# Balanced Opponents



## Alex97 (Feb 9, 2014)

In my WIP there is a civilization that resembles the ancient Greek city states (the Ellasians) which will probably clash with another civilization that resembles the Vikings/Norse and Saxons (Halandish). The main issue is that the two civilizations that these two are based on were in power at different times.  I think I've probably done enough to balance this out in my world, but I would appreciate some other opinions.

Some info:
- Both sides have access to iron and bronze. Steel is rare, but some elites have it. 
- The Ellasians fight in a similar way to the Macedonian style (pike infantry supported by more traditional hoplites and swordsman along with a strong cavalry contingent and some peltasts)
- The main Halandish battle line is made up of the huscarls who fight in a shield wall with spears axes and shields, they have varying degrees of armour. The levies fight in the same way but aren't as well trained. The elites are made of thanes (basically the nobles) who usually opt to fight with two handed axes, hammers or swords (sometimes they wear very heavy armour).  Archers and javelinmen are used in support.  However, they have limited cavalry, although an alliance with another faction might solve this weakness.

I'm judging from the fighting styles that the two would be effective in different battlefields, so a war could go either way.  One of the main issues is the armour for the Ellasians. I want them to reflect the Greeks, but this could leave them at a disadvantage when facing chainmail. The Greeks either wore the Linothorax which was linen or leather armour with metal scales or a muscle cuirass.  If the bronze was substituted with iron, would they be more or less equal, or is the method of making the armour obsolete? I can think of a number of other substitutes, but hoplites wearing chainmail for example doesn't match the imagery I want to portray.


----------



## Malik (Feb 9, 2014)

Bronze is actually very tough and makes exceptional weapons and armor. It doesn't hold an edge very long because it's soft -- like iron -- but it makes great mail and scale armor because -- like iron -- it can deform under impact without splitting the way that steel does. 

Theories abound as to why bronze was supplanted by iron, but there are many proponents in the historical community of bronze's superiority to iron. 

Mail dates back to at least 400 BC, and it's possible that the idea of using a shirt of interlinked metal rings as armor goes clear back through the Bronze Age and into the Copper Age. It is very old tech.

However, if you're dead-set against mail, _cuir bouilli _is nearly as tough as modern high-impact plastic. Give 'em _cuir bouilli _breastplates augmented with bronze lamellar mantles and pauldrons, and they'd be hell on wheels. 

Another way to go would be some sort of coat of plates incorporating bronze plates riveted into a leather jacket or vest. 

You're going to need to cough up a good explanation, though, for why one civilization developed advanced weaponry and the other developed advanced tactics. Generally, civilizations at war steal each other's ideas until it's all a big mishmash on both sides. Just something to think about.


----------



## Alex97 (Feb 10, 2014)

Thanks for the reply. For the Ellasians I'll probably stick with the the traditional Greek style armours anyway, since historically various Celts had access to chainmail armours as far as I'm aware.  Some of the Ellasians might use lamellar armour like the Byzantines for a bit more variety and I'll look into the em cuir bouilli that you mentioned.



> You're going to need to cough up a good explanation, though, for why one civilization developed advanced weaponry and the other developed advanced tactics. Generally, civilizations at war steal each other's ideas until it's all a big mishmash on both sides. Just something to think about.



The two factions are far away from each other (about the distance form England to Greece) and have never fought before which explains the difference in tactics and technology etc.  In terms of technology I would say that they are pretty much equal - just different methods.  They're also used to fighting in different terrain against different opponents etc...


----------



## Malik (Feb 10, 2014)

Cool. I have a long blog post on armor that delves into metallurgy, physics, and general theory. Quite a few writers on this site have said that it has helped them, so you might be able to pick something up in there.

One parting thought, too: In my line of work, we say that if you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you need to reevaluate your tactics.


----------



## stephenspower (Feb 10, 2014)

If the two factions are far away from one another, what brought them together? Wouldn't there be some incremental contact as one made their way over time toward the other? Or was it more like a European sailing ship rounding Africa and making their way to Australia, the equivalent of invaders from space? If the latter, would first contact precipitate ideas at least from one to the other such that they could prepare for each others' capabilities if war erupted?

Considering the narrative, though, and to extend Malik's point, what would make a battle interesting is how one side can exploit a previously unseen weakness in the other, whether technological (longbows at Agincourt), strategic (marching through the desert to Aqaba, Mad Anthony Wayne scaling the Palisades at Stony Point, "Rommel, I read your damn book!") or psychological (Caesar putting javelin throwers behind a hill so when Pompey's cavalry came racing around it, they would fly before the steel thrust in their pretty faces).  In fact every great war story depends on this unexpected imbalance. So the real questions you should be asking are: what does one side know that the other doesn't ? And what is one side willing to do that the other would never expect?


----------



## Jabrosky (Feb 11, 2014)

Ironically, I was just considering having a conflict between ancient Greek and Norse analogues. However, what happened in my hypothetical scenario was that the Greeks wiped out most of the Norse due to superior technology, forcing the Norse to leave their homeland and settle on the African coast. In the end however the Norse and Africans teamed up to beat the Greeks.

Come to think of it, a concept like this has bubbled in my head for quite some time now. Maybe I should put it down on paper once and for all.


----------

