Dragoons

[Ron Miel]

#756 shows the 500 dragoons as foot soldiers.

I thought dragoons were mounted soldiers.

Wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoons)


The word Dragoon originally meant mounted infantry, who were trained in horse riding as well as infantry fighting skills. However, usage altered over time and during the 18th century, dragoons evolved into conventional light cavalry units and personnel.

[Magdela]

#756 shows the 500 dragoons as foot soldiers.

I thought dragoons were mounted soldiers.

Wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoons)
That is other kingdoms troops. EOB troop can be seen talking with another slightly to the right of them, notice the color difference?

[Smiling Knight]

I thought the same thing but then:

-They could have dismounted to enter the city. Cavalry's mobility is useless in tight quarters.

-Dragoon has a totally different meaning in a world with actual dragons (they could simply be the EoB's elite soldiers, for example).

[Katana_Geldar]

It does make little sense to send cavalry to aid in a siege though.

[Magdela]

Historically, they would dismount when fighting. They were not meant to lead the front lines but instead work as a hit-and-run or light support, just enough to tip a battle.

[Smiling Knight]

It does make little sense to send cavalry to aid in a siege though.

But they could get there faster, and if it were not for the fact that they entered the city intent on betraying it I would have assumed they would be harassing supply lines, scouts, etc.

[blueblade]

Magdela is right. Dragoons are great to send to a Siege: They get there quickly (mounted), but fight appropriately (as infantry)

[Querzis]

Yeah thats why they are called mounted infantry, not mounted cavalry. Their horses are just there to get somewhere faster, they still fight as regular infantry. This allowed them to be the ultimate hit-and-run fighters since their horses would never be near the battle so they would never get killed or wounded in battle. The dragoons would get somewhere fast with their horses and kill or steal what they were ordered to kill or steal before the enemy could organize a defense. Then they would mount their horses and retreat faster then the enemy cavalry could follow them since the dragoons horses were not armored and were trained exclusively for speed, not fighting. Not to mention the fact that the cavalry horses would get very tired in battle while the dragoons horses had lots of time to recover while their riders were fighting.

All in all, dragoons are very efficient in a siege, no matter if its on the defenders side or the attackers side. They can easely harass the enemies with minimal losses. They arent very efficient on the frontline though but in a siege it doesnt matter very much.

[Storm Bringer]

as others have said, dragoons were closer to modern day mechanised infantry than the armoured units that still varry the dragoon title. the horses were purely transport, like modern APCs or humvees.

however, they are also a troop type that only really appeared after the invention of gunpowder, so their a little out of place in the apprant time period of OOTS.

also, horse mounted troops are only faster than infantry over tactical distances. over long distance, they move at a walking pace as well. also, dragoons didn't have high quality horses, but cheaper, weaker mounts. they tended to lose melee fights with 'real' cavalry.

in a seige, i can't see them being that usful. more useful than normal cav. but they lack the staying power of normal infantry and the killing charge of normal cavalry. they might be usful in a "fire brigade" role, or for quick sallies agianst seige works, but I would prefer to have the same number of leg infantry instead.


of course, they may have been sent for other reasons, such as:

they were the closest Empire of Blood troops to the city, and the only ones who could get thier in time to affect the seige

their were considered politically "realiable", and trusted with the mission becuase their leaders knew they could count of them to do as they were told.

the dragoons had special training that made them suitable for the mission, such as experience in other flase flag operations.

the dragoons commander was a man of influence, and had used it to land him a "glorious" career boosting mission.

[SPoD]

as others have said, dragoons were closer to modern day mechanised infantry than the armoured units that still varry the dragoon title. the horses were purely transport, like modern APCs or humvees.

however, they are also a troop type that only really appeared after the invention of gunpowder, so their a little out of place in the apprant time period of OOTS.

OOTS does not take place in a historical time period. It takes place in a fictional world that has invented the modern marching band, coffee makers, water coolers, diners, briefcases, Scrabble, and airships. They are more than capable of inventing the concept of "ride a horse to the battle, then get off and fight."

And yes, they've invented gunpowder, too. The dwarf assassin who was partnered with the shadowdancer used guns and bombs.


in a seige, i can't see them being that usful. more useful than normal cav. but they lack the staying power of normal infantry and the killing charge of normal cavalry. they might be usful in a "fire brigade" role, or for quick sallies agianst seige works, but I would prefer to have the same number of leg infantry instead.

OK, you do realize that they were never intended to be useful for the siege, right? The person who ordered them there only wanted them to be let into the city under false pretenses. That happened. So, they were more than useful as far as their true mission goes. All that mattered was that they got there quickly.

Also, why do we constantly require the author of this comic strip to be an expert in all fields of human knowledge? Why can't we accept that he looked up military troop types, picked "dragoon" because it sounded neat for a nation with a dragon queen, and then looked at the Wiki article that said "mounted infantry" and decided, "Oh, yeah, that sound good. Done!"? Why must we always pick apart his choices and ask whether or not that would really be the most useful troop type?

[Quorothorn]

Also, why do we constantly require the author of this comic strip to be an expert in all fields of human knowledge? Why can't we accept that he looked up military troop types, picked "dragoon" because it sounded neat for a nation with a dragon queen, and then looked at the Wiki article that said "mounted infantry" and decided, "Oh, yeah, that sound good. Done!"? Why must we always pick apart his choices and ask whether or not that would really be the most useful troop type?

Because if we did not, we would not be proper Internet nerds, my friend. We would not be proper Internet nerds.:smallcool:

(By the way, I pretty much agree with everything you said there.)

[Onyavar]

Or, since the word "dragoon" is close to "dragon", this is just the name of the elite EoB troops. That was my first thought "look, it's a pun!"

But btw., it would be cool if they were in fact mounted infantry. For example: riding on dinosaurs. Raptors. They ride to their destination, but in battle it's not so practical to sit on the dinosaur. So the rider gets off to fight as infantry, and their mount doubles as fierce war animal. That would really fit the "evil reptilian empire" theme, wouldn't it?

[Eldan]

however, they are also a troop type that only really appeared after the invention of gunpowder, so their a little out of place in the apprant time period of OOTS.


Actually, they already have gunpowder. Remember the dwarf at the inn where Roy was mistaken for the King of Nowhere?

[Evandar]

Long time reader, first time poster. ^^

They probably had to dismount to use the hidden passageway, mentioned in #765 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html).

Edit: Also, we don't require The Giant to know everything. He does know everything.

[pendell]

as others have said, dragoons were closer to modern day mechanised infantry than the armoured units that still varry the dragoon title. the horses were purely transport, like modern APCs or humvees.

however, they are also a troop type that only really appeared after the invention of gunpowder, so their a little out of place in the apprant time period of OOTS.

also, horse mounted troops are only faster than infantry over tactical distances. over long distance, they move at a walking pace as well. also, dragoons didn't have high quality horses, but cheaper, weaker mounts. they tended to lose melee fights with 'real' cavalry.

in a seige, i can't see them being that usful. more useful than normal cav. but they lack the staying power of normal infantry and the killing charge of normal cavalry. they might be usful in a "fire brigade" role, or for quick sallies agianst seige works, but I would prefer to have the same number of leg infantry instead.


of course, they may have been sent for other reasons, such as:

they were the closest Empire of Blood troops to the city, and the only ones who could get thier in time to affect the seige

their were considered politically "realiable", and trusted with the mission becuase their leaders knew they could count of them to do as they were told.

the dragoons had special training that made them suitable for the mission, such as experience in other flase flag operations.

the dragoons commander was a man of influence, and had used it to land him a "glorious" career boosting mission.

Might they use dragoons for a tactical march to get from the EOB to the city of Doom? Granted, they are only faster in a tactical sense, but could they not get there quickly on horse than on foot? Especially if they didn't take along a baggage train, expecting to acquire supplies at their destination?

That would explain dragoons instead of infantry -- faster sprints -- and that would explain dragoons instead of cavalry -- if the fight is happening in a city, cavalry fighting equipment is just extra weight.



Also, why do we constantly require the author of this comic strip to be an expert in all fields of human knowledge? Why can't we accept that he looked up military troop types, picked "dragoon" because it sounded neat for a nation with a dragon queen, and then looked at the Wiki article that said "mounted infantry" and decided, "Oh, yeah, that sound good. Done!"? Why must we always pick apart his choices and ask whether or not that would really be the most useful troop type?


I could be wrong about this, but I'll bet $20 that the Giant is a wargamer. I think he knows darn well what dragoons are for historically. He's probably seen plenty of them on hex grids, even if he's never smelled the powder as Storm Bringer has.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tass]

also, horse mounted troops are only faster than infantry over tactical distances. over long distance, they move at a walking pace as well.

Tell that to the mongolians.

[pendell]

Tell that to the mongolians.

This brings up an interesting point. I read about it in a book on Byzantine warfare.

It turns out that , as a rule, horse-mounted troops aren't fast strategically because the horses need fodder, and fodder typically needs to be carried in wagons. Which means that a road march is about 2 miles an hour -- the speed of an ox-drawn cart -- for both horses and people.

You can avoid that and travel very fast indeed on horseback if you're willing to cut loose from your supply train and forage from the land. Foraging is possible if you have lots of fodder locally available.

Like, say, endless plains of grass on the Asian steppe.

This also means that you can't carry a lot of additional supplies. That's why the mongols literally lived on their mounts -- if you're willing to live on Kumiss (fermented horsemilk) and horse blood for days at a time, you don't need any equipment beyond the weapons you carry at hand. Which means no siege equipment or so forth. It also means you can't stay and occupy any one place for too long, because you'll consume all the local forage and your horses will starve. You're forced to sweep along at a high pace , like a horde of locusts.

Much like the mongol horde.

And now you know why the mongol conquests flagged once they got off the steppe and started running into places like Persia or Western Europe. Forests and other terrain features means it's much, much harder for large numbers of horses to persist on forage.

But that's why it would work for a small group of dragoons -- if they carry just enough food for, say, 2 or 3 days travel and their weapons, then they can ditch a supply train, carry everything on their horses, and travel very fast indeed. They can travel to the location fast enough to make a difference, and they don't need a supply train because their supply base is also their destination.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Irbis]

Also, why do we constantly require the author of this comic strip to be an expert in all fields of human knowledge? Why can't we accept that he looked up military troop types, picked "dragoon" because it sounded neat for a nation with a dragon queen, and then looked at the Wiki article that said "mounted infantry" and decided, "Oh, yeah, that sound good. Done!"? Why must we always pick apart his choices and ask whether or not that would really be the most useful troop type?

Because this might A) insult the author in question, by assumption that he doesn't know a meaning of a simple word everyone who ever took history classes (ok, outside of a few countries) heard; B) belittle his work, by assumption it is a collection of haphazardly thrown words that might or might not be appropriate for what they describe.

I mean, confusing force with power in an SF story might (sadly) go unnoticed, but getting a major force type wrong is about on par with writing the story about China and saying everyone there uses a Latin alphabet.

[Porthos]

Because this might A) insult the author in question, by assumption that he doesn't know a meaning of a simple word everyone who ever took history classes (ok, outside of a few countries) heard; B) belittle his work, by assumption it is a collection of haphazardly thrown words that might or might not be appropriate for what they describe.

I mean, confusing force with power in an SF story might (sadly) go unnoticed, but getting a major force type wrong is about on par with writing the story about China and saying everyone there uses a Latin alphabet.

I didn't know exactly what a Dragoon was until I looked into it a few years ago (I thought the name sounded cool, and I wanted to learn more about it). And I consider myself at least somewhat learned. :smalltongue: In fact, as I think about it, I don't think the term "Dragoon" ever came up in any of my high school or college classes (though, admittedly, I never took any military history classes). "Calvary"? Yes. Dragoon? Maybe. But I don't remember it.

Anyway, Rich has already mocked his lack of knowledge on some areas before. So it's not exactly belitting his work to think that he might not know everything there is to know about Military History. :smallwink:

[SPoD]

Because this might A) insult the author in question, by assumption that he doesn't know a meaning of a simple word everyone who ever took history classes (ok, outside of a few countries) heard; B) belittle his work, by assumption it is a collection of haphazardly thrown words that might or might not be appropriate for what they describe.

I mean, confusing force with power in an SF story might (sadly) go unnoticed, but getting a major force type wrong is about on par with writing the story about China and saying everyone there uses a Latin alphabet.

I'm just going to suggest that maybe you are confusing something you know a lot about with things that everyone knows a lot about.

I assure you that 99% of the population of the United States does not know what a "dragoon" is. Hell, not everyone on this message board knew what a dragoon was, and this is a sample audience that is highly skewed toward knowing about military history. It is certainly not taught in every history class.

[paladinofshojo]

Maybe instead of a "historic" interpretation of dragoons as infantry that rode into combat and fought on foot, Rich is using the "fantasy" interpretation of dragoons, such as knights armed with lances and armor heavily modified to look like dragons, such as Final Fantasy's dragoons.

[Tass]

I'm just going to suggest that maybe you are confusing something you know a lot about with things that everyone knows a lot about.

I assure you that 99% of the population of the United States does not know what a "dragoon" is. Hell, not everyone on this message board knew what a dragoon was, and this is a sample audience that is highly skewed toward knowing about military history. It is certainly not taught in every history class.

I consider myself somewhat interested in history, and more knowledgeable than most. I didn't know what a dragoon was. I knew of dragoons, (From Civ. haha), but nothing about how they fought or moved.

[Talkkno]

Much like the mongol horde.

And now you know why the mongol conquests flagged once they got off the steppe and started running into places like Persia or Western Europe. Forests and other terrain features means it's much, much harder for large numbers of horses to persist on forage.
Brian P.

In adduem, the Mongols defeated the Eastern European armies, but failed to take any of their castles, also they failed in Vietnam as well. I suspect the only reason they did so well in China despite the terrian and forts was because the massive internal problems that have always plagued the various dystanies .

[Storm Bringer]

Because this might A) insult the author in question, by assumption that he doesn't know a meaning of a simple word everyone who ever took history classes (ok, outside of a few countries) heard; B) belittle his work, by assumption it is a collection of haphazardly thrown words that might or might not be appropriate for what they describe.




while i appreicate the effort to defend my honour, I must admit I stand on SPoD's side of the line on this. I don't expect the Author to be a ploymath with more than a passing knowledge of any given subject.

I feel i must offer an apology and ecplanation of my position:

as i said, i don't expect the giant to be a expert of Renaissance weaponry. I don't really care that he used a troop type not normally seen until long after plate armour and longswords had left the field of battle. i am more the sort of person who enjoys taking what the Giant has written (in this case, that dragoons were sent to aid a city under siege), and thinking of plausible, "in universe" reasons why dragoons were sent. What was the logic behind tarquins choice? purely military (the troops were the best for the job, they were the only ones who could get thier, etc), or was their a political element to his choice (did he trust the dragoons to do thier job properly, was thier leader a man he needed to either pamper with a "victory" or get out of the capital for soem reason?).



I mean, confusing force with power in an SF story might (sadly) go unnoticed, but getting a major force type wrong is about on par with writing the story about China and saying everyone there uses a Latin alphabet.

no, not really. at best, it would be like using japanese or korean characters and spellings, not knowing that they were not chinese.

hell, it could even be a tranlation convention in effect. instead of the (slightly) more accurate name of "Hobelar" or the boring "mounted Infantry", he used the envocotive name of "dragoon", which is both more widly known as a type of troop, and cooler (very important).

face it, if he'd sent "I am sended 500 Hobelars to your aid", 95% of this forum would have been looking in the monster manuals for a monster they had never heard of.

[pendell]

Another possibility is that 'dragoon' is a name retained by the troops even though their equipment and mission have evolved past that. Consider: In the 19th century there were units of troops called 'grenadiers', even though the troops in question used muskets and bayonets like every other form of infantry. They had originally been selected to throw unreliable gunpowder bombs, and the name was retained even though the original weapons were not.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[shadowkiller]

It's possible that they all have a level in the PrC Ashworm Dragoon.

[Mr. Snuggles]

as i said, i don't expect the giant to be a expert of Renaissance weaponry. I don't really care that he used a troop type not normally seen until long after plate armour and longswords had left the field of battle.
Dude, it's not historical. It's a fantasy world that does not follow the technological development of arms in western Europe from 1500-1900.

Although I don't believe the word "dragoon" was picked out of a hat. The author is usually pretty good about using precisely the word he wants.

[Darth Hunterix]

This brings up an interesting point. I read about it in a book on Byzantine warfare.

It turns out that , as a rule, horse-mounted troops aren't fast strategically because the horses need fodder, and fodder typically needs to be carried in wagons. Which means that a road march is about 2 miles an hour -- the speed of an ox-drawn cart -- for both horses and people.

You can avoid that and travel very fast indeed on horseback if you're willing to cut loose from your supply train and forage from the land. Foraging is possible if you have lots of fodder locally available.

Like, say, endless plains of grass on the Asian steppe.

This also means that you can't carry a lot of additional supplies. That's why the mongols literally lived on their mounts -- if you're willing to live on Kumiss (fermented horsemilk) and horse blood for days at a time, you don't need any equipment beyond the weapons you carry at hand. Which means no siege equipment or so forth. It also means you can't stay and occupy any one place for too long, because you'll consume all the local forage and your horses will starve. You're forced to sweep along at a high pace , like a horde of locusts.

Much like the mongol horde.

And now you know why the mongol conquests flagged once they got off the steppe and started running into places like Persia or Western Europe. Forests and other terrain features means it's much, much harder for large numbers of horses to persist on forage.

But that's why it would work for a small group of dragoons -- if they carry just enough food for, say, 2 or 3 days travel and their weapons, then they can ditch a supply train, carry everything on their horses, and travel very fast indeed. They can travel to the location fast enough to make a difference, and they don't need a supply train because their supply base is also their destination.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Not only mongolians used such strategy. At the beining of XVII century in Poland there was a light cavalry formation called "Lisowczycy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisowczycy)" (because the guy who created the formation was called Alexander Lisowski), and they literally lived only on plundering. They only had their mounts, their weapons and that's all.

And since we talk about Poland, in XVII century dragoons took more or less important part in every bigger siege on our territory. And they WERE useful.

[Storm Bringer]

And since we talk about Poland, in XVII century dragoons took more or less important part in every bigger siege on our territory. And they WERE useful.

i stand corrected.

[veti]

We know (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html) that Rich is familiar with Final Fantasy, and in that mythos "Dragoon" has a different meaning (http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Dragoon_%28Final_Fantasy_II%29), which is quite consistent with OOTS-level technology.

My guess is that Rich has a very clear idea of what "dragoons" are, and they're probably somewhat different from either the FF or the 19th-century European troops of that name. But he's got no particular reason to show us exactly what they are, so we're just going to have to live with the uncertainty.

[pendell]

Not only mongolians used such strategy. At the beining of XVII century in Poland there was a light cavalry formation called "Lisowczycy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisowczycy)" (because the guy who created the formation was called Alexander Lisowski), and they literally lived only on plundering. They only had their mounts, their weapons and that's all.

And since we talk about Poland, in XVII century dragoons took more or less important part in every bigger siege on our territory. And they WERE useful.

Thank you! I have learned something new.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[martianmister]

That is other kingdoms troops. EOB troop can be seen talking with another slightly to the right of them, notice the color difference?

/thread

I don't know why are you beating a dead horse.

[pendell]

/thread

I don't know why are you beating a dead horse.

Safer than beating a live one. I've never been kicked in the face by a horse which took exception to being beaten, but I imagine it's not a pleasant experience.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[zyborg]

I always thought that Dragoons were guys with strange armor that jump with spears, or guys who used mystical stones to channel the power of an elemental dragon and gain special armor, wings, and magic. It took me awhile to actually research what the historical dragoons actually were.

[Wulfram]

. At the beining of XVII century in Poland there was a light cavalry formation called "Lisowczycy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisowczycy)" (because the guy who created the formation was called Alexander Lisowski)

Were they also called that so that people would still be struggling to work out how to pronounce while they were being killed?

[Mordaenor]

I blame Final Fantasy for utterly destroying the original concept of what a "Dragoon" is. I believe (if I remember my history) the name actually came from the fact that their rifles were sculpted to resemble the heads of dragons.

[Darth Hunterix]

Were they also called that so that people would still be struggling to work out how to pronounce while they were being killed?

Well, in Polish (or any other Slavic language) is rather easy to pronounce, and as far as I'm aware they never operated outside Eastern Europe :smallbiggrin:

[Irbis]

Well, in Polish (or any other Slavic language) is rather easy to pronounce, and as far as I'm aware they never operated outside Eastern Europe :smallbiggrin:

What he said - it's easy :smalltongue:

And technically, they operated also on a few occasions in Balkans/Southern Europe and in Central Europe, in Bavaria/Prussia :smallwink:

[Setra]

I blame Final Fantasy for utterly destroying the original concept of what a "Dragoon" is. I believe (if I remember my history) the name actually came from the fact that their rifles were sculpted to resemble the heads of dragons.
I blame history for coming up with a crappy use for the word 'Dragoon' in the first place =p

[fehler]

All this jabber and everyone missed the pun on "Dragon's Goons"? Get your head out of the history books and tactical wargames! It's a comedy, folks!

[pendell]

All this jabber and everyone missed the pun on "Dragon's Goons"? Get your head out of the history books and tactical wargames! It's a comedy, folks!

Did ... did you just try to use logic and common sense in a Playground argument?

Hmmm???

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.