# Question About a Battle Tactic, Involving Boulders, Tar, Fire, and Powder



## Sir Kieran (Jun 5, 2014)

Hello! 

There is a battle in my novel involving two armies; one of them is from the mountains, the other from a desert country (Araland). They converge on a grassy, open battlefield controlled by Araland. I gave the Arals this battle tactic, and I was hoping someone could tell me whether it's realistic or not! 

They knew the battle was coming, and they knew exactly where it would happen. Before the other army arrived, they laced the field with a sort of powder. It explodes whenever it meets fire. The powder is spread out enough that it would take trained eyes to notice it, mixed in with the dirt and grass. When the battle begins, the Arals load boulders onto their catapults and pour burning tar on them. They then take fire, light the boulders, and fling them into the open field. When the fire crashes onto the ground in great quantity, it explodes, and the fire rips across the enemy's side of the battlefield, creating mass chaos. 

I'd love to hear some thoughts!


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 5, 2014)

Might be better off using bales of hay covered with tar and oil. They will be more likely to break apart on impact and spread the fire further. Will probably have that squish effect where compression forces out liquid. Not sure how sticky the tar would be to stone. It might not fall off where your fighters want it to.

The boulders would take out any enemy in the way though, and buildings. And they would probably be using trebuchets, not catapults. They'd fling them further.


----------



## wordwalker (Jun 5, 2014)

One caution:

There's a moment in one of Harry Turtledove's Videssos books where a scholar suggests to the plains tribe that they use a fire tactic (not even in the same way), and for one instant he's almost lynched for suggesting it before his local friend makes one very quick apology.

Usually the whole grassland for miles around is one flammable expanse, so fires are bad news for everyone within screaming distance. If they try a trick like this, they'd have to be both desperate and positioning it near some _very_ wide... no, with enough heat, sparks can sometimes carry a whole mile. The side of a lake might be the only place to try it, and that only fences it in on one side.

How much preparation can their wizards put into a massive rain-summoning spell?


----------



## stephenspower (Jun 5, 2014)

I find improbable this grass variation of the Imp's defense of King's Landing against Stannis. 

1. Unless the army is hemmed in by trees, water, cilffs, couldn't they just run away from the fire?

2. If the grass is green, would the fire spread that quickly? If the powder is scattered loosely, would it just fizzle, the way gunpowder does if poured out of a broken firecracker onto an army man? If it detonates, there are better delivery systems.

3. How much powder would it take to sow the area an army would cover? And while the army can't see it, wouldn't something so flammable smell? Would it corrode the grass?  Would it kill flora and fauna? These signs might warn the approaching army. Where did the powder come from? Has it been used in battle before? Martin spends a lot of time setting up the circumstances by which Tyrion was able to use the green fire goo.

4. Catapults are siege weapons. They are not easy to move, especially on soft earth. What army would stand in front of them?

My advice would be to set up this plan, then have it rain the night before battle, dissolving the powder, letting the catapults get mired, and leaving the army exposed.


----------



## thecoldembrace (Jun 5, 2014)

You have a good thought for wanting to use this tactic, Sir Kieran, yet the conditions of a battlefield need to be right to employ it. As was stated above, this simple tactic on a vast grassland would not be prudent, especially if the grass is dry. Another issue on such a large open field is that the enemy can escape the flames and thus repair their forces easier and with less disruption. 

  There was a battle conducted by an army in the fourth crusade against the Saracens. The knights tried this tactic to only have it turned on them by having the field too large to cause disruption, which allowed the smoke to then hide the Saracen forces which redeployed quickly and in a way the knights were not prepared for. Using the smoke as a screen the Saracens were able to close and annihilate the knights who had prepared themselves for an easier fight.

  The conditions for this to work correctly is during a siege to catch approaching siege towers and ladder groups within the flames to allow forays by the defenders to rush out and destroy said siege engines and assault groups. On a field of open battle the terrain needs to favor less mobility for the approaching army, so that they are forced into fields and streams of fire to cause as much disruption as possible. At the same time the grass needs to not be very dry, which can spell disaster even for the defending force. The whole purpose to using this tactic is to grant a numerically inferior fighting force the chance to catch and destroy small chunks of a numerically superior enemy force before the whole is granted the chance to destroy them. 

Lastly, as was stated above, do not use flaming boulders. Use clay pots filled with flammable pitch, that would shatter upon impact with the ground and disperse the fiery contents over a large expanse of land, granting a better chance of igniting the powder you have on the field while also pouring sticky tar-like pitch over enemy soldiers and chunks of pottery. These can be flung by catapults, or better yet ballistae which can be more accurate.

This tactic will not disrupt an enemy army for long, so it has to be used in conjunction with attack to provide the best advantage.
Be wary as well, this can backfire and cause massive grassfires to ravage the land for miles.

Hope this helps
-Cold


----------



## Queshire (Jun 5, 2014)

Mind you, I don't think the average reader will think of all that, so from a literature stand point I think it works. Everyone else has already talked about the realism stand point better than I could, so... *shrug*


----------



## Sir Kieran (Jun 5, 2014)

Butterfly said:


> Might be better off using bales of hay covered with tar and oil. They will be more likely to break apart on impact and spread the fire further. Will probably have that squish effect where compression forces out liquid. Not sure how sticky the tar would be to stone. It might not fall off where your fighters want it to.
> 
> The boulders would take out any enemy in the way though, and buildings. And they would probably be using trebuchets, not catapults. They'd fling them further.



Okay! I'll research the use of trebuchets, rather than catapults. 



wordwalker said:


> One caution:
> 
> There's a moment in one of Harry Turtledove's Videssos books where a scholar suggests to the plains tribe that they use a fire tactic (not even in the same way), and for one instant he's almost lynched for suggesting it before his local friend makes one very quick apology.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately no wizards in my story (at least until much later on). 

I suppose I should explain some more of the battle. One group is called the Arals, the other is called the Beros. The Arals sit in a large fortress, which had been captured from the Beros. The Beros are forming up to take back the fortress. Ultimately, the Arals do not care what happens to the grassland around the fortress, which is built into the side of the cliff. It's only a temporary occupation of the fortress, seen more as a foothold than any permanent residence. 



stephenspower said:


> I find improbable this grass variation of the Imp's defense of King's Landing against Stannis.
> 
> 1. Unless the army is hemmed in by trees, water, cilffs, couldn't they just run away from the fire?



Very good point. I'll consider some more geographical landmarks to complicate the playing field. 



> 2. If the grass is green, would the fire spread that quickly? If the powder is scattered loosely, would it just fizzle, the way gunpowder does if poured out of a broken firecracker onto an army man? If it detonates, there are better delivery systems.



Ah, I never thought that green grass might not burn as fast. I'll take that into consideration. 



> 3. How much powder would it take to sow the area an army would cover? And while the army can't see it, wouldn't something so flammable smell? Would it corrode the grass?  Would it kill flora and fauna? These signs might warn the approaching army. Where did the powder come from? Has it been used in battle before? Martin spends a lot of time setting up the circumstances by which Tyrion was able to use the green fire goo.



I can definitely add a strange smell to the air. The powder would not have been added earlier than a day before the battle, I assume, so I don't think it would have had too much time to have an effect on the surrounding areas. The POV follows the army that stumbles upon the powder, so it comes as more of a surprise to them, especially if their culture is slightly more primitive and they may have never seen anything like this before. However, I could possibly leave some hints earlier in the novel to foreshadow this event. 



> 4. Catapults are siege weapons. They are not easy to move, especially on soft earth. What army would stand in front of them?
> 
> My advice would be to set up this plan, then have it rain the night before battle, dissolving the powder, letting the catapults get mired, and leaving the army exposed.



I definitely need to do some more research, especially on trebuchets. I imagined them sitting behind the fortress's defenses, so that the men behind the wall could remain hidden while firing away. Thank you very much for your comments! 



thecoldembrace said:


> There was a battle conducted by an army in the fourth crusade against the Saracens. The knights tried this tactic to only have it turned on them by having the field too large to cause disruption, which allowed the smoke to then hide the Saracen forces which redeployed quickly and in a way the knights were not prepared for. Using the smoke as a screen the Saracens were able to close and annihilate the knights who had prepared themselves for an easier fight.



This is really cool! The Beros, the army that is invading, is supposed to win the battle. I might continue with this technique, and then have the Beros act as the Saracens did. 



> The conditions for this to work correctly is during a siege to catch approaching siege towers and ladder groups within the flames to allow forays by the defenders to rush out and destroy said siege engines and assault groups. On a field of open battle the terrain needs to favor less mobility for the approaching army, so that they are forced into fields and streams of fire to cause as much disruption as possible. At the same time the grass needs to not be very dry, which can spell disaster even for the defending force. The whole purpose to using this tactic is to grant a numerically inferior fighting force the chance to catch and destroy small chunks of a numerically superior enemy force before the whole is granted the chance to destroy them.
> 
> Lastly, as was stated above, do not use flaming boulders. Use clay pots filled with flammable pitch, that would shatter upon impact with the ground and disperse the fiery contents over a large expanse of land, granting a better chance of igniting the powder you have on the field while also pouring sticky tar-like pitch over enemy soldiers and chunks of pottery. These can be flung by catapults, or better yet ballistae which can be more accurate.



The clay pots idea sounds excellent; I think that makes much more sense. 



Thank you for your help, everyone!


----------



## Lovi (Jun 5, 2014)

I think it's good to remember that both sides should realistically have scouts scouting the area and the expected battlefields long before either party arrives at them, and both sides should have pretty good ideas of what the other side is attempting to do, so there wouldn't realistically be any big surprises from either side. Both sides know each others' numbers and at least apparent plans. They could obviously try to feed false information to the enemy side's spies, but I think that both sides will know very well what the other side could do, even if there are several courses of action as there often are.

Just that the most unrealistic thing, I think, is to assume that both parties wear a blindfold and are escorted to the battlefield where they take off their blindfolds and mindlessly charge. It should be treated as a tactical game, and in those situations things like game theory applies, which I find very intriguing.


----------



## Malik (Jun 5, 2014)

thecoldembrace said:


> This tactic will not disrupt an enemy army for long, so it has to be used in conjunction with attack to provide the best advantage.
> Be wary as well, this can backfire and cause massive grassfires to ravage the land for miles.



I'm gonna take this one step further. Applied fire is technically a chemical weapon in these circumstances. That makes it an area denial weapon. Casualties aren't the main purpose of area denial; it's to reduce an enemy's maneuver options so that you can enact the plan that YOU want and fight the battle on your terms. You would use something like exploding clay pot grenades or massive fires to hem them in, cut off a flank, force a retreat through a chokepoint, etc. 

In the military, we assess all terrain before a battle using the acronym / mnemonic OCOKA: 
*O*bservation and fields of fire
*C*over and concealment
*O*bstacles
*K*ey terrain
*A*venues of approach

Fighting a battle anywhere that you haven't assessed these factors and built a plan using them to your advantage equates to gross negligence, dereliction of duty, and is pretty much mass murder.

The reason that fire wasn't used very often, tactically in a grassy field environment, is that a grass fire isn't going to kill many people. It will obscure the area with smoke and scare the horses and dogs and destroy structures, but grass fires move really fast and burn out really fast; a man wearing armor over a sweat-soaked linen or woolen jack is probably not going to go down from either the heat or even from the resulting nasty flash steam burn he's going to get as the fire passes by him for a minute or so. It may partially incapacitate him but very likely, unless the fire is REALLY hot -- like magically hot -- it's just going to make him mad. 

And it could completely backfire. Area denial weapons work both ways.


----------



## Malik (Jun 5, 2014)

I should point out that OCOKA was originally called "OAKOC" but we stopped using it, probably because every terrain considerations briefing devolved into something resembling the "Biggus ****us" scene in _Life of Brian_. 

_EDIT: Because, yes, everyone in the Army is twelve years old at heart. _

I've heard that we might be going back to the old acronym but I find it hard to believe that even the Training and Doctrine Command is that stupid. Anyway, you can Google either term. Have fun.


----------



## stephenspower (Jun 5, 2014)

> I definitely need to do some more research, especially on trebuchets. I imagined them sitting behind the fortress's defenses, so that the men behind the wall could remain hidden while firing away. Thank you very much for your comments!



That placement of the catapults/trebuchets makes more sense. In two of the Helm's Deep battles in LOTRO, one of your jobs can be to catapult flaming boulders at advancing orcs as well as their own catapults. Being orcs with an objective and somewhat hemmed in by a river to one side and hills to the other, they don't get out of the way.


----------



## ascanius (Jun 6, 2014)

I don't understand something.  Why would they spread out an explosive powder over a battlefield.  It would make more sense to to place tar at key points to disrupt enemy movements at key times during battle or to funnel the enemy to certain areas.  Same thing for spike pits.  Second if the enemy has no siege weapons I would want them close to the walls, bow range.  Place the tar near the walls, not at the Walls, idea is to light the tar behind a small group so they are pinched between the tar and the wall.  As for the explosives I would place them at the key points where the enemy is going to amass, gatehouse maybe.  I would also pace the explosives in pots and hurl them at the enemy.


----------



## psychotick (Jun 6, 2014)

Hi,

First there'll be no explosions. In order to have an explosion you need to have the rapid expansion of a gas from the products of combustion in a confined space. Note that modern explosives like C4 get around this a little bit by have the expansion of the products of combustion be so rapid that the actual inertia of the surrounding air acts as a confinement. So if you're thinking gunpowder or its equivalent, it won't go bang. But it will spark and burn.

Next in order to use any such tactic you need to be able to somehow direct or know that the enemy army will be in the right place at the right time. So for a wide open expanse this won't work. Your enemy might well by pure chance miss the booby trap. If on the other hand you've got a narrow pass or similar that your enemy has to cross through than yes you could control this - but you'd have to expect that your enemy would be expeting the tactic and be looking for traps.

Then as said there's terrain to consider. Long grass if it's dry could be a good secondary source of fuel but it won't catch fire immediately. And if it's damp it may not catch fire at all. To add to your woes, the wind has to be just right - hopefully either dead calm or blowing very gently towards the enemy. If it turns the fire could actually come to you.

In order to use a tactic like this successfully you'd also need to completely cover an area with the powder - a large area. Large enough that a significant portion of the enemy forces would be inside it. This might entail massive quantities of the powder being used - something that if the enemy has any scouts around at all would not go unnoticed, and which if they have eyes, or noses, would be spotted.

A better option if the grass is long enough and dry enough - something like dried wheat fields etc, would be to allow the enemy to enter the battlefield and then if you have trebuchet, load them up with hundreds of fist sized lumps of stone covered with pitch etc, and then just keep firing them into the enemy. The goal would be to start multiple fires, in front, behind, among and to the sides of the enemy, all at the same time. If you can sew enough confusion you can break their formations and cause a rout with soldiers running in all directions.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Sir Kieran (Jun 6, 2014)

psychotick said:


> A better option if the grass is long enough and dry enough - something like dried wheat fields etc, would be to allow the enemy to enter the battlefield and then if you have trebuchet, load them up with hundreds of fist sized lumps of stone covered with pitch etc, and then just keep firing them into the enemy. The goal would be to start multiple fires, in front, behind, among and to the sides of the enemy, all at the same time. If you can sew enough confusion you can break their formations and cause a rout with soldiers running in all directions. I'll definitely take the wind into consideration too.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Thanks for your help! This idea is what I'm trying to go for - creating fires that will sew discord. Another user mentioned that this method had been previously used. The Arals will intend to cause complete chaos and light the field afire, killing many, to frighten the Beros off and make them suffer casualties. But the Beros will regroup behind the fire and smoke and sneak off to the side, obscured by the smoke.


----------

