Ask me about Warfare

[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]

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]

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]

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'armée leaders) : A few hundreds, leading the "corps d'armée"
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.