Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XIX

[Beleriphon]

To me the keep just seems dark and impractical, even with modern lighting much less old school lanterns.

If you're assaulting a Japanese castle and you've driven the garrison back to the keep, why assault it? The thing's made out of wood and many castles were lost to fire even without outside intervention.

Would they have had less gunpowder on hand than a comparable European fortress?

Because Japanese castle design in the keep actually have surprisingly large windows, as I'm sure you noticed. Also castles like Himeji and Osaka were a residence in much the same way Windsor Castle is also a residence: a heavily fortified residence. There were Japanese fortifications that would have been much less comfortable, and smaller, and darker but they were primarily military outposts for the local lord's troops rather than his personal residence.

As for why not just burn the castle? Its much more prestigious to capture the castle. Plus, at that point if it was truly lost the local leader has probably already committed ritual suicide and you just have to wait for the troops to surrender. That's effectively how the Tokugawa took Osaka from the Toyotomi. Its not like Japanese armies didn't burn down each other's keeps either. Oda Nobunaga's castle had only been completed before three years before it was burned to the ground. He got pretty mad about and basically caused the Tokugawa Shogunate to come to power over the whole thing.

The other thing to remember is that a Japanese sieges didn't usually siege weapons (I couldn't find a single battle that made use of what Western armies would have considered a siege weapon) and instead just meant waiting around until the other side starved, charged, or killed themselves.

There's basically three main styles of Japanese castle. The one most people are familiar with like Himeji which is actually a derivative of Azuchi Castle (the one that Oda Nobunaga built) which are hilltop fortresses. Those without an actual hill to build on had a hill built out of stone, usually as very tall walls, Nagoya Castle is an example this. The last kind that is commonly seen was built during the Edo Period where castles moved to what European castles did: huge residences meant to protect the daimyo from peasants not armies. Goryōkaku (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gory%C5%8Dkaku) is actually an example of incorporation of traditional Japanese castle design with western star fort design.

[spineyrequiem]

Toying with redoing an armor system and a few questions have come up. Firstly, mail versus plated mail (mail with metal plates embedded in them, not plate armor). Presumably plated mail is cheaper and faster to make (as mail versus a breastplate, but not as extreme), but does it offer better protection, or is it a tradeoff?


Better protection. With mail, there's always a risk of a link bursting when you get stabbed, and it offers very little protection against blunt trauma (though it offers more than you'd think, guys in mail quite often don't notice pulled blows and getting punched doesn't hurt much). Plates will provide better protection against blunt trauma and make it more likely that a stab will just skitter off you.



I'm assuming it's kind of like lamellar where, as far as I know, lamellar isn't as protective but easier to make (though I don't know how either compare to chain in terms of weight/endurance/flexibility).

Lamellar is... Interesting, protection-wise. It provides decent protection against blunt trauma and stabs (which almost always slide off), but the laces are relatively easy to cut. While cutting one lace, or even a few, won't immediately make it fall apart, it increases the risk of lamellae falling off and leaving you vulnerable. It's also very inflexible, you essentially make big plates for shoulders and thighs and tie them to the chest piece. Because of this inflexibility it usually can't cover you as effectively as mail, meaning many of my friends have a nice 'cleavage window' in their armour. As a result, most people wear mail of some kind underneath it. The weight is pretty high, but I'd say it's about the same as mail. It all depends on thickness of plates, design of mail and so on. It does tend to feel lighter though, apparently, because when it fits properly it sits nicely on your hips. Its effectiveness as armour can e seen from the fact that the West kind've copied it in the 13th Century with the coat of plates, worn over mail and only really by the very rich.



Secondly, with non-metal laminars, lamellars, or scale armors, is there any evidence of widespread use by "developed" regions? I know in general "leather armor" is considered a fantasy invention, but I've run into scattered pictures of hardened leather or rawhide scale or brigandines from Japan, but haven't found whether they're rare exceptions, very old pieces, or only for certain parts of what would otherwise be metal, or if they were actually used in some numbers, or if they were but limited entirely to Japan due to their limited iron supply.


I've seen Saracen leather armour for horses, but we've got little evidence for human leather lamellar. It certainly did exist, but since it's not as effective as metal (and leather is expensive) you don't see it much. Also, since it's organic it usually rots before you can dig it up...



And brigandines, I presume they (when made of metal) - being similar to lamellar/scale - were inferior to mail on their own, though much cheaper to produce? And come to think of it, does the comparison of mail versus lamellar/scale/brigandine/laminar weigh mostly on that you can easily make a knee-length, long-sleeved hauberk? That is, is mail still superior when it leaves arms and legs as exposed as the other makes of armor?

Mail isn't really superior, just different. It's great against slashing, pretty good against piercing (a two-handed spear thrust might go through, but that's probably about all) and terrible against blunt trauma. How cheap it is to produce varies massively; essentially until the Black Death labour was pretty cheap while good metalwork was expensive. Hence why you'll often see an armoured man without a sword but rarely see a man with a sword and no armour (until at least the 14th Century). I might be able to get you prices from an armoury if you give me a bit of time to find it, but you might be surprised to learn that prices for a mail shirt (admittedly probably a very short, short-sleeved one) were comparable to those for breastplates and brigandines.

[MrZJunior]

Only the top floor of the keep seemed particularly bright, all the other floors were quite dark.

We're they really so eager to sacrifice military expedience and practicality for prestige? I thought that whole honor before reason stuff was just mythological.

What are the Japanese features of Goryokaku? As far as I can tell it's just a straight star fort.

[Tiktakkat]

Toying with redoing an armor system and a few questions have come up. Firstly, mail versus plated mail (mail with metal plates embedded in them, not plate armor). Presumably plated mail is cheaper and faster to make (as mail versus a breastplate, but not as extreme), but does it offer better protection, or is it a tradeoff?

There is always a tradeoff in terms of weight and flexibility versus extra protection.
"Generally speaking", plate is superior to mail because plate reduces the effect of bludgeoning/impact more than mail, in addition to reducing the effects of slashing/cuts and piercing/penetration.


I'm assuming it's kind of like lamellar where, as far as I know, lamellar isn't as protective but easier to make (though I don't know how either compare to chain in terms of weight/endurance/flexibility). Secondly, with non-metal laminars, lamellars, or scale armors, is there any evidence of widespread use by "developed" regions? I know in general "leather armor" is considered a fantasy invention, but I've run into scattered pictures of hardened leather or rawhide scale or brigandines from Japan, but haven't found whether they're rare exceptions, very old pieces, or only for certain parts of what would otherwise be metal, or if they were actually used in some numbers, or if they were but limited entirely to Japan due to their limited iron supply. And brigandines, I presume they (when made of metal) - being similar to lamellar/scale - were inferior to mail on their own, though much cheaper to produce? And come to think of it, does the comparison of mail versus lamellar/scale/brigandine/laminar weigh mostly on that you can easily make a knee-length, long-sleeved hauberk? That is, is mail still superior when it leaves arms and legs as exposed as the other makes of armor?

"Leather armor" is not a fantasy invention. Many of the types of leather armor depicted are fantasy inventions, but the principle is quite real world. The Renaissance era buff coats are "leather armor", as are, functionally, motorcycle jackets and riding chaps. If you think about leather armor like them then you have a more "realistic" version.
As for leather lamellas in armor, they would be quite reasonable, though likely less survivable, which would mean fewer available examples.
Brigandines are an example of up-and-down development in plate. The earliest forms were smaller plates that were made used supplement mail. The later forms were lighter versions of heavy plate that were made to supplement mail as both as cost saver and a weight saver, particularly when gunpowder came into play.

Scale armor was popular for awhile but was quickly replaced by mail (in the West) or lamellar (in the East). The West being west of Russia and Turkey, and the East being Russia and Turkey on.

Again, "generally speaking", the line between mail and plate is roughly one of metallurgy. Until you can make at least fair quality steel, large iron plates are too brittle for use as armor. Once you can make them, plate starts appearing, and dominates within a century or two. Of course in our history, gunpowder showed up right about when plate was peaking and through armor development out of the mix for around 5 centuries.

Why didn't they develop plate to supplant lamellar in the East? I don't know. Part is certainly limited supplies and low quality iron in places like Japan. Part is most likely flexibility issues for Turkic and Mongolian horsemen. The biggest question is why the Chinese, who had blast furnaces, didn't go in for plate in a major way. I would suggest possibly a cultural control issue. Full plate armor is really THAT effective, and the political and social state of China really wouldn't have wanted warlords that well equipped running around, ready to stage even more rebellions.

Why did they go with lamellar instead of mail in the East? I don't know. Certainly they were capable of making iron and steel wire for the rings. Perhaps a flexibility issue, as mail rests almost completely on the shoulders while lamellar can be better weight distributed.

For coverage issues, that depends a lot of other tactics and available armor. Even with a mail shirt you can always wear greaves and gauntlets, and they certainly complete the coverage of a full hauberk. Again the issue becomes one of trading off full protection for weight and flexibility. If you have a polearm, do you really need full forearm or shin coverage? That was a leading reason why pike formations began cutting down on plate coverage, particularly when guns replaced bows and the limb armor wouldn't save you anyway.

[Closet_Skeleton]

My sense is that Vikings raids were not generally carried out by professionals, but rather by farmers who raided in the off season.

Raids are one thing, invasions and battles with the post invasion Danish states are a different thing. Not every norseman is a Viking and the ones that the Anglo-Saxons actually had large battles with were not generally Vikings.



Scale armor was popular for awhile but was quickly replaced by mail (in the West) or lamellar (in the East). The West being west of Russia and Turkey, and the East being Russia and Turkey on.

Not that quickly. Scale was mainly a thing of the iron age/classical period. The fact that it was still around to some degree in the middle ages shows that it was a long lived technology.


Again, "generally speaking", the line between mail and plate is roughly one of metallurgy. Until you can make at least fair quality steel, large iron plates are too brittle for use as armor.

Why didn't they develop plate to supplant lamellar in the East? I don't know. Part is certainly limited supplies and low quality iron in places like Japan.

The biggest question is why the Chinese, who had blast furnaces, didn't go in for plate in a major way.


You've fallen for the 'steel quality over-simplification'. There's more to metallurgy than how good the steel is.

Steel quality isn't that important to full plate armour. Obviously bad steel is worthless for it, but plate doesn't come from advancements in metal quality at all. The first plate armour was made with the same quality steel that had been around for generations. The big advances in European metallurgy are really in the 18th century (with other important ones in the 16th), long after the beginnings of the dominance of plate.

Plate armour requires the ability to cast large pieces of steel. This requires large furnaces which also need things like water wheel power. Its really an infrastructure problem not a know how problem. It needs large towns with industrial areas rather than relying on village/castle smiths. Wootz steel can be made in quite small furnaces and was better in quality than the first European steel to go into plate armour.

Blast furnaces are for smelting steel, they have nothing to do with whether or not you can forge large plates because that's a later part of the process.

Which still doesn't explain why the Chinese didn't do it since they had the industrial zones but is a lot more specific than the inaccurate "steel quality" myth. I suspect its probably a logistical issue or something like that. Plate armour owners didn't use it all the time despite its advantages in protection because its often impractical.

There's nothing magically crap about Japanese steel. It wasn't the best in Asia and there wasn't much of it but the best grades of it was good steel.


Why did they go with lamellar instead of mail in the East? I don't know. Certainly they were capable of making iron and steel wire for the rings. Perhaps a flexibility issue, as mail rests almost completely on the shoulders while lamellar can be better weight distributed.


Mail was very popular in Asia. Not as popular in the north and east as in Persia and India but it was around.

Western brigandine was basically their version of lamellar and the Greeks and Roman iron armours were pretty similar to lamellar. So really its just that Plate replaced both in the west.

[Beleriphon]

Only the top floor of the keep seemed particularly bright, all the other floors were quite dark.

It is a fortress after all, and the grounds were the living space more than anything. Besides, if you were the diaymo would you want to live in the basement or the top floor?


We're they really so eager to sacrifice military expedience and practicality for prestige? I thought that whole honor before reason stuff was just mythological.

It is, sort of. You have to keep mind that Japanese sieges didn't work like Western ones. They didn't use catapults and trebuchets to knock down walls, they used small catapults as anti-infantry weapons, so you either had to force the opposing lord out of his keep and fight, or fight your way up to the keep to take it. Osaka Castle is fantastic example of how stupidly difficult this could be since the walls are a good forty feet high and basically sheer cliffs, across and eighty food deep moat. There is one way in and its a huge ramp that look around the keep and each loop just means more and more of the attackers soldiers die. Its not so much and issue of military expedience as much as it is a matter of not using the techniques due to a wide variety of factors needed to attack the keep from range.

Also, don't think that the keeps weren't burned, they often were after being capture so the new owner could build a new keep it place. Oda Nobunanga only had his castle for three years before it burned, so such things weren't uncommon.


What are the Japanese features of Goryokaku? As far as I can tell it's just a straight star fort.

It is as far the basic layout goes, but it included a bunch of Japanese gardens and buildings that wouldn't normally be found in a western styled fort. It effectively combined elements of the star fort (basic layout) and a daiymo-styled residence. My understanding is that it was built right at the end of the Edo period so it still needed to work as residence and fortress.

[Tobtor]

Raids are one thing, invasions and battles with the post invasion Danish states are a different thing. Not every norseman is a Viking and the ones that the Anglo-Saxons actually had large battles with were not generally Vikings.

I partly agree. We have to be careful about the term "viking".

However, the Great Heathen Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army) is very close to being a "Viking" army as you get, and the Saxons fought plenty of battles with them. True, the 10th/11th century armies were something completely different. But the large armies of the 9th century was "viking" in their origin. Their armies were led by "ship-kings", not kings with a land, and their main goal was not conquest for another country (like Denmark taking over England in the early 11th century was it), but land they could settle or loot they could bring home. Some of the leaders were renegades fleeing domestic dynastic troubles, some were sponsored by older family members (what better prospect for your own children claim to your land, than your brothers children to claim East Anglia or some other foreign place). But most of the men was not "professionals" or leding troops, but volunteers (from every class of society). Some from a warrior class seeking fame and fortune, and perhaps a land to rule, some from the bondi class to get land to hold, and some as a means of survival. Pirates, robbers etc, would of course gather to these armies in great numbers if they were successful in obtaining payoffs or plunder.

[Tiktakkat]

Not that quickly. Scale was mainly a thing of the iron age/classical period. The fact that it was still around to some degree in the middle ages shows that it was a long lived technology.

Right - "quickly replaced".
Pretty much everything hung around in limited form somewhere for an extended period after becoming obsolete. Some of it even hangs around long enough to become primary again - as I noted with leather. (And for that matter, brigandine, depending on how you rate modern ceramic plate body armor.)


You've fallen for the 'steel quality over-simplification'. There's more to metallurgy than how good the steel is.

Yes, I know. Hence why I said, "generally speaking".


Plate armour requires the ability to cast large pieces of steel.

Which involves the quality of the original refining and casting you can do.
Wootz, and other types of welded steel, are made from iron bars, not cast steel plates.
Of course really getting into that requires an extended digression on both technical metallurgy and its history, which is why I went for the over-simplification.


Blast furnaces are for smelting steel, they have nothing to do with whether or not you can forge large plates because that's a later part of the process.

If something comes later in the process, then it is rather dependent on the first process.


Which still doesn't explain why the Chinese didn't do it since they had the industrial zones but is a lot more specific than the inaccurate "steel quality" myth. I suspect its probably a logistical issue or something like that. Plate armour owners didn't use it all the time despite its advantages in protection because its often impractical.

Which, other than the "myth", is what I said.


There's nothing magically crap about Japanese steel.

I didn't say it was.


Mail was very popular in Asia. Not as popular in the north and east as in Persia and India but it was around.

Again, why I said "generally speaking".
There was no hard and fast line between scale-mail-lamellar as there was between plate-other than plate.
Both games and historical records and depictions tend to stress it as a way to make cultural differences and time periods more distinct, but it was maddeningly more complex than that.


Western brigandine was basically their version of lamellar and the Greeks and Roman iron armours were pretty similar to lamellar. So really its just that Plate replaced both in the west.

It is closer to say that scale and lamellar are limited/inferior forms of plate - they are thousands of super-tiny plates instead of one really big plate and a couple of dozen smaller plates for limbs and joins.
Brigandine/coat of plates is a couple of dozen smaller plates instead of the one really big plate, and is more a "light/early plate" than an alternate lamellar.

[Brother Oni]

There's nothing magically crap about Japanese steel. It wasn't the best in Asia and there wasn't much of it but the best grades of it was good steel.


While I wouldn't say magically crap, iron sands with a 2% ferric content needs a hell of a lot more working before it becomes 'good' steel. I'm having problems finding what constitutes a 'good' ore pre-modern times, but iron ore needs to have an ~25% ferric content before it becomes economically viable with today's techniques (it's also refined to an industrial pellet of about 60% ferric content before it's smelted).

[snowblizz]

While I wouldn't say magically crap, iron sands with a 2% ferric content needs a hell of a lot more working before it becomes 'good' steel. I'm having problems finding what constitutes a 'good' ore pre-modern times, but iron ore needs to have an ~25% ferric content before it becomes economically viable with today's techniques (it's also refined to an industrial pellet of about 60% ferric content before it's smelted).

Impurities also matter. Like a lot. It's easier to raise the iron content than to work out impurites (wikiepdia notes it's not iron content per se but the transportation of it that's the main issue). Particularly so before modern chemical and insdustrial processes. So e.g. low sulphur iron (ore) was more valuable.

It may not be "magically crap" but there are real and important differences in the base materiel impacting how much it has to be worked and how to be useful.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Which involves the quality of the original refining and casting you can do.
Wootz, and other types of welded steel, are made from iron bars, not cast steel plates.

Not as much the refining. That's why I said 'the development of plate did not come alongside a development of increased steel quality, which happened later'. I might be wrong but that's what the latest information I have made pretty clear.

It doesn't matter how good your refining is, that by itself doesn't let you make plate armour.

Wootz isn't generally welded, its crucible steel that just happens to produce a similar appearance to pattern welded blades. European weapons made from imported Asian crucible steel weren't pattern welded even in periods where most swords were.



Pretty much everything hung around in limited form somewhere for an extended period after becoming obsolete.

Which is massively reading too much into the limited historical information we have. All we really know is that scale was part of the plurality of different armour types available for a long time, the problem is that the only real data we have on this at all is from art rather than records or archaeology.


If something comes later in the process, then it is rather dependent on the first process.

If the first part of the process can be swapped out for other processes then no, it is not dependent on that specific process.



It is closer to say that scale and lamellar are limited/inferior forms of plate - they are thousands of super-tiny plates instead of one really big plate and a couple of dozen smaller plates for limbs and joins.
Brigandine/coat of plates is a couple of dozen smaller plates instead of the one really big plate, and is more a "light/early plate" than an alternate lamellar.

I was confusing it with Laminar, sorry. An easy mistake since most asian Laminar armour actually has more lamellar in it than anything else.

Coat of plates is actually an inaccurate term but I can never remember what the correct one is.

Some coats of plates were hundreds of tiny ones, so pretty much just inside out lamellar.


While I wouldn't say magically crap, iron sands with a 2% ferric content needs a hell of a lot more working before it becomes 'good' steel.

Which they did. In a process that created a lot more bad steel than good steel but the bad steel didn't get used for weapons and armour of the types usually discussed. Even the lower quality parts of a Katana were far from the lowest quality steel the Japanese were making.

[Spiryt]

Plenty of plate armor parts, especially 'munitions' quality ones were pretty much (wrought) iron in composition.



Example (http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/346051/NMA_metals_s2_p12_metallurgy.pdf)

Huge amount of 'steel' armors were also often carbonized and 'steeled' on surface, after shaping a piece.

So I wouldn't say that availability of bigger pieces of steel was directly connected with plate armor.

[JustSomeGuy]

Regarding tank tracks:

I used to drive crarrv's and cvrt's, and at no point where we ever told to turn in any particular manner beyond getting a kick to the head if you're doing a neutral turn on tarmac or other hard standing/metalled surface.

If i were to try and design a way around the forces on a wider track, i would have each track link have 3 separate contact areas; the central one would be a traditional rubber track pad for traction, and the inner+outer ones would be some kind of roller, bearing or other low friction design soley to spread out the surface area (as much as cylinders/balls do ie. why i don't design stuff for real). But the forces on tracks are mostly above the track pad, track link into areas like the way the track horn interacts with the road wheels and how the final drive wheels both transfer power to the track links and how they get it from the transmission - basically the weakest points in the whole system. Relatedly, i was on an exercise one time and another section from my department threw a track sliding sideways off a nonmetal road on a low hillside (basically they slipped a little too much driving parallel with a slope made in the mud track), and when you throw a track you have to remove the 'baz plates' (the metal covers which conceal the upper track and suspension) - only the full weight of the upper track was pushing into the plates, so during the process of removing them - which had to be done to access the track properly - the plates were pushed off with the weight of about 1/3 of the whole track, plus the tension of the vehicle weight leaning into them, straight into the torso and face of 2 crewmembers removing them. One guy went into medevac with potential crushed ribs (after 6odd days in med he was released) and the other only broke his nose and blackened 2 eyes, which wasn't uncommon for a reccy mech per se but still not a nice work hazard.

[Tiktakkat]

I might be wrong but that's what the latest information I have made pretty clear.

So perhaps I've just missed the latest revision in research rather than seek to perpetuate a "myth".


It doesn't matter how good your refining is, that by itself doesn't let you make plate armour.

Again, why I said it was an issue of metallurgy in general.


Which is massively reading too much into the limited historical information we have. All we really know is that scale was part of the plurality of different armour types available for a long time, the problem is that the only real data we have on this at all is from art rather than records or archaeology.

Yet again why I kept using "generally".
The one thing I know for sure is that it has been a series of guesses regularly supplanted by new research leading to new guesses with even the current CW being mostly a best guess.


I was confusing it with Laminar, sorry. An easy mistake since most asian Laminar armour actually has more lamellar in it than anything else.

Understandable.


Coat of plates is actually an inaccurate term but I can never remember what the correct one is.

I thought coat of plates was for the earlier forms (like they found at Wisby) and brigandine was for the later forms.


Some coats of plates were hundreds of tiny ones, so pretty much just inside out lamellar.

For coats of plate? The pictures I've seen didn't show pieces that small.
I don't see how that many pieces would work with maintaining the structural integrity of the leather it is riveted to, or providing decent coverage without overlapping like lamellar or scale.


Plenty of plate armor parts, especially 'munitions' quality ones were pretty much (wrought) iron in composition.

Example (http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/346051/NMA_metals_s2_p12_metallurgy.pdf)

Huge amount of 'steel' armors were also often carbonized and 'steeled' on surface, after shaping a piece.

So I wouldn't say that availability of bigger pieces of steel was directly connected with plate armor.

I had not heard of that at all.
While that is gunpowder era and mass produced munitions quality, it certainly raises a lot of questions about the development of plate.
Why wasn't it produced several hundred years earlier? Not enough materials? Not enough infrastructure?

[Talakeal]

On the news I just heard them talking about a suspect being armed with a "modified kitchen knife", but didnt give any details. Anyone got any idea what that could mean?

[Gnoman]

On the news I just heard them talking about a suspect being armed with a "modified kitchen knife", but didnt give any details. Anyone got any idea what that could mean?

Kitchen knives are wholly unsuited for combat use due to how thin the blade is (A proper combat knife will be four or five steak knives thick, except obviously for the cutting edge). They "can" be used as weapons, but if you stab somebody with them, the blade is very likely to catch on a bone and snap off. The most likely modification would be welding, gluing, or taping reinforcing material to the blade along the non-cutting edge (on the wide part, obviously) to prevent this. Still an absolutely terrible weapon, but it would prevent snapping.

[cucchulainnn]

I thought coat of plates was for the earlier forms (like they found at Wisby) and brigandine was for the later forms.

For coats of plate? The pictures I've seen didn't show pieces that small.

I don't see how that many pieces would work with maintaining the structural integrity of the leather it is riveted to, or providing decent coverage without overlapping like lamellar or scale.


i may be wrong but my understanding is that words brigandine and coats of plates where fairly interchangeable depending on time and place.

here are some great pics of both. as you can see there are some with very small plates. some with smaller plates then i've seen with lamellar. they seem to hold their shapes fairly well.

here's some brig porn.

https://www.academia.edu/5995907/La_brigantina_Odescalchi._Note_tecnologiche_manute nzioni_e_restauro_catalogo_mostra_Un_vestito_da_ba ttaglia._Una_Brigantina_del_500_-_Palazzo_Venezia_Roma_-_Exibition_A_outfit_for_combat_A_Brigantina_dating _back_to_500_

[cucchulainnn]

Kitchen knives are wholly unsuited for combat use due to how thin the blade is (A proper combat knife will be four or five steak knives thick, except obviously for the cutting edge). They "can" be used as weapons, but if you stab somebody with them, the blade is very likely to catch on a bone and snap off. The most likely modification would be welding, gluing, or taping reinforcing material to the blade along the non-cutting edge (on the wide part, obviously) to prevent this. Still an absolutely terrible weapon, but it would prevent snapping.

my guess would be a reprofiled blade shape or possibly adding it to something else. for instance some how attaching it to baseball bat or broom stick.

[fusilier]

Kitchen knives are wholly unsuited for combat use due to how thin the blade is (A proper combat knife will be four or five steak knives thick, except obviously for the cutting edge). They "can" be used as weapons, but if you stab somebody with them, the blade is very likely to catch on a bone and snap off. The most likely modification would be welding, gluing, or taping reinforcing material to the blade along the non-cutting edge (on the wide part, obviously) to prevent this. Still an absolutely terrible weapon, but it would prevent snapping.

Are you thinking of a table-knife? Some of the big kitchen knives I've used have very thick back edges to them -- still don't know how you would modify it for combat use, perhaps a change to the grip?

[Tiktakkat]

i may be wrong but my understanding is that words brigandine and coats of plates where fairly interchangeable depending on time and place.

I think that is more on how the authorities label them than on people like us trying to work from it.


here are some great pics of both. as you can see there are some with very small plates. some with smaller plates then i've seen with lamellar. they seem to hold their shapes fairly well.

here's some brig porn.

Yeah.
And it is overlapped, as I figured it would have to be.
Why isn't that classified as scale though? Simple the shape of the plates? The date? The attachment method?
I'm clueless about Italian, but does that say those are from 500 or 1,500? If from 500, I'd think those qualify as late Roman scale rather than Medieval brigantine.

[Yora]

Do we know anything about how Germanic and Slavic tribes were fighting each other, say between 1000 BCE and 1000 CE?
Anything I can find is either Romans fighting Germans or Vikings fighting outside their own homelands. Neither of which would be indicative of how warefare in northern and eastern Europe usually would have been.

[Beleriphon]

On the news I just heard them talking about a suspect being armed with a "modified kitchen knife", but didnt give any details. Anyone got any idea what that could mean?

Probably a heavy duty chef's knife. They are surprisingly sturdy and can do a ton of damage. They are after all designed for hacking meat to pieces.

[Blackhawk748]

I've got a Flintlock related question. Firstly, how many shots worth of powder would a typical powder horn hold for a .62 caliber Dragoon Pistol? Secondly how many would it hold for a typical .75 Caliber musket? (think Brown Bess) Thirdly about how many pounds of powder is that?

On a related note, i have an idea for a modification to Flintlocks for a fantasy setting im designing and im curious if it would actually work. In essence the flintlock is a break action and the user loads a premade gauze "cartridge" into the breech. this "cartridge" has a small "tail" full of finely ground powder. The "tail" goes out a notch in the side of the barrel, and when the breech is closed its effectively the spark hole. After this it fires much like a normal musket, except instead of shooting a spark into the hole it sparks the "tail" which acts as a fuse.

Heres the loading process:
1. Co ck hammer
2. Break open barrel
3. Blow into breech to clear residue
4. Insert powder bag
5. Make sure fuse is in firing notch
6.Close breech
7. Check that fuse is in spark plate
8. Aim
9. Fire

Effectively they are small breechload cannons combined with a flintlock mechanism, and instead of the bullet being loaded down the barrel (like a traditional musket) the bullet is attached to the front of the powder bag.

[Beleriphon]

On a related note, i have an idea for a modification to Flintlocks for a fantasy setting im designing and im curious if it would actually work. In essence the flintlock is a break action and the user loads a premade gauze "cartridge" into the breech. this "cartridge" has a small "tail" full of finely ground powder. The "tail" goes out a notch in the side of the barrel, and when the breech is closed its effectively the spark hole. After this it fires much like a normal musket, except instead of shooting a spark into the hole it sparks the "tail" which acts as a fuse.

I think that was an actual thing, but used paper cartridges. So yes, that is completely reasonable given that is an actual thing that was done.

[Yora]

Probably a heavy duty chef's knife. They are surprisingly sturdy and can do a ton of damage. They are after all designed for hacking meat to pieces.

The first way to modify one might quite probably be to grind an edge into the spine of the blade. That gets you a pretty beefy dagger and the wounds caused by a stab would be just horrific.

[Blackhawk748]

I think that was an actual thing, but used paper cartridges. So yes, that is completely reasonable given that is an actual thing that was done.

Sweet, i guess it never caught on as ive never heard of it. I mean i know they used pre measured powder cartridges towards the end of widespread muzzle loader use, but i didnt know they used paper cartridges before they used brass ones.

[Gnoman]

I've got a Flintlock related question. Firstly, how many shots worth of powder would a typical powder horn hold for a .62 caliber Dragoon Pistol? Secondly how many would it hold for a typical .75 Caliber musket? (think Brown Bess) Thirdly about how many pounds of powder is that?

On a related note, i have an idea for a modification to Flintlocks for a fantasy setting im designing and im curious if it would actually work. In essence the flintlock is a break action and the user loads a premade gauze "cartridge" into the breech. this "cartridge" has a small "tail" full of finely ground powder. The "tail" goes out a notch in the side of the barrel, and when the breech is closed its effectively the spark hole. After this it fires much like a normal musket, except instead of shooting a spark into the hole it sparks the "tail" which acts as a fuse.

Heres the loading process:
1. Co ck hammer
2. Break open barrel
3. Blow into breech to clear residue
4. Insert powder bag
5. Make sure fuse is in firing notch
6.Close breech
7. Check that fuse is in spark plate
8. Aim
9. Fire

Effectively they are small breechload cannons combined with a flintlock mechanism, and instead of the bullet being loaded down the barrel (like a traditional musket) the bullet is attached to the front of the powder bag.


I think that was an actual thing, but used paper cartridges. So yes, that is completely reasonable given that is an actual thing that was done.

This sort of weapon would not work very well, because it would not provide a gas seal, which is the primary difficulty in a breechloading firearm. Historical attempts at early breechloaders all seem to have used a threading system of some sort. Paper cartridges were principally for convenient carriage of a premeasured powder charge and shot - you tore the bullet off, poured the powder down the barrel, and then put the bullet in.

As for your powder charge question, as of 1775 a Brown Bess charge was supposed to be 165 grains (0.0235714 pounds).

[Blackhawk748]

This sort of weapon would not work very well, because it would not provide a gas seal, which is the primary difficulty in a breechloading firearm. Historical attempts at early breechloaders all seem to have used a threading system of some sort. Paper cartridges were principally for convenient carriage of a premeasured powder charge and shot - you tore the bullet off, poured the powder down the barrel, and then put the bullet in.

As for your powder charge question, as of 1775 a Brown Bess charge was supposed to be 165 grains (0.0235714 pounds).

First point. Wow thats not a lot of powder.

Second point. So if they could create a gas seal it would work?

[cucchulainnn]

I think that is more on how the authorities label them than on people like us trying to work from it.



Yeah.
And it is overlapped, as I figured it would have to be.
Why isn't that classified as scale though? Simple the shape of the plates? The date? The attachment method?
I'm clueless about Italian, but does that say those are from 500 or 1,500? If from 500, I'd think those qualify as late Roman scale rather than Medieval brigantine.

while i am not sure why, my guess would be because the scales are attached to the inside rather then the outside. i don't read it myself. someone on the armour archive posted that in a thread about brigs.

[Spiryt]

Do we know anything about how Germanic and Slavic tribes were fighting each other, say between 1000 BCE and 1000 CE?
Anything I can find is either Romans fighting Germans or Vikings fighting outside their own homelands. Neither of which would be indicative of how warefare in northern and eastern Europe usually would have been.

Byzanitic history and military writers have written some stuff about Slavic warfare.

Mainly about Byzantium, but since they noted that Slavs were very eager to fight each other too, one can extrapolate, I guess...

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/2837-slavic-fighting-techniques-11.html

[Tobtor]

Do we know anything about how Germanic and Slavic tribes were fighting each other, say between 1000 BCE and 1000 CE?
Anything I can find is either Romans fighting Germans or Vikings fighting outside their own homelands. Neither of which would be indicative of how warefare in northern and eastern Europe usually would have been.

Thats a huge span of time! 2kyears.
Since northern Europe I can answer a bit. Different periods have different levels of knowledge on our parts:
1.000-500BCE. Not alot of knowledge (none historic, little archaeology). A few analysis of use/battle damge on spearheads etc is all we have.

500BCE-500CE. A lot more knowledge, but mainly archaeology. I have mentioned the mass depositions of army gear before: Illerup, Thorsbjerg etc, most are from the 1-500CE, but we also have Hjortspring at about 350BCE. The Hjortsping find is "small" (50-100 people), and the social organisation at the time was rather loose, so I would expect mainly small skirmish armies. The period 1-100CE have a series of battles fought in Sout Scandinavia between "North German" armies and "Danish" armies. Batlles now number hundreds of people. The big weapon deposits suggest composition of armies etc. Later bog finds suggest massive inter-scandinavian battles (200-450CE). From this we can gain alot of information. For instance a more systematic introduction of bow and arrow into armies happened around 200CE, but long spears and javelins was still the main weapons. Sceletal finds indicate areas of injury (Alken Enge a newly excavated site). From this time we also have few and very untrustworthy "history-ethnographies" from Greeks and Romans.
Lots of work have been done on the armies, organisation etc, mainly in Danish and German.

500-800CE. Drop in archaeological knowledge (mainly Swedish weapon graves), and only slight advancement in historical information, though the charlemagne period does have some chronicles and scattered informations.

800-1000CE. The Viking Age. Archaeology improve from previous period (more weapons, skeletons, fortresses, and military camps). We have historic sources, but they are still quite limited in scope (Frankish/Saxon chronicles). But we get some indications from these also about internal wars and how they were organised (but very limited). Then we have later sources dealing with the period (Saxo, Sagas etc), with lots of detail but sometimes some issues with credibility. Both the Sagas (some of them go before CE1.000) and Saxo I think is pretty good for the later Viking age, but still we need to consider the time gap.
We could also look at Saxos description of wars fought in the period 1050-1200, but the army and tactic had changes some what at this point in Denmark (more emphasis on horsemen, starting in the late 10th century). But Sources such as Sverres Saga (Norweigean King) is also about the 1100-1200 and the armies/gear/organisation are similar to late Viking times.

Anything in perticualer you are interested in?

[Gnoman]

First point. Wow thats not a lot of powder.

Second point. So if they could create a gas seal it would work?

For comparison, a .69 caliber lead ball typically fired from the weapon masses 480 grains (0.0685714), so that amount of powder is still a large percentage of the mass. 25-33% of the shot weight is a good rule of thumb for black powder for game purposes.


As for the gas seal, that is the vital component. Modern weapons use the metallic cartridge itself to do most of the sealing, while older ones generally used various forms of threading. It can be done with high-precision machining, but relying on that alone is chancy in a battlefield situation. On further consideration, if you just replace your paper cartridge with a metal one, and use a firework-type fuse you could probably get by with priming powder to produce a weapon halfway between a flintlock and a percussion-cap gun. Just have the fuse stick up into the pan, and be ignited by the priming charge (the flint spark alone would not always work.)

[Blackhawk748]

For comparison, a .69 caliber lead ball typically fired from the weapon masses 480 grains (0.0685714), so that amount of powder is still a large percentage of the mass. 25-33% of the shot weight is a good rule of thumb for black powder for game purposes.


As for the gas seal, that is the vital component. Modern weapons use the metallic cartridge itself to do most of the sealing, while older ones generally used various forms of threading. It can be done with high-precision machining, but relying on that alone is chancy in a battlefield situation. On further consideration, if you just replace your paper cartridge with a metal one, and use a firework-type fuse you could probably get by with priming powder to produce a weapon halfway between a flintlock and a percussion-cap gun. Just have the fuse stick up into the pan, and be ignited by the priming charge (the flint spark alone would not always work.)

Ok, that should work fine.

[Beleriphon]

First point. Wow thats not a lot of powder.

Second point. So if they could create a gas seal it would work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1819_Hall_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle

Both are breech loading rifle, the exact process by which they are loaded and form a seal are different. The Hall rifle seemed to form a breech in front of the firing pan so the ball and charge still had to be rammed down, but it was a few inches rather than nearly three feet.

The Ferguson worked by dropping a plug straight down, filling the breech with a ball and powder charge and running it back up to close the breech.

[Blackhawk748]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1819_Hall_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle

Both are breech loading rifle, the exact process by which they are loaded and form a seal are different. The Hall rifle seemed to form a breech in front of the firing pan so the ball and charge still had to be rammed down, but it was a few inches rather than nearly three feet.

The Ferguson worked by dropping a plug straight down, filling the breech with a ball and powder charge and running it back up to close the breech.

Ok thats awesome. I think i prefer the Hall rifle design.

[Thiel]

You also have rifles like the Dreyse and Sharps that used actual paper cartridges. The first is a bolt action and the later a falling breach action.

[PersonMan]

What condition would it make sense for a heavily-used sword be in after a long time without being repaired*? I'm looking for a description to imply that someone has stuck with an old weapon for a long time, without being able to do much to keep it in good shape, but don't know what that would look like, especially if it's supposed to still be able to be used properly.

*Not really sure to what extent a sword is maintained, apart from keeping the blade sharp?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

The blade would likely be dull rather than shiny and could have small patches of rust on it, while the handgrip would be well worn, maybe even coming away in places, and almost black with a combination of dirt, sweat and other substances.

[spineyrequiem]

There'd probably be various notches and burrs in the blade if it hasn't been properly maintained, taking those out is one of the main things we do with grindstones. It might also be slightly bent, especially if someone's fallen on it. If it has been maintained to some extent the blade might well be very thin (from being repeatedly sharpened) and perhaps even slightly shorter than you'd expect from the hilt (due to the tip snapping off and the blade being resharpened).

[fusilier]

Ok thats awesome. I think i prefer the Hall rifle design.

Sorry I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I've actually shot a Hall rifle:

It made no attempt to create a gas seal -- you can literally see through the gap between the breech and the barrel. This means that its range was considerably diminished, when compared to a muzzle loading weapon. To a limited extent this was offset by being able to use a ball slightly larger than the barrel diameter, ensuring a tight fit. But compared to a muzzle-loading rifle or musket with a tight fitting bullet, it's range was very poor.

I have seen photos of break-open flintlocks. There were also designs where the whole breech could be removed, complete with priming pan and frizzen. Replacement breeches, loaded and primed, could be carried. Although not many.

Picture:
http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/images/Long%20Arm,%20Fowler,%20Breech%20Loading,%20Flintl ock_breech_308-331.jpg


On a related note, i have an idea for a modification to Flintlocks for a fantasy setting im designing and im curious if it would actually work. In essence the flintlock is a break action and the user loads a premade gauze "cartridge" into the breech. this "cartridge" has a small "tail" full of finely ground powder. The "tail" goes out a notch in the side of the barrel, and when the breech is closed its effectively the spark hole. After this it fires much like a normal musket, except instead of shooting a spark into the hole it sparks the "tail" which acts as a fuse.

In theory, this might work. But it could have a practical problem:

On a normal flintlock the priming powder doesn't serve as fuse, and, ideally, the vent hole is actually empty of powder. The priming powder is "flashed" by the sparks of the flint, and some of that flame travels through the vent hole, and ignites the main charge.

If the vent was filled with powder, the powder would burn as though it was a fuse, i.e. slowly. Which would create considerable delay between pulling the trigger and the gun actually firing (flintlocks aren't terribly fast to begin with). Admittedly, on a gun it's probably not too much of a problem, as the barrel isn't usually very thick -- it's definitely an issue when firing a cannon from the linstock.

So, there may be a practical problem to using part of the cartridge as a fuze, as it may slow down the ignition of the main charge. Also, the wrapping would have to be something like flash-paper -- something that very easily ignites, for two reasons: 1, your design requires it to ignite the main charge, and 2, the paper must be completely consumed or else it will interfere with loading the next charge. The latter reason was sometimes a problem with Civil War era Sharps rifles/carbines.

[Blackhawk748]

Sorry I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I've actually shot a Hall rifle:

It made no attempt to create a gas seal -- you can literally see through the gap between the breech and the barrel. This means that its range was considerably diminished, when compared to a muzzle loading weapon. To a limited extent this was offset by being able to use a ball slightly larger than the barrel diameter, ensuring a tight fit. But compared to a muzzle-loading rifle or musket with a tight fitting bullet, it's range was very poor.

I have seen photos of break-open flintlocks. There were also designs where the whole breech could be removed, complete with priming pan and frizzen. Replacement breeches, loaded and primed, could be carried. Although not many.

Picture:
http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/images/Long%20Arm,%20Fowler,%20Breech%20Loading,%20Flintl ock_breech_308-331.jpg



In theory, this might work. But it could have a practical problem:

On a normal flintlock the priming powder doesn't serve as fuse, and, ideally, the vent hole is actually empty of powder. The priming powder is "flashed" by the sparks of the flint, and some of that flame travels through the vent hole, and ignites the main charge.

If the vent was filled with powder, the powder would burn as though it was a fuse, i.e. slowly. Which would create considerable delay between pulling the trigger and the gun actually firing (flintlocks aren't terribly fast to begin with). Admittedly, on a gun it's probably not too much of a problem, as the barrel isn't usually very thick -- it's definitely an issue when firing a cannon from the linstock.

So, there may be a practical problem to using part of the cartridge as a fuze, as it may slow down the ignition of the main charge. Also, the wrapping would have to be something like flash-paper -- something that very easily ignites, for two reasons: 1, your design requires it to ignite the main charge, and 2, the paper must be completely consumed or else it will interfere with loading the next charge. The latter reason was sometimes a problem with Civil War era Sharps rifles/carbines.

Thus why its a gauze, it would burn quickly and thoroughly, though i think impregnating the gauze with powder would help to alleviate both problems, if make it less safe to store.

[fusilier]

Thus why its a gauze, it would burn quickly and thoroughly, though i think impregnating the gauze with powder would help to alleviate both problems, if make it less safe to store.

Self-contained paper cartridges did exist -- a good example is what the Dreyse needle-rifles used. So it's not an insurmountable problem, I was just pointing out that it is consideration in design. I would be more concerned about using a fuse to ignite the charge, as I don't know how slow the ignition might be in those circumstances.

[Gnoman]

Self-contained paper cartridges did exist -- a good example is what the Dreyse needle-rifles used. So it's not an insurmountable problem, I was just pointing out that it is consideration in design. I would be more concerned about using a fuse to ignite the charge, as I don't know how slow the ignition might be in those circumstances.

The Dreyse guns were percussion-cap weapons, which take all the limitations of flintlocks and toss them out the window. It's akin to comparing a fuel-injected V8 to a steamcar.

[fusilier]

The Dreyse guns were percussion-cap weapons, which take all the limitations of flintlocks and toss them out the window. It's akin to comparing a fuel-injected V8 to a steamcar.

We were talking about paper (or gauze) cartridges where the paper is consumed completely -- if it's not it will cause problems when re-loading (especially if it's still smoldering). The Dreyse needle-rifle was an example of a gun that effectively solved *that* problem.

Unless you're arguing that the percussion cap, and not the burning gunpowder, is responsible for the paper being consumed by fire?

[Beleriphon]

We were talking about paper (or gauze) cartridges where the paper is consumed completely -- if it's not it will cause problems when re-loading (especially if it's still smoldering). The Dreyse needle-rifle was an example of a gun that effectively solved *that* problem.

Unless you're arguing that the percussion cap, and not the burning gunpowder, is responsible for the paper being consumed by fire?

No, its was the fact the paper was soaking potassium nitrate, which made them stupid flammable that allowed them to burn completely. This seems to have been more common in percussion cap revolvers than rifles. That said for a game the idea that somebody would come up with cartridges for a break loading musket isn't unreasonable since we know things similar to that were created even if they never fully took off because of the advent of brass cartridges.

[fusilier]

No, its was the fact the paper was soaking potassium nitrate, which made them stupid flammable that allowed them to burn completely. This seems to have been more common in percussion cap revolvers than rifles. That said for a game the idea that somebody would come up with cartridges for a break loading musket isn't unreasonable since we know things similar to that were created even if they never fully took off because of the advent of brass cartridges.

So, I guess I should have said: the Dreyse needle-rifle was an example of a successful breechloading gun that used paper cartridges -- so we know that the problem of paper cartridges being completely consumed is solvable.

It wasn't the rifle design that allowed it to consume the paper from the cartridges completely, but that the rifle's success was, at least partially, dependent upon the paper cartridges being consumed when fired. Therefore, we know that a solution exists.

Problems with the consumption of paper cartridges was noted during the testing of Sharps carbines and rifles in the 1850s by the Ordnance Department. They caused safety concerns when there was still some paper left smoldering that had to be removed, and the incomplete combustion of the paper also made the fouling worse, which could prevent cartridges from being fully inserted and sometimes caused the sliding breech freeze up. I think the solution was the adoption of a paper that was more like flash paper, although not identical. I'll need to double check what the precise solution was, but the Sharps carbines and rifles were successfully deployed during the Civil War.

EDIT-- Also this all independent of the ignition system employed.

[Gnoman]

We were talking about paper (or gauze) cartridges where the paper is consumed completely -- if it's not it will cause problems when re-loading (especially if it's still smoldering). The Dreyse needle-rifle was an example of a gun that effectively solved *that* problem.

Unless you're arguing that the percussion cap, and not the burning gunpowder, is responsible for the paper being consumed by fire?

A cartridge-based loading system is infinitely easier with a percussion-cap than it is a flintlock for a number of reasons, so the needle-gun has limited relevance to "is this cartridge-based flintlock plausible?". Yes, the Dreyse did solve a lot of the problems that would have needed to be solved, but the core problem of ignition is not addressed.

[dramatic flare]

Can someone run me through the different developmental processes between an English Bill, a Guisarme, and a Fauchard? I get that the bill was developed from a farming tool, but looking at what item is cateogorized as which it just seems there is a lot of overlap. I logically know they aren't the same, but sometimes it does just seem like different names for the same variety of weapons.

[Dhavaer]

Is there a name for a weapon that's roughly zweihander-size, has a single or double edged blade meant for slashing/hacking, and is roughly half hilt/haft and half blade? So not quite a sword and not quite a polearm.

[Spiryt]

Can someone run me through the different developmental processes between an English Bill, a Guisarme, and a Fauchard? I get that the bill was developed from a farming tool, but looking at what item is cateogorized as which it just seems there is a lot of overlap. I logically know they aren't the same, but sometimes it does just seem like different names for the same variety of weapons.

Because they are different names for about same weapons. :smallsmile:

Bill is obviously English word, guisarme and fauchard are continental French.

If Wiktionary is to be believed, 'bil' is already present in Old English, it doesn't etymologize the name though.

Guisarme is apparently composed out of 'arme' stemming from Latin 'arma', like in 'arms', while there rest is not very clear. Someone better in French than me may check French wiktionary, it has some weird stuff about it.

Apparently dates from very early times too, since it's from Low Frankonian.

"Fauchard' is simply formed from 'faux' - 'scythe', 'sickle'. No dates given, may be pretty young name.


I don't think that anyone is really sure about their exact use, but they were indeed simply names from hacking, shearing blades on a pole.


Evolution is probably even tricker, because we mostly have almost no sources from before ~1300-1350. Save some drawings, that obviously aren't too detailed.

Hard to tell from what did they 'evolve'.

[Eldan]

French Wiktionary, interestingly, seems to point back to German Wiktionary. They mention the etymology is uncertain or incomplete, but that "arme" certainly comes from "arm" or "arma", "weapon". They seem to have a few ideas about "guis", either from "guiser", to guide, or similarly from Germanic "wis", "weisen", which means the same.

"-ard" in Fauchard is simply a suffix. Which seems to have a dozen possible meanings, as suffixes often do.

[Brother Oni]

Is there a name for a weapon that's roughly zweihander-size, has a single or double edged blade meant for slashing/hacking, and is roughly half hilt/haft and half blade? So not quite a sword and not quite a polearm.

Depends on what exactly you mean.

There are a number of large western blades with a ricasso (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricasso), which are essentially what you want. These can be found on some styles of two handed claymores, rapiers and long swords, but the latter two are a bit small/short for your requirements.

Some styles of odachi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi) have an extended hilt, but the nagamaki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki) and the changdao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changdao) are exactly what you want. The Korean film Musa has a character (the senior NCO) who uses a Korean variant of the changdao, if you want to see it in action.

Approaching it from the other direction, there's a number of polearms with long blades (naginata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginata) and guisarme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guisarme) variants) and stretching the definition a bit, there's glaives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive) and the guandao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guandao) (although they're more pole than blade).

[Tiktakkat]

Can someone run me through the different developmental processes between an English Bill, a Guisarme, and a Fauchard? I get that the bill was developed from a farming tool, but looking at what item is cateogorized as which it just seems there is a lot of overlap. I logically know they aren't the same, but sometimes it does just seem like different names for the same variety of weapons.

"Very generally", polearms evolved in three ways:

1. Sticking a knife at the end of a stick then adding stuff to it
2. Giving your other sidearm a longer handle
3. Making a military version of your farm tool

A knife on the end of a stick is a spear. A shorter one may be called a javelin and a really long one may be called a pike, but ultimately it is a knife on the end of a stick.
Why?
Reach plus the power of a two-handed grip.
For most of history, the spear was the primary weapon of everyone. It was so important that the first thing people added to guns was a bayonet so if you couldn't reload you still had a spear.
Spears couldn't do everything of course, so along the way people started modifying them with things like side wings to prevent people or animals from closing, traps to catch and break weapons, spikes and blades for enhanced penetration on slashes, and hooks for dismounting. At a certain point, these modifications make a spear indistinguishable from other polearms.

Other sidearms generally means an ax, a hammer, a pick, or a club (mace). You give these a longer handle to increase the effect of swinging them. These were "generally" specialized armor piercing weapons.
Like spears, they were limited by their primary function, and so gradually acquired modifications to make them multi-purpose, ultimately making the various forms indistinguishable.

Farm tools cover a wide range of objects including cleavers, forks, pruning hooks, scythes, and so on.
As farm tools, they are designed for labor. While they can be quite dangerous, they aren't really suited for fighting people. Over time versions specially designed for fighting were made, with parts strengthened and straightened.
Yet again, they were limited by their primary function, acquired modifications, and starting looking like other forms.

The "ultimate" polearm "generally" had the following:
1. A spike for straight piercing (spear)
2. A cleaver for hacking arms and legs off (axe)
3. A hook for tripping and dismounting (pruning hook or pick)
4. A spike for side piercing (pick)
5. Enough complexity between those for trapping weapons
"Mostly", this came down to two versions - the bill in England and the halberd on the continent.

The English bill, like the French guisarme, are (the last I checked) thought to be developed from the pruning hook - a large, inward curved, blade used to trim tree branches.

Now there are a lot of "generally"s sprinkled through that.
Polearm evolution was in no way linear, and definitely not singular. There were multiple parallel tracks across Europe, often within single countries/cultures. There was a lot of back-tracking and abandoned off-shoots.
Pretty much the only certain things that can be said is that people liked having a reach advantage, with the specifics of the metal part changing to account for armor and tactics.

[Blackhawk748]

A cartridge-based loading system is infinitely easier with a percussion-cap than it is a flintlock for a number of reasons, so the needle-gun has limited relevance to "is this cartridge-based flintlock plausible?". Yes, the Dreyse did solve a lot of the problems that would have needed to be solved, but the core problem of ignition is not addressed.

Heres an idea i had: using a Hall rifle as the base, couldnt you attach a small wedge on the inside of the chamber to split open one side of the paper cartridge? This way the powder is exposed to the hole so the spark can easily ignite it and it still loads quickly.

Also, and this is only partially related, how does the Hall rifle "lock" the breech? For example, i pop the breech and load the Hall rifle, then i push the breech closed, how does it stay closed? I dont see a lock or anything on it.

[Thiel]

From the pictures I've seen there's a detent on the stocks underside

[Blackhawk748]

From the pictures I've seen there's a detent on the stocks underside

I found a video that gives a good overview of the gun. Theres a locking lever on the underside of the gun that you flip back to unlock it, then you simply push the chamber down to relock it.

That gun is just more and more amazing the more i look at it.

[Gnoman]

Heres an idea i had: using a Hall rifle as the base, couldnt you attach a small wedge on the inside of the chamber to split open one side of the paper cartridge? This way the powder is exposed to the hole so the spark can easily ignite it and it still loads quickly.


Anything you do with a flintlock, you'll still have to prime the pan seperately - even if you get the cartridge to perfectly expose the powder and be consumed entirely, you'd have to insert the cartridge, open the pan, apply powder from another cartridge or a powder horn, close the pan, and then you can fire. At this point, putting your paper cartridge in the weapon actively makes your rate of fire worse - you're better off using the Civil War era conception of the paper cartridge as nothing more than a convienent means of premeasuring your charges and use tear-pour-insert-pour method of loading used with flintlocks historically.

Now, a fantasy setting could very easily adjust this - if you can come up with a magical or alchemical material or on-weapon enchantment to get around these limitations, you could make the paper cartridge work.

[Carl]

Indeed, use a permanently hot thin piece of metal via w/e magical method and a suitable trigger/mechanism and you basically have a firing pin that works with paper cartridges.

[Blackhawk748]

Indeed, use a permanently hot thin piece of metal via w/e magical method and a suitable trigger/mechanism and you basically have a firing pin that works with paper cartridges.

Ok thats getting filed away for future reference

[Carl]

YW. Just bear in mind that the pin cannot be directly connected to the trigger. When it fires the pin will be rammed back by barrel pressures and you can;t have that transferring to the trigger. In addition the pin assembly will have to be sturdy enough and gas tight enough to handle the effect as well. But even a fairly modest strength pin force should puncture the rear of the cartridge so you'll get direct ignition of the powder.

[Brother Oni]

YW. Just bear in mind that the pin cannot be directly connected to the trigger. When it fires the pin will be rammed back by barrel pressures and you can;t have that transferring to the trigger. In addition the pin assembly will have to be sturdy enough and gas tight enough to handle the effect as well. But even a fairly modest strength pin force should puncture the rear of the cartridge so you'll get direct ignition of the powder.

Wouldn't heat transfer from the permanently hot firing pin to either the trigger or the rest of the gun be an issue as well? Since paper ignites at ~233 C and black powder from 200-500 C (depending on the actual mix), you're probably igniting the paper first to burn the gunpowder, making your pin somewhere in the region of 250+ C (depending on the thermal transfer coefficient of the material of the pin, but it's probably best to handwave that away with magic for sanity's sake).

At this sort of temperature, unless you had the pin enclosed in some well insulated or other poor thermal conductor, or had a surface to radiate the heat away to stop it building up, the heat would eventually cause damage to the other components (eg warping) or to the shooter. Storage of large numbers of these weapons would also be a potential fire hazard.

On the plus side, soldiers would be inventive enough to take advantage of a permanently hot pin inside a sealable barrel - heating water to make tea for example, much like WW1 machine gun crews did or deliberately heating up the barrel to keep themselves warm on winter campaigns.

[Blackhawk748]

I think the easiest way to do that would be to just have it heat up when the hammer is cocked, as this will prevent many problems.

[Carl]

No need. If the pin is suspended in a similar manner to modern pins, (with a spring to hold it well back clear of the rear of the breach as opposed to free floating), and the trigger isn't directly connected, (as i've said it can't be), the heat transfer should be low, use a solid metal rear to the barrel, (probably a necessity), and there would be a ow enough rate of transfer, enough sinking capacity, and enough radiating capacity that there should never be an issue. The barrel/stock/e.t.c wouldn't even get slightly warm to the touch.

[fusilier]

Anything you do with a flintlock, you'll still have to prime the pan seperately

This is not necessarily true. A classic way of speed loading a flintlock musket is to simply close the pan, and pour powder down the muzzle. Some of the charge will leak through the vent and fill the pan. I've seen it done in person, and the process was done historically (it was helped by the fact that a lot of old military muskets had very large vent holes). It's some times referred to as "self priming" and some locks were specifically designed to do so (see link below)


Heres an idea i had: using a Hall rifle as the base, couldnt you attach a small wedge on the inside of the chamber to split open one side of the paper cartridge? This way the powder is exposed to the hole so the spark can easily ignite it and it still loads quickly.

That might work. The Sharps rifle/carbine's sliding block sliced the back end of the paper cartridge open to expose the powder.

I also found a reference to self-priming flintlocks here:
http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/mantonlock/mantonlock.html

The relevant section:

Of interest to modern muzzleloader shooters is that this, and most of the Manton brothers locks were of the 'self-priming' variety. A hole in the side of the frizzen cover communicated to the pan so the powder from the main charge would fill the pan when the gun was loaded. To prevent the 'fuse effect' from slowing ignition, a 'vent wiper' was used. This small appendage to the frizzen cover literally pulled powder away from the touch hole as the cover lifted, allowing the incandescence from the burning pan powder to directly ignite the main charge.

This addresses two problems -- 1. self priming, 2. it avoids the "fuse effect".

Blackhawk748:
If you can reliably have the paper cartridge break open while loading, it may be possible to use it with a self-priming pan.

[AMFV]

Howdy, folks! I've got a question that I've been milling over in my mind. This one is fairly system dependent (sorry). But it's still something I'd like input from you folks on. I'm looking at constructing a Pathfinder military campaign. And I'm thinking about overall unit organization. Obviously the integration of Magical units is going to fundamentally alter military organization. I'm interested to see if you guys have any thoughts on how a fantastic military might be organized (it can be pretty rough, and I'm already starting to develop some basic ideas, but I could use some outside input).

[Carl]

Hmm i can talk a bit about my white wizard setting and the thought processes that went into elements, (some stuffs still up in the air), it's not exactly what you want i imagine as my settings magic has some distinct differences from D&D style systems, but talking through an example might help. Don;t wanna just do it though, sounding pompous, pushing my own stuff, e.t.c..

[Gnoman]

This is not necessarily true. A classic way of speed loading a flintlock musket is to simply close the pan, and pour powder down the muzzle. Some of the charge will leak through the vent and fill the pan. I've seen it done in person, and the process was done historically (it was helped by the fact that a lot of old military muskets had very large vent holes). It's some times referred to as "self priming" and some locks were specifically designed to do so (see link below)



This is a very good way to lose a hand -or worse- because this creates the perfect environment for setting off the gun while you are loading it. Self-priming locks were quite rare, because they are not only incredibly dangerous, but result in noticably worse performance. The only application where they were particularly common was dueling pistols, and the process was explicitly proscribed by every military unit that had guns capable of the procedure (most were not, as it required the hammer to be in a half-**** position, which most guns couldn't have.)

[fusilier]

Howdy, folks! I've got a question that I've been milling over in my mind. This one is fairly system dependent (sorry). But it's still something I'd like input from you folks on. I'm looking at constructing a Pathfinder military campaign. And I'm thinking about overall unit organization. Obviously the integration of Magical units is going to fundamentally alter military organization. I'm interested to see if you guys have any thoughts on how a fantastic military might be organized (it can be pretty rough, and I'm already starting to develop some basic ideas, but I could use some outside input).

If you are looking for late medieval/renaissance feel to organization (which a lot of fantasy is based on), then I can describe a little --

In Italy, the basic cavalry unit was the lance, which evolved over time.

First there was the three-man lance, which consisted of a well armored and equipped man-at-arms, a similarly armed sergeant, and a page, or squire, who looked after the other's equipment and horses.

Various influences caused there to be an increase in armor (horse armor), which required more horses for transport, and to keep the battle horses fresh. As a result there was a shift toward more people in the lance; the sergeant became perhaps not as well equipped as the man-at-arms, and took on more of a support role. So by the second half of the 15th century four man lances were becoming common. Often the fourth man was a mounted crossbowman (they were fashionable as bodyguards).

Five and six men lances also started to be deployed toward the end of the century (along with something similar called a corazza). The extra people were primarily there to take care of the man-at-arms' horses and equipment.

There was an older two-man unit called a barbuta.

All these units had shared basic structure: a leading soldier (man-at-arms), with the rest supporting him, with varying degrees of combat potential.

Italian infantry mercenaries might be organized around similar lines -- I have seen references to "infantry lances", with a well-armored pikeman supported by one or two servants. However, as infantry units of the time usually had a mix of different troops, it looks like the contract usually specified the specific type and number of troops. The traditional Italian infantry company consisted of infantry "lances" (pikemen), shield-bearers, and crossbowmen in roughly equal proportions. Note, a lot of infantry would be mounted (they fought on foot, but had horses for transport, increasing strategic mobility).

Likewise, I think light cavalry units (units of crossbowmen and stradiots) were hired as individuals.

Companies were highly variable -- it's perhaps better to think of them as administrative units rather than tactical units -- there were small 50 man infantry companies, but a prestigious captain might have a company of 500 lances (of 3 or 4 men) plus some number of infantry!

There is some question as to how these various units were deployed on the battlefield -- the consensus seems to be that the men-at-arms would be formed together, their sergeants perhaps in a separate formation, the pages providing logistical support, and, if the lance had them, the crossbowmen organized together in a separate unit (perhaps dismounted for the battle). However, it's possible that they mixed them together on the battlefield. For example, it's been reported that the mounted crossbowmen covered the flanks of the men-at-arms during charges. Likewise the infantry were usually in formations that contained all three of the traditional types.

Given that the company was a highly variable organization, other tactical units were common:
The squadra (squadron) consisted of 20 to 25 lances and was commanded by corporal (or caposquadra, or squadriere).

Later a formation called a "column", commanded by a colonello (i.e. colonel) was created which was 8-10 squadrons, and there's evidence that these formations could be built up of squadrons from different companies.


By way of contrast, the French lance was more of an all-round fighting unit, and you can read a description of it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies
(Also take a look at the late Burgundian Lance)

They were organized into compagnies d'ordonnance of 100 lances each. I think this standardization was more common when the state got involved in organizing units.

[Vitruviansquid]

Howdy, folks! I've got a question that I've been milling over in my mind. This one is fairly system dependent (sorry). But it's still something I'd like input from you folks on. I'm looking at constructing a Pathfinder military campaign. And I'm thinking about overall unit organization. Obviously the integration of Magical units is going to fundamentally alter military organization. I'm interested to see if you guys have any thoughts on how a fantastic military might be organized (it can be pretty rough, and I'm already starting to develop some basic ideas, but I could use some outside input).

If you are going anywhere near the feudal system, that can be a basis of military organization. A powerful ruler might have vassals of different Pathfinder classes who are responsible for providing a balance of expertise to his war council, and then each powerful vassal would have lesser vassals of different classes that they personally lead onto the battlefield so as to make a military that is more like a collection of adventuring parties. I mean, if we are going to pretend the classes are all specialists who cover each other's weaknesses.

[AMFV]

If you are going anywhere near the feudal system, that can be a basis of military organization. A powerful ruler might have vassals of different Pathfinder classes who are responsible for providing a balance of expertise to his war council, and then each powerful vassal would have lesser vassals of different classes that they personally lead onto the battlefield so as to make a military that is more like a collection of adventuring parties. I mean, if we are going to pretend the classes are all specialists who cover each other's weaknesses.

That's certainly one possibility. Although I suspect that "collection of adventuring parties" would prove problematic on larger scale conflicts, which is my eventual goal.

Edit: Which (and don't quote me on this, since my medieval military knowledge isn't always that great) was a problem for medieval forces of substantial size as well.


If you are looking for late medieval/renaissance feel to organization (which a lot of fantasy is based on), then I can describe a little --
...

That is really awesome! Although to be fair I'm mostly looking for how a fantasy type organization might differ from what might be a standard type of organization. I mean Pathfinder type stuff would have more diverse types of specializations, which would lead to a different type of organization, closer probably to a modern (or as early as very late renaissance) organization style, since you'd have a lot more support than regular infantry would normally.

[fusilier]

This is a very good way to lose a hand -or worse- because this creates the perfect environment for setting off the gun while you are loading it. Self-priming locks were quite rare, because they are not only incredibly dangerous, but result in noticably worse performance. The only application where they were particularly common was dueling pistols, and the process was explicitly proscribed by every military unit that had guns capable of the procedure (most were not, as it required the hammer to be in a half-**** position, which most guns couldn't have.)

Gnoman -- I don't know where you are getting your information. Regardless of whether or not we agree, the simple fact of the matter is: it was done -- and regularly enough to not be considered a particularly dangerous practice at the time.

However, to address your specific safety concerns:

All military manuals specify that the *first* step in loading a flintlock (or matchlock, or any gun that has a priming pan) is to prime the pan.

The reason for this is actually one of safety -- if the priming pan is open, it's possible that you can have air-flow through the vent hole and into the barrel. If the gun had just been fired, and was in the process of being reloaded, that air-flow might be enough to cause smoldering residue to "flare up" when the gunpowder is introduced.

[A similar thing can occur when loading a muzzle-loading cannon, which is one of the reasons the vent is "thumbed" when loading, to cut off the air-flow)]

The main issue is that the half-c0ck is in proper working order: historical military units and reenactors hold inspections of their weapons and this is something that is explicitly tested.

Percussion locks work differently, because the hammer can rest on the spent cap on top of the cone cutting of airflow through the vent. In that case you can safely prime as the last step. From time-to-time I've had to admonish fellow reenactors who remove the spent cap, leaving the hammer at half-c0ck and the vent hole open, before loading the gun (I'm not sure where that habit comes from).

I've actually seen a gun prematurely discharge for this reason, air-flow through the barrel, at a reenactment, and the poor fellow had a nasty burn on his hand. It was later discovered that his musket had the barrel placed at something of an odd angle in the stock, as a result the hammer didn't rest flat on the cone and therefore didn't properly prevent air-flow through the barrel.

Modern day hunters have different considerations -- they're not usually loading and firing as fast possible, and can allow the barrel to cool off between shots. They're not likely to be using paper wadding either, that can leave smoldering residue. Also, their mechanisms are usually a lot lighter and not as robust as military ones. So their primary concern might be the failing of the half-c0ck.

---
I would agree that self priming was almost certainly less reliable (and flintlocks already have some issues with reliability), but I don't think it was so bad as to make it a useless practice. It was convenient when speed was desired, and that's why many original flintlock military muskets have very large vent holes by modern standards.


(most were not, as it required the hammer to be in a half-**** position, which most guns couldn't have.)

I wanted to address this question specifically -- most guns did have a half-c0ck position . . . why wouldn't they? Certainly all the military weapons I've handled, and most the civilian ones too. Some of the really early miquelet locks I've seen don't have them (i.e. pre 1620s).

Note: it's not a self c-ocking weapon, you still have to put the weapon on half-c0ck and shut the priming pan, before loading. You just don't need to load the priming pan itself.

[fusilier]

That is really awesome! Although to be fair I'm mostly looking for how a fantasy type organization might differ from what might be a standard type of organization. I mean Pathfinder type stuff would have more diverse types of specializations, which would lead to a different type of organization, closer probably to a modern (or as early as very late renaissance) organization style, since you'd have a lot more support than regular infantry would normally.

I was thinking that the lance organization might be useful, as they put surprisingly different roles very close to each other at that level.

The Italian lance was more about supporting the man-at-arms, but those support personal often had their own combat specialties. The French and late Burgundian lances, mixed very different forces together (cavalry with mounted infantry), and seemed to have been primarily an attempt to provide the proper ratio of forces.

I thought perhaps you could build from a similar idea: diverse troop types working together at a very low level. My understanding of later units is that they are very very uniform (a squad of riflemen, a mortar platoon, etc.).

[AMFV]

I was thinking that the lance organization might be useful, as they put surprisingly different roles very close to each other at that level.

The Italian lance was more about supporting the man-at-arms, but those support personal often had their own combat specialties. The French and late Burgundian lances, mixed very different forces together (cavalry with mounted infantry), and seemed to have been primarily an attempt to provide the proper ratio of forces.

That sounds very similar to modern forces which tend to involve a lot of integration of forces, between air, mechanized, and foot elements.



I thought perhaps you could build from a similar idea: diverse troop types working together at a very low level. My understanding of later units is that they are very very uniform (a squad of riflemen, a mortar platoon, etc.).

Well the degree of uniformity depends largely on role. You'd have entire groups of Mechanized Units that would move ahead (much like old school cavalry), but on a smaller unit level you'd have quite a bit of diversity. I mean even taking a Marine Corps Rifle Squad, you'd have several "Fireteams" consisting of a rifleman, a machine-gunner, an assistant Machine Gunner, and the fireteam leader. This is largely due to our development of modern warfare. Obviously a magical organization would have developed different tactics, requiring different organization.

[Carl]

Hmm, the thing to remember is that modern organisations have such variety because modern technology has produced a lot of different methods of creating and dealing with problems. Which boils down to a lot of different kinds of equipment.

The problem is the basic pathfinder/D&D3.5 rules aren't remotely designed to handle either a realistic civilian economy, (too few people with access to sufficient ranks of various skills), and formation fighting has advantages when there's a relative uniformity of equipment, (as noted formations did mix types but you wouldn't see all types facing the enemy jumbled together in the front of the formation), that D&D just doesn't represent. At higher class levels class skills can certainly overcome this but at lower class levels the equipment and formation fighting benefits will almost certainly overcome the class effects so long as they are of a class that is proficient with said weapon. As a result your likely to see professional militaries forming themselves out of specific classes, and much like feudal lords, (often portrayed exclusively as knights), under the feudal system your likely to see prestige and geopolitical power being associated with being a member of a specific class. Your possibly even likely to see limits placed on what classes somone can be if they're from certain social backgrounds.


TBH my first response was aimed more at what i though the question was. Namely; how would magic users fit into and existing military and how would they change it's composition. But that's so dependent on so many factors a simple answer is difficult to say the least.

[AMFV]

Hmm, the thing to remember is that modern organisations have such variety because modern technology has produced a lot of different methods of creating and dealing with problems. Which boils down to a lot of different kinds of equipment.

The problem is the basic pathfinder/D&D3.5 rules aren't remotely designed to handle either a realistic civilian economy, (too few people with access to sufficient ranks of various skills), and formation fighting has advantages when there's a relative uniformity of equipment, (as noted formations did mix types but you wouldn't see all types facing the enemy jumbled together in the front of the formation), that D&D just doesn't represent. At higher class levels class skills can certainly overcome this but at lower class levels the equipment and formation fighting benefits will almost certainly overcome the class effects so long as they are of a class that is proficient with said weapon. As a result your likely to see professional militaries forming themselves out of specific classes, and much like feudal lords, (often portrayed exclusively as knights), under the feudal system your likely to see prestige and geopolitical power being associated with being a member of a specific class. Your possibly even likely to see limits placed on what classes somone can be if they're from certain social backgrounds.


TBH my first response was aimed more at what i though the question was. Namely; how would magic users fit into and existing military and how would they change it's composition. But that's so dependent on so many factors a simple answer is difficult to say the least.

The solution and explanation is that in Pathfinder magic and diverse class skills completely make up for the diversity of equipment. One might just as easily have a unit of Evoker Wizards tasked to operate like artillery (although the application would be profoundly different) as one might have a unit of diviner wizards and rogues tasked to operate like scouts.

My main goal is verisimilitude, a feudal style military system is not at all going to be able to handle the complexity that magic (and in actually some of the mundane skills as well) brings to the battlefield. We're looking at something that would be closer to a modern organization because the complexity is similar.

Also it's important to note that I'm aiming for verisimilitude over real rules (wherever that conflict exists), ergo I want to deal with logistics, more extensively than Pathfinder's rules require, since that will create a feeling of pseudo-realism for me. Also undead, constructs, and various magical creatures are likely to substantively shift tactics. I'm mostly looking for inspiration from other folks on how they think this might affect military strategy/organization etc.

[Galloglaich]

One might just as easily have a unit of Evoker Wizards tasked to operate like artillery (although the application would be profoundly different) as one might have a unit of diviner wizards and rogues tasked to operate like scouts.

You could probably go something like this route if you wanted to match it to the real world, which I believe is usually the best policy to follow because then in many cases you'll find a lot of the little adjustments you would normally have to make for some big change have already been made by those helpful people from our past.

In the case of the above example, medieval armies had specialists who would fit each role you described. There was something called a "buxenmeister" (I know that isn't spelled right, but it's something like that, and it basically meant 'cannon master') These guys were experts at black powder / gunpowder / serpentine powder whatever you would call it back then, which is arguably as disruptive to the natural order of things as quite a bit of D&D magic is. By the time of the era of plate armor gunpowder was still thought of as a sort of a magical dirty trick, an indispensable, commonplace and almost prosaic one by that time, but one still shrouded in mystery. When the Mongols rather rudely introduced black powder weapons in 1241 it was exactly that, as a sort of magical 'dirty trick'.

By the late 14th Century when D&D style weapons and armor were coming online, black powder was much better understood in terms of how to make it and how to use it, but it was still obviously extremely dangerous and tricky to deal with. Until the advent of corned powder somewhere around the middle of the 15th Century, it also had to be mixed in the field with a mortar and pestle. Early forms of (pulveres pixidum, whatever you want to call it), would separate out into their individual components of charcoal dust, potassium nitrate (or sometimes calcium nitrate) and sulfur, whenever they were moved around like in the saddlebags of a horse. So typically the 'cannon master' and other experts who had the appropriate alchemical skills would mix it together shortly before battle. They would also assure that the powder was being handled properly as it was being distributed to gunners and so on, and take all the necessary precautions to prevent catastrophic fires or explosions. They would also inspect the guns and cannon and instruct the gunners on their proper and safe use etc.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=141

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=142

You can see many images in period artwork, like these from the Bern Chronicle (circa 1470) in which this fellow is hard at work carefully arranging the gunpowder for the cannon and the hand guns. This is obviously in the post-corned powder era and the powder is arranged in special white cloth pouches which you can see there in the boxes. These guys were experts, sometimes from the craft guilds, sometimes university trained, and would typically receive 2 or 3 times the pay of a regular soldier. I think you could put an evoker or similar magician in roughly the same social and organizational position.

Medieval armies also had another type of special expert sometimes called a 'fringeman', these were scouts, dudes like a Daniel Boone or Kit Karson type character from the early history of the United States. Often they were trappers or hunters who knew the local indigenous cultures well and had relationships with the locals, and also knew the (often very dangerous) peculiarities of the land, waterways, local flora and fauna, weather and so on and so forth. They were heavily relied on in wars in the Baltic for the annual Crusader raiding ('reysa') in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and I know equivalent men were also used by the Russians in Siberia and Karelia, by the Swedes in Finland and so on. Their knowledge was crucial for the survival of the army since it often made the difference in which side got ambushed, whether or not a fight took place on favorable ground, whether or not they ran out of water or got caught in bad weather or rising water and so forth. So that could be your scout class.

There were also slightly less professional but no less important ordinary scouts who performed the equivalent of a recon role in a modern army. The Czechs taught crossbowmen to ride captured horses during the early years of the Hussite Wars and had them riding as outliers in front, to the sides, and behind their main war columns, and I believe the Swiss did the same thing with their militias.



My main goal is verisimilitude, a feudal style military system is not at all going to be able to handle the complexity that magic (and in actually some of the mundane skills as well) brings to the battlefield. We're looking at something that would be closer to a modern organization because the complexity is similar.

I agree, verisimilitude and internal consistency are very helpful for storytelling and much easier to achieve than total realism which is sort of elusive anyway. It does help however to have the source for the reality to edit down into whatever rough approximation you want for your story (or game), because things will tend to fit together much better that way. This is what the first generation of fantasy genre writers all did, guys like Tolkein, Jack Vance, Robert E Howard etc., were all pretty well versed in history after many long hours of reading and research.

Fortunately, most medieval armies were not purely feudal but included a mix of feudal knights and their supporters, urban militias, clan armies, and organized mercenary companies and other types. All of which can be learned about in enough today pretty easily and painlessly from sources like the Osprey military books. Here are a few good ones for the "DnD era":

http://www.amazon.com/German-Medieval-Armies-1300-1500-Men-at-Arms/dp/0850456142/

http://www.amazon.com/The-Swiss-1300-1500-Men-At-Arms-Series/dp/0850453348/

http://www.amazon.com/Armies-Medieval-Burgundy-1364-1477-Series/dp/0850455189/

http://www.amazon.com/Landsknechts-Men-At-Arms-58-Douglas-Miller/dp/0850452589/

Hope that helps,


G

[Galloglaich]

...a feudal style military system is not at all going to be able to handle the complexity that magic (and in actually some of the mundane skills as well) brings to the battlefield. We're looking at something that would be closer to a modern organization because the complexity is similar.


I'd also like to address this statement specifically. What we mean by 'medieval' varies enormously in terms of the time period (anywhere from 500 AD to 1500 AD very roughly, though many other dates are used) and in terms of place - Albania to Venice isn't that far as the crow flies but it's quite a vast difference in terms of technology, social sophistication and so on.

But if you are talking about the era of plate armor, two handed swords, halberds, heavy crossbows and so on, it's a much narrower time period. Say roughly 1350-1550 or something like that. There were some fairly simple feudal armies in some parts of Europe by that time, but if you are interested in a more sophisticated army, you don't need to look very far to find one in that period. Just focus on the more technologically and economically developed parts of Europe (northern Italy, Flanders, the Rhineland, Catalonia, Bohemia etc.) and you will find all you could want and considerably more.

When you say that magic brings too much complexity to the battlefield you are talking really about a cartoon of the medieval army, you are talking about the army of Gondor from the Lord of the Rings movies, or something from Game of Thrones. Real armies of the Renaissance were actually far more complex and sophisticated than anything you would want to deal with in a DnD game, though as I said in the previous post, looking at the reality and then sort of sanding it down into a simpler shape will give you something that fits together much better than mixing in elements ad-hoc.

If you read a bit about late medieval warfare, or warfare in late Classical antiquity, for example a decent sized siege, you'll find that it's far more complex and sophisticated than anything you've ever seen portrayed in any film or read about in an fantasy genre book.


http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/a/a4/Ss_hobbit-laketown-01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140331031441

https://helenezeiler.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/venice-30.jpg


http://universes-in-universe.org/var/storage/images/media/images/biennials/brugge/city/markt_belfort/2670391-1-eng-GB/markt_belfort.jpg

We need to keep in mind that the 'medieval' we see in DnD or pathfinder or whatever isn't anywhere near the reality. It's a cartoon that we have become familiar with and prefer over the reality, partly because the reality is too hard to easily understand.

G

[AMFV]

I'd also like to address this statement specifically. What we mean by 'medieval' varies enormously in terms of the time period (anywhere from 500 AD to 1500 AD very roughly, though many other dates are used) and in terms of place - Albania to Venice isn't that far as the crow flies but it's quite a vast difference in terms of technology, social sophistication and so on.

But if you are talking about the era of plate armor, two handed swords, halberds, heavy crossbows and so on, it's a much narrower time period. Say roughly 1350-1550 or something like that. There were some fairly simple feudal armies in some parts of Europe by that time, but if you are interested in a more sophisticated army, you don't need to look very far to find one in that period. Just focus on the more technologically and economically developed parts of Europe (northern Italy, Flanders, the Rhineland, Catalonia, Bohemia etc.) and you will find all you could want and considerably more.


This is certainly true, I would argue that that plus magic, is going to be more complicated still. That's kind of what I'm looking for, is the potential effect on complexity and organization that magic might have. I don't think we'd have something like the standard organization of the military at that time, because magic is a fundamentally altering thing.

Not that I mind the stuff you guys have been sharing, it's absolutely awesome, and I plan to use a lot of it. Particularly since I'm going to be at some point contrasting a force that's organized along more standard medieval lines and a force that's organized more appropriately to deal with magic. I just need to get an idea of what a magically augmented force would look like.



When you say that magic brings too much complexity to the battlefield you are talking really about a cartoon of the medieval army, you are talking about the army of Gondor from the Lord of the Rings movies, or something from Game of Thrones. Real armies of the Renaissance were actually far more complex and sophisticated than anything you would want to deal with in a DnD game, though as I said in the previous post, looking at the reality and then sort of sanding it down into a simpler shape will give you something that fits together much better than mixing in elements ad-hoc.


Not necessarily more complex than I want to deal with. After all people write things around real warfare and they can handle that complexity. I certainly agree on the cartoon front though (Losing half your army while engaged in a three front war in a single battle and not suing for peace, or accepting terms that amount to "leave us alone", is pretty freaking absurd). I have the experience to make the complexity simple from the player's side, but I still need to have an idea what it would look like so I can simulate it effectively. Essentially I need to have an idea what the complex would be so I can produce the simplification.



If you read a bit about late medieval warfare, or warfare in late Classical antiquity, for example a decent sized siege, you'll find that it's far more complex and sophisticated than anything you've ever seen portrayed in any film or read about in an fantasy genre book.

I am going to address the other amazing stuff you've posted later, when I have more time. But I'm not actually imagining the cartoonish fantasy army type thing. I'm comparing real changes in military complexity, over time and history. Military strategy has grown infinitely more complex as a result of technology advancing. Nowadays you'd be hard-pressed to find a force where the logistical element DOESN'T significantly outnumber the actual fighting force. This is a result of the increasing complexity of technology.

I'm not saying that medieval forces weren't complex, only that magic would add a level of complexity that we really don't see till the modern era. I mean even communication alone allows for a drastic shift in complexity. I imagine that had the medieval armies had access to even a fraction of our technology they would rapidly have become more complicated as well. Basically I just need to figure out what a medieval force with magic would wind up looking like, I mean it would be approaching our modern level of complexity certainly.

[Galloglaich]

You have to keep in mind though, in some ways modern technology, for example, radios and GPS, actually make things simpler. They had to do the same kind of communication and navigation and so on 'back in the day' but they did so without the benefit of push-button instant tech. And that meant more complexity.

A lot of documented late medieval armies had substantial levels of support troops, not quite to the extent of an army today, but that was largely because medieval (and Classical etc.) troops were simply more capable. A Roman Legion could build a fortress or a bridge, harvest food from the field and make their own bread. A modern army would have specialists for all these tasks, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were a lot better at it.

But to give you an idea of the support logistics of a very small medieval force could be, here is something I've posted before in this thread, the records of a small deployment from the town of Regensburg circa 1431, during the Hussite Wars.

The force consisted of 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of 88 support personnel including smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total. So about one third support troops.

They brought 6 cannon, 300 lbs of cannonballs and 200 lbs of lead shot. Forty one wagons carried powder and lead, 6,000 crossbow bolts, 300 fire-bolts, 19 handguns, cowhides, tents, and horse fodder for six weeks. Supplies for the 248 men included ninety head of oxen, 900 lbs of cooked meat, 900 lbs of lard, 1200 pieces of cheese, 80 stock-fish, 56 lbs of uncut candles, vinegar, olive oil, pepper, saffron, ginger, 2 tuns and 73 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders.

That is from the German Medieval Armies Osprey book, I think their source was Hans Delbruck who got it from the Regensburg town archive. This doesn't tell us anything about their actual military organization but combining art from the period with documents of that type probably helps you get into the ball park quickly without even getting into any of the details of how fighting was done.


http://www.humanist.de/rome/housebook/hausbu2.gif


I agree with your premise of how you plan to handle things and of course magic is very disruptive, (especially if you include a lot of 'high magic') but so is gunpowder and any number of other things that they did figure out how to deal with in period.

I think if you invest in one or two of those Osprey books I linked you'll have almost everything you need. You are on the right track.

G

[fusilier]

That sounds very similar to modern forces which tend to involve a lot of integration of forces, between air, mechanized, and foot elements.

Yes, but modern forces don't put air, mechanized, and foot elements in the same squad. Which is what a lance is. I was thinking in terms of a roleplaying game, where the adventuring party is often quite diverse, a lance like organization could be useful. But I may have misunderstood what you were looking for.

[Carl]

The solution and explanation is that in Pathfinder magic and diverse class skills completely make up for the diversity of equipment. One might just as easily have a unit of Evoker Wizards tasked to operate like artillery (although the application would be profoundly different) as one might have a unit of diviner wizards and rogues tasked to operate like scouts.

My main goal is verisimilitude, a feudal style military system is not at all going to be able to handle the complexity that magic (and in actually some of the mundane skills as well) brings to the battlefield. We're looking at something that would be closer to a modern organization because the complexity is similar.

Also it's important to note that I'm aiming for verisimilitude over real rules (wherever that conflict exists), ergo I want to deal with logistics, more extensively than Pathfinder's rules require, since that will create a feeling of pseudo-realism for me. Also undead, constructs, and various magical creatures are likely to substantively shift tactics. I'm mostly looking for inspiration from other folks on how they think this might affect military strategy/organization etc.

The point i'm getting at is that a lot depends on the type of setting your running. unless your running one with a LOT higher average level for the population than is in anyway normal or even seen much at all the mundane classes class abilities are going to be completely overshadowed by the effects of tactics, equipment, and formation fighting technique.

Magic is the real curveball here. But that comes back to how common and how powerful it is. the idea of using a formation of mages as pseudo artillery is fine in principle. But if a nation states of a few hundred thousand only has a hundred mages it's not practical, they're too valuable to waste like that. Conversely if they're super common it's quite possible mage on mage fighting will render mundane armies entirely irellevent. It's details like this that determine how magic and the like will affect things.

[Galloglaich]

Magic is the real curveball here. But that comes back to how common and how powerful it is. the idea of using a formation of mages as pseudo artillery is fine in principle. But if a nation states of a few hundred thousand only has a hundred mages it's not practical, they're too valuable to waste like that. Conversely if they're super common it's quite possible mage on mage fighting will render mundane armies entirely irellevent. It's details like this that determine how magic and the like will affect things.

Though I see your point, I'm not sure that would necessarily be true. They used artists like Leonardi Da Vinci and Benvenutto Cellini for military purposes routinely, in spite of their similar rarity. In the Classical era "wizards" like Heron of Alexandria and Archemedes and so on were also used (to great effect!) in warfare, particularly in siege warfare.

Even Copernicus once commanded a castle in a siege defense. I think you could argue that people with those kind of skills were too valuable not to use in warfare. After all, in the medieval period even kings and other princes would fight personally.

[Galloglaich]

To give an idea of the sophistication of medieval warfare, here is an excerpt from the Kings Mirror, a 13th Century Norwegian text, consisting of advice for a young prince of the Royal family. Keep in mind Norway was nowhere near the epicenter of technology at that time, and the 13th Century was centuries before the pinnacle of medieval art of war, but the techniques listed here are more brutal, sneaky, and terrifying than anything I've ever seen in any genre film or DnD game. I highlighted some of the more amusing sections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konungs_skuggsj%C3%A1

https://archive.org/stream/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft_djvu.txt

XXXIX

MILITARY ENGINES

Son. Inasmuch as you seem to think that you have
described most of the weapons which are convenient to
have in naval warfare or in fighting on horseback, I will
now ask you to say something about those which you
think are most effective in besieging or defending castles.

Father. All the weapons that we have just discussed
as useful on ships or on horseback can also be used in
attacking and defending castles; but there are many
other kinds. If one is to attack a castle with the weapons
which I have enumerated, he will also have need of
trebuchets: a few powerful ones with which to throw
large rocks against stone walls to determine whether
they are able to resist such violent blows, and weaker
trebuchets for throwing missiles over the walls to de-
molish the houses within the castle. But if one is unable
to break down or shatter a stone wall with trebuchets,
he will have to try another engine, namely the iron-
headed ram,* for very few stone walls can withstand
its attack. If this engine fails to batter down or shake
the wall, it may be advisable to set the cat to work.

A tower raised on wheels is useful in besieging castles,
if it is constructed so that it rises above the wall which
is to be stormed, even though the difference in height
be only seven ells; but the higher it is, the more effective
it will be in attacking another tower. Scaling ladders on
wheels which may be moved backward and forward are
also useful for this purpose, if they are boarded up un-
derneath and have good ropes on both sides. And we
may say briefly about this craft, that in besieging castles
use will be found for all sorts of military engines. But
whoever wishes to join in this must be sure that he
knows precisely even to the very hour when he shall
have need for each device.

Those who have to defend a castle may also make use
of these weapons which I have now enumerated and
many more: trebuchets both large and small, hand
slings and staff slings. They will find crossbows and
other bows, too, very effective, as well as every other
type of shooting weapons, such as spears and javelins
both light and heavy. But to resist the trebuchets,
the cat, and the engine called the ram, it is well to
strengthen the entire stone wall on the inside with
large oaken timbers; though if earth and clay are plen-
tiful, these materials had better be used. Those who
have to defend castles are also in the habit of making
curtains of large oak boughs, three or even five deep,
to cover the entire wall; * and the curtain should be
thoroughly plastered with good sticky clay. To defeat
the attacks of the ram, men have sometimes filled large
bags with hay or straw and lowered them with light
iron chains in front of the ram where it sought to pierce
the wall. It sometimes happens that the shots fall so
rapidly upon a fortress that the defenders are unable
to remain at the battlements; it is then advisable to
hang out brattices made of light planks and built high
enough to reach two ells above the openings in the para-
pet and three ells below them. They should be wide
enough to enable the men to fight with any sort of
weapons between the parapet and the brattice wall, and
they should be hung from slender beams in such a way
that they may be readily drawn in and hung out again
later, as one may wish.

The " hedgehog " will be found an effective device
in defending a castle. It is made of large, heavy beams
armed along the ridge with a brush of pointed oak nails ;
it is hung outside the parapet to be dropped on anyone
who comes too near the wall. Turnpikes made of large
heavy logs armed with sharp teeth of hard oak may be
raised on end near the battlements and kept ready to
be dropped upon those who approach the castle. An-
other good device is the " briar," * which is made of
good iron and has curved thorns as hard as steel with
a barb on every thorn; and the chain, from which it
hangs, as high up as a man can reach must be made of
spiked links, so that it can be neither held nor hewn;
higher up any kind of rope that seems suitable may be
used, only, it must be firm and strong. This briar is
thrown down among the enemy in the hope of catching
one or more of them and then it is pulled up again. A
" running wheel " is also a good weapon for those who
defend castles: it is made of two millstones with an
axle of tough oak joining them. Planks sloping down-
ward are laid out through the openings in the wall; the
wheel is rolled out upon these and then down upon the
enemy.
A " shot wagon " is also a good device. This is made
like any other wagon with two or four wheels as one
likes and is intended to carry a load of stones, hot or
cold as one may prefer. It must also be provided with
two firm and strong chains, one on each side, which can
be depended on to check the wagon even where it has
a long track to run upon. It is meant to run on planks
set with a downward slope, but one must be careful to
keep the wheels from skidding off the planks. When the
chains check the speed, the wagon shoots its load out
upon the men below. The more uneven the stones are,
some large and some small, the more effective the load
will be. Canny men, who are set to defend a wall and
wish to throw rocks down upon the attacking line or
upon the penthouse, make these rocks of clay with
pebbles, slingstones, and other hard stones placed in-
side. The clay is burned hard enough on the outside to
endure the flight while the load is being thrown; but as
soon as the rocks fall they break into fragments and
consequently cannot be hurled back again. To break
down stone walls, however, large, hard rocks are re-
quired. Similarly, when one hurls missiles from a stone
fortress against an opposing wooden tower or upon the
axletrees which support siege engines, towers, scaling
ladders, cats, or any other engine on wheels, the larger
and harder the rocks that are used, the more effective
they will be.

Boiling water, molten glass, and molten lead are also
useful in defending walls.* But if a cat or any other
covered engine which cannot be damaged by hot water
is being pushed toward a castle, it is a good plan, if the
engine is lower than the walls, to provide beams care-
fully shod with iron underneath and in addition armed
with large, sharp, red-hot plowshares. These are to be
thrown down upon the wooden engine in which the
plowshares are likely to stick fast, while the beams may
be hoisted up again. This attack should be followed up
with pitch, sulphur, or boiling tar.*

Mines dug in the neighborhood of a castle are also
an excellent protection; the deeper and narrower they
are, the better it is; and where men are shoving mounted
engines toward the walls, it were well if there were many
mines. All mines should have a number of small open-
ings, which must be covered so as not to be visible on the
surface. They should be filled with fuel of the most in-
flammable sort, peat or anything else that burns readily.

When a castle is attacked at night either from wooden
towers or with scaling ladders or any other engine on
wheels, the defenders should steal out and fire the
mines,

Now if it should happen that the enemy's stones
come over the battlements with such violence that the
men cannot remain in the open to defend the wall, it is
a good plan to set up strong posts cut from thick oak
and to lay large and tough cross beams upon these,
then to roof the whole over with firm oak timbers, and
finally to cover the roofing with a layer of earth not less
than three or four ells in depth, upon which the rocks
may be allowed to drop.

[This one might have been useful in the Lord of the Rings... ;) ]

A wooden tower that is moving toward a castle may be
foiled by setting up strong, firm posts rising consider-
ably higher than the attacking tower. But a more effec-
tive contrivance than all the engines that I have now
described is a stooping shield-giant which breathes forth
flame and fire.*

And now we shall close our account of
the engines that are useful in defending castle walls with
the reminder that every sort of weapon with which one
can shoot, hurl, hew, or thrust, and every kind that
can be used in attack or defense may be brought into
service.

[Galloglaich]

I should stipulate that I have no idea what a 'stooping shield-giant which breathes forth flame and fire' is.

But it sounds awesome.

[Tiktakkat]

Yes, but modern forces don't put air, mechanized, and foot elements in the same squad. Which is what a lance is.

That sort of depends on the particular squad, and is less true just one level up, and completely negated two levels up.

An infantry squad contains indirect fire and anti-tank elements in addition to the basic small arms.
A mechanized section adds a vehicle which provides direct fire artillery.
A mechanized platoon usually adds anti-air.
All you need is a minor specialist upgrade to get a light, civilian-class, scout drone and you've got the air element at any level of that.

Throw enough money and trade-offs around and you can squeeze that drone into the vehicle, which could be capable of amphibious movement, and you've got air, water, and mechanized elements in a single vehicle "squad". Team it up with a foot squad, and the section is foot/mechanized/amphibious, with air surveillance, direct and indirect artillery, anti-air and anti-tank missiles, and close combat small arms.


More generally for the whole concept, I think the comparison between mundane and magical armies depends on two factors:
1. How much money can you throw at the problem
2. How much magic are you talking about

For the first, particularly comparing it to modern armies, as long as you are willing to go 10-50K gp to equip every soldier, though keeping individual items under a cap of 1-2K gp each, you are going to wind up with a prime demonstration of Foglio's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law. (Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Foglio: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.)

For the second, much like more general "balance", it depends on what level spells you throw about. Cap it at level 3 and you have basic gunpowder proxies, with an extra of reducing, possibly eliminating, logistics. Levels 4-6 are early 20th century WMDs, and should probably be saved for "champion battles" within the larger battlefield conflict. (I recall Gygax describing a battle with a note to the effect that the "higher level types" essentially negated each other in terms of overall effect.) Levels 7 and above are full on sci-fi ultra-tech destroyers, which should generally make mass warfare obsolete outside of armies of outsiders and elementals.

[Carl]

Though I see your point, I'm not sure that would necessarily be true. They used artists like Leonardi Da Vinci and Benvenutto Cellini for military purposes routinely, in spite of their similar rarity. In the Classical era "wizards" like Heron of Alexandria and Archemedes and so on were also used (to great effect!) in warfare, particularly in siege warfare.

Even Copernicus once commanded a castle in a siege defense. I think you could argue that people with those kind of skills were too valuable not to use in warfare. After all, in the medieval period even kings and other princes would fight personally.

I meant more they're too uncommon to sue as a common battlefield artillery analogue. Not too valuable to use at all.


For the second, much like more general "balance", it depends on what level spells you throw about. Cap it at level 3 and you have basic gunpowder proxies, with an extra of reducing, possibly eliminating, logistics. Levels 4-6 are early 20th century WMDs, and should probably be saved for "champion battles" within the larger battlefield conflict. (I recall Gygax describing a battle with a note to the effect that the "higher level types" essentially negated each other in terms of overall effect.) Levels 7 and above are full on sci-fi ultra-tech destroyers, which should generally make mass warfare obsolete outside of armies of outsiders and elementals.

You don't even have to go to that degree. Magic Missile is arguably about as nasty as early muskets in damage potential and has a much greater effective range. Especially given D&D does not normally simulate what happens to misses. Ranged touch attacks are represented as being effectively point at target and send. Thus even a one eyed hunchback with terrible vision can get reliable hits against mass formations. But the range at which it functions, (110ft base), is so much greater than the range at which musket fire could achieve that kind of accuracy, (it could get hits as every discussion had here is keen to re-iterate). Get to fireball and you have a modern artillery shell.

[Beleriphon]

I'm not saying that medieval forces weren't complex, only that magic would add a level of complexity that we really don't see till the modern era. I mean even communication alone allows for a drastic shift in complexity. I imagine that had the medieval armies had access to even a fraction of our technology they would rapidly have become more complicated as well. Basically I just need to figure out what a medieval force with magic would wind up looking like, I mean it would be approaching our modern level of complexity certainly.

Oh geez, could you imagine the Knights Templar with effectively instant communications via satellite?



A wooden tower that is moving toward a castle may be
foiled by setting up strong, firm posts rising consider-
ably higher than the attacking tower. But a more effec-
tive contrivance than all the engines that I have now
described is a stooping shield-giant which breathes forth
flame and fire.* [/I]

Is that really suggesting that if you can find a fire breathing giant to hire him instead of throwing rocks, mill stones tied together or "hedgehogs"? Because if it is that is a totally Nordic answer to a very serious problem.

[Incanur]

Magic Missile is arguably about as nasty as early muskets in damage potential and has a much greater effective range. Especially given D&D does not normally simulate what happens to misses. Ranged touch attacks are represented as being effectively point at target and send. Thus even a one eyed hunchback with terrible vision can get reliable hits against mass formations. But the range at which it functions, (110ft base), is so much greater than the range at which musket fire could achieve that kind of accuracy, (it could get hits as every discussion had here is keen to re-iterate).

Hit point damage in general and magic missile specifically don't easily translate to the real world. A single 3.x magic missile deals 3.5 damage on average and 5 at the most, so it''ll only kill beings with extremely low hp. The same being have trouble with cats. It's doubtful level-1 commoners with 2-3hp are meaningfully equivalent to historical soldiers.

As far range goes, I strongly suspect quality 16th-century and later muskets shot with decent accuracy beyond 37 yards in battlefield conditions. Folks certainly shot at targets at much greater ranges. (By the early 19th century, Col. George Hanger gave 80-100 yards as musket range for individual targets (http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/).)

[fusilier]

Hit point damage in general and magic missile specifically don't easily translate to the real world. A single 3.x magic missile deals 3.5 damage on average and 5 at the most, so it''ll only kill beings with extremely low hp. The same being have trouble with cats. It's doubtful level-1 commoners with 2-3hp are meaningfully equivalent to historical soldiers.

As far range goes, I strongly suspect quality 16th-century and later muskets shot with decent accuracy beyond 37 yards in battlefield conditions. Folks certainly shot at targets at much greater ranges. (By the early 19th century, Col. George Hanger gave 80-100 yards as musket range for individual targets (http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/).)

I think what he meant was that, because of the way magic missile works, the percentage of hits within that range would be very high when compared to a musket. Not that a musket would be ineffectual within that range. However, it could be that I don't understand how magic missile works . . .

EDIT -- however, 37 yards is also within multiple projectile range for a musket.

[Mr Beer]

Magic missiles have a 100% hit rate (they auto-wound within range vs. anything without special immunities), not sure how that compares to muskets but I think that advantage makes up for a great deal of damage inferiority.

[AMFV]

You have to keep in mind though, in some ways modern technology, for example, radios and GPS, actually make things simpler. They had to do the same kind of communication and navigation and so on 'back in the day' but they did so without the benefit of push-button instant tech. And that meant more complexity.

Note really. What you see comparing medieval tactics to modern, is that medieval tactics were less sophisticated, because of necessity, the thing that really allows modern tactics (entire armies moving to flank, engulfing maneuvers) is rapid communications, without those the more complex your tactics are, the less adaptive they become.



A lot of documented late medieval armies had substantial levels of support troops, not quite to the extent of an army today, but that was largely because medieval (and Classical etc.) troops were simply more capable. A Roman Legion could build a fortress or a bridge, harvest food from the field and make their own bread. A modern army would have specialists for all these tasks, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were a lot better at it.

Again, not to defend the modern military again (although I will since that's my own area of experience), we are a lot better at many logistical tasks than a medieval army. Modern soldiers could harvest food, and they can build structures and fortifications that are vastly superior to the rapidly built Roman Stockades with much less notice. Having specialized engineers and logistics specialists and cooks makes this sort of thing possible, whereas they were not.

Note, I'm not arguing that they were worse soldiers, just stating that an argument that "back in the day" soldiers were superior to modern soldiers, is probably not a great argument, it smacks of that fallacy that people have when they talk about back in the day. My experience and what I've heard talking to other soldiers (Marines as well) suggests that it has never changed, people have not fundamentally evolved outside of tactics and technology, the things that make soldiering possible: Courage, Discipline, Dedication, Innovation, those are as present now as they ever were.



But to give you an idea of the support logistics of a very small medieval force could be, here is something I've posted before in this thread, the records of a small deployment from the town of Regensburg circa 1431, during the Hussite Wars.

The force consisted of 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of 88 support personnel including smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total. So about one third support troops.

Definitely not the same level of support as today, you'd be lucky to have a force that's one-third combat arms, although that is definitely a helpful metric.



That is from the German Medieval Armies Osprey book, I think their source was Hans Delbruck who got it from the Regensburg town archive. This doesn't tell us anything about their actual military organization but combining art from the period with documents of that type probably helps you get into the ball park quickly without even getting into any of the details of how fighting was done.


The problem I would have with this is that without knowing how the fighting was done, we're kind of guestimatting. We can't say for sure how many support personnel had other duties, how many of them acted as soldiers in combat as well as support folks. But it's definitely a useful exercise I think. I'd be interested to see somebody work backwards from the logistics needed, planning essentially a campaign based on what would be needed and the tech at that time and see how closely that matches.



I agree with your premise of how you plan to handle things and of course magic is very disruptive, (especially if you include a lot of 'high magic') but so is gunpowder and any number of other things that they did figure out how to deal with in period.

I think if you invest in one or two of those Osprey books I linked you'll have almost everything you need. You are on the right track.

G

I have no doubt that they would figure out how to do it, as I said, I suspect that most modern tactical innovations would be made by earlier armies given the right tech. I'm just trying to get ideas as to how that might happen.


Yes, but modern forces don't put air, mechanized, and foot elements in the same squad. Which is what a lance is. I was thinking in terms of a roleplaying game, where the adventuring party is often quite diverse, a lance like organization could be useful. But I may have misunderstood what you were looking for.

We do actually, any squad with a Forward Observer, has command of air, mechanized, and foot elements. And they get a lot more blended. What about a squad that uses mechanized transport for mobility, it's uncommon to see a squad arrive by foot at least not in the same way as this used to happen.

I think that even if you had a squad composed of four level 1 fighters, they would have disparate roles, as I was trying to point out by discussing fireteams. When you incorporate a huge diversity of classes the problem compounds. Not that the lance thing isn't useful mind you, but I think it's possibly more simplistic than I would believe (although I would be inclined to use it for less advanced armies.


The point i'm getting at is that a lot depends on the type of setting your running. unless your running one with a LOT higher average level for the population than is in anyway normal or even seen much at all the mundane classes class abilities are going to be completely overshadowed by the effects of tactics, equipment, and formation fighting technique.

I agree, although I don't think that class abilities are going to be overshadowed by tactics, rather good tactics will utilize class abilities in ways that make them most effective. Those that don't will be worse overall and would inevitably fail.



Magic is the real curveball here. But that comes back to how common and how powerful it is. the idea of using a formation of mages as pseudo artillery is fine in principle. But if a nation states of a few hundred thousand only has a hundred mages it's not practical, they're too valuable to waste like that. Conversely if they're super common it's quite possible mage on mage fighting will render mundane armies entirely irellevent. It's details like this that determine how magic and the like will affect things.

Discussing setting is probably relative at this juncture. The scenario I'm planning, roughly, begins with an inexperienced army trying to suppress a fairly sophisticated insurgency. It will then follow with an invasion by a much more developed and sophisticated army. Finally there will be the endgame where both sides are exhausted and winding down (how to make this a challenge and interesting is another problem, although I suspect one for the 3.5 subforum)

So magic will be initially less prevalent, the army at the beginning doesn't really have a grasp on modern tactics or the effectiveness of magic. They'll be mostly utilizing wizards sparingly. As the war really ramps up both with the insurgency, and with the invasion, and soldiers grow more experienced, magic will become more common place, possibly with even large formations of wizards engaging each other. Then finally it'll wind down with only a handful of very experienced wizards remaining fighting alongside the conscriptees that are getting slaughtered as the experienced troops have fallen.

As far as level ranges, the initial space will be something like E6 or Eberron, the most dangerous military soldiers may be as high as level 6, later that median will increase (as will the the PCs), finally it'll end up with a mix of very high level and extremely low level.


To give an idea of the sophistication of medieval warfare, here is an excerpt from the Kings Mirror, a 13th Century Norwegian text, consisting of advice for a young prince of the Royal family. Keep in mind Norway was nowhere near the epicenter of technology at that time, and the 13th Century was centuries before the pinnacle of medieval art of war, but the techniques listed here are more brutal, sneaky, and terrifying than anything I've ever seen in any genre film or DnD game. I highlighted some of the more amusing sections:


That's definitely some fascinating stuff, and I would agree more brutal and sneaky and terrifying than genre films or D&D games, although I would argue not more brutal, sneaky, or terrifying than modern warfare, which is kind of my starting point.


That sort of depends on the particular squad, and is less true just one level up, and completely negated two levels up.

An infantry squad contains indirect fire and anti-tank elements in addition to the basic small arms.
A mechanized section adds a vehicle which provides direct fire artillery.
A mechanized platoon usually adds anti-air.
All you need is a minor specialist upgrade to get a light, civilian-class, scout drone and you've got the air element at any level of that.

Throw enough money and trade-offs around and you can squeeze that drone into the vehicle, which could be capable of amphibious movement, and you've got air, water, and mechanized elements in a single vehicle "squad". Team it up with a foot squad, and the section is foot/mechanized/amphibious, with air surveillance, direct and indirect artillery, anti-air and anti-tank missiles, and close combat small arms.


That sounds like a gator, although those suck.



More generally for the whole concept, I think the comparison between mundane and magical armies depends on two factors:
1. How much money can you throw at the problem
2. How much magic are you talking about


The money I hadn't thought directly about, which is a very good point. I would say that I would limit it to standard NPC wealth, although that could be divvied up around the entire force as needed. I addressed the degree of magic earlier in this very long response.



For the first, particularly comparing it to modern armies, as long as you are willing to go 10-50K gp to equip every soldier, though keeping individual items under a cap of 1-2K gp each, you are going to wind up with a prime demonstration of Foglio's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law. (Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Foglio: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.)

For the second, much like more general "balance", it depends on what level spells you throw about. Cap it at level 3 and you have basic gunpowder proxies, with an extra of reducing, possibly eliminating, logistics. Levels 4-6 are early 20th century WMDs, and should probably be saved for "champion battles" within the larger battlefield conflict. (I recall Gygax describing a battle with a note to the effect that the "higher level types" essentially negated each other in terms of overall effect.) Levels 7 and above are full on sci-fi ultra-tech destroyers, which should generally make mass warfare obsolete outside of armies of outsiders and elementals.

I'm not sure that's strictly true, high level characters are extremely dangerous, but they are also the most likely to be targeted, making their usage probably more limited in terms of a strategic perspective. Mostly what I'm trying to do is kind of get a picture of what an evolving military force would look like in terms of magic.


Oh geez, could you imagine the Knights Templar with effectively instant communications via satellite?


Which is exactly what I'm trying to do. And trying to get help with.

[Mr. Mask]

If the USA had a large minority population of gnolls during WW2, and the government was hoping to draft some or utilize volunteers, how would they go about incorporating them into the army? To give a more specific definition of the gnolls, picture the biggest dog you've had to dealt with, possibly a mean sucker, except now he can shoot you if you make him cross.

To give another example, they have a mixture of animal and human psychology. They have a lot of hyena-like behaviours, but they have human levels of intelligence. Most of them are highly unorganized and ill disciplined due to their background, and they seem to have almost no loyalty to the cause (many of them couldn't tell you where Europe was on the map, much less Germany). On the bright side, they're big, tough, sneaky, can eat week old carrion, and can see in the dark really well.

Would there be any hope for a modern army sorting out that lot to be useful for military application, or would it be barking up the wrong tree?

[AMFV]

If the USA had a large minority population of gnolls during WW2, and the government was hoping to draft some or utilize volunteers, how would they go about incorporating them into the army? To give a more specific definition of the gnolls, picture the biggest dog you've had to dealt with, possibly a mean sucker, except now he can shoot you if you make him cross.

To give another example, they have a mixture of animal and human psychology. They have a lot of hyena-like behaviours, but they have human levels of intelligence. Most of them are highly unorganized and ill disciplined due to their background, and they seem to have almost no loyalty to the cause (many of them couldn't tell you where Europe was on the map, much less Germany). On the bright side, they're big, tough, sneaky, can eat week old carrion, and can see in the dark really well.

Would there be any hope for a modern army sorting out that lot to be useful for military application, or would it be barking up the wrong tree?

Well a lot would depend on who they were at war against. I guarantee you that there would be Gnollish units if we weren't at war with the Gnolls. A good comparison might be British or German units that they took from native populations and incorporated them, using native tactics. Basically this would allow the gnolls to use their best attributes as well as allowing them to not have to interact with humans. I think there were a few German Units in World War 2 that did this, and certainly many British Units throughout their history that did.

Edit: Kind of a Gunga Gnoll type thing.

[Carl]

Hit point damage in general and magic missile specifically don't easily translate to the real world. A single 3.x magic missile deals 3.5 damage on average and 5 at the most, so it''ll only kill beings with extremely low hp. The same being have trouble with cats. It's doubtful level-1 commoners with 2-3hp are meaningfully equivalent to historical soldiers.

Yes and no. In the real world my understanding is that a hit from a musket was often seriously injuring and even disabling, but could take hours to kill it's target. D&D has no category that properly represents that. You jump from fine to "about to die in a few minutes" pretty much instantly, until stabilized, at which point unless attacked they'll be fine again given enough time. The closest D&D has to the real world is very low on hitpoints. And magic missile is largely enough to do that.



The money I hadn't thought directly about, which is a very good point. I would say that I would limit it to standard NPC wealth

If the army is a formal organised thing put together by the nation state the resources available to equip each soldier will far outstrip NPC wealth levels. If it's a feudal lord and his soldier than it will be more variable on a man by man basis, but certainly the Lord would again far outstri it. Mercenaries would probably sit somewhere in the middle.

I'm sure gallioch can talk in greater detail about his.

Also remember that historically how expensive something was, was highly variable. It's been pointed out here repeatedly just how common high quality, (somthing else D&D does not represent), plate mail became at certain times.



Discussing setting is probably relative at this juncture. The scenario I'm planning, roughly, begins with an inexperienced army trying to suppress a fairly sophisticated insurgency. It will then follow with an invasion by a much more developed and sophisticated army. Finally there will be the endgame where both sides are exhausted and winding down (how to make this a challenge and interesting is another problem, although I suspect one for the 3.5 subforum)

So magic will be initially less prevalent, the army at the beginning doesn't really have a grasp on modern tactics or the effectiveness of magic. They'll be mostly utilizing wizards sparingly. As the war really ramps up both with the insurgency, and with the invasion, and soldiers grow more experienced, magic will become more common place, possibly with even large formations of wizards engaging each other. Then finally it'll wind down with only a handful of very experienced wizards remaining fighting alongside the conscripts that are getting slaughtered as the experienced troops have fallen.

As far as level ranges, the initial space will be something like E6 or Eberron, the most dangerous military soldiers may be as high as level 6, later that median will increase (as will the the PCs), finally it'll end up with a mix of very high level and extremely low level.

Since i know neither setting in detail i can't really make anything of the level range stuff. Just remember, once you get a modest number of 5th level or above wizards/sorcerer's, mundane infantry and most magical users of lesser level become irellevent. Fireball alone can trivially decimate an entire packed formation, and it's not even the worst you can do.

But for the rest.

It's not that simple. Magic can't just be sitting there as a nebulous something. It has to exist and be a part of society, and if it's on such a large scale that you can draft it for large scale military units then two questions arise.

1. What is the magic doing all this time and what are its effects on society, (and what are the effects on society when large amounts of it go off to fight).

2. Why has it taken so long for the military to pay interest. Militaries are conservative, not stupid. If large scale magic has been around for several decades then large scale magical formations will be a thing by now.

[AMFV]

Yes and no. In the real world my understanding is that a hit from a musket was often seriously injuring and even disabling, but could take hours to kill it's target. D&D has no category that properly represents that. You jump from fine to "about to die in a few minutes" pretty much instantly, until stabilized, at which point unless attacked they'll be fine again given enough time. The closest D&D has to the real world is very low on hitpoints. And magic missile is largely enough to do that.


True, although one can include descriptions of wounded soldiers and what-not as part of verisimilitude. I don't think that adding a wound system is something I would go with though, since I generally don't like those in gameplay (although in terms of realism it's much closer). So I would agree that magic missiles would be useful.



If the army is a formal organised thing put together by the nation state the resources available to equip each soldier will far outstrip NPC wealth levels. If it's a feudal lord and his soldier than it will be more variable on a man by man basis, but certainly the Lord would again far outstri it. Mercenaries would probably sit somewhere in the middle.

I'm sure gallioch can talk in greater detail about his.

Also remember that historically how expensive something was, was highly variable. It's been pointed out here repeatedly just how common high quality, (somthing else D&D does not represent), plate mail became at certain times.


Well we're more going for a variant of D&D than true historical realism, since true historical realism is best represented by other systems.




Since i know neither setting in detail i can't really make anything of the level range stuff. Just remember, once you get a modest number of 5th level or above wizards/sorcerer's, mundane infantry and most magical users of lesser level become irellevent. Fireball alone can trivially decimate an entire packed formation, and it's not even the worst you can do.


Well the setting is still in development, the level range stuff has more to do with campaign shifts than anything. I think that all that the ability of fireball to decimate packed formations would result in, is what Artillery development resulted in, packed formations would become less common. Also you have to remember that the Infantry types are leveling up along with the wizarding types, at least at the midpoint of the campaign.



But for the rest.

It's not that simple. Magic can't just be sitting there as a nebulous something. It has to exist and be a part of society, and if it's on such a large scale that you can draft it for large scale military units then two questions arise.

1. What is the magic doing all this time and what are its effects on society, (and what are the effects on society when large amounts of it go off to fight).


Definitely a viable point. I'll have to work on that as I develop things more fully, I may have a better answer for you shortly.



2. Why has it taken so long for the military to pay interest. Militaries are conservative, not stupid. If large scale magic has been around for several decades then large scale magical formations will be a thing by now.

Well the military in question is one that's firmly rooted in the past. They haven't had a major war (or any large scale engagements) in the past two-hundred years, very few of their senior officers have any combat experience, certainly few of the senior enlisted. At the beginning the impact of the nobility has significantly altered warfare. They've essentially altered it to better fit a medieval fantasy idea (rather than a realistic medieval army), as such it's grown closer to what one might see in books and movies than anything that would be practical.

The other militaries are an insurgency, which won't have widespread access to magic, since they're mostly more impoverished. They will still have some access, and they will use it repeatedly, but they aren't going to be fielding widespread magic units.

The last military is a highly advanced military that knows magical tactics, and is going to initially wipe the floor with the first military. Think Nazi Germany rolling over the Soviet Union (or at least that's what I'm going for).

So I have three forces I'm trying to conceptualize. A fantasy army, with little experience, and how it develops as they get their behinds handed to them first by an insurgency of woodcutters and then an extremely advanced military. An insurgency (mostly manned by foresters and woodcutters, who are upset about taxation), and an extremely advanced well organized and veteran military.

[ExLibrisMortis]

An inexperienced fantasy army might go through the same phases as an inexperienced 3.5 player. That is:

1) Fireball is amazing, carpet-bomb all the things!
2) Wait, buffs and debuffs are way better, I can get +4 everything all day now!
3) Wait, why cast spells when you can get your minions to do it? Summoning all the way!
4) My minions can summon minions. INFINITE POWER IS MINE!

... some time later...

5) This sucks, I don't know what to do or how anything works. Where's my 123456789th solar angel again? Let's just go back to finite power, okay?


Step 5 is best achieved through divine repercussions, or maybe an administrative error in the summoning chain that blows up half the world, or something.

[AMFV]

An inexperienced fantasy army might go through the same phases as an inexperienced 3.5 player. That is:

1) Fireball is amazing, carpet-bomb all the things!
2) Wait, buffs and debuffs are way better, I can get +4 everything all day now!
3) Wait, why cast spells when you can get your minions to do it? Summoning all the way!
4) My minions can summon minions. INFINITE POWER IS MINE!

... some time later...

5) This sucks, I don't know what to do or how anything works. Where's my 123456789th solar angel again? Let's just go back to finite power, okay?


Step 5 is best achieved through divine repercussions, or maybe an administrative error in the summoning chain that blows up half the world, or something.

I'd rather avoid absolute TO exercises, since those become so absurd as to be ridiculous, and also because those see play at very few tables I'm more looking for a reasonable middle ground, on that front at least.

[Carl]

Well the military in question is one that's firmly rooted in the past. They haven't had a major war (or any large scale engagements) in the past two-hundred years, very few of their senior officers have any combat experience, certainly few of the senior enlisted. At the beginning the impact of the nobility has significantly altered warfare. They've essentially altered it to better fit a medieval fantasy idea (rather than a realistic medieval army), as such it's grown closer to what one might see in books and movies than anything that would be practical.

The other militaries are an insurgency, which won't have widespread access to magic, since they're mostly more impoverished. They will still have some access, and they will use it repeatedly, but they aren't going to be fielding widespread magic units.

The last military is a highly advanced military that knows magical tactics, and is going to initially wipe the floor with the first military. Think Nazi Germany rolling over the Soviet Union (or at least that's what I'm going for).

So I have three forces I'm trying to conceptualize. A fantasy army, with little experience, and how it develops as they get their behinds handed to them first by an insurgency of woodcutters and then an extremely advanced military. An insurgency (mostly manned by foresters and woodcutters, who are upset about taxation), and an extremely advanced well organized and veteran military.

It sounds like you going with a more feudal system. In that respect i strongly recommend you look at the french nobles and the crossbow situation. they tried to have it banned but despite that missile weapon in no way disappeared from french armies. If it works no amount of noble pressure will get rid of it. Necessity and invention and all that.

Also if you've got a bunch of powerful nobles. Why haven't they spent the past 2 centuries fighting amongst themselves. A large part of what drove medieval wars was fights between various lesser vassals. The modern era is actually the most peaceful the world has known, both in local and worldwide senses. And a large part of that is arguably down to fewer players driving things along.


Also bear in mind the soviets had very nearly everything they needed to beat the germans back when they invaded. It was inept leadership that created their issues. If your army is so outclassed in "equipment" terms, (if we can call magic users that :p), then that army is dead and so is it's nation state. Carrying through a complete replacement of your entire military force in the middle of a war your decisively losing whilst simultaneously developing doctrine for the use thereof simply isn't something you can do in the middle of a war for survival. You can afford to have weak points, (like the soviet's lack of good leadership, or the western allies woefully inadequate understanding of how modern armour had altered the nature of land warfare), but you have to have something that can hold the line long enough for the reforms to be carried through.



Well the setting is still in development, the level range stuff has more to do with campaign shifts than anything. I think that all that the ability of fireball to decimate packed formations would result in, is what Artillery development resulted in, packed formations would become less common. Also you have to remember that the Infantry types are leveling up along with the wizarding types, at least at the midpoint of the campaign.

Doesn't matter. An average 5th level barbarian is still dead in two fireballs and since those 2 fireballs can wipe out dozens of men. It's like having a machine gun. A couple of wizards can do the work of dozens or hundreds of normal men. Also cannon didn't make massed formations go away at all. Whilst it was allready in progress to some limited degree, (as brought up here recently), the use of massed formations didn't totally get knocked on the head till after the slaughter of WW1. Which is probably a point worth considering. Just because they'd be helpless in the face of the wizards doesn't mean people wouldn't try if they have no experience, but anyone with experiance, (like your invaders), will have allready worked through this.

Basically my point is though that unless the ratio of 5th level wizards to 5th level mundanes is somewhere in the hundred to one range in favour of mundanes. The wizards can make the mundanes irellevent.

[AMFV]

It sounds like you going with a more feudal system. In that respect i strongly recommend you look at the french nobles and the crossbow situation. they tried to have it banned but despite that missile weapon in no way disappeared from french armies. If it works no amount of noble pressure will get rid of it. Necessity and invention and all that.

Not quite a feudal system, more like a standard fantasy Kitchen sink system. Naturally once war were declared military expediency wins out. The reason that it hasn't is that the army is presently mostly for show, it marches and suppresses riots and small scale rebellions and does things to show off the power of the kingdom, which is actually a lot less. So very much like the Soviet Army in the 30s. Albeit that Army, supposing that era had dragged on for generations.



Also if you've got a bunch of powerful nobles. Why haven't they spent the past 2 centuries fighting amongst themselves. A large part of what drove medieval wars was fights between various lesser vassals. The modern era is actually the most peaceful the world has known, both in local and worldwide senses. And a large part of that is arguably down to fewer players driving things along.

I would strongly argue that point, in the modern era we have had some of the highest casualty wars known to man (World Wars 1 and 2 were both in that era), we have also had nearly continual war. Look at the Pax Romana, long periods of peace were not unheard of throughout history, they never last, but they have happened.

In this case we have a strong monarchy, and the nobility is not really that involved in terms of war. We don't have a true feudal system, in the sense that the military reports to the monarchy. The long



Also bear in mind the soviets had very nearly everything they needed to beat the germans back when they invaded. It was inept leadership that created their issues. If your army is so outclassed in "equipment" terms, (if we can call magic users that :p), then that army is dead and so is it's nation state. Carrying through a complete replacement of your entire military force in the middle of a war your decisively losing whilst simultaneously developing doctrine for the use thereof simply isn't something you can do in the middle of a war for survival. You can afford to have weak points, (like the soviet's lack of good leadership, or the western allies woefully inadequate understanding of how modern armour had altered the nature of land warfare), but you have to have something that can hold the line long enough for the reforms to be carried through.


You are factually incorrect here. The Soviet army was VASTLY outclassed. The German's had total air superiority for over a year, the Germans had total mobility superiority for slightly less than that. The German's had vastly superior tactics, and equipment. The Russians had numbers and lots of land, and that bought them enough time.

Probably I'm going for rough terrain and land being the deciding factor. Although I've not completely decided on that. Also the Army won't be completely outclassed anymore, since they will have been fighting the insurgency for some time, they'll just be not as effective as they would have been. So initially completely outclassed, as the Russians were, and then later on they'll start to get their own.

To return to the World War 2, example, the only real reason the German's lost was strategic ineptitude on a colossal scale, they had the advantage of surprise and mobility. But repeated drastic strategic plunders cost them the war, and then the Russians started to catch up technologically and tactically, and they had vast manpower, and factories that the German's hadn't been able to touch. (Of course it's possible that even if the Germans had made it through the main area of Russia, that the USSR would have still been able to mount a defense, since they have land going back much further).



Doesn't matter. An average 5th level barbarian is still dead in two fireballs and since those 2 fireballs can wipe out dozens of men. It's like having a machine gun. A couple of wizards can do the work of dozens or hundreds of normal men. Also cannon didn't make massed formations go away at all. Whilst it was allready in progress to some limited degree, (as brought up here recently), the use of massed formations didn't totally get knocked on the head till after the slaughter of WW1. Which is probably a point worth considering. Just because they'd be helpless in the face of the wizards doesn't mean people wouldn't try if they have no experience, but anyone with experiance, (like your invaders), will have allready worked through this.


Certainly, but military tactics also frequently evolve rapidly. World War 1 was the first time that real modern Artillery was utilized, there had been huge advances in terms of artillery and in terms of tanks and armor, which nobody really accounted for. But they did adapt (trenches and all) and they did stop using massed formation during the war.



Basically my point is though that unless the ratio of 5th level wizards to 5th level mundanes is somewhere in the hundred to one range in favour of mundanes. The wizards can make the mundanes irellevent.


[QUOTE=Carl;20240834]
Not really Artillery didn't make infantry irrelevant, for a variety of reasons. Artillery will of course want to target other artillery, Wizards are going to try to focus on enemy wizards, so exposing yourself to kill a few footsoldiers (who are spread out) is not necessarily going to be worth it. You'd need to be strategic rather than simply blunt force, less the wizard gets killed by the other wizards.

[fusilier]

We do actually, any squad with a Forward Observer, has command of air, mechanized, and foot elements. And they get a lot more blended. What about a squad that uses mechanized transport for mobility, it's uncommon to see a squad arrive by foot at least not in the same way as this used to happen.

I think that even if you had a squad composed of four level 1 fighters, they would have disparate roles, as I was trying to point out by discussing fireteams. When you incorporate a huge diversity of classes the problem compounds. Not that the lance thing isn't useful mind you, but I think it's possibly more simplistic than I would believe (although I would be inclined to use it for less advanced armies.

Using transport, or being able to call upon other forces, isn't the same as having those forces in the same unit.

Do modern squads consist of a pilot, two riflemen, a tank-driver, and an artilleryman?

Interoperability is different from organizational structure.

EDIT-- see explanation is post below.

[Incanur]

Yes and no. In the real world my understanding is that a hit from a musket was often seriously injuring and even disabling, but could take hours to kill it's target. D&D has no category that properly represents that. You jump from fine to "about to die in a few minutes" pretty much instantly, until stabilized, at which point unless attacked they'll be fine again given enough time. The closest D&D has to the real world is very low on hitpoints. And magic missile is largely enough to do that.

The differences are so profound that it's basically up to the translator to interpret what magic missile would mean in the real world or even in a vaguely realistic fantasy setting. In any case, a single magic missile on its own literally can't ever incapacitate a small dog (6hp) in 3.5 D&D: 0% chance. A warhorse (30hp) would require at least six magic missiles to drop. That's not equivalent to a musket. Musket wounding dynamics are far from simple, but instantaneous and quick stops of both humans and horses certainly happened a decent percentage of the time. Even the smaller muskets inflicted serious wound cavities at close range, and heavy muskets were like hand cannons.

[fusilier]

Here's the major point about the lance that I'm trying to get across:

It's not (necessarily) a tactical unit -- it's more of a logistical unit.* The members of the lance would eat together, travel together, camp together, look after each others horses, draw pay as a unit, etc. Later armies might describe them as a "mess". However, they wouldn't fight side-by-side (although they might in some cases). When you have an heavily armed/armored cavalryman in the same lance as a foot pikemen, tactically you can't really deploy them in the same formation. They might be deployed in formations that supported each other, but they wouldn't be fighting, literally, along side each other.

On the battlefield similar troops would be grouped together: heavy cavalry would form up separate from the infantry. So the lance (squad) was effectively split up when deployed for a battle.

That's quite different from modern military practice where tactical formations and organizational formations are basically one and the same. Yes, you might have a some sort of mechanized transport, for a rifle squad, or reinforce them with a heavy weapons team, etc. But they're not part of the same squad.

Perhaps, ironically, modern military squads are more likely to call up someone from a different organization while on the battlefield. Like attaching an artillery forward observer to a rifle platoon, or sending an armored fighting vehicle to deploy a squad of riflemen.

---------------
If your interest is only in how they would fight/organize themselves on the battlefield then you can ignore the lance as a model -- it's not a model for that.

However, if you are interested in how the soldiers lived, in a day-to-day fashion, then understanding the lance might be useful to you.

*For small level skirmishes and patrols they might find themselves together in a tactical situation.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'd rather avoid absolute TO exercises, since those become so absurd as to be ridiculous, and also because those see play at very few tables I'm more looking for a reasonable middle ground, on that front at least.
That's... not what I was talking about. You can skip step 4 (and then 5), but the point stands. Direct damage spells are not the reason you want a wizard army, impressive though a fireball might look on the short term. As an army new to magical warfare, you might think burning your enemy to ash might be the way to go, until you find out that there are a lot more targets in a battle than there are spells in a low-mid level wizard's daily allotment. You're much better off throwing long-lasting BFC, summons (planar ally, planar binding) and buffs/debuffs (necromancy fear escalation might be good).

[Mike_G]

Using transport, or being able to call upon other forces, isn't the same as having those forces in the same unit.

Do modern squads consist of a pilot, two riflemen, a tank-driver, and an artilleryman?

Interoperability is different from organizational structure.

EDIT-- see explanation is post below.

But a modern squad would have several fireteams, each with a rifleman, machine gunner (SAW gunner, but same thing) and genadier. And the squad might very well have medium or heavy machine gun or TOW or SMAW or mortar or engineer or sniper groups attached.

It may not be a knight, two mounted sergeants, a crossbowman and three footmen, but it's far more diverse than an 18th century line infantry company, which was everybody has a musket and bayonet, except maybe the sergeant has a partisan, and the officers have swords and pistols.

[AMFV]

Using transport, or being able to call upon other forces, isn't the same as having those forces in the same unit.

Do modern squads consist of a pilot, two riflemen, a tank-driver, and an artilleryman?

Interoperability is different from organizational structure.

EDIT-- see explanation is post below.

Not in my experience. Usually an infantry squad will work with the same few Motor-T guys all the time, they may have the same driver, ALL of the time.


Here's the major point about the lance that I'm trying to get across:

It's not (necessarily) a tactical unit -- it's more of a logistical unit.* The members of the lance would eat together, travel together, camp together, look after each others horses, draw pay as a unit, etc. Later armies might describe them as a "mess". However, they wouldn't fight side-by-side (although they might in some cases). When you have an heavily armed/armored cavalryman in the same lance as a foot pikemen, tactically you can't really deploy them in the same formation. They might be deployed in formations that supported each other, but they wouldn't be fighting, literally, along side each other.

Well the main thing is that the idea of combined warfare didn't really develop until communication developed that could facilitate it. So you would see some rough interaction between infantry and artillery, or infantry and cavalry (typically with cavalry acting as harassment or scouts), but you wouldn't see them working simultaneously, since that's exceedingly dangerous without organization and communication.

Once you have that then you basically need them to work together in a much tighter group than you had previously seen. I suspect that a more magical system would create a more complicated system. As we have in modern times.



On the battlefield similar troops would be grouped together: heavy cavalry would form up separate from the infantry. So the lance (squad) was effectively split up when deployed for a battle.

That's quite different from modern military practice where tactical formations and organizational formations are basically one and the same. Yes, you might have a some sort of mechanized transport, for a rifle squad, or reinforce them with a heavy weapons team, etc. But they're not part of the same squad.

Perhaps, ironically, modern military squads are more likely to call up someone from a different organization while on the battlefield. Like attaching an artillery forward observer to a rifle platoon, or sending an armored fighting vehicle to deploy a squad of riflemen.

Actually the Army has all of their FOs attached to Infantry at the minute (that's a recent change though). Medics are assigned to particular units. Many logistical vehicles belong to infantry units.



---------------
If your interest is only in how they would fight/organize themselves on the battlefield then you can ignore the lance as a model -- it's not a model for that.

However, if you are interested in how the soldiers lived, in a day-to-day fashion, then understanding the lance might be useful to you.

*For small level skirmishes and patrols they might find themselves together in a tactical situation.

I am interested in both, but I don't think that a medieval setting is going to be the best analog for what a highly magical army would match up to. Or how they would organize.



That's... not what I was talking about. You can skip step 4 (and then 5), but the point stands. Direct damage spells are not the reason you want a wizard army, impressive though a fireball might look on the short term. As an army new to magical warfare, you might think burning your enemy to ash might be the way to go, until you find out that there are a lot more targets in a battle than there are spells in a low-mid level wizard's daily allotment. You're much better off throwing long-lasting BFC, summons (planar ally, planar binding) and buffs/debuffs (necromancy fear escalation might be good).

I agree. Although BFC is going to ironically be less useful on many battlefields, which are large, dispersion would prevent them from being able to effect enough people. There are situations where it would be completely imperative (where you could pin or trap an enemy force), but not so useful on a large scale battlefield over terrain. I think that logistics is where Wizards are really going to shine, they make logistical actions possible that aren't even close to what we have now. (Not saying that battlefield control is going to be useless but it's going to require some study)

I also think that things like Expeditious Retreat, Invisibility, buffs would prove to be the most effective thing, although not always, since every battlefield is different, Wizards have a superb adaptability that would be extremely useful


But a modern squad would have several fireteams, each with a rifleman, machine gunner (SAW gunner, but same thing) and genadier. And the squad might very well have medium or heavy machine gun or TOW or SMAW or mortar or engineer or sniper groups attached.

It may not be a knight, two mounted sergeants, a crossbowman and three footmen, but it's far more diverse than an 18th century line infantry company, which was everybody has a musket and bayonet, except maybe the sergeant has a partisan, and the officers have swords and pistols.

I except that we would see the same level of complexity in a D&D inspired army, so I'm interested to try to figure that out, or what might be developed.

[Carl]

The soviets introduced very little equipment that was new or revolutionary, (even the T-34 wasn't arguably revolutionary in terms of how it affects how the soviets could wage war), between the germans invading and the germans being thrown back on the retreat. Yes the strategy, the tactics, the doctrine. That all evolved once stalin stopped trying to run the whole thing from the top down. But at no point did the soviets introduce an entire new branch of technology that completely altered how they could fight a war.They got better, a lot better in fact, at employing what they had. But they're never had to start literally from scratch with no idea of what they're doing or what they should do.

What your suggesting is the equivalent of throwing a napoleonic army up against the WW2 wehrmacht ground army. It doesn't matter if they can produce, (to continue the example), rifled weapons, and tanks and machine guns. They aren't going to last long enough against an enemy who can so trivially obliterate their armies to do any of that. The soviets may have been badly outclassed by the wehrmacht due to their issues. But the Wehrmacht couldn't advance willy nilly not even concerned about what the soviets might do. Thats an advantage in terms of pace of advance that is decisive, especially if you don't have someone like Hitler sabotaging things.

And again. Doesn't matter that a single wizard can only kill say a few dozen guys. If you've got enough of them it renders the normals irellevent.

Wizards with fireballs are basically the same kind of thing as the alchemical cannon we were discussing a few weeks back. What ends up happening is the big nastie's, (wizards in this case), duel it out, and then once one side win's that side sends in it's massed infantry formations covered by their wizards to crush any non-wizard stuff that may be out there. It's analogous to many modern ground operations where air superiority can make the ground troops jobs as close to trivial as war against a modern opponent gets.

@Incaur: Lets be fair here, a lot of attacks that would fell a human would fell a horse as well, but D&D makes the horse vastly tougher. A level 2 human fighter has just 11Hp's, a level 1, 5HP's.


@ExLibrisMortis: Depends low level spells don't have a lot of options that will hit mass numbers. Certainly as you move up the levels mass debuff and summon spells start to become very powerful. Buffs spells are worthless in those circumstances compared to direct damage in most cases. A dead soldiers just as dead whatever his buff's. Although again as you move up more options become available and some are exponentially more powerful on leveled troops, (con buffs especially). Exceptions in all cases exist of course, but it's not quite as cut and dried as it is for an adventuring party.

[Vitruviansquid]

If we are not going to pretend like all the classes in PF are equally powerful, I doubt any but the high tier classes would actually take the field.

[AMFV]

The soviets introduced very little equipment that was new or revolutionary, (even the T-34 wasn't arguably revolutionary in terms of how it affects how the soviets could wage war), between the germans invading and the germans being thrown back on the retreat. Yes the strategy, the tactics, the doctrine. That all evolved once stalin stopped trying to run the whole thing from the top down. But at no point did the soviets introduce an entire new branch of technology that completely altered how they could fight a war.They got better, a lot better in fact, at employing what they had. But they're never had to start literally from scratch with no idea of what they're doing or what they should do.


They advanced in excess of 50 miles every day, for days, that's essentially running through no lines at all. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet Troops surrendered. It was the tactics that evolved. That's the same scenario I'm proposing, if you were reading. There are wizards and magic users in the outdated country, just not being utilized properly. So you could have exactly the same sort of turn around.

And new tactics do require nearly complete restructuring of forces, as tactics develop organization must likewise develop.



What your suggesting is the equivalent of throwing a napoleonic army up against the WW2 wehrmacht ground army. It doesn't matter if they can produce, (to continue the example), rifled weapons, and tanks and machine guns. They aren't going to last long enough against an enemy who can so trivially obliterate their armies to do any of that. The soviets may have been badly outclassed by the wehrmacht due to their issues. But the Wehrmacht couldn't advance willy nilly not even concerned about what the soviets might do. Thats an advantage in terms of pace of advance that is decisive, especially if you don't have someone like Hitler sabotaging things.

Not at all what I suggested, I suggested an army that was not tactically well-developed. Picture a Napoleanic Army armed with machine guns and the like, with the tactics not to match, or the technology to develop that. The Wehrmacht DID advance willy-nilly, hundreds of miles in weeks, that's essentially completely ignoring Russian Resistance, this went on for most of the initial advance, which was horrifically successful, if not for Hitler, they probably would have pushed through.



And again. Doesn't matter that a single wizard can only kill say a few dozen guys. If you've got enough of them it renders the normals irellevent.


Arty and Machine guns can kill thousands of guys, infantry men aren't rendered irrelevant, there is no reason to imagine that magic would be any different until you're reaching near epic levels.



Wizards with fireballs are basically the same kind of thing as the alchemical cannon we were discussing a few weeks back. What ends up happening is the big nastie's, (wizards in this case), duel it out, and then once one side win's that side sends in it's massed infantry formations covered by their wizards to crush any non-wizard stuff that may be out there. It's analogous to many modern ground operations where air superiority can make the ground troops jobs as close to trivial as war against a modern opponent gets.


Possibly, but I would argue that this is not regularly the case. Modern wars are still won largely by infantry and ground troops. Air Superiority is a big deal, but depending on it causes a lot of issues. We haven't simply walked over the Afghans, and we've had complete air superiority since the war started. We spent years in Iraq and we had complete air superiority since that war started. The Germans in the earlier example had complete air superiority (and vastly superior tactics and a superior approach to combined forces), and they didn't win, despite having that. The Wizard may be able to kill 50 guys, but at some point (supposing equal level) he will run out of spells and die.

Attrition is a valid war tactic. Again the Soviets beat the Germans despite a vast technological and tactical gulf, so certainly a reasonable supposition that this may happen. It's taken us years to push through Afghanistan (and the Soviets before us) and they had artillery, air superiority, basically everything you would want according to doctrine. Wizards would no more be a guarantee of victory than those things were. Certainly some battles would go as you suggest, but others would not, terrain, sheer numbers, things like that would have a pretty solid bearing on things.



@ExLibrisMortis: Depends low level spells don't have a lot of options that will hit mass numbers. Certainly as you move up the levels mass debuff and summon spells start to become very powerful. Buffs spells are worthless in those circumstances compared to direct damage in most cases. A dead soldiers just as dead whatever his buff's. Although again as you move up more options become available and some are exponentially more powerful on leveled troops, (con buffs especially). Exceptions in all cases exist of course, but it's not quite as cut and dried as it is for an adventuring party.

Buff spells are not worthless. Especially not those that allow movement without detection, or speed movement, or eliminate fatigue. Those would be critical to an army, and those are all low level spells. Glitterdust or Obscuring Mist to keep people in a kill zone, those are level 2, and that's horrifically effective. Create Minor Image... that's pretty effective, and that's level 1. Invisibility (level 2), Slide (level 1). Those are things that could alter a battlefield by moving soldiers to more advantageous positions. Spider Climb, could make storming certain fortifications ridiculously easy, also low level. Low level spells are useful, but again the chief problem is that a wizard becomes a target.

A wizard takes years to train, so they would want to get rid of them. This is part of why at the end of the campaign there are less wizards with higher power, because that's more sensible as attrition wears them down.


If we are not going to pretend like all the classes in PF are equally powerful, I doubt any but the high tier classes would actually take the field.

Tiers don't work that way... They measure versatility not power. Yeah a howitzer can only do one thing, but that's thing you need. A tier 4 Hulking Hurler can only do one thing, but it does it better than even the wizards (although that's often a TO thing, and I'm trying to stray from that). Actually a battlefield makes the Tier system LESS significant. You have the ability to have other abilities by using other people, so you don't need to have one character who can do many things, specialization becomes vastly better, since you can design your strategy around it.

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm not sure if this is real world enough, but I know there's a few folks in here who know their stuff about Bows so I'm gonna ask the question that's been on my mind for a few weeks.


If you're riding on a very large relatively slow flying animal. Would it be believable to be able to shoot a bow with some level of effectiveness?


My initial thought was that it works on horseback so why not flying on a giant fictional animal? But I figured I'd pop by and see if that logic is enough for others or not.

I don't really know the quirks or limitations of using a bow while mounted either which I figure I may as well ask about here before I go on some crazy research binge, or to save myself from going one that is too bingy anyway...

[fusilier]

Well the main thing is that the idea of combined warfare didn't really develop until communication developed that could facilitate it. So you would see some rough interaction between infantry and artillery, or infantry and cavalry (typically with cavalry acting as harassment or scouts), but you wouldn't see them working simultaneously, since that's exceedingly dangerous without organization and communication.

The idea of combined arms is actually quite old, but changes in technology and tactics have meant it's constantly evolving. An interesting, although rather transitory, development were voltigeurs: Light infantry would be paired one-to-one with cavalry. The light infantry would hop on the back of a cavalryman's horse (with the cavalryman on it too), and basically be given a ride to where they needed to be, where they would jump off and skirmish with the enemy. They could also be whisked away on horseback too.



I am interested in both, but I don't think that a medieval setting is going to be the best analog for what a highly magical army would match up to. Or how they would organize.

The organization of an army is going to be highly influenced by the state apparatus that supports it. A modern style army needs a modern style state to support it.

The lance organization is more a reflection of the state's relationship with the military than the technological capabilities of warfare. It's only one aspect of that relationship too.

So let me ask you another question - what do you expect your armies to look like, at a high level?


Are they massive WW2 like armies, with millions of conscript soldiers, organized, equipped, and trained by a central authority?

Are they small medieval like armies numbering at most in the few tens of thousands? Perhaps formed from a combination of feudal obligations, militia, and mercenary forces? Often supplying their own equipment.

Are they small "Age of Enlightment" type armies -- made up of professional soldiers, trained and supported by the state?

Roman Republic citizen-soldiers?
Imperial Roman Legions?

. . .


There are many ways you can organize a military, even given the same weapon technology. I don't know too much about how the Ottoman Empire organized its military, but it seems to have been different from the European states it faced, although often the technology levels were on par.

[Vitruviansquid]

I'm not sure if this is real world enough, but I know there's a few folks in here who know their stuff about Bows so I'm gonna ask the question that's been on my mind for a few weeks.


If you're riding on a very large relatively slow flying animal. Would it be believable to be able to shoot a bow with some level of effectiveness?


My initial thought was that it works on horseback so why not flying on a giant fictional animal? But I figured I'd pop by and see if that logic is enough for others or not.

I don't really know the quirks or limitations of using a bow while mounted either which I figure I may as well ask about here before I go on some crazy research binge, or to save myself from going one that is too bingy anyway...

I don't really know of a reason why it wouldn't work. You would even have the added advantage that your aim would not be thrown off by bumps in the terrain or the rhythm of an animal's legs (which some historical horse archers adapted to by timing shots for when the horse's hooves were all in the air). If you were fighting enemies on the ground, I think you might also want something to drop on the enemy, like bags of stones or darts. Bows would be powerful with a height advantage, but they had a fire rate whereas dropping a bag of something nasty could possibly kill/wound a larger number of foes at one time.

[fusilier]

I don't really know of a reason why it wouldn't work. You would even have the added advantage that your aim would not be thrown off by bumps in the terrain or the rhythm of an animal's legs (which some historical horse archers adapted to by timing shots for when the horse's hooves were all in the air). If you were fighting enemies on the ground, I think you might also want something to drop on the enemy, like bags of stones or darts. Bows would be powerful with a height advantage, but they had a fire rate whereas dropping a bag of something nasty could possibly kill/wound a larger number of foes at one time.

If it's a winged animal, the wings might block line of sight and shooting in certain directions, depending on where the rider is seated.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think you might also want something to drop on the enemy, like bags of stones or darts. Bows would be powerful with a height advantage, but they had a fire rate whereas dropping a bag of something nasty could possibly kill/wound a larger number of foes at one time.

Oh they will definitely carry "fun" things to drop on a potentially ground bound enemy.

The bow and arrow is more for protection against other flying beasties.


The rider does sit near the front of the creature so the wings are somewhat behind them, and wouldn't be too much of an issue if they did want to shoot at things on the ground. The animal being ridden is a heron though, so it probably would rarely want to come low enough to shoot simply because the things on the ground can shoot back and I can't imagine herons being able to have much barding unless it's in a very windy location to help keep them aloft.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Hm, is this a pixie (say) riding a regular heron, or a human-sized person riding a giant heron? Because if you're letting a giant heron fly (despite the square-cube law), you might as well add some barding, or just say that the feathers are thick and strong enough to stop human-sized arrows.

[fusilier]

So let me ask you another question - what do you expect your armies to look like, at a high level?
. . .

Sorry I missed this in the long discussion:


A fantasy army, with little experience, and how it develops as they get their behinds handed to them first by an insurgency of woodcutters and then an extremely advanced military. An insurgency (mostly manned by foresters and woodcutters, who are upset about taxation), and an extremely advanced well organized and veteran military.

So we have three different types of militaries. What kind of state apparatus do they have?

Let's start with the fantasy army:
How is it organized and maintained? Looking at historical examples, most permanent troops were effectively mercenaries. Hired as entire units, or hired individually (very common for garrison troops). However, if looking at 15th century Italy, there's actually several different ways mercenary forces could be employed in peace-time.

Or are they organized more like an Enlightment age army (18th century). Regiments whose number and size is fixed by the state, with relatively uniform training and equipment?

Something else?

[AMFV]

Sorry I missed this in the long discussion:



So we have three different types of militaries. What kind of state apparatus do they have?

Let's start with the fantasy army:
How is it organized and maintained? Looking at historical examples, most permanent troops were effectively mercenaries. Hired as entire units, or hired individually (very common for garrison troops). However, if looking at 15th century Italy, there's actually several different ways mercenary forces could be employed in peace-time.

Or are they organized more like an Enlightment age army (18th century). Regiments whose number and size is fixed by the state, with relatively uniform training and equipment?

Something else?

I think an Enlightenment type army would be easier for me to deal with, at least as far as incorporating the players. It would be less believable (for me personally) to have an army of Mercenaries that had absolutely no real experience. Whereas an Army that's sort of a nobleman's diversion would.

As far as overall personalities go, the Officer Corps is mostly composed of nobles who are somewhat bored or disliked or bad at politics. It's essentially a diversion for them, they do some peacekeeping operations, and mostly model their tactics on theory (in the best case) to novels and romances (in the worst). This goes all the way to the top. There isn't a great deal of focus on logistics, as long-term campaigns are practically unheard of at this juncture.

The Enlisted, tend to be a wide variety of people, some conscripts, some who were given the alternative to jail, some who signed up for a reasonable paycheck. They're equally inexperienced, although some of them have more practical experience, in terms of things like survival and the like.

There would be a great deal of focus on the sort of thing that garrisons find most important, shiny pretty uniforms, lots of well polished things, impractical tight order maneuvers. Overall discipline ranges from draconian to completely lax (although there's little actual focus on Soldiering and that sort of discipline, again we see the effect of the novels).

The NCO corps is practically nonexistent outside of theory, those who impress the officers the most get promoted regardless of actual ability, most of them have little to no ability to lead, and none of them have any breadth of experience.

[Vitruviansquid]

Oh they will definitely carry "fun" things to drop on a potentially ground bound enemy.

The bow and arrow is more for protection against other flying beasties.


The rider does sit near the front of the creature so the wings are somewhat behind them, and wouldn't be too much of an issue if they did want to shoot at things on the ground. The animal being ridden is a heron though, so it probably would rarely want to come low enough to shoot simply because the things on the ground can shoot back and I can't imagine herons being able to have much barding unless it's in a very windy location to help keep them aloft.

One possible problem is that it might be fairly difficult for a human, which is a ground-dwelling animal evolved for ground-dweller stuff, to process something as complex as shooting a moving flying thing while also moving and flying. But then, people who were not nomadic steppe horsemen probably thought the nomadic steppe horsemen could shoot and ride way beyond normal human capacity.

By the way, a height advantage is also a distance advantage, just like an archer on a hill shooting an archer below. Given the same types of weapons, a man on a flying animal could start shooting the man on foot earlier even if the former wasn't flying so high the latter could never shoot at him.

[cobaltstarfire]

Hm, is this a pixie (say) riding a regular heron, or a human-sized person riding a giant heron? Because if you're letting a giant heron fly (despite the square-cube law), you might as well add some barding, or just say that the feathers are thick and strong enough to stop human-sized arrows.

It's "giant" relative to the critters riding them, there are no humans. :smalltongue: They could be 40+ inches or feet it doesn't really matter I'm "letting" them fly, but I think barding is a little too much even if they were life sized birds.

But like I said, they aren't really meant to be shooting arrows at folks on the ground, but at other things in the sky. I could see them maybe starting near the rear in a large fight on the ground to loose some arrows, and then taking off to meet enemies in the air or to drop things, but not being near the ground otherwise unless the rider is very reckless or they've been forced to a low altitude.


edit


One possible problem is that it might be fairly difficult for a human, which is a ground-dwelling animal evolved for ground-dweller stuff, to process something as complex as shooting a moving flying thing while also moving and flying. But then, people who were not nomadic steppe horsemen probably thought the nomadic steppe horsemen could shoot and ride way beyond normal human capacity.

By the way, a height advantage is also a distance advantage, just like an archer on a hill shooting an archer below. Given the same types of weapons, a man on a flying animal could start shooting the man on foot earlier even if the former wasn't flying so high the latter could never shoot at him.

This is very interesting, I will keep it all in mind if I ever get beyond my little "prologue" story with these heron riders. :3

more editing!

I did a little bit of reading on mounted archery and it does apparently take some very good horsemanship and such, shooting too takes training, though I'm not sure much else of combining the two other than that when it's best to shoot differs on what style and who you ask. I'm not sure that grasping the 3Dness of the situation will be difficult for something that "evolved" on the ground, humans can swim underwater and throw spears at things just fine, I don't know how effective turrets were on the stratofortress and similar plains too so it's at least somewhat doable to shoot at flying things while also on a flying thing.

[fusilier]

I think an Enlightenment type army would be easier for me to deal with, at least as far as incorporating the players. It would be less believable (for me personally) to have an army of Mercenaries that had absolutely no real experience. Whereas an Army that's sort of a nobleman's diversion would.

As far as overall personalities go, the Officer Corps is mostly composed of nobles who are somewhat bored or disliked or bad at politics. It's essentially a diversion for them, they do some peacekeeping operations, and mostly model their tactics on theory (in the best case) to novels and romances (in the worst). This goes all the way to the top. There isn't a great deal of focus on logistics, as long-term campaigns are practically unheard of at this juncture.

The Enlisted, tend to be a wide variety of people, some conscripts, some who were given the alternative to jail, some who signed up for a reasonable paycheck. They're equally inexperienced, although some of them have more practical experience, in terms of things like survival and the like.

There would be a great deal of focus on the sort of thing that garrisons find most important, shiny pretty uniforms, lots of well polished things, impractical tight order maneuvers. Overall discipline ranges from draconian to completely lax (although there's little actual focus on Soldiering and that sort of discipline, again we see the effect of the novels).

The NCO corps is practically nonexistent outside of theory, those who impress the officers the most get promoted regardless of actual ability, most of them have little to no ability to lead, and none of them have any breadth of experience.

That sounds a lot like an Age of Enlightenment army. You should be able to easily push that back to a late 17th century army. You might even be able to go back to the early 16th century, where permanent organizations like Tercios were established. However, they often varied a lot more than the regulations specified at that time.


It would be less believable (for me personally) to have an army of Mercenaries that had absolutely no real experience. Whereas an Army that's sort of a nobleman's diversion would.

The mercenary systems that developed in Italy in the 15th century provide an evolutionary link between medieval feudal systems, and modern permanent armies. In short, what happened is that long periods of warfare in Italy created the conditions where mercenaries were retained in peacetime. Increasingly the contracts became longer and longer, and eventually could be expected to be renewed by the state. Then the states started organizing their own forces (often formed from mercenaries whose leaders had died), along similar lines. While, centuries didn't go by, there were periods of decades of relative peace. In those periods the efficiency of the mercenaries usually declined -- not because they fell behind in tactics, but that the employing states usually stopped giving them the necessary funds to maintain their numbers as they were required. [All this varied from state to state, but it was generally true across Italy]

Anyway, if you wanted to, you could get a more feudal organization to your fantasy army --

A state that had a tradition of military service, would still perhaps have requirements for their vassals to present their troops for regular inspections and parades (some Condottieri were basically feudal lords with requirements like that). Centuries of no meaningful warfare, would mean such a force would still exist but not have any practical experience.
EDIT -- Another thing about those contracts is that they often required more troops to be mobilized during war. If that hasn't been necessary in a long time, their ability to quickly recruit up to their required wartime numbers might be very problematic. (And they might not be able to keep up their peacetime numbers anyway). -- EDIT

(This could also allow the more advanced nation to look more like a 16th or 17th century army in terms of overall structure).

It's up to you of course depending upon what kind of a feel you want it to have, and what's easier to wrap your head around. :-)

[PersonMan]

The Wehrmacht DID advance willy-nilly, hundreds of miles in weeks, that's essentially completely ignoring Russian Resistance, this went on for most of the initial advance, which was horrifically successful, if not for Hitler, they probably would have pushed through.

As far as I know, one of the main reasons for the speed of their initial advance was actually Soviet positioning of troops very close to the border - entire armies were encircled and surrendered at the beginning of Barbarossa. It wasn't Hitler deciding to stop that kept them from 'pushing through', a lot of it was logistics. The armored spearhead of the Wehrmacht could advance incredibly quickly, but when the infantry lagged behind them, and then the supplies lagged behind them, they stopped being able to push forwards.

---

Now it's time for another question, woo!

Is there any strategy or formation that was developed around the 1100s, mostly looking at Europe, that could have a dramatic impact on a war on otherwise roughly equal footing once it was introduced?

Could a small number of early cannons be used in a way that could determine the outcome of battles at a large scale? If, say, you get the idea to mass them all into a single battery, could you use that to create enough panic to cause a rout in an enemy force? Assuming that cannons are a completely new thing here, without all of the development that happened in our world.

[Tiktakkat]

That sounds like a gator, although those suck.

Or just a Bradley that hasn't been uparmored, adding a Stinger launcher to go with the TOW launcher, and replacing one squad with a drone operator.
And that is just to demonstrate that it is possible, not that it is the most optimized tactically.


The money I hadn't thought directly about, which is a very good point. I would say that I would limit it to standard NPC wealth, although that could be divvied up around the entire force as needed. I addressed the degree of magic earlier in this very long response.

The thing is, people in the real world don't come with levels, so you rapidly wind up with some rather serious issues making comparisons.
How much do the TOE loads of a modern squad cost? No doubt significantly more than any individual in the squad can really afford, magnified when you get to the section level and add in the cost of a Bradley or LAV.
How much was the gear of the average man-at-arms (knight) of the medieval period? While certainly personally affordable, how did it relate to his "character level"?


I'm not sure that's strictly true, high level characters are extremely dangerous, but they are also the most likely to be targeted, making their usage probably more limited in terms of a strategic perspective. Mostly what I'm trying to do is kind of get a picture of what an evolving military force would look like in terms of magic.

Which is why I asked about equipment costs.

For what is it, 1K or so? You can provide daily rations, completely eliminating a massive chunk of your logistics train.
Another small cost gets you a super-healing sleeping bag.
For maybe 2K per troop you get a platoon-sized insta-barracks.
Insta-cleaned armor and weapons?
Auto-repaired consumable missiles?
Sounds expensive sure, but you just eliminated a score or more wagons hauling supplies, wages for people to manage said wagons, a portion of your force securing them, another portion of your force on constant foraging duties, a ton of ill-will among the farmers you aren't pillaging for fresh supplies, and more.

For direct spellcasting, its gets more "mundane" in its anachronism. (The Foglio Corollary I mentioned.)
Satellite direction? Druids with bird animal companions.
Radios? Wizards with whispering wind or telepathic connections.
Mechanized? Clockwork steeds to golem-drawn war-wagons.
Artillery? Fireballs. (The reason blasters types are called "glass cannons".)
Tear gas? Stinking cloud.
Mustard gas? Cloudkill.

So as I said, the main effects will be eliminating logistics and making the tactics look more "modern".
Then past a certain point you make armies non-functional, with adventurers hitting video game level interactions, complete with respawning (true resurrection), cheat codes (visiting the char-op boards), and the like.

[Brother Oni]

If it's a winged animal, the wings might block line of sight and shooting in certain directions, depending on where the rider is seated.

If it's just gliding, then a quick direction change would get the wings out of the way enough to take a shot.

If it's actively flapping, then I'd take a leaf out of the Mongols' book and time your shots on the lowest part of the wings' upstroke, to maximise stability, minimise vibration and drag and to keep the wings out of the line of fire (the Mongols only took their shots when all four of their horse's hooves were off the ground for the same reason).

[spineyrequiem]

Is there any strategy or formation that was developed around the 1100s, mostly looking at Europe, that could have a dramatic impact on a war on otherwise roughly equal footing once it was introduced?


Couching lances? OK, it's more like a new weapon but it allowed the development of heavy cavalry and everything that brings.

[Spamotron]

As far as I know, one of the main reasons for the speed of their initial advance was actually Soviet positioning of troops very close to the border - entire armies were encircled and surrendered at the beginning of Barbarossa. It wasn't Hitler deciding to stop that kept them from 'pushing through', a lot of it was logistics. The armored spearhead of the Wehrmacht could advance incredibly quickly, but when the infantry lagged behind them, and then the supplies lagged behind them, they stopped being able to push forwards.


Wasn't it also because the operation was severely delayed and much of its supplies diverted in an attempt to save Mussolini from his own stupidity?

I have heard that the disaster at Stalingrad was entirely Hitler's own fault. It wasn't actually that important strategically but he felt it would be a great propaganda victory to take it because of its name. When it became apparent that it was much harder to take than anybody suspected instead of leaving a token force to maintain the seige while the rest of the army went after targets that actually mattered he stubbornly locked down the entire force as a matter of pride and it cost the Germans dearly.

My understanding is that if Hitler had said "screw you Mussolini clean up your own mess," and then been sensible about his strategic targeting of objectives the Germans actually had a pretty good chance of winning.

[lsfreak]

What's the joke, Hitler would have won the war if only he'd stopped taking that idiot Hitler's advice? He was a terrible strategist.


If it's just gliding, then a quick direction change would get the wings out of the way enough to take a shot.

If it's actively flapping, then I'd take a leaf out of the Mongols' book and time your shots on the lowest part of the wings' upstroke, to maximise stability, minimise vibration and drag and to keep the wings out of the line of fire (the Mongols only took their shots when all four of their horse's hooves were off the ground for the same reason).

It's probably more complex than horses, as it's also dependent not only on speed but wind direction, speed, and consistency/gustiness. I wouldn't be too surprised if death-by-wobble happens with some frequency, where the bird makes a drastic adjustment to compensate for a gust of wind and ends up shot by its rider, unless they're trained against doing that and instead letting themselves destabilize and only recover when the rider gives the command, which is necessarily going to mess up any type of formation. If they're carrying human-ish sized people and are scaled up to match, there's going to be another issue: by napkin math a great blue heron intakes its weight in meat every week, which is going to be a logistics nightmare.

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm only asking about the arrow shooting parts, I'm not really interested in critique of the realism of something riding around on a large flying animal, it's regularly done with gryphons/dragons/winged horses/dinosaurs/giant eagles/pterosaurs so I see no reason why it has to suddenly become an issue. I happen to think Herons are cool, and fun to draw so they are my choice for large fantasy mount.


That said Herons are pretty steady, slow, and straight flyers even in windy situations, maybe things get more difficult higher up or in very rough air, but I don't really see accidentally being jostled and shooting the heron as being a common problem, there isn't very much heron to accidentally shoot where the rider sits.

I'm just asking if in general it's believable to shoot an arrow at airborn enemies while also in flight. It sounds like it basically is, so thank you those of you who answered my question. :smallsmile:

[Carl]

The german attack in WW2 and the soviets issues are a complicated issue no doubt. But my point was that the soviets where allready very familiar with everything their equipment could actually do. They weren't dealing with unknown capabilities outside their ability to understand. They just hadn't concived of some of the ways you could apply that capability.

To use TVTropes Didn't See That Coming (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidntSeeThatComing) trope; the things the soviets went on to develop fall under a combination of Unknown Known's, and Known Unknown's. This whole thing with magic represents an Unknown Unknown in capability terms. Your dealing with a military that dosen;t only not know how to use wizards abilities properly, it doesn't even know what that wizard is capable of, (as a secondary side point few wizards are going to have picked combat useful spells if the military isn't hiring, so it may not be as simple to pull them in as you'd think).

Minor side question, over typical outdoors terrain that's not especially difficult whats the top speed of a horse and how would good quality stone flagged roads improve that? Top speed i man btw, the sort of thing IRl that would be sued in bursts only.

[Gnoman]

Wasn't it also because the operation was severely delayed and much of its supplies diverted in an attempt to save Mussolini from his own stupidity?

I have heard that the disaster at Stalingrad was entirely Hitler's own fault. It wasn't actually that important strategically but he felt it would be a great propaganda victory to take it because of its name. When it became apparent that it was much harder to take than anybody suspected instead of leaving a token force to maintain the seige while the rest of the army went after targets that actually mattered he stubbornly locked down the entire force as a matter of pride and it cost the Germans dearly.

My understanding is that if Hitler had said "screw you Mussolini clean up your own mess," and then been sensible about his strategic targeting of objectives the Germans actually had a pretty good chance of winning.

Not exactly.

There is a very real chance that, if BARBAROSSA had gone in on the original schedule, the German drive would have taken Moscow, or at least broken into the city, and the nature of the Soviet empire meant that serious blows to Stalin's prestige (such as being forced to flee the capital to avoid being captured) would have upended the balance in at least some of the SSRs between "don't want to be Soviet" and "too afraid of Stalin to try breaking away", taking the USSR out of the war. Had that happened, the Reich would have been fighting a one-front war with no need to keep heavy forces on the Eastern front, drastically changing the balance of power (particularly since the US wasn't actively fighting at the time, and only Britain would remain in the fight) on the Western Front. Once Mussolini brought Greece into the war, however, the entire southern flank for BARBAROSSA would have been badly exposed to Allied interdiction efforts, so Greece then had to be neutralized.


One possible problem is that it might be fairly difficult for a human, which is a ground-dwelling animal evolved for ground-dweller stuff, to process something as complex as shooting a moving flying thing while also moving and flying.

WWI air-to-air combat started out with pilots brinign pistols, rifles, shotguns, and hand grenades into the air with them and banging away from the cockpit. Hits were rare because the rifles of the era fired too slowly and the other weapons were too short-ranged, but they did happen. The main obstacle to hitting was the great speed of both shooter and target along with the need to directly control the aircraft at the same time. Neither of these would be a critical factor for an animal rider, as they effectively fly themselves (they might not go exactly where you want them to go, but there's no risk of them plummetting out of the sky if you take your hands off the reins) and even the fastest air animal is slower than the slowest airplane in level flight.

[Spiryt]

and even the fastest air animal is slower than the slowest airplane in level flight.

Even the fastest arrow is pretty glacial compared to slowest pistol round though.

So very steep trajectories wouldn't help at all in situation where both shooter and target are moving quite fast.

Together with arrows being highly susceptible to wind and air drag in general, shots exchange would probably have to happen from very close distances, like ~30 feet and so on.

[Carl]

I'd imagine steep diving attacks with heavy thrown projectiles would be more normal if the animal's can handle the dives. They'd be nearly impossible for targets in level flight to avoid and such a projectile would be easier to aim as the decent itself would add a great deal of speed and the greater mass would tend to make it less susceptible. Basically newton's law about objects in motion at it's finest. Also something like that would be a lot more likely to get kills on such large animals ofc.

[cobaltstarfire]

Even the fastest arrow is pretty glacial compared to slowest pistol round though.

So very steep trajectories wouldn't help at all in situation where both shooter and target are moving quite fast.



Let me emphasize again that Herons are not fast flyers.


Together with arrows being highly susceptible to wind and air drag in general, shots exchange would probably have to happen from very close distances, like ~30 feet and so on.

That's fine, I don't expect a bow wielding Heron rider to be especially effective, just passingly able to try and defend themselves, and escape. The things that attack them like to grapple them and pull them out of the air.

Do you think wind in the air would be any more difficult to take into account than wind on the ground?


I'd imagine steep diving attacks with heavy thrown projectiles would be more normal if the animal's can handle the dives. They'd be nearly impossible for targets in level flight to avoid and such a projectile would be easier to aim as the decent itself would add a great deal of speed and the greater mass would tend to make it less susceptible. Basically newton's law about objects in motion at it's finest. Also something like that would be a lot more likely to get kills on such large animals ofc.

I'm not sure if Herons can dive very steeply, or at least I've never observed it. Pelicans I've seen dive into the surf, I'm not sure they could stop a dive midair without overloading/snapping their wings though, and herons have even longer wings. But I do really like the idea of dive bombing an enemy and throwing javelins at them.

I may look into another type of large bird rider who could do that more specifically and also just be better suited for fighting, since the Herons really aren't meant for doing a lot of combat (they mostly deliver mail, scout, and ferry people). Maybe like a Caracara of some sort, those are pretty neat looking, large and probably fun to paint too.

I've also given some thought to cross bows, though it seems they'd be really difficult to reload after an initial shot.

[lsfreak]

Do you think wind in the air would be any more difficult to take into account than wind on the ground?

Depending on height, definitely. Wind speed a few hundred meters up is noticeably higher than on the ground. If you're in a standard medieval-type setting (gently hilly agricultural land interspersed with hedges, woodlands, and villages), some napkin math puts a 10mph wind that someone on the ground feels as more like 25-30mph 100 yards up. If you get a strong surface breeze of 20mph in such a setting, it's going to be close to 50mph 100 yards up. There was a winter here a few years ago where we had 30mph wind constantly for a few days, and since it was an urbanized (but not tall-building-city) setting, 100 yards up was would have been more like 100mph.

[Carl]

Also the actual size is a huge consideration here. Air flow at really small scales does funny things, and square cube law says a super small arrow would be affected much more since it's mass drops more than its surface area compared to a normal sized arrow, (hence why javelins would have an advantage), in practise in fact firing bows at all, on the ground or off would probably become completely worthless below a certain scale, conversely at a large enough scale and wind would become much less relevant.

[Brother Oni]

I'm not sure if Herons can dive very steeply, or at least I've never observed it. Pelicans I've seen dive into the surf, I'm not sure they could stop a dive midair without overloading/snapping their wings though, and herons have even longer wings. But I do really like the idea of dive bombing an enemy and throwing javelins at them.

Some sort of raptor or an eagle then? Those animals are designed to dive suddenly and quickly to attack a target below them.



I may look into another type of large bird rider who could do that more specifically and also just be better suited for fighting, since the Herons really aren't meant for doing a lot of combat (they mostly deliver mail, scout, and ferry people). Maybe like a Caracara of some sort, those are pretty neat looking, large and probably fun to paint too.

I've also given some thought to cross bows, though it seems they'd be really difficult to reload after an initial shot.

Ah, you're probably looking for something less cliched than an eagle or some other bird of prey then.

Crossbows are fine to use while mounted - mounted crossbowmen were very common in medieval times, particularly by German mercenaries. Those typically used a 500lb draw crossbow normally using a crannequin spanning device, although lower powered crossbows could be spanned with a goat's foot. They'd have a slower rate of fire than bows, but would be easier to aim and most likely more accurate.

For your smaller people riding herons, you could even get away with hand spanned crossbows (maybe some sort of mounting device on the saddle's pommel to help steady the crossbow, or the crossbow could be some sort of gastraphetes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes) design). The heavier the draw of the crossbow/bow, the heavier the bolts/arrows required, which would go some way to stabilising the projectile flight.


http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/xbow-diagram.gif

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p3UiQGDK8R8/USuCRGGBilI/AAAAAAAAAD8/Wh-YVR2GrpY/s1600/fig45.gif

[Incanur]

Even the fastest arrow is pretty glacial compared to slowest pistol round though.

Practically, yes. Technically, no. Kevin Strother (http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111249) has supposedly managed over 600 fps. 19th-century Derringer pistols (http://hoveyhunts.com/2012/04/25/shooting-davide-pedersolis-percussion-henry-deringer-pocket-pistol-small-self-defense-pistols-shooting-derringers-derringer-performance-using-derringers-henry-deringer-guns-henry-deringer-pistol/) could apparently be as slow as 425 fps at 8 yards.


Together with arrows being highly susceptible to wind and air drag in general, shots exchange would probably have to happen from very close distances, like ~30 feet and so on.

Close ranges are always ideal for mounted archery, but 30ft seems awfully low for an effective-range limit.

As far as historical crossbows go, we don't have much clear evidence on draw weight and performance. However, the South Padre Island crossbows were estimated at 250-500lbs, and those were spanned by the goat's-foot lever. A 500lb steel crossbow with a 5-6in power stroke has mediocre performance under the best interpretation, so I have trouble imagining military steel goat's-foot-lever crossbows much below 500lbs.

[Spiryt]

Practically, yes. Technically, no. Kevin Strother (http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111249) has supposedly managed over 600 fps. 19th-century Derringer pistols (http://hoveyhunts.com/2012/04/25/shooting-davide-pedersolis-percussion-henry-deringer-pocket-pistol-small-self-defense-pistols-shooting-derringers-derringer-performance-using-derringers-henry-deringer-guns-henry-deringer-pistol/) could apparently be as slow as 425 fps at 8 yards.


Well, I'm going to assume that setting we are being asked about doesn't have the glass/carbon composite technology, pulleys, and high tech compund bows in general. :smallwink:

And 132 grain arrows is indeed pretty much very long bullet.


Close ranges are always ideal for mounted archery, but 30ft seems awfully low for a effective-range limit.



Do you think wind in the air would be any more difficult to take into account than wind on the ground?

As answered above by Isfreak, yeah, probably. Not only wind is much more powerful element high above ground, but even rather slow movement of fliers will strengthen the effects.


Javelins and other thrown weapons could be interesting options anyway.

Much less affected by drag, and additional few m/s provided by movement of flying mount can easily make large difference in their range and punch.

[cobaltstarfire]

Ah, you're probably looking for something less cliched than an eagle or some other bird of prey then.

Oh, caracara's are a bird of prey, though I've only seen them on the sides of farm roads picking at road kill, they jumped to my head first cause they're colorful and have noticeable legs. I'd thought of golden eagles or harpy eagles as well, I'm not above re-skinning things either. Either way, they'll probably have to be a critter that is tamed/bred later on.

But you're right I also don't want to step too much on the toes of Tolkien or Elf Quest!


I'll give the crossbow stuff a look in a bit, it looks interesting, and I'm always happy to get more information on them. The bow and arrow was mainly an idea one character would have come up with early on in a war after walking away from an attack. (An attack she and her heron will have only walked away from because the particular heron was a fierce ill mannered beast, and the attacker was fairly small).

I started out thinking about it in some ways like how airplanes in war started out, with them mostly being used as recon at first, but then people starting to add guns to them to shoot each other down. It'll be interesting to have it be that eventually a hodgepodge of weapons and technology begin to show up on these birds dependent on the riders own skills and intuition and the birds personality/tolerances/type.


What will probably happen for bow and arrow stuff is that they can be used, but they become less reliable the higher up you are, and riders with a good intuition for the air-currents will have more success in using one. Very long shots will be more luck than skill if they land. Probably also with a bias towards riders strong enough to use bows with a higher draw weight (techwise they'll probably be limited to laminating layers together to get a strong draw weight, nothing too crazy I guess?)

[Incanur]

The problem with javelins in the air is the same as on the ground: it's difficult to carry a bunch of them. Even a fairly light javelin (800g) weighs as much as 20 Turkish-style war arrows (40g). Would a flying combatant rather have 3 javelins or 60 arrows? Javelins do seem ideal for diving attacks, but in other circumstances arrows have significant advantages.

[Spiryt]

The problem with javelins in the air is the same as on the ground: it's difficult to carry a bunch of them. Even a fairly light javelin (800g) weighs as much as 20 Turkish-style war arrows (40g). Would a flying combatant rather have 3 javelins or 60 arrows? Javelins do seem ideal for diving attacks, but in other circumstances arrows have significant advantages.

The huge flying mount kinda solves it, though.

Pretty easy to strap some bag with ~30 javelins that will still be rather light and portable compared to the rider....

It may very well be possible that rider doesn't really need 600 arrows that would be alternative... And that would likely be fair more cumbersome at this point, due to sheer amount.

Any sensible physics goes away at the point where we have something that large not only flying easily, but carrying humans, anyway. :smallwink:

[Incanur]

The huge flying mount kinda solves it, though.

Pretty easy to strap some bag with ~30 javelins that will still be rather light and portable compared to the rider....

I guess it depends on the size of the mount, but as far as I know nobody actually did this with horses. Many mounted archers didn't even carry that many arrows. I'm skeptical that strapping 30 javelins to a mount would be practical.

[cobaltstarfire]

The problem with javelins in the air is the same as on the ground: it's difficult to carry a bunch of them. Even a fairly light javelin (800g) weighs as much as 20 Turkish-style war arrows (40g). Would a flying combatant rather have 3 javelins or 60 arrows? Javelins do seem ideal for diving attacks, but in other circumstances arrows have significant advantages.


Those focused specifically on combat would probably arm themselves with whichever works best for the situation, I don't think an entire wing would be armed with only one kind of weapon. Some may have some javelins and arrows, some would have only javelins, and some would have only arrows.


The huge flying mount kinda solves it, though.

Pretty easy to strap some bag with ~30 javelins that will still be rather light and portable compared to the rider....

It may very well be possible that rider doesn't really need 600 arrows that would be alternative... And that would likely be fair more cumbersome at this point, due to sheer amount.

Any sensible physics goes away at the point where we have something that large not only flying easily, but carrying humans, anyway. :smallwink:

I feel like it might depend on the bird, but I don't really know. It seems like a heron would have an easier time carrying a load than a similarly sized eagle, then again eagles can snatch up things that weigh more than they do and fly off without a lot of trouble.

Now go and imagine someone carrying 600 arrows, how many quivers would that be? XD They'd look like a final fantasy character or something.

Edit for Incanur

Here are a couple of concept drawings I've done for heron riders.

The first (http://fav.me/d9c6obp)and second (http://fav.me/d9cc7xp)drawing I did when I first thought of it. I have since dropped the extra set of legs, though the herons have large claws on their wings similar to an ostriches
Rider on a smallish heron (http://fav.me/d9cncfk)
A fledgling (http://fav.me/d9m79ob)

I haven't really nailed down real sizes or anything, just going with what looks most natural..

[Brother Oni]

I'll give the crossbow stuff a look in a bit, it looks interesting, and I'm always happy to get more information on them.

What exactly did you want to know about crossbows? We can offer some practical information on them, and their comparison to bows, but Wikipedia and sport hunting sites cover all the basics you need.



What will probably happen for bow and arrow stuff is that they can be used, but they become less reliable the higher up you are, and riders with a good intuition for the air-currents will have more success in using one. Very long shots will be more luck than skill if they land. Probably also with a bias towards riders strong enough to use bows with a higher draw weight (techwise they'll probably be limited to laminating layers together to get a strong draw weight, nothing too crazy I guess?)

It could give rise to a particular aerial combat style where instead of getting behind your target like in the real world, you want to end up upwind of them, thus giving your shots better range and other flight characteristics as they fly downwind.

Composite bows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow) require glue and other binding agents which give rise to particular characteristics; laminate bows (and laminate prods for crossbows) prefer dry environments so that all the different materials of the bow/prod don't separate out when they're exposed to moisture.


To be honest, if you're working at the pixie scale for a rider, the draws weights aren't going to get crazy, so self bows would be the way to go.

Short version: Assume that a pixie has the same capabilities as a small child, they'd have a draw weight of 10-15lbs at most, making it hard to break 20 yards distance and lethality would be minimal.

Long Version: Looking at the SRD20, Pixies get a -4 to their STR so their racial average is 5-8, giving them a maximum 60lb heavy load for Small critters. While it's possible to get a 60lb draw weight at a 14" draw length on a bow, because of the short power stroke (distance the string moves from full draw to rest which is directly responsible for the power input into the projectile), it's only about the equivalent of a human sized 30lb bow with a 28" draw length (probably less if you take into account the brace height as my googlefu is failing me on making a bow with those sort of dimensions).
This level of power output is less than sufficient to kill deer (at least it's less than the various state guidelines I'm familiar with), but probably more than enough to kill birds or other pixies. You'd also be hard put to reach out more than ~30 yards or so with a self bow (a recurve is a different kettle of fish).

Edit: Now that I've seen those pictures, your riders are only about 12" tall, assuming those are Goliath Herons of ~1.5m in height. That puts them in the bottom of the Tiny size category, making them the equivalent of Grigs. They only have STR5, which gives them a maximum heavy load of 25lbs and most likely a 5" draw length, which is crossbow power stroke territory. I'm going to have to go away and think about this in more detail (probably work out the maximum energy output and calculate the range based on that assuming a suitably sized arrow), but that 30 ft is looking more and more realistic.

[cobaltstarfire]

).

Edit: Now that I've seen those pictures, your riders are only about 12" tall, assuming those are Goliath Herons of ~1.5m in height. That puts them in the bottom of the Tiny size category, making them the equivalent of Grigs. They only have STR5, which gives them a maximum heavy load of 25lbs and most likely a 5" draw length, which is crossbow power stroke territory. I'm going to have to go away and think about this in more detail (probably work out the maximum energy output and calculate the range based on that assuming a suitably sized arrow), but that 30 ft is looking more and more realistic.

I'm glad this is turning out to be interesting enough for you to want to spend extra time on it like that!

I think my main thought on crossbows (other than having to squint real hard at the belly loading one to get how it works) is which has the most favorable mix of ease of loading and power while riding? Is there any reason at all that someone would use a bow if they could instead have a cross bow. (hey you with the bow, why don't you try this? It's called a crossbow and works way better at what you're trying to do!)

[Carl]

but that 30 ft is looking more and more realistic

At that size even javelins will have an effective range of zero, they'd be too light compared to their surface area for the air flow from wing beats alone to not disrupt them. Hell even a steeply diving attack from a peregrine or a falcon with heavy javelins probably wouldn't cut it in the face of any wind.

[dramatic flare]

I'm glad this is turning out to be interesting enough for you to want to spend extra time on it like that!

I think my main thought on crossbows (other than having to squint real hard at the belly loading one to get how it works) is which has the most favorable mix of ease of loading and power while riding? Is there any reason at all that someone would use a bow if they could instead have a cross bow. (hey you with the bow, why don't you try this? It's called a crossbow and works way better at what you're trying to do!)

I've always just assumed they're kind of fiddly to load and you don't have a hand directly on the bolt, meaning it could potentially bounce out.

Secondly:

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00006Zz.9k7TqXM/s/850/850/G07-2010-044-Diving-Great-Blue-Heron.jpg

[cobaltstarfire]

Secondly:

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00006Zz.9k7TqXM/s/850/850/G07-2010-044-Diving-Great-Blue-Heron.jpg
A shallow dive is not what we're looking for. (Sorry to be terse on a mobile device arm)

[Mr. Mask]

Carl: Could you build them out of something denser and more air-resistant to counter?



Cobalt: Crossbows have their pros and cons compared to bows. I think the stronger crossbows can't be used from horseback (correct me if I'm wrong with this, I'm only familiar with the little hand-spanned ones being used from horse), or birds in this case. There might be ways around that if you wanted to mount little ballistae on the birds (so cute), making them more similar to war elephants than horses.

Briefly: You can use the heaviest, most powerful bows from horseback (maybe not THE most), but you can't use strong crossbows from horseback. Bows will have a better rate of fire for the same draw weight (power). The heaviest crossbows can shoot further than bows, but for the same draw-weight, I think bows out-range crossbows. Bows require a lot of training before you become decent with them, so your faeries will need martial traditions to be decent horseback archers. Using crossbows from horseback isn't uncommon, but it can be pretty annoying to prevent your bolt falling out of the crossbow due to the galloping of a horse (or flapping of a bird).

Admittedly, the Japanese technique of firing a long bow from a horse mightn't work so well from a bird (might get in the way of the wings). Your birds are an amount bigger than the riders, however, so it may balance out.

[dramatic flare]

A shallow dive is not what we're looking for. (Sorry to be terse on a mobile device arm)

The "dive" you are refering to is called "stooping." Most birds don't stoop extremely steeply. There are outliers, such as waterfowl who learn to dive as part of their stoop, and Peregrine Falcons, who attack flying birds as part of their stoop.

But don't misunderstand my explanation as me disliking your idea. You said you like herons and like drawing them, but weren't certain if they stoop very much. When they have need to, they can, they're just shore feeders so they didn't evolve to stoop as much as, say, owls. I'm certain one could write a whole short story about pixies teaching their herons to stoop more.

[snowblizz]

I'm certain one could write a whole short story about pixies teaching their herons to stoop more.

If one could stoop to that.:smallbiggrin:

I'll get my coat.

[Carl]

@Mr Mask: In reverse order;

1. There is zero reason the really powerful cranquien operated crossbows could not be operated from horseback based on what i know. None whatsoever.

2. I think you meant less, not more air resistant :p. But the short answer is, well yes and no. You could use lead javelins with an iron or steel tip but your still dealing with a very small weapon.

I can only really use olympic javelins as a basis as finding any size or weight values for war javelin's has proven frustratingly difficult but i imagine they'd be shorter but heavier. But based on the pictures provided and depending strongly on the species of heron your looking at a scale factor of between one quarter and one tenth the size of a human. That produces javelins with lengths of approximately between 1 and 2 feet, (30-60cm), and masses of between 0.8 and 13 grams, (0.06-0.9 ounces). A heavier lead javelin design might get that up a few times so your dealing with something between 8 and 130 grams as an extreme upper estimate. But outside of the upper end that's still painfully light in any cross breeze even if the smaller surface area helps a lot.


What it boils down to is wind forces decrease in line with the square of the size ratio change, (so a half size javelin sees it's wind force effects drop by a quarter for example), but it's mass, (and thus resistance to those forces), drops in line with the cube of the ratio, (so a half size javelin is one eighth the mass). This means the degree by which the projectile is affected by wind decreases in direct proportion with the size. And simple childhood play has hopefully taught everyone that as a matter of practise, once wind induced drift velocity exceeds a certain fraction of the flight velocity the projectile becomes inherently unstable, which exacerbates the drift factor or even causes outright tumbling. That last parts actually a bit simplified, (well okay a lot), but it should hopefully provide an easy reference point.

[shadow_archmagi]

Could centaurs use lances effectively? Intuitively, I feel like the way they're traditionally drawn suggests that the force would be distributed in a very weird way that could lead to a broken spine or something. (Apologies if this isn't real world enough for the thread)

[Mr. Mask]

OK, so either really strong fairies with big, leaden javelins, or maybe some other compromise? Even with the wind in your favour and stabilizing fins, I'm not sure how much they can take before they get knocked about. They could still try to use something like dropping caltrop-like leaden blades. Or just shooting at lower altitudes when there isn't much wind.

You could try to make the fairies pretty impressive, give them thick bows and strings that let them pull draw weights non-proportional to their size or something (of course, with their bows being like a foot in length at most, not sure how much good it'll do them).

[Spiryt]

Briefly: You can use the heaviest, most powerful bows from horseback (maybe not THE most), but you can't use strong crossbows from horseback.

I think there always going the be some limitations.

I can span ~55 pound bow, even if barely, but I can't do it anymore if I'm sitting.


And spanning crossbow on horse may be tricky, but entirely possible most of times.

Windlass is likely out of question, because it's a bit too cumbersome, but cranequin, as well as goat's foot and all other similar simple levers are perfectly feasible.

Drawing just with back, with hook etc. should also be possible with rider being able to easily stand in his stirrups. Though probably it will result in limiting the maximum draw weight, just like with bow.


Could centaurs use lances effectively? Intuitively, I feel like the way they're traditionally drawn suggests that the force would be distributed in a very weird way that could lead to a broken spine or something. (Apologies if this isn't real world enough for the thread)

Can't see why not, TBH.

Force generally is distributed along the whole system in limited amount, otherwise actual, real riders would regularly break their wrists, shoulders, spines etc. while hitting stuff.

[Brother Oni]

It's probably more complex than horses, as it's also dependent not only on speed but wind direction, speed, and consistency/gustiness. I wouldn't be too surprised if death-by-wobble happens with some frequency, where the bird makes a drastic adjustment to compensate for a gust of wind and ends up shot by its rider, unless they're trained against doing that and instead letting themselves destabilize and only recover when the rider gives the command, which is necessarily going to mess up any type of formation. If they're carrying human-ish sized people and are scaled up to match, there's going to be another issue: by napkin math a great blue heron intakes its weight in meat every week, which is going to be a logistics nightmare.

I'm not denying that it's harder than shooting from horseback, I'm just saying that it's not an insurmountable problem, either by training the heron to fly level during shots or by adapting shooting techniques (or most likely both).


I'm glad this is turning out to be interesting enough for you to want to spend extra time on it like that!

I think my main thought on crossbows (other than having to squint real hard at the belly loading one to get how it works) is which has the most favorable mix of ease of loading and power while riding? Is there any reason at all that someone would use a bow if they could instead have a cross bow. (hey you with the bow, why don't you try this? It's called a crossbow and works way better at what you're trying to do!)

The gastraphetes is quite simple to use in principle, just that the loading block is quite complex in comparison to a crossbow (the design was later developed into Roman siege weapons: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8bqIgd5ro).

For (my) sanity's sake, let's assume it's possible to make a recurve bow that can deliver 25lbs at 5" and assume a power stroke of 4", that would give us a stored energy of 8.75 ft lbs or ~12J. Following IBO recommendations, you need a minimum of 5 grains/lb of draw weight, so your arrows will be 125 grains and ~6 inches long.
Assuming that the bow is about 80% efficient at transferring its energy into the arrow, the arrow would be travelling at something like 1.5 m/s unless I've miscalculated something.

The arrow flight calculators I have can't handle something that slow, but they seem to cap out at about 3 metres, suggesting that 9ft is probably the effective range.

As for why use a bow over a crossbow, the primary advantage is rate of fire. An decent archer should be able to loose ~6 arrows a minute, whereas the reload time of a crossbow ranges from about 15 seconds to a minute or more for the siege variants with a goat's lever getting about 30 seconds. Mounted archery lent itself to bows more readily than crossbows, mainly due to the methods required to keep the bolt in place (there was the slurbow (http://www.crossbowbook.com/page_129.html) which used a barrel inspired by early firearms, glue to hold the bolt in place or by placing your thumb on the bolt to both secure it and as a very rough sight) were more complicated/fiddly than the bow's solution (thumb draw).

Loading a crossbow at full gallop is also very tricky to do - mounted crossbowmen tended to withdraw after shooting to a quiet/safe place to reload before going off to harass again. There's some evidence that with heavier crossbows, the crossbow men could have fought dismounted, but the majority of the limited evidence indicates they harassed before withdrawing.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ftgjT9cf2Kc/USfmxIfHUXI/AAAAAAAAB_0/-sLXAbnKALg/s1600/5vgu3.jpg

While researching this post, I found mention of Spanish mounted crossbowmen that used a belthook method, although the hook was mounted on their chest instead. The draw weight was lower than for other military crossbows at the time, but they could be reloaded quicker than a ratchet method without dismounting (good for getting away in a hurry).



Cobalt: Crossbows have their pros and cons compared to bows. I think the stronger crossbows can't be used from horseback (correct me if I'm wrong with this, I'm only familiar with the little hand-spanned ones being used from horse), or birds in this case. There might be ways around that if you wanted to mount little ballistae on the birds (so cute), making them more similar to war elephants than horses.

Briefly: You can use the heaviest, most powerful bows from horseback (maybe not THE most), but you can't use strong crossbows from horseback. Bows will have a better rate of fire for the same draw weight (power). The heaviest crossbows can shoot further than bows, but for the same draw-weight, I think bows out-range crossbows. Bows require a lot of training before you become decent with them, so your faeries will need martial traditions to be decent horseback archers. Using crossbows from horseback isn't uncommon, but it can be pretty annoying to prevent your bolt falling out of the crossbow due to the galloping of a horse (or flapping of a bird).

Admittedly, the Japanese technique of firing a long bow from a horse mightn't work so well from a bird (might get in the way of the wings). Your birds are an amount bigger than the riders, however, so it may balance out.

The main issue is that birds have an even lower carrying capacity than horses, thus outfitting them as crew served siege platforms may not be viable.

You cannot use the same sized (and by extension draw weight) bows on horseback as you can on foot, both due to space concerns (the horse gets in the way) and biomechanics (you can't use as much of your body to draw, even with stirrups helping). The design of Japanese bows (for the sake of those unfamiliar with them, they're asymmetric with the nocking point about a 1/3 of the way down the bow instead of in the middle) is reputed to be intended for shooting while kneeling rather than for getting over the horse's head while mounted (if that was the intention, you can't get much of an angle increase shooting to an archer's off side). They did use a thumb draw variant, which is the ideal one for mounted combat though.

While it's true that archers take a significant amount of infrastructure and cultural focus to train an effective force of, it's disingenuous to imply that crossbows, especially the heavy draw military ones, require any less training. I believe that Galloglaich mentioned that German crossbowmen mercenaries were paid almost as much as a man at arms which indicates their worth.
The number of errors that can be made while spanning are significant and coupled with the high draw weight, can result in severe, if not lethal, injuries.


I think the best way to do it, would be to use chinese style crossbows with a very long power stroke coupled with a ratchet style spanning method (most probably crannequin). That way you get significant power and hence range for not much strength requirement, but it does mean that the loading times are higher than usual. Bows could still be used, but for close range combat.


http://kungfu.chinesecio.com/en/image/attachement/jpg/site3/20100121/0023aeaa33da0cc23fd248.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/22/8d/af/228daffa0ec979b5fb9351578c9ca792.jpg

I don't know enough about crossbows without more research to hazard a guess as to maximum power generation and other flight characteristics. It would most likely be capped to the gear advantage of ratchet spanning methods though, again something I would need to look up.


Could centaurs use lances effectively? Intuitively, I feel like the way they're traditionally drawn suggests that the force would be distributed in a very weird way that could lead to a broken spine or something. (Apologies if this isn't real world enough for the thread)

I would say it depends on the centaur's biology, specifically how their horse spine is attached to the human one. If that's strong enough, then using a couched lance wouldn't be an issue.

One variation of the biology I've seen involves having an almost snake-like single spinal column that the centuar lifts upwards to get their human torso up, although generally slanted forwards. This would mean that while charging, their human parts would be almost parallel to the ground, but would allow for safe impact distribution.
Another is having a human pelvis where the front chest of the horse would be, thus the horse spine connects into that. Again that would allow for effective impact distribution.

The only one that wouldn't work is the spine making a 90 degree turn at the human/horse intersection.

[Spiryt]

Assuming that the bow is about 80% efficient at transferring its energy into the arrow, the arrow would be travelling at something like 1.5 m/s unless I've miscalculated something.

You likely did.

80% from 12J is about 9.6J. For 125 grain missile to achieve that energy, it would have to go at ~ 49 m/s.

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: For that matter, what draw weight were the Japanese bows for mounted shooting?

The Samurai used bows. The Ashigaru used crossbows. Bows do require a bow culture if you want to get good bowmen, same as slings. Good crossbowmen are certainly valuable, but hey, I can pick up a crossbow and hit pretty accurately with an hour's practice. I'm not going to be shooting long or accurately or quickly with a war bow with an hour's practice, because I'm out of practice. Same with slings.

This does make me interested whether there were laws mandating the practice of crossbows.

On the point of masters, there gets to be a lot less difference in training when you're hiring weapon masters. I'm not sure if any weapon is easy to master.


Speaking of crossbows, I was curious about the reputed strongest one in the world, Excalibur something. It only had a draw weight of about 200 pounds, but apparently is more powerful than historical crossbows of higher draw weights. This made me wonder whether you could take the design to an extreme of 1,000 pounds draw weight or not, and make some crazy powerful modern crossbow that might be useful for something (a heck of a nail gun).

[cobaltstarfire]

Ahh there's so many different things to respond to! I'm going to try to lump things together based on topic cause I don't have the patience for trying to multiquote right now. There is a lot to digest as well, hopefully there won't be anymore posts before I finish writing this!

Balistas Mounted on Birds

Now I've got this mental image of hummingbirds with tiny little hand crossbows attached to their back and a little pull string....


Stooping and Diving

I didn't know that herons could do a steep...um stoop, are they doing it into the water pelican style, or are they able to stop themselves in the air? I wonder if doing it too often would cause issues for their bones and connective tissues.

@Snowblizz

Surely we can all forgive you your transgression :P

The Faeries

It's interesting that most folks have ended up calling them faeries, cause I call them “Fae” internally. I had been avoiding referring them to “fae” for the forum though because they aren't your traditional sort. So that was a happy accident!


Crossbows crossbows crossbows

Bolts/Quarrels/Ect bouncing out of a crossbow may not be as much of an issue on a heron. As suggested they could be trained. And even without any particular training they do a lot of soaring anyway.

The crank method also looks like the easiest to use so I will probably read up on those in particular (and the Chinese ones). They sure do have a lot of different loading methods and mechanisms! I like the Chinese xbow for it's simple and elegant appearance, the ones in the example pictures don't have a crank thing on them though, or is the crank removable? (am I misunderstanding xbow terminology here?)

Crossbow Vs Bow

Sounds like it could become a matter of preference if many heron riders begin to take up ranged arms, or if I bring eagles into the mix

The Bow

I have a feeling the character who would initially pick up a bow would have some kind of training in it already, otherwise she wouldn't have taken it up in the first place. It'll probably be a recurve bow? If my understanding is correct those sorts are smaller but still have a draw weight comparable to a larger self bow. She may have a crossbow suggested to her and try it out, but find she simply doesn't like using it unless she has to.

Javelins

I still really like the javelin idea, or really just any kind of dropping/throwing of sharp things down at enemies

Bird Oriented Engagement Styles

I saw this mentioned earlier but neglected to acknowledge it, but I liked it. Makes me think of Joust. (I played that game so much! It's little wonder I've got people riding around on large birds now)

On the size of all the things

Even if the fundamental laws of physics and such are being broken no matter what size you make the birds/weapons/riders, at the end of the day my original question was on believability. I think given the amount discussion and calculation that has gone on, there is enough believability that the average person, and even one who is very knowledgeable could suspend their belief.


And I think that's everything for the time being! If I missed anyone I apologize! Thank you all again for the many in depth responses on what could or couldn't be done and the kinds of problems and challenges that would be involved. It has given me a lot to think about, and it will likely color any future stories I do with the heron riders.

[Brother Oni]

You likely did.

80% from 12J is about 9.6J. For 125 grains missile to achieve that energy, it would have to go at ~ 49 m/s.

Derp, found the error. I used the mass in grams, but the units for joules is kg*m2/sec2.

That gives a velocity of 48.4 m/s which agrees with yours and throws the projectile out to a fair distance (at a maximum angle of departure of 45 degrees, it's 103m in still air). The remaining energy in the arrow isn't much (~2J) and I'll leave the potential lethality calculations for a later date.

This is all assuming optimal values - I'm fairly sure that 80% efficiency value is far too high, but I don't know what a more reasonable one would be (a decent recurve gets this value, but they tend to be about 70 inches long and have much longer power strokes).

[Mr. Mask]

Cobalt: When faced with this, there are three general possibilities you can consider.

One is to make the challenges a strength of the setting. If the wind is a huge factor in combat, and flier will often take to "low" altitude (for their stature, it'd still be pretty darn high) to avoid strong wind so they can shoot effectively, that's an interesting bit of setting. It also makes melee weapons a lot more useful in aerial combat, when normally you might find it challenging making them dramatically useful when ranged weapons are available. You can also have stuff like weapons that are less effected by the wind, like a few lead weights that are dropped onto enemies. Some fairies might also be strong enough to use javelins or crossbows so heavy the wind doesn't stop them much (a really strong wind might be an issue).

A subgenre of that point, is to give your characters abilities that allow them to subvert the problems. Let them butterfly-effect the wind to make it stronger or weaker, and let them try to split or summon breezes to aid in the flight of their missiles (or get in the way of their enemies'). Or, give them magical arrows that cut through the wind. You could then make a group of primitive goblin fairies more distinct by their lack of such magic arrows. If you wanted to have the fairies leaping ten times their height into the air and to be really strong for their size, then you can give them very heavy bows and javelins that are resistant to wind (that is, they have little air-resistance) and they can shoot pretty far. If you want less wind, you could make it so the geography is such that strong winds are uncommon.


The second point is similar to the sub-point. Have an easy justification, like the place the fairies are in doesn't have much wind, or they have magical weapons that completely/mostly subvert wind. This can be a nice bit of lore that answers the readers' questions with a, "yes, I thought of that, but I'm doing it anyway because it's more fun".


The third way is to not worry about explanations. This is fine as long as you maintain consistency. That can be tricky ,as your fairies will probably have several attributes that come from being small, but the problems of whooshing wind which would way with this as well won't arise.


That's my take on what routes a writer can take in these matters, and all of them fit to different stories and authors. You'll have to decide which one you like best for yours.

[Spiryt]

This is all assuming optimal values - I'm fairly sure that 80% efficiency value is far too high, but I don't know what a more reasonable one would be (a decent recurve gets this value, but they tend to be about 70 inches long and have much longer power strokes).

Longer bow can actually decrease efficiency, by adding more mass and inertia in general.

Longer power stroke allows to store more energy, by bending the prod more, but doesn't have much to do with efficiency AFAIU.

80% seems fine for good reflexive composite though not for such light arrows, one would likely need 7 grains per pound, or something about that.

That's highly theoretical of course, cause for all I know in case of such small bows and arrows math used for 'normal sized' ones may very well be going to hell.

[dramatic flare]

Stooping and Diving

I didn't know that herons could do a steep...um stoop, are they doing it into the water pelican style, or are they able to stop themselves in the air? I wonder if doing it too often would cause issues for their bones and connective tissues.


Its not that they stop themselves so much as they level off, same as hawks or owls who stoop in an attack on a field creature. I don't think any bird can come to complete stop right after a stoop, but most can bring themselves back to level fairly easily. If you notice in that picture of the stooping heron, it kept it's wings out. This slows down its maximum velocity (more drag resistance) and gives it better control over the fall. It probably is a big enough bird that pulling its wings all the way in for a stoop, like the smaller peregrine falcon, would hurt it with successive stoops and levelling offs.

[Brother Oni]

Oni: For that matter, what draw weight were the Japanese bows for mounted shooting?

The Samurai used bows. The Ashigaru used crossbows. Bows do require a bow culture if you want to get good bowmen, same as slings. Good crossbowmen are certainly valuable, but hey, I can pick up a crossbow and hit pretty accurately with an hour's practice. I'm not going to be shooting long or accurately or quickly with a war bow with an hour's practice, because I'm out of practice. Same with slings.

This does make me interested whether there were laws mandating the practice of crossbows.


I can't find whether the yumi was differentiated between mounted and foot archers but I assume not, based on the culture. The draw weights for a daikyu (the larger bow) range from about 35-90lbs. In the samurai's case, I think it's more they used horseback archery bows on foot rather than tried to segregate foot and horseback archers.

I'd hazard that you picked up a modern pulley crossbow, which are generally stirrup spanned? They're a world of difference from medieval crossbows, not least the safety measures to the user.

I don't know about laws mandating the practice of crossbows, but I know of at least two banning their use (an English one to promote archery and one supposedly by the Pope at the Second Lateran Council).



Speaking of crossbows, I was curious about the reputed strongest one in the world, Excalibur something. It only had a draw weight of about 200 pounds, but apparently is more powerful than historical crossbows of higher draw weights. This made me wonder whether you could take the design to an extreme of 1,000 pounds draw weight or not, and make some crazy powerful modern crossbow that might be useful for something (a heck of a nail gun).

Do you mean the Excalibur Matrix Mega 405 (http://excaliburcrossbow.com/catalog/crossbow/matrix_405_mega_)? According to the product page, it's got a draw weight of 290lbs and a power stroke of 14", so it's already ahead of most medieval crossbows. With the modern composite prod and pulley mechanism increasing its efficiency, it's ridiculously overpowered in comparison.
I suppose you could make a 1,000lb version complete with inbuilt motorised spanning mechanism, but it'd probably be siege weapon sized and I can't see a use for it that a 20mm autocannon or a .50 BMG wouldn't be able to outperform.



The Faeries

It's interesting that most folks have ended up calling them faeries, cause I call them “Fae” internally. I had been avoiding referring them to “fae” for the forum though because they aren't your traditional sort. So that was a happy accident!


Depends on your exposure to faerie tales and what you mean by 'traditional' sort. Proper fae from Gaelic mythology were all sorts of capricious mischievous sorts.



The crank method also looks like the easiest to use so I will probably read up on those in particular (and the Chinese ones). They sure do have a lot of different loading methods and mechanisms! I like the Chinese xbow for it's simple and elegant appearance, the ones in the example pictures don't have a crank thing on them though, or is the crank removable? (am I misunderstanding xbow terminology here?)

Chinese crossbows had a much longer power stroke, so they had a higher efficiency than western crossbows. This meant that they didn't need as high draw weights, thus didn't need as an ornate spanning method. The crank (either windlass or cranequin) is detachable: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjYQEyC4m10).
I mentioned the crank as due to your Fae's much lower strength, they wouldn't be able to apply much direct power to span a crossbow, thus would need a device to do so. Since we're using a spanning device, we might as well up the draw weight and get more 'bang for our buck' and make them fairly lethal at a decent distance.




Crossbow Vs Bow

Sounds like it could become a matter of preference if many heron riders begin to take up ranged arms, or if I bring eagles into the mix


Infrastructure requirements aside, it generally was. One point of note is that you could generally train crossbowmen quicker than an archer, so in situations where attrition is commonplace (ie in a war), crossbows were favoured (the English fixation with longbows aside).




The Bow

I have a feeling the character who would initially pick up a bow would have some kind of training in it already, otherwise she wouldn't have taken it up in the first place. It'll probably be a recurve bow? If my understanding is correct those sorts are smaller but still have a draw weight comparable to a larger self bow. She may have a crossbow suggested to her and try it out, but find she simply doesn't like using it unless she has to.


For the same draw weight, a recurve is more efficient than a self bow (I've been told values of up to twice as much) and often is a bit smaller. I've used a recurve in my theorycrafting above to get the most power out of the bow - whether you make it a composite/laminate one or not would depend on availability of glues and humidity in your world.



And I think that's everything for the time being! If I missed anyone I apologize! Thank you all again for the many in depth responses on what could or couldn't be done and the kinds of problems and challenges that would be involved. It has given me a lot to think about, and it will likely color any future stories I do with the heron riders.

You're welcome - aside from arguing about technical minutia, speculation on this sort of thing we enjoy. :smallbiggrin:

[Incanur]

As far as Japanese warbow draw weights go, I agree with what Timo says in this thread (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=23703): 100-110lb bows were likely common for reasonably strong mounted archers, as elsewhere in the world.

[cobaltstarfire]

Cobalt: When faced with this, there are three general possibilities you can consider.



I'll probably end up doing a mix of various things as you've mentioned. Quite a few were already on my mind. These Fae can very rarely do magic, but they are all pretty strongly in tune with the lands magic which gives a lot of opportunity to let them be able to sense something like what the air may do and use or manipulate it to their advantage. I haven't put as much development yet into the various different peoples other than their diet, magic attunement, and ability to actually harness it. But it's probably something I need to start thinking about in more detail going forward, along with their physical characteristics.


Dramatic Flare, thanks for explaining that better than I could. I never meant for a bird literally stopping midair, just bringing the dive to an end without hitting something. I've learned a lot of vocabulary and ways of saying things from the conversations we've all had here that's for sure.

Thankyou Oni for the video with the xbow, looks like that guy has a bunch of them and that'll be interesting to watch. It'll also probably help me learn the language of the weapon, I've been having to look up so many words for the crossbows in particular!

[Brother Oni]

Thankyou Oni for the video with the xbow, looks like that guy has a bunch of them and that'll be interesting to watch. It'll also probably help me learn the language of the weapon, I've been having to look up so many words for the crossbows in particular!

Oh sorry, I tend to talk on this subject with the regulars in this thread who pretty much know most of the terminology already. :smallredface:

If there's a concept or term that you're not familiar with, just give us a shout.

[Beleriphon]

A thought on the idea of herons vs birds of prey. Why not use both? Herons a large, relatively fast fliers, and when flapping their wings herons maintain relatively level flight. They'd make excellent "bomber" analogues. Have two small folk on each one, a pilot and a shooter. Single riders choose faster, more agile birds. Hawk and falcons would make delightful dive bombers or vertical fighters, their attack pattern is to dive at the target and then pull up and veer off to make another run. Crows and raven can make much faster turns so they'd be more horizontal fighters, using their greater agility to make sharp turns and get behind their quarry.

[PersonMan]

If the Fae in question have been doing this for a while, couldn't they have bred their battle-birds to cover some of their flaws? Say, to train/breed herons to dive the way they want them to, etc.?

[cobaltstarfire]

If the Fae in question have been doing this for a while, couldn't they have bred their battle-birds to cover some of their flaws? Say, to train/breed herons to dive the way they want them to, etc.?

It isn't something they've been doing for a while, the Herons are the first flying bird that has been "developed". So only around for a generation or two at most. They have been bred to the point that they won't eat their riders at least...most of the time. (it probably still happens from time to time...those herons get turned into food).

Herons were not originally tamed for war, they were bred to deliver mail, supplies, and people.

That said they probably could start to try and breed the herons to get those "flaws" out once war begins pretty quickly, the fae's animal husbandry and agricultural prowess is bordering on supernatural. I do think they'll find other birds a better starting point for being a war animal though, which is why I'm considering having birds of prey show up in the future.


Herons dropping things has been talked to a little bit though, my original thought was some substance (be it alchemical or realistic) that can or will catch on fire, or bags of rocks. Other suggestions that have been given have been heavy lead weights, heavy sharp pointy objects, and heavy caltrops. They really aren't very fast fliers (maxing out at around 35 mph) but they definitely have the long distance thing going for them if they want to do bomb raids or something like that.

[Mabn]

on the topic of things to drop, several of them could carry a large thin threaded net with hooks in it and drop it over an enemy formation to cause disorder.

Edit : as a tangential strategy you could tether 2-6 herons to a large box kite to bring heavier weaponry.

Edit Edit : or have the box kite in question filled with vials of flammable liquid and crashed into an enemy formation

[Spiryt]

As far as reloading crossbows, this guy has some very neat videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yogv2dDnx64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvrQYeWR-3E


one more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULi5a6pQRXA

If he's to be believed, he reloads pretty hefty bows using techniques very convincingly usable from horse/anything else.

Those crossbows with simple Wippe/pushing lever are particularly interesting.

Main drawback is that those levers are rather large and clunky, but nothing's free. :smallbiggrin:

[Thiel]

In regards to keeping the bolt in place it should be possible to make one of these (http://images.lancasterarchery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/13db83bec1fbd986744c31150a1b2502/1/7/1740042_1.jpg) out of appropriate materials. In between that and the metal clamp thingy and the bolt should be reasonably secure.

[Roxxy]

I'm wondering how much validity the Goldilocks Dilemma really has when discussing industrial warfare. I've heard it said that if you have female infantry on a large basis, you run the risk of losing so many of them that you cannot easily make up the lost population after the war. The implication here being that you only need one man to impregnate multiple women quickly. The issue I have with this in the context of industrial war is that it doesn't seem to fit the situation. Let's take World War 2 as an example. After the war, West Germany had a gender imbalance of about 4 million in favor of women, give or take. I've heard it said that only 1 in 3 young German women of this era would marry. Some would have children out of wedlock, but how many? Certainly not two-thirds. Clearly, the ability of men to rapidly impregnate multiple women is not being used much, and immkgration is handling lot of the slack. So, if German women fought in direct combat on a common basis and died in greater numbers, one would think this would skrink the 4 million person gender gap, making it easier to find spouses post war and actually speeding population growth. Naturally, this presumes that military numbers overall aren't rising much (less fit men doing munitions and agricultural work?). If they do rise, how much they can rise before the industry at home cannot keep up would seem to me to be the main driver of whether the Goldilocks Dilemma really holds weight in an industrial war.

What say you guys?

[Talakeal]

I'm wondering how much validity the Goldilocks Dilemma really has when discussing industrial warfare. I've heard it said that if you have female infantry on a large basis, you run the risk of losing so many of them that you cannot easily make up the lost population after the war. The implication here being that you only need one man to impregnate multiple women quickly. The issue I have with this in the context of industrial war is that it doesn't seem to fit the situation. Let's take World War 2 as an example. After the war, West Germany had a gender imbalance of about 4 million in favor of women, give or take. I've heard it said that only 1 in 3 young German women of this era would marry. Some would have children out of wedlock, but how many? Certainly not two-thirds. Clearly, the ability of men to rapidly impregnate multiple women is not being used much, and immkgration is handling lot of the slack. So, if German women fought in direct combat on a common basis and died in greater numbers, one would think this would skrink the 4 million person gender gap, making it easier to find spouses post war and actually speeding population growth. Naturally, this presumes that military numbers overall aren't rising much (less fit men doing munitions and agricultural work?). If they do rise, how much they can rise before the industry at home cannot keep up would seem to me to be the main driver of whether the Goldilocks Dilemma really holds weight in an industrial war.

What say you guys?

I would imagine in our modern industrial monogamous society it wouldn't have as big an impact as in an ancient warrior society where rich and powerful men were expected to have many wives.

[Roxxy]

I would imagine in our modern industrial monogamous society it wouldn't have as big an impact as in an ancient warrior society where rich and powerful men were expected to have many wives.

On that I agree. I can see the argument for the principle in an ancient warrior society, but looking at industrial warfare (Let's say American Civil War to World War 2), I just can't buy it.

[Tiktakkat]

I'm wondering how much validity the Goldilocks Dilemma really has when discussing industrial warfare.
. . .

What say you guys?

There are way too many additional cultural, and economic factors involved that it is impossible to assess on such a generic basis, not to mention the impact of such factors on the casualty rates in the first place.

Are we talking about the winning or the losing side?
Is there an occupation?
What is the extent of the post-war depression?
What is the scope of the recovery following said depression?
What is the overall economic/government type?
What was the demographic situation before the war? (This is particularly relevant with the number of nations undergoing a demographic collapse even without a war.)
What are the cultural factors in immigration replacing lost population?
What are the cultural factors in favor or opposed to open or covert polygamy and illegitimate children?
Meanwhile, does the culture tolerate women in combat?
Will the men suffer additional casualties trying to save them, aggravating the losses?
What if the women are used in non-infantry roles?

You mention West Germany.
Did you account for the number of young women who were raped?
What about the ones who already had one or two children?
Or the ones raising orphans?

The Soviet Union used women in non-front-line combat roles - air defense artillery, defensive air squadrons, and the like.
The Soviet Union also ran out of men by the end of the war, and were drawing down units to keep the factories running.
The Soviet Union also engaged in highly destructive demographic actions after the war. (Which is to say, self-genocide. The PRC managed the same right after winning their civil war.)

Israel had women in front-line infantry positions up through the 1948 War.
They promptly removed women from such service after that war.

Overall, due to the vast changes since WWII, it is pretty much impossible to determine whether any previous analysis or theoretical projection has any validity. There simply aren't any valid examples to make reasonable comparisons to, so most anything is just a wild guess.

[Brother Oni]

In regards to keeping the bolt in place it should be possible to make one of these (http://images.lancasterarchery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/13db83bec1fbd986744c31150a1b2502/1/7/1740042_1.jpg) out of appropriate materials. In between that and the metal clamp thingy and the bolt should be reasonably secure.

That's a compound bow arrow rest, so not especially useful for a crossbow. The main issue in horseback archery is keeping the bolt/arrow secured in place just before firing/loosing - with bows, the archer holds the arrow to the string via the nock with a thumb draw and the front end of the arrow in place with his finger (part of the reason why traditional arrows use feather fletching).

For a crossbow, that rest would just hold the front end of the bolt in place, so if the nock falls off the string, it's likely to result in a misfire. As mentioned earlier, fixes were a drop of glue in the barrel (groove in the body for the bolt) or just holding the bolt in place with your thumb at the nut (bolts are generally shorter than arrows, so it's easier to keep in place with the barrel modification). The 'metal clamp thingy', if you're referring to the crannequin, is only for spanning the crossbow (drawing the string back) and is removed for shooting.


I'm wondering how much validity the Goldilocks Dilemma really has when discussing industrial warfare.

As Tiktakkat said, most of the roles women took part in during WW2 were support roles, mostly due to there being insufficient men. In the UK, virtually the entire workforce became open to women, with even a number of AAA guns being run by female crews (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/53/a4016053.shtml)).

I think it depends on the style of warfare - the more indiscriminate it becomes, the more that the entire population becomes involved. A short border skirmish would likely use just the standing army of mostly men - a total war situation would necessitate everybody.



Israel had women in front-line infantry positions up through the 1948 War.
They promptly removed women from such service after that war.


They've been subsequently reinstated as the Caracal Battalion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion) formed in 2000. I can't find any information on whether the issues for why they were withdrawn in the first place (eg the Israelis found that male soldiers tended to stop fighting and withdraw if female squadmates became injured, physical requirements, etc) have been addressed. I've found a large number of opinions that the Caracal Battalion are considered to be sub-par quality-wise for infantry, but until I find some actual data on their effectiveness, I'm withholding judgement.

I did see that that IDF plans to permit female soldiers in armoured battalions have been rolled back, due to physical requirements and other concerns (privacy in a mixed gender crew, especially when they're buttoned up for potentially days).

[Haruspex_Pariah]

I heard somewhere or other that blades and (iron?) armor were oiled as part of their maintenance. Is that to prevent rust? How often did it have to be done? What kind of oil was it. When the warriors marched into battle would their metal equipment be all oily.

I was vaguely aware that any kind of articulated armor would need oiling to keep things moving smoothly, and that you'd generally keep your battle equipment clean, but the specific use of oil for swords and non-articulating armor intrigues me.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Even today a lot of good (survival, outdoor and military) knives are not stainless stain, I think it's mostly an issue of stainless not holding an edge quite as well. These knives have to be oiled to prevent rust. There's special stuff for it on the market, because of course there is, but to be fair most oils and fats work. If you want to prepare food with a knife olive or sunflower oil works brilliantly. i honestly don't know what old timey rich people used, but poorer folks probably took whatever was available, be it vegetable oil or animal fat.

Like with ice skates (if you have any familiarity with those) the oil doesn't need to be on it when you're using the knife, just don't leave it un-oiled for a long time (except maybe in a very dry storage room or something). For a real battle you'd probably just clean your sword, especially if you regularly use techniques like half swording (grabbing the sword at the hilt), nobody wants oil on their gauntlets. But for everyday carry, yeah, people would probably oil their blades every now and then, mostly after getting soaked. The blades would feel a bit fatty to the touch.

[Brother Oni]

I heard somewhere or other that blades and (iron?) armor were oiled as part of their maintenance. Is that to prevent rust? How often did it have to be done? What kind of oil was it. When the warriors marched into battle would their metal equipment be all oily.

I was vaguely aware that any kind of articulated armor would need oiling to keep things moving smoothly, and that you'd generally keep your battle equipment clean, but the specific use of oil for swords and non-articulating armor intrigues me.

Further to Lvl 2 Expert's post, I think you're over-estimating the amount of oil on a blade or piece of armour; it's only a very thin layer to keep water from getting to the steel - a quick wipe with an oily cloth is typically sufficient. It generally wouldn't be enough to affect the performance of the weapon or armour in combat (so they wouldn't be especially flammable or slippery), but you wouldn't go oiling up the grip of a sword.

Certain armours weren't oiled regularly because their construction ensured they were self cleaning (mail) or excessive oil was detrimental to the armour longevity (particular leathers I believe).

The only reference I know of where the oil used to protect armour became detrimental, was in Romance of The Three Kingdoms, in Zhuge Liang's Southern Campaign against the Nanman barbarians, who used tung oil treated rattan armour in the tropical/sub tropical conditions. Upon learning of the armour's construction, Zhuge Liang instructed that fire be used against the barbarians, resulting in horrific casualties, and he mentions that he would have to pay a karmic price for this battle.
As this is a fictional source, it leads me to wonder why the barbarians hadn't used fire against each other earlier, unless they had some sort of 'gentleman's agreement' going on which the northerners weren't aware of.

[Knaight]

As this is a fictional source, it leads me to wonder why the barbarians hadn't used fire against each other earlier, unless they had some sort of 'gentleman's agreement' going on which the northerners weren't aware of.

It's a fictional source, but parts of it are based pretty closely on reality, and one of these things is that Zhuge Liang was a real person, and as a general was pretty fond of using fire whenever possible. With that said, the campaign against the southern Man is one of the parts of the books less rooted in history.


Even today a lot of good (survival, outdoor and military) knives are not stainless stain, I think it's mostly an issue of stainless not holding an edge quite as well. These knives have to be oiled to prevent rust. There's special stuff for it on the market, because of course there is, but to be fair most oils and fats work. If you want to prepare food with a knife olive or sunflower oil works brilliantly. i honestly don't know what old timey rich people used, but poorer folks probably took whatever was available, be it vegetable oil or animal fat.
It's a mix of things. Stainless steel doesn't hold an edge super well, it's a little on the soft side and yet still surprisingly brittle, so on and so forth. As for knives not being stainless, there are good cooking knives as well, and at the higher end those aren't stainless either. Pretty much the only advantage stainless steel has over other steels is that it is low maintenance due to being highly rust resistant, and while that's a pretty huge advantage for a number of applications, good knives aren't one of them.

[Spiryt]

I'm certainly not very chemically literate, but I imagine the amount of tung oil needed to significantly increase inflammableness of a rattan would be rather extreme....

[Brother Oni]

It's a fictional source, but parts of it are based pretty closely on reality, and one of these things is that Zhuge Liang was a real person, and as a general was pretty fond of using fire whenever possible. With that said, the campaign against the southern Man is one of the parts of the books less rooted in history.

Heh, Zhuge Liang, killing things with fire since 3rd Century AD. :smalltongue:


I'm certainly not very chemically literate, but I imagine the amount of tung oil needed to significantly increase inflammableness of a rattan would be rather extreme....

I'm not very au fait with the chemistry of tung oil either, but some digging indicates that its flash point is only 110C and as a 'drying' oil, it cures when it dries, so I'm inclined to agree with you that the tung oil is unlikely to significantly affect flammability.

That said, rattan armour from the 17th Century was prepared by soaking rattan for half a month in water, then drying for three days. This is repeated for a year before allowing to dry out one final time then it's woven into armour before coating with tung oil. All that repeated soaking and drying is going to do something weird to the grain and when you're coating that wood with a slow drying oil (which is unlikely to dry at all if it gets very deep into the grain), flammability may be increased once the fire gets past the initial cured outer layer.

[Galloglaich]

If you are looking for late medieval/renaissance feel to organization (which a lot of fantasy is based on), then I can describe a little --

In Italy, the basic cavalry unit was the lance, which evolved over time.

First there was the three-man lance, which consisted of a well armored and equipped man-at-arms, a similarly armed sergeant, and a page, or squire, who looked after the other's equipment and horses.

Various influences caused there to be an increase in armor (horse armor), which required more horses for transport, and to keep the battle horses fresh. As a result there was a shift toward more people in the lance; the sergeant became perhaps not as well equipped as the man-at-arms, and took on more of a support role. So by the second half of the 15th century four man lances were becoming common. Often the fourth man was a mounted crossbowman (they were fashionable as bodyguards).

Five and six men lances also started to be deployed toward the end of the century (along with something similar called a corazza). The extra people were primarily there to take care of the man-at-arms' horses and equipment.

There was an older two-man unit called a barbuta.

All these units had shared basic structure: a leading soldier (man-at-arms), with the rest supporting him, with varying degrees of combat potential.

Italian infantry mercenaries might be organized around similar lines -- I have seen references to "infantry lances", with a well-armored pikeman supported by one or two servants. However, as infantry units of the time usually had a mix of different troops, it looks like the contract usually specified the specific type and number of troops. The traditional Italian infantry company consisted of infantry "lances" (pikemen), shield-bearers, and crossbowmen in roughly equal proportions. Note, a lot of infantry would be mounted (they fought on foot, but had horses for transport, increasing strategic mobility).

Likewise, I think light cavalry units (units of crossbowmen and stradiots) were hired as individuals.

Companies were highly variable -- it's perhaps better to think of them as administrative units rather than tactical units -- there were small 50 man infantry companies, but a prestigious captain might have a company of 500 lances (of 3 or 4 men) plus some number of infantry!

There is some question as to how these various units were deployed on the battlefield -- the consensus seems to be that the men-at-arms would be formed together, their sergeants perhaps in a separate formation, the pages providing logistical support, and, if the lance had them, the crossbowmen organized together in a separate unit (perhaps dismounted for the battle). However, it's possible that they mixed them together on the battlefield. For example, it's been reported that the mounted crossbowmen covered the flanks of the men-at-arms during charges. Likewise the infantry were usually in formations that contained all three of the traditional types.

Given that the company was a highly variable organization, other tactical units were common:
The squadra (squadron) consisted of 20 to 25 lances and was commanded by corporal (or caposquadra, or squadriere).

Later a formation called a "column", commanded by a colonello (i.e. colonel) was created which was 8-10 squadrons, and there's evidence that these formations could be built up of squadrons from different companies.


By way of contrast, the French lance was more of an all-round fighting unit, and you can read a description of it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies
(Also take a look at the late Burgundian Lance)

They were organized into compagnies d'ordonnance of 100 lances each. I think this standardization was more common when the state got involved in organizing units.

Great post Fusilier. Have you heard of an Italian formation called a cavalcade or 'cavalcada' or something like that? I know what a cavalcade is in general parlance but we ran into the term cavalcade in an old book on Bolognese armed societies from the 13th Century that kept mentioning them in a way that sounded like a military unit or formation.


In Central Europe and the Baltic in the 15th Century the organization of the lance (sometimes also called a 'helm' or a 'glove' or 'gleve') seemed to be similar to Italy. Crossbowmen sometimes seemed to be deployed separately Jan Dlugosz mentions incidents where they sally out and attack enemy cavalry, then retreat behind the friendly cavalry. During fights with the Mongols they often fired opening volleys from groups of mounted cavalry who then retreated and attacked again later with whistling bolts. Sometimes the mounted crossbowmen were used as scouts or screening forces (this was mentioned as a tactic used by the Bohemians), sometimes en masse like a forlorn hope.

But often they seemed to be part of the lance and Dlugosz and Piccolomini both specifically mention how they were used to protect the man at arms or heavy lancer from light cavalry. Piccolomini also says that the knights or men-at-arms themselves sometimes had a crossbow on their saddle, much in the way they would carry pistols in the 16th and 17th Century.

The Osprey book on the Burgundian armies has a bunch of details on their company d'ordinance from the day of Charles the Bold, some of them look like experimental formations with like 20 people in a 'lance', but as you say these sound like they were muster units and not really tactical units.

The Swedes and Norwegians used to organize their forces in units around the boatload, and the Czechs organized their units around a wagon, about 20 to a wagon (far more than could actually fit in the wagon) if I remember correctly, with specific ratios of guns to crossbows to flails to pikes and other weapons. But those aren't cavalry organizations..

There are also details available from letters by Matthias Corvinus about how Hungarian cavalry was organized and how the Black Army (which was mostly German and Czech) was organized. Can be dug up if needed though I don't think the guy asking was all that interested in the real world stuff.

G

[Galloglaich]

Note really. What you see comparing medieval tactics to modern, is that medieval tactics were less sophisticated, because of necessity, the thing that really allows modern tactics (entire armies moving to flank, engulfing maneuvers) is rapid communications, without those the more complex your tactics are, the less adaptive they become.

I guess you never heard of the Mongols. Or the various people who had to defeat them.




Again, not to defend the modern military again (although I will since that's my own area of experience), we are a lot better at many logistical tasks than a medieval army. Modern soldiers could harvest food, and they can build structures and fortifications that are vastly superior to the rapidly built Roman Stockades with much less notice. Having specialized engineers and logistics specialists and cooks makes this sort of thing possible, whereas they were not.


Having been stationed in Europe in the US Army, having seen fortifications built by Roman legions, and having deployed with US Engineer units and seen what they made, I can categorically say that Roman legions definitely hands down made far better fortifications, just in terms of their quality as buildings, than anything modern US army Engineer units make. Roman Legions built structures that are still standing 2000+ years later.

As for medieval armies, how many real medieval castles or town walls have you seen? A lot of those were built in the field by armies, in a surprisingly short time.

Modern engineers can do some amazing things, making airfields and bridges, but they don't make things anywhere near the same kind of quality. We just do things differently now days.

This is from Trier, built by the Roman Legions in 200 Ad

http://www.destination360.com/contents/pictures/germany/trier-roman-ruins.jpg

Show me anything the US Army made that will last half that long?


Show me a US Army engineer who built a wall across the entire breadth of Scotland?




The problem I would have with this is that without knowing how the fighting was done, we're kind of guestimatting. We can't say for sure how many support personnel had other duties, how many of them acted as soldiers in combat as well as support folks. But it's definitely a useful exercise I think. I'd be interested to see somebody work backwards from the logistics needed, planning essentially a campaign based on what would be needed and the tech at that time and see how closely that matches.


You don't need to work backward from the logistics, all the details are there in the literature, it just gets harder to get at and less accessible without a PhD and (real) JSTOR the deeper you go into it. But you can get shortcut synopsis from the likes of Delbruck, Verbruggen etc. Probably a lot more than you would want to get into here. I already recommended several of those Osprey books which will give you everything you would need for your purposes.


G

[Galloglaich]

You are factually incorrect here. The Soviet army was VASTLY outclassed. The German's had total air superiority for over a year, the Germans had total mobility superiority for slightly less than that. The German's had vastly superior tactics, and equipment. The Russians had numbers and lots of land, and that bought them enough time.


A lot of new data about WW II has emerged since the 90's.

You should really watch this. Might find it eye opening. I did.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qkmO7tm8AU

[Galloglaich]

That sounds a lot like an Age of Enlightenment army. You should be able to easily push that back to a late 17th century army. You might even be able to go back to the early 16th century, where permanent organizations like Tercios were established. However, they often varied a lot more than the regulations specified at that time.



The mercenary systems that developed in Italy in the 15th century provide an evolutionary link between medieval feudal systems, and modern permanent armies.

I agree what AMFV is talking about is more like a 17th Century army.

You should really also keep in mind, in the high to late (13th-15th Century) medieval period, not just in Italy but all over Europe East of the Rhine, military organization was much more sophisticated than the Cliché Monty Python / Braveheart version of Feudal army. They typically had a complex mix of several different types of mercenaries, well armed, highly specialized urban militias with excellent engineering and other technical skills (far surpassing Roman Legionaire's, even), less well armed but ferocious rural clan based armies, warrior monks, and elite Royal cavalry units. Cannons, firearms, war-wagons, war-rafts and heavily ships supported these forces.

The largest and most sophisticated permanent combined-arms army in Europe in the 15th Century was the Hungarian Black Army or Fekete Sereg, which was able to routinely defeat much larger Ottoman forces several times, Ottoman armies which in turn crushed more typically feudal Western armies.

G

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Warrior monks in Europe? I assume you mean Crusade-era military orders (Hospitaller, Templar)? Or are you talking about something else.

[Tobtor]

Warrior monks in Europe? I assume you mean Crusade-era military orders (Hospitaller, Templar)? Or are you talking about something else.

I dont know what exactly G is refering to. But it is important to note that on of the largest group of people entering some orders where noble/knight-class people.

Incidentally this is how the most famous Danish medieval Bishop is remembered today:
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o6/93/329493/1/82118270.fjbdx6CQ.CopenhagenAug06616.jpg

Absalon was his name and he belonged to one of the most influential noble families (Hvide), grew up as a "foster"-brother of Valdemar (later known as the Great). He is known for his military abilities and handling of weapons. One of the keys to the succes of Valdemar the great and his successors was a close collaboration between the church and the kings. Bishops, but also lesser churchmen routinely participated in battle through the entire medieval period (from the Norman conquest of England onwards).

[Vitruviansquid]

New question based on what I've been reading in this thread so far:

To what extent is following true and to what extent is it false?

"If a medieval leader went to war, he had very little control over what his forces would look like, Much less control than, for instance, a leader of a Roman imperial army or the leader of a Napoleonic army. When the medieval leader called up his soldiers, he would basically have as much cavalry as there were people who could afford to be equipped as cavalry, he would have as many archers as there were people with expertise in archery, he would have as many of whatever type of soldier as there were men available of the proper economic and social station. If, for instance, the equipment of a cavalryman cost three times as much as the equipment of a spearman, a medieval leader had no way of disbanding his cavalry and converting the resources they took up into three times their number in spearmen. If a medieval leader lacked archers, there was no way for him to simply hire or train more unless he had not tapped out his source of archers in the first place. In order to change the composition of his armies, a medieval leader had to implement social and economic changes that would increase the number of men available to fight in a certain battlefield role. For instance, English kings who depended on large numbers of yeoman archers in their armies had to enact economic policies to protect the yeoman class and social policies such as mandatory archery practice for large sections of the population in order to preserve or grow expertise in that weapon."

[RickAllison]

Here's the major point about the lance that I'm trying to get across:

It's not (necessarily) a tactical unit -- it's more of a logistical unit.* The members of the lance would eat together, travel together, camp together, look after each others horses, draw pay as a unit, etc. Later armies might describe them as a "mess". However, they wouldn't fight side-by-side (although they might in some cases). When you have an heavily armed/armored cavalryman in the same lance as a foot pikemen, tactically you can't really deploy them in the same formation. They might be deployed in formations that supported each other, but they wouldn't be fighting, literally, along side each other.

On the battlefield similar troops would be grouped together: heavy cavalry would form up separate from the infantry. So the lance (squad) was effectively split up when deployed for a battle.

That's quite different from modern military practice where tactical formations and organizational formations are basically one and the same. Yes, you might have a some sort of mechanized transport, for a rifle squad, or reinforce them with a heavy weapons team, etc. But they're not part of the same squad.

Perhaps, ironically, modern military squads are more likely to call up someone from a different organization while on the battlefield. Like attaching an artillery forward observer to a rifle platoon, or sending an armored fighting vehicle to deploy a squad of riflemen.

---------------
If your interest is only in how they would fight/organize themselves on the battlefield then you can ignore the lance as a model -- it's not a model for that.

However, if you are interested in how the soldiers lived, in a day-to-day fashion, then understanding the lance might be useful to you.

*For small level skirmishes and patrols they might find themselves together in a tactical situation.

This discussion on the lances actually gave me a fun idea for a story hook of having the players basically being a fantasy equivalent of the lance. Either a local lord calls them in to lead some of his troops (for experienced players) by splitting the party, or having the party just be starting out as recruits in an army. Then, everything goes to hell-in-a-hand-basket and the party members find themselves rejoined, their companies eradicated, and having to pull off a daring plan to turn the tide of battle. It actually gives a historical equivalent for the variety in parties we often see.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

To what extent is following true and to what extent is it false?

I think most of that's true. Cavalry were mostly knights and other minor nobles which all brought their own equipment. And archery takes quite a bit of time to master. If a king wanted to have more archers he'd promote hunting, than he might have more of them in about 20 years. (A joke I've heard from the early gunpowder era goes like this: "How do you train a good archer? Start with his grandfather!" It was apparently hilarious, so there must be some truth in it.)

But, this also goes to an extend for Roman leaders. Support troops with slings for instance are not trained up from scratch, they are conscripted shepherds, who already can use a sling. It's mostly the basic infantry where they have a little more room to move things around. And that's probably true for medieval armies as well. You can always (well, often) force more peasants into battle and arm them any way you like, you just need to fork over the money and the blacksmiths.

(Note: I'm not actually very sure about any of this, but someone who studied it to a larger extend will probably drop in.)

[Brother Oni]

New question based on what I've been reading in this thread so far:

To what extent is following true and to what extent is it false?

"If a medieval leader went to war, he had very little control over what his forces would look like, Much less control than, for instance, a leader of a Roman imperial army or the leader of a Napoleonic army. When the medieval leader called up his soldiers, he would basically have as much cavalry as there were people who could afford to be equipped as cavalry, he would have as many archers as there were people with expertise in archery, he would have as many of whatever type of soldier as there were men available of the proper economic and social station. If, for instance, the equipment of a cavalryman cost three times as much as the equipment of a spearman, a medieval leader had no way of disbanding his cavalry and converting the resources they took up into three times their number in spearmen. If a medieval leader lacked archers, there was no way for him to simply hire or train more unless he had not tapped out his source of archers in the first place. In order to change the composition of his armies, a medieval leader had to implement social and economic changes that would increase the number of men available to fight in a certain battlefield role. For instance, English kings who depended on large numbers of yeoman archers in their armies had to enact economic policies to protect the yeoman class and social policies such as mandatory archery practice for large sections of the population in order to preserve or grow expertise in that weapon."

In England, there was some standardisation of equipment, from the 1181 Assize of Arms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181), which states that if you earned X income, you were legally obligated to have the appropriate kit:

If you earned one knight's fee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight%27s_fee) (land sufficient to support a knight, his family, esquires and servants): mail shirt, helmet, shield and lance. If you earned more than one knight's fee, then you were expected to have the equivalent multiple.
Free laymen who earned more than 16 marks: mail shirt, helmet, shield and lance.
Free laymen who earned more than 10 marks: hauberk, iron cap and lance.
Burgess and freemen: gambeson, iron cap and lance.

I'm not sure about horses though.

The statement regarding the enforced practice of archery in England is fully correct and as Lvl 2 Expert stated, if you wanted a good archer, start with his grandfather (the first mention I can find for compulsory archery was in 1388 by Richard II, which stated that all labourers and servants must have bows and must practice on Sundays and holidays; the majority of enforced archery statutes came in under Henry VIII and there are numerous laws on the price and quality of bow staves and arrow components).


I do think you're overlooking the obvious way for a medieval leader to get specifically armed troops to round out his combined arms capability - hire mercenaries. Swiss pikemen were very much in demand and German Landsknecht companies also had pikemen, although typically rounded out with zweihanders and crossbows/arquebuses, among other things. Genoese crossbowmen were also famous and well known for their pavises (although they came a bit of a cropper against the English longbowmen at Crecy due to the rain).

Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, it's a bit of loaded question. Even today, if a division commander wanted more tanks, he couldn't dissolve a bunch of infantry regiments and purchase a tank regiment and their crews and support infrastructure instead.

[Beleriphon]

Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, it's a bit of loaded question. Even today, if a division commander wanted more tanks, he couldn't dissolve a bunch of infantry regiments and purchase a tank regiment and their crews and support infrastructure instead.

It is, but less so than today since if you wanted a combined arms force in Medieval Europe and you didn't have the troops equipped for it you were kind of stuck, while today we specifically equip and train as a combined arms military. The government call also just buy more gun, or helicopters or tanks, and train people to use them. Modern equipment is largely easier to train people to use than many medieval weapons at a person level.

As an interesting aside for what a combined arms concept can do to Early-Renaissance army read 1632 and its sequels. A modern West Virginia coal mining town gets transported from 200- to 1632. Suffice to say the sheriff of the town holds a bridge by himself with noting but modern handguns and a rifle. Eventually the town equips a bunch of German mercenaries with pump action shotguns with seven round tube magazines and 20-gauge slugs. They mercenaries wont aim, but they love the rate of fire compared to an arquebus. Its really funny in the next several books the town starts building bi-planes an ironclads for the Swedes when the rest of Europe is still grappling with the idea of firing a gun more than twice a minute.

[Mike_G]

I think the grain of truth lies in the fact that feudal armies weren't standing armies where the government authorizes X regiments of infantry, Y of cavalry, etc, but that vassals owed their lords service, and were expected to show up with so many troops, or so much equipment.

If the President decides to send troops someplace, he can just order whatever units of the standing US armed forces he wants to go. So he can send a carrier group, a Marine Expeditionary Unit, and the 101 st Airborne and know exactly what he's getting.

A feudal lord or king calls up his vassals and they show up with the forces they show up with. Or, if they don't support him, maybe they make excuses or don't show at all.

It would be like if there was a tiny standing US army, and the government relied on asking the governors to send National Guard units. The central government has a lot less control in that situation. That's actually more or less how the US military worked until the 20th Century.

[JustSomeGuy]

Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, it's a bit of loaded question. Even today, if a division commander wanted more tanks, he couldn't dissolve a bunch of infantry regiments and purchase a tank regiment and their crews and support infrastructure instead.

Way back in the mists of 2001, i was attatched to a cavalry (actually tankies, but they had about 3 horses and were formed from historical cavalry/lancer regts). We (after asking and dealing with some puzzled seniors, i was allowed to join them) spent 6 months 're roling' to infantry so we could deploy to northern ireland as an infantry battalion - scrounging a company of actual infanteers along the way, because there aren't many people in a cav squadron - because, as rumour had it, their colonel thought it would be good experience and they didn't have "anything important" coming up for the next 4 years. Incidentally, about a month into the tour itself, telic (iraq 2) kicked off and they were stuck with 5 more months slinking around the province, and another 6-9 months reroling back to cavalry, plus whatever downtime between tours were required at the time, before they could go "do something important" that they were actually trained, experienced and wanted to do.

Now i'm not sure how common this was/is, or if it changed the process or booted it outright given the circumstance, but i think at the time as long as your military formation passed the appropriate level of readiness training you could indeed swap out your x troops as y troops.

[Galloglaich]

Warrior monks in Europe? I assume you mean Crusade-era military orders (Hospitaller, Templar)? Or are you talking about something else.

Again, we are talking about the real medieval Europe here not the cartoon medieval Europe or the RPG medieval Europe.

The Templars (until they were partly destroyed and disbanded by the French King and the Pope in 1312) and the Hospitallers of St. John both owned a great deal of land within Europe, fought in Crusades within Europe, and fought as part of combined arms armies for non Crusade battles within Europe.

But I'm also talking about some of the many other powerful orders of warrior monks such as the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword, who controlled huge swathes of territory and actually had the closest thing to a modern State in most of Europe.

For example the monastic state of the Teutonic Order encompassed an area larger than England.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/TeutonicOrder1400.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Teutonic_Order

The Livonian Order, aka the Livonian Brothers of the Sword, aka the Sword Brothers, are kind of a better example of what I was talking about though. Originally they owned a huge territory close to the size of that of the Teutonic Knights, but they kind of got their back broken in 1435 after very unwisely getting involved in an internal power struggle among their nominal enemies in Lithuania. The Grand Master was killed along with 3/4 of the monk-knights. After that, their territory which was called Terra Mariana (the Land of Mary) was divided in power between various prince-prelates (warlike bishops and archbishops) 3 powerful Free Cities, and the remaining Monk-knights of the Sword Brothers.

This is a map of their territory, post 1435

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Livonia_in_1534_%28English%29.png

The white parts were controlled by the Order, the Blue, Green and Brown parts were controlled by different Bishops, and the Greenish Blue part is controlled by the Free City of Riga. Within these territories free Knights also controlled significant areas (organized under what was called the Baltic Noble Corporations)

When they had to go to war, as they often did, against powerful neighbors such as the Golden Horde of the Mongols or the Russian State of Muscovy, they fielded armies which were made up forces from all these estates: Brother Knights from the Order, Free Knights, forces of the Bishops, and forces of the towns. All of these forces had infantry, cavalry, guns and marksmen (gunners and crossbowmen, some of the latter mounted) - each estate specialized in one or more troops types. The towns had the best cannon and infantry, the Bishops had the best light cavalry (recruited from their formerly pagan Estonian and Latvian subjects), the Religious Orders and Free Knights had the best heavy cavalry. They actually created a pretty effective army and acquitted themselves well against very powerful enemies including in some truly apocalyptic wars in the 16th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Order

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Mariana#Livonian_Confederation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_knighthoods



I happen to know a lot about the Baltic region because I've done a lot of research on it, but there were also many Military Orders in Spain, a few in Italy, and some in Bohemia and Hungary as well.

G

[Galloglaich]

New question based on what I've been reading in this thread so far:

To what extent is following true and to what extent is it false?

"If a medieval leader went to war, he had very little control over what his forces would look like, Much less control than, for instance, a leader of a Roman imperial army or the leader of a Napoleonic army. When the medieval leader called up his soldiers, he would basically have as much cavalry as there were people who could afford to be equipped as cavalry, he would have as many archers as there were people with expertise in archery, he would have as many of whatever type of soldier as there were men available of the proper economic and social station. If, for instance, the equipment of a cavalryman cost three times as much as the equipment of a spearman, a medieval leader had no way of disbanding his cavalry and converting the resources they took up into three times their number in spearmen. If a medieval leader lacked archers, there was no way for him to simply hire or train more unless he had not tapped out his source of archers in the first place. In order to change the composition of his armies, a medieval leader had to implement social and economic changes that would increase the number of men available to fight in a certain battlefield role. For instance, English kings who depended on large numbers of yeoman archers in their armies had to enact economic policies to protect the yeoman class and social policies such as mandatory archery practice for large sections of the population in order to preserve or grow expertise in that weapon."

It's true if you are talking about an English Feudal Army in the 13th Century. If you are talking about a typical Army in Continental Europe during the era of plate armor and two handed swords and so on, it's almost all nonsense.

Most armies on the continent relied more on crossbowmen than archers by the 14th Century, then they started shifting to guns in the 15th Century. England was kind of an outlier in their preference for the Longbow, though Burgundy also had a lot of them and they were found all over Europe. Contrary to the cliché crossbowmen were not hapless mooks but were highly paid experts, and many were mounted.

Medieval commanders did control their armies. They didn't really use spearmen per se though some armies had a lot of pikemen by the end of the 14th Century. These were mostly not Feudal armies though, the original widespread use of pikes came out of the Swiss confederation. Others were organized around ships or war wagons as I already mentioned.


As I said before, medieval armies were almost always combinations of many different types of forces: urban militias, rural clan armies, religious monk-knights, mercenaries. They typically did have good battlefield communication and signaling and fought as combined arms mixed units of infantry, light and heavy cavalry, scouts, and artillery. Armies that were heavily dominated by Feudal rules tended to get wiped out quickly, as the French famously did in Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt against the English, but also in Spain, Hungary, and many other places. As the French started fighting in Italy they learned to make their own version of combined-arms forces, often hiring professional infantry from the Swiss or Germans since due to the excessively Feudal nature of their home economy, they didn't have enough good quality infantry at home. This was pretty unusual though in Europe.


The biggest thing people have to understand about medieval Europe is that England and France, the two nations which we are most familiar with, were kind of rural backwaters in the middle ages, way behind on technology and culture, which was mostly coming from Italy, Flanders, Germany, Spain, and certain parts of what we now call Eastern Europe roughly in that order. The Renaissance had been going on 100 years before it even really touched England.

England and France started becoming very powerful and important in the 16th Century after the opening of the Atlantic and Pacific, and the return of chattel slavery, which worked better with their types of (strong monarchy and mostly rural economy) political systems.

G

[Brother Oni]

It is, but less so than today since if you wanted a combined arms force in Medieval Europe and you didn't have the troops equipped for it you were kind of stuck, while today we specifically equip and train as a combined arms military. The government call also just buy more gun, or helicopters or tanks, and train people to use them.

I think it depends on the cultural and political nature of the country and period. Reading up on it some more, there was a form of conscription in England called shire levies which called up able bodied men within a geographical administrative region, rather than the typical levy placed on noble families. I presume that such infantry would be equipped out to a basic standard (probably a spear or a bow in this particular case), but be expected to buy/loot more equipment if they survived.

I concede it doesn't sort out the cavalry issues, but you've got infantry and you've got archers and that's a decent start.


It would be like if there was a tiny standing US army, and the government relied on asking the governors to send National Guard units. The central government has a lot less control in that situation. That's actually more or less how the US military worked until the 20th Century.

I think this is mostly how it worked for most medieval countries as I can't see a ruler not having their own personal (ie household) troops loyal only to them in case of dodgy support from their nobility political base.

I remember somebody on this thread mentioning that that for Scandinavian countries, a rich enough lord often had his own bodyguards/soldiers that he paid and equipped out of his own pocket, rather than part-time farmers who brought along whatever they had when they went to war or raiding.

Janissaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries) were conscripts that formed the household troops and bodyguards of the Ottoman sultans and they had fairly standardised kit and uniforms (they were renown for their early adoption and use of muskets).

[Galloglaich]

I think this is mostly how it worked for most medieval countries as I can't see a ruler not having their own personal (ie household) troops loyal only to them in case of dodgy support from their nobility political base.

This really depends on the era and what part of Europe. It would not be the case in most of Europe, at least not in that simple way, though household troops did remain important.



I remember somebody on this thread mentioning that that for Scandinavian countries, a rich enough lord often had his own bodyguards/soldiers that he paid and equipped out of his own pocket, rather than part-time farmers who brought along whatever they had when they went to war or raiding.

The personal bodyguard was originally called Huskarls, it was something that developed in Viking occupied parts of England during the 9th and 10th Centuries. In the East the tradition became part of what was called the Druzhina, which later became a sort of elite corps in the Rus principalities, and later still an elite part of the military of the Duchy of Muscovy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housecarl

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Monomakh%27s_hunting.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

The German speaking areas usually went another route and armed their serfs to become knights. Those were called ministeriales. Many knights were not nobles, incidentally, arguably most of them were not at least not originally. Some of these ministerials eventually became part of the nobility over many generations. But technically ministerial knights - who comprised most of the heavy cavalry in most of the battles in Central Europe for quite a long time, were serfs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis



Janissaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries) were conscripts that formed the household troops and bodyguards of the Ottoman sultans and they had fairly standardised kit and uniforms (they were renown for their early adoption and use of muskets).

Janissaries were not conscripts, they were warrior slaves, trained from youth. They came from slaves taken in battle or in the annual tax of little boys taken from the Balkans called the Devşirme. They were originally archers and shock infantry and later gravitated to the arquebus and as you noted, some of the earliest proto -muskets (originally designed as armor-piercing weapons)

This is a contemporary (medieval) image of boys being rounded up for the Devsirme. Some would end up Janissaries or slave administrators, many would end up worked to death in salt mines or as sex-slaves part of seraglios.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Janissary_Recruitment_in_the_Balkans-Suleymanname.jpg
The Egyptians had a similar system called the Mamluks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

The Janissaries were the best infantry the Ottomans had, wheras the Mamluks were cavalry who ultimately defeated the Crusaders and then the Mongols (and thereby saved the Arabs from extermination)

G

[Galloglaich]

Very generally speaking, by far the biggest part of medieval armies though were mercenaries. The other estates I mentioned are what made up the mercenaries, each type tended to produce better troops for specific needs. There were some important slave and serf troops as I mentioned but the best and most expensive mercenaries were mostly from free areas.

If you wanted to get up to speed you should pick a region and get some of those Osprey books I linked upthread (German medieval Armies, Italian Medieval armies etc.) they do a really good job of summarizing it. But you have to let go of all the genre tropes and cliché's from Monty Python, Lord of the Rings and DnD that you are familiar with.

[fusilier]

This discussion on the lances actually gave me a fun idea for a story hook of having the players basically being a fantasy equivalent of the lance. Either a local lord calls them in to lead some of his troops (for experienced players) by splitting the party, or having the party just be starting out as recruits in an army. Then, everything goes to hell-in-a-hand-basket and the party members find themselves rejoined, their companies eradicated, and having to pull off a daring plan to turn the tide of battle. It actually gives a historical equivalent for the variety in parties we often see.

+1 I've never done it, but I've often thought it would work well for something like that. :-)

[fusilier]

Great post Fusilier. Have you heard of an Italian formation called a cavalcade or 'cavalcada' or something like that? I know what a cavalcade is in general parlance but we ran into the term cavalcade in an old book on Bolognese armed societies from the 13th Century that kept mentioning them in a way that sounded like a military unit or formation.

The only time I've seen the term cavalcata used it could be interpreted as it is in English, but it's not a term I've come across very much.

[Galloglaich]

Forgive me if all that came across a little too snarky, I just get exercised about what I think of as persistent cliché's about the medieval world. I think most of us regulars in the thread do, that's why we post here. it's not for the free coffee and donuts... ;)

I learn a lot from the thread though. From all y'all. Don't mean to give the impression that I don't.

[Mr. Mask]

On the note of mercs, I was wondering about their employment practices. In particular, were they known for swapping sides and employers, or sticking to one employer?

There are certainly cases of turn coats among mercs. But are there cases of mercs who work for one side in one war, then for the other side in the other war? There are some arms dealers who have sold to both sides in a conflict to prolong it, but what about mercenaries?

[fusilier]

On the note of mercs, I was wondering about their employment practices. In particular, were they known for swapping sides and employers, or sticking to one employer?

There are certainly cases of turn coats among mercs. But are there cases of mercs who work for one side in one war, then for the other side in the other war? There are some arms dealers who have sold to both sides in a conflict to prolong it, but what about mercenaries?

There are notorious cases of mercenaries switching sides, and those are very well known, but perhaps taken out of proportion. I think Swiss mercenaries once famously defected during a battle so they wouldn't have to fight other Swiss mercenaries.

In 14th century Italy, when the large mercenary companies were demobilized they would often just start raiding and extorting bribes from towns and cities, set themselves up for the winter -- basically acting like highly organized brigands, until someone hired them again. Sometimes that might be bribed to go attack another city. If you want to see how the use of mercenaries messed with a city state for a long time, take a look at: Mercenaries Companies and the Decline of Siena, by William Caferro.

By the end of the 14th century things settled down in Italy, and in the 15th century fidelity was considered important; some senior captains with a good reputation for fidelity being able to command a larger contract, over Captains that were recognized as being better on the battlefield but unreliable.

If you're interested in Italian Condottiere get a copy of Mercenaries and their Masters, by Michael Mallett. That should tell you most of what you want to know about their organization and developments in contracts, etc.

The major development was basically to not demobilize the mercenaries, or at least not all of them. Renew the contracts on the best ones, and use them to get rid of the unreliable mercenaries (this could entail escorting them to the border). I could provide some details of the change in Italian contracts, etc., when I get back to my sources. Generally the contracts covered longer periods as time went on. Once the contract was up, then there was no stigma to taking on another employer -- however, there was often a condition that they could not engage in warfare against the original employer for a certain amount of time.

EDIT-- Prior to the big mercenary companies of the 14th century, most Italian mercenaries were hired individually or in small groups, so they were less of a threat when demobilized. Also the citizen soldiers were often a large component of the fighting force. --EDIT

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Forgive me if all that came across a little too snarky, I just get exercised about what I think of as persistent cliché's about the medieval world. I think most of us regulars in the thread do, that's why we post here. it's not for the free coffee and donuts... ;)

I learn a lot from the thread though. From all y'all. Don't mean to give the impression that I don't.

Yeah, your remark about "RPG and cartoon medieval Europe" did seem like an unnecessarily snarky opening response to my query. Good thing I left the fire breathing dragons, level 7 elf wizards, and killer rabbits out of my posts. :smallamused:

But seriously, kudos for putting a lot of time and effort into your posts. Your frustration with historical inaccuracies is understandable.

Now for a question. I've heard that ancient Roman gladiators and soldiers used wooden swords in their training. What I find odd is that these were allegedly twice as heavy as the equipment they would use for real. Can you make a wooden sword heavier than a steel one? I'm not implying that steel swords were super heavy or anything, but since these training weapons were presumably of similar size and shape to real swords, it becomes purely a matter of material density, does it not. Quick Google Search: Steel 7.88 g/cm3, while most woods are less than 1 g/cm3.

[Mr. Mask]

I have been told before that mercs working on both sides in a war was nearly impossible. Depending on how common incidents like the Swiss having to fight each other were, it would seem that is not the case.

Is there much information on cases where two warring sides hired from the same group of mercs for the same conflict? Generally, that does seem like a dangerous move to make, so I'm curious about why a faction would consent to such an agreement, and if such would be feasible in later periods. I expect the example of the Swiss were two separate Swiss Mercenary Companies, and in some cultures you can expect you countrymen to be quite happy to kill each other, but all the same it makes me wonder if there was desperation or an overestimation of the Swiss professionalism that lead the factions to act like that.


Thanks for the book mentions, I'll see if I can find them. It'd be nice if I could find audiobooks, but it seems few historically centred works have audio versions.

[Vitruviansquid]

So if 13th century English medieval war leaders had difficulty controlling what kind of troops their armies would have while continental medieval leaders did not, what made the difference? Was it ready access to mercenaries and the money to hire them?

[fusilier]

I have been told before that mercs working on both sides in a war was nearly impossible. Depending on how common incidents like the Swiss having to fight each other were, it would seem that is not the case.

Is there much information on cases where two warring sides hired from the same group of mercs for the same conflict? Generally, that does seem like a dangerous move to make, so I'm curious about why a faction would consent to such an agreement, and if such would be feasible in later periods. I expect the example of the Swiss were two separate Swiss Mercenary Companies, and in some cultures you can expect you countrymen to be quite happy to kill each other, but all the same it makes me wonder if there was desperation or an overestimation of the Swiss professionalism that lead the factions to act like that.


Thanks for the book mentions, I'll see if I can find them. It'd be nice if I could find audiobooks, but it seems few historically centred works have audio versions.

The Swiss mercenaries gained a reputation for not wanting to fight each other (the Canton governments often tried to prevent it). German landsknechts don't seem to have had such a reputation.

By the 15th century Italian mercenary companies seemed to have been fairly diverse in terms of backgrounds. The feeling I get is that they had become kind of like international professionals -- so the soldiers felt loyalty first to their captain, and then next to their employing state rather than their "home country". Towards the end of the century the contracts had become quite long and were usually expected to be renewed, so some sense of connection to the employing state may have developed. But for the most part they moved around enough to not grow roots.

During the 16th century Italian mercenaries fought on both sides (all sides?) of the Italian Wars, and alliances could switch. While a naval captain, Andrea Doria is a good example of a mercenary who switched sides from the French to the Spanish.

A condottieri leader, probably couldn't be expected to attack his own family holdings, or something along those lines. Some condottieri were also turned into feudal lords by the city-state, and given lands. They would be very hard to bribe away, as they would lose their lands, but it could be done if they thought they had more to gain, or could quickly recapture those lands (or felt slighted).

This is different from the mercenaries of earlier periods, like the Genoese crossbowmen. They were hired out by the city-state (usually from the militia), and the state would not allow them to fight on both sides of a war.

[Brother Oni]

The personal bodyguard was originally called Huskarls, it was something that developed in Viking occupied parts of England during the 9th and 10th Centuries.

I knew the Saxons had housecarls, but I guess I never made the connection to the previous Viking rulers like Canute.



Now for a question. I've heard that ancient Roman gladiators and soldiers used wooden swords in their training. What I find odd is that these were allegedly twice as heavy as the equipment they would use for real. Can you make a wooden sword heavier than a steel one? I'm not implying that steel swords were super heavy or anything, but since these training weapons were presumably of similar size and shape to real swords, it becomes purely a matter of material density, does it not. Quick Google Search: Steel 7.88 g/cm3, while most woods are less than 1 g/cm3.

I remember hearing that some wooden swords had a soft lead core so that they were heavier to help build up muscle.



By the 15th century Italian mercenary companies seemed to have been fairly diverse in terms of backgrounds. The feeling I get is that they had become kind of like international professionals -- so the soldiers felt loyalty first to their captain, and then next to their employing state rather than their "home country".

I get the feeling that part of that is due (or because of) the idea of an Italian nation is a comparatively recent development (19-20th Century), in comparison to, say the English, where nationalism and an English identity was starting to form around the time of the 100 Years War.

[Thiel]

Now for a question. I've heard that ancient Roman gladiators and soldiers used wooden swords in their training. What I find odd is that these were allegedly twice as heavy as the equipment they would use for real. Can you make a wooden sword heavier than a steel one? I'm not implying that steel swords were super heavy or anything, but since these training weapons were presumably of similar size and shape to real swords, it becomes purely a matter of material density, does it not. Quick Google Search: Steel 7.88 g/cm3, while most woods are less than 1 g/cm3.

I don't know if historical training weapons where heavier or not, but modern wooden swords tends to be much thicker than metal ones and the bevels don't meet along a sharp edge. All that ads up to a lot more volume.

[Beleriphon]

Now for a question. I've heard that ancient Roman gladiators and soldiers used wooden swords in their training. What I find odd is that these were allegedly twice as heavy as the equipment they would use for real. Can you make a wooden sword heavier than a steel one? I'm not implying that steel swords were super heavy or anything, but since these training weapons were presumably of similar size and shape to real swords, it becomes purely a matter of material density, does it not. Quick Google Search: Steel 7.88 g/cm3, while most woods are less than 1 g/cm3.

Its easy enough to weight a weapon with lead cores, then you for sure have it denser than steel. And remember that a wooden "sword" isn't really a sword, its more like a sword length club. I'd also point out that gladiators generally didn't fight to the death, because they were frigging expensive to train (and if slaves) to buy. Nevermind that a number of gladiators were freemen that opted to participate for set periods of time.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Thanks for the clarification all. I had assumed that "wooden sword" meant one constructed entirely of wood.

[Galloglaich]

Thanks for the clarification all. I had assumed that "wooden sword" meant one constructed entirely of wood.

Even all-wooden swords can be heavier than steel, believe it or not. It's because the wood is much thicker (and wood for practice swords tends to be heavy and dense so it won't break). I have some old wooden swords which are heavier than my steel feders. Steel swords tend to be pretty light.

It's also different based on the length and size of a sword. A gladius is pretty small, it's reasonable to make a wooden one. In the medieval period they used wood and / or leather for shorter swords like Dussacks, but seem to have mostly used specially designed steel training swords for longer weapons like longswords or arming swords, the main problems with wooden swords being that they are more likely to crack or break under heavy use (since wood hard enough to withstand this kind of punishment isn't usually also flexible enough the way spring-steel is) and because the wood, being thicker and heavier, and also stiffer, is more dangerous to spar with.

This is one of the things we figured out in the early days of the modern HEMA revival, with the result of a lot of broken bones. Our early steel training swords weren't much better. It wasn't until we started copying the specially designed medieval fencing swords, which we call today 'feders' or 'federschwert', that the injury rate went down (with the help of some nice equipment like very good protective gloves) and we were able to start fencing with steel swords, resulting in much cleaner fights and better technique.

http://www.therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c1166_meyer.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder_(fencing)


On the note of mercs, I was wondering about their employment practices. In particular, were they known for swapping sides and employers, or sticking to one employer?

There are certainly cases of turn coats among mercs. But are there cases of mercs who work for one side in one war, then for the other side in the other war? There are some arms dealers who have sold to both sides in a conflict to prolong it, but what about mercenaries?

This did happen, though as fusilier said there was a certain inertia involved in this because switching sides could damage a condottiero's reputation which could make it hard to find jobs in the future. I think switching sides was more common in Italy than in Central Europe.

There was one Landsknecht Company, the Black Band, who famously fought against the other Landsknechts in Italy. This led to their being wiped out at the Battle of Pavia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Band_(landsknechts)

There was a famous English condottiero in the 14th Century, Sir John Hawkwood, who had a reputation for switching sides many times, and for brutalizing the local population. Nevertheless he had a pretty long career as a merc. captain.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Paolo_Uccello_044.jpg/297px-Paolo_Uccello_044.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hawkwood

Out of work or demobilized mercenaries were a major problem. The French even had to try to invade neighboring regions, first Switzerland and later the city of Strasbourg, (both failures) in order to rid themselves of a mob of out of work mercenaries after the end of the 100 Years War.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/St._Jakob_Tschachtlan.jpg/360px-St._Jakob_Tschachtlan.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Jakob_an_der_Birs

They actually defeated the Swiss in the Battle of St. Jakob an der Bris in 1444 but they lost so many guys it freaked them out and they turned around and left the alps. They tried attacking Strasbourg over the winter but that failed too. But the Dauphin may have succeeded in his actual goal of reducing the numbers of mercenaries dramatically. Every dead mercenary was a mercenary you didn't have to pay.

Ironically it was around this time (mid-15th Century) that the Swiss began to adopt their policy of only hiring themselves to the French in order to prevent fighting on both sides of the same battle, which they felt threatened their (always quite precarious) national unity.

In Northern and Eastern Central Europe, the Czechs, particularly the Czech Hussite heretics, played the role that the Swiss did in Italy. During wars in Hungary, Prussia, Livonia and Silesia in the 15th Century Czech Hussite troops did routinely fight on both sides. They seemed to have usually been pretty loyal to whoever hired them though, unless they weren't paid. This was always a problem for all mercenaries. There was a famous incident in the 13 Years War between the Teutonic Knights (supported by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor) on one side, vs. the "Prussian" cities and Poland on the other. During a summer offensive in 1455 Bohemian (Czech) mercenaries fighting for the Order had managed to recapture three towns, including Marienburg / Malbork which had been the main citadel of the Teutonic Knights. But the Teutonic Order had run out of money, and had stopped paying their mercenaries mid-summer. After giving them a couple of months to try to raise the cash, the Czech mercenaries started negotiating with the Prussian Confederation to sell the towns back to them. It took some doing to raise the huge sum of 190,000 Hungarian gulden (causing a brief uprising over the necessary taxes in Danzig) but the Polish King gave the Prussian towns a slew of new rights amounting to full independence in exchange for the cash, and the Bohemians mercs were paid off and promptly went home, many of them became members of the gentry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Years%27_War_(1454%E2%80%9366)#1455

Not paying mercenaries could have even more disastrous consequences. In 1527, German Landsknechts and Italian mercenaries, outraged over not being paid for several months, revolted and decided to sack and destroy Rome, killing and raping almost the entire population. Something really none of the commanders wanted to happen. The Pope escaped through a tunnel after his Swiss guard fought to the death to defend him, dying almost to the last man (but thereby securing a permanent role for the Swiss in defending the Pope)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527)


So if 13th century English medieval war leaders had difficulty controlling what kind of troops their armies would have while continental medieval leaders did not, what made the difference? Was it ready access to mercenaries and the money to hire them?

In a nutshell, England was just a simpler more rural, more feudal society with less diverse 'estates' to recruit from. They didn't really have city-states or free cities, so they didn't have strong urban militias to recruit or hire, they didn't have a really large population of warrior monks (though they did have some Templars and Hospitalers there, they weren't in large numbers) and they didn't have that many tough clans to recruit from either - those they did have they were at war with (the Scots, Hebridians etc.) They didn't have people from multiple cultures with their own languages (and their own unique military traditions) and so on the way you did in Central Europe. They basically had their nobility and the upper classes of their farmers to use as longbowmen (originally recruited from the Welsh after they conquered Wales). They saw the value in the latter and encouraged the development of a yeoman farmer class in some districts so they would have longbowmen to draw upon.

Recruiting foreign mercenaries was possible when they were fighting in France later in the 100 Years War but in the 13th Century they were operating mostly in their own Island and bringing in foreigners would have been both expensive and dangerous to do on any really large scale.

Medieval England also didn't have advanced domestic industries to produce guns and cannon, the more "state of the art" crossbows and armor, and sophisticated warships and war-wagons and so on and so forth, or even good quality clothing, and had to import most of that kind of stuff from overseas, Flanders and Italy and Germany. That would all start to change for the better in the 16th Century as English Monarchs consciously developed these kinds of industries in Britain.


G

[Mr. Mask]

I was working out the hiring practises of a strongly unified, large group of mercenaries. Large enough they could field an army for a war against England single-handed. Many of them are full-time mercs, so getting enough work for all of them is important. Part of their force does stay at home, to protect their lands and to act as a deterrent against cheating them, but all the same that's a lot of men to get work for. For this reason, the idea of being able to fight on both sides of a conflict (preferably on different fronts, so they won't encounter their own side) would be attractive. But then, without the excuse of being different bands of mercs with loose ties to each other, I'm not sure who would be willing to hire them when they're already working for the other side.


I was also considering propaganda that the mercs are loyal to a contract, and will fight and kill each other as though they're enemies if paid to, with many stories and examples of dead members of their number who died honourably fighting another group. When in reality, any battles between themselves are mock battles, that largely come down to wrestling and swordplay (when they're well armoured). Casualties rarely result from this. However, they bolster the number of casualties by claiming men who died in other conflict died while fighting their fellow mercs (which also makes them look more impressive with fewer casualties). Normally, the result of these mock battles is decided in advance by the officers of each group, where one side is forced to retreat or a charge fails or one side is captured if they decide that participating on both sides of the conflict is too risky henceforth.

Depending on the circumstances, this might be plausible to pull off. It might even be possible to fool foreign officers from their employers sent to observe, if all they see is the men surging on each other from afar and didn't realize about the meetings taking place. You could even still falsify casualties by claiming so many men are missing, when they actually died in previous battles but you didn't report it. This may be harder to do than I make it sound, but to me it seems very interesting for a story.

[Galloglaich]

I think there are some very interesting and amusing accounts of Italian mercenary companies led by crafty captains who more or less did what you are talking about, kind of sandbagging or faking battles in which there were extremely low casualties, more or less as an agreed upon plan, and much to the annoyance of their patrons. Fusilier could probably fill in the details of that better than I.

I can't think of a single mercenary company or unit which was powerful enough to take over England by itself but you could propose a sort of alternative history where a few of them grouped together and did so.

A handful of German cities defeated England in a naval war in the 1470's but that is a much less daunting task.

G

[fusilier]

I think there are some very interesting and amusing accounts of Italian mercenary companies led by crafty captains who more or less did what you are talking about, kind of sandbagging or faking battles in which there were extremely low casualties, more or less as an agreed upon plan, and much to the annoyance of their patrons. Fusilier could probably fill in the details of that better than I.

Macchiavelli certainly claimed so, but he had an axe to grind (and he was from Florence). Mallett returned to original sources (chronicles, reports, inspections, etc.) and found that a lot of Macchiavelli's claims were either exaggerated or sometimes flat out lies. Battles that Macchiavelli claimed involved no casualties, the chronicles state that the streams ran with blood and that the countryside reeked of decaying corpses for weeks afterwards.

As with most things there's some truth. Italian warfare of the time tended to involve intricate set-piece battles. Once the "trap" was sprung the loser often lost badly. So there was a tendency to avoid battle unless success could be guaranteed. Sometimes, if a commander found himself in a terrible position he would surrender. Typically among Italian mercenaries prisoners would be stripped of their arms and horses, then released, although high value prisoners would be held for ransom. (This nicety was often not shown to foreigners, and vice versa). Sometimes the rank and file were held as prisoners for longer, usually because the state didn't want them to be released immediately to be able to fight them again. Remember the mercenary company is a business -- retaining the personnel when a slaughter seemed likely, was probably worth the expense of reequipping.

However, once committed to battle the fighting was intense and serious (and Mallett has casualty lists to back that up). Although among the very well armored men-at-arms casualties may indeed have been low.

There was a rather humorous instance that occurred in the 1480s, when one commander was shocked that his opponent didn't inform him that he was about to launch a surprise attack. He felt very betrayed, and the whole situation seems weird when reading about it. Since the Peace of Lodi in the 1450s there had been very little fighting, and the two commanders were both friends, and both professionals in the same field. However, it's just one instance.

The 14th century was more chaotic, and the great companies were powerful enough that their loyalty could easily be strayed,. That might be a better time period to study for what Mr. Mask is looking for, and I give a bit more info on that in another post.

[fusilier]

There was a famous English condottiero in the 14th Century, Sir John Hawkwood, who had a reputation for switching sides many times, and for brutalizing the local population. Nevertheless he had a pretty long career as a merc. captain.

Hawkwood is important because he represents the transition from the more chaotic period of the Great Companies, to the more stable period that followed it. In the mid 14th century the contracts were quite short, and the large companies had so much power that they could operate with a degree of impunity. However, even they were affected by the chaos, and often they would disband fairly quickly.

When the large companies of that time joined forces they were pretty much unstoppable, but when broken up they could be defeated, and eventually that's what happened. Hawkwood eventually settled down. In 1375 he went to work for the papal states, and a few years later a couple slaughters took place, but that was at the instigation of the civilian officials (who at Cesena ordered the "blood of the entire population" as revenge). It's reported that Hawkwood was very reluctant to massacre the population at Cesena, and tried to save some of the women and children. Mallett points out that Hawkwood had been in Italy for 15 years and probably had developed a sympathy towards the populace that his Breton mercenaries didn't share.

Shortly afterward he left the service of the papal states for Florence, and remained there for the rest of his life.

[fusilier]

I was working out the hiring practises of a strongly unified, large group of mercenaries. Large enough they could field an army for a war against England single-handed. Many of them are full-time mercs, so getting enough work for all of them is important. Part of their force does stay at home, to protect their lands and to act as a deterrent against cheating them, but all the same that's a lot of men to get work for. For this reason, the idea of being able to fight on both sides of a conflict (preferably on different fronts, so they won't encounter their own side) would be attractive. But then, without the excuse of being different bands of mercs with loose ties to each other, I'm not sure who would be willing to hire them when they're already working for the other side.


I was also considering propaganda that the mercs are loyal to a contract, and will fight and kill each other as though they're enemies if paid to, with many stories and examples of dead members of their number who died honourably fighting another group. When in reality, any battles between themselves are mock battles, that largely come down to wrestling and swordplay (when they're well armoured). Casualties rarely result from this. However, they bolster the number of casualties by claiming men who died in other conflict died while fighting their fellow mercs (which also makes them look more impressive with fewer casualties). Normally, the result of these mock battles is decided in advance by the officers of each group, where one side is forced to retreat or a charge fails or one side is captured if they decide that participating on both sides of the conflict is too risky henceforth.

Depending on the circumstances, this might be plausible to pull off. It might even be possible to fool foreign officers from their employers sent to observe, if all they see is the men surging on each other from afar and didn't realize about the meetings taking place. You could even still falsify casualties by claiming so many men are missing, when they actually died in previous battles but you didn't report it. This may be harder to do than I make it sound, but to me it seems very interesting for a story.

So, while there aren't any real historical precedents, there are similar instances. Not nearly as organized as you describe though.

The thing is the employers would pretty quickly become wise to these kinds of things. In 14th century Italy, the Great companies were basically so powerful the states couldn't do anything about it. For example, when in the employ of the Papal states, Hawkwood allowed himself to be bought off by Florence after some border fighting. His services were retained by the papal states nonetheless. The way the Italian states broke the power of the Great Companies was basically to gang up on them. They tended to fall apart on their own anyway, although usually to be replaced by another company, nevertheless a concentrated and maintained effort eventually ended them.

An Italian condotte would first list the number of soldiers to be provided. Regular inspections were to be carried out (by a commissioner) to make sure that numbers were being kept up, as pay was dependent upon the number. The contracts often had penalties if the numbers were not kept.

The next important feature was the duration of the contract. In Italian contracts this was in two parts, the ferma, and the ad beneplacitum (or di respetto). The ad beneplacitum was a kind of optional extension, the employer was usually required to inform the captain a couple of weeks before the expiration of the ferma if further services would be required. Otherwise the captain could be expected to start looking for other employment.

In the fourteenth century contracts were often only for 2 or 3 months, the assumption being the contract ended when the campaigning season was over. In the early 15th century six months was common, and by the middle of the century a ferma of six months and ad beneplacitum of six months was common, and even one year plus one year (except in Florence which was always backwards in these matters).

[Mr. Mask]

Thanks Fusilier and G, this is great stuff! Seems my idea for mock battles won't work out, unless the timing of inspections can be utilized (I don't expect so).

Were there any other bases of pay for mercs? Say, per head, or per objective?


By the way, any instances of armed surrender? That is, the other side gives in, then they march home with weapons and armour?

[fusilier]

Thanks Fusilier and G, this is great stuff! Seems my idea for mock battles won't work out, unless the timing of inspections can be utilized (I don't expect so).

Were there any other bases of pay for mercs? Say, per head, or per objective?


By the way, any instances of armed surrender? That is, the other side gives in, then they march home with weapons and armour?

Keep in mind that with a short contract, there wouldn't be many inspections (perhaps only an initial one). I think it was common to continue to draw pay for battle casualties, so that the company could be built up to strength.

Companies were ostensibly paid "per head", although there would be a certain bonus that went to the captain. Mercenary soldiers hired directly by the state were paid directly by the state.

I think the kind of surrender you describe is "with honors"? I don't know how common it was, or from when it dates to. I know it was done sometimes in the 18th century.

[Galloglaich]

Macchiavelli certainly claimed so, but he had an axe to grind (and he was from Florence). Mallett returned to original sources (chronicles, reports, inspections, etc.) and found that a lot of Macchiavelli's claims were either exaggerated or sometimes flat out lies. Battles that Macchiavelli claimed involved no casualties, the chronicles state that the streams ran with blood and that the countryside reeked of decaying corpses for weeks afterwards.

I think it's clear that the Italian mercenaries sometimes did "play games" with each other, so to speak, it was in their interest not to die after all. Not just from Machiavelli (who I like better as a source than you do) but from many other sources.

I think Machiavelli gets a bad rap because his Il Principe was so shocking to Victorian and 20th Century readers. But he was just describing (and to some extent, lampooning) the mentality of his day, and you might argue, the mentality of every day (behind the fascade of rationalizations and propaganda). People tend to forget in his actual personal life he was a republican (in the old sense of the word) and a patriot. He did what he could to save his city.

But I don't mean to take away from the prowess of the Italian Condottieri by any means. They were among the very best in the world, as one would expect since Italy was where the most sophisticated culture and technology was in the High to Late medieval periods. When they needed to be they could be just as brutal and vicious as anyone else, needless to say. But I think they were smart enough to realize that they didn't always need to.


When reading your comments about the Great Companies of the 14th Century, I did think of one Great Company which did conquer some pretty substantial territory, the justifiably famous (and infamous) Catalan Grand Company. Originally hired by the Byzantines to fight the Turks, they were allegedly betrayed by their clients, and then went on an epic rampage which has left Catalans still unpopular in Greece to this day. If I remember correctly they conquered a pretty substantial Kingdom in Greece or the Balkans somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company



As for Paroling prisoners, that was done all over Europe. Even in the 100 Years War, apparently.

It was common in the Baltic, particularly between Latin troops (Germans, Poles, Czechs, Swedes etc.). The King of Poland paroled 14,000 German soldiers after his victory at the Battle of Grunwald.

Of course, Parole was a tit-for-tat kind of thing. In Italy, the French troops would not spare the life of captives or prisoners who weren't nobles, on the assumption that they couldn't pay a good ransom. They also tended to rape, rob and murder Italian civilians that got into their hands at a deplorable rate. I think the Spanish troops were the same. The Swiss didn't take any prisoners at all and spared nobody, regardless of rank, as their standard policy. So if any of these people fell into the hands of the Italians whose country was being devastated by foreign armies, they got short shrift.

However Landsknechts and other German mercenaries, as well as Flemish, Czechs, Dalmatians and Hungarians were at least sometimes spared and 'paroled' by Italian Condottiero, based more or less on their own reputations for sparing prisoners (or not). Often this could be an additional benefit of having a strong Captain who could maintain discipline. Certainly the Landsknechts weren't always so well behaved, but sometimes they could be made to act with some moderation, and that might in turn save their life.

There are some recent articles that have come out about the petty ransoms paid by French and English common troops to each other. Apparently they developed the system over the course of the (very long) 100 Years War. If I remember correctly one English soldier was bragging about having been ransomed 9 times.

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1465


Ransom and parole are two of those interesting ways in which the terrible effects of warfare could be moderated. So were battlefield duels and single-combats. And bribery or danegeld of course, and even certain sports and games. I suspect the Italian Condottieri's occasional habit of moderating battles (or avoiding them) over a handshake represented the same kind of thing. People have really horrible nasty habits but they also sometimes have amazingly enlightened ones too sometimes. Local truces were common even in the peak of the era of industrialized warfare in the 20th Century. They were still doing paroles in the American Civil War until around 1862 or 1863 IIRC.

G

[Mr. Mask]

Keep in mind that with a short contract, there wouldn't be many inspections (perhaps only an initial one). I think it was common to continue to draw pay for battle casualties, so that the company could be built up to strength. True, I could make use of that. Thanks.


Companies were ostensibly paid "per head", although there would be a certain bonus that went to the captain. Mercenary soldiers hired directly by the state were paid directly by the state. Whoops, bad wording on my part. I meant per head as in taking heads (or noses) from your enemies and getting a bounty on them.


G: In the parole of prisoners, were they sometimes allowed to return home with their weapons and equipment? Or were those always stripped from them?

[fusilier]

I think it's clear that the Italian mercenaries sometimes did "play games" with each other, so to speak, it was in their interest not to die after all. Not just from Machiavelli (who I like better as a source than you do) but from many other sources.

I think Machiavelli gets a bad rap because his Il Principe was so shocking to Victorian and 20th Century readers. But he was just describing (and to some extent, lampooning) the mentality of his day, and you might argue, the mentality of every day (behind the fascade of rationalizations and propaganda). People tend to forget in his actual personal life he was a republican (in the old sense of the word) and a patriot. He did what he could to save his city.

Macchiavelli's claims about particular battles, and the behavior of condottieri, can often be directly refuted. His "rap" may not be as bad as you might think. He's considered a huge literary figure in Italy (alongside Dante), so his influence is actually quite large. Macchiavelli is also widely studied and translated, so he's often the only "contemporary" source available in English.

The result is a distortion in most "sources" towards focusing on the exceptional events and extrapolating from them (or relying upon exaggerations and lies). There is not much interest in Italian military history, and so even recent research often only has outdated sources to turn to. See the introduction to Maurizio Arfaioli's thesis "The Black Bands of Giovanni" for a good run down on the historiography of the subject. Mallett is one of the few to have gone back to original sources, which is why I'm forced to quote him so often.

[fusilier]

Whoops, bad wording on my part. I meant per head as in taking heads (or noses) from your enemies and getting a bounty on them.

There may be rewards for high-valued enemies being killed, but more often for them being taken alive. Often times the employing state paid for the prisoners as a kind of compensation for the loss of ransom. Generally the loot from the defeated enemy was considered a boon though.

I would have to double check, but I think there were bonuses for the capturing of cities, etc., especially if the ransacking was controlled.

[Galloglaich]

True, I could make use of that. Thanks.

Whoops, bad wording on my part. I meant per head as in taking heads (or noses) from your enemies and getting a bounty on them.


G: In the parole of prisoners, were they sometimes allowed to return home with their weapons and equipment? Or were those always stripped from them?

It was commonplace for well respected knights to be allowed to keep their arms after being captured. Garrisons of castles were also allowed to march out on several occasions in battles I'm aware of, one example being the incident I mentioned from the 13 Years War in which Bohemian mercenaries sold the citadels of three towns they had captured to their enemy, and marched out with all their gear.

Usually you had to have something to trade and still had to pose some kind of plausible threat to get a deal like that, but it was by no means rare.


One other thing to add, based on something Fusilier said, I think it was not unique to Italy that medieval armies hesitated to risk pitched battles. At least 90% of medieval warfare consisted of raids and other small actions. Probably 90% of what was left was sieges. Due to the vagaries of morale in hand to hand fighting, and such indirect factors as availability of water, possible drunkenness of troops, commanders who could switch sides (nobles probably did this even more than mercenaries did) and poor battlefield intelligence, pitched battles were considered with some justification to have more than a little bit of a random element to them.

[fusilier]

One other thing to add, based on something Fusilier said, I think it was not unique to Italy that medieval armies hesitated to risk pitched battles. At least 90% of medieval warfare consisted of raids and other small actions. Probably 90% of what was left was sieges. Due to the vagaries of morale in hand to hand fighting, and such indirect factors as availability of water, possible drunkenness of troops, commanders who could switch sides (nobles probably did this even more than mercenaries did) and poor battlefield intelligence, pitched battles were considered with some justification to have more than a little bit of a random element to them.

+1. It was also true for naval warfare of the period. Lots of small scale raids, attacking enemy crops, disrupting trade, could cause a huge loss in the economy and force a resolution.

[fusilier]

Whoops, bad wording on my part. I meant per head as in taking heads (or noses) from your enemies and getting a bounty on them.

Stradiots, light Balkan cavalry, may have been given a reward based upon the heads they brought back after a battle. They weren't employed in Italy until the late 15th century, and later in France. They are really an exception however. There were times, when commanders ordered the hands of enemy crossbowmen chopped off, or the execution of handgunners, etc.

[Brother Oni]

There were times, when commanders ordered the hands of enemy crossbowmen chopped off, or the execution of handgunners, etc.

This is also where the myth of the English '2 fingered salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign)' comes from. Supposedly during the 100 Years War, the French cut off the index and middle fingers of any captured English archers, so they couldn't fight, thus before a battle, English archers would throw the gesture as insult and warning to the French, essentially saying "we still have our fingers and we can kill you".

In the UK (and a number of Commonwealth countries thanks to the Empire), it's still regarded as an offensive gesture generally meaning defiance.

[Yora]

While I was looking up some facts about the pirate captain Klaus Störtebeker I discovered that there was a lot of big things going on in Northern Europe during the late 14th century. Valdemar Atterdag, Queen Margarethe, the Kalmar Union, and that, with involvement of mercenary pirates, the Hanseatic League, and the Teutonic Knights in top level politics. I'm from Lübeck, which sits right in the center of events at the time and I always wanted to do something fantasy related that is loosely based on Baltic Sea culture. War of the Roses with Dragons worked out very well and this particular time and place seems to hold just as much potential.

However, I am really mostly a Bronze Age and Iron Age guy and my medieval knowledge reaches only as far as Charlemange. When it comes to late 14th century, I know almost nothing about either politics or warfare and just the basics of economy. Basically all I know about weapons and armor is that the Witcher games seem to be inspired by roughly the same period and general region, but that is really it.

Could anyone recommend me any good resources on that period? Having German as a native language certainly helps as there appears to be much more material in German that is easily found online than in English, but most of that is still pretty superficial edutainment.

[Beleriphon]

While I was looking up some facts about the pirate captain Klaus Störtebeker I discovered that there was a lot of big things going on in Northern Europe during the late 14th century. Valdemar Atterdag, Queen Margarethe, the Kalmar Union, and that, with involvement of mercenary pirates, the Hanseatic League, and the Teutonic Knights in top level politics. I'm from Lübeck, which sits right in the center of events at the time and I always wanted to do something fantasy related that is loosely based on Baltic Sea culture. War of the Roses with Dragons worked out very well and this particular time and place seems to hold just as much potential.

However, I am really mostly a Bronze Age and Iron Age guy and my medieval knowledge reaches only as far as Charlemange. When it comes to late 14th century, I know almost nothing about either politics or warfare and just the basics of economy. Basically all I know about weapons and armor is that the Witcher games seem to be inspired by roughly the same period and general region, but that is really it.

Could anyone recommend me any good resources on that period? Having German as a native language certainly helps as there appears to be much more material in German that is easily found online than in English, but most of that is still pretty superficial edutainment.

The Witcher is actually pretty good inspiration for how politics worked as well. The thing to keep in mind is that it take a very Polish perspective, and the Nilfgaardian Empire has more than a few shades of the Holy Roman Empire to it. For a reasonable overview Wikipedia's articles about the time period are pretty good, and most of them have lots and lots of references at the bottom. Being a native German speaker perhaps the German Wikipedia would be the place to start, since more of the article references should be in German, and presumably have more references from there.

[Galloglaich]

While I was looking up some facts about the pirate captain Klaus Störtebeker I discovered that there was a lot of big things going on in Northern Europe during the late 14th century. Valdemar Atterdag, Queen Margarethe, the Kalmar Union, and that, with involvement of mercenary pirates, the Hanseatic League, and the Teutonic Knights in top level politics. I'm from Lübeck, which sits right in the center of events at the time and I always wanted to do something fantasy related that is loosely based on Baltic Sea culture. War of the Roses with Dragons worked out very well and this particular time and place seems to hold just as much potential.

However, I am really mostly a Bronze Age and Iron Age guy and my medieval knowledge reaches only as far as Charlemange. When it comes to late 14th century, I know almost nothing about either politics or warfare and just the basics of economy. Basically all I know about weapons and armor is that the Witcher games seem to be inspired by roughly the same period and general region, but that is really it.

Could anyone recommend me any good resources on that period? Having German as a native language certainly helps as there appears to be much more material in German that is easily found online than in English, but most of that is still pretty superficial edutainment.

I agree with you its a fascinating time and place, ideal for game settings or genre fiction. I've been trying to point this out for years.

The best single source on all this that I know of is this book, which is derived directly from the Chronicles of Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen (Fusilier might argue about that but it is indeed the case). it's full of crazy stories about the Victual brothers and the Kalmar union and all the fighting going on in the 14th and 15th Centuries.

http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-three-free-cities-Hamburg/dp/B00427YT6S

The entire text is available here and you can search for terms

https://archive.org/stream/chroniclesofthre00king/chroniclesofthre00king_djvu.txt

I found it a great read and learned a lot. Those towns were nearly constantly at war. The original compilation of the chronicles are available in a books somewhere in German, and the Chronicles themselves are also available if you dig deep enough, though written in Low German.

A guy named Otto Beneke, who was the official historian or archivist of Hamburg, compiled the original texts of the Chronicles into books in the 19th Century

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Beneke

There is an academic journal out of Lubeck which covers serious historical articles that have to do with the Hanseatic League, with articles mostly in German and English, which has a lot of amazing and up to date pieces about historical records analysis and new archeological discoveries that they are making on an almost monthly basis.

The journal is called Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum. It's expensive like most academic journals but you can find scans online or go to a nearby library.

http://www.beleke.de/shop/RID/390/luebecker_kolloquium_zur_stadtarchaeologie_im_hans eraum/spider/

For a more casual read but beyond the level of 'infotainment' there are a variety of histories of the Hanseatic League which also cover all this intrigue, the pirates, battles and other military events and so on. The most interesting and well researched one I have been able to find was the early 1970's work by the French Historian Philippe Dollinger, which is out of print but you can find old copies of and it's in Google Books. This is the English version but I think there is also a German version which might be easier to get hold of.

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_German_Hansa.html?id=PV2HmU60V0oC

I hope it's ok to mention, but I also myself published a (PDF only) book on the medieval Baltic which deals extensively with all these same issues, as compiled from a variety of primary and secondary sources.

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/86214/Codex-Guide-to-the-Medieval-Baltic

G

[fusilier]

The best single source on all this that I know of is this book, which is derived directly from the Chronicles of Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen (Fusilier might argue about that but it is indeed the case). it's full of crazy stories about the Victual brothers and the Kalmar union and all the fighting going on in the 14th and 15th Centuries.

http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-three-free-cities-Hamburg/dp/B00427YT6S



Heh. I guess I can't argue that it's "derived from", like movies that are "based on" an actual event.


Could anyone recommend me any good resources on that period? Having German as a native language certainly helps as there appears to be much more material in German that is easily found online than in English, but most of that is still pretty superficial edutainment.

If you can handle the fraktur font, you can look at the actual Hamburg Chronicles, that were compiled and published in the 19th century by Johann Martin Lappenberg, who was the official keeper of the Hamburg archives. Even so, I'm not sure it makes a good "read."

Hamburgische Chroniken: in niedersächsischer Sprache -

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mm4AAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hamburgische+Chroniken&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimiZHe6prKAhVBSyYKHc33AyIQ6AEIIDAA#v=on epage&q=Hamburgische%20Chroniken&f=false

I'm sure there must be some good German books on the subject, perhaps you can find some in the bibliographies of online sources (like the bibliographies for wikipedia pages)?

[Galloglaich]

Heh. I guess I can't argue that it's "derived from", like movies that are "based on" an actual event.

That's pretty confident for someone who never actually read the book.




If you can handle the fraktur font, you can look at the actual Hamburg Chronicles, that were compiled and published in the 19th century by Johann Martin Lappenberg, who was the official keeper of the Hamburg archives. Even so, I'm not sure it makes a good "read."

Having actually read it, I can attest: it makes for a very exciting and interesting read. Highly recommended.



Hamburgische Chroniken: in niedersächsischer Sprache -

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mm4AAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hamburgische+Chroniken&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimiZHe6prKAhVBSyYKHc33AyIQ6AEIIDAA#v=on epage&q=Hamburgische%20Chroniken&f=false

I'm sure there must be some good German books on the subject, perhaps you can find some in the bibliographies of online sources (like the bibliographies for wikipedia pages)?

Just FYI, Otto Beneke was Lappenberg's successor as town archivist (and Senator) of the Hamburg Senat or town council. He took over after Lappenburg retired in 1863 and managed the editing and re-release of the original books.

G

[Yora]

If you can handle the fraktur font, you can look at the actual Hamburg Chronicles, that were compiled and published in the 19th century by Johann Martin Lappenberg, who was the official keeper of the Hamburg archives. Even so, I'm not sure it makes a good "read."

Hamburgische Chroniken: in niedersächsischer Sprache -

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mm4AAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hamburgische+Chroniken&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimiZHe6prKAhVBSyYKHc33AyIQ6AEIIDAA#v=on epage&q=Hamburgische%20Chroniken&f=false
Oh, this is actually much more readable than I feared it would be. Looks like "modern" print fractur, that's easily readable. :smallamused:


I hope it's ok to mention, but I also myself published a (PDF only) book on the medieval Baltic which deals extensively with all these same issues, as compiled from a variety of primary and secondary sources.

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/86214/Codex-Guide-to-the-Medieval-Baltic

That actually looks really useful to me. Probably more than mainstream academic books.

[fusilier]

That's pretty confident for someone who never actually read the book.


I've read parts King's book, and compared them to the relevant parts of the Hamburgische Chroniken, and found that they did not match.

[fusilier]

Oh, this is actually much more readable than I feared it would be. Looks like "modern" print fractur, that's easily readable. :smallamused:

That's good. :-) I'd be the first to admit that my German is very poor, and the fractur makes the translation a lot slower than I would like. (The fact that it's low German also doesn't help, but I didn't find that to be too bad actually). I hope it proves useful to you. :-)

[Galloglaich]

I've read parts King's book, and compared them to the relevant parts of the Hamburgische Chroniken, and found that they did not match.

Aside from a few pages dealing directly with the cannon used in the battle between Hamburg and Stortebecker, and outside of the context of a heated internet forum debate, you might try reading the actual book.

It's a gripping read and I think you'll find both a great deal of parallels with the Italian context you are more familiar with, as well as certain differences which will expand your grasp of the period overall in enlightening ways.

For the medieval period Kings book is just an abridged version of the town chronicles, he uses other sources for the earlier periods. It's a primary source through a less biased filter as you'll typically get. At least as valuable as Machiavelli. Vastly more interesting than most of the genre fiction or the tertiary academic and pseudo academic literature out there.

I wish someone would publish excerpts of a few more medieval town chronicles they are really interesting. I'd love to see someone translate the Bern chronicle, especially if they could publish it with the original artwork.

G

[fusilier]

It's a gripping read and I think you'll find both a great deal of parallels with the Italian context you are more familiar with, as well as certain differences which will expand your grasp of the period overall in enlightening ways.

For the medieval period Kings book is just an abridged version of the town chronicles, he uses other sources for the earlier periods. It's a primary source through a less biased filter as you'll typically get. At least as valuable as Machiavelli. Vastly more interesting than most of the genre fiction or the tertiary academic and pseudo academic literature out there.

I don't doubt that it's a good read. What I question is considering it to be a primary source. Especially when compared to the actual primary sources (as compiled by Lappenberg) it doesn't seem to correlate. Indeed, the sections that I've compared instead of being "abridged" versions appear to be "expanded" versions of the events listed in the chronicles. Or, put another way, the author expanded upon certain events with details not contained in the chronicles themselves.

I know you feel very passionate about this, and that's why I provided a link to the actual chronicles so that the two can be compared. If I'm wrong, the information should be there in the German language chronicles and someone should be able to demonstrate that. And I would honestly welcome that kind of research.

[Yora]

The Störtebeker account also surprised me, as the recent sources I've seen say that really nothing is known about what really happened except for legend. It also says that Margrete was Valdemar's only heir, which isn't the case. She had an older sister (wife of the Duke of Mecklenburg and mother of the king of Sweden) who also wanted to get her own son on the throne of Denmark but the Hanse overruled that to spite Mecklenburg.


That's good. :-) I'd be the first to admit that my German is very poor, and the fractur makes the translation a lot slower than I would like. (The fact that it's low German also doesn't help, but I didn't find that to be too bad actually). I hope it proves useful to you. :-)

The introduction reads like surprisingly modern standard German despite the font type and being over 150 years old. The main body is brutal. Even if you're fluent in Standard German you probably won't be able to make any sense of that. I know some Low-German from my grandparents and I don't think I could read that even in a modern font. The ones towards the end of the book are easier because they are more recent, but that's still tough. If I really had to transcribe it for a masters thesis or something I'd visit my grandfather and spend some afternoons with him trying to get it all right, but it's really not casual reading. :smallbiggrin:

[fusilier]

The Störtebeker account also surprised me, as the recent sources I've seen say that really nothing is known about what really happened except for legend. It also says that Margrete was Valdemar's only heir, which isn't the case. She had an older sister (wife of the Duke of Mecklenburg and mother of the king of Sweden) who also wanted to get her own son on the throne of Denmark but the Hanse overruled that to spite Mecklenburg.



The introduction reads like surprisingly modern standard German despite the font type and being over 150 years old. The main body is brutal. Even if you're fluent in Standard German you probably won't be able to make any sense of that. I know some Low-German from my grandparents and I don't think I could read that even in a modern font. The ones towards the end of the book are easier because they are more recent, but that's still tough. If I really had to transcribe it for a masters thesis or something I'd visit my grandfather and spend some afternoons with him trying to get it all right, but it's really not casual reading. :smallbiggrin:

Now we are starting to get back to the original argument, which was where did King get his description of those events from?

If I've properly teased out the fraktur font (and please correct me if I'm wrong), page 241 of the Hamburgische Chroniken says this:

"Anno Domini 1402 da haleden de Hamborger tor ersten tit Wichman und Claus Stortebeker. Dar bleuen in der see 40 man und 70 wurden vor Hamborch enthouedet. Und im suluen jare wurt gekoppet Gotke Michel und Wichbolt bei 80 Personen."

I found a couple of other similar entries (either for 1402 or 1401), on page 34 there is a similar entry:

"Anno 1402 halden de Hamborger to der ersten tit Wichmanne und Clawes Stortebeker. Do bleuen doet in der see 40 man und 70 worden gekoppet."

However, they all seem very short, and certainly can't contain all the information that King's work describes. (I think it is basically saying there was some kind of fight or attack in the sea, . . . and 70 men were captured and/or beheaded).

[Yora]

"In 1402, the Hamburgers held, for the first time, Wichman and Klaus Störtebeker. There 40 men bled(?) in the sea and another 70 were beheaded outside Hamburg. In the same year were beheaded Gotke Michels and Wichtbold with 80 people."

Which I heard is considered somewhat strange by some people as decapitation was for nobles and commoners were usually hanged. Though I don't know if that claim is actually true. But maybe they were hanged first and then their heads removed to be displayed.
It also doesn't actually say if Störtebeker was among the 70 who were beheaded. One hypothesis I've once heard is that he was captured but somehow escaped before the execution, which later was turned into the legend that he was still running after his beheading. Though again, who knows, as no sources were given.

[fusilier]

"In 1402, the Hamburgers held, for the first time, Wichman and Klaus Störtebeker. There 40 men bled(?) in the sea and another 70 were beheaded outside Hamburg. In the same year were beheaded Gotke Michels and Wichtbold with 80 people."

Which I heard is considered somewhat strange by some people as decapitation was for nobles and commoners were usually hanged. Though I don't know if that claim is actually true. But maybe they were hanged first and then their heads removed to be displayed.
It also doesn't actually say if Störtebeker was among the 70 who were beheaded. One hypothesis I've once heard is that he was captured but somehow escaped before the execution, which later was turned into the legend that he was still running after his beheading. Though again, who knows, as no sources were given.

Thanks, I wondered if the word "bleuen" could be related to "einblaeuen"? Perhaps "beheaded" was being used figuratively? I.e. they were executed.

[Yora]

I think "bleuen" would be "bluten", which is "bleeding". Which I am not 100% sure of. But the only other modern German term that would be similar is "blühen", and "blooming" makes no sense in this context.

Both "enthouedet" (if it is "enthaupted") and "gekoppet" ("geköpft") mean literally "decapitated" and "beheaded". Two different terms that both describe separation of the head. I think it's unlikely that it is used euphemistically.

[fusilier]

I think "bleuen" would be "bluten", which is "bleeding". Which I am not 100% sure of. But the only other modern German term that would be similar is "blühen", and "blooming" makes no sense in this context.

Both "enthouedet" (if it is "enthaupted") and "gekoppet" ("geköpft") mean literally "decapitated" and "beheaded". Two different terms that both describe separation of the head. I think it's unlikely that it is used euphemistically.

I think you are correct, especially about "enthouedet", as the other entry uses "gekoppet" there. Thanks!

[ExLibrisMortis]

"Bleeding" seems to fit well, but the 't' in 'bluten' apparently goes back to a Proto-Germanic thorn, and none of the descendants has lost the 't'-sound. If this dialect is the one to lose it, that'd be curious (by no means impossible, of course). "Bleuen in der see" (with quotes) returns no Google results, in any case.

[Galloglaich]

I don't doubt that it's a good read. What I question is considering it to be a primary source. Especially when compared to the actual primary sources (as compiled by Lappenberg) it doesn't seem to correlate. Indeed, the sections that I've compared instead of being "abridged" versions appear to be "expanded" versions of the events listed in the chronicles. Or, put another way, the author expanded upon certain events with details not contained in the chronicles themselves.

It's both, needless to say. But I've checked several passages that I was using for excerpts in an academic paper I published last year, and with the help of a friend from Bremen who can read Low German and is familiar with some of the medieval terminology and euphemisms, I was able to verify the stuff I was looking at. Unfortunately I have not yet tackled the guns on ships thing we were arguing about, but maybe one day.


I know you feel very passionate about this, and that's why I provided a link to the actual chronicles so that the two can be compared. If I'm wrong, the information should be there in the German language chronicles and someone should be able to demonstrate that. And I would honestly welcome that kind of research.

I wasn't and am not now passionate about anything except disagreeing with your claims, which I still do, but there is a lot more to that book that Stortebecker.

I think King used a variety of his sources for the Stortebecker story because it was already such a big deal even in his day. There are also slightly different accounts of it in each of the three chronicles. The three chronicles actually disagree on the details of several major incidents which is both amusing and helpful, it creates a kind of Rashomon effect. There are some other sections which you can tell King added various sources, partially because the tone changes markedly. But most of it in the 12th-16th century is just the chronicle.


As for beheadings, both commoners and nobles were routinely beheaded and hung by those three cities. Remember due to their status they didn't have to follow either Church or Feudal Law and routinely flouted both - including when under direct "orders" from the Emperor and / or the Pope. All three cities were under interdict at various times and Bremen actually fought a rather brutal war with their Archbishop. There is a section in there about a Hamburg patrician who was so good at foiling the attacks of robber knights that he angered a local Duke (I think of Mecklenburg) who was getting a cut of the proceeds of the knights. The duke threatened to hang him with a hemp rope. Not in the least phased, the merchant had a silver chain forged which he said was for the Duke's neck. Neither one of them got to carry out their threat.

All three cities also frequently executed nobles and the wilder Frisian peasants, as well as pirates, whenever any of them robbed caravans or attacked shipping, which was fairly frequent. They seem to have been fighting some kind of small punative actions almost every year by the 14th Century and fairly substantial regional wars every 5-10 years.

They also shifted who they were allied with, sometimes against the archbishop against the Frisians, sometimes with the Frisians against the gentry, sometimes with the Prince against the gentry, sometimes with the gentry against the prince. Lubeck seemed to be particularly capricious. Even protecting some robber knights once when the local Duke was about to wipe them out. They attacked and sacked Stralsund one time for no reason I could figure out, in the midst of the wars against the pirates and Denmark.


All three towns had their own personality. Bremen was kind of hapless and seemed perpetually on the verge of being taken over, but ultimately prevailed through cunning and wisdom when they were up against it. They would lose several battles but then win the war. Hamburg seemed to be the most commercially successful and really wanted to avoid wars, but they were pretty tough and resourceful when forced to fight, they rarely lost. Lubeck was aggressive, ornery, almost eager to fight and didn't take any grief from anybody, princes, prelates, kings... they were if anything a little too conservative though, especially after putting down a guild rebellion in the early 15th Century, and seemed to miss some opportunities because of it.

G

[adamjohnson]

very interesting. I love it

[Flame of Anor]

I would hazard a guess that "bleuen" is a cognate of "bleiben" (= "to remain"), since the letters u, v, and b commonly swap around. So that would make it something like "Forty men remained (i.e. were thrown/drowned/whatever) in the sea."

[Galloglaich]

I would hazard a guess that "bleuen" is a cognate of "bleiben" (= "to remain"), since the letters u, v, and b commonly swap around. So that would make it something like "Forty men remained (i.e. were thrown/drowned/whatever) in the sea."

This is the story about the Hamburg merchant and the silver chain, from page 179


About this time the plague of robber knights became almost
unbearable. Every road was infested and unsafe. The dukes
would give no protection, and probably got their share of the
spoil, whilst some leading nobles were the worst thieves.

The sea was no safer than the land, and pirates were as
common, though not always so high-born, as highwaymen.

These noble thieves preferred attacking unarmed, or but
slightly protected caravans, but they were sometimes bold
enough to make raids into the city herself. The burghers, of
course, defended themselves and their property as well as they
could, and one senator, by name Dirck Wraks, was so able in
defence of his property that he incurred the wrath of no less
a person than the Duke of Saxony, who had suffered a loss of
income as a result of Dirck 's success. He sent word to the
doughty senator to have a care and be on his guard, for he, the
duke, had bought a rope with which he meant to hang him
without grace whenever he caught him.

The plucky merchant bought a long and strong silver chain
which he wore wound round and round his body, and he sent
word that he carried a silver chain always with him, with which
he proposed to hang the duke if he caught him, being fitter than
hemp for so noble a thief. Despite these threats, both men lived
long and died in their beds.

This is an amusing account of Bremen's rise and fall from power over the neighboring Frisian clans:


In 1409 Bremen was compelled to send a strong fleet to
Jahde, where Edo Wummeken was harbouring the Vitalian
brethren. Several valuable ships full of merchandise were re-
taken from the pirates, and Edo and other chiefs signed one of
their numerous promises to do so no more. In June 1410 they
signed another treaty, but intermittent warfare continued until
the suppression, in 1418, of that insurrection in which Dido and
Gerold lost their lives.

After that Bremen held undisputed rule for several years over
large Frisian territories — larger, indeed, than were ruled by any
other single city in Germany. She had reached the highest
point of her power. All the roads in her neighbourhood were
safe, the river was free from pirates, and her trade flourished
as it had never flourished before. This period of prosperity

was not unwelcome to the people of Frisia, who found them-
selves justly governed by wise laws. Nor were they oppres-
sively taxed. The Frisian chieftains, on the other hand,
deprived of power and chafing under the frowning Friedburg,
that emblem of their conqueror's power, were very restless,
and soon conspired to throw off the yoke of the shopkeepers.

The leaders — heroes of Frisian legend and ballad — were
Sybeth Papinga, Ocko torn Broke and Focko Ukena. These
subjugated rulers won over the free and independent Frisian
princes who still reigned in the vicinity of the Dollart and the
Zuyder Zee. Suddenly, in the midst of profound peace, those
princes sent an ultimatum ordering the city to destroy the
Friedburg and all other strongholds, and to restore their lands
to all the deposed Frisian chiefs. Before there was time for
this missive to reach the city, Papinga landed 4000 men at Brake
on the Weser, on Ascension Day 1424. He marched to the
Friedburg, which its keeper surrendered without a blow.
After destroying the castle he took, one after another, all the
fortified churches in western Frisia. In fact, the whole country
was lost to Bremen before the senate had received the declara-
tion of war.

Unprepared and surprised, the senate seems, in the most
unaccountable way, to have accepted this blow, and, urged
thereto by Hamburg and Lubeck, to have made a treaty of
peace with the Frisians under which she abandoned the whole
of her hard-won possessions west of the Weser.

One reason for this singular action on the part of Bremen
was that she found herself surrounded by powerful enemies
ready to take advantage of any weakness. Ocko was not only
a great Frisian hero, famous for his beauty and strength and
for his love affairs with Queen Joanna of Naples, but he had as
friends and allies the Archbishop of Bremen, the Duke of
Brunswick and the Counts of Oldenburg and Hoya, all of whom
were his near relatives and all of whom were jealous of Bremen's
growing power. However, whatever the reasons, Bremen
quietly submitted to the loss of Rustringen and Budjadingen.

Hardly had the peace been concluded when Ocko and Focko
fell out, and each struggled for the headship. Ocko, with an
army of 11,000 men, led by his relatives, dukes, counts and
bishops, all anxious to share in his triumph, invaded Focko's
lands.

Focko, taken by surprise, escaped with but fifty followers.
He promptly broke down the dykes, and the invaders found
themselves in the midst of marshes up to their waists in mud
and water. Focko, whose people were hurrying to him from
all parts of the land, hovered about the enemy until, when near
Deterden, he swooped down upon them and overwhelmed them.
Many of Ocko's noble relatives, with their followers, died in
the swamps, and 3000 prisoners were taken, among them being
the Archbishop Nicholas of Bremen and the Count of Hoya.

After this victory in 1426 Focko for a short time became the
leading figure in Frisia. In 1426 he and his son-in-law, Papinga,
began an expedition, taking with them 400 knights, 3000 men
and many ships, the object of which was the surprise and
capture of Bremen. After starting, the knights quarrelled
among themselves, and the enterprise was abandoned. Shortly
after this the Frisians rose against him and besieged him in his
castle, the Fockenburg. The garrison, running short of pro-
visions, submitted, and were allowed to march out with what
they could carry. The old chief was not included in this
arrangement, but his wife carried him out on her back. The
enemy, seeing this act of devotion, granted him his life and
liberty. He died in 1435.

After the victory of Deterden, Focko had demanded 20,000
Bremen marks, an impossible sum, as ransom for the arch-
bishop and Count Hoya. The city sent Burgomaster Johann
Vassmer to negotiate for the release of the prisoners. This
astute statesman was so eloquent and so diplomatic that he
persuaded Focko to release the archbishop and 1,500 of his
men without any ransom at all. This success was so unex-
pected that the senate and people, carried away by their
enthusiasm, offered Vassmer any reward he might ask. He
replied that he was an old man with few wants, and all he
asked was the good-will of the city for himself and family.