prehistory. Would testudo work against an onslaught of barbarian raiders?


----------



## CupofJoe

Jabrosky said:


> What was the historical utility of the testudo ("turtle shell") technique most famously used by the Romans? ... [My Edit] ... Would testudo work against an onslaught of barbarian raiders?


From what I've read it was a defensive formation used for approaching fortifications or instances when under heavy aerial attack... 
I think I have also read that neither commanders nor the soldiers liked the formation because the soldiers couldn't see out of it very well; it was difficult to make all the soldiers manoeuvre in unison, it was very slow [sacrificing speed and manoeuvre for security...] and because of the close quarters it gave you almost no way to fight back.
If my opponent was more manoeuvrable and lightly armoured than I was [and I'm assuming that "Barbarian Raiders" are going to be lightly armoured and highly mobile] I might be forced in to the Testudo as a last resort to resist a massed assault but it isn't the formation I choose to start the combat.
If for no other reason than it leaves the soldiers' feet and lower legs exposed and anyone at ground level and attaching them will just aim there...


----------



## Bortasz

Jabrosky said:


> What was the historical utility of the testudo ("turtle shell") technique most famously used by the Romans? That's the one where they covered their entire formation with shields. Here's a photo for illustration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because of a story I recently outlined in the MS Brainstorming section. I have the protagonists' forces inventing this technique and using it against an onslaught of Latin tribesmen, with the core idea being that the Romans had picked it up from enemies sometime in their prehistory. Would testudo work against an onslaught of barbarian raiders?



Tolittle information. What you mean by Onslaught? 

If I remember corecly it was use to get close to enemy walls mostly. But is perfect to protect you from range weapons.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Jabrosky said:


> What was the historical utility of the testudo ("turtle shell") technique most famously used by the Romans? That's the one where they covered their entire formation with shields.
> 
> I ask because of a story I recently outlined in the MS Brainstorming section. I have the protagonists' forces inventing this technique and using it against an onslaught of Latin tribesmen, with the core idea being that the Romans had picked it up from enemies sometime in their prehistory. Would testudo work against an onslaught of barbarian raiders?



  This is a good question, Jabrosky. Popular media has constantly portrayed the testudo formation wrong. They almost always employ it IN melee combat on a battlefield. From Gladiator to the Legend of Hercules, it has given people the wrong idea. The strength of this formation lies in assaulting fortified positions. On open ground, or against a prepared battle-line this formation fails, proven several times disastrously in history.

  Formed up in this formation, men move VERY slowly. Commanders cannot call for quick march, as it would expose the soldiers within. Soldiers approaching an enemy line cannot use their pilums, losing a significant weapon to help break up enemy formations. It requires a lot of training and cannot be enacted on the fly by men who are not very familiar with the formation. Working and walking in complete unison. 

Against cavalry this formation also proves disastrous, as the momentum of a single horse and rider can scatter several men because they are so bunched. In the press of melee this formation also hinders the ability of soldiers to fight effectively in their standard way.

I am not sure how your barbarians are operating, but on an open field, they will have an advantage against this formation.


-Cold


----------



## Bortasz

The army of Mordor took a wrong turn and goes up against the Roman Empire at its height.. : whowouldwin

Just found this on reddit.


----------



## WPT

Not sure, but the testudo could give protection against volleys of arrows, javelins, and stones - if the stones aren't too big.


----------



## thecoldembrace

WPT said:


> Not sure, but the testudo could give protection against volleys of arrows, javelins, and stones - if the stones aren't too big.



Yes, that is what it is good for, but on an open battlefield and engaged in melee, the formation hampers more than helps. Against an initial volley before melee this can be beneficial, but the Romans would rather use what is called a "shield-screen" in open battle situations to ward off missiles, as it didn't require the soldiers to become so tightly packed. 

The timing of the testudo was crucial, hold it for too long and your men did not have time enough to break formation to ready for an enemy charge.

-Cold


----------



## WPT

*Testudos*

You're right about the problems on an open battlefield.  I have read a couple of stories where soldiers employed the testudo in a town in riot situations.  I can see that it would certainly help fend off things thrown from all directions and enable a unit to force their way into a crowd and help break it up, as in the stories.  I have no idea if that scenario is at all authentic, though.  Can you shed any light on that use?


----------



## WPT

*Not-so-quick addition to Cold's quick answer*

There is some more on how the Ancient Egyptians used chariots at this web page:

Search Results

There are two links, one to a relatively short video segment, another to an entire show (52 minutes) about the reconstruction of Egyptian war chariots and their uses in battle.  I found the show very interesting.


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

I'm doing this Extended Project thing at my Sixth form, and, because I'm a massive history geek, i'm doing it on the Roman army. I've actually found a load of quotes from Greek historians, saying how the testudo is strong enough be formed in ravines and act as impromptu bridges, as well as chariots being driven over them. Just saying. They're tough as hell.


----------



## Xitra_Blud

During he 11th century, how did wars typically play out? My war is set up in a fictional kingdom, but I think I want it to be a lot like 11th century England.

What all do you know about retreating? I have a seen where the my protagonist's soldiers retreat from battle but they return for battle another time. I'm assuming they would come back with more soldiers. How would this play out? How would they acquire more soldiers? Also, how long would it take for them to return for battle? 

Another question, what would be a great battle ground? And when they return to battle again, would it take place in the same spot?


----------



## 2WayParadox

*Is there a turning point where a failure in logistics turns into a failed campaign?*

As the title shows, my question is about logistics.
In a nutshell, the military strategy that I want to develop in my fantasy story is one where pressure on logistics and the assassanition or otherwise eliminating of key supporters and personnel forces nations to scale down their wars up until the point that war returns to a level where combat is restricted to decisive battles between professional forces.

That's a sentence if I've ever seen one.

That aside, attacks on logistics have always been key to warfare but it is unclear how serious they need to be to break the spirit of an army. The U-boat offensive in WW2 came very near to breaking the UK, but it failed, only just. Why? Where's the turning point for an army to either experience mutiny, disease or massive desertion?

Achieving an interruption through regular warfare and manoeuvering is lauded as good strategy, but when the results are achieved through irregular warfare, responses can be quite different. Retaliation by killing civilians etc. Mao said that irregular warfare can never be sufficient to overcome a regular army, is that really the case? What if two parties were involved in a 'regular' war and a third party messed with both their logistics? Or this third party could leak information about either party at crucial times, thereby trying to keep the odds equal and the losses for both sides maximal.

Let me sum it up in less words than I did in the above: what's your opinion about conditioning a world against large scale war? Will it work? Will it backfire? I'm looking at a timeframe of decades, even centuries. It's a naive idea, but it's one that I want to write.


----------



## thecoldembrace

2WayParadox said:


> As the title shows, my question is about logistics.
> In a nutshell, the military strategy that I want to develop in my fantasy story is one where pressure on logistics and the assassanition or otherwise eliminating of key supporters and personnel forces nations to scale down their wars up until the point that war returns to a level where combat is restricted to decisive battles between professional forces.
> 
> That's a sentence if I've ever seen one.
> 
> That aside, attacks on logistics have always been key to warfare but it is unclear how serious they need to be to break the spirit of an army. The U-boat offensive in WW2 came very near to breaking the UK, but it failed, only just. Why? Where's the turning point for an army to either experience mutiny, disease or massive desertion?
> 
> Achieving an interruption through regular warfare and manoeuvering is lauded as good strategy, but when the results are achieved through irregular warfare, responses can be quite different. Retaliation by killing civilians etc. Mao said that irregular warfare can never be sufficient to overcome a regular army, is that really the case? What if two parties were involved in a 'regular' war and a third party messed with both their logistics? Or this third party could leak information about either party at crucial times, thereby trying to keep the odds equal and the losses for both sides maximal.
> 
> Let me sum it up in less words than I did in the above: what's your opinion about conditioning a world against large scale war? Will it work? Will it backfire? I'm looking at a timeframe of decades, even centuries. It's a naive idea, but it's one that I want to write.



I might be a little confused here. Are you asking of a way to remove wars altogether, or simply lower the size of the average war?


----------



## 2WayParadox

War is not a good thing, but there are times when it is useful as a political tool. There are times when conflicts have been resolved by relatively small armies fighting each other in a decisive battle, sometimes in a place determined beforehand. I associate this type of warfare with armies that are pretty professional and try to avoid involving the civilian population. Sure the conflicts they worked for were border conflicts between states and not empires, but the principle is better than large scale wars.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't expect to eliminate war, but the plan is to mess up logistics and wartime leadership for a long time, every time the scale becomes too big. Returns should drop and costs rise, leading nations to opt for smaller, more professional armies.

Am I making sense?


----------



## thecoldembrace

2WayParadox said:


> War is not a good thing, but there are times when it is useful as a political tool. There are times when conflicts have been resolved by relatively small armies fighting each other in a decisive battle, sometimes in a place determined beforehand. I associate this type of warfare with armies that are pretty professional and try to avoid involving the civilian population. Sure the conflicts they worked for were border conflicts between states and not empires, but the principle is better than large scale wars.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that I don't expect to eliminate war, but the plan is to mess up logistics and wartime leadership for a long time, every time the scale becomes too big. Returns should drop and costs rise, leading nations to opt for smaller, more professional armies.
> 
> Am I making sense?



Gotcha.
 First and foremost, War is a tool of the State. As, Clausewitz states, war is politics by other means, and its purpose is to remove willful resistance. Your ideal of a professional military force which does not engage the civilian population is predicated that war is fought with the same rules applied to both sides. Every general at the start of a war must understand the rules by which the war will be fought and anticipate what the other side will abide by. These rules are rarely the same.

  If you have war in your world fought by professional armies without involving the civilian population you will have to do several things. Your governments must all abide by some sacred rule, preventing them from involving the public. These wars must be fought on designated fields, and the side that loses must abide by the victor's claims. The populace at the same time must abide by these new claims. Soldiers must be kept in check from doing anything extra that could endanger the populace. 

Let me know if we are getting somewhere 


-Cold


----------



## 2WayParadox

Yup, that's the gist of it.
So the objective is to go from a warring states setting with endemic warfare to this almost ritualized type of war. It's fine to see this plan as requiring decades or centuries.

There are so many possible tools: assassination, removal of key human capital other ways, guerilla tactics, economical means, bankrupting key figures, propaganda, spreading information about the way the war is progressing (potent if it's going badly for both sides)

A big handicap is the need for secrecy, the organization wants to remain under the radar because each of the empires does have the resources to wipe it out. But if they don't realize what it is they're up against, then they can't act. It's even more important to hide the transportation network, although that's secured to an extent.


----------



## thecoldembrace

In order for me to get a few of my new classes into the excited mood that I expect from them when they walk into my room I have begun an experiment, one that I'd like to get those that are interested on this site involved into. I noticed a good deal of talk about fantasy warfare from several sets of students as I walked through their unnerving hushed masses.

 So, because I am amazing professor I have been doing short segments of lecture on how *I* think certain races would commit to fighting a pitched battle.

  It has proven rather enjoyable for both me and those minds that I am trying to mold. I would like to extend this same courtesy to ya'll on here. For those interested, ask but let us stick with the "traditional" fantasy races, as I do not know all your wonky creations, nor honestly do I have time to sit down and read about those you have created, regardless of my personal curiosity. 

What say you?


-Cold


----------



## Svrtnsse

I don't have any actual need for that kind of information for my writing at the moment, but I think it might be an interesting topic to read about anyway. Are those lecture segments available somewhere online or would you consider putting them up in some accessible format, like essays or articles or such?


----------



## thecoldembrace

Svrtnsse said:


> I don't have any actual need for that kind of information for my writing at the moment, but I think it might be an interesting topic to read about anyway. Are those lecture segments available somewhere online or would you consider putting them up in some accessible format, like essays or articles or such?



I can clean them up and put them up somewhere. That is actually a good idea, thank you Svrtnsse.


----------



## Queshire

I second the request for them.


----------



## skip.knox

Two great ideas here. First, I also vote thecoldembrace puts up however much of his lectures as he can manage. Free school! Second, I love the idea of discussing the art of war of fantasy races. But, -Cold, will we re-name the thread "Tell me about warfare"? 

I know you said you didn't want goofy races. I've got goblins, but I readily admit I have mucked with them. First, let me establish a couple of principles. If Fantasy Race X is man-sized, bipedal, and intelligent with no magic, then it's probably going to evolve pretty much the same styles of war. The key variables, it seems to me, are physiology, technology, and magic. Unless there's some significant variation in one or more, you pretty much wind up with human war.

So, that said, here are my goblins and how they fight.

First, physiology. My goblins are slightly smaller than human but are built differently. They have powerful hind legs that let them leap anywhere from twenty to fifty feet, though this is mostly leaping for distance not height. They have rather long forearms that can double as front legs when they run. They are faster than humans over the short distance but lack endurance. 

They have no technology. Their weapons are the nasty talons on their forearms and shark-like teeth. They rely on speed and numbers.

For, my goblins are a swarming breed. Normally, they operate in small packs of three or four. Sometimes a leader will emerge and they can form bands of a few score or even a couple hundred. Once in a very long while, a leader of leader emerges (called the Gniva) and a Horde is created. It can number a couple hundred thousand and up. Records are sketchy. It's really only at the Horde level that we can properly speak of warfare.

Although it's a Horde, goblins still attack in packs. Their nearly universal tactic is for one in the pack to leap, aiming for the head of the enemy. Their hind feet are also clawed, so they can strike with any of the four appendages, aiming to slash or even tear off the head, but at least to stun. The other two or three then attack on the ground. This is the way they hunt. As bands, it's how they raid villages. As a Horde, the tactic becomes how they overwhelm an army.

There also are halb-goblins, who have magic. By performing a ritual (it usually requires a group of them), they conjure up a purplish-black fire that they can hurl, maybe a hundred feet forward and fifty feet high. I haven't worked out the physics there. Yes, it's rather like Greek fire, but it cannot be produced; it can only be conjured and only by halb-goblins. Naturally, these creatures become a kind of king's guard to the Gniva. As you might imagine, goblinfire is devastating to pretty much any formation of human soldiers.

Anyway, there it is, so far as I have it worked out to date. For context, I have the Battle of Hadrianople in mind here, and its aftermath. I make rather more of the siege at Constantinople, which was a brief bit of business for the Goths, who quickly decided there were easier pickings. But it does make for good story telling as the goblins come down through Dacia, work out a way to cross the Danube, and get finally to the big battle with Valens.

Comments and questions are more than welcome.

PS: for other novels I have in mind other creatures, so I am very interested to hear how ogre, orc, elf, dwarf, gnome, kobold, etc. battles might play out.


----------



## thecoldembrace

So, what I will do here is clean up my lectures, as I tend to have them built for oratory and less for people to sit and read, with a slight chaos to my method. I will create a separate thread, as ogres, orcs, elves and the like do not exist in our world, likely a thread in worldbuilding. This will allow comment and discussion on those topics while keeping this thread open for those who need research and information on warfare aspects of our world. 


-Cold


----------



## SeverinR

I Skimmed through and didn't see this asked;
Down and dirty in battle. Typical fantasy has prolonged battles.

*Did an individual soldier keep pushing forward until the finally were exhausted and killed,
or did that actual fights not last long periods or after a time did soldiers drop back for rest and hydration, while fresher forces pushed on?
Trying to plan out a battle, not expecting a prolonged engagement, but I might mention it to the youthful Page(just short of becoming Squire) in his first battle experience. (Basically, this fight is a small city under siege early spring after along winter, caught with most of its livestock in the field outside. So the people inside are starving, while the military outside roasted the animals upwind of the city, so the smell of cooking meat was taunting them, even more so, their own animals.)

It's basically a writing exercise, but like all writing I can learn from it and grow.


----------



## X Equestris

It really depended.  Most battles of the time were fairly short affairs.  It takes a lot of energy to fight these types of battles, after all. I can't speak for medieval practices, but the Romans had their formation set up in such a way that a man who was wounded or exhausted could step to the right and let the man behind him move forward.  Of course, the Romans were fairly exceptional in this regard, so I'm not sure how useful that is.


----------



## SeverinR

I did forget to mention period-
I would say 12-13th century period, not anywhere near firearms, but with most fantasy weapons available.

Thank you for the Roman period. Not sure my military would be that organized, but will remember that as an option.


----------



## Russ

SeverinR said:


> I Skimmed through and didn't see this asked;
> Down and dirty in battle. Typical fantasy has prolonged battles.
> 
> *Did an individual soldier keep pushing forward until the finally were exhausted and killed,
> or did that actual fights not last long periods or after a time did soldiers drop back for rest and hydration, while fresher forces pushed on?
> Trying to plan out a battle, not expecting a prolonged engagement, but I might mention it to the youthful Page(just short of becoming Squire) in his first battle experience. (Basically, this fight is a small city under siege early spring after along winter, caught with most of its livestock in the field outside. So the people inside are starving, while the military outside roasted the animals upwind of the city, so the smell of cooking meat was taunting them, even more so, their own animals.)
> 
> It's basically a writing exercise, but like all writing I can learn from it and grow.



Unless surrounded medieval soldiers almost never fought until they were exhausted and dropped.  

Most often they fought until a key moment when something bad happened and one side fled.  Quite often most of the casualites were suffered during the retreat not during the battle proper.

Off hand I cannot think of any medieval battles were troops were withdrawn from contact, refreshed and recommitted to the combat.  There are lots of examples where fresh reserves are committed to turn the day, but very little formal rotation.

I am not sure their command and control structures were developed enough to allow it.


----------



## thecoldembrace

SeverinR said:


> I Skimmed through and didn't see this asked;
> Down and dirty in battle. Typical fantasy has prolonged battles.
> 
> *Did an individual soldier keep pushing forward until the finally were exhausted and killed,
> or did that actual fights not last long periods or after a time did soldiers drop back for rest and hydration, while fresher forces pushed on?
> Trying to plan out a battle, not expecting a prolonged engagement, but I might mention it to the youthful Page(just short of becoming Squire) in his first battle experience. (Basically, this fight is a small city under siege early spring after along winter, caught with most of its livestock in the field outside. So the people inside are starving, while the military outside roasted the animals upwind of the city, so the smell of cooking meat was taunting them, even more so, their own animals.)
> 
> It's basically a writing exercise, but like all writing I can learn from it and grow.



Battles are generally short, bloody affairs. The crash of battle is short and to the point, not a long drawn out slug fest that is often depicted. While this time table does change depending on the amount of men in press or the number of armies all converging at the same place at once, it still holds true that, especially in the medieval period that men cannot maintain a maximum exertion of energy in heavy or medium armor for long periods of time.

For "lesser" soldiers, i.e. men raised from a levy or pressed into service the battle could be much longer than it would be for someone of higher importance, like a knight. Often times those of higher value could move in and out of battle when tired or injured. The regular infantryman would fight until ordered to stop pressing forward. 

However, this isn't to say that they were thrown to the wolves and expected to fight until exhaustion killed them. Fresh troops were held back by commanders to replace tiring or thrashed units to maintain a strong frontal line for longer periods of time. Timing in these cases are crucial and was a heavy factor in good generalship. 

I also wanted to add that the more organized a military the more they introduced the replacement timing. Take the Romans for example, whom Charlemagne and several other commanders used as inspiration in their military doctrines. The Roman legionary was actively replaced in combat by soldiers right behind him. Whistles or horns loud enough to be heard would blast telling the front line to move to the rear while the second became the front. This kept men fresh to harvest more meat per swing.

Hopefully that helps, and thank's SeverinR for reviving this thread.


-Cold


----------



## wordwalker

One exception might be attacking a held point: if you couldn't take it, you'd stand back and wait for reinforcements, to build siege equipment or try other tactics, or for the commander to say "the battle doesn't have time for this, we try it again!" Although a true siege would settle in to the defender outwaiting the attacker (and tying up his army outside), and knowing any of the above might change it, or the defenders' strength or will just dwindle too much. Or the defender might have reinforcements show up too...

And I've heard that with shieldwalls, some of this might apply for a limited time: soldiers could make "battle presses" to break the other's line, fail, and fall back a short while to consider their options.


----------



## Velka

I must have copied and pasted at least 50 posts to this thread into my research file! What an amazing resource.

One question I have, that I didn't see addressed, is the difference in how an army would prepare/advance for sieging a city vs. open field combat.

My idea is that a vastly larger army is coming to smash down the walls and defeat a city. City knows that this army is coming for them, so they decide to surprise them by marching out of the city walls and engage the advancing army in an open field scenario.

My thinking is that the advancing army would have a bunch of stuff like cannons, trebuchets, etc being pulled along for the ride, making them ill-prepared for open field combat. City army would have horses and an element of surprise, considering that staying behind the city walls would be the safer and more viable option.

Right now my imagined army sizes are 40K for advancing army and 20K for city army.

Thoughts? Opinions? Please poke many holes in this considering all I know about warfare and tactics are from wikipedia!


----------



## Russ

Velka said:


> I must have copied and pasted at least 50 posts to this thread into my research file! What an amazing resource.
> 
> One question I have, that I didn't see addressed, is the difference in how an army would prepare/advance for sieging a city vs. open field combat.
> 
> My idea is that a vastly larger army is coming to smash down the walls and defeat a city. City knows that this army is coming for them, so they decide to surprise them by marching out of the city walls and engage the advancing army in an open field scenario.
> 
> My thinking is that the advancing army would have a bunch of stuff like cannons, trebuchets, etc being pulled along for the ride, making them ill-prepared for open field combat. City army would have horses and an element of surprise, considering that staying behind the city walls would be the safer and more viable option.
> 
> Right now my imagined army sizes are 40K for advancing army and 20K for city army.
> 
> Thoughts? Opinions? Please poke many holes in this considering all I know about warfare and tactics are from wikipedia!



For this to work, the leader of the larger army has to be a bit inexperienced, cocky or something.

When one is heading out to lay siege to a fortified  position, one is almost always in enemy territory and thus subject to attack as your travel.  In addition, the idea of sallying out to attack besieging armies from a city under siege is pretty well known.  IIRC correctly the formal term is "Sortie".

A disciplined army just keeps its engineers and/or siege equipment in the middle or rear of their formation, like the classic baggage train so it is not vulnerable to direct attack, or at least you have to get through the fighting troops to get to it.

Also keep in mind, depending on what equipment you were using a lot of seige equipment was built on site not dragged with you.

So it is entirely possible that a sallying force could catch a advancing larger army unawares, but it would be more related to traditional elements or surprise, bad leadership, or a lack of discipline that would result in such a situation rather than any inherent weakness of a besieging army to engage in a field battle.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Velka said:


> I must have copied and pasted at least 50 posts to this thread into my research file! What an amazing resource.
> 
> One question I have, that I didn't see addressed, is the difference in how an army would prepare/advance for sieging a city vs. open field combat.
> 
> My idea is that a vastly larger army is coming to smash down the walls and defeat a city. City knows that this army is coming for them, so they decide to surprise them by marching out of the city walls and engage the advancing army in an open field scenario.
> 
> My thinking is that the advancing army would have a bunch of stuff like cannons, trebuchets, etc being pulled along for the ride, making them ill-prepared for open field combat. City army would have horses and an element of surprise, considering that staying behind the city walls would be the safer and more viable option.
> 
> Right now my imagined army sizes are 40K for advancing army and 20K for city army.
> 
> Thoughts? Opinions? Please poke many holes in this considering all I know about warfare and tactics are from wikipedia!



First of all thank you, Velka, for restarting our sleeping thread here.

	So let's address your question.

	I will begin by making some assumptions according to what you have written. First of all, numbers. A 2 to 1 ratio of attackers to defenders is where I'd like to start, along with your massive numbers. 

	I like to quote Sun Tzu when I can because my old professors seemed to hate him and I do so enjoy getting back at them now that I am one.

_"It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two."_

	Most historians ascribe the 10 to 1 ratio as standard for siege warfare. There are many reasons to this. One the enemy has a significant advantage when pressed into defensive combat when inside a well fortified position. They know and control the areas of significant importance and can allocate troops accordingly to snuff an attacker.

	I am going to do one more quote here, I hope you don't mind.

_"The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."_

	With your ratio of attackers to defenders, the defenders in my view would be in dire straits if they allowed themselves to hole up when they can be much more effective in the field. A 2 to 1 ratio allows the advantage of terrain or other factors to make a fight just about even if not in favor of the defenders who would know the land better.

	As a defender your job is to drive off the foe, send them packing and you do this by making their lives miserable, their campaign a march through knee deep mud. You want to do this before they devastate your land.

	Now let's assume the ratio changes and we are at that 10 to 1 stage and the defenders are in their city. Before the enemy gets there in force there will still be forces in advance trying to drive as many people into a city as possible, to cut off supplies and to halt the transfer of communication to any outside forces. These advance forces, light and maneuverable will scout and bring valuable information to their commander for the preparation for a siege.

	The defenders on the other hand will want to be stocking provisions, finding the weak points in their defenses and preparing the killing field in front of the walls, clearing obstructions to their fire while adding obstructions to concentrated attack and siege equipment. This is clearing trees, boulders, and altogether making the field something that will break up formations of advancing men, and slow down or stop the wheels of war-machines. 

	The sally is something used when the enemy has begun it's siege and it has droned on for a period of time to allow relaxation to occur in the attacking ranks. Relaxation is death for anyone in war. Using a fast moving force the sally is only there to attack war machines, command elements or supplies, not to engage in open battle where they'd be quickly overwhelmed.

	Again they must make it hell to take the city, to make it take as long as possible. Winter can soon be approaching which will often drive off a force until spring thaw. Taking their supplies will diminish morale and increase the defender's own. Everything has a targeted goal of breaking the will for the attackers to sit in place and stare at a wall for months, years.

        Early in a siege an enemy is prepared, is ready to defend their prized war-machines. They won't even bring them to the fore until the ground is secured. A defender would have to wait, or should wait for the most opportune time to deal them damage.

        Also, rethink your numbers. 20k defenders is a LOT of men inside a city defending the walls. They will eat provisions at an alarming rate. The same is applied to 40k attackers. They will strip the land like locusts and churn through a state's treasury like mice to cheese. The same feeling of awe inspiring numbers can be applied with smaller troop concentrations. 

	Let me stop here and see if you have questions to go along with this.


----------



## Velka

Thank you for thoughtful responses Russ and thecoldembrace!



> When one is heading out to lay siege to a fortified position, one is almost always in enemy territory and thus subject to attack as your travel. In addition, the idea of sallying out to attack besieging armies from a city under siege is pretty well known. IIRC correctly the formal term is "Sortie".
> 
> ....
> 
> So it is entirely possible that a sallying force could catch a advancing larger army unawares, but it would be more related to traditional elements or surprise, bad leadership, or a lack of discipline that would result in such a situation rather than any inherent weakness of a besieging army to engage in a field battle.



That is a factor in things. Attacking army is so used to everyone hiding behind their walls when they come knocking, the idea of the defenders facing them head-on is a possibility that is going to be dismissed by leadership.



> Most historians ascribe the 10 to 1 ratio as standard for siege warfare. One the enemy has a significant advantage when pressed into defensive combat when inside a well fortified position. They know and control the areas of significant importance and can allocate troops accordingly to snuff an attacker.



So you're saying that an army, experienced in sieging cities, would be bringing ten times the men they were expecting to face that are defending the city. My math needs to change!



> With your ratio of attackers to defenders, the defenders in my view would be in dire straits if they allowed themselves to hole up when they can be much more effective in the field. A 2 to 1 ratio allows the advantage of terrain or other factors to make a fight just about even if not in favor of the defenders who would know the land better.



Glad to hear my idea of having them bring the battle to the field, instead of turtling in the city isn't completely preposterous. For story reasons I can't have a prolonged siege of the city, I need a much "faster" battle between the two armies. 

I totally get what you're saying about the mass amount of money, and resources needed to sustain both the defenders and attackers. At this stage I am still in outlining and planning stage, so I am free to change numbers. If there were 1500 defenders, how many attackers would an experienced army bring (who is operating under the assumption that the defenders will hide behind the walls)?

Is there any tactical advantage (to the defenders) by forcing the battle to be open-field instead of the prolonged siege situation the attackers are expecting?


----------



## thecoldembrace

> So you're saying that an army, experienced in sieging cities, would be bringing ten times the men they were expecting to face that are defending the city. My math needs to change!



	Well ten times is what most commanders would like. Few can actually call that many. Most make do with the 5 to 1 ratio, enough to attack so long as a well conceived plan is thought of and conducted to lower the casualties that will inevitably occur. 



> If there were 1500 defenders, how many attackers would an experienced army bring (who is operating under the assumption that the defenders will hide behind the walls)?
> 
> Is there any tactical advantage (to the defenders) by forcing the battle to be open-field instead of the prolonged siege situation the attackers are expecting?



Now when you say an "experienced army" I assume you are referring to a rare unicorn where everyone is a veteran of siege battles. I say this because veterans are not often many in medieval or ancient warfare. The veterans you have are leading the more "raw" or "green" troops which make up the bulk of generally any medieval or ancient force. Most of these green troops are not true soldiers either, most are likely levies pressed into service in times of war.

	But, for the sake of argument let's say you have a veteran army. They know they are facing around 1500 defenders. Commanders would like to bring the x10, but most likely would field a believable army of around 8000-11000. It gives you some room to finagle your numbers. 

	This amount of men would allow for attrition and still have men to spare. Disease is the largest cause of loss of life in war, it beats all other forms that cause men to die. Men often literally camp, sleep and eat right next to where their waste is. Many men will die from various forms of disease while waiting for a siege to end, both inside the walls and outside. Commanders try to combat this by discipline "go out into the woods away from camp and use the bushes," and by adding more men to their ranks to fill the inevitable holes.

	Now with the above being stated, an outnumbered army will always tend to look for a safe haven to hole up in. When numbers prevent even the land from truly helping you defeat an army on the field you must find a level playing field. Walled cities are the bane of any campaign or commander who wants an swift end to a conflict, hence why most noted generals throughout time only resort to siege at last resort. 

	Taking to the field is a compromise. Commanders know they will lose a lot of men in a short span of time, but a single battle can decide the rest of the war, or lose it. The advantage might be in your case, using the veterancy and likely pride of the invading army against them. If your defenders can pull the enemy into a battle where their numbers can be taken away, and suffer a defeat you can force blunders by enemy commanders. Understand your foe, everyone has a weakness, everyone overlooks something.

	Lastly I will say if your force which you have stated uses a lot of cavalry, sitting behind walls might be detrimental to their success. A few good defenders behind walls could force an enemy to siege it while your best men on horse can stay outside acting as stinging raiders, cutting their supplies and making life miserable. When the enemy is at their lowest tolerance they make mistakes and invariably that is when good commanders strike a decisive blow.


----------



## Russ

thecoldembrace said:


> First of all thank you, Velka, for restarting our sleeping thread here.
> 
> _"The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."_




While I am confident I am not one of your old profs, I stand with them on Sun Tzu.  Highly overrated to me. 

Give me Vegetius any old day of the week.


----------



## Velka

> Now when you say an "experienced army" I assume you are referring to a rare unicorn where everyone is a veteran of siege battles. I say this because veterans are not often many in medieval or ancient warfare. The veterans you have are leading the more "raw" or "green" troops which make up the bulk of generally any medieval or ancient force. Most of these green troops are not true soldiers either, most are likely levies pressed into service in times of war.



Overall, my plan is for it to be an experienced army. This is their people's thing and pretty much all they do. You are right though, not everyone can be hardcore experienced, due to the high turnover war causes with death and dismemberment. The 'green' troops wouldn't be completely useless though, as everyone would have military training since they were young (kinda like Spartans). Commanding ranks would be experienced, but acknowledging the rate of attrition constant warmongering and sieging would cause, this actually does open up more opportunities for the defenders to have a plausible chance against the attacking army.

I do like the idea of having disease also play a factor in weakening the attacking army, but like I said, I don't want this to be a long, drawn out battle (over in less than 2 weeks is what I'm aiming for). I'd have to take a look at the incubation times of common diseases that would afflict them and see if I can throw in some good old fashioned cholera or something.



> Taking to the field is a compromise. Commanders know they will lose a lot of men in a short span of time, but a single battle can decide the rest of the war, or lose it. The advantage might be in your case, using the veterancy and likely pride of the invading army against them. If your defenders can pull the enemy into a battle where their numbers can be taken away, and suffer a defeat you can force blunders by enemy commanders. Understand your foe, everyone has a weakness, everyone overlooks something.



The more I'm fleshing this idea out, the more I want to use hubris as their downfall.



> Lastly I will say if your force which you have stated uses a lot of cavalry, sitting behind walls might be detrimental to their success. A few good defenders behind walls could force an enemy to siege it while your best men on horse can stay outside acting as stinging raiders, cutting their supplies and making life miserable. When the enemy is at their lowest tolerance they make mistakes and invariably that is when good commanders strike a decisive blow.



I like this. I imagine the raiding parties would be small, perhaps 10-20 people each for speed and element of surprise?

Thank you again for all this. I'm going to muck about with it some more and see where it takes me.... then I'll likely be back with a tonne of new questions, or to run ideas by people who actually know what they're talking about.


----------



## Russ

Two weeks is pretty fast, but for a siege busting illness you can't beat our old friend dysentery!


----------



## thecoldembrace

> I do like the idea of having disease also play a factor in weakening the attacking army, but like I said, I don't want this to be a long, drawn out battle (over in less than 2 weeks is what I'm aiming for). I'd have to take a look at the incubation times of common diseases that would afflict them and see if I can throw in some good old fashioned cholera or something.



Yeah, I am no expert in any sense on disease activation times. I would second Russ's idea of dysentery. Even if it doesn't kill the soldier it makes them weak, and weakness in battle is death. Also you could use something airborne. I remember reading some time ago about a failed invasion that an invading army was thinned by the plague after raiding and sacking a small town where the disease was already prevalent. The disease did enough damage to the invaders that they just went home. You could do something like this.

-Cold


----------



## Zadocfish

From the "without bows or arrows" thread:  Would a nation without meaningful ranged weaponry be able to compete against a nation with bows... or catapults?  I'm beginning to doubt my position on that.


----------



## X Equestris

Zadocfish said:


> From the "without bows or arrows" thread:  Would a nation without meaningful ranged weaponry be able to compete against a nation with bows... or catapults?  I'm beginning to doubt my position on that.



There are a lot of factors at play there, but I doubt it, at least if there isn't some way to neutralize the enemy troops with ranged weapons.  European forces had a long history of trouble dealing with Middle Eastern and Central Asian horse archers, and they didn't stop being a serious problem until well after gunpowder came along.  Keep in mind that Europeans had ranged weapons, too.


----------



## Zadocfish

I would imagine defenders with the ability to increase distance quickly coupled with an accurate ranged weapon would be nightmarish for an invading army...  So I can see where horse archers would be hard to deal with.


----------



## DMThaane

Velka said:


> I do like the idea of having disease also play a factor in weakening the attacking army, but like I said, I don't want this to be a long, drawn out battle (over in less than 2 weeks is what I'm aiming for). I'd have to take a look at the incubation times of common diseases that would afflict them and see if I can throw in some good old fashioned cholera or something.



There's an easier solution than this while playing more into the hubris angle. Simply have the attackers move at a forced march, assuming that they'll meet no meaningful defence and can rest up after putting the city under siege. Having decided that the defenders would never be foolish enough to fight in the open, they don't bother to effectively scout ahead, causing their exhausted army to blunder into a rested and organised force. The battle proceeds in accordance with the requisite styles of the two armies, the attackers route and the defenders gain a significant victory against the odds by acting against expectations.

This has the added bonus of the unlikelihood of the defender's tactics being the very thing that causes them to succeed.


----------



## thecoldembrace

Zadocfish said:


> From the "without bows or arrows" thread:  Would a nation without meaningful ranged weaponry be able to compete against a nation with bows... or catapults?  I'm beginning to doubt my position on that.



If your nation without any meaningful ranged weapons was to engage one that used them to the tactics they are ascribed for, yes, it would have a significant hurtle to overcome in each engagement. 

    Ranged weapon systems are meant to endow men with two capabilities. To harass, not kill at a distance (killing is just a bonus) and to keep the man employing the system the ability of speed should distance be closed. Ranged weapon systems cause fear, fear of injury, fear of death, and fearful intolerance at not being able to strike back. 

For your nation I can think of a couple of things that "might" allow them to compete. If your ranged nation had not developed significant penetrating power with their missiles, your non-ranged nation could have superior armor along with tactics of using shields to a higher degree. This is all theory mind you, and while people suddenly think of the Roman testudo, I hold very little confidence in that formation for reason's I'll not get into on this current question. But, something like it could be effective, minding the fact that the group using it would need to find a way to stay mobile. 

*Terrain:* Have your non-ranged nation use this to effect. People think of archers in trees a lot, and while that is a nice image, in large drawn out battles its rather useless. Trees prove to be shields and obstacles archers must overcome and it is extremely difficult to unleash a large deal concentrated of fire in thickly wooded and brushed areas. 
Flat land, area enough where armies can employ their men in extremely loose formations and avoid bunching would be another.

You may have a ranged nation, but do they use horses effectively? Could your non-ranged nation rely on light cavalry to get around and chase down often weak and unprotected archers so that your infantry in traditional formations can fight evenly against theirs?

I know I probably added more questions than answers, but it will give you stuff to finagle your original idea with. Hope it helps some, Zadocfish.


-Cold


----------



## Zadocfish

Oh, I'm not the one with the idea.  I was on the side of the fence saying that a world without ranged weapons would be very nearly impossible due to how effective and easy-to-invent they are.


----------



## Velka

DMThaane said:


> There's an easier solution than this while playing more into the hubris angle. Simply have the attackers move at a forced march, assuming that they'll meet no meaningful defence and can rest up after putting the city under siege. Having decided that the defenders would never be foolish enough to fight in the open, they don't bother to effectively scout ahead, causing their exhausted army to blunder into a rested and organised force. The battle proceeds in accordance with the requisite styles of the two armies, the attackers route and the defenders gain a significant victory against the odds by acting against expectations.
> 
> This has the added bonus of the unlikelihood of the defender's tactics being the very thing that causes them to succeed.



That is an amazing idea! (And much more fun to write than an army crapping themselves.)


----------



## trentonian7

I know I'm way late into this thread, but I was wondering if anyone could help me understand just what made the Roman legions so effective. I understand of course the logistics and organization were a large part, but I'm not sure if their battlefield tactics were that revolutionary, or if they even fought differently at all. They maintained large numbers of heavy infantry, light cavalry on their flanks, skirmishers in the front, archers, and reserves; this seems fairly standard from what I can tell. I understand they launched their javelins before entering hand to hand, but how exactly did they engage? I don't think they used the phalanx and my current impression is that they advanced with their shields locked??? Did they extend their spears and move towards the enemy, drawing their swords when combat became too thick for spears? I apologize for the disorganization and any false information, all input is appreciated.


----------



## thecoldembrace

trentonian7 said:


> I know I'm way late into this thread, but I was wondering if anyone could help me understand just what made the Roman legions so effective. I understand of course the logistics and organization were a large part, but I'm not sure if their battlefield tactics were that revolutionary, or if they even fought differently at all. They maintained large numbers of heavy infantry, light cavalry on their flanks, skirmishers in the front, archers, and reserves; this seems fairly standard from what I can tell. I understand they launched their javelins before entering hand to hand, but how exactly did they engage? I don't think they used the phalanx and my current impression is that they advanced with their shields locked??? Did they extend their spears and move towards the enemy, drawing their swords when combat became too thick for spears? I apologize for the disorganization and any false information, all input is appreciated.



Hello there, trentonian and welcome to the Scribes.

   As to your question, lets get started.

   The Roman military was the world's first 100% professional army. There is a major difference between an army that is only risen at certain times of a year or campaign season, or one that is risen only in times of threat and one that is there all the time, every day of the year. Going into this army is a great deal of structure, discipline, maneuverability and flexibility. 

   Training is key for the Roman war machine. 4 months of basic training drilled soldiers into professionals. Anyone who couldn't match the pace would either be discharged or put on a ration of a nasty barley porridge until they got the drills right.  Dummy weapons weighed twice as much as the real thing to build muscles and stamina. Each man had to be able to march 20 miles within 5 hours wearing a full pack that weighed up to 50 pounds. 

   Discipline was a high priority with each man upon recruitment made to swear an oath to follow all orders for the Roman state. Even the smallest infraction was punished severely. Camp sentries who fell asleep were often stoned to death for putting the entire camp in danger. 

   At the end of a day of marching the legionary would often have to build a fortified camp of ditches and a walled palisade that would keep the men inside safe from attack throughout the night even deep in an enemy territory. This also provided the psychological boost of lessening stress on the men which was also heavily part of their mind set. 

   The early roman military used a system of maniples (handfuls) to replace the rigid phalanx of the greeks. These maniples where made up of 3-4 parts of velites (who were often the poorest and armed only with slings and javelins), hastati, principes (these two as the mainstay infantry and triarii (older men who where also armed with spears.  These maniples were extremely maneuverable, used in a variety of ways to stay as flexible as possible with terrain and enemy tactics, and could be used to get around an enemy's flank and rear.

   The later roman military under the Marian Reforms did away with the rule that only property owners could join the army and opened it to all citizens. This gave the military a massive influx in manpower, allowing the romans to often field forces that outnumbered their foes. It also saw a change in the individual soldiers, standardizing the legion. The maniples changed from the four tiered system to a standardized whole, making the cohort. Each legion was well led by career soldiers who had been in dozens of campaigns and understood through learned experience how to deal with most problems facing the army.

   The spear was never really key in the roman military, the stabbing sword was. Close hand to hand fighting was how the Romans dealt with their foes. They used their shield both as a defensive tool and an offensive weapon, and used the gladius to stab, not to slash, generally at the belly where there was no bones to get the weapon caught. Pila were carried and thrown before battle to take away enemy shields, and to break up enemy formations so that when the hand to hand came into effect the roman machine could chew them up.

   Men in the front were moved to the back during fighting in successive waves, keeping men fresh and keeping the machine moving forward. Basically the legion was a meat grinder, and because of it's flexibility in combat was very difficult to defeat. 

   Its good to note that when the roman army was most often defeated it was when they had lost their prized maneuverability. When they were bunched together to the point they could no longer successively operate their swords they were generally slaughtered. 

   Equites where kept on the flanks and used to harass and break up enemy formations so the infantry could punch through the enemy lines. 

   Reserves were held behind the lines to make sure the enemy could not envelope them or turn the army's flanks.

   Hope that helps answer your question.


-Cold


----------



## X Equestris

Typical Roman legionnaires didn't use spears.  They carried heavy javelins, called pila.  These were thrown just before making contact with the enemy, after which they drew their swords: the famous gladius.  In earlier times, the last rank of maniples, the triarii, had spears, but they didn't usually engage.  Later auxilia units did have spears, though.  Rarely were enemies able to go toe to toe with legionnaires and win.  Most defeats of the post-Marian reform Roman armies by foreign opponents were in ambushes, like what happened at Teutoberg.  And as thecoldembrace says, getting bunched up was common when the Romans lost, as that messed up their cohesion and maneuverability.  Of course, by the Imperial period the Romans had few foreign opponents at all.  Of these, Parthia was the only one that remotely equaled Rome.

Roman cavalry was often very poor, and this was a factor in their defeats by Hannibal.  By the time of the Late Republic, Rome relied on mercenaries and cavalry from client states.  In the Imperial period, they typically recruited cavalry from the populations of Gaul and Pannonia.  The same is common with their skirmishers: the velites were eliminated after the Marian reforms, and were replaced by mercenaries and contributions from allies/clients.  Cretan and Syria archers, Rhodian slingers, etc.


----------



## Gurkhal

New question from me!

If say the Hellenistic world was not military and politically conquered by the Romans but instead the phalanx continue to be developed and improved upon, how would you say that it would come about as the centuries passed and new enemies rose and fell? Is it likely that it would survive the arrival of the stirrups in the way that the old Roman legions did not? Would it develop into the Late Medieval/Renaissance pike formations? I'd love to hear some comments and get some insight into this.


----------



## X Equestris

I honestly don't know.  The greatest weakness of the phalanx were the gaps that often developed during battle.  With their more flexible formation, the Romans were able to exploit these gaps to great effect.  As a formation, the phalanx doesn't work too well in rough terrain for this reason.  The gaps can get truly gigantic in this situation.  I believe this happened to Alexander once during his campaign against the Persians, though he still won the battle.  

If the phalanx were to endure, I think it would need to be an equal part of a combined arms system, with very good skirmishers and cavalry alongside it.  So good they could break the wings of an opposing army and execute a hammer and anvil before the opposition can exploit any gaps that develop in the phalanx.


----------



## Gurkhal

Do you think that it would be correct to think that reasonably the phalanx would develop larger and larger supporting unites until the point that the phalanx is entirely disbanded from the armed forces? And that a Roman Legion-style army is likely to take its place, grown up from the various supporting unites created to originally support the phalanx?

EDITED: I don't per necessity need to known how the phalanx would develop as such, only know in general how Hellenistic warfare would reasonably develop in the absence of a Roman enemy to conquer it.


----------



## Russ

Gurkhal said:


> New question from me!
> 
> If say the Hellenistic world was not military and politically conquered by the Romans but instead the phalanx continue to be developed and improved upon, how would you say that it would come about as the centuries passed and new enemies rose and fell? Is it likely that it would survive the arrival of the stirrups in the way that the old Roman legions did not? Would it develop into the Late Medieval/Renaissance pike formations? I'd love to hear some comments and get some insight into this.



War in the west is a funny thing.  It changes and it can change quickly.  It is a dynamic process that has to react to changes in its environment and what the opponent does.

If you look at history, no tactic or style of fighting remained dominant forever when faced with foes of a similar technological/economic base.

If the Romans had not broken the phalanx, in time, someone else would have.  Or, someone else would have presented a military threat that would have forced the Greeks to move away from that tactic.  War fast tracks many changes, and with flexible intelligent belligerents the fighting style and/or technology is one of the things that gets changed the fastest.

So, for a very practical point of view I think that the Greeks, even if the Romans never showed up, would have changed their tactics over time.

Having said that, if one of the goals of your work is to highlight the culture or history of the hellenistic period, or if you are using the phalanx for its symbolic or representational value, I would say "be damned" with military evolution and stick with the phalanx.  However if you are trying to write "hard" alternate history you have to look carefully at time frames, environment, technology and opponents to try and figure out how long the phalanx would have remained dominant with or without the Romans.


----------



## Jerseydevil

Gurkhal said:


> New question from me!
> 
> If say the Hellenistic world was not military and politically conquered by the Romans but instead the phalanx continue to be developed and improved upon, how would you say that it would come about as the centuries passed and new enemies rose and fell? Is it likely that it would survive the arrival of the stirrups in the way that the old Roman legions did not? Would it develop into the Late Medieval/Renaissance pike formations? I'd love to hear some comments and get some insight into this.




This is going into the realm of Alternate History and some major speculation, but here we go.

Horse archers from the late Roman periods (Huns, Alans, etc) would absolutely devastate a phalanx. The large, densely packed blocks are a perfect target for the archers, who would simply run around the formation and pepper it with arrows. This was always a problem for phalanxes, as seen at the battle of Sphacteria. Spartan hoplites were harassed constantly until they were forced to surrender, unable to come to grips with light Athenian skirmishers. Also, the Thebans made very extensive use of missile troops when they defeated Sparta later on. 

If Rome and its system never existed, it is possible that the phalanx would disappear anyway, as there were constant innovations, such as increased use of missile troops and cavalry, which can rip apart a phalanx if it hits from the side or rear. Europe, (provided that the Greeks expanded into Western Europe, like the Romans did), would have developed more of an emphasis on ranged weapons to counter this. 

The rise of pike formations in the late middle ages is European military planners rediscovering the ancient methods and trying to incorporate it into their armies. The main method for warfare was heavily armored knights to charge straight down the center and hit the enemy head on, which would shatter the formation, which could be ridden down at will. Pike blocks are very effective to counter this. If this type of warfare did not develop, then pike block would not have been created as a response to it. European warfare would probably be more based on missile troops to counter the phalanx, rather than the heavy cavalry based warfare.


----------



## Gurkhal

Russ said:


> War in the west is a funny thing.  It changes and it can change quickly.  It is a dynamic process that has to react to changes in its environment and what the opponent does.
> 
> If you look at history, no tactic or style of fighting remained dominant forever when faced with foes of a similar technological/economic base.
> 
> If the Romans had not broken the phalanx, in time, someone else would have.  Or, someone else would have presented a military threat that would have forced the Greeks to move away from that tactic.  War fast tracks many changes, and with flexible intelligent belligerents the fighting style and/or technology is one of the things that gets changed the fastest.
> 
> So, for a very practical point of view I think that the Greeks, even if the Romans never showed up, would have changed their tactics over time.
> 
> Having said that, if one of the goals of your work is to highlight the culture or history of the hellenistic period, or if you are using the phalanx for its symbolic or representational value, I would say "be damned" with military evolution and stick with the phalanx.  However if you are trying to write "hard" alternate history you have to look carefully at time frames, environment, technology and opponents to try and figure out how long the phalanx would have remained dominant with or without the Romans.





Jerseydevil said:


> This is going into the realm of Alternate History and some major speculation, but here we go.
> 
> Horse archers from the late Roman periods (Huns, Alans, etc) would absolutely devastate a phalanx. The large, densely packed blocks are a perfect target for the archers, who would simply run around the formation and pepper it with arrows. This was always a problem for phalanxes, as seen at the battle of Sphacteria. Spartan hoplites were harassed constantly until they were forced to surrender, unable to come to grips with light Athenian skirmishers. Also, the Thebans made very extensive use of missile troops when they defeated Sparta later on.
> 
> If Rome and its system never existed, it is possible that the phalanx would disappear anyway, as there were constant innovations, such as increased use of missile troops and cavalry, which can rip apart a phalanx if it hits from the side or rear. Europe, (provided that the Greeks expanded into Western Europe, like the Romans did), would have developed more of an emphasis on ranged weapons to counter this.
> 
> The rise of pike formations in the late middle ages is European military planners rediscovering the ancient methods and trying to incorporate it into their armies. The main method for warfare was heavily armored knights to charge straight down the center and hit the enemy head on, which would shatter the formation, which could be ridden down at will. Pike blocks are very effective to counter this. If this type of warfare did not develop, then pike block would not have been created as a response to it. European warfare would probably be more based on missile troops to counter the phalanx, rather than the heavy cavalry based warfare.



Thanks for the answers! The kind I was hoping for. 

EDITED: I had written a new reply but decided that I would remove it since it was kind of not leading anywhere. Again, thank you for your posts!


----------



## X Equestris

Jerseydevil said:


> This is going into the realm of Alternate History and some major speculation, but here we go.
> 
> Horse archers from the late Roman periods (Huns, Alans, etc) would absolutely devastate a phalanx. The large, densely packed blocks are a perfect target for the archers, who would simply run around the formation and pepper it with arrows. This was always a problem for phalanxes, as seen at the battle of Sphacteria. Spartan hoplites were harassed constantly until they were forced to surrender, unable to come to grips with light Athenian skirmishers. Also, the Thebans made very extensive use of missile troops when they defeated Sparta later on.



Alexander managed to beat an army of Scythian horse archers, though I doubt anyone other than a very skilled general could replicate that feat.  

The problem of skirmishers could be countered by cavalry.  Indeed, the failure of their cavalry to show led to Spartan defeat at least once against Athenian peltasts.


----------



## DMThaane

Something not mentioned is that the Macedonian style of phalanx warfare actually 'devolved' after the death of Alexander as generals became too focused on the phalanx (and focused only on fighting other phalanxes) and neglected the combined arms tactics that contributed so heavily to Philip and Alexander's successes. Without Rome the Greeks may have continued in their rut until another enemy (Parthia, Scythia, or even the Dacians or Illyrians) broke them out of it or overran them, or they may have corrected this as they waged their constant wars against one another. Pyrrhus of Epirus was an effective leader and two time King of Macedon with a fairly flexible phalanx army including cavalry, skirmishers, and elephants. Without Rome (and a particularly well aimed roof tile) he may have left a solid military legacy emulated by the other Greeks.

As for how such a force could evolve over time, well, that's a very complicated question. Armies don't necessarily get better, they just undergo reform in response to their political, cultural, and military environments. How it would evolve is a question that should ideally take into account the political nature of your world, the usual enemies they face, and the 'feeling' you're trying to evoke when designing them. If you want dory-armed old-style Greek hoplites you can justify them, not that most readers would even think to question it. If you want highly developed sarissa-armed Macedonian phalanxes that integrate swordsmen and ranged units modelled off the Spanish tercios you can justify that too.


----------



## Gurkhal

DMThaane said:


> Something not mentioned is that the Macedonian style of phalanx warfare actually 'devolved' after the death of Alexander as generals became too focused on the phalanx (and focused only on fighting other phalanxes) and neglected the combined arms tactics that contributed so heavily to Philip and Alexander's successes. Without Rome the Greeks may have continued in their rut until another enemy (Parthia, Scythia, or even the Dacians or Illyrians) broke them out of it or overran them, or they may have corrected this as they waged their constant wars against one another. Pyrrhus of Epirus was an effective leader and two time King of Macedon with a fairly flexible phalanx army including cavalry, skirmishers, and elephants. Without Rome (and a particularly well aimed roof tile) he may have left a solid military legacy emulated by the other Greeks.
> 
> As for how such a force could evolve over time, well, that's a very complicated question. Armies don't necessarily get better, they just undergo reform in response to their political, cultural, and military environments. How it would evolve is a question that should ideally take into account the political nature of your world, the usual enemies they face, and the 'feeling' you're trying to evoke when designing them. If you want dory-armed old-style Greek hoplites you can justify them, not that most readers would even think to question it. If you want highly developed sarissa-armed Macedonian phalanxes that integrate swordsmen and ranged units modelled off the Spanish tercios you can justify that too.



The idea I have right now for the world is that I essentially want to be more Hellenistic than Hellenic, in that this essential Greek culture would have spread and become the greater cultural sphere of the world with many different variations. There will be barbarians at the edges and some other cultures that could offer a challenge, at least in the future but at at present the Greeks owns the world, in a fashion.

For political enviroments I am hoping to be able to have kings and dynasties in the Hellenistic/Illiad/Mycenaenan fashion rather than people's assemblies as dynastic politics and systems interests me more and I find them easier to work with in regards to crafting stories. In regards to enemies I was thinking that the "Greeks" will probably come around to beat most of them up and they adopts the Greek system for themselves to counter or are slowly, or quickly, grinded down. So I'm thinking once again that it will mostly be other Hellenistic armies, maybe with some local twists and additions to a small degree some "barbarians".

I hope I managed to get across what I had in my mind.


----------



## DMThaane

Gurkhal said:


> For political enviroments I am hoping to be able to have kings and dynasties in the Hellenistic/Illiad/Mycenaenan fashion rather than people's assemblies as dynastic politics and systems interests me more and I find them easier to work with in regards to crafting stories.



I don't know, I think there's something to be said for the populist tyrannies, particularly in far-flung colonies a la Syracuse. Of course many tyrants try to establish themselves as kings and secure themselves a dynasty. Sometimes the only difference between a king and a tyrant is pedigree.



> In regards to enemies I was thinking that the "Greeks" will probably come around to beat most of them up and they adopts the Greek system for themselves to counter or are slowly, or quickly, grinded down.



A fairly safe bet as the Thracians, Illyrians, Italians, Pontics, and even the Carthaginians all adopted hoplite tactics. They also all got 'Romed' but we can hardly hold that against them. This will go both ways though, as the Greeks adopted the peltast from the Thracians and the thureos from the Gauls and the Seleucids in particularly adopted Persian and Indian forces, though the latter were mostly elephants.



> So I'm thinking once again that it will mostly be other Hellenistic armies, maybe with some local twists and additions to a small degree some "barbarians".
> 
> I hope I managed to get across what I had in my mind.



One thing to keep in mind is that the ancient world, particularly the Hellenistic world, adored its mercenaries. Galatians (a Gallic tribe that somehow ended up in Anatolia) were particularly popular but Hellenistic powers recruited widely and sold their own services just as broadly.

As for the evolution of forces, my inclination would be that the core factions, in the cultural heartland, would remain focused on fighting other Hellenistic armies, either stagnating into 'pike push' contests or reforming into lighter, more integrated forces. Far flung colonies would use an older style force, fewer pikes or even a reliance on mercenary pikes, while integrating more local tactics as you already mentioned. The same would be true of the 'barbarians' but with the hoplites being the minority and a greater focus on skirmishing. Also the occasional faction that didn't Hellenise, like the Galatians or Armenians, but these would mostly sit on the periphery. The whole thing would be vulnerable to a military reformation as it was to Rome and as the Greeks were to Macedonia but that's almost always true with established military traditions.

Obviously the adage 'your world, your rules' applies but that's my brief thoughts on it. Certainly there's a great variety even within the Hellenistic world and a lot of potential for interesting stories.


----------



## trentonian7

I've been confused on ancient navies and really just pre- gunpowder navies in general.

Obviously ships can fight one another, scare off pirates, and disrupt trade routes, but were they any danger to coastal settlements? Could ancient navies launch assaults on land or were they confined entirely to sea combat?


----------



## Russ

trentonian7 said:


> I've been confused on ancient navies and really just pre- gunpowder navies in general.
> 
> Obviously ships can fight one another, scare off pirates, and disrupt trade routes, but were they any danger to coastal settlements? Could ancient navies launch assaults on land or were they confined entirely to sea combat?



Think vikings.


----------



## Russ

Think Julius Caesar in Britain.


----------



## WazpByte

I've got a question, I hope you can help with it! 

During the period around 900 AD, do you think the power of a Japanese "kingdom"s army would stand up to the force of a European one of similiar time, if they engaged in a fight in a normal area (e.g. plains), with both sides attacking eachother?


----------



## TheKillerBs

It probably depends on whether the battle takes place on a plain or in mountainous terrain. It's hard to say because no one is really sure about Japanese demographics pre-17th century, but the Japanese would be technologically-disadvantaged, at least as it pertains to iron metallurgy. Since Japan is a mountainous island, fighting in plains would also probably put them at a tactical disadvantage as their battle tactics evolved more for that type of warfare as opposed to out on the open.


----------



## DMThaane

WazpByte said:


> I've got a question, I hope you can help with it!
> 
> During the period around 900 AD, do you think the power of a Japanese "kingdom"s army would stand up to the force of a European one of similiar time, if they engaged in a fight in a normal area (e.g. plains), with both sides attacking eachother?



Ultimately there's no reason either side couldn't win, with tactics and generalship being the most important factor. Both sides could field roughly comparable numbers and while the Europeans would have a slight edge in armour the Japanese would field better archers. Japanese military strength was somewhat underdeveloped at this time but by no means ineffectual while Europe was still trying to deal with its Viking problem. That said Europe was a big and diverse place. Where the Japanese would be on more even footing against the English or the distracted heirs of the Carolingian Empire, the First Bulgarian Empire was experiencing its zenith, defeating a relatively powerful Byzantine Empire, and Hungary was beating up East Francia. Even the Byzantines were close to a military resurgence, seeing significant gains in the mid-10th century. All of which is to say is that the European army these Japanese encountered could be very different depending on which Europeans they were fighting.

While the Heian-period Japanese military is a little hard to research prior to the Genpei War, the samurai of this period favoured bows over other weapons and would continue to do so for some time. They were also a primarily mounted force, with Japanese strategy revolving largely around internal politics and weakening individuals, rather than conquest at a state level. They'd usually open a battle by attempting a formal archery exchange, firing whistling-bulb arrows and then trying to engage in individual samurai duels. This would go badly for them against a European army as the Europeans weren't so formal, but it would be unlikely to end the battle there and then. Against eastern Europeans they'd run the risk of getting broken up by cavalry attacks and scattered but against a shield wall it would become a game of trying to break up the enemy formation without exhausting their manpower. if they succeeded, which they very well could under an intelligent commander, they would carry the day. If they failed the Europeans would take the victory.

Be aware that the above analysis is fairly brief and also highly speculative. I could provide a more precise breakdown if I knew which particular European army you had in mind, although the only one I'm truly familiar with during this period is the Byzantine army of the middle to late 10th century. Also this discusses a single battle while a full military campaign would be very different. If you want me to clarify anything or expand on any point, I'd be happy to do so.


----------



## R.H. Smith

Hello TheColdEmbrace, quick question.

I read The Art of War, had to actually read it twice to really get the gist of it. What are your thoughts on what is talked about there?


----------



## halisme

In my novel, the culture of one country is caste based. When going to war, it's mostly the warrior caste and the labour caste (Lumberers, miners and farmers). Now, would it be more effective for the warrior caste to kept in large blocks, or to spread them into the peasents units to provide better coordination and moral?


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Hey Halisme,

I'm going to try and answer your question but please not that I am not a historian, and that most of my knowledge on the subject comes from my own research, which may or may not be flawed.

If the main force of your army consists of levies (i.e. non-professional soldiers) then you'll need someone there (a seasoned fighter) to keep them in line. Without a good commander to keep them in check, there's a high chance these men will turn tail and flee at the slightest provocation, or that their lines will lose cohesion, or that they'll pursue some small enemy force and quit the field as a consequence (while ignoring the main army). So if you put all your elite, professional soldiers in one unit, then your levies will be worthless. But with a good commander, these levies can actually get things done. 

Alternatively, grouping all your elites does open up new strategies. You can try and do some variation of the oblique order (a strategy used extensively by Frederick the Great). By concentrating more/better soldiers in one part of the line, you can overwhelm the enemy there by local superiority. Your elites can smash through their levies and then turn their flank, routing the rest of the army. However, for that strategy to work you will need the rest of your line to hold (because if the enemy routs that part of your army, it doesn't matter you routed one wing of his army). 

So ideally, you want good officers (or something like officers, such as a knight) to command your levies, while you want to group up the rest of your elites to overwhelm the enemy in one location, so you can then swing around and clean up. 

In medieval times, this kind of strategy was prevalent. The knights were supersoldiers, the levies were less significant. When both commanders used this strategy (and they often did) it'd come down to the knights. If your knights won, then they could rout the enemy levies. If their knights won, then there was little your levies could do to turn the tide. 

Things changed when kings and nobles started using professional armies (i.e. free companies and later standing armies of professional soldiers) because the knight sort of lost its elite status. And infantry, no longer being a group of inexperienced soldiers under a noble's command, became a force to be reckoned with. If your knights were routed, or if you had less knights, that wasn't necessarily the end of it. For instance in the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Flemish army had way less knights, but they had good infantry (city militias from the guilds) and they wrecked the French. 

To summarize: you need at least some experienced warriors to command your levies, but grouping up the remainder would be very useful (because: oblique order tactics), especially if your opponent doesn't.


----------



## valiant12

halisme said:


> In my novel, the culture of one country is caste based. When going to war, it's mostly the warrior caste and the labour caste (Lumberers, miners and farmers). Now, would it be more effective for the warrior caste to kept in large blocks, or to spread them into the peasents units to provide better coordination and moral?




If I remember correctly in most wars only about 1% of the male population serve in the military. If your warrior caste is big enough they can wage war without conscripting the peasants. If 5% of the population are professional soldiers that is more than enough. In fact if a country have a very large professional full time military an then conscript some of its workers it will do more harm than good - you will have less people to supply the army with food and weapons and other essential supplies  and more solders  using the already existing supplies.


----------



## halisme

valiant12 said:


> If I remember correctly in most wars only about 1% of the male population serve in the military. If your warrior caste is big enough they can wage war without conscripting the peasants. If 5% of the population are professional soldiers that is more than enough. In fact if a country have a very large professional full time military an then conscript some of its workers it will do more harm than good - you will have less people to supply the army with food and weapons and other essential supplies  and more solders  using the already existing supplies.



It's probably somewhere beteen one and three percent depending on the war, however, the country used to be a theocracy, and they still have an "every war is a holy war" mindset. It makes it hard to stop peasents from joining.


----------



## C. A. Stanley

Hi Cold, I have a question re guerilla warfare. Specifically, guerilla warfare within a forest (jungle) setting, where the trees are used as a means of transportation. Could you point me in the right direction for further research (a specific battle / nation where it was used)? The 'enemy army' in my story is not so much an army, but a collection of much smaller units comprising of family members and friends, who are simply protecting their territory. They have bridges up amongst the trees, and use these (and their own inherent agility) to quickly and stealthily traverse large areas of forest, to weaken and demoralise the invading army with night time raids and random attacks, and retreat (leaving the army looking around wondering where the f*** the attack came from!). Obviously, attacking from up in the trees, projectile weapons would be essential. Is there a particular projectile weapon ideal for 'vertical warfare', or would a simple bow do the trick?


----------



## AngryMidget

Hi Stanley, while I may not be Cold, I'll try to shed some light on this topic. In Guerrilla warfare, any weapon that can be used, is used. Whether it be bows, stones, guns, javelins, if it works, they will use it. Guerrilla warfare is often used by a weakened and poorer nation, where 'high-class' technology is limited. Improvised weapons are very common, desperate times call for desperate measures. Really, as long as the weapon is viable and deadly, it will often be used. Hope this helps with the weapon issue. As for with the bridges, it's a unique idea but also a hazardous one. Many people may question you about it, stating its impracticality, as if one bridge is found, usually all the others are too as I assume they are connected. Please don't take offense to this, I'm just attempting to shed some light on it. Hope these tips helped.
AngryMidget


----------



## halfdan

Damn..just saw your thread after i opend mine...maybe you can help me!

Im looking for this Information:

Whats the Pro/con of the different Weapons

What Armor is used..and same. Whats pro/con?

When its better to use a lighter armor..instead of an Platearmor?

Sure there is also a difference between battles and normal dayactivities/just some little fights


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

You're going to have give more specifics. What era? What weapons? What type of warfare? Otherwise I'm just going to tell you that portable nukes are brilliant!!!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## halfdan

sorry..forgot the most important part! 1200-1400 around that.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

So no black powder than and no rifles. Longbow is the king of ranged weapons, and will pierce thin steel but not heavy armour. Now select your terrain to allow / deny cavalry, time frames to allow for / deny fortifications, enable or not ranged combat. Also consider how dear steel is and who can afford what sort of armour. And go from there.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## SithLord

Well, I will ask then.  

I have this large siege battle I've been planning in my head, mapping on paper and putting into my OneNote notes as to sequence, positions, weapons, etc.  The battle itself is a naval affair with disembarking soldiers.  There is a large city, mapped like Venice with the canals, etc at a swamp delta.  Behind the city, to the east, a series of mountains and cliffs where the river itself makes headwater before funneling out to the city, swamp and ocean to the west.  To the north and south of the city, the soldiers will disembark.  The inspiration of this battle being similar to Normandy.  The arriving soldiers to lay siege are part of my protagonist allies, while the city itself belongs to my protagonist kingdom that has been overtaken by the antagonist empire.  The antagonists have superior weapons by means of cannon while still relying on ballista from the ramparts of the city walls.  The arriving naval forces rely on naval ballistae mounted to their ship decks and down the decks along the hull.  While the antagonists themselves have cannon and ballistics, being more "rare" they are not used for city defense but more for offense in the lands away from the homeland and capital.  

Along the cliffs however, the antagonists have naval defense setup by means of trebuchets that are specially built to handle a form of projectile which burns much hotter than Greek fire, producing a blue flame.  Without delving into the mechanics of this fantasy weapon to spoil the story, that part is already figured out that they will strike some of the landing ships and line ships.  

But I think my main problem to overcome and why my anxiety has manifested into writer's block, is moving the pacing of this battle.  While the motive is to honor an alliance as a whole, the one leading the battle for this particular army is doing it out of spiteful jealousy to win the heart of the lead female protag who would be the rightful heir to the kingdom once the oppressors are removed.  I am struggling regarding POV.  Thinking that maybe the opening sequence should focus on a chapter with one of the regiments landing, switch to the leading general / prince for next chapter before resolving the battle.

Another problem is the sizing of the ballistae bolts to take out ships or damage any of the walls.  The fantasy napalm, well, that's fantasy element there and range and firing arc is basically up to my head for its mechanics and physics.  The other factor is soldier emotion.  Most of these soldiers are not regulars and conscripted of able men.  While the regulars will have better training, better armor (plate armor) the cost of conscripts would be relegated to a leather armor, hence morale would likely be affected as they see their own countrymen fall.  In the end of this battle, the allies to the protags win, but have to deal with heavy losses (and win partially due to magic use), but then will have to begin a march north into the capitol of the female protag's kingdom.


----------



## Laurence

I have a question about mercenaries!

In my book I have a situation in which battles are being waged for unethical reasons but the people of said nation are being told there's a better reasons behind it. An army of mercenaries are also being hired. Do you think mercenaries are likely to be told the reason for their fighting and do you know how much they would typically interact with the national army?


----------



## CupofJoe

SithLord said:


> Well, I will ask then.
> I have this large siege battle I've been planning in my head... [Edited]


I am no expert on this but I feel the people in the leather armour will be much happier as they start to watch the people in Plate armour leap into the water and drown as soon as they fall over and struggle to get up.
Have you read about the Gallipoli Landings in WWI? They may be another view of what you are looking for. Normandy was chosen [amongst other reasons] as the most benign place to land of the places available.
As for weapons... For equal size a land based weapon will probably always be superior to a ship based one.  The ground is firmer than the sea so they will be able to fire further and or heavier objects.


----------



## SithLord

CupofJoe said:


> I am no expert on this but I feel the people in the leather armour will be much happier as they start to watch the people in Plate armour leap into the water and drown as soon as they fall over and struggle to get up.
> Have you read about the Gallipoli Landings in WWI? They may be another view of what you are looking for. Normandy was chosen [amongst other reasons] as the most benign place to land of the places available.
> As for weapons... For equal size a land based weapon will probably always be superior to a ship based one.  The ground is firmer than the sea so they will be able to fire further and or heavier objects.



Yes, that will occur.  As will leather armor being incinerated near instantly from the fantasy napalm or lax protection from the more trained soldiers they're fighting against.  The plate armor, because of the fantasy napalm, will fuse and melt into the flesh (I've imagined this quite gruesomely).  

Regarding Galipoli, been watching docs on Amazon Prime about WWI and II about some of the battles and Galipoli was very close to the terrain I've envisioned, as well as the terrain of Crimea for the Crimean War.


----------



## Gurkhal

Some time since the last post so I thought that I should shake some life into this thread.

Recently I've started to give some serious attention to the 19th century as a basis for writing fantasy instead of the normal medieval type of setting. But given that I'm not entirely sure I want to invest with money into this, I came here for a question. How were Uhlans and Dragoons used in the 1870s in Western Europe?

I'm mostly asking for equipment and tactical scale use of mentioned cavalry at this time. Roughly on company level and smaller.

The reason is that I'm writing, or trying to write, a story which is effectively using the squaring off between a regiment of Dragoons and Uhlans from opposite sides as the framework for the story. The MC is with the Dragoons and the Uhlans are to provide an opponent which isn't just a bunch of annonymous guys they kill. The infantry and artillery present will provide the annonymity of the combatants as they are also present but given less exposure in the story.


----------



## Usurper

I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?


----------



## skip.knox

They fought with guns, swords, cannons.

Not sure what you are after here, but I'll ask the question I always ask: what research have you done so far?


----------



## Gurkhal

Usurper said:


> I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?



Good memoirs and war letters can help you, or so I feel with the soldier PoV as opposed to the general PoV. And here are a few.

*Franco-Prussian War*

German side

https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Rückert...98&sr=8-1&keywords=franco-prussian+war+memoir

French side

https://www.amazon.com/Reality-War-...98&sr=8-2&keywords=franco-prussian+war+memoir

*Letters and stuff from the Crimean War *- only British unfortunately

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Ligh...539102317&sr=8-11&keywords=Crimean+war+memoir

https://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-C...539102364&sr=8-34&keywords=Crimean+war+memoir


----------



## Malik

For those of you asking about doctrine and decades of warfighting development and wanting a single-post dump answering all your questions, allow me to just show you something:

This is my office. On the right side is my research bookcase. 





This is my research library for one series. Hell, most of this is for one _book, _and I'm getting ready to trade a bunch of these out, now that I'm working on the next one. Every wall of my great room upstairs is bookshelves; this bookcase is just what I keep within arm's reach when writing.

I tell you that to tell you this: we can answer specific questions in this thread ("Why was the swinging door maneuver so effective against phalanxes?" "How were flamethrowers deployed at the squad level?") --or at least try, and probably argue a lot about it--but the answers to some of the inquiries in this thread would literally be books in themselves. You could do a doctoral thesis comparing and contrasting tactics and strategies between the Crimean and Franco-Prussian wars. In fact, I'd head to the library and see if someone already has, and if so, order a copy of it and start there.

We're happy to help, don't get me wrong, but writing IS research. No one will do it for you. Plus, the more you read, the better you'll write.

TL;DR: Smaller questions, please.


----------



## skip.knox

I'll go a bit further than the redoubtable Malik to say you don't actually want us to answer this question for you. One important--indeed, vital--thing that happens in research is that you notice things I wouldn't. The very process of research shapes you as the specific author of a specific story. It's not just this fact or that interpretation, it's how it fits in with what the individual you already know and don't know, at this particular point in your life and in the life of the story you are writing. It is, in short, not generic information but unique information.

That's why you want to do the research. And, when you have that swinging door question, the answers you find here will be not merely useful but invaluable.


----------



## Gurkhal

Usurper said:


> I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?



So, did you have some luck in hunting down resources and stuff for the period and topic you wanted to research?


----------



## Sheilawisz

Usurper said:


> I have a story taking place during a fantasy world going through its industrial revolution, think 1850s to 1870s. So what I would like to know is, what did warfare look like in this era of history? How did one fight in, say, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, and how did the methods and doctrines differ from one another during those two points in time?



Hello!

Well, other people in this thread have posted about the importance of deep and accurate research for our stories and writing. I am going to agree and at the same time disagree with them: High quality research and learning are critically important if you are writing Historical Fiction, Science Fiction (I mean the actual thing, not Space Fantasy) and perhaps also other literary genres out there.

However, Fantasy is a very different thing and we have a lot of artistic freedom here.

You mentioned that your story takes place in a Fantasy world, so have fun with it! In our world, European warfare during the time period that you have mentioned was already very destructive. Artillery was certainly a devastating force, though not yet quite as powerful and accurate as it would be some decades later in WW1. Soldiers were equipped with rifles, bayonets and sabers, officers carried handguns and cavalry was very important, deadly and even terrifying in the battlefield.

Soldiers learned techniques in order to use their rifles and bayonets as melee weapons, it was not just shooting around.

Trench warfare was a reality in Victorian times, as well. Oh and even though machine guns had not been invented yet, coordinated volley fire from hundreds of rifles opening fire together could cause a lot of terror and damage to the enemy.

About tactics, well you can read about important battles of wars in that period, analyze them carefully and get some inspiration from them. There is no need to be 100% historically accurate in case that it's a Fantasy story, just add your own personal touch and ideas to it. Personal research is important, I agree on that.

No need to worry about some readers that will perhaps be disappointed or even lose their suspension of disbelief if you describe something wrong. They can go and read something else if they care so much about realism and historical accuracy, and that's all.


----------



## Yora

13th century account of knights fighting their way out after failing to conquer a city.

Very interesting information of what happens in (sub-)urban fighting in the middle ages.


----------



## skip.knox

All of Joinville is well worth reading. As is Villehardouin for the Fourth Crusade. My favorite in the Seventh is when the king's brother, who was told to hold the river line, sees an opening. He charges across the river, routs the Egyptians and drives right into the city of Mansourah. Where the good citizens of the city cut them all to shreds. It was a catastrophe and is the flip side of this sort of individual courage.


----------



## Aldarion

How applicable are Middle Byzantine battle tactics to era of plate armour? Personally, I found them quite similar to what I believe Matthias Corvinus used.


----------



## Yora

I think much bigger than the development of plate was the parallel appearance of gunpowder. It's hard to say what impact the perfection of plate armor would have had on its own, as cannons would have an even bigger impact on warfare.


----------



## Gurkhal

From my standpoint a world without gunpowder would be mostly different in that there would be a much more limited artillery and less effective siege techniques. With the advent of disicplined infantry that could stand up to the heavy cavalry, the time of the knight was ending in Europe anyway and infantry marched on. 

As so often, warfare is a matter of counters and counter-counters rather than a straight line going towards better and better stuff. At most times in history changes in warfare has come from using existing technology in a different way than new technology rendering the old technology obsolete. Legion vs phalanx, sarissa vs dorys, pikeman vs knight and so on. 

In my opinion I think that technology in itself is given to much credit and innovation in method is given to little to explain the changes in warfare in Europe. Especially before the Renaisssance.


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> From my standpoint a world without gunpowder would be mostly different in that there would be a much more limited artillery and less effective siege techniques. With the advent of disicplined infantry that could stand up to the heavy cavalry, the time of the knight was ending in Europe anyway and infantry marched on.
> 
> As so often, warfare is a matter of counters and counter-counters rather than a straight line going towards better and better stuff. At most times in history changes in warfare has come from using existing technology in a different way than new technology rendering the old technology obsolete. Legion vs phalanx, sarissa vs dorys, pikeman vs knight and so on.



To give another example, Winged Hussars were effective even against disciplined infantry because they used hollow lances, which could be much longer than pikes used by infantry, and thus negated infantry advantage. But even without it, I am not certain the "time of the knight was ending". _Dominance_ of the knight definitely was ending. But if you look at the 8th - 12th centuries warfare between (Eastern) Romans and Arabs, both sides heavily utilized _cataphractii_ - basically a precursor of knights - despite both of them _also_ having access to highly disciplined, and oftentimes heavily armed, infantry.


----------



## Yora

Heavy cavalry as shock troops are only one tactical use for knights. The mobility alone is an extremely important factor. As long as you have formations, striking the enemy from the wrong direction is always devastating. In modern warfare, when soldiers get surrounded, they are unable to move to different positions and to be resupplied, but they can still fight. When a formation gets flanked, there is almost no chance to resist and fight back. That's why ancient and medieval commanders always loved rivers and thick forest on their wings.


----------



## Aldarion

Yora said:


> Heavy cavalry as shock troops are only one tactical use for knights. The mobility alone is an extremely important factor. As long as you have formations, striking the enemy from the wrong direction is always devastating. In modern warfare, when soldiers get surrounded, they are unable to move to different positions and to be resupplied, but they can still fight. When a formation gets flanked, there is almost no chance to resist and fight back. That's why ancient and medieval commanders always loved rivers and thick forest on their wings.



That is why infantry square was so popular. Spanish _tercio_ is maybe the best-known pre-18th-century variant, but Byzantines utilized hollow square as one of their basic tactical formations (with cavalry and supplies being protected within the square by infantry), Crusaders picked it up from them, and both John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus also utilized similar formation.


----------



## Gurkhal

Aldarion said:


> To give another example, Winged Hussars were effective even against disciplined infantry because they used hollow lances, which could be much longer than pikes used by infantry, and thus negated infantry advantage. But even without it, I am not certain the "time of the knight was ending". _Dominance_ of the knight definitely was ending. But if you look at the 8th - 12th centuries warfare between (Eastern) Romans and Arabs, both sides heavily utilized _cataphractii_ - basically a precursor of knights - despite both of them _also_ having access to highly disciplined, and oftentimes heavily armed, infantry.



I can't comment on details of non-European warfare, I know to little about it in this period, but I can comment that with the starting decline for the dominance of knights they were approaching their end date of us. A knight who is breed, raised and lives primarily for war is a significant investment. If he can't deliver results much better than professional soldiers who are generally cheaper to work with, there's no reason to use knights as opposed to heavy cavalry of a lower social status. The counters developed by the infantry against heavy cavalry charges simply made the heavy cavalry less able to produce the results that were in relation to their costs. For as you know, cavalry is not a cheap branch of the army. 

And to my knowledge, neither Byzantine nor Arab armies used heavy massed pike formations to my knowledge. Primarily because from what little I've heard and read it was more of raids back and forth and thus infantry of such use would be of limited value.



Yora said:


> Heavy cavalry as shock troops are only one tactical use for knights. The mobility alone is an extremely important factor. As long as you have formations, striking the enemy from the wrong direction is always devastating. In modern warfare, when soldiers get surrounded, they are unable to move to different positions and to be resupplied, but they can still fight. When a formation gets flanked, there is almost no chance to resist and fight back. That's why ancient and medieval commanders always loved rivers and thick forest on their wings.



I agree. But cavalry is expensive and heavy cavalry is very expensive. Hence when they can't dominate a battlefield you usually don't amass giant numbers of them but use less of them as a supplement to the other parts of the army. And like I said above, a knight is expensive. Why go through extra costs when a lower status professional soldier can fullfill the same tasks for a smaller price tag?


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> I can't comment on details of non-European warfare, I know to little about it in this period, but I can comment that with the starting decline for the dominance of knights they were approaching their end date of us. A knight who is breed, raised and lives primarily for war is a significant investment. If he can't deliver results much better than professional soldiers who are generally cheaper to work with, there's no reason to use knights as opposed to heavy cavalry of a lower social status. The counters developed by the infantry against heavy cavalry charges simply made the heavy cavalry less able to produce the results that were in relation to their costs. For as you know, cavalry is not a cheap branch of the army.
> 
> And to my knowledge, neither Byzantine nor Arab armies used heavy massed pike formations to my knowledge. Primarily because from what little I've heard and read it was more of raids back and forth and thus infantry of such use would be of limited value.



"Knight" is literally "armoured man on a horse", or more accurately, a man who can afford horse, armour and other equipment of heavy cavalry. Knights existed within feudal system, but feudal system was not requirement for a knight. Roman _equites_ were also basically knights (and the term itself is often translated as "knights"), as were landed _kataphraktoi_ of Byzantine armies. That is how I use the term, most of the time. And to give example of author who used it in the same way, Knights of Dol Amroth were called such by Tolkien despite Gondorian military organization having absolutely nothing in common with Western European feudalism. So when I talk about knights, do not assume that these are automatically *feudal* knights. And even in feudal system, there were knights who did not have high social status - term "freelancer" in fact comes precisely from knights who did not have either lands or feudal lord, and sold their services as mercenary soldiers. Other than freelancer knights, another group of professional heavy cavalry in feudal system were household knights, who may or may not have had lands, and were in service (household) of a lord.

Knight is basically a professional heavy cavalry. That is all he is.

And both Byzantine and Arab armies absolutely did use heavy massed pike formations. Maybe not to the extent of Spanish _tercios_, but several - up to twelve, I think - ranks of pikemen was not unknown. However, combined-arms formations were preferred choice. Nikephoros Phokas discusses an infantry square where infantry were deployed seven deep - two rows of spearmen, three of bowmen, and two of spearmen on the inside (in case enemy cavalry breaks into the suqare). But since such formation could be smashed by armoured cataphracts, _menavlatoi_ weilding short powerful spears were deployed in front, making formation seven-deep. Also, two rear ranks of spearmen could be brought forward. (You can read Eric McGeer, _Sowing the Dragon's Teeth_ for more information).


----------



## skip.knox

>A knight who is breed, raised and lives primarily for war is a significant investment.
Well, sort of. Many knights were granted lands that were intended to provide the income they needed to maintain themselves so that they could be called to arms and outfit themselves appropriately. That didn't always happen, but that was the theory. So it's not like X knights = Y dollars out of the royal pocket.

It's also probably worth saying that not all knights were warriors. Some were little more than garrison commanders that never saw action. Some were even more like civil servants, but granting them a title and land was the medieval version of a paycheck. Aldarion touches on this.

As for their use in battle, as is typical with everything else medieval, there was some of this and some of that. It's absolutely true that the massed heavy cavalry charge was sort of the calling card of medieval Europe from the 11thc onward. Sometimes it was devastatingly effective and sometimes it was almost laughably ineffective. Examples of both can be found in just about every century right up until the development of sidearms, and even that varied depending what part of Europe you're talking about. And it's not like there was no evolution or variation in tactics within the institution of heavy cavalry in the Middle Ages. 

A final addendum. The word "knight" comes from the German _Knecht_, which means something along the lines of "servant." It gets used to mean employee or apprentice, among other things. The German word for knight is _Ritter_. Rider. How that German word managed to wiggle its way over into English is rather obscure, but its a good indiciation of just how slippery this whole business of knights and mounted warriors is. Italian, French, Spanish, all have perfectly sensible words for a knight, all variations on _chevalier, caballero_--horse person. Rider. Leave it to English to get it weird.

Hey Aldarion, what's the Croatian for knight? I'd be willing to bet it's another variation on horse rider.


----------



## Aldarion

skip.knox said:


> Hey
> 
> 
> Aldarion, what's the Croatian for knight? I'd be willing to bet it's another variation on horse rider.



Well, you just lost the bet. "Knight" for Croatian is "vitez". I am uncertain of the origin of the word, but it seems that it came from Old Slavic _vitędzь_ which means, basically, Viking. Today, Russian _vitjaz_ and Czech _vitez_ both mean "warrior", though Croatian language has a separate word for it.

So these are the original knights.


----------



## Insolent Lad

In the ancient Indo-European we have the root word _marj_ for our mounted warrior, meaning something like 'hero' but being applied to a caste or class in conquered areas, such as _marjanni_ in Hurrian and so on. I chose to do a variant of that for my Muram people, conquering riders 'from the steppes,' with their own warriors being called _mur_, but the name quickly becoming a synonym for 'noble' in the areas they occupied. In a couple generations, it came to mean anyone of their ethnic background in some regions.


----------



## Gurkhal

Damn system gutted my post. Let's make a new try, and split it up into two posts. Sorry for the double posting, mods. 



Aldarion said:


> "Knight" is literally "armoured man on a horse", or more accurately, a man who can afford horse, armour and other equipment of heavy cavalry.



The terminology of a word is often grossly irrelevant in regards to what a word actually means in its use.



Aldarion said:


> Knights existed within feudal system, but feudal system was not requirement for a knight. Roman _equites_ were also basically knights (and the term itself is often translated as "knights"), as were landed _kataphraktoi_ of Byzantine armies.



I am not really interested in the misunderstanding of ancient Roman society or the misuse of the term "knight" to apply to the term to social groups who did not more than have a very superficial resemblance to knights..



Aldarion said:


> That is how I use the term, most of the time.



You are free to use whatever term as you wish. I still think you are wrong to use it that way.



Aldarion said:


> And to give example of author who used it in the same way, Knights of Dol Amroth were called such by Tolkien despite Gondorian military organization having absolutely nothing in common with Western European feudalism.



Tolkien's misuse of the term "knight" does not move my position.



Aldarion said:


> So when I talk about knights, do not assume that these are automatically *feudal* knights. And even in feudal system, there were knights who did not have high social status - term "freelancer" in fact comes precisely from knights who did not have either lands or feudal lord, and sold their services as mercenary soldiers. Other than freelancer knights, another group of professional heavy cavalry in feudal system were household knights, who may or may not have had lands, and were in service (household) of a lord.



There are as far as I care nothing such as knighs outside of Western feudal society. There are classes, groups and castes who have a similar function in one or more parts, but that don't make them knights. I wouldn't call the "maryannu" knights despite simiarities in their role in society for the reason that precise terms are often useful and that they existed and acted in very different socal, cultural and political contexts.



Aldarion said:


> Knight is basically a professional heavy cavalry. That is all he is.



No. A knight is a social status. Its not another word for "heavy cavalryman". You wouldn't call a Naploleonic cuirassier for a knight, as an example.



Aldarion said:


> And both Byzantine and Arab armies absolutely did use heavy massed pike formations. Maybe not to the extent of Spanish _tercios_, but several - up to twelve, I think - ranks of pikemen was not unknown.



And we're talking actual pikemen and not spearmen in a deep formation?


----------



## Gurkhal

skip.knox said:


> >A knight who is breed, raised and lives primarily for war is a significant investment.
> Well, sort of. Many knights were granted lands that were intended to provide the income they needed to maintain themselves so that they could be called to arms and outfit themselves appropriately. That didn't always happen, but that was the theory. So it's not like X knights = Y dollars out of the royal pocket.



There's are always things in a system that don't work out 100% in practice.



skip.knox said:


> It's also probably worth saying that not all knights were warriors. Some were little more than garrison commanders that never saw action. Some were even more like civil servants, but granting them a title and land was the medieval version of a paycheck. Aldarion touches on this.



And granting them land, and a social title, is very much in my opionion a drain on the royal pocket as far as I can see when the crown loses the direct income from that land.



skip.knox said:


> As for their use in battle, as is typical with everything else medieval, there was some of this and some of that. It's absolutely true that the massed heavy cavalry charge was sort of the calling card of medieval Europe from the 11thc onward. Sometimes it was devastatingly effective and sometimes it was almost laughably ineffective. Examples of both can be found in just about every century right up until the development of sidearms, and even that varied depending what part of Europe you're talking about. And it's not like there was no evolution or variation in tactics within the institution of heavy cavalry in the Middle Ages.



WIth this I agree.



skip.knox said:


> A final addendum. The word "knight" comes from the German _Knecht_, which means something along the lines of "servant." It gets used to mean employee or apprentice, among other things. The German word for knight is _Ritter_. Rider. How that German word managed to wiggle its way over into English is rather obscure, but its a good indiciation of just how slippery this whole business of knights and mounted warriors is. Italian, French, Spanish, all have perfectly sensible words for a knight, all variations on _chevalier, caballero_--horse person. Rider. Leave it to English to get it weird.



The terminology of a word is often grossly irrelevant in regards to what a word actually means in its use.


----------



## skip.knox

>And granting them land, and a social title, is very much in my opionion a drain on the royal pocket as far as I can see when the crown loses the direct income from that land.

Kinda sorta it all depends. In some cases, the grant lasted for generations, and other circumstances (including income) shifted so many times, it's hard to see a particular grant as a loss of income. It's only the English kings who got away with claiming all land belonged in theory to the crown. Most places the situation was muddier. And even where the grant was made, the recipient might owe a percentage of fines collected, and certainly was expected to contribute the "donations" and "gifts" that served as the medieval version of taxes.

Coming at it from the other angle, the footsoldiers who came eventually to replace the heavily armored knight with his lance and war horse were themselves no cheap deal. The whole business of raising an army had changed so greatly by the 17thc that I'm not sure comparisons can be pressed very hard. It's certainly the case that putting a 17thc army into the field and keeping it there was a much greater drain on a royal treasury. We can measure that.


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> The terminology of a word is often grossly irrelevant in regards to what a word actually means in its use.



In your use vast majority of knights would not be knights. Even in medieval Europe, let alone somewhere else. I had already mentioned it elsewhere, but many knights served as either household knights of nobility, or as mercenaries and freelancers. If you want to use knight to mean *landed* heavy cavalry, you may do so - and as mentioned, in fact it would be more accurate. But such term would still not necessarily restrict its meaning to feudalism, and in that case it would be more accurate to talk about men-at-arms, as _that_ term covers knights, but it also covers men who were otherwise identical as knights but without being landed nobility - and who, in fact, formed a majority of heavy cavalry of the period.

To quote your original post:


> I can't comment on details of non-European warfare, I know to little about it in this period, but I can comment that *with the starting decline for the dominance of knights they were approaching their end date of us. A knight who is breed, raised and lives primarily for war is a significant investment. If he can't deliver results much better than professional soldiers who are generally cheaper to work with, there's no reason to use knights as opposed to heavy cavalry of a lower social status*. The counters developed by the infantry against heavy cavalry charges simply made the heavy cavalry less able to produce the results that were in relation to their costs. For as you know, cavalry is not a cheap branch of the army.



If you define knight the way you are defining it - landed nobility serving as heavy cavalry - then the entire bolded part of your post is wrong, because landed nobility was rarely the majority of heavy cavalry. And heavy cavalryman who is bred, raised and lives primarily for war may or may not have been a knight. Plus, those heavy cavalrymen - mounted men-at-arms - _were_ the only professional soldiers feudal Europe knew until mercenaries started breeding like rabbits and kings started thinkg about standing armies (Black Army, _compagnies d'ordonnance_). Many men-at-arms in fact _were_ mercenaries, and the Black Army, itself formed almost solely of mercenaries, had a significant - possibly even dominant - heavy cavalry contigent.



> I am not really interested in the misunderstanding of ancient Roman society or the misuse of the term "knight" to apply to the term to social groups who did not more than have a very superficial resemblance to knights..



Again: knight = person who can afford to serve as heavy cavalry.



> There are as far as I care nothing such as knighs outside of Western feudal society. There are classes, groups and castes who have a similar function in one or more parts, but that don't make them knights. I wouldn't call the "maryannu" knights despite simiarities in their role in society for the reason that precise terms are often useful and that they existed and acted in very different socal, cultural and political contexts.



Maryuannu were not knights, they were charioteers. Completely different type of troops.



> No. A knight is a social status. Its not another word for "heavy cavalryman". You wouldn't call a Naploleonic cuirassier for a knight, as an example.



Cuirassier was not medieval heavy (i.e. shock) cavalry. In fact, cuirassiers originally utilized firearms. Neither were they expected to provide for their own equipment, which you could add as part of definition but which would render many "knights" as not being knights (and in fact they were not, in feudal terminology - these would have been men-at-arms).



> And we're talking actual pikemen and not spearmen in a deep formation?



Depends on how you define pike and pikemen. But pikes are commonly 3 to 7,5 meters in length; Byzantine infantry spears were 3,7 - 4,7 meters in length. Some soldiers were equipped with _menavlion_, which is 3 - 4 meters in length but much thicker in order to resist a cataphract charge (which could and often would literally crush thinner spears). Either would have been too long to handle with one hand, so I would define them as pikes.

EDIT:


skip.knox said:


> Coming at it from the other angle, the footsoldiers who came eventually to replace the heavily armored knight with his lance and war horse were themselves no cheap deal. The whole business of raising an army had changed so greatly by the 17thc that I'm not sure comparisons can be pressed very hard. It's certainly the case that putting a 17thc army into the field and keeping it there was a much greater drain on a royal treasury. We can measure that.



You can use Byzantine Empire for comparison. They never gave up on professional infantry, and in fact heavy infantry was arguably more important tactically than heavy cavalry by 10th century.


----------



## skip.knox

Before we get too far into the use of the second person (we doesn't want that, does we precious?), I want to put forward again that medieval usage was inconsistent, malleable, and downright murky. Any document most of us read is going to be in translation, which means we don't know the word or the context of the original. Many of the documents we read were written by scribes, clerics who had religious training rather than secular education. Bernie Bachrach has whole essays on how slippery is the term _milites_. 

I am suspcious of any statement about knights and knighthood that does not specify a time period and a region. I'm happiest when specific documents can be cited (see above). Comparative studies can produce some real insights.

That said, we're writing fantasy, so we can generalize in ways historians will not. We can stereotype in ways historians will not. And that's fine, so long as we aren't claiming that our "knights" are historically accurate. Some do make claims of historical accuracy and pretty much earn whatever bricks fall on their head. I'm looking at you, Dan Brown and Braveheart and all your ilk. As for using historical examples (not stereotypes, mind, but examples) as inspiration, well that's meat-and-potatoes for writers of fantasy, and verisimilitude wins the day every time. Even against plate armor. <g>


----------



## Kevin Zagar

I have a question: How would communication on the battlefield work between the commanding officers and their troops? Let's say this is a massive battle with 50 thousand soldiers on both sides. How would the troops know if the battle was going in their favor or not (if they couldn't see to the front lines, for example). And what if the general decides to change tactics or formation, how does he communicate this to his troops most efficiently? Is it messengers, flags, trumpets? Could it be fireworks too?


----------



## Aldarion

Kevin Zagar said:


> I have a question: How would communication on the battlefield work between the commanding officers and their troops? Let's say this is a massive battle with 50 thousand soldiers on both sides. How would the troops know if the battle was going in their favor or not (if they couldn't see to the front lines, for example). And what if the general decides to change tactics or formation, how does he communicate this to his troops most efficiently? Is it messengers, flags, trumpets? Could it be fireworks too?



Simpler signals - attack, retreat etc. - could easily be given through flags of different colours. More complex commands might be given through messangers and couriers. At any rate, by the time troops are actually fighting, it is usually too late to change formation - any maneuvering is done by troops not already engaged.

And they wouldn't know whether battle is going in their favour. It was not that rare for one side to win on one wing while other side wins in center or on the other wing.


----------



## Yora

I imagine once a unit gets really tied up in combat, simply having the commander see a flag signal might be a challenge in itself.


----------



## CupofJoe

Didn't the Romans use a form of semaphore at some time? Two posts with flags attached that could be waved in different combinations. The trouble was that you had to agree ahead of the battle what the flags meant [and not let the other-side know].


----------



## Aldarion

CupofJoe said:


> Didn't the Romans use a form of semaphore at some time? Two posts with flags attached that could be waved in different combinations. The trouble was that you had to agree ahead of the battle what the flags meant [and not let the other-side know].



They used beacons on strategic basis. Not sure whether they used semaphore for tactical commands in battle. Vegetius also apparently described a semaphore system, but again, for long-range relay communication, not for battle command.

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D.
Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome

EDIT:
Not Romans, but may still be useful:
Ancient Greek Communication Methods


----------



## Kevin Zagar

Aldarion said:


> They used beacons on strategic basis. Not sure whether they used semaphore for tactical commands in battle. Vegetius also apparently described a semaphore system, but again, for long-range relay communication, not for battle command.
> 
> The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D.
> Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome
> 
> EDIT:
> Not Romans, but may still be useful:
> Ancient Greek Communication Methods


Wow, this is great information. Thanks!


----------



## skip.knox

I just got through reading that war ships sometimes used smoke signals to communicate in battle. The author didn't give dates, but I would imagine this would be late medieval and Mediterranean.

Semaphore as an actual code is a modern invention, but flags and pennants could signal the position of units on a battlefield. The standard-bearer was in important position.


----------



## Gray-Hand

Trumpets, or horns of some kind were used throughout the world.  The advantage of horns over other noise making devices is;

1.  Pretty portable - often only requiring one hand.
2.  The sound carries a long way.
3.  They can keep the sound going for a pretty long time which is useful for soldiers who are likely to find themselves distracted at certain times.
4.  Noise signalling is often better than visual signalling, because it means that soldiers can keep their eyes on the enemy.  Imagine having to keep swivelling your head to keep looking back at what flag the general was waving while in combat in the front rank of a shield wall?  A noise can also be heard without the need for direct line of sight, so they are a good option in forrests, cities and even battlefield broken up by hills.  They are good for triggering ambushes.
5.  The sounds are usually pretty distinct compared to what else a soldier would hear in a battle, so they are likely to be noticed.
6.  Everyone hears a noise at the same time, so an army can react to certain general commands like ‘charge’ and ‘retreat’ very quickly, compared to visual signals, which need to be relayed by at least one person.


----------



## skip.knox

This isn't about combat, but it's related.

I am writing about an assemblage of trolls. My trolls are raiders. They don't build structures, they move into them, or they have someone build for them (e.g., tents to take with on a long raid). They are terrifyingly effective in battle, but they are not disciplined. 

I have them assembling in a bowl formed by a meteor impact long ago. Just picking a number out of the air, I put it at 3km in diameter. The interior of the bowl is essentially empty. For purposes of estimating, you can assume the bowl is flat.

So, in a 3km diameter circle, how many trolls would camp here? Again for estimation purposes, just use humans. Noerdlingen, a city built inside an impact crater, is nine km across (68 km sq) and has a density of 300 per km sq, so that would be an upper limit.

I'm thinking maybe 500 trolls, certainly not 5000, as this isn't a settlement, it's attendance at an event, which takes place at the center.

I'm not looking for a high degree of accuracy. I can make the crater bigger, add or remove trolls. I'm just trying to get a rough notion. 

Can any of you who know about military camps give a guesstimate or two? I realize military camps are better arranged than a mess of trolls. (Relevant note: no horses. Trolls travel by foot)


Ancillary question: what do we know about the size of camps of something like a Mongol horde? Sure they spread out, but they still had to camp in some sort of collectives. Did ten thousand Mongols camp in ten camps of a thousand each? A thousand camps of ten each? I've never really thought about the logistics of a horde before. Except for a goblin horde. <g>


----------



## CupofJoe

You've got roughly 7sqkm. I'd half the upper limit for Trolls being much bigger than Humans. So that would give you a maximum in the region of 1050 Trolls. But I'd halve that again as tents seem to take up a lot of space unless their placement is planned out.
So yes... about 500 Trolls.
As for the Mongols... No idea there really, but I'm sure I read that they moved around more in [extended] family units. Some groupings were relatively small [50-ish], others up to a thousand and even more.


----------



## Aldarion

skip.knox said:


> Can any of you who know about military camps give a guesstimate or two? I realize military camps are better arranged than a mess of trolls. (Relevant note: no horses. Trolls travel by foot)



This is from my notes, based on Roman castrum. Note that "Vetronian" feet actually means "Roman" feet, so bit larger than English feet:


size of fort (in Vetronian feet)
45 square feet per infantryman


90 square feet per cavalryman


10 x 10 feet tent – 12,5 x 12,5 feet total space – 100 sq feet, 10 sq feet per soldier
10 sq feet tent space, 35 sq feet baggage per soldier

125 x 125 feet for infantry centuria (100 infantry) or 25 cavalry


250 x 250 feet for cavalry centuria


turma: 1 600 infantry, 2 400 cavalry = 25 500 000 square feet


drungus: 6 375 000 square feet


vexillum: 3 187 500 square feet


organized in four equal quarters

Now you just have to figure out how much larger Trolls are compared to humans and multiply above values based on that.

EDIT:
Assuming that trolls are 1,5 times as tall as humans and thus take up roughly twice as much space:

Calc 1:
100 square feet per troll, 500 trolls = 50 000 square feet

Calc 2:
20 feet square tent space, 70 ft square baggage per troll
500 trolls = 10 000 square feet tent space, 35 000 square feet baggage
5 feet between tents = 100 - 120 feet square total space per troll
500 trolls = 50 000 - 60 000 square feet camp space


----------



## skip.knox

Thanks, folks. I'm going with five hundred. It fits the space (though I can adjust the space) but also because five is a magical number for trolls. There are five kingdoms and five gods. And five fingers on a hand. Whoa! Five planets. Whoa! Five elements. Duuude.

Anyway, they're comfy with fives. So that's a hundred trolls for each kingdom here in the sacred space for the Trial of Kings. When things work out that neatly, the author is obliged to run with it.

Thanks!


----------



## Eclipse Sovereign

I was wanting to know the basics of naval warfare, primarily ancient Greek or Roman. In the book I’m writing, the setting is an archipelago that’s nearly impossible to travel in winter.


----------



## skip.knox

There are books on the topic. When you say "basics" what are you after, exactly? There's about a zillion (Official Estimate) things to know.


----------



## Eclipse Sovereign

skip.knox said:


> There are books on the topic. When you say "basics" what are you after, exactly? There's about a zillion (Official Estimate) things to know.


What sort of ships were in use? How did they fight? With rams? Did they use oars, or sails? And what sort of seas did they traverse?

Sorry if I seem rude, I’m genuinely curious.


----------



## chrispenycate

If you go to the Baen Free library and download In the Heart of Darkness by Eric Flint and David Drake - WebScription Ebook you'll find, in chapter 25, a naval battle, even though most of the book concentrates on land warfare. This is late Roman Empire, Byzantine (indeed, the series is named after general Belisarius), so it wouldn't be the same as Athenian ships against Persian, for example, and anachronistic technology is already showing its head (more so later in the series), but it's always more amusing to read fiction (or contemporary historians) than reference books, no? 

Oars are essential - contemporary sail rigs wouldn't give enough manoeuverability to ram, and if the wind dropped you needed them just to stay in the battle, but even galleys frequently had auxilliary sails - having helped row an authentic Roman galley I'll promise wasting any potential external power would be looked on asckance, especially since your rowers were frequently your boarders, and, in landing operations, your soldiers - no room for dedicated oar slaves in warfare, and exhausting them would reduce the odds of a victory. 

Those craft were generally used in the Mediterranean and Persian gulf, and would not be practical for Atlantic or any more enthusiastic waters those ships would not be optimised - too shallow a draught, too lightweight a construction - it's amazing that the Vikings' dragon ships (another potential source of ideas and technology) but they didn't specialise in ship to ship battles, but raiding coasts and river settlements. 

Lots of grappling and boarding, fire an ever-present hazard, shortage of marine artillery meaning combat had to be close and fast - generally nasty. But no worse, I suppose, than the troops on land experienced.


----------



## skip.knox

You aren't being rude, you're being curious. Just know that really answering the question is going to mean more than asking a forum question. But it's not a bad place to start.

>What sort of ships were in use? 
Galleys. There were plenty of other kinds of ships, but for war you're talking galleys.

>How did they fight? With rams?
Rams, arrows and other projectiles, and boarding. There are examples of fleet-level maneuvers (read about the Battle of Salamis, for example). Small engagements rarely got recorded, or at least such records have not survived.

>Did they use oars, or sails? 
Yes. Both. But maneuvering was easier done with oars, so in actual engagement it was normally oars. Sails might be used to escape or to get into an advantageous position.

>And what sort of seas did they traverse?
Not sure what you're asking here.


----------



## Aldarion

Eclipse Sovereign said:


> What sort of ships were in use? How did they fight? With rams? Did they use oars, or sails? And what sort of seas did they traverse?
> 
> Sorry if I seem rude, I’m genuinely curious.



I would suggest these books:
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Galley-M...e+age+of+galley&qid=1592937736&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Age-DROMON-Byzantine-500-1204-Mediterranean/dp/9004151974


----------



## S J Lee

I've always wanted to know...

Why did people not use "hold out in a siege" against Napoleon's army very often? eg, the Turks were stopped at Vienna

And in 1870, the Prussians held back from PAris when it refused to surrender

was it because N had super-effective siege-busting ability? or that he was so civilised a conqueror that there was no point having the capital burned to the ground?


----------



## CupofJoe

Don't know much about how *Napoleon I* made war. I've always thought it to be highly mobile. He wanted it all So long sieges just weren't on his plan list.
The Prussians did take Paris in 1871 after what I sure felt like a really long 4-month siege. The tales of starvation and hunger in the city that winter are terrible. 
The Prussians wanted the city intact and didn't want to rally external support for the French by shelling the city and causing mass casualties. They wanted to keep it a local war. 
Also, they didn't want to try to take it by main force. The Prussians wanted to beat France and while Paris is important, it isn't the whole country. The Prussians could have ceased the city and then found themselves attacked by other French forces. 
And they were facing *Napoleon III* who wasn't the same type of leader as his [uncle?] namesake.


----------



## S J Lee

Well yes, yes... Napoleon I was aiming for mobility etc... BUT but my Q is why didn't his enemies try to hold out in a long siege, like they did before his time (vs Turks) and after him (vs the Prussians)?

All the diaries of soldiers in 1812 said the French were ragged and hungry going to fight at Borodino.... if the Russians had dug a series of redoubts / barricades and held out in a siege at Moscow instead of marching away... what might have happened?


----------



## CupofJoe

I see, and I don't know. I don't think most soldiers think of sieges as a good idea if you are on the inside. You are trapped and surrounded. It is hard to start a siege if you are on the inside. It is up to the other side to want to besiege you. The Prussians chose not to storm or assault Paris for political and logistic reasons, hence a siege. I don't think the French thought it a good idea. The Parisians certainly didn't. Unless there are very good logistical or strategic reasons I guess that neither side wants to do it. I'm guessing that after the race/retreat to Moscow, both sides were on the ragged edge and not capable of very much. Communications were probably shaky at best and maybe there just wasn't time resources and manpower to plan and build big defences.


----------



## pmmg

Napoleon was involved in sieges, and did well in a them. I think he was 1) an artillery major, 2) a brilliant tactician 3) was very good at making people want to fight for him. I think all of that probably had a bit to do with it. In a time when military rank was often given for reasons of social standing, someone who was actually good warfare was too outside the box for nobility.


----------



## Aldarion

S J Lee said:


> Well yes, yes... Napoleon I was aiming for mobility etc... BUT but my Q is why didn't his enemies try to hold out in a long siege, like they did before his time (vs Turks) and after him (vs the Prussians)?
> 
> All the diaries of soldiers in 1812 said the French were ragged and hungry going to fight at Borodino.... if the Russians had dug a series of redoubts / barricades and held out in a siege at Moscow instead of marching away... what might have happened?



I think it has to do with size and organization of armies. Roman wars often show pitched battles, because armies were so large and well-organized that trying to hold out in a siege was very dangerous. Ottoman wars OTOH have a large number of sieges (Constantinople, Belgrade, Sisak, Vienna etc.), but warfare was a) fought mainly by provincial armies and b) often ended in a pitched battle anyway.

At any rate, there were sieges in Napoleonic wars. THey are just less famous than pitched battles:
Category:Sieges of the Napoleonic Wars - Wikipedia


----------



## CSEllis

S J Lee said:


> All the diaries of soldiers in 1812 said the French were ragged and hungry going to fight at Borodino.... if the Russians had dug a series of redoubts / barricades and held out in a siege at Moscow instead of marching away... what might have happened?



Some the bloodiest fighting of Borodino were fought around the redoubts that the Russians made prior to the battle. Though the Russians retreated following Borodino, they weren't beaten. Their army remained an effective (if badly damaged mind) force and could camp out around Moscow as Napoleon marched into the open city. Napoleon was used to either one or a couple of swift battlefield victories that'd make the enemy cave in because the defeat would be decisive. At Borodino he was left with a field full of bodies and no victory. Nor did one present itself to him when he arrived at Moscow. The Russians proved unwilling to play ball. We obsess over battles, but battles aren't all.

As for the original question, simply put, warfare had changed. 

A bit on sieges:
You fight a war because you think you, in some way, will win (even if that "victory" is in Valhalla). Therefore, if you're besieged it means you don't believe you can take the enemy on in an open fight. If you can't take the enemy on in an open fight then you better have allies or be ready with peace terms of some kind. Sieges aren't pretty, it's a basic rule of warfare that if you take a city by storm (i.e. it resisted) then your soldiers get to sack it. Rape, pillage, anything goes. It's horrendous stuff. You as the besieged don't want that. 
So if your siege is going to keep on then you'd better hope for allies. If you can link up then you presumably can beat them. If you are alone then don't bother.
The above is standard for "pre-modern" and "early modern" warfare. 

Except that by Napoleon's time things had changed. The French Revolution had created the "nation-at-arms" where every citizen was part of the war. It's not precisely "total war" in my book - but people have interpreted it that way. Certainly the proclamation whose name I can't remember (written by ole' Robespierre as I recall) that laid out the "Levee en masse"  reads like something from the 20th Century, with the men fighting whilst the old men, women and boys make the equipment.

All this means that in place of the vaguely professional armies of the 18th Century, now the French nation is at war - which means that they have hundreds of thousands of men to take on what is basically the rest of Europe that is coming to have a go at them. This doesn't translate so much into the battles. They're still not that much bigger than the ones in Seven Years War and the rest. It does mean however that French armies are everywhere. Napoleon gets his successes in Italy as part of a "unified" (wishful thinking with the communications they had, but still) strategy that involved armies north and south of the alps. We just know about Napoleon because he's the one who a) became famous after and b) actually won.

With all these armies running around - fortresses begin to lose importance. This era has been identified as the beginning of the concept known as "operational art" - where strategy and tactics have to move to make room for the "operational" level of warfare - where you fight the enemy in a series of engagements and battles rather than just arriving at one side of a field and your opponent doing the same. As part of this, fortresses are now only inconveniences. Napoleon and the rest (Kutuzov, de Tolly, Schwarzenburg and Blucher will be in the same position in time - Wellington is a kind of outlier since he's hamstrung for manpower for much of his time in the Peninsular) now have the manpower to drop ten-twenty-thirty thousand men to besiege a fortress whilst the rest of the army runs all over the country trying to bring the real enemy to combat. Professional armies with professional engineers mean that you don't have to spend months besieiging a particular town that has the only bridge in the area because in a day your corps of engineers can build you a pontoon bridge that will be just as good. If you bring that enemy army to battle and smash it, fortresses mean nothing, they'll fall soon enough because with the enemy's army/ies defeated nobody can turn up to save it.

So yeah - short of critical objectives (like capitals so the enemy can know they've lost) - sieges just steadily become less meaningful as armies grow bigger.


----------



## Gurkhal

CupofJoe said:


> Don't know much about how *Napoleon I* made war. I've always thought it to be highly mobile. He wanted it all So long sieges just weren't on his plan list.



Not sure how much Napoleon "wanted it all" as much as "Everyone is out to get me so unless I can remove their access to resources that can be used to raise armies to attack me, they're just going to keep coming."



pmmg said:


> Napoleon was involved in sieges, and did well in a them. I think he was 1) an artillery major, 2) a brilliant tactician 3) was very good at making people want to fight for him. I think all of that probably had a bit to do with it. In a time when military rank was often given for reasons of social standing, *someone who was actually good warfare was too outside the box for nobility.*



I'm a bit tired so I hope that I don't blow something out of proportions here.

I think that the bolded part might be to strong actually. If I've understood your argument as being that Napoleon was breaking away from the connection between social and military rank.

I think its more likely that the presence of someone with a rank and capabilities which exceeded his social ranking in the Old Regime was what raised the hackles of the European nobility along with Napoleon's connection with the French revolution. I'd like to point out that while Napoleon was very good, to my understanding he created a new nobility, ennobled or even made his leading marshalls into kings. This is certainly a progressive reformer in his time but not a man dedicated to social, or any other, equality.

So I would say that Napoleon strained the traditional ideas about nobility and officer ranks. But he was never able, or willing, to break free from them.


----------



## pmmg

I think that type of commentary is beyond anything I would know about Napoleon. I was merely suggesting that some who got to order troops about had no particular gift for it, and Napoleon seemed to be pretty good at it.


----------



## Gurkhal

pmmg said:


> I think that type of commentary is beyond anything I would know about Napoleon. I was merely suggesting that some who got to order troops about had no particular gift for it, and Napoleon seemed to be pretty good at it.



In this you are of course right. No objections from me to this.


----------



## pmmg

Truth is, I have never really had any interest in Napoleon, but in researching a bit for this question, I found he was more inventive than I would have guessed. I am interested to know more now.


----------



## skip.knox

Another question for the Assembled Sages. Below is a photo of a forest, just for general reference, not specific.

My question is, how does one move an army of several thousand through something like this? Even if there is a road, if an army of say twenty thousand (with all its appurtenances) stayed on the road it would stretch for miles. This not only leaves the army vulnerable (ask Varro), it also creates all sorts of logistical problems.

But, at the same time, moving an army through closely-packed trees or forests with dense underbrush seems to fall somewhere between loony and outright impossible.

Yet, it was done. Do any of you military history folk have thoughts on this? Thoughts supported by references are most welcome.








Thanks to all, in adavance.


----------



## skip.knox

Here's another one. Your objective as commander, get your army from here to that mountain in the far distance. Figure it's about 50km away. How long does it take and how do you do it?


----------



## Aldarion

skip.knox As I see it, there are two ways. Slower but safer way is to build a road through the area, with army advancing along with the road. So by the end of it, you have army at the point it needed to go and road back home for logistics and transfer. Quicker way is to march the army through the forrest, likely broken up into smaller groups. In many cases forrest will be inhabited and/or already have paths (if not proper roads) through it, enough for men and packed mules to pass.

Most of the time however you simply passed _around_ the forest. And of course, if you had sufficiently large armies marching around - especially if they were _Roman_ armies - very soon there would be no forest left. Army still needs wood, for fires, for fortifications... you may want to read this:
https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/John-McNeill-Lecture.pdf


----------



## skip.knox

Caesar built a road right through the heart of the sacred oak forests of the Belgae, a nice combination of military and social engineering. That works for long-term invasion. Not so useful when the other side is deploying an army against you.

In that case, going around is indeed the most likely scenario, though in some parts of medieval Europe "around" might be very far indeed. But the forest would present the same obstacles for the other side too.

Unless ... the other side wasn't human. The thought just occurred to me that advantages and disadvantages of terrain might work differently for dwarves, orcs, elves, etc. I'll have to think about those.

Thanks for the reference. I appreciated the references to various precedents in Asia.


----------



## Aldarion

skip.knox said:


> Caesar built a road right through the heart of the sacred oak forests of the Belgae, a nice combination of military and social engineering. That works for long-term invasion. Not so useful when the other side is deploying an army against you.
> 
> In that case, going around is indeed the most likely scenario, though in some parts of medieval Europe "around" might be very far indeed. But the forest would present the same obstacles for the other side too.
> 
> Unless ... the other side wasn't human. The thought just occurred to me that advantages and disadvantages of terrain might work differently for dwarves, orcs, elves, etc. I'll have to think about those.
> 
> Thanks for the reference. I appreciated the references to various precedents in Asia.



Regarding that, I managed to find this:
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-war-taiga-guerrilla-warfare/dp/B002FVK1F6
The German Army Guerrilla Warfare Pocket Manual 1939-45

But generally, if you _need_ to neutralize an armed group using forest as a cover, you _neutralize the forest first_. Until that is done, you limit yourself to building and securing roads through the forest. Forests are used mainly by guerilla groups, so "deploying an army" is not an issue: army, especially a premodern one, needs space and significant supplies, neither of which forest provides, which means - again - you either have / are building a road through the forest, are bypassing forest, or forces you are deploying in a forest do not qualify as an "army" to begin with.

If the enemy is capable of deploying an actual army in a forest, then you get Teutoburg Forest... though it should be noted that Romans were marching along a river / road, and Germans likely deployed in small numbers, consolidated for a battle, and then withdrew in small groups as well. In fact, battle itself was not one large engagement, but rather a series of engagements along Roman route of march - which means that Germans likely deployed small, individual war bands. That - small-unit warfare with occasional large-scale action - is likely how forest warfare would work (until forest itself could be neutralized). But I am not really familiar with that battle so this is speculation; at any rate, it is an example you may want to look into. Another is this:
Battle of Camulodunum - Wikipedia

But generally, forest warfare - be it a march or a battle - was simply _not done_, except by accident (such as a major road running through forest). Take a look at Battle of Agincourt: both sides deployed via roads, and while English did deploy archers in forest, it is clear that a) French did not expect such a move and b) archers were on outskirts of a forest. No forest combat there.


----------



## CSEllis

I'm going to be annoying and ask questions. War isn't a vacuum. The enemy informs your planning as much as whatever you have. How these are answered will define how you go about your advance into this forest, or not.

So:
Who is your enemy?
What are their known/unknown capabilities?
What is their position? (as in, do you get something out of this when you reach your destination?)
What do they know/believe about you? 
What is their position/influence in the location you'll be passing through? (Are they friends/enemies/neutral to the inhabitants you'll be passing by. Will you have locals waiting to give you food or slit your throat in the night?)

Until we know more it's hard to off a prescription.

I will however make some comments on what I've seen already. I think there's an overemphasis here on professional Roman-like armies. Those require an obscenely powerful state beyond what most fantasy states are capable of (Westeros could probably afford one if it did away with all its other armed forces and made do with a quite small force for the landmass you're deal with). There's also the assumption of an overly homogenous army. 
The Romans made enormous use of various native allies and tribes. The auxiliaries are famous, but those were only formalising what already was in place. The Varian disaster was able to happen because the Romans a) believed they were passing through friendly territory and b) that their tribal allies were loyal. Given the relatively long service of Arminius, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption to make that he would remain loyal, even when Varus was told otherwise. 
The important thing is that those auxiliaries/allies had the local knowledge and local fighting methods that had been evolved to deal with such terrain. For an army to move and fight at any reasonable pace, and to be able to handle an enemy that uses the above methods, then you have to have those kinds of light troops who can scout and probe and see what's going on. Since those forces have to be vaguely familiar with the region, you're going to have to have some kind of familiarity and understanding with some group of locals so they can help you. If you piss off everyone, then, well, you get Teutoburgerwalded.  Caesar did this well, there are always tribal allies of some kind providing the light cavalry for his legions. They're not sexy and are no match for legions in a straight up fight, but on campaign they were very valuable. Tolkien does this nicely, with local wildmen(? I can't remember precisely) scouting and providing local knowledge for the Rohirrim on their march up to relieve Minas Tirith. To this day this kind of cooperation occurs, there was a scandal here in Australia recently when local Afghan guides weren't being given asylum in Australia for their support but were instead left in the lurch to be targets for reprisals. This stuff doesn't seem to go away.
Ref: Caesar again, I think there's also an overemphasis here on a kind of modern western style supply train where, Hearts of Iron style, the supply lines stretch from the centre of your lands to wherever the army is. I'm not so sure about this. The amount of time Caesar spends getting hold of grain supplies through negotiation with local tribes or through force suggests that there isn't a line of carts stretching from Alesia (especially not Alesia!) to Rome. Sure, plenty of stuff is going to and fro (not least De Bello Gallico itself) , but not that kind of daily stuff. Marius' mules have to obey the age old problems of the wagon train eventually reaching a point where it eats everything it carries. And that's for a professional army. For anything less organised, foraging is going to be one of your primary sources of food. Which returns us to my above comments on light troops whose task it is, along with scouting, to both forage and protect others who were foraging. It's not pretty (it's literally theft from the poorest and most vulnerable in the local area) and it begins to make the good guys look morally grey, which is why we probably don't see it appear in fantasy.
I'd also caution against assuming its one line of troops marching through one path in a forest. The main body, sure, but if the commander has any brain they'll have all manner of scouts around and ahead of that group, as well as detachments headed off to other nearby points of interest. They'll detect the enemy and ideally give the main body time to react. This was a thing with the Teutoburg forest, where the 3 legions had units scattered all over the place, which were either being picked off or having to conduct fighting retreats back to the Rhine.

A lot of this stuff I can't really source since its the kind of theory that doesn't have a big book attached to it, but something you pick up.
Obviously, Caesar's Gallic Wars are worth reading for lots of campaigning in regions that were then heavily forested. 

For the Teutoburg forest, a good readable and vaguely well researched source is Ancient Warfare Magazine's special on the Varian disaster (one of the older ones now, I think, from 2009). Available online in convenient pdf form. 

For more heavy duty stuff, I'd cautiously recommend M.P. Speidel's Ancient Germanic Warriors: Warrior Styles from Trajan's Column to Icelandic Sagas. It's not the best book and the author gets slightly carried away with his subject (and it basically could apply to at least Indo-European warriors, rather than just Germans), but it does a bang up job of showing how a thoroughly "uncivilized" society might have fought and how they viewed their warfare. It's a very different world from the legions. I apologise for getting off the question somewhat, but there are so many factors involved in this sort of stuff that bloat is inevitable.


----------



## skip.knox

I agree on all points. I was focused on the sheer physicality of getting through heavy forest. Going around is a good solution, but in some places that could mean a detour of hundreds of miles. Building a road is another solution, but that could mean taking so long, the invaders are off in other directions. Assuming invasion, of course.

Anyway, there are lots of possible situations. But if the task is to get an army from here to there (see pics above), I was wondering how it might be done. Maybe you break into lots of smaller units and work yourl way through making paths rather than roads. I know that terrain can be essentially impassable. The forests of medieval Lithuania were so thick, the crusaders of the 14thc only traveled up rivers, getting out to attack strongpoints. I think, though I'd have to check sources again, that the Letts themselves moved through the forests, no doubt by pathways known only to them.


----------



## Trip Williams

Not sure if this thread is still active, but here goes. 

In my WIP, my main character can shape-shift into certain animals that he has gained the affinity for. Near the end of the book, there is a fight scene in a forest. The main character transforms into an elephant and takes down a large tree, impeding the path of the "soldiers" heading toward his home. The "army" is mostly comprised of common city folks, the city garrison, and perhaps a few imperial soldiers. Mostly swords and house-hold weapons - no spears or archers really. 

In the story, I have my main character rampage down the line of soldiers after the tree falls, maiming the front line of soldiers in their confusion after the tree falls in their path. How realistic would that be? 

I have more detailed questions of other fight scenes in my story, but those can wait for later.


----------



## Aldarion

Trip Williams said:


> In the story, I have my main character rampage down the line of soldiers after the tree falls, maiming the front line of soldiers in their confusion after the tree falls in their path. How realistic would that be?



Quite realistic, I think. Elephants were dangerous enough that they often required specialized tactics to repel - and while massed archers / crossbowmen and massed pikemen could do the trick as well, fact that this is happening in the forest means that such troops would be much less effective.


----------



## Trip Williams

Oh, I can't believe I did that... I forgot to include an important detail. After pushing the tree down as an elephant, the main character switches to the form of a bear to go on the rampage. Hopefully that's just as realistic... i had him switch because I didn't see an elephant maneuvering inside a forest very well.


----------



## Mad Swede

And as this thread is now alive again I'll offer my professional view based on personal experince of leading troops in this sort of terrain.

Put simply, you go through it. It isn't impossible, far from it. This sort of terrain is most suited to infantry operations, but if you have the right sort of vehicles or pack animals you can bring heaver equipment along as well. You'll normally have some sort of recce troops (scouts) out ahead of your main force, looking for both the enemy and the best line of march. I'd usually stay away from the rivers, partly because the terrain is drier higher up the valley side and partly because the forest is sometimes less dense. The speed of advance does depends on what sort of forest you're in - an older  predominantly pine or spruce forest is fairly easy, there's usually a lot of open ground beneath the trees. Young forest is much more difficult, its more dense. I would split my force into smaller units, partly to ensure I can advance on a broad front. That written, you need to ensure that neighbouring units stay in contact with each other and that you have some overall idea of where they all are. In that way you can keep control of the advance and ensure you support those troops which run into the enemy. It also makes it harder for the enemy to work out how big your force is.


----------



## Queshire

Trip Williams said:


> Oh, I can't believe I did that... I forgot to include an important detail. After pushing the tree down as an elephant, the main character switches to the form of a bear to go on the rampage. Hopefully that's just as realistic... i had him switch because I didn't see an elephant maneuvering inside a forest very well.



Rather than maneuverability I think breaking the enemy's morale would be more important. A mob of commoners, half trained city guards and a few trained soldiers won't be the most disciplined lot. However, the local wildlife would matter there. A rampaging bear is scary, but if a commoner hunter risks encountering one when out hunting then they'd be more likely to stay and fight compared to a largely unknown animal like an Elephant. Of course, if wild elephants are common in the area then a bear might be more fearsome.


----------



## Mad Swede

Trip Williams said:


> Oh, I can't believe I did that... I forgot to include an important detail. After pushing the tree down as an elephant, the main character switches to the form of a bear to go on the rampage. Hopefully that's just as realistic... i had him switch because I didn't see an elephant maneuvering inside a forest very well.


Well, thats one way to immediately arouse suspicion in anyone who knows the forest. Wild animals tend to stay well away from humans, not matter what stories you townies may have heard. Bears don't attack humans unless you're threatening their cubs. So an elephant and then a sudden rampaging bear will tell anyone who knows the forest and its animals that someone is out there and that the someone can transform to another shape.


----------



## Trip Williams

yes, a magical system called essence is well known in the world, and different races have different essence abilities, so the townsfolk knew coming in that they were facing an aygiff (someone who can transform into animals). Some of the townsfolk would have different abilities, like the ability to control plants, control bugs, to camoflage themselves and have hair that holds electric charges, etc... though not everyone within a certain race has the affinity to use essence and those that do also have different levels of strength in their essence use, etc.


----------



## Gurkhal

Quick question about something Hellenistic. 

Would it make sense to equip a phalangite with a longer sword for battle in looser formation? Normally a phalangite would have a pike (sarissa), shield and a short sword that can be used in a packed formation if necessary. But could it reasonably be justified to keep a longer sword for flexibility in action in broken terrain or would that be too encumbering and/or an expense that is unjustified?

If you need more context to the question feel free to ask.


----------



## pmmg

Would they even have longer swords in the age when this would occur?

I think not, mostly because someone has to supply them. If the army had already been issued the shorter sword, I dont see them re-issuing a sword because the terrain changed. But maybe.... I still have to ask what even was the longest sword of the time period?

I found this article that suggests longer swords were used by cavalry, but they still were not very long.

The Hellenistic Period, Weapons and Armour, 400–150 bc I


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> Quick question about something Hellenistic.
> 
> Would it make sense to equip a phalangite with a longer sword for battle in looser formation? Normally a phalangite would have a pike (sarissa), shield and a short sword that can be used in a packed formation if necessary. But could it reasonably be justified to keep a longer sword for flexibility in action in broken terrain or would that be too encumbering and/or an expense that is unjustified?
> 
> If you need more context to the question feel free to ask.


Not really, because longer sword would be simply too much weight for not much added benefit.

Rather, it would be better to have them train with the normal hoplite spear, which I should note is something Alexander's phalangites historically did.


----------



## Gurkhal

pmmg said:


> Would they even have longer swords in the age when this would occur?
> 
> I think not, mostly because someone has to supply them. If the army had already been issued the shorter sword, I dont see them re-issuing a sword because the terrain changed. But maybe.... I still have to ask what even was the longest sword of the time period?
> 
> I found this article that suggests longer swords were used by cavalry, but they still were not very long.
> 
> The Hellenistic Period, Weapons and Armour, 400–150 bc I


Well, its mostly based on ancient history but even then I have decided to run it as a fantasy setting with anarchronistic elements and for example the Romans did switch from a short sword to the spatha during Antiquity, so there's where I got the idea for it. 

That along with the times that Macedonian phalanxes were broken or outmanouvered by broken terrain or more mobile enemies made me wonder if there could be some kind of way to get the pike wall to handle that kind of scenario better. I know they can deploy more troops to protect the flanks from mobile enemies but that still leaves the phalanx very vulnerable if fighting moved to broken ground.


Aldarion said:


> Not really, because longer sword would be simply too much weight for not much added benefit.
> 
> Rather, it would be better to have them train with the normal hoplite spear, which I should note is something Alexander's phalangites historically did.


I think I follow your reasoning.

Didn't  know they trained with the dorys. That's new to me but I will take your word for it. I suppose it would offer  an economic alternative to an extra sword for the troops as a spear is cheaper than a sword. Treasurer and quartermasters should be happy with that.


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> I think I follow your reasoning.
> 
> Didn't know they trained with the dorys. That's new to me but I will take your word for it. I suppose it would offer an economic alternative to an extra sword for the troops as a spear is cheaper than a sword. Treasurer and quartermasters should be happy with that.


They often marched with the dory, while sarissas were in the baggage train. And Alexander's campaigns in Iran likely wouldn't have been possible if pike was the only weapon they used.

Also, don't quote me on this as I don't remember where I have read it, but I seem to remember that Alexander actually replenished the ranks of his light troops from the ranks of phalangites - and did it on the fly, which is only possible if pikemen in question already knew how to use the spear.

EDIT:


Gurkhal said:


> Well, its mostly based on ancient history but even then I have decided to run it as a fantasy setting with anarchronistic elements and for example the Romans did switch from a short sword to the spatha during Antiquity, so there's where I got the idea for it.
> 
> That along with the times that Macedonian phalanxes were broken or outmanouvered by broken terrain or more mobile enemies made me wonder if there could be some kind of way to get the pike wall to handle that kind of scenario better. I know they can deploy more troops to protect the flanks from mobile enemies but that still leaves the phalanx very vulnerable if fighting moved to broken ground.


Romans didn't just switch to spatha, they changed the whole panoply and the way of fighting. Essentially, whereas legionaries of the Principate were heavy skirmishers relying on javelins to disrupt the enemy before charging in with the swords drawn and engaging in what was basically mass version of individual dueling, legions of the late Empire fought in the shield walls, using large round shields to provide cover while engaging the enemy with arrows, darts and spears.


----------



## Gurkhal

Aldarion said:


> They often marched with the dory, while sarissas were in the baggage train. And Alexander's campaigns in Iran likely wouldn't have been possible if pike was the only weapon they used.
> 
> Also, don't quote me on this as I don't remember where I have read it, but I seem to remember that Alexander actually replenished the ranks of his light troops from the ranks of phalangites - and did it on the fly, which is only possible if pikemen in question already knew how to use the spear.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Romans didn't just switch to spatha, they changed the whole panoply and the way of fighting. Essentially, whereas legionaries of the Principate were heavy skirmishers relying on javelins to disrupt the enemy before charging in with the swords drawn and engaging in what was basically mass version of individual dueling, legions of the late Empire fought in the shield walls, using large round shields to provide cover while engaging the enemy with arrows, darts and spears.


I will keep this in mind about Alexander's army and such. 

However...

I am aware of the context in which spatha was adapted. But as to the rest of what you've written I'm afraid that you are simply wrong on Principate legionaries. They were not heavy skirmishers but heavy infantry and nothing else. Furthermore they didn't charge in and fight mass of duels but kept a formation of closed ranks in which their use of their shield and the sword came to decimate the opposition.


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> I am aware of the context in which spatha was adapted. But as to the rest of what you've written I'm afraid that you are simply wrong on Principate legionaries. They were not heavy skirmishers but heavy infantry and nothing else. Furthermore they didn't charge in and fight mass of duels but kept a formation of closed ranks in which their use of their shield and the sword came to decimate the opposition.


No, that is incorrect. They were heavy infantry in terms of armor and their basic battlefield role, but look more closely at their equipment: two javelins, and a large _curved tower_ shield. This "curved tower" part is important. Heavy infantry that fights in formation has a shield which protects as much frontage as possible: look at Greek Aspis, late Roman clipeus, Norse rond... all of these shields were intended for combat in the shield wall. They were large and round, which allowed the soldier to protect not only himself, but also the vulnerable (right) side of a soldier next to him. Roman scutum however _sucks_ for the shield wall combat. It is simply too large, too heavy, and not protective enough. What it _excels_ at is giving _individual_ soldier as much protection as possible, especially so in the context of missile combat, but also in individual close-quarters fighting. In other words, Roman legionary was expected to fight either in a _loose_ formation or as an individual, not shoulder to shoulder with his comrades. Further, usage of heavy javelins by legionaries themselves would have been impossible had they fought in close-rank order: and without heavy javelins, you simply don't have the legions of late Republic or early Empire.

Look also at how Republican legions fought against the Macedonian phalanx: first they launched a barrage of javelins, then drew swords and went in close. And usually they _lost_ in a head-on clash. Times when they won? When the phalanx was somehow disrupted, which legionaries would exploit by penetrating ranks of the phalanx in what were essentially piecemeal actions by small groups or even individual soldiers.

You know when scutum disappears? During the late Empire, which is precisely when legions abandon javelins as a primary weapon in exchange for the spear. And again we see the pattern I noted above: shield wall formation = large round shields. Also, do you know when shields similar to Roman scutum reappear? In Middle Ages, specifically as protection for _crossbowmen_. And granted, heavy infantry could fight from behind the pavise wall, but pavise itself was a response to requirements of ranged combat.

Likewise for a sword. Roman gladius was an adoption of _Spanish_ sword. And you know what is also interesting? Ancient chronicles compared Iberian infantry to Greek peltasts - who were light skirmish infantry. _Roman_ authors specifically noted similarity in equipment and tactics between the Iberian infantry and their own legionaries. In fact, Iberian _speirai_ are a direct equivalent of Roman maniples.

So either Roman authors were lying about Iberian combat tactics, they were lying about their own combat tactics, or you are wrong about Roman legionaries being your typical heavy melee infantry.

Now, it is true that above mostly concerns legions of the Roman Republic rather than those of the Principate. However, equipment of the Principate legionaries is very similar to that of Republican equivalents - whereas late Roman legionaries have equipment completely different from their Principate predecessors. This would also suggest that Principate legions were tactically much closer to tactics of the post-Marian Republican legions than to those of the Late Empire.


----------



## Gurkhal

Thank you for taking the time for writing a pretty long trolling post, Aldarion . I reject your conclusion and shall look elsewhere for an answer to my question. Hopefully we'll interact in a more serious way in the future.


----------



## pmmg

If you are not concerned with the anachronistic elements of this, then I would think they would want the longer sword if they could get it.

Though, I would have to wonder why they would carry the weapon full time if it was only for a broken ground scenario. Do they fight on broken ground a lot?


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> Thank you for taking the time for writing a pretty long trolling post, Aldarion . I reject your conclusion and shall look elsewhere for an answer to my question. Hopefully we'll interact in a more serious way in the future.


It is not trolling at all. Not everything that disagrees with your opinions is trolling.


----------



## Prince of Spires

Define longer sword. 

2 things at play here I think. First there is cost. It's only a bit of extra bronze which is needed to make a longer sword. But, 20.000 times a bit (or however many soldiers you have) is still a lot. And that for a back-up weapon.

Then there is the fact that it's a back-up weapon first and foremost. This means the soldiers will carry it around in adition to their regular equipment of spear and shield. You don't want to be adding extra weight to your equipment just because you have some rare circumstances where it might be useful. You're much better off simply selecting an advantageous battle field. What's more, these soldiers have a shield, which means that even if they aren't in formation, they'd likely be fighting with sword and shield, not just sword. Of course, you can use the longer sword with a shield as well, there just isn't as much benefit. And the longer sword might be a hindrance when combined with the shield.

The thing to remember here is that warfare was a serious business. While of course random things happened, people also optimized what they had, simply because people don't like dying or losing battles. If it made sense to have the longer swords, then someone who spent their days fighting would have come up with it.


----------



## Gurkhal

pmmg said:


> If you are not concerned with the anachronistic elements of this, then I would think they would want the longer sword if they could get it.
> 
> Though, I would have to wonder why they would carry the weapon full time if it was only for a broken ground scenario. Do they fight on broken ground a lot?


Yes, I'm ready to accept anachronistic elements if necessary or if I get a really good idea. If I wanted to write strictly historical I would have written historical fiction. 

The idea is that its a Hellenistic inspired world and that Hellenistic-style armies have both come to fight enemies who will happily retreat to or fight in looser formation on broken ground along with inspiration from the historical experience of fighting Rome where broken ground could become very bad news for a phalanx. Therefore they might want to be able to get the phalangites to perform on broken ground as well.


Aldarion said:


> It is not trolling at all. Not everything that disagrees with your opinions is trolling.


In theory I agree and I'm no stranger to hold minority views if those makes sense to me.

But everything you have written flies in the face of everything I read or heard on the matter and what seems reasonable to me. And I know for a fact that you are well read on historical military matters. Thus my opinion that you're trolling me.


Prince of Spires said:


> Define longer sword.
> 
> 2 things at play here I think. First there is cost. It's only a bit of extra bronze which is needed to make a longer sword. But, 20.000 times a bit (or however many soldiers you have) is still a lot. And that for a back-up weapon.
> 
> Then there is the fact that it's a back-up weapon first and foremost. This means the soldiers will carry it around in adition to their regular equipment of spear and shield. You don't want to be adding extra weight to your equipment just because you have some rare circumstances where it might be useful. You're much better off simply selecting an advantageous battle field. What's more, these soldiers have a shield, which means that even if they aren't in formation, they'd likely be fighting with sword and shield, not just sword. Of course, you can use the longer sword with a shield as well, there just isn't as much benefit. And the longer sword might be a hindrance when combined with the shield.
> 
> The thing to remember here is that warfare was a serious business. While of course random things happened, people also optimized what they had, simply because people don't like dying or losing battles. If it made sense to have the longer swords, then someone who spent their days fighting would have come up with it.



I'm thinking about the Roman spatha here. So not bronze weapons but more likely iron or even early steel weapons.

Just something that if the fighting goes to ground where a phalanx is unsuitable then the phalangites would be able to keep fighting and not go the way of Pydna. Now there might be other ways to deal with this but having the phalangites essentially regulated to the side line in that kind of scenario tells me that someone would perhaps have sought a solution to this problem/weakness.

A longger sword might be a problem, so I'm open to other invovations that might help the make the phalangites in a phalanx more adaptable if things are not ideal to them.

I totally agree that warfare was serious business. However lets not forget that Hellenistic style armies mostly fought other Hellenistic armies and that a growing reliance on the "pike push" was a trend that was only challenged by the arrival of the Roman legions, which did force inovation and new ideas, to my knowledge, to be attempted on larger scale.


----------



## Aldarion

Gurkhal said:


> In theory I agree and I'm no stranger to hold minority views if those makes sense to me.
> 
> But everything you have written flies in the face of everything I read or heard on the matter and what seems reasonable to me. And I know for a fact that you are well read on historical military matters. Thus my opinion that you're trolling me.


It is not trolling, although it definitely is unorthodox.

But personally, I simply cannot see Roman legions fighting as your typical heavy infantry.

Firstly, we have accounts of their combat against the Macedonian phalanx, where victory was a result of individual legionaries and small groups _leaving formation _in order to exploit the gaps and openings that had appeared in the phalanx thanks to the uneven terrain.

Secondly, as I have noted, legionary equipment is actually well suited to missile exchange.

We also have contrast with late Roman legions which fought in the shield wall, and had completely different equipment.


----------

