PDA

View Full Version : Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XX



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Brother Oni
2016-02-29, 07:19 AM
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XX

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons, armour and tactics. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.

A few rules for this thread:


This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be reasonable).

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.


With that done, have at and enjoy yourselves!
Thread I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?24294-Got-A-Weapon-or-Armor-Question)
Thread III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?21318-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-III)
Thread IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18302-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IV)
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)
Thread XV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)
Thread XVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371623-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVI)
Thread XVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII)
Thread XVIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421723-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVIII)
Thread XIX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454083-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XIX)

Bug-a-Boo
2016-02-29, 07:32 AM
One from the old thread.



In battles, this often resulted in combat degenerating into one on one duels as samurai sought to find opponents of note by shouting out names. Prior to the first Mongol invasion in the 13th Century, this was helped by the pre-battle ‘warm up’ where samurai used to ride out to boast of their achievements (the Mongols, not speaking Japanese, just shot them as they rode out, which broke the samurai of that habit pretty quickly).


This isn't actually true. I mean, the stories say it a lot, depicting scenes with samurai shouting out their entire family heritage and great deeds while challenging a worthy opponent. But the further back in time you go, to earlier versions of these stories, the less verbose these challenges become. Until you get to the earliest version of the Heike Monogatari where absolutely no-one was doing any boasting or challenging and samurai are merely described as shouting their family name as a battlecry when charging into battle.

When the mongols arrived, the samurai were not surprised because the mongols didn't do any challenges and just shot them. The reason the samurai were "surprised" is that, as mentioned in the other point, hunting down important targets and killing them for profit was a major part of japanese warfare. For the mongols, this wasn't a factor. So the samurai were surprised to find the mongols using massed fire to harass them while they themselves were busy hunting the heads of mongol commanders.

Brother Oni
2016-02-29, 08:22 AM
The reason the samurai were "surprised" is that, as mentioned in the other point, hunting down important targets and killing them for profit was a major part of japanese warfare.

While I don't dispute your assessment (I don't have a reliable source for my comments) there has to be some mid-ground between the historical fact that samurai went head hunting 'worthy' targets and the more sensible formation fighting that limited the gain of personal glory for the individual samurai.

I'm more than happy to change my mind if you have a source in addition to the Heike Monogatari, which was transcribed from oral traditions and thus of dubious reliability. It's like claiming that King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings by an arrow to the eye using the Bayeux Tapestry - even the Tapestry was accurate, Harold could have equally been the bloke being felled by a horseman, next to the arrow-eye-guy.

Carl
2016-02-29, 08:50 AM
IMO, it'd be a combination of containing and/or directing your regular emissions away from the target vessel to reduce your passive signature as much as possible, absorbing any EMR so you don't reflect anything back from active sensors, and being able to emit the same frequencies of EMR that hit one side of your vessel (starlight, cosmic background radiation and so on) from the opposite side, so that you don't block everything that should be detected.

Sort of, i still recommend checking atomic rockets article on stealth in space, whilst it acts like resolution is irellevent, (and everything i know says thats just wrong), it's otherwise covering of a lot of points. Whilst it's unlikely IMO that you could encompass a solar system in a satellite net looking inward to detect directional emissions, doing so with a planet at a few LS may not be so impossible. Also depending on how much heat you have to dissipate directional beaming may not be possible unless you can find a material that lases at IR frequencies, which may admittedly be possible, (and with magic certainly would be). But an active camouflage system with 60's tech that will keep up well enough to deal with scanners that even at that equate to a significant fraction of a day from target should be able to resolve down to a meter or so per pixel sounds shaky to me. Hence why i said use of magic to do it :).

Bug-a-Boo
2016-02-29, 08:59 AM
While I don't dispute your assessment (I don't have a reliable source for my comments) there has to be some mid-ground between the historical fact that samurai went head hunting 'worthy' targets and the more sensible formation fighting that limited the gain of personal glory for the individual samurai.

I'm more than happy to change my mind if you have a source in addition to the Heike Monogatari, which was transcribed from oral traditions and thus of dubious reliability. It's like claiming that King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings by an arrow to the eye using the Bayeux Tapestry - even the Tapestry was accurate, Harold could have equally been the bloke being felled by a horseman, next to the arrow-eye-guy.

I'm sorry Brother Oni, could your reparse that? I'm unsure what mid-ground you're talking about or what mind-change you mean.

By my best guesses:

The pure headhunting mode wasn't always present and was always discouraged by local commanders, but it happened enough that there are many written complaints to be found about men abandoning their positions/plans to hunt valuable heads, much to the chagrin of their commanders. The mongol invasion scrolls famously depict a samurai breaking formation and charging ahead of his fellows to try and get to grip with the mongols while his commanders make him out to be an idiot. It is unsure whether the samurai commissioned the scrolls himself to boast of his deeds, or whether his commanders commissioned it (or edited it) to show what a buffoon he was.

My best source on early samurai combat is the book Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan by Karl F Friday. I highly recommend it. It looks closely at the socio-political circumstances of the samurai, the reasons their early way of war developed the way it did, and also pulls apart many of the later romantizations as related to early samurai warfare.


[edit] my only quibble with Friday is his section on Japanese horses, where he bases his estimate of how much a Japanese warhorse can handle on a seriously flawed test done by the NHK where they used an untrained horse to carry a heavy pack load up a hill, and then noted it wasn't very good at it and that therefor Japanese warhorses had to be slow when mounted.

Bug-a-Boo
2016-02-29, 09:26 AM
Hmph...

There's an interesting paper that re-examines the Japanese exploits during the Mongol Invasions and grants some better, less romanticized insight into Samurai warfare. The site that contains it however refuses to load for me.

Outfought and Outthought: Reassessing the Mongol Invasions of Japan (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA502217)

If anyone can get it to work, it's a good read.

Thomas Conlan has an old yet still interesting article available online

The Culture of Force and Farce:
Fourteenth-Century Japanese Warfare (http://rijs.fas.harvard.edu/pdfs/conlan.pdf)

But books are a far better source of information. For early Samurai warfare I prefer Karl F Friday's books:

Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan (https://books.google.nl/books/about/Samurai_Warfare_and_the_State_in_Early_M.html?id=e yMYelZlKekC&redir_esc=y)

The First Samurai: The Life and Legend of the Warrior Rebel, Taira Masakado (https://books.google.nl/books/about/The_First_Samurai.html?id=D7NC4dVU_jcC&redir_esc=y)

For mid-medieval Samurai warfare (my favourite period!) I prefer Thomas Conlan:

State of War: The Violent Order of Fourteenth-century Japan (https://books.google.nl/books?id=piJ1AAAAMAAJ&q=Thomas+conlan&dq=Thomas+conlan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivwryzlp3LAhXCbZoKHfJkDskQ6AEIJjAB)

In little need of divine intervention: Takezaki Suenaga's scrolls of the Mongol invasions of Japan (https://books.google.nl/books?id=97duAAAAMAAJ&q=Thomas+conlan&dq=Thomas+conlan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivwryzlp3LAhXCbZoKHfJkDskQ6AEILzAD)


[edit] I found an excerpt of In little need of divine intervention online:

In Little Need of Divine Intervention pages 254 to 276 (http://deremilitari.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/conlan.pdf)

...in case anyone's wondering, I am waiting on people and terribly, terribly bored while waiting...

Vitruviansquid
2016-02-29, 10:12 AM
I always was under the assumption that headhunting was more about grabbing and murdering high priority targets than it was about challenging them to duels.

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 10:13 AM
Regarding the whole Samurai and individual duels thing...

While I am not as well informed as Brother Oni on the time and place, I can draw some obvious parallels to European warfare.

The notions of Chivalry tend to be just as exaggerated and distorted by myth and fiction in Latin medieval Europe as notions of Samurai honor were sometimes in Japan (and all over the Pacific rim from Korea to the Philippines to Indonesia where Japanese Ronin were widely engaged as pirates and mercenaries well into the 16th Century).

But in both cases there was a reality underneath all the hype and fluff. I've studied this a bit in the European context.

Though we now know that contrary to some early 20th Century assessments, the European medieval armies did fight intelligently and as combined-arms forces much of the time, particularly in Italy and Central Europe. But we also know that simultaneously, battlefield duels were very common, and even formally arranged 'chivalric contests', like the famous Combat of the Thirty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty) in Brittany during the 30 years war, did occur. I have found some very similar incidents between Germans and Poles for example in the aftermath of the Battle of Grunwald and later in the 13 Years War.

It was initially very hard for me to square these kinds of seemingly idealistic, even crazy displays of Chivalry in battle with the ultra-pragmatic reality of warfare at that time, with it's cannons and guns, sieges and enveloping maneuvers and spies and intrigue and all the rest of it. But when you penetrate into the details it starts to make some sense.

For one thing sieges, impasses, lulls, and other standoffs were common in warfare, then as now. One side is in a strong defensive position and the other is posing a serious threat but doesn't (yet) have capacity to overwhelm the defenders. During situations like that, it was routine for knights and other soldiers to step forth and challenge one another to duels. Battlefield dueling was very common, almost as a way to throw the roll of a dice into the fight to get things moving again.

For the individual knight or warrior, personal honor was a kind of currency. If someone challenged you and you declined, you would lose status, and this had very real effects on everything from pay to battlefield morale to your ability to recruit followers and attendants. It seems that besieged towns often took advantage of this and would send picked champions or small parties of elite fighters on sorties to challenge smaller enemy foraging parties, and either ambush them or challenge them to duels. If they won the duel it enhanced morale of the besieged army and had the opposite effect on the besiegers. For a knight, and also for warriors of other estates, never backing down made you stronger through the reputation system, and maybe physiologically too, (at least until you got defeated!) and was a crucial part of their social system for the warrior caste (which in medieval Europe, potentially included almost everybody).

However, there is another twist since in some cases even being on the losing side in one of these fights gave you more status than if you hadn't been in it at all. All the fighters who survived the "Combat of the Thirty" were renowned for the rest of their lives.

In medieval Europe the emphasis was more on capturing enemy fighters for ransom than on taking their heads, though the latter was a thing as well. Here too, the pragmatism of the battlefield clashed with the honor system, and sometimes the honor system gave way. For example the Moravian Condottieri Bernard von Zinnenberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Szumborski), one of the main mercenary captains fighting for the Teutonic Order in the 13 Years War, was captured during the battle of Konitz, but the battle shifted momentum, and Zinnenberg was able to escape, help rally the German forces and win the battle. But having given his word as a knight, he couldn't fight, and once the battle was over, he turned himself back over to the Polish King as a prisoner, and was held in comfortable captivity for three years, after which he was released, returned to the fight and became a major headache for Poland once again.

G

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 10:36 AM
Maybe the craziest example of real-life Chivalry I can think of in Central Europe in the Late Medieval period was when the King of Bohemia, resourceful and pragmatic George of Podebrady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_of_Pod%C4%9Bbrady), was facing the army of cunning and equally resourceful (but perhaps a bit more devious) Matthias Corvinus in the 1470's.

Corvinus had invaded Moravia and what are now the Eastern part of Czech Republic and Slovakia, with an army of Hungarians, Austrians, Italians and Catholic Czechs, on a "Crusade" against the heretical Hussites who at the time held sway in Bohemia, called the "Bohemian War" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian%E2%80%93Hungarian_War_(1468%E2%80%9378)). His army was very strong in both light and heavy cavalry with a small compliment of infantry, mostly gunners.

Podebrady had mustered his smaller but 'heavier' army of Czechs, Poles and German mercenaries, and was strong in infantry with crossbows and guns, with many war wagons, with a smaller force of heavy cavalry. He had just broken the siege of a castle by the Hungarian forces and his war-wagon columns were considered unstoppable on the ground. According to several accounts they had been fitted with 'scythes' on the wheels to further enhance their defense against cavalry.

The two armies were at a standoff because the Hungarian / Austrian cavalry had retreated into the hills around the valley where the war wagons couldn't go, but the Czech army had organized itself sufficiently to repel any cavalry raids from any quarter.

According to contemporaneous historian Jan Dlugosz, to break the impasse, Podebrady, old and fat and in fact near death, put on his armor and stepped forward under flag of truce to challenge young Corvinus "The Crow", to a personal duel in front of the two armies. Corvinus was much the smaller of the two, much younger and fitter, but did not have the same fearsome reputation as Podebrady. In fact he knew Podebrady personally and may have trained with him earlier in life, as he had been under his protection as a youth.

Sadly for history, Corvinus declined. In the end, his army slipped away.

G

Clistenes
2016-02-29, 11:53 AM
Regarding the whole Samurai and individual duels thing...

While I am not as well informed as Brother Oni on the time and place, I can draw some obvious parallels to European warfare.

The notions of Chivalry tend to be just as exaggerated and distorted by myth and fiction in Latin medieval Europe as notions of Samurai honor were sometimes in Japan (and all over the Pacific rim from Korea to the Philippines to Indonesia where Japanese Ronin were widely engaged as pirates and mercenaries well into the 16th Century).

But in both cases there was a reality underneath all the hype and fluff. I've studied this a bit in the European context.

Though we now know that contrary to some early 20th Century assessments, the European medieval armies did fight intelligently and as combined-arms forces much of the time, particularly in Italy and Central Europe. But we also know that simultaneously, battlefield duels were very common, and even formally arranged 'chivalric contests', like the famous Combat of the Thirty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty) in Brittany during the 30 years war, did occur. I have found some very similar incidents between Germans and Poles for example in the aftermath of the Battle of Grunwald and later in the 13 Years War.

It was initially very hard for me to square these kinds of seemingly idealistic, even crazy displays of Chivalry in battle with the ultra-pragmatic reality of warfare at that time, with it's cannons and guns, sieges and enveloping maneuvers and spies and intrigue and all the rest of it. But when you penetrate into the details it starts to make some sense.

For one thing sieges, impasses, lulls, and other standoffs were common in warfare, then as now. One side is in a strong defensive position and the other is posing a serious threat but doesn't (yet) have capacity to overwhelm the defenders. During situations like that, it was routine for knights and other soldiers to step forth and challenge one another to duels. Battlefield dueling was very common, almost as a way to throw the roll of a dice into the fight to get things moving again.

For the individual knight or warrior, personal honor was a kind of currency. If someone challenged you and you declined, you would lose status, and this had very real effects on everything from pay to battlefield morale to your ability to recruit followers and attendants. It seems that besieged towns often took advantage of this and would send picked champions or small parties of elite fighters on sorties to challenge smaller enemy foraging parties, and either ambush them or challenge them to duels. If they won the duel it enhanced morale of the besieged army and had the opposite effect on the besiegers. For a knight, and also for warriors of other estates, never backing down made you stronger through the reputation system, and maybe physiologically too, (at least until you got defeated!) and was a crucial part of their social system for the warrior caste (which in medieval Europe, potentially included almost everybody).

However, there is another twist since in some cases even being on the losing side in one of these fights gave you more status than if you hadn't been in it at all. All the fighters who survived the "Combat of the Thirty" were renowned for the rest of their lives.

In medieval Europe the emphasis was more on capturing enemy fighters for ransom than on taking their heads, though the latter was a thing as well. Here too, the pragmatism of the battlefield clashed with the honor system, and sometimes the honor system gave way. For example the Moravian Condottieri Bernard von Zinnenberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Szumborski), one of the main mercenary captains fighting for the Teutonic Order in the 13 Years War, was captured during the battle of Konitz, but the battle shifted momentum, and Zinnenberg was able to escape, help rally the German forces and win the battle. But having given his word as a knight, he couldn't fight, and once the battle was over, he turned himself back over to the Polish King as a prisoner, and was held in comfortable captivity for three years, after which he was released, returned to the fight and became a major headache for Poland once again.

G

About Japan, you have to take into account that the samurai started as bodyguards, administrators and peacekeepers under the shugo gobernors who served the Ashikaga shoguns. Their official job usually wasn't to fight other countries, but to help their lords rule and police their provinces. There were fights and private wars between shugos or between landed samurai, but since they were all vassals to the same shogun, those weren't total wars, they were a mix of honor duels, vendettas, assassinations, punitive raids, banditry and piracy.

However, as the power of the shogun diminished, and the shugo became more autonomous (or they weakened too, and were displaced by their own warlike samurai vassals), the shugo became or were replaced by a new class of daimyo who were like independent kings, and who fought as such, invading and conquering their neighbour's fiefdoms.

At the beginning of the Sengoku Period their armies were still made up mostly of samurai, but the recruited more and more Ashigaru. The Ashigaru weren't trained in the use of lance, katana and bow, so they fought mostly as spearmen, while the archers and cavalry were still samurai. The Ashigaru didn't receive all the privileges of samurai (there were too many, and it was thought thet they didn't deserve them, since they didn't have all the skills and virtues of a samurai).

When I read about their battles, I got the impression that their pike and spear blocks tended to be more agressive than their European counterparts. In Europe the pikemen (save the Swiss) usually stayed put as a barrier against the charges of cavalry. In Japan I think it was more common to order the spearmen to attack, to go running against the enemy.

It is true that samurai tried to face their equals in battle and take their heads, and they went against enemy generals, but it didn't impede the use of complex tactics and formations. They just watched the battlefield waiting for a worthy enemy to appear in front of them while fighting.

They also competed about who was the first man to climb a wall, and the first man to board an enemy ship (specially the flagship); when fighting in the sea, they tended to focus their attacks on the enemy flagship, while protecting their own, so they put their flagship in the back, and the other ships faced each other and tried to break through and reach the enemy flagship. That way of fighting provoked their utter defeat against the enveloping tactics of the Koreans (the japanese fleets tried to break through the korean ones, which easily surroundered them).

I'm not sure the arquebussiers and musketeers were Ashigaru. Gunmen started as elite units within the japanese armies, so I think that Ashigaru weren't issued firearms until gunmen became a large percentage of the armies. Later, under Hideyoshi and during the Edo period, most weapons were restricted to samurai, so all gunmen had to be samurai too. There were samurai families during the Edo period who specialized in the use of firearms (they became largely ceremonial, since there weren't battles in Japan during the Edo period, and police work was done using more traditional weapons).

About Europe, something similar happened: When the battles were between two neighbours arguing about say the ownership of a well or a meadow, they tended to raid each other, and sometimes to duel, and knights had more protagonism, but during real wars between enemy kingdoms duels weren't an important part of battles. There were duels, but they happened before battles or during truces or during sieges, not as part of battles themselves. Knights were captured for ransom, but they didn't usually challenge each other to singular combat in the middle of a battle, they charged against each other in formation.

During the Siege of Barletta (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/siege_barletta_1502.html) there were not one, but two tourneys between knights of the opposing armies: One in 1502 (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desaf%C3%ADo_de_Barletta_%281502%29), between spanish and french knights, and another in 1503 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_of_Barletta), between italian and french knights. That happened during a war that saw heavy use of pikemen, crossbowmen, gunmen, light cavalry and infantry, flanking tactics, mountain fighting, ambushes...etc. Charles VIII of France himself jousted with the spanish general, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba, which he greatly respected, at the end of the war.

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 12:53 PM
When I read about their battles, I got the impression that their pike and spear blocks tended to be more agressive than their European counterparts. In Europe the pikemen (save the Swiss) usually stayed put as a barrier against the charges of cavalry. In Japan I think it was more common to order the spearmen to attack, to go running against the enemy.

That's incorrect. The Swiss were certainly among the most aggressive, but in the medieval period infantry in general and pike columns specifically were often very aggressive (depending on the situation) and charging was a common tactic, this changed toward the 17th Century as the whole nature of warfare shifted in Europe. German Lansknecht pike armies for example routinely charged enemy formations, as did the Spanish, the Czechs, and the Flemish. Basically anywhere that had good, well-trained infantry.




About Europe, something similar happened: When the battles were between two neighbours arguing about say the ownership of a well or a meadow, they tended to raid each other, and sometimes to duel, and knights had more protagonism, but during real wars between enemy kingdoms duels weren't an important part of battles. There were duels, but they happened before battles or during truces or during sieges, not as part of battles themselves. Knights were captured for ransom, but they didn't usually challenge each other to singular combat in the middle of a battle, they charged against each other in formation.

As I noted above, they fairly routinely fought individual combats, while at the same time conducting a 'modern' type of warfare.

G

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 12:55 PM
It's also worth pointing out, during most of the equivalent of the High to late medieval period in Japan, say from the Mongol invasion through the Tokugawa Shogunate in the 17th Century, Samurai were not really equivalent of knights, they were a servant class and though they had special rights they also had a lot of restrictions such as on owning property. More like ministeriales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis) in Europe than nobles.

Clistenes
2016-02-29, 01:24 PM
That's incorrect. The Swiss were certainly among the most aggressive, but in the medieval period infantry in general and pike columns specifically were often very aggressive (depending on the situation) and charging was a common tactic, this changed toward the 17th Century as the whole nature of warfare shifted in Europe. German Lansknecht pike armies for example routinely charged enemy formations, as did the Spanish, the Czechs, and the Flemish. Basically anywhere that had good, well-trained infantry.

I think the nature of pike blocks changed before the XVII century. During the XVI century firearms had already taken the role of aggresion/damage dealers in the armies. Renaissance pike-and-shot formations were slow; tercios advanced at a 60 meters per minute pace, while the gunmen shot against the enemy, trying to break it before the pikemen clashed.

Aggressive charges of pikemen did enjoy only a short period of widespread use. Before firearms, Swiss pikemen were the first to develope agressive tactics during the Late Middle Ages. Other countries started to imitate them from the late XV century onwards. The Landsknechts are from the XVI and late XV centuries. Later, firearms provoked the change to slower pike-and-shot blocks.

During the Middle Ages spearmen and pikemen were more static. There were some victories by agressive pikemen like those of Stirling Bridge and Laupen, but most of the time they lacked the discipline and cohesion to pull an efficient charge. The Swiss were the first to use it as a regular, standard tactic.

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 01:55 PM
I think the nature of pike blocks changed before the XVII century. During the XVI century firearms had already taken the role of aggresion/damage dealers in the armies. Renaissance pike-and-shot formations were slow; tercios advanced at a 60 meters per minute pace, while the gunmen shot against the enemy, trying to break it before the pikemen clashed.

Aggressive charges of pikemen did enjoy only a short period of widespread use. Before firearms, Swiss pikemen were the first to develope agressive tactics during the Late Middle Ages. Other countries started to imitate them from the late XV century onwards. The Landsknechts are from the XVI and late XV centuries. Later, firearms provoked the change to slower pike-and-shot blocks.

During the Middle Ages spearmen and pikemen were more static. There were some victories by agressive pikemen like those of Stirling Bridge and Laupen, but most of the time they lacked the discipline and cohesion to pull an efficient charge. The Swiss were the first to use it as a regular, standard tactic.

That is incorrect. The Swiss were the most famous for using this tactic in almost all of their many victories (particularly for their home armies, but also fighting as mercenaries) but spearmen and pikemen were charging enemy formations going back to the Viking era. The term Landsknecht was actually being used to describe mercenary infantry companies from low-lying areas, including both Swabia and lower Saxony / Frisia as far back as the 1390's though the 'Official' landsknecht companies were organized by Emperor Maximillian in 1487. They had peaked in importance by around 1520. So they were really a late-medieval phenomenon that lasted into the 16th Century.

Spear and pike armed infantry were being used to charge into enemy formations, including against cavalry formations, well back into the 13th Century. For example, in the Battle of Oberhausbergen in 1262, the Strasbourg forces, consisting of infantry armed with spears and axes, defeated the Bishops army (already heavily engaged with another Strasbourg company) with a charge. In the famous Battle of Courtrai in 1302, the Flemish (infantry army, armed with two-handed spear/maces and spears) initially held fast, but then turned the course of the battle with two aggressive charges, one against the main French army and one against the relieving force that were sent to help them. In the Battle of Beverthoutsveld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beverhoutsveld) the Ghent militia (armed primarily with spears) again, after initially resisting an enemy attack with a volley-gun fusillade, broke the army of the Count of Flanders with a charge. There are dozens of battles like this very well documented between roughly 1200 and 1520.

The Czechs also routinely charged with their mostly spear or pike armed infantry during the Hussite Wars of roughly 1420-1430, though they also had war-wagons. Czech Hussite mercenaries won two battles against the Turks in the 1470's with infantry charges.

Though they became better known in the Early Modern period for their cavalry, the Ukranian Cossacks, particularly the Zaparozhian Cossacks, were mainly known for their infantry in the 15th and 16th Century and won many battles through infantry charges.

G

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 01:59 PM
Charging or even moving around the battlefield (once fighting has started) was something only the better trained and disciplined infantry could do, but up to about the mid 16th Century there were a lot of very well trained, (battle) disciplined infantry all around Europe. By the 17th Century well into the pike-and-shot era, tactics had changed and most pike infantry were poorly trained and couldn't be expected to do much more than stand next to the cannon or gunners to protect them from cavalry charges.

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 02:13 PM
Another good example was the Siege of Belgrade in 1456 where a sudden (and fairly confused, by all accounts) sortie, followed by two charges mostly of spear and pike-armed infantry, routed the Ottoman army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)#Battle

G

eru001
2016-02-29, 02:48 PM
quick question.

Could a Scutum (roman legionary shield) potentially stop or deflect the ball from a flintlock pistol. (Yes I know that those two things were historically about a thousand years apart but it came up in a tabletop and as it was end of session we left it unresolved as we could not agree on an answer, I've been plying the internet looking for armor penetration statistics on flintlock pistols and haven't found much useful info in regards to shields.)

If anyone could weigh in on what it takes to stop or deflect a bullet from a flintlock pistol I would appreciate it.

Galloglaich
2016-02-29, 02:53 PM
quick question.

Could a Scutum (roman legionary shield) potentially stop or deflect the ball from a flintlock pistol. (Yes I know that those two things were historically about a thousand years apart but it came up in a tabletop and as it was end of session we left it unresolved as we could not agree on an answer, I've been plying the internet looking for armor penetration statistics on flintlock pistols and haven't found much useful info in regards to shields.)

If anyone could weigh in on what it takes to stop or deflect a bullet from a flintlock pistol I would appreciate it.

Maybe at really long range.

Scutum were pretty thin wood, like most shields. Very late in the game, they started making steel shields, both in Europe and the Ottoman Turks. These could stop bullets at least at medium to long ranges, though they were smaller than Scuta (due to the weight). There were also some layered / composite type shields which look a bit like Scutum, pavises and 'mini-pavises', which also may have been able to stop bullets depending on the range.

So you could probably make Scuta that could stop bullets with a little know-how. But the typical Roman Scutum from 'back in the day' probably couldn't.

G

Brother Oni
2016-02-29, 03:29 PM
I'm sorry Brother Oni, could your reparse that? I'm unsure what mid-ground you're talking about or what mind-change you mean.

No need as you've answered my questions perfectly as well as filled out my reading list for the foreseeable future. :smallbiggrin:



In medieval Europe the emphasis was more on capturing enemy fighters for ransom than on taking their heads, though the latter was a thing as well. Here too, the pragmatism of the battlefield clashed with the honor system, and sometimes the honor system gave way. For example the Moravian Condottieri Bernard von Zinnenberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Szumborski), one of the main mercenary captains fighting for the Teutonic Order in the 13 Years War, was captured during the battle of Konitz, but the battle shifted momentum, and Zinnenberg was able to escape, help rally the German forces and win the battle. But having given his word as a knight, he couldn't fight, and once the battle was over, he turned himself back over to the Polish King as a prisoner, and was held in comfortable captivity for three years, after which he was released, returned to the fight and became a major headache for Poland once again.

This sort of idealism or romanticism (for a lack of a better description) fascinates me about warfare in older periods, where a knight's or an officer's and a gentleman's word alone would be enough for their bond of good behaviour. I've read reports as late as the Napoleonic Wars where captured British officers could go roaming on parole as they had given their word they wouldn't escape (one account I read was of a pair of captured naval officers complaining bitterly that they had to pay for their own lodgings and servants in a guest house in the town where they were paroled).

This is of course absolutely tempered by the brutal nature of medieval warfare and the treatment of civilians, especially those of besieged towns that finally fall.


So you could probably make Scuta that could stop bullets with a little know-how. But the typical Roman Scutum from 'back in the day' probably couldn't.

I think it was either you or Diekenes that mentioned the Romans had issues with the Parthians as their composite bows could put an arrow through their scutums.

Carl
2016-02-29, 03:30 PM
Maybe at really long range.

Scutum were pretty thin wood, like most shields. Very late in the game, they started making steel shields, both in Europe and the Ottoman Turks. These could stop bullets at least at medium to long ranges, though they were smaller than Scuta (due to the weight). There were also some layered / composite type shields which look a bit like Scutum, pavises and 'mini-pavises', which also may have been able to stop bullets depending on the range.

So you could probably make Scuta that could stop bullets with a little know-how. But the typical Roman Scutum from 'back in the day' probably couldn't.

I'd say it depends on the assumed circumstance, if the roman's have been going up against the pistols regularly, you can bet they would have modified their kit accordingly, the romans where really damned good at that sort of thing. Also given Mythbusters test of paper armour showed that could stop a pistol bullet as i recall i wouldn't assume simply being wood would preclude them stopping a bullet, though from my limited knowledge of scuta construction it wouldn't be up to the job unmodified.

wobner
2016-02-29, 06:26 PM
Hmph...

There's an interesting paper that re-examines the Japanese exploits during the Mongol Invasions and grants some better, less romanticized insight into Samurai warfare. The site that contains it however refuses to load for me.

Outfought and Outthought: Reassessing the Mongol Invasions of Japan (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA502217)

If anyone can get it to work, it's a good read.

*snip*


the initial page loaded fine for me, and right click the link + save as, took about 10 minutes(atleast 10, cause i wasn't paying attention but reading this thread), but it finally opened up and saved to desktop. so it will *eventually* work, now just need to find the time to read it.

thank you by the way, to all parties involved. quite enjoying the discussion.


two questions, if anyone could answer them

anyone know the shelf life of rice in and before the samurai era? how long could you safely store it in a properly maintained granary given the knowledge and capabilities of the times(i understand alot was lost due to improper storage), and to a lesser degree, how long could you realisticly expect it to survive on the march in an army. my google searches are yeilding wildly conflicting estimates, or refering to modern times instead, despite their claims to be more medieval.

also, something else i have been unable to learn. I understand yari means "spear" in japanese, is there a specific word for "pike" in japanese? or is there really no such distinction?

Blackhawk748
2016-02-29, 07:21 PM
When I read about their battles, I got the impression that their pike and spear blocks tended to be more agressive than their European counterparts. In Europe the pikemen (save the Swiss) usually stayed put as a barrier against the charges of cavalry. In Japan I think it was more common to order the spearmen to attack, to go running against the enemy.

Im thinking the logical reason is that Pikemen in Europe had heavier armor (on average) than Ashigaru, so Asigaru would get wrecked by archers if they just stayed still. Thats my thoughts on it anyway.

Edit: Also, what is with Japan and not having shields?? AFAIK they are the only culture that had Sword smithing that didnt also make shields.

Clistenes
2016-02-29, 07:50 PM
Im thinking the logical reason is that Pikemen in Europe had heavier armor (on average) than Ashigaru, so Asigaru would get wrecked by archers if they just stayed still. Thats my thoughts on it anyway.

Edit: Also, what is with Japan and not having shields?? AFAIK they are the only culture that had Sword smithing that didnt also make shields.

They had chinese-style crossbowmen and spear-and-shield troops before the shogunate.

I have read many theories, none really satisfactory. I have read that since during most of the Ashikawa shogunate fighting had become a job of the samurai elite, which were mostly mounted archers, they eschewed shields; they developed good armor, or at least good enough for the weapons they usually used, so they didn't use shields even when fighting at close quarters, a lot like european knights in full plate.

After the Onin War their wars changed, but for some reason they never tried to use the shield again... I guess they were just very conservative.

Blackhawk748
2016-02-29, 08:44 PM
They had chinese-style crossbowmen and spear-and-shield troops before the shogunate.

I have read many theories, none really satisfactory. I have read that since during most of the Ashikawa shogunate fighting had become a job of the samurai elite, which were mostly mounted archers, they eschewed shields; they developed good armor, or at least good enough for the weapons they usually used, so they didn't use shields even when fighting at close quarters, a lot like european knights in full plate.

After the Onin War their wars changed, but for some reason they never tried to use the shield again... I guess they were just very conservative.

Well thats new to me, didn't know the ever used shields.

I get why Samurai didnt use them, as their weapons of choice would have made it awkward, but it seemed odd not to have Ashigaru use them as you'd think it would drastically improve their survival rate, at least against ranged attack.

Galloglaich
2016-03-01, 12:46 AM
Well thats new to me, didn't know the ever used shields.

I get why Samurai didnt use them, as their weapons of choice would have made it awkward, but it seemed odd not to have Ashigaru use them as you'd think it would drastically improve their survival rate, at least against ranged attack.

There was a persistent formalized element to Japanese warfare in the Early Modern period. For example, though they adopted the arquebus from 1543 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(Japanese_matchlock)) (a rather curious intermediate step of the matchlock arquebus, copied from a Portuguese design) and put it into wide use almost immediately (manufacturing something like a quarter of a million of them in like ten years), they never really adopted the cannon to warfare (they still only had a few after 1600), and their castles were not really made for dealing with them. By that time the Edo period was well underway and major wars were coming to an end in Japan.

Samurai didn't really employ shields because their main weapon was the bow. This wasn't due to the invulnerability of their armor though. Their armor, cool as it looked, really wasn't as effective as the better quality European armor and in fact, they used almost every piece of European made armor they could get their hands on. There is whole class of Japanese armor which incorporated Portuguese or Spanish-made breast-plates (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hatomune_dou_(d%C5%8D)_gusoku).

But Ashigaru did use pavise-like shields

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ashigaru_using_shields_%28tate%29.jpg/640px-Ashigaru_using_shields_%28tate%29.jpg

G

Brother Oni
2016-03-01, 03:02 AM
anyone know the shelf life of rice in and before the samurai era?

I'll look this up when I have more time, but I'd think the same as any sort of grain. Bear in mind that the climate of Japan can get to sub-tropical thus has significant rainfall and higher temperatures, which contribute to spoilage.


also, something else i have been unable to learn. I understand yari means "spear" in japanese, is there a specific word for "pike" in japanese? or is there really no such distinction?

There isn’t a pike analogue in Japanese warfare thus there isn’t a word for it, although they did use extra long yari on occasion.
There’s a number of oddities in the Japanese language like this – there isn’t a word to distinguish between a rat and a mouse for example; they use nezumi 鼠 for both.


Edit: Also, what is with Japan and not having shields?? AFAIK they are the only culture that had Sword smithing that didnt also make shields.

The samurai absolutely did have shields in addition to the pavise analogues that Galloglaich mentioned, they just wore them on their shoulders instead of carrying them:

http://www.asia.si.edu/EncompassingtheGlobe/GoogleEarth/graphics/Japan/ELS2007.2.102.jpg

The main reason samurai didn’t go for large hand held shields is that their primary role was mounted archers as Galloglaich said and it’s impossible to shoot in the Japanese style (thumb ring draw) with a big shield strapped to either forearm.

I’ve seen archers with personal shields, although they’re much smaller buckler sized things and I think they were Western archers using a Mediterranean draw.


There was a persistent formalized element to Japanese warfare in the Early Modern period. For example, though they adopted the arquebus from 1543 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(Japanese_matchlock)) (a rather curious intermediate step of the matchlock arquebus, copied from a Portuguese design) and put it into wide use almost immediately (manufacturing something like a quarter of a million of them in like ten years), they never really adopted the cannon to warfare (they still only had a few after 1600), and their castles were not really made for dealing with them.

While I'm definitely not disputing the formalised element to Japanese warfare (the Battles of Kawanakajima are a good example of this), some of their adaptations are due to their geography (living in a major earthquake zone) but most are due to their comparative isolation.




https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ashigaru_using_shields_%28tate%29.jpg/640px-Ashigaru_using_shields_%28tate%29.jpg

You beat me to it. :smalltongue:
Only thing I will add is that those straw things on the stands in front are the ashigaru's raincoats, presumably to provide a bit of extra protection from bullets, along the same sort of principles as spaced armour on tanks.

Clistenes
2016-03-01, 04:47 AM
That is incorrect. The Swiss were the most famous for using this tactic in almost all of their many victories (particularly for their home armies, but also fighting as mercenaries) but spearmen and pikemen were charging enemy formations going back to the Viking era. The term Landsknecht was actually being used to describe mercenary infantry companies from low-lying areas, including both Swabia and lower Saxony / Frisia as far back as the 1390's though the 'Official' landsknecht companies were organized by Emperor Maximillian in 1487. They had peaked in importance by around 1520. So they were really a late-medieval phenomenon that lasted into the 16th Century.

Spear and pike armed infantry were being used to charge into enemy formations, including against cavalry formations, well back into the 13th Century. For example, in the Battle of Oberhausbergen in 1262, the Strasbourg forces, consisting of infantry armed with spears and axes, defeated the Bishops army (already heavily engaged with another Strasbourg company) with a charge. In the famous Battle of Courtrai in 1302, the Flemish (infantry army, armed with two-handed spear/maces and spears) initially held fast, but then turned the course of the battle with two aggressive charges, one against the main French army and one against the relieving force that were sent to help them. In the Battle of Beverthoutsveld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beverhoutsveld) the Ghent militia (armed primarily with spears) again, after initially resisting an enemy attack with a volley-gun fusillade, broke the army of the Count of Flanders with a charge. There are dozens of battles like this very well documented between roughly 1200 and 1520.

The Czechs also routinely charged with their mostly spear or pike armed infantry during the Hussite Wars of roughly 1420-1430, though they also had war-wagons. Czech Hussite mercenaries won two battles against the Turks in the 1470's with infantry charges.

Though they became better known in the Early Modern period for their cavalry, the Ukranian Cossacks, particularly the Zaparozhian Cossacks, were mainly known for their infantry in the 15th and 16th Century and won many battles through infantry charges.

G

Point taken. But most of those troops weren't pike blocks as such, but flexible formations of warriors armed with polearms like spears, poleaxes, goedendags, halberds, flails and morningstars. The closest to pike blocks were the Flemish in the Battle of Courtrai.


Well thats new to me, didn't know the ever used shields.

There was a period in Japan's history (VII-VIII centuries mostly, I think) when they copied everything the Chinese did. They adopted chinese writing, art, religion and administrative system. They really admired the Tang dinasty. One of the things they did was to try to centralize the government and army, creating a chinese-style army.

Bug-a-Boo
2016-03-01, 05:37 AM
Personal shields were in used in Japan during the time the islands weren't entirely conquered yet. Continental style spear and shield infantry backed by crossbowmen on foot and heavy mounted archers. These armies were good for conquering the disparate tribes. But once Japan was unified, these kind of armies turned out to be quite useless when it came to handling internal disputes, rebellions and criminals.

Small armies of mobile horse archers were far, far more effective in this role, hence the birth of the Samurai.

But shields were still widely used! Just not in the way we tend to recognize them.

First, keep in mind that Samurai armies handling internal struggles tend to be relatively small yet well equipped. From what we can glean of representations of the early armies, it is likely the majority of warriors had at least decent armor rather then the minority. And armor is good. don't forget that in Europe the large handheld shield lost a lot of popularity when decent armor was widely available. But what other shields were popular in Europe? Pavises!

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/525002725025049117/3C6E0D78979DB9B751D365032F8C896CD1708624/

And guess what kind of shield Japanese warriors on foot made heavy use of for hundreds of years.

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-069170b4744044dc622b50c2b9f82c44?convert_to_webp=t rue

So in Samurai Japan you have the situation where most warriors had decent armor, the most effective warriors used weapons that require two hands to wield, and everyone who was in a more vulnerable position (on foot) carried little mobile fortresses with them.



On cannons: Keep in mind how landscape shapes the way battles are fought. Cannon didn't really catch on in Japan because it is bloody hellish to try and lug around such a heavy piece of metal over a hilly and mountainous landscape. There were some attempts...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d8/7c/0a/d87c0a566152145f83576ddb1fe0a642.jpg

...but on the whole they were considered not worth it.

Btw, they also had fire rockets

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hiya-zutsu_and_bo-hiya.jpg



On armor: I dispute that the pigeon breastplates of western make were quickly adopted by the Samurai because they were so effective. Firstly, Samurai armor design was also moving towards a pigeon breastplate design independent of European influences.

http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/graphics/06graphs/hatomokegawa.jpg

Samurai really liked European breastplates and incorporated gifted pieces into their armors, but this was not because of any superiority of design, it was because they really liked European stuff in general! People who harp on about Japan's isolationism always forget that that is an Edo-period thing. Before that the Japanese were always eager to adopt foreign fashions, ideas and technology whenever they came across them, weaving them seamlessly into their own ideas of fashion and design.

I mean, this...

http://www.iz2.or.jp/fukusyoku/busou/images/105-a.gif

...was not an isolated thing. These kind of outfits were fashion statements quickly adopted after the Portuguese landed in Japan.


[edit] I'm adding to lots of other people's points I see :smallbiggrin:

Blackhawk748
2016-03-01, 06:44 PM
Ah the Pavise, AKA mobile cover. A wonderful device.

Now im trying to figure out how things would turn out in a fight between a fairly typical medieval Japanese army and a fairly typical medieval European army..... You know what? Lets go with this.

We'll go with a typical Japanese army from just after the Onin War, and, lets say, a typical Scottish army during the early Hundred Year War. Assume generals of equivalent skill and the terrain doesn't favor either of them.

I guess this is less "who wins" and more of "what are the pros and cons of each force" :smalltongue:

Galloglaich
2016-03-01, 07:08 PM
Ah the Pavise, AKA mobile cover. A wonderful device.

Now im trying to figure out how things would turn out in a fight between a fairly typical medieval Japanese army and a fairly typical medieval European army..... You know what? Lets go with this.

We'll go with a typical Japanese army from just after the Onin War, and, lets say, a typical Scottish army during the early Hundred Year War. Assume generals of equivalent skill and the terrain doesn't favor either of them.

I guess this is less "who wins" and more of "what are the pros and cons of each force" :smalltongue:

I don't know about the Scottish, but the Japanese did tangle with the Spanish, Portuguese, English and Dutch quite bit in the late 16th century, and I think a little in the 17th Century too. These were mostly sea battles, as well as some land battles involving Japanese Ronin mercenaries fighting for / with Chinese Wako / Wagu pirates in places like the Philippines. The Dutch relied heavily on Ronin Samurai as muscle in their conquest of Indonesia and I think Malaysia too. The French were active in the area too though I don't know if they tangled with the Japanese and Wako pirates or not.

There are accounts of some battles with Spanish galleons in Nagasaki bay by William Adams, the English navigator who became a Samurai, and there is a first hand account of Japanese pirates trying to capture and English ship (after a parlay) in the open sea by another Englishman. There are a few incidents involving the Portuguese, including 7 or 8 duels that are recorded in the Portuguese national archives.

The biggest battles that I know of took place in the Philippines though. Interestingly the Spanish may have actually used Scottish mercenaries somewhat in the Philippines, they definitely used German Landsknechts and indigenous Mexican warriors there, among others.

Most of these are somewhat murky and the primary source accounts are not translated into English, so it's hard to be sure if the 'Samurai' in question really were Samurai, as they were usually part of a pirate rabble. But there is one pretty well documented incident in the Philippines in which it does seem that Samurai were definitely involved, they still have some of their armor in a museum there and I've seen photos, it looks 'legit'. What remains unclear is how many of the pirate force were Ronin, probably not that many given the one-sided victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles

This was quite an interesting battle from a tactical perspective and it seems like the Spanish won handily. It follows the typical pattern of these incidents in that the Japanese were being pretty rough with the locals who were already nominally under the thumb of the Spanish, the Spanish intervened and won the day. Apparently there were some even bigger battles in Manila on at least two different occasions (big enough to involve artillery) but I've never found any of the documentation on it in English or Spanish.


I think the Philippines in this era, and Indonesia too, are ripe, really really ripe for some RPG setting, genre fiction and / or cool modern style cable TV show treatment, though the research sadly hasn't been done yet. PhD Candidates pay attention!

G

Bug-a-Boo
2016-03-01, 07:19 PM
Ah the Pavise, AKA mobile cover. A wonderful device.

Now im trying to figure out how things would turn out in a fight between a fairly typical medieval Japanese army and a fairly typical medieval European army..... You know what? Lets go with this.

We'll go with a typical Japanese army from just after the Onin War, and, lets say, a typical Scottish army during the early Hundred Year War. Assume generals of equivalent skill and the terrain doesn't favor either of them.

I guess this is less "who wins" and more of "what are the pros and cons of each force" :smalltongue:

Neigh impossible to answer. Just "after" the Onin war (many would dispute that there is an after, as the Onin war in many ways smoothly transitioned into the Sengoku wars) there wasn't really something we could call a typical Japanese army. This was time were local lords went from being allowed to use a greater share of land taxes for arming their own men (end of Nanbokucho period), to most of them seizing the taxes of their lands entirely for arming their own armies. This is where Japanese armies started their great upheaval that saw them gain greater and greater numbers of Ashigaru and which culminated with the Renaissance-esque weapons and tactics of the Sengoku wars. Entire forces faced repeated restructuring and new ways of organizing these new forces were being developed everywhere. No clan army would look alike.

Now the Nanbokucho period Japanese armies vs 14th century German or Spanish forces, I could probably do more with that.

Btw, there is no such thing as terrain that favors neither of them. Japanese armies were not just geared but also formed and organised around hilly and mountainous warfare. Facing a "common" European army organised and structured around fighting on rolling fields would mean that the European force would have a massive advantage if the fight were say, in France, while the Japanese force would have a massive advantage if the fight were in the mountains of their homeland. Terrain matters incredibly much because it influences not just weapons and tactics but also organisation and communication.

Now against the Scots it might be slightly different. I forget what time it spoke of exactly, but I remember reading that the English army was far less effective against the Scotts (due to terrain) and that the Border Horses (light horsemen) bore the brunt of the fighting on the Scottish border and that the secured the most victories. In light of this, a mounted Samurai heavy force might have a good time fighting the Scotts.

Blackhawk748
2016-03-01, 08:15 PM
Btw, there is no such thing as terrain that favors neither of them. Japanese armies were not just geared but also formed and organised around hilly and mountainous warfare. Facing a "common" European army organised and structured around fighting on rolling fields would mean that the European force would have a massive advantage if the fight were say, in France, while the Japanese force would have a massive advantage if the fight were in the mountains of their homeland. Terrain matters incredibly much because it influences not just weapons and tactics but also organisation and communication.

Now against the Scots it might be slightly different. I forget what time it spoke of exactly, but I remember reading that the English army was far less effective against the Scotts (due to terrain) and that the Border Horses (light horsemen) bore the brunt of the fighting on the Scottish border and that the secured the most victories. In light of this, a mounted Samurai heavy force might have a good time fighting the Scotts.

This may be why i picked the Scots, as while not identical, Scotland and Japan are both quite hilly so the have similarities in tactics and unit composition.

The other reason could be because i wanted to watch Samurai fight highlanders to the sound of Bagpipes :smalltongue:

Brother Oni
2016-03-02, 03:00 AM
The other reason could be because i wanted to watch Samurai fight highlanders to the sound of Bagpipes :smalltongue:

Outside of the Philippines mentioned by Galloglaich, the closest you're going to get to a major culture clash is samurai under attack by rocket artillery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha) during the Imjin Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%9398)), or being shelled by British ships during the Anglo-Satsuma War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Kagoshima).

Moving west a bit, there's also the various Opium Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars) and the Boxer Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion), but those were less wars and more a one sided thrashing by the various Western powers.

There's also the various shenanigans going on in the New World with the Spanish and the various indigenous inhabitants (my knowledge of this period and location is a lot more spotty, sorry).

Bug-a-Boo
2016-03-02, 05:13 AM
This may be why i picked the Scots, as while not identical, Scotland and Japan are both quite hilly so the have similarities in tactics and unit composition.

The other reason could be because i wanted to watch Samurai fight highlanders to the sound of Bagpipes :smalltongue:

I could give you a composition and comparison with a 14th century Japanese army, but I fear I have no idea what a 14th century Scotts force would look like :smallbiggrin:




Outside of the Philippines mentioned by Galloglaich, the closest you're going to get to a major culture clash is samurai under attack by rocket artillery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha) during the Imjin Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%9398)), or being shelled by British ships during the Anglo-Satsuma War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Kagoshima).

Moving west a bit, there's also the various Opium Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars) and the Boxer Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion), but those were less wars and more a one sided thrashing by the various Western powers.

There's also the various shenanigans going on in the New World with the Spanish and the various indigenous inhabitants (my knowledge of this period and location is a lot more spotty, sorry).

One of the things I have read but have not been able to find more on (I'm still looking tho) is a reference in, I believe Indian, documents about a Samurai mercenary band operating in in Southern India around the 14th/15th century. I'm hoping I can find more on this band in the future.

The Samurai had something akin to a Knight Errant mentioned in older sources. A Samurai could go to his Lord, say "Yo, if you'll pay my travel-expenses, I'll go to other countries, learn stuff and bring that knowledge back to enrich the clan". From the little I could find about them, it seems that Samurai traveling to the continent together with merchants (and pirates) and visiting different countries in Asia was a much more common thing than we tend to think.

Jallorn
2016-03-02, 05:20 AM
So my understanding wrt armor and DnD 3.5 is that the massive limitations to Dexterity DnD places on armor is not really accurate, at least as long as you were strong enough (which is probably quite effectively represented through encumbrance). Now, of course, this distinction was made, however, for balance purposes (and it seems to me that the penalties to certain skills is probably still accurate and good, especially sneaking, at least for heavier armor). Yet, in the real world, such balance distinctions didn't really exist. Which meant that, pretty much, heavier and more expensive armor was almost always better, for keeping one safe.

Anyway, my question, aside from verification that I understand the situation correctly, is this: What would the primary classes of armor be? Certainly studded leather isn't a thing, and leather and padded are really kind of the same I believe, so the general kinds I'm seeing are: padded/leather (generally a part of every kind of armor), chainmail, and plate. Now, a brief wikipedia scan shows other kinds listed, but are they, aside from having varying strengths, functionally different from these three types?

The distinctions I'm seeing are in the kinds of weapons best suited for harming a foe in such armor. Padded is only very slightly protective, for instance, from any kind of hacking, slashing, or piercing weapon. Chainmail, on the other hand, protects quite well against slashes, but a tapered blade can pierce through and split the chains open. And plate, of course, is the best, but there are still specialized weapons, (or weapons with enough power behind them, like a lance) such as a good warhammer or a halberd, that can get through to the wearer.

Bug-a-Boo
2016-03-02, 05:58 AM
Anyway, my question, aside from verification that I understand the situation correctly, is this: What would the primary classes of armor be? Certainly studded leather isn't a thing, and leather and padded are really kind of the same I believe, so the general kinds I'm seeing are: padded/leather (generally a part of every kind of armor), chainmail, and plate. Now, a brief wikipedia scan shows other kinds listed, but are they, aside from having varying strengths, functionally different from these three types?

The distinctions I'm seeing are in the kinds of weapons best suited for harming a foe in such armor. Padded is only very slightly protective, for instance, from any kind of hacking, slashing, or piercing weapon. Chainmail, on the other hand, protects quite well against slashes, but a tapered blade can pierce through and split the chains open. And plate, of course, is the best, but there are still specialized weapons, (or weapons with enough power behind them, like a lance) such as a good warhammer or a halberd, that can get through to the wearer.

It really depends on where and what time period you're looking at. I mean, extremely (Extremely!!!) broadly speaking, you might say:

Early Medieval

Padded Armor
- Thickly layered cloth that reduce the effectiveness of all types of weapon impacts and protects reasonably well against arrows at a distance.

Brigandine Armor
- Good protection for the torso, popular amongst guards for ease of use, usually worn over padded armor.

Mail Armor
- Always worn over thinner, more form fitting padded armor. Piercing the mail means the padded armor will still probably catch the point. Bow launched arrows aren't very effective at dealing with this armor at all.

DoubleMail Armor
- No-one actually knows what doublemail looks like, but those in doublemail armor are mentioned to be quite proof against arrows and even resistant to full-on lance strikes.


But when we look at late Medieval/Near Renaissance, we get stuff like:

Munitions Grade Plate Armor
- Iron and steel plate armor, often without leg protection, depending on a person's taste and wishes. Decent against just about everything but the quality of the metal is such that weapons might damage it when you least expect. Ill fitting mass produced designs mean that it is unlikely to be comfortable unless you're lucky. Necessary to equip the ever-growing armies of the late medieval period and cheaper to produce than the thick padded armor or mail suits of the past.

Quality Plate Armor
- Decent plate armor that usually leaves the armpits, underside of the upper arms and the back of the legs exposed. A very form-fitting padded armor is always worn beneath. Usually quite comfortable to wear.

Reinforced Plate Armor
- Same as above, but not with mail patched sewn into the padded underarmor that now protect the places that were once exposed.

The **** Kings Buy
- Same as above but also extremely well-fitting and design to impress the **** out of everyone.


And that's not even getting into the Mid-Medieval/Transitional periods where there were many mixed armor types and many experiments with plates over chain and such.

So, what kind of period/aesthetic are you trying to emulate?

[edit] btw, padded cloth armor is found to be much more protective than people used to give it credit for. From what I've seen I'd say that thick padded cloth armor is only slightly less protective than mail armor, but much less comfortable to wear because of the thickness and the heavy sleeves.

But then you get stuff like knights wearing a padded cloth underarmor, full mail armor on top of that, and then a thick padded cloth hauberk OVER that mail because screw those arrows!

[edit2] Keep in mind armor was very effective, usually against all types of weapons. Which weapons were effective at what times had much less to do with how effective the material construction of an armor is and much more to do with how common the armors (or parts of the armors) were at any given time.

The mace for example wasn't an anti-armor weapon at all for a very long time. Many maces were as light and as nimble as swords, and considered merely a cheaper and more convenient weapon that suffers less battle damage than an equivalent sword.

At the height of armor use, when most fighting men in Europe ran around in heavily protective gear, the Pollaxe was the number one anti-armor weapon bar none.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-02, 01:06 PM
Anyway, my question, aside from verification that I understand the situation correctly, is this: What would the primary classes of armor be?

I'm playing around with armor for my D20 game and finding myself with the following categories:

Cloth - padded and leather
Mail - includes reinforced and with limited plate
Alternative Plate - scale and lamellar
Plate - the range of late-era plate that Bug-a-Boo listed
Shields - all sizes, with pavises included since they don't fit anywhere else

With that goes revising weapons:

Polearms - spears, spear-variants, pole-variants of axes/hammers/picks, and the array of combination forms
Sidearms - swords, axes/hammers/picks, maces
Missiles weapons - bows, crossbows, slings
Other - gauntlets, punch daggers, and other odd types
Improvised - in case anyone wants to go berserk on a farm

If you want to go simulationist, then you would revise armor to provide primarily deflection bonuses to AC, along with DR and Damage Conversion to subdual damage.
Armor and weapons are rated Very Light (regular clothing/off-hand weapons) to Very Heavy (super-plate/polearms).
The different weapons ignore DR/DC of "weaker" and "lighter" armor types. (A "pole axe" (halberd) breaks up anything; a saber cuts up leather but only batters mail; a dinner knife bounces off everything.)
Such a system depends on how much players want to get THAT simulationist in their FRPG.

Carl
2016-03-02, 03:22 PM
Okay still writing up my EFGT + Cultist sanity checking piece and i've realised that at least one vehicle in the EFGT list is going to be a bit larger than i thought but i'm not sure how much because it involves infantry carriage as an APC/IFV, (which it falls under is complicated), and i realised i'm not sure what size thats going to set on the design. So question time, how much space does each soldier need for his seat, equipment stowage and accessway around the seat so everyone can ingress/egress without tripping up over each other. Envisaged configuration is for 16 with 4 rows of 4 seats running the length of the vehicle. Currently i'm thinking 0.7m x 0.7m for each seat plus another 1m x 1m for the side doors with the seats going upto the rear door. so roughly 4m long b 3m wide for the interior compartment including some structural space.

Storm Bringer
2016-03-02, 05:42 PM
Okay still writing up my EFGT + Cultist sanity checking piece and i've realised that at least one vehicle in the EFGT list is going to be a bit larger than i thought but i'm not sure how much because it involves infantry carriage as an APC/IFV, (which it falls under is complicated), and i realised i'm not sure what size thats going to set on the design. So question time, how much space does each soldier need for his seat, equipment stowage and accessway around the seat so everyone can ingress/egress without tripping up over each other. Envisaged configuration is for 16 with 4 rows of 4 seats running the length of the vehicle. Currently i'm thinking 0.7m x 0.7m for each seat plus another 1m x 1m for the side doors with the seats going upto the rear door. so roughly 4m long b 3m wide for the interior compartment including some structural space.

I would point out that, for your calculations, any passenger space is going to be surrounded by a layer of vehicle, containing fuel, armour, cable runs, parts of engine, stowage bins etc, which will add at least a foot, more like two, to your total vehicle width. For reference, their are several 3 meter wide troop carriers in service at the moment, and all of them can only fit two rows of troops in the back (the Bradley and Warrior are both 3 meters wide, the M113 is 2.5m, and the BMP and BTR series are all about 2.8-3 meters).


Now, after adding in the engine block, crew stations etc, your proposed troop carrier is looking like its going to be 8 or 9 meters long, or 25-30 feet. this thing would be as long as most buses.


Also, 16 troops in one vehicle is rather a lot. That's more dismounts than any combat vehicle I have heard of carrying.

I cant remember all the details of your setting, but assuming that 16 men is your standard squad size, it might make more sense to spilt them down into two 8 man fire teams for transport. that would shrink the size of each vehicle, add flexibility to battlefield deployments and make it harder for the enemy to kill the whole squad in one strike.

Carl
2016-03-02, 09:53 PM
I would point out that, for your calculations, any passenger space is going to be surrounded by a layer of vehicle, containing fuel, armour, cable runs, parts of engine, stowage bins etc, which will add at least a foot, more like two, to your total vehicle width. For reference, their are several 3 meter wide troop carriers in service at the moment, and all of them can only fit two rows of troops in the back (the Bradley and Warrior are both 3 meters wide, the M113 is 2.5m, and the BMP and BTR series are all about 2.8-3 meters).

I'm trying to work out the volume occupied by the module as they can swap out functionality by just detaching some bolts and lifting the whole troop compartment out. I'm definitely envisaging somthing wider, (and bigger and heavier, i've pegged it around the upper end of current MBT range weight wise), than 3m overall, just trying to work out the payload bay size. Also bear in mind with micro-fusion power plants fuel volume is nearly nonexistent and the plant itself is probably no bigger and maybe a bit smaller than current generation examples, (whilst having quite a bit more power). There is some volume loss to the shield systems amongst other things though so swings and roundabouts.


I cant remember all the details of your setting, but assuming that 16 men is your standard squad size, it might make more sense to spilt them down into two 8 man fire teams for transport. that would shrink the size of each vehicle, add flexibility to battlefield deployments and make it harder for the enemy to kill the whole squad in one strike.

Well thats the thing, it's not really a "drop them into the middle of a fight" transport, (hence wy the APC vs IFV part is so complex, i'm seriously considering majorly curtailing its arrangements which would nearly eliminate them as a volume consideration as they're approaching being a remote weapons station at that point), it will usually drop the troops back around 5 or 6 km short of expected enemy infantry positions. Their a mid rage mass scale ground transport, but since stuff happens and sometimes that transport can involve moving troops through a breach in the enemy's lines they're more than just unprotected trucks. The choice of 16 men represents one of the EFGT's core industrial issues. Shield system emitters which are such a basic and vital par of warfare above the infantry level are expensive to make for the EFGT as they require a certain amount of magic. Fortunately increasing shield panel size and shield power doesn't increase requirements in anything approaching a linear fashion sot the EFGT generally prefers fewer larger vehicles with greater all up capabilities to compensate. The cultists partly because they can and partly for other reason go the opposite with lots of much lighter much more expendable vehicles.

16 men is 2 full squads which is the minimum unit of maneuver for standard line infantry, (crew served weapons team work in 4 man units normally but consequently get a smaller AFV to cart them and their gear around, though even that doesn't get more than a couple of km closer).

wobner
2016-03-03, 05:02 AM
I'll look this up when I have more time, but I'd think the same as any sort of grain. Bear in mind that the climate of Japan can get to sub-tropical thus has significant rainfall and higher temperatures, which contribute to spoilage.




if not a terrible inconvenience, i would appreciate that.


Regarding the mongol invasion of japan. I heard what seems like an ubsurd theory now, presented on the history channel that the chinese, forced to make boats for the mongols, intentionally built them poorly, intending them to sink, in an effort to sabotage the invasion. being that estimates put 100,000 conscripted chinese soldiers on these boats, this seems highly unlikely to me, if it was mongols only, or mostly.... I was expecting to stumble across some mention of this theory in the links provided by everyone, or the wikiwalks i took from those links, but never saw one in what i've gone through so far.
anyone else heard this story? is there any merit to it? I've never encountered it myself beyond that show, and find some of the history channels offerings dubious at best.

Gnoman
2016-03-03, 09:47 AM
(hence wy the APC vs IFV part is so complex, i'm seriously considering majorly curtailing its arrangements which would nearly eliminate them as a volume consideration as they're approaching being a remote weapons station at that point),

Unless you're willing to go the Merkava route and make them full-on MBTs with troop compartments strapped on, ditch the IFV concept entirely. Go with minimal (whatever that means in this setting, could be a heavy machine gun or a light autocannon depending on how light your super-materials can make things) armament and pour every gram that you would have put into offensive weapons into defensive systems, be it heavier shields, point defense, armor, or optic camouflage. Based on combat reports from the current war (in which the heaviest ATGMs available have effectively been bouncing off of the late-model Soviet/Russian tanks used by both sides, but slaughter IFVs with ease), the BMP or Bradley style of IFV (halfway between an APC and a tank) is entirely obsolete, and nothing I've seen you post about this setting would change that factor.

Carl
2016-03-03, 12:28 PM
Unless you're willing to go the Merkava route and make them full-on MBTs with troop compartments strapped on, ditch the IFV concept entirely. Go with minimal (whatever that means in this setting, could be a heavy machine gun or a light autocannon depending on how light your super-materials can make things) armament and pour every gram that you would have put into offensive weapons into defensive systems, be it heavier shields, point defense, armor, or optic camouflage.

This was exactly what i was allready thinking actually. The Namer was going to be my real world comparison barring size. Weapon wise we're talking a HMG and a weapon loosely equivalent to the XM307, (the later with the right ammo makes a decent CIWS system too since it has a good RoF), if i go the remote weapons station route. And it's allready supposed to be well armoured and shielded.

Thinking a little i've realised by comparing some images of modern AFV's with their widths i should be able to come up with a good estimate. So far from a nice line image and some photographs i've found the warrior appear to have a troop compartment the same width as it's doors which are approx 1.5m wide, so my 0.7m estimate is looking reasonable, i just want to check, is the warrior considered crapped or otherwise problematic ergonomics wise in the troop compartment? Or is it considered fine.

Gnoman
2016-03-03, 01:41 PM
This was exactly what i was allready thinking actually. The Namer was going to be my real world comparison barring size. Weapon wise we're talking a HMG and a weapon loosely equivalent to the XM307, (the later with the right ammo makes a decent CIWS system too since it has a good RoF), if i go the remote weapons station route. And it's allready supposed to be well armoured and shielded.

Thinking a little i've realised by comparing some images of modern AFV's with their widths i should be able to come up with a good estimate. So far from a nice line image and some photographs i've found the warrior appear to have a troop compartment the same width as it's doors which are approx 1.5m wide, so my 0.7m estimate is looking reasonable, i just want to check, is the warrior considered crapped or otherwise problematic ergonomics wise in the troop compartment? Or is it considered fine.

I know that ergonomics were part of the last upgrade proposal, but I don't know any details.

Clistenes
2016-03-03, 02:02 PM
Ah the Pavise, AKA mobile cover. A wonderful device.

Now im trying to figure out how things would turn out in a fight between a fairly typical medieval Japanese army and a fairly typical medieval European army..... You know what? Lets go with this.

We'll go with a typical Japanese army from just after the Onin War, and, lets say, a typical Scottish army during the early Hundred Year War. Assume generals of equivalent skill and the terrain doesn't favor either of them.

I guess this is less "who wins" and more of "what are the pros and cons of each force" :smalltongue:

The XVI and XVII centuries are full of examples of fights between Spaniards, Portuguese, Malay, Philippinos, Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, Cambodian, Tonkinese, Annamese, Arakanese, Burmese and Mon peoples. The seas were swarming with japanese wakos and mercenary ronins, chinese pirates and smugglers, portuguese ferenghi, spanish and portuguese warships, traders and corsairs, malay pirates, arakanese corsairs...etc.

For some examples: Felipe de Brito's adventures in present day Myammar, Pedro Ordóñez de Ceballos's adventures in present day Vietnam, Diego Velloso and Blas Ruiz's adventures in present day Cambodia, the Battle of Cagayan, Li Feng's attack against Manila, the fight between the Portuguese and the Chinese in Guangdong in 1521 (the Portuguese were expelled by the Chinese Imperial Navy) and later again in 1565 (this time the Portuguese worked as mercenaries to subdue rebellious chinese troops), the Rebellion of the Sangleyes in 1603, Macao's waterfront fracas on 30 November 1608, the affair of the Madre de Deus in Nagasaki, in 1610, and thousands of battles between the Spaniards and Portuguese and Malay and Moro corsairs.

The Japanese usually had it tough against the Europeans. They often came expecting to curbstomp their foes, and were unpleasantly surprised.


I think the Philippines in this era, and Indonesia too, are ripe, really really ripe for some RPG setting, genre fiction and / or cool modern style cable TV show treatment, though the research sadly hasn't been done yet. PhD Candidates pay attention!

G

Yeah the stuff that happened there makes Hollywood's pirate movies look realistic.

An example: In 1582 the Siamese of the Ayutthia kingdom invaded Camdodia. The king fled to Laos, but the Siamese looted the capital and took all the treasury. The survivors among the foreign mercenaries who served the king of Cambodia were seized alive and sent to Ayutthia, so they could be persuaded to work for the siamese king.

Blas Ruíz, an Spanish adventurer, was put in a chinese junk which had been captured and drafted into service by the Siamese. The ship carried some more captured spaniard and japanese mercenaries and a sizeable part of the treasure.

Blas Ruíz knew that these Chinese were pirates and smugglers, so he convinced them to kill the Siamese soldiers and take the treasure for themselves. Blas Ruíz rolled a success in Diplomacy, and the Chinese killed the Siamese. Afterwards, a fight broke among the Chinese about how they should divide the loot, and fought among themselves. Blas Ruíz told the Spaniards and the Japanese to wait, and once the Chinese had reduced their number and exhausted themselves, the Spaniards and the Japanese killed them, seized the ship, and sailed to Manila, where they divided the loot.

Diego Velloso was sent to Siam in a different ship. He arrived to Ayutthia, and accepted the Siamese king's offer of a job. He even offered to pilot the ship the king of Siam was going to send to Manila to demand the return of his treasure, and the king accepted. When they were at sea, Diego Velloso poisoned the leader of the expedition, convinced the sailors and soldiers that he was in charge now, took them to Manila, and once there he abandoned them and joined Blas Ruíz.

Blas Ruíz and Diego Velloso asked the governor of Manila to send an army to help Camdodia against Siam, but the latter refused (too many issues in his plate at that moment), so they assembled a small private army composed of Spanish and Portuguese adventurers, Japanese ronins, Malay pirates and Philippino headhunting warriors.

What happened afterwards is difficult to know, since everybody gives a different version. Blas Ruíz claims that they found a pretender on the throne of Cambodia, so they sneaked into the royal palace, assassinated him, and fought their way back to their ship. He claims that a faction of the Cambodians asked him to be their king, but he refused since he didn't have the strength to keep the throne and travelled to Laos to help the legitimate king instead.

Another version says that, once in Cambodia, the Japanese mercenaries started a fight with the Chinese merchants in the port. That provoked an argument between the Spaniards and the Japanese, and they slaughtered each other on the streets.

Blackhawk748
2016-03-03, 02:13 PM
I think the Philippines in this era, and Indonesia too, are ripe, really really ripe for some RPG setting, genre fiction and / or cool modern style cable TV show treatment, though the research sadly hasn't been done yet. PhD Candidates pay attention!

G

*kneels and starts praying* Oh mighty and powerful Netflix, please give us an Indonesian/Philippines Pirate Show with a Ronn as the main character. It doesnt have to be long, 5-8 1 hour episodes would be fine, just let it have a good plot. Oh and epic sword fighting sequences.

Roxxy
2016-03-03, 03:24 PM
Sort of, i still recommend checking atomic rockets article on stealth in space, whilst it acts like resolution is irellevent, (and everything i know says thats just wrong), it's otherwise covering of a lot of points. Whilst it's unlikely IMO that you could encompass a solar system in a satellite net looking inward to detect directional emissions, doing so with a planet at a few LS may not be so impossible. Also depending on how much heat you have to dissipate directional beaming may not be possible unless you can find a material that lases at IR frequencies, which may admittedly be possible, (and with magic certainly would be). But an active camouflage system with 60's tech that will keep up well enough to deal with scanners that even at that equate to a significant fraction of a day from target should be able to resolve down to a meter or so per pixel sounds shaky to me. Hence why i said use of magic to do it :).Best solution I'm thinking of is to know how to use illusion magic moreso than invisibility magic. Don't cloak the ship, create an image of what the enemy expects to see, or create an image that makes sense but doesn't reflect what you are actually doing. In essence, they probably know you're doing something, but not what that something is.

Roxxy
2016-03-03, 03:30 PM
On to a question. In my search for wacky old technological inventions that weren't practical, I've found stuff to use in my setting. One such thing is the tsunami bomb, general idea that you set off a lot of explosives to create a wave. IRL, it proved to be technologically possible but logistically and operationally unfeasible. My setting could easily solve the feasibility portion to create a workable and easily deployable tsunami bomb. The problem is, my setting has nukes. I can't think of a practical reason to use a giant wave bomb when I could open up cans of instant sunshine on the enemy city. Can any of you guys think of a reason a large tsunami would be preferable to a nuclear detonation?

Granhyt
2016-03-03, 03:54 PM
On to a question. In my search for wacky old technological inventions that weren't practical, I've found stuff to use in my setting. One such thing is the tsunami bomb, general idea that you set off a lot of explosives to create a wave. IRL, it proved to be technologically possible but logistically and operationally unfeasible. My setting could easily solve the feasibility portion to create a workable and easily deployable tsunami bomb. The problem is, my setting has nukes. I can't think of a practical reason to use a giant wave bomb when I could open up cans of instant sunshine on the enemy city. Can any of you guys think of a reason a large tsunami would be preferable to a nuclear detonation?
Well, a nuke tend to leave radiations and ruins all over the place, no ? Meanwhile, a tsunami mostly leaves water and ruins.
If you wanted to occupy the place soon after the war, you can since the water of the tsunami would have dried out. It's less easy to live amongst radiations.

Spiryt
2016-03-03, 04:11 PM
Well, whoever had used that bomb can try to pretend that it was just an 'ordinary' tsunami, under some conditions, no?

Not really possible to pretend with straight face that nuclear reaction had just spontaneously happened in the middle of the town....

And so on.

Carl
2016-03-03, 04:12 PM
Scale. You'd need a massive number of nukes to wreck an entire coastline. A single Tsunami would take the whole thing out. Just watch out for the collateral as it spread in all directions. Also logistically for a wartime economy tsunami bombs wouldn't be that bad. we where building 10,000 ton carry capacity cargo ships at ridiculous rates, and explosive usage was pretty extreme too. It's more their less efficient than nukes at the end of the day unless you accept massive collateral damage issues.

Gnoman
2016-03-03, 04:42 PM
In terms of destruction, a tsunami makes a nuke look like a firecracker.

Clistenes
2016-03-03, 05:01 PM
Scale. You'd need a massive number of nukes to wreck an entire coastline. A single Tsunami would take the whole thing out. Just watch out for the collateral as it spread in all directions. Also logistically for a wartime economy tsunami bombs wouldn't be that bad. we where building 10,000 ton carry capacity cargo ships at ridiculous rates, and explosive usage was pretty extreme too. It's more their less efficient than nukes at the end of the day unless you accept massive collateral damage issues.


In terms of destruction, a tsunami makes a nuke look like a firecracker.

A natural tsunami is very powerful and has a wide area of effect because they are provoked by very powerful earthquakes that release way more energy that a nuke.

Roxxy, however, isn't speaking of a magical power that provokes natural earthquakes, but of making bombs explode under the sea in order to provoke destructive waves.

And the thing, is, all thing equal, a nuke that explodes 600 meters above a city would do way more damage than one that explodes underwater next to a city. Waves would transfer some of the energy to the seaside and cause destruction, but the water would absorb and disipate a lot of energy, which would be wasted in evaporating water, sending waves in every other direction (in addition of towards the city) and sending water upwards.

Roxxy
2016-03-03, 05:18 PM
A natural tsunami is very powerful and has a wide area of effect because they are provoked by very powerful earthquakes that release way more energy that a nuke.

Roxxy, however, isn't speaking of a magical power that provokes natural earthquakes, but of making bombs explode under the sea in order to provoke destructive waves.

And the thing, is, all thing equal, a nuke that explodes 600 meters above a city would do way more damage than one that explodes underwater next to a city. Waves would transfer some of the energy to the seaside and cause destruction, but the water would absorb and disipate a lot of energy, which would be wasted in evaporating water, sending waves in every other direction (in addition of towards the city) and sending water upwards.

What I've read suggests that my setting could probably completely destroy a small city, but yeah, we're not talking about restrictions on the level of 2004 Indian Ocean. That's what has me wondering about what the weapon would actually be good for.

Gnoman
2016-03-03, 05:28 PM
Even if it hits only the same area as the nuke would, all that water has to go somewhere. Nuclear blast effects are relatively localized, and after it goes off "all" that is needed is treatment of the wounded (counting radiation poisoning, much less than you would expect as the irradiation radius and that of the overpressure and thermal pulse overlap quite a bit), clearing the area, and a bit of decontamination (also much less than you would expect - an airburst creates very little fallout). A tsunami that hits the same area will level it, then proceed to wash away much of the ground, destabilizing foundations, flooding subways, and washing people away in the resulting flood.

Bug-a-Boo
2016-03-03, 05:32 PM
Regarding the mongol invasion of japan. I heard what seems like an ubsurd theory now, presented on the history channel that the chinese, forced to make boats for the mongols, intentionally built them poorly, intending them to sink, in an effort to sabotage the invasion. being that estimates put 100,000 conscripted chinese soldiers on these boats, this seems highly unlikely to me, if it was mongols only, or mostly.... I was expecting to stumble across some mention of this theory in the links provided by everyone, or the wikiwalks i took from those links, but never saw one in what i've gone through so far.
anyone else heard this story? is there any merit to it? I've never encountered it myself beyond that show, and find some of the history channels offerings dubious at best.

I haven't encountered that idea anywhere in reputable texts. I have read that most of the troops during the second invasion were indeed Chinese and Korean, so it would be unlikely (and frankly, insane) of them to have sabotaged their own ships.

Roxxy
2016-03-03, 06:08 PM
Even if it hits only the same area as the nuke would, all that water has to go somewhere. Nuclear blast effects are relatively localized, and after it goes off "all" that is needed is treatment of the wounded (counting radiation poisoning, much less than you would expect as the irradiation radius and that of the overpressure and thermal pulse overlap quite a bit), clearing the area, and a bit of decontamination (also much less than you would expect - an airburst creates very little fallout). A tsunami that hits the same area will level it, then proceed to wash away much of the ground, destabilizing foundations, flooding subways, and washing people away in the resulting flood.I just had a thought. How resistant to massive flooding is a network of subway tunnels repurposed as a fallout shelter? My setting has the necessary technology to protect astronauts from solar flares and build nuclear powered everything. That suggests that we are really good when it comes to radiation shielding, treatment of radiation sickness, and cleanup of radioactive spills or nuclear fallout. Add that my setting doesn't have two superpowers, but rather several regional powers, and we are dealing with smaller arsenals than what the US and USSR were rocking. Couldnbe that, instead of dropping 20 nukes on LA or something, you drop half that many and then a tsunami bomb. The tsunami wrecks what survived the nukes, and the severe flooding makes cleanup a bitch and makes being in a fallout shelter miserable.

Clistenes
2016-03-03, 06:10 PM
Even if it hits only the same area as the nuke would, all that water has to go somewhere. Nuclear blast effects are relatively localized, and after it goes off "all" that is needed is treatment of the wounded (counting radiation poisoning, much less than you would expect as the irradiation radius and that of the overpressure and thermal pulse overlap quite a bit), clearing the area, and a bit of decontamination (also much less than you would expect - an airburst creates very little fallout). A tsunami that hits the same area will level it, then proceed to wash away much of the ground, destabilizing foundations, flooding subways, and washing people away in the resulting flood.

Yeah, it would be a very little tsunami. The energy of an atomic bomb is way smaller than that of a earthquake. The mere explosion of the bomb above the city would do more damage.

Carl
2016-03-03, 08:13 PM
The energy of an atomic bomb is way smaller than that of a earthquake.

You can't do tsunamis with underwater nukes, at least not at a reasonable scale, (my understanding is that the very nature of the detonations is highly inefficient at transferring the detonation into a shockwave). That was somthing they found out the hard way, most of the energy gets lost. I did see a movie once that suggested you could use them to start landslides that would cause them, and those could create tsunamis of serious size and power a serious distances if nukes can actually start such landslides, (i see no reason they couldn't). With conventional explosives it gets a bit easier ofc as you can distribute the energy more, (and as i understand it are more efficient pound for pound than nuke's, again makes sense based on what i know), but you still need massive amounts of energy. ut as noted we can build very large amounts of transport capability very rapidly so it's doable on paper if a bit extreme from a logistics end.

Gnoman
2016-03-04, 10:01 AM
(and as i understand it are more efficient pound for pound than nuke's, again makes sense based on what i know),

Being more efficient pound-for-pound than conventional explosives is the entire reason nukes exist. One of the least efficient weapons tested was designed to be fired from a 155mm artillery shell, which usually contain around 17.3468526 pounds of explosives. The nuclear version had a blast equal to 4,000,000 pounds of TNT.

Brother Oni
2016-03-04, 11:21 AM
Being more efficient pound-for-pound than conventional explosives is the entire reason nukes exist. One of the least efficient weapons tested was designed to be fired from a 155mm artillery shell, which usually contain around 17.3468526 pounds of explosives. The nuclear version had a blast equal to 4,000,000 pounds of TNT.

To reinforce Gnoman's point, the Davy Crockett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) warhead weighed 51lb and had a yield between 10-20 tons of TNT.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-04, 12:19 PM
I just had a thought. How resistant to massive flooding is a network of subway tunnels repurposed as a fallout shelter?
Assuming by subway you mean underground mass transit (London Underground, Paris metro, San Francisco BART et al), incredibly poor - you've got the pedestrian accesses, air vents, risers to get rid of condensation and ground water seeping into the tunnels, plus the outlying areas of the network are usually above ground and only the centre is below. And in some cases, not actually that far below - for instance, the Circle line on the London Underground was built by "cut and cover" which is essentially digging a massive trench then laying the track which was then built over the top of, but there's some areas that are still open to the sky (IIRC, they used one such area to remove the damaged carriages from Edgware Road after the July 7th attacks).

Basically, you wouldn't be using them as fallout shelters in the first place - with wide open access points, few and little air filtration built in, they'd be contaminated throughout quite quickly.

IMO, the only real reason to use a tsunami bomb is similar to how they were used in the classic Judge Dredd story The Apocalypse War - as a first strike to eliminate coastal defences and allow more munitions through. And frankly, given the resources you'd need to make one, plus the technological requirements to get that to the seabed and set up to be effective, you'd be able to flatten most of the target country with a few missile-mounted warheads long before.

Carl
2016-03-04, 04:35 PM
Being more efficient pound-for-pound than conventional explosives is the entire reason nukes exist. One of the least efficient weapons tested was designed to be fired from a 155mm artillery shell, which usually contain around 17.3468526 pounds of explosives. The nuclear version had a blast equal to 4,000,000 pounds of TNT.

Sorry i wasn't very clear. What i mean is that nukes waste vastly greater amounts of their total yield doing squat in tsunami creation than a conventional blast of the same yield equivalent. Whilst both nukies and big conventional explosions can and will heat up a lot of water, nukes due ti their operation do vastly more of it, which wastes much of their power.

Mike_G
2016-03-04, 04:53 PM
Sorry i wasn't very clear. What i mean is that nukes waste vastly greater amounts of their total yield doing squat in tsunami creation than a conventional blast of the same yield equivalent. Whilst both nukies and big conventional explosions can and will heat up a lot of water, nukes due ti their operation do vastly more of it, which wastes much of their power.

But wouldn't heating the water create pressure as it expands/boils?

I'd think that would transfer a bunch of kinetic energy to a wave, but dammit Jim I'm a medic, not a physicist.

Galloglaich
2016-03-04, 05:20 PM
The XVI and XVII centuries are full of examples of fights between Spaniards, Portuguese, Malay, Philippinos, Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, Cambodian, Tonkinese, Annamese, Arakanese, Burmese and Mon peoples. The seas were swarming with japanese wakos and mercenary ronins, chinese pirates and smugglers, portuguese ferenghi, spanish and portuguese warships, traders and corsairs, malay pirates, arakanese corsairs...etc.

For some examples: Felipe de Brito's adventures in present day Myammar, Pedro Ordóñez de Ceballos's adventures in present day Vietnam, Diego Velloso and Blas Ruiz's adventures in present day Cambodia, the Battle of Cagayan, Li Feng's attack against Manila, the fight between the Portuguese and the Chinese in Guangdong in 1521 (the Portuguese were expelled by the Chinese Imperial Navy) and later again in 1565 (this time the Portuguese worked as mercenaries to subdue rebellious chinese troops), the Rebellion of the Sangleyes in 1603, Macao's waterfront fracas on 30 November 1608, the affair of the Madre de Deus in Nagasaki, in 1610, and thousands of battles between the Spaniards and Portuguese and Malay and Moro corsairs.

The Japanese usually had it tough against the Europeans. They often came expecting to curbstomp their foes, and were unpleasantly surprised.



Yeah the stuff that happened there makes Hollywood's pirate movies look realistic.

An example: In 1582 the Siamese of the Ayutthia kingdom invaded Camdodia. The king fled to Laos, but the Siamese looted the capital and took all the treasury. The survivors among the foreign mercenaries who served the king of Cambodia were seized alive and sent to Ayutthia, so they could be persuaded to work for the siamese king.

Blas Ruíz, an Spanish adventurer, was put in a chinese junk which had been captured and drafted into service by the Siamese. The ship carried some more captured spaniard and japanese mercenaries and a sizeable part of the treasure.

Blas Ruíz knew that these Chinese were pirates and smugglers, so he convinced them to kill the Siamese soldiers and take the treasure for themselves. Blas Ruíz rolled a success in Diplomacy, and the Chinese killed the Siamese. Afterwards, a fight broke among the Chinese about how they should divide the loot, and fought among themselves. Blas Ruíz told the Spaniards and the Japanese to wait, and once the Chinese had reduced their number and exhausted themselves, the Spaniards and the Japanese killed them, seized the ship, and sailed to Manila, where they divided the loot.

Diego Velloso was sent to Siam in a different ship. He arrived to Ayutthia, and accepted the Siamese king's offer of a job. He even offered to pilot the ship the king of Siam was going to send to Manila to demand the return of his treasure, and the king accepted. When they were at sea, Diego Velloso poisoned the leader of the expedition, convinced the sailors and soldiers that he was in charge now, took them to Manila, and once there he abandoned them and joined Blas Ruíz.

Blas Ruíz and Diego Velloso asked the governor of Manila to send an army to help Camdodia against Siam, but the latter refused (too many issues in his plate at that moment), so they assembled a small private army composed of Spanish and Portuguese adventurers, Japanese ronins, Malay pirates and Philippino headhunting warriors.

What happened afterwards is difficult to know, since everybody gives a different version. Blas Ruíz claims that they found a pretender on the throne of Cambodia, so they sneaked into the royal palace, assassinated him, and fought their way back to their ship. He claims that a faction of the Cambodians asked him to be their king, but he refused since he didn't have the strength to keep the throne and travelled to Laos to help the legitimate king instead.

Another version says that, once in Cambodia, the Japanese mercenaries started a fight with the Chinese merchants in the port. That provoked an argument between the Spaniards and the Japanese, and they slaughtered each other on the streets.



This is really fantastic stuff, thanks for posting.

Can you help me out on this for sources? I've heard of Le Feng before and I posted that account of the Battle of Cagayan from the wiki, but all there seems to be available are these sketchy, somewhat dubious Wikipedia pages and not much else. I've love to do a paper on this just to introduce the subject to the HEMA scene, so many HEMA fencers have a background in Japanese, Chinese, or Filipino Martial Arts they would love reading about this.

I keep running across this stuff for years but I find it very difficult to locate reliable sources, academic articles or primary source accounts. It seems like such a fascinating period to me, and there is so much interest out there. How many retarded 'deadliest warrriors' type scenarios have been argued to death on the web by idiots, when meanwhile there were hundreds of actual cases of European soldiers, sailors and pirates tangling with Samurai and Moro and etc.

The only good source I've found so far really are some books published by Giles Milton mostly derived from letters by English pirates and sailors. These are good but have an Anglo-Centric point of view and the English, other than William Adams, weren't in the thick of all this drama the way the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, etc. were, let alone the Japanese, Thai, Filipino and everyone else.


Can you recommend any good books, forums or websites on this stuff Clistenes?

Galloglaich
2016-03-04, 05:23 PM
That whole scenario with Blas Ruíz is really gold, that could be the basis for a great screenplay right there

Mr. Mask
2016-03-04, 05:38 PM
Thanks for the help earlier with medical staff, guys. Sorry I couldn't reply sooner. I wanted to get some insight from a friend in the navy. He suggested foot or back problems which would be a problem for extended missions, but may still allow you to pass fitness for being a medic behind the lines or on a ship.


here's a few ideas:

the character is a military medic, but not a combat medic. His normal job is as a pharmacist in a role 3 hospital (role 3 = "big, rear area hospital". A major nodal hostpital deals with severely wounded troops form all over theatre. their were R3 sites at Bagram airbase, or Camp bastion, when that was open.). However, as a military medic, he has done the same basic first aid training that any soldier does, and he took a few evening classes in the more advanced stuff (if only so he can brag to his civvie mates he can do all that cool stuff they see on TV as well). he's managed to acquire most of the combat medic/EMT quals, but obviously is a bit short of practice. However, in the current emergency, the need for a combat medic is that bad that they have pressed him into service as such.


variant on the above: the character has some secondary skill or talent happens to be in really short supply right now, Maybe he is only one of 7 people the theatre who is fluent in some native language, and they need him to act as a translator after one of the other 6 was injured. Maybe he is actually a mechanic who took medic lessons, but they need his ability to fix a Humvee with nothing more than a hammer and two balls of twine to make the mission work. either way, he is on the team as a "medic" but he's mainly on the team for some other vital skill he can provide. I like this, thanks Storm. I was hoping to have some secondary fault beyond being green, so his squad would be more than a little concerned, but the idea of him being a potentially excellent medic at a field hospital is a good character trait.

As an interesting point, if he's used to working at facilities, it makes me think he may be under heavy stress when his combat kit lacks the tools he needs to really fix the problem. Make him feel like he's only half-doing his job.


What type of diabetes was the character expected to have? My understanding is that diabetes can be broadly divided into two categories Type-I and Type-II. Type-II can often be controlled with diet and exercise. Type-I requires regular insulin shots. I've known people with type-I that can manage their diabetes quite well (especially nowadays with fast-acting insulin and home glucose meters). They can usually sense when their blood sugar level is getting low, and take a sugar tablet if necessary. Although it would be good if at least some team members were aware of the condition and can look out for warning signs. It would be a more serious disadvantage if it was a secret. Had thought type-I, though as Mike points out even that would be hard to justify. The combat mission he would end up involved in is only meant to a short excursion, a few days at most and not far from supply lines (inevitably he has to end up pinned down for a week with his unit or such), but it is a pretty unusual circumstance where the military allows someone with Type-I diabetes in to begin with. Of course, with the stories presently being mentioned from history, something like a medic with diabetes sounds like one of the larger than life things that tend to happen in large, desperate events in reality, so long as you don't overdo it (or, in some cases you have to get utterly absurd to replicate those events, like the guy who thought with a claymore, longbow, and bagpipes in WW2).

If the character did have diabetes, being a medic, he's probably researched the matter carefully and done some tests with himself, to an extent where he feels confident in his ability to regulate his condition. Of course, as nice as it sounds, there's still the question of if you want to replicate and extrapolate the one major example in the military for a story.


OK.

Type I diabetics do not produce insulin. They need to take supplemental insulin or their cells cannot use sugar, so it stays in the blood stream causing vascular damage while the cells starve. This is a condition that can be managed, but it takes a lot of time and effort, and conscientious monitoring of your sugar and insulin dose..

If you miss a dose of insulin, your sugar gets too high, your cells starve and can't function. Brain cells are among the first to suffer. Diabetics are often mistaken for being drunk. If you take your insulin but can't eat, you drop your sugar, and the cells starve, and you have all the same results. People with low blood sugar can become irrational, violent and eventually comatose.

Type II diabetics produce insulin, but the receptors on the cells don't react to it like they should, often because they have been desensitized by too much sugar. Some Type II people can control it with diet and exercise, some need oral meds to help the body use sugar and some do take insulin.

Again, if they can't get their meds, or they can't eat when they have to, their sugars get out of whack and they can become irrational, or comatose.

Now, in civilian life, you can usually find food, or carry food with you, even if it's just some hard candy or granola bars so if your sugar gets low you can eat something. And civilian employers more or less have to let you eat or take your insulin. And we still get called out all the time for patients who have had their sugars bottom out and they are unconscious or acting drunk and can't help themselves.

Now, imagine how much worse this would be if you were in a combat unit where you were pinned down or had to hole up away from base for a day longer than expected. Or if your pack got lost in combat or your insulin (which has to be refrigerated) went bad or caught a round.

Being hungry, being overworked, missing chow, this all happens all the damn time in the infantry.

Now imagine instead of just getting grumpy like the rest of the squad, you start acting drunk. Wandering into minefields or outside the wire. Forgetting your weapon. Forgetting how to properly (and safely) set the claymore mines. Passing out while on watch.

Who thinks that guy is a good battle buddy?

I'm not trying to crap on people with disabilities, I just want you to understand why I wouldn't pick that guy for my long range patrol. Everything you say is reasonable. Thank you for going to the trouble of covering all this. Part of my interest is that it dramatizes things with what is unreasonable. The example of the one actual soldier with diabetes, if you have the character in a similar position where he managed to keep his job, then due to the desperation of the war he convinces his superiors he will be fine on a certain mission which should be a one day stint, then he has to try to convince his combat buddies he isn't going to weigh them down or get them killed, that is certainly dramatic.

Understandably, it is very unusual, unlikely, and it may be hard to suspend your disbelief. It may also sound like it is advocating the character's actions even though they're potentially endangering other soldiers. For these reasons, there may be other conditions which are more plausible and can still get the same drama for the character.

Do you think I should abandon the story concept?

Mike_G
2016-03-04, 06:40 PM
Everything you say is reasonable. Thank you for going to the trouble of covering all this. Part of my interest is that it dramatizes things with what is unreasonable. The example of the one actual soldier with diabetes, if you have the character in a similar position where he managed to keep his job, then due to the desperation of the war he convinces his superiors he will be fine on a certain mission which should be a one day stint, then he has to try to convince his combat buddies he isn't going to weigh them down or get them killed, that is certainly dramatic.

Understandably, it is very unusual, unlikely, and it may be hard to suspend your disbelief. It may also sound like it is advocating the character's actions even though they're potentially endangering other soldiers. For these reasons, there may be other conditions which are more plausible and can still get the same drama for the character.

Do you think I should abandon the story concept?

Not necessarily. But diabetes is something that has to be tightly regulated, and the chaos of combat operations away from the main body make that level of control very very difficult, and the consequences very dangerous.

If I was a recon team leader and they told me "Here's your corpsman. He has diabetes." I'd feel about as secure as if they told me my brain tumor was going to be taken out by a surgeon with a seizure disorder.

So if you're looking to create tension between the guy who wants to prove himself and the guys who don't want to die when he predictably has a blood sugar crisis, that should do it.

What was the MOS of that diabetic soldier? Because a lot of military jobs are more or less regular 9-5 jobs, just lower paid and with a more severe dress code. A guy in supply or a motor pool mechanic is less likely to get himself in trouble than an infantryman.

Long range patrols often make healthy soldiers break down physically. Taking a guy with this kind of condition really is paying Russian Roulette with the lives of everybody on his team.

Carl
2016-03-04, 06:42 PM
But wouldn't heating the water create pressure as it expands/boils?

I'd think that would transfer a bunch of kinetic energy to a wave, but dammit Jim I'm a medic, not a physicist.

The problem with underwater detonations of any kind compared to air is that water is incompressible and much, much, much denser than the gas. As a result once the pressure falls in the detonation zone all the water is going to rush back in robbing the shockwave of much of it's power. There is some rebound created shock when all that water meets back in the middle of course but it's much less severe. You see a similar effect in air with thermobaric weapons, (though it''s present in much reduced form in any kind air detonation, it's just air being compressible, (and de-compressible for that matter), reduces the effect), nukes by using up so much water to create the expanding gas bubble that creates the shockwave have much worse backdraft.

If you've seen the movie pacific rim the nuke underwater near the end is, (aside from fireball size being way too low), accurately modeled.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-04, 09:20 PM
Not necessarily. But diabetes is something that has to be tightly regulated, and the chaos of combat operations away from the main body make that level of control very very difficult, and the consequences very dangerous.

If I was a recon team leader and they told me "Here's your corpsman. He has diabetes." I'd feel about as secure as if they told me my brain tumor was going to be taken out by a surgeon with a seizure disorder.

So if you're looking to create tension between the guy who wants to prove himself and the guys who don't want to die when he predictably has a blood sugar crisis, that should do it.

What was the MOS of that diabetic soldier? Because a lot of military jobs are more or less regular 9-5 jobs, just lower paid and with a more severe dress code. A guy in supply or a motor pool mechanic is less likely to get himself in trouble than an infantryman.

Long range patrols often make healthy soldiers break down physically. Taking a guy with this kind of condition really is paying Russian Roulette with the lives of everybody on his team. Was looking into him. Seems he deployed in Iraq for a while, and has made Master Sergeant... as the 1st Infantry Division's career councilor. While I didn't expect he had a major combat role, that does feel like a blow to the idea. Of course, that also makes for a good joke. "It's not like it's unusual to serve in the army with a medical disorder. I mean, just look at Mark Thompson." "He's a career councilor."


It does make me wonder if there are studies on how bad a weak link in your group can be for the group. If they're a medic, that sounds pretty bad. But even if it's a non-critical role, losing one guy or trusting him to cover a corner then he fails could lead to some pretty nasty casualties. Thinking about it made me wonder how many great battles could have their results traced down to the actions of a few men, where a man's collapse lead's to a squad's collapse, which leads to a platoon's collapse, which leads to etc. etc., till the whole country is lost.

MrZJunior
2016-03-04, 09:49 PM
The Wikipedia page on the Nuclear Football says that there was an early equivalent operational during the Eisenhower administration. Does anyone know what this consisted of and what its capabilities were?

How far back would aviation technology be put if WW2 hadn't happened?

Gnoman
2016-03-04, 11:42 PM
How far back would aviation technology be put if WW2 hadn't happened?

That would depend entirely on how WWII didn't happen. The way WWI ended meant that a lot of the buildup was inevitable, so that would have to be resolved in some way. If somebody had told Germany to stop expanding early on and made it stick, or if the conquests were delayed and the German government collapsed, it would have taken the USSR so long to coalesce into a major power that Western arms buildup would either never have happened or stopped. On the other hand, if Germany had rearmed, not invaded Poland, and still managed to avoid collapse the result would have been a three-way Cold War between the Reich, the USSR, and the Francoangloamerican alliance bloc. In either case, development would have been much slower, but how much slower would depend on the scenario.

In the former case, the Angloamerican atomic bomb project would have probably been cancelled - it was extremely expensive, and the whole reason they had a project was because they believed a rival power did. With no A-bomb setting a goal for bombers to reach, and without the Darwinian cruicible of combat to drive them, aircraft would have not only gone slowly, but probably in the wrong direction much as they did prewar (the best example of this is the selection of the F2A Buffalo over the F4F Wildcat as the standard carrier fighter. The latter fighter was superior in every way except range, but the Navy believed range to be of the utmost importance. While transitioning to the Wildcat began before Pearl Harbor, there were still enough Buffalos (which, unlike the Wildcat, were no match for the Zero even with an excellent pilot) left to make this decision extremely expensive). Jet and rocket engines (both of which were invented pre-war but in their primitive state were so inferior to the piston engine that they were not taken seriously) would probably have remained as scientific curiosities for years if not decades, until the incremental improvements wrung the last drop of performance out of the proven and reliable piston engine. Ballpark, I'd say we'd be thirty to fifty years behind.

In the latter case, the bomb project would have continued, and the need to carry one safely would have meant that the American and British air forces would need a bomber that could carry one far enough, fast enough, and high enough to hit targets in either the Reich or the USSR. Developing those bombers would have led the other powers to build fighters capable of shooting them down, and those fighters would have driven the Americans and British to build fighters to escort their bombers which would lead to the other powers building fighters to counter the fighters to counter the fighters to counter the bombers and the positive feedback loop would continue. Rockets would be built to break this cycle, and rockets to allow replies to those rockets would be built as an offset, so better rockets would need to be built. We'd probably be in the general area of where we are now, if we didn't fight a nuclear WWII in the 60s or 70s.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-05, 12:10 AM
Was looking into him. Seems he deployed in Iraq for a while, and has made Master Sergeant... as the 1st Infantry Division's career councilor. While I didn't expect he had a major combat role, that does feel like a blow to the idea. Of course, that also makes for a good joke. "It's not like it's unusual to serve in the army with a medical disorder. I mean, just look at Mark Thompson." "He's a career councilor

I dunno if it's any help to your train of thought, but my dad (Air Force band) did a tour in Iraq just playing bass. But he still had to do a bunch of training before he went, and carried some sort of rifle at all times.It wasn't a combat deployment, but it stil wasn't anything to sneeze at either from what I could gather during the time he was preparing to go.

(Sorry for any weirdness, on a mobile device I hope I caught it all)

Carl
2016-03-05, 12:32 AM
Indeed and just because something stops germany dosen't mean somthing would have stopped Japan. The two countries where allies in WW2 because they both decided to have wars due to circumstances with a joint enemy/s at around the same time, rather than because they where actual allies. Arguably the single greatest strategic blunder of the war came out of that fact.

Gnoman
2016-03-05, 12:51 AM
Indeed and just because something stops germany dosen't mean somthing would have stopped Japan. The two countries where allies in WW2 because they both decided to have wars due to circumstances with a joint enemy/s at around the same time, rather than because they where actual allies. Arguably the single greatest strategic blunder of the war came out of that fact.

Japan relied heavily on Germany distracting the major Western powers in their planning. If they'd managed to hit the Pacific Fleet hard enough and take enough bases to get America to decide that fighting Japan would cost too much, Britain would have been too pressed to defend their interests, none of which (except Australia, which Japan probably didn't want) were important enough to risk weakening the homeland too much, while France and the other colonial powers had already been destroyed. Without those factors, if the ultimatum "Get out of China on pain of war" were issued, Japan probably would have got out - for the time being.

Carl
2016-03-05, 04:32 AM
Japan relied heavily on Germany distracting the major Western powers in their planning. If they'd managed to hit the Pacific Fleet hard enough and take enough bases to get America to decide that fighting Japan would cost too much, Britain would have been too pressed to defend their interests, none of which (except Australia, which Japan probably didn't want) were important enough to risk weakening the homeland too much, while France and the other colonial powers had already been destroyed. Without those factors, if the ultimatum "Get out of China on pain of war" were issued, Japan probably would have got out - for the time being.

Given how close japan supposedly came to not surrender after the bombs where dropped i question whether Japan would have been culturally capable of acquiescing to such a demand without some fundamental cultural changes. Then again my limited understanding of the pre-attack politics is pretty limited but i always got the impression that much like poland in europe it was Japan's invasion of what is now Indonesia that broke the camel's back. So weather America probably would have pushed Japan that hard is an open question too.

Clistenes
2016-03-05, 08:00 AM
This is really fantastic stuff, thanks for posting.

Can you help me out on this for sources? I've heard of Le Feng before and I posted that account of the Battle of Cagayan from the wiki, but all there seems to be available are these sketchy, somewhat dubious Wikipedia pages and not much else. I've love to do a paper on this just to introduce the subject to the HEMA scene, so many HEMA fencers have a background in Japanese, Chinese, or Filipino Martial Arts they would love reading about this.

I keep running across this stuff for years but I find it very difficult to locate reliable sources, academic articles or primary source accounts. It seems like such a fascinating period to me, and there is so much interest out there. How many retarded 'deadliest warrriors' type scenarios have been argued to death on the web by idiots, when meanwhile there were hundreds of actual cases of European soldiers, sailors and pirates tangling with Samurai and Moro and etc.

The only good source I've found so far really are some books published by Giles Milton mostly derived from letters by English pirates and sailors. These are good but have an Anglo-Centric point of view and the English, other than William Adams, weren't in the thick of all this drama the way the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, etc. were, let alone the Japanese, Thai, Filipino and everyone else.


Can you recommend any good books, forums or websites on this stuff Clistenes?

Many of the sources are in spanish only, I'm afraid. C.R. Boxer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._R._Boxer) wrote a few books about the Japanese/Spanish/Portuguese relations.

Some other books:

-Historia de un desencuentro : España y Japón, 1580-1614 by Emilio Sola.
-Españoles en Siam, (1540-1939) by Florentino Rodao.
-La conquista de las Islas Malucas, by Bartolome Leonardo de Argensola.
-Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, by Doctor Antonio de Morga
-Historia de las islas del Archipiélago Filipino y reinos de la Gran China, Tartaria, Cochinchina, Malaca, Siam, Cambodge y Japón, by P. Marcelo Ribadeneira.
-The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, by E.H. Blair
-The massacre of 1603: Chinese perception of the Spaniards in the Philippines, by José Eugenio Borao
-La proyección de Fujian en Manila: los sangleyes del parián y el comercio de la Nao de China, by Manel Ollé Rodríguez, Salvador Bernabéu Albert andCarlos Martínez Shaw (eds.),
-La invencion de China / The invention of China: Percepciones Y Estrategias filipinas respecto a China en el siglo XVI, by Manel Ollé Rodríguez.
-China and Maritime Europe, 1500–1800: Trade, Settlement, Diplomacy, and Missions, by John E. Wills, Jr.
-The Troubled Empire, by Timothy Brook.
-La Inmigracion China En Filipinas by D. Ramon Jordana Y. Morera
-Semanario erudito que comprehende varias obras ineditas, criticas, morales, instructivas, políticas, históricas, satíricas, y jocosas de nuestros mejores autores antiguos y modernos: Volumen 32 by Antonio Valladares de Sotomayor, 1 de enero de 1790

Tiktakkat
2016-03-05, 09:11 AM
Given how close japan supposedly came to not surrender after the bombs where dropped i question whether Japan would have been culturally capable of acquiescing to such a demand without some fundamental cultural changes. Then again my limited understanding of the pre-attack politics is pretty limited but i always got the impression that much like poland in europe it was Japan's invasion of what is now Indonesia that broke the camel's back. So weather America probably would have pushed Japan that hard is an open question too.

While there are issues as to whether Japan would have accepted being "oppressed" by the West again as it had when its isolation was broken, I would question whether Japan being "forced" to leave China alone would be a Good Thing long term.

Japan already had China giving up pretty much everything by treaty. Other than "glory" and sinecures for administrators, it was gaining very little by conquest.
Conversely, it was committing massive resources in both troops and materiel to the land war. If China were a "secure" front, requiring less troops than needed to watch the border with the Soviet Union, Japan would have had a lot more to commit to seizing India and keeping control of the Pacific.
Certainly that would have exacerbated certain internal problems between their army and navy, but they would have been much better situated to expand against active opposition rather than the passive opposition they faced in China, which would have "solved" itself anyway for them once there was no Western presence in the Pacific to make any noise when the Japanese rolled through China.

Lilapop
2016-03-05, 09:41 AM
Assuming by subway you mean underground mass transit (London Underground, Paris metro, San Francisco BART et al), incredibly poor - you've got the pedestrian accesses, air vents, risers to get rid of condensation and ground water seeping into the tunnels, plus the outlying areas of the network are usually above ground and only the centre is below. And in some cases, not actually that far below - for instance, the Circle line on the London Underground was built by "cut and cover" which is essentially digging a massive trench then laying the track which was then built over the top of, but there's some areas that are still open to the sky (IIRC, they used one such area to remove the damaged carriages from Edgware Road after the July 7th attacks).
A significant (70-80% I'd say from a quick glance at the map) part of Berlin's combined S-Bahn and U-Bahn network in central, highly urban districts is overground, often on bridges along the center of four-lane streets:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/U-Bahn_Berlin_B%C3%BClowstra%C3%9Fe_2.JPG/1280px-U-Bahn_Berlin_B%C3%BClowstra%C3%9Fe_2.JPG
So its not just an issue in the suburbs, but also right in the heart of the city. No idea how that ratio is looking elsewhere, and how extensive those networks are compared to ours.

Gnoman
2016-03-05, 09:47 AM
Given how close japan supposedly came to not surrender after the bombs where dropped i question whether Japan would have been culturally capable of acquiescing to such a demand without some fundamental cultural changes. Then again my limited understanding of the pre-attack politics is pretty limited but i always got the impression that much like poland in europe it was Japan's invasion of what is now Indonesia that broke the camel's back. So weather America probably would have pushed Japan that hard is an open question too.

The situation, prewar, boils down to this.

1. Japan was resource-poor, in pretty much every way that mattered - metal, petroleum, rubber, etc. If it was important to an industrial society Japan probably couldn't get it domestically.
2. Because this situation made Japan very vulnerable to foreign influence, Japan wanted to end that problem
3. Japan was surrounded by weakly defended, resource rich areas that would end it
4. These resource areas belonged to the colonial powers of Europe, or were legally under the protection of those powers.
5. Smack-dab in the middle of Japan's coveted colonies was the US territory of the Philippines along with a few others. Aircraft and ships based here could strangle Japan's colonial lifelines pretty much at-will even if the resource areas were taken.
6. Japan was incapable of winning a war against the Americans and the European powers.
7. The US had cut off all resource trade due to the Japanese war with China

As of 1941, most of the European powers that had the resource colonies were either destroyed or locked in mortal combat with the Reich, and the US wasn't using their Pacific territories. Japanese leaders believed that a successful strike at Pearl Harbor would knock the US out of the war long enough to conquer enough strategic bases to become strong enough that the US wouldn't have the stomach to face the casualties needed to win, and write off the unimportant colonies that weren't doing them all that much good.

In other words, they thought they had a plan to beat the US with everyone out of the way, and by 1945 they viewed their only options as fighting a futile war or facing complete annihilation as a culture in the same way they were attempting to impose on their conquests- in 1939 or 1941 they weren't facing that.

Blackhawk748
2016-03-05, 02:01 PM
Ok, so im playing Shogun 2 again and i am once more realizing that i am an awful Japanese General :smalltongue: The problem is, i cant figure out why, im utilizing tactics that carried me through Medieval 2 wonderfully and here im just getting stomped. I believe my issue is the fundamental difference between Japanese units and their European (in this case i mean Scottish or Danish) counterparts. For example:

In Medieval 2 my typical army consisted primarily of Shield and Spear infantry, supported by archers, some cavalry, and a bunch of heavy infantry. When setting up my army it was Cavalry on flanks, Spearmen in the center, Archers in front (but not in the center) and the heavy infantry behind the spear blocks so they could charge through and hit dismounted Knights or other heavy hitters.

Ive tried something similar in Shogun and i keep getting wrecked. So im trying to figure out what actual Japanese generals used to do, so i can steal their ideas.

JustSomeGuy
2016-03-05, 02:03 PM
is the warrior considered crapped or otherwise problematic ergonomics wise in the troop compartment? Or is it considered fine.

Fashionably late as usual:

As someone who once spent 5 days in the back of one with full excercise kit (old nato style cold war too, none of those extra herrick/telic add ons either) with a concrete-filled law 94, which had to be held between my knees by the way, which entailed bouncing off my kneecaps into random someone else's everytime we jolted which was fairly frequently given the lack of smooth level driving surfaces when there are no roads, both myself and everyone else in the back of that box would say it was too small for comfort. I was in rag order by the 5th day, and i did a 6 week excercise as a cvrt driver no problems, i think it's like sitting in your car vs. sitting in a cheap plane seat - the small space isn't an issue solo but neighbours stretching, limb shuffling and generally encroaching on 'your' space really makes the difference. All that said, they deploy to live operational theatres so perhaps if the situation is serious enough (or you don't have much in the matter), you can deal with it.

Bug-a-Boo
2016-03-05, 02:18 PM
Ok, so im playing Shogun 2 again and i am once more realizing that i am an awful Japanese General :smalltongue: The problem is, i cant figure out why, im utilizing tactics that carried me through Medieval 2 wonderfully and here im just getting stomped. I believe my issue is the fundamental difference between Japanese units and their European (in this case i mean Scottish or Danish) counterparts. For example:

In Medieval 2 my typical army consisted primarily of Shield and Spear infantry, supported by archers, some cavalry, and a bunch of heavy infantry. When setting up my army it was Cavalry on flanks, Spearmen in the center, Archers in front (but not in the center) and the heavy infantry behind the spear blocks so they could charge through and hit dismounted Knights or other heavy hitters.

Ive tried something similar in Shogun and i keep getting wrecked. So im trying to figure out what actual Japanese generals used to do, so i can steal their ideas.

It won't work. Shogun 2 fails at simulating a Japanese army on a very fundamental level (and every level above too unfortunately). Trying to emulate what the actual Japanese generals did is an exercise in frustration. I can know, I tried for years :smallsigh: (even tried to mod the game to a more historical level).

I don't know straight away why your tactics aren't working, but your best bet to beating Shogun 2 is to check the TWCenter forums for tips!

Clistenes
2016-03-05, 04:56 PM
Many of the sources are in spanish only, I'm afraid. C.R. Boxer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._R._Boxer) wrote a few books about the Japanese/Spanish/Portuguese relations.

Some other books:

-Historia de un desencuentro : España y Japón, 1580-1614 by Emilio Sola.
-Españoles en Siam, (1540-1939) by Florentino Rodao.
-La conquista de las Islas Malucas, by Bartolome Leonardo de Argensola.
-Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, by Doctor Antonio de Morga
-Historia de las islas del Archipiélago Filipino y reinos de la Gran China, Tartaria, Cochinchina, Malaca, Siam, Cambodge y Japón, by P. Marcelo Ribadeneira.
-The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, by E.H. Blair
-The massacre of 1603: Chinese perception of the Spaniards in the Philippines, by José Eugenio Borao
-La proyección de Fujian en Manila: los sangleyes del parián y el comercio de la Nao de China, by Manel Ollé Rodríguez, Salvador Bernabéu Albert andCarlos Martínez Shaw (eds.),
-La invencion de China / The invention of China: Percepciones Y Estrategias filipinas respecto a China en el siglo XVI, by Manel Ollé Rodríguez.
-China and Maritime Europe, 1500–1800: Trade, Settlement, Diplomacy, and Missions, by John E. Wills, Jr.
-The Troubled Empire, by Timothy Brook.
-La Inmigracion China En Filipinas by D. Ramon Jordana Y. Morera
-Semanario erudito que comprehende varias obras ineditas, criticas, morales, instructivas, políticas, históricas, satíricas, y jocosas de nuestros mejores autores antiguos y modernos: Volumen 32 by Antonio Valladares de Sotomayor, 1 de enero de 1790

Also this: LA COLONIA DE JAPONESES EN MANILA EN EL MARCO DE LAS RELACIONES DE FILIPINAS Y JAPÓN EN LOS SIGLOS XVI Y XVII, by José Eugenio Borao

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-05, 05:54 PM
Ok, so im playing Shogun 2 again and i am once more realizing that i am an awful Japanese General :smalltongue: The problem is, i cant figure out why, im utilizing tactics that carried me through Medieval 2 wonderfully and here im just getting stomped. I believe my issue is the fundamental difference between Japanese units and their European (in this case i mean Scottish or Danish) counterparts. For example:

In Medieval 2 my typical army consisted primarily of Shield and Spear infantry, supported by archers, some cavalry, and a bunch of heavy infantry. When setting up my army it was Cavalry on flanks, Spearmen in the center, Archers in front (but not in the center) and the heavy infantry behind the spear blocks so they could charge through and hit dismounted Knights or other heavy hitters.

Ive tried something similar in Shogun and i keep getting wrecked. So im trying to figure out what actual Japanese generals used to do, so i can steal their ideas.

What actual generals did has nothing to do with Total War games.

But if you want to be good at Shogun 2, a big part of it involves how you recruit your armies in the first place. Keep recruitment lean and centralized - you want to make a huge castle on top of some good bonus, like a blacksmith or shrine province, set up an encampment, and at most a few relevant training buildings that will help you create a well-rounded army with plenty of buffed stats. Limiting how you recruit keeps your economy strong, and you don't need every unit, just enough that you don't have an an answer against the typical AI units.

In the early game, you can work with an army of Yari/Bow ashigaru plus one unit type. That can be Katana samurai, firebombers, bow samurai, or yari samurai, or light cavalry. There are plenty of considerations you need to take into account for which your "plus one unit" has to be. If you can get a blacksmith province, you don't of course want to use firebombers or bow samurai. I greatly prefer to get katana or yari samurai as my first unit because they are very easy to use and straightforward against enemy ashigaru - just run them in and win those fights. Firebombers can give better payoff when allowed to do their thing, though. They can hit harder than any javelin unit from previous total war games, and will cause ashigaru to crumble given you can keep other ashigaru off their backs. Hell, they can even disintegrate samurai so long as you have enough sacrificial ashigaru to keep them busy.

As you conquer enough provinces that you can support another unit type, you can pick something complementary that covers your weakness, like light cavalry to support katana samurai, katana samurai to support light cavalry, and such. Then round out your roster once you're ready to set up your third recruitment center.

The max I like to have is only 3 recruiting provinces - one specializing in infantry with a blacksmith, one in ranged with crafts, and another in cavalry with warhorses, but by the time I set up the last one, I actually want to be near to hitting Realm Divide and getting into endgame.

The actual fighting is pretty simple.

You mess around with bow units to try and get the enemy to come to you. After that, keep your bows out of the way and have them shoot at enemies who aren't near your own units. You don't need/want that many bow units around, especially if you have cavalry, because they're not incredibly useful after the battle's been joined. I use 6 max, but usually 4. This skirmish between bow units (gun units are very disadvantaged by low range and poor protection) isn't just up to having more bows than the enemy, though it helps a ton. You can maneuver your bows to deny enemy units a chance to shoot while yours is shooting with everything, and you can influence this battle with intelligent use of cavalry.

Your main line could be made up of yari ashigaru for their dirt cheapness and expendability, or naginata samurai for their toughness, or katana samurai if you're trying to kill off the enemy's line. I especially like Naginata Samurai, because they will melt yari ashigaru. Although they lose to katana samurai, the katana samurai are also weak against bows and cavalry so you can protect your front line against the enemy's.

Yari samurai and yari cavalry are specialized for killing off enemy generals, so I keep maybe two squads around in reserve. Being samurai, they can also do flank charges against the enemy frontline and Yari Cavalry can run down enemy ranged units.

No-dachi samurai and warrior monks are technically for smashing the enemy front line (Katana Samurai too, really), but I dislike using them at all, because they are so fragile and inflexible. Despite them being vulnerable to spears, I like to use Katana Cavalry for this purpose because of their mobility. They can help fight against spears by rear charging, and can furthermore fight enemy generals and ranged units. I keep around 4 cavalry units max.

Your plan is to use your ranged units to cause casualties and force the enemy to come to you. If your ranged units are inferior, you will have to go to the enemy, taking casualties along the way.

Once the main battle is joined, you must consider whether or not you'll win in the center (which is usually yari ashigaru vs. yari ashigaru). If you can win the center, whatever you have on the wings is for keeping away whatever the enemy has on his wings so your center can molest his center unmolested. If you can't win the center, you are trying to smash his center with your wings somehow (or singular, "wing" as I like to have one big wing to make it easier to micro). This is why I like Katana Cavalry a lot - they can potentially outrun whatever the AI has on its wings and smash its center regardless of the enemy having a stronger wing.

When the enemy's center is routed, you generally get to mop them up by killing their wings and then killing their ranged units.

Really, though, you are looking to secure strategic advantage and then have overwhelming force during actual battles. Look to run diplomacy well and isolate your enemies. Look to make a ton of money to field more and better soldiers than anyone else. Look to strike where the enemy is weak and hole up in your castles where the enemy is strong. Tactics won't allow you to win if the enemy could simply throw overwhelming numbers at you.

Blackhawk748
2016-03-05, 06:57 PM
Really, though, you are looking to secure strategic advantage and then have overwhelming force during actual battles. Look to run diplomacy well and isolate your enemies. Look to make a ton of money to field more and better soldiers than anyone else. Look to strike where the enemy is weak and hole up in your castles where the enemy is strong. Tactics won't allow you to win if the enemy could simply throw overwhelming numbers at you.

Hilariously while starting a new campaign as the Shimazu clan, i totally wrecked a combined army of my neighbors, i was outnumbered like 3 to one and i butchered them. It was glorious. I gotta say, those Katana Samurai are vicious, same with Bow Samurai.

snowblizz
2016-03-05, 08:00 PM
What helps ultimately more is to understand the enemy AI. They will usually run their cavalry long and wide and try to flank. Spear ashigaru or better samurai to kill these in reserve is a must. 9/10 they run them waaay ahead. This means quite often the tactical manoeuvre advantage passes to you as you held your mounted units back. I do miss the devastating cavalry charges of the earlier games. From Mediaval 2 though cavalry was much toned down.

Personally am a big fan of the fire arrows. If the enemy had much inferior firepower they'd attack so you don't get too many volleys, make them count. As Chinsokabe (IIRC, bowspecialists anyway) I'd have a maybe half an army of archers and try to get them to fire and the enemy to waste their arrows, if any. Big fan of firepower. Needless to say the Fall of the Samurai expansion with naval bombardments and cannons was a favourite of mine.

One of my favourite episodes of the game was playing as Date (IIRC from the north) and being betrayed by Mori just landing an army out of the blue in the middle of my backlines. Had no amry clsoe by but some few units. Send 1 unit at a time and then retreated cutting their move distance to zero. Did it for several turns. Suddenly 1/3 of their army defects their dishonorable clan and joins me instead. Next turn another 1/3 does the same. With my recruited units and my serendipitous sons of the Mori (yes two sons, must have been an inheritance dispute) I crushed the remnants of the backstabbers. It was glorious.

Topped only by the plucky English longbowmen who killed the entirety of the Mongol hordes with their stakes at a river crossing. That was epic.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-07, 11:03 PM
With incomplete armour coverage, like the Edo Japanese military police armoured headband (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d3/55/a8/d355a8058d61414d882a94ff96282de6.jpg), how effective are strikes that clip the armour? There are strikes that hit the armour and glance away harmlessly, or they might glance away from the armour into your face. In which case... did the armour do it's job? More specifically, I'm wondering how much energy and harm is taken out of a sword blow or such if it clips your armour.

Or, I guess I should say how much is common, as you could theoretically get any result depending on how solidly the strike "clips" the armour. I guess a better question is whether there are many accounts of a weapon striking armour, then glancing off it and injuring the target in some unarmoured/lightly-armoured spot.



I dunno if it's any help to your train of thought, but my dad (Air Force band) did a tour in Iraq just playing bass. But he still had to do a bunch of training before he went, and carried some sort of rifle at all times.It wasn't a combat deployment, but it stil wasn't anything to sneeze at either from what I could gather during the time he was preparing to go.

(Sorry for any weirdness, on a mobile device I hope I caught it all) Makes me wonder how often they find out the cook or the bass-player is actually a natural sniper and a valuable soldier.

snowblizz
2016-03-08, 08:17 AM
Makes me wonder how often they find out the cook or the bass-player is actually a natural sniper and a valuable soldier.
The plot of my 2 favourite Steven Segal movies right there. (yes it's a bit different, but still)


On that note though... how much grief do such personnel get from those actually in the mud and blood? I'm thinking "I did my tour playing bass" might not go over well among other grunts.
Heard plenty of mutterings about those driving the army trucks e.g. from the poor bloody infantry as it were.

Personally if I had had to enlist I'd probably have wanted artillery. Big guns and maths is something I could do. But IIRC artillery is often not entirely appreciated generally. Vital as it was in the Finnish army during WW2 e.g.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-08, 09:00 AM
Artillery has a lot that can go wrong, especially in the past. And artillerymen are generally judged by their worst examples. Even recently, there was a case of a Ukrainian aircraft attacking its own side, it was very horrible.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-08, 11:28 AM
The plot of my 2 favourite Steven Segal movies right there. (yes it's a bit different, but still)


On that note though... how much grief do such personnel get from those actually in the mud and blood? I'm thinking "I did my tour playing bass" might not go over well among other grunts.
Heard plenty of mutterings about those driving the army trucks e.g. from the poor bloody infantry as it were.



Well my dad wasn't exactly a grunt, I think when he went he was a step bellow Master Sergeant, and already had the maximum enlisted pay grade. I have trouble imagining the band getting much flack though, because they provide entertainment, and from my observations are usually pretty well liked. That was the only deployment my dad went on as far as I'm aware, but all the years he's been in band have been filled with him either doing gigs for the locals (when overseas) or running events on base for other military members and their families.

I imagine that personnel like my dad, those who are not in combat oriented jobs are the obvious choice for deployment into less dangerous areas simply to provide extra bodies with guns, and allow more useful to combat personnel be in the area's that they are needed. The band played for locals, so another purpose was likely to build social bridges, he told me he had a fair amount of positive interactions with Iraqi children for example.

That said, I have a pretty low opinion of "grunts" who enlist, sign up for combat oriented jobs, and then grumble about other members who are not in combat oriented jobs, getting deployed to lower risk areas.

Engine
2016-03-08, 11:51 AM
The plot of my 2 favourite Steven Segal movies right there. (yes it's a bit different, but still)


On that note though... how much grief do such personnel get from those actually in the mud and blood? I'm thinking "I did my tour playing bass" might not go over well among other grunts.
Heard plenty of mutterings about those driving the army trucks e.g. from the poor bloody infantry as it were.

Personally if I had had to enlist I'd probably have wanted artillery. Big guns and maths is something I could do. But IIRC artillery is often not entirely appreciated generally. Vital as it was in the Finnish army during WW2 e.g.

I was a Bersagliere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bersaglieri), a corps renowned for its musical bands (called fanfara). Almost no one had hard feeling against the musicians, they were actually respected a lot: since soldiers in the corps traditionally run during parades and barracks duties, we grunts had to just carry our rifles while the musicians had to run and play instruments at the same time.

JustSomeGuy
2016-03-08, 11:57 AM
Well my dad wasn't exactly a grunt, I think when he went he was a step bellow Master Sergeant, and already had the maximum enlisted pay grade. I have trouble imagining the band getting much flack though, because they provide entertainment, and from my observations are usually pretty well liked. That was the only deployment my dad went on as far as I'm aware, but all the years he's been in band have been filled with him either doing gigs for the locals (when overseas) or running events on base for other military members and their families.

I imagine that personnel like my dad, those who are not in combat oriented jobs are the obvious choice for deployment into less dangerous areas simply to provide extra bodies with guns, and allow more useful to combat personnel be in the area's that they are needed. The band played for locals, so another purpose was likely to build social bridges, he told me he had a fair amount of positive interactions with Iraqi children for example.

That said, I have a pretty low opinion of "grunts" who enlist, sign up for combat oriented jobs, and then grumble about other members who are not in combat oriented jobs, getting deployed to lower risk areas.

On uk deployments, everyone is trained to soldier first, trade 2nd and mostly all chip in with stuff like mortar clearance patrols, guard duty, quick reaction force etc. But a lot of the time, especially out in the fobs when the specialists get sent (off the top of my head i know an armourer who had to go and fiddle with the weapons, plus folks like vehicle mechanics, engineers to work on the base whatevers) when things go bad everyone gets involved. Also they are easily found gap fillers for when folks start going down with illness and injuries and you need a couple of bodies to make up your patrol multiples.

Not to mention, especially on herrick i think most of the action was seen later on by the vehicle convoys both ambushes and especially ied attacks.

Finally, while there is certainly grumbling about who doesn't get their hands dirty, it is also fairly good natured in that it also amounts to jealously (of the wow that sounds pretty sweet for a posting), that happens with every job anyway (whoever is speaking had it hardest while those glory boys rock up for a few minutes then back to loping off on op massive).

Finally finally, a lot of combat support and combat service support guys spend a lot of time doing stuff like shooting comps or patrol skill/combined soldiering events too, although equally as many do the bare minimum and get on with their jobs without all that sillyness

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-08, 12:34 PM
Yeah, I don't think he ever had to fire his weapon, he just had to have all the relevant training and carry it at all times while he was there. Had he never been deployed he wouldn't have had any training beyond keeping up with the PT requirements. (Do PT requirements get lowered as you age? He's pretty old, was in his late 40's already back when he was deployed)

Though I'm not sure what you're arguing about, or why you've phrased your post as an argument (I'm not military myself so I also don't understand half of what you're saying :smalltongue:) I can only speculate on what I know from my dad in particular, cause it'd be interesting to hear from the guys in here about it. I only even offered it up to help give Mr. Mask some idea of what the not so combatty members of the US armed forces get up to. It may not even be the same from one branch to the next, much less from one country to the next.

JustSomeGuy
2016-03-08, 01:19 PM
It wasn't meant as an argument, more the same old justifications we have to roll out every so often, even between different arms (i think the raf works very differently to the point tradesmen are full time mechanics with almost no time for pt or owt, although that too might just be my own armchair bias)

It was more that over the last decade or so, if you deployed you were expected to be combat ready and at least, if not outright expect it have it as a distinct possibility if you ever left bastion/basra/equivalent and depending what you do maybe even then too

Storm Bringer
2016-03-08, 02:49 PM
As a serving UK soldier, who has deployed to a operational theatre to work in a rear area job, I can confirm that you are, at the moment, required to carry a loaded firearm pretty much as all times. for most soldiers, this is their issue rifle, though some units and people carry pistols. its just a fact of life out their, due to the potential for insider attacks.

As a soldier, you are expected, as a matter of course, to meet certain standards, one of which is basic weapons handling skills and marksmanship. Every soldier is tested on a yearly basis that they can shoot straight and can shoot safely.

on top of that, you do medical training, basic Counter IED training, reaction to indirect fire training, and a whole host of other mission specific training relating to whatever you are going to do in theatre. if your going out their, the minimum standard is that you can look after yourself enough that is Something Bad Happens, you would not be a burden.

15 years ago, the line infantry looked upon the support arms as "REMFs" or "not REAL soldiers"*, but since the majority of attacks on troops happen to units of the move, and the RLC (Royal Logistics Corps) spend a lot of their time driving trucks around a warzone, the jokes have softened somewhat (it helps when they are the blokes risking their lives daily to bring you what is, for all intents and purposes, your weekly shopping).



* we just smiled and pointed out we were smart enough to get a job that gets the girls weak at the knees, but not only has less chance of death and dismemberment, but lets us pick up a skill useable outside the army, to boot!:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Mike_G
2016-03-08, 03:48 PM
There is always a lot of mockery between grunts and POGs (Personnel Other than Grunts) or REMFs (Rear Echelon Mother you can figure it out)

Even within combat arms, there is this kind of mockery. Infantry think artillery and tanks are REMFs. Riflemen say that weapons company guys aren't real grunts, rangers or recon guys look down on line infantry, and the Special Forces guys think everybody is beneath them.

Anybody further from the enemy than I am is a REMF.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, there really aren't secure areas, so everybody was expected to be armed at all times.

Infantry still get assigned to the most infantry like duties, like clearing hostile areas and going on patrols to find and engage the enemy. POGs may very well get shot at and have to fight off an ambush on their convoy, but they aren't expected to go assault an enemy stronghold.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-08, 04:26 PM
Well that reinforces why I initially posted about my dad for Mr. Mask. Everyone has a bare minimum training requirements that they have to meet regardless of their actual job there. Be it a bassist, or a someone who's "just" a career councilor, they all still had to have a certain amount of training to be sent there. Though he has no real medical conditions that would preclude him from going either other than being older.


I'm actually pretty impressed to learn more about the bare minimum training to be deployed. I've never really put thought into what it entailed other than being able to shoot ect.

fusilier
2016-03-08, 06:11 PM
I was a Bersagliere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bersaglieri), a corps renowned for its musical bands (called fanfara). Almost no one had hard feeling against the musicians, they were actually respected a lot: since soldiers in the corps traditionally run during parades and barracks duties, we grunts had to just carry our rifles while the musicians had to run and play instruments at the same time.

This is really cool. I've seen a video of Bersaglieri trumpeters, running in formation, while playing! It was very impressive.

Roxxy
2016-03-09, 03:01 AM
On the subject of infantry and POGs, I'm wondering if anyone here knows much about hazing and rivalrys within conscript forces. Still working on that modernish Pathfinder setting with 60s retrofuturism, and I've run up against the issue of conscription. In a setting with magic and all sorts of nasty beast, there is a nonzero chance that your farmhouse will suddenly be beset by the undead or some fae will try to kidnap your baby or something, and even if soldiers are stationed nearby, nearby can be an hour or more in a rural North American setting (I did mention before that my setting is British, but that's mostly in the sense that it's Commonwealth. Most action takes place in British America.).

So you need a citizen militia, and I like a modified Swiss model, where the militia isn't reckoned to actually be part of the army, but is marshalled for battle in times of need. Every able bodied man and woman has to serve in the militia, but militia service mostly just means training once every couple months and keeping a rifle in the house (the government does encourage more frequent training, though). Militia rifles are surplus military rifles. Imagine if the military had mostly L1A1/FN FALs while the civilians had Lee-Enfields. It's exactly like that. The military has huge numbers of rifles left over from the last major war that it handed over to the militia.

So, anyway, on to the point. Which is that large cities, especially dense cities, are easy enough for a professional force to defend from the odd attack from magical mayhem (Insidentally, this is one among several reasons my setting is rather less suburban than IRL 60s America.). It is rural areas that lack these defensive forces. So, while everyone has to train for the militia, rural people actually get called up to fight sometimes, and city people don't. Which is likely a major cultural divide. What I'd like to ask of you guys is how deep you think that divide may go. And how useful in this style of militia training if the Army suddenly needs to start conscripting soldiers for another war?

Brother Oni
2016-03-09, 03:16 AM
Personally if I had had to enlist I'd probably have wanted artillery. Big guns and maths is something I could do. But IIRC artillery is often not entirely appreciated generally. Vital as it was in the Finnish army during WW2 e.g.

I've also heard that hearing loss is a major problem among former artillerymen.


Well my dad wasn't exactly a grunt, I think when he went he was a step bellow Master Sergeant, and already had the maximum enlisted pay grade.

Part of that is the issue that pay is linked to rank in the military. If the military want to attract and recruit top notch musicians and entertainers, then they have to pay competitive rates to the private sector, which therefore equates to a rank. I remember an article on a fairly young female singer in the US Army who was either an E6 or an E8 equivalent due to her pay.
As others have said, PT and weapons training was still compulsory.



15 years ago, the line infantry looked upon the support arms as "REMFs" or "not REAL soldiers"*, but since the majority of attacks on troops happen to units of the move, and the RLC (Royal Logistics Corps) spend a lot of their time driving trucks around a warzone, the jokes have softened somewhat (it helps when they are the blokes risking their lives daily to bring you what is, for all intents and purposes, your weekly shopping).


It also helps that the Really Large Corps are the other British Army group that does EOD work other than the Royal Engineers. I had a cousin that was in the RCT before it amalgamated in the RLC and he did a tour of duty on bomb disposal in Northern Ireland (his mother didn't sleep a wink for the whole 6 months).

Gnoman
2016-03-09, 09:22 AM
So, anyway, on to the point. Which is that large cities, especially dense cities, are easy enough for a professional force to defend from the odd attack from magical mayhem (Insidentally, this is one among several reasons my setting is rather less suburban than IRL 60s America.). It is rural areas that lack these defensive forces. So, while everyone has to train for the militia, rural people actually get called up to fight sometimes, and city people don't. Which is likely a major cultural divide. What I'd like to ask of you guys is how deep you think that divide may go. And how useful in this style of militia training if the Army suddenly needs to start conscripting soldiers for another war?

This is exactly the situation on the American frontier (which, of course, moved West as time went on) until the end of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century. I suggest that you look at that for inspiration on cultural answers.

As to how useful this would be for conscription, that depends on the army and the weapons. Given your post, it would probably be huge in this case, as a bolt-action rifle is not much different from a semiautomatic in terms of basic weapons skills, and being able to save time on those means that you have more time to teach things like discipline and tactics. In WWII the fact that most Americans were already familiar with operating an automobile while most Germans were not proved a major advantage.

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-09, 10:19 AM
On the subject of infantry and POGs, I'm wondering if anyone here knows much about hazing and rivalrys within conscript forces. Still working on that modernish Pathfinder setting with 60s retrofuturism, and I've run up against the issue of conscription. In a setting with magic and all sorts of nasty beast, there is a nonzero chance that your farmhouse will suddenly be beset by the undead or some fae will try to kidnap your baby or something, and even if soldiers are stationed nearby, nearby can be an hour or more in a rural North American setting (I did mention before that my setting is British, but that's mostly in the sense that it's Commonwealth. Most action takes place in British America.).

So you need a citizen militia, and I like a modified Swiss model, where the militia isn't reckoned to actually be part of the army, but is marshalled for battle in times of need. Every able bodied man and woman has to serve in the militia, but militia service mostly just means training once every couple months and keeping a rifle in the house (the government does encourage more frequent training, though). Militia rifles are surplus military rifles. Imagine if the military had mostly L1A1/FN FALs while the civilians had Lee-Enfields. It's exactly like that. The military has huge numbers of rifles left over from the last major war that it handed over to the militia.

So, anyway, on to the point. Which is that large cities, especially dense cities, are easy enough for a professional force to defend from the odd attack from magical mayhem (Insidentally, this is one among several reasons my setting is rather less suburban than IRL 60s America.). It is rural areas that lack these defensive forces. So, while everyone has to train for the militia, rural people actually get called up to fight sometimes, and city people don't. Which is likely a major cultural divide. What I'd like to ask of you guys is how deep you think that divide may go. And how useful in this style of militia training if the Army suddenly needs to start conscripting soldiers for another war?

First of all, if I was a frontiersman who was possibly going to be attacked, I would probably invest in an L1A1 or FAL, even at my own expense.

I do not think you will necessarily need to organize a citizen militia to defend your rural communities. Mandating training for rural people is redundant, so long as hey are self-motivated to train. So long as gun laws are lax in rural areas, rural people would be self-motivated to train military skills and form posses to defend themselves should the need arise. A community might have an officer whose job was to call up a posse should the need arise, possibly alongside law enforcement. Individual rural communities could feasibly be empowered to have their own defensive organizations (or lack thereof) based on their needs.

Militarily, you would probably see the rural folk serving in more autonomous infantry roles compared to city folk. Rural folk would be more skilled at small arms and small unit tactics, and should be pushed into units where this skill is not wasted, like as snipers, scouts, and such. They would likely be considered elite.

Galloglaich
2016-03-09, 12:14 PM
First of all, if I was a frontiersman who was possibly going to be attacked, I would probably invest in an L1A1 or FAL, even at my own expense.

I do not think you will necessarily need to organize a citizen militia to defend your rural communities. Mandating training for rural people is redundant, so long as hey are self-motivated to train. So long as gun laws are lax in rural areas, rural people would be self-motivated to train military skills and form posses to defend themselves should the need arise. A community might have an officer whose job was to call up a posse should the need arise, possibly alongside law enforcement. Individual rural communities could feasibly be empowered to have their own defensive organizations (or lack thereof) based on their needs.

Militarily, you would probably see the rural folk serving in more autonomous infantry roles compared to city folk. Rural folk would be more skilled at small arms and small unit tactics, and should be pushed into units where this skill is not wasted, like as snipers, scouts, and such. They would likely be considered elite.

Maybe true today, I don't know, but historically it was the opposite. The strongest militias by far in Switzerland were the urban militias of Bern and Zurich (all the way up to the 18th Century). It was the same in Flanders and the Rhineland and most of Central Europe.

G

Tobtor
2016-03-09, 12:44 PM
Maybe true today, I don't know, but historically it was the opposite. The strongest militias by far in Switzerland were the urban militias of Bern and Zurich (all the way up to the 18th Century). It was the same in Flanders and the Rhineland and most of Central Europe.

I don't think thats is actually a contradiction to what he says. He mentions "at small arms and small unit tactics" and "scouts". While the most of the militias from medieval towns (at least from northern Europe, Germany and Flanders), would make out heavy infantry, core units of the army, and the best armed troops, I do not think they are the best scouts or the best in small unit tactics. You have yourself before mentioned how the Swedes (and Frisians) often overcome heavier armed Danish forces (in the late period consisting primarily of German mercenaries, from towns). This was because they were self motivated and better at small unit-tactics and could use the land a lot better. Swedes are probably the best examples of frontier people (together with Fins etc) in northern Europe. You don't find frontier people in northern Germany during the late medieval - it was all agricultural land.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-09, 01:12 PM
Part of that is the issue that pay is linked to rank in the military. If the military want to attract and recruit top notch musicians and entertainers, then they have to pay competitive rates to the private sector, which therefore equates to a rank. I remember an article on a fairly young female singer in the US Army who was either an E6 or an E8 equivalent due to her pay.

I doubt she entered as an E8, as there are rules to what percentage are allowed into higher ranks/paygrades, as well as time requirements. The armed forces don't pay you only your pay grade either, there are lots of extra things and bonuses they add on based on what you do and such. My dad makes more than his pay grade for example

He's been in the armed forces for about 30 years now, and he didn't enter as a musician but as an electrician. I don't know if that would automatically bust you up to a new rank if you decide to change jobs. But I do know that many people enter as an E2 or E3.

My earliest memory of his rank was Ssgt way back when I was 4 years old, and it became Tsgt some years later. After that I don't know how he progressed. Sometime after his deployment (or because of it) he went beyond MSGT. By now he's either a SMsgt or one the the E9 ranks after it. (those E9's are restricted to a small percentage of the total number of people though, you have to have been around a long time, among other things. If he's in that area he probably isn't going to climb much further before they make him retire....he keeps saying he will soon on his own, but still hasn't, I know he was trying to get an assignment that would help elevate his rank but he didn't get it).

edit: Also I was wrong when I said he already had the highest pay grade, turns out he was only an E7 paygrade before he went

MrZJunior
2016-03-09, 03:48 PM
Does anyone know why Marines began to be deployed to US embassys on a formal basis? As I recall that only started after ww2.

Also, are they considered diplomats and thus have diplomatic immunity or are they something else?

Gnoman
2016-03-09, 04:34 PM
Does anyone know why Marines began to be deployed to US embassys on a formal basis? As I recall that only started after ww2.



It was only after WWII that the State Department decided that United States Embassies needed full-time guard details (largely due to the US's new role as the preeminent Western power), and the Marine Corps has had a special relationship with the Presidency and the State Department since they were formed (the Presidency and State Department, that is - the Marine Corps is almost twenty years older), due to the designation of their duties including "Such other duties as the President may direct." Thus they were the logical branch to provide said guard detachments.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-09, 05:15 PM
It was only after WWII that the State Department decided that United States Embassies needed full-time guard details (largely due to the US's new role as the preeminent Western power), and the Marine Corps has had a special relationship with the Presidency and the State Department since they were formed (the Presidency and State Department, that is - the Marine Corps is almost twenty years older), due to the designation of their duties including "Such other duties as the President may direct." Thus they were the logical branch to provide said guard detachments.

That "special relationship" is that the Marines are Navy, not Army, so they can be funded on an indefinite basis rather than a only in two year segments, along with the understanding developing that the President can send the Navy hither and yon as he sees fit, while Congress will expect to be consulted in detail if the Army is asked to sneeze.

Galloglaich
2016-03-09, 05:19 PM
I don't think thats is actually a contradiction to what he says. He mentions "at small arms and small unit tactics" and "scouts". While the most of the militias from medieval towns (at least from northern Europe, Germany and Flanders), would make out heavy infantry, core units of the army, and the best armed troops, I do not think they are the best scouts or the best in small unit tactics. You have yourself before mentioned how the Swedes (and Frisians) often overcome heavier armed Danish forces (in the late period consisting primarily of German mercenaries, from towns). This was because they were self motivated and better at small unit-tactics and could use the land a lot better. Swedes are probably the best examples of frontier people (together with Fins etc) in northern Europe. You don't find frontier people in northern Germany during the late medieval - it was all agricultural land.

I definitely see your point, and the example of the Frisians and Swedes, as well as many others, Austrians from the Tyrol, Finns, borderland Czechs and Poles (Gorali), Cossacks in Ukraine and so forth. Definitely true. also the Eastern Swiss from the forest Cantons were known for this.

But I disagreed with his comment here:

"Rural folk would be more skilled at small arms and small unit tactics, and should be pushed into units where this skill is not wasted, like as snipers, scouts, and such. They would likely be considered elite."

At least prior to 19th Century, the towns seemed to have an advantage in marksmanship, partially due to their culture of shooting, the shooting contests and so on. I have heard of this being done in rural areas (up into the 20th Century in Norway and Switzerland) but I think there was an advantage in the cities. The city folks also did hunt and so on, apparently.

Also Central Europe was full of wilderness, wild forests, ranges of hills that weren't even populated in many cases until the 14th or 15th Centuries - all apparently swarming with bandits and robber knights. Even more so in the East of the Elbe zones where there were still significant challenges even from local fauna like wolves and bears and aurochs and so on.

I think generally speaking there is a persistent assumption that the townfolk were weak and soft, partly due to records left to us by princes and so on and partly the way medieval history was seen in the Victorian era, but it is apparently incorrect. They seem to have engaged in more or less continual warfare to keep the roads safe and open, and while it varied city for city, a lot of them seemed to be really tough..

There is definitely a phenomenon of rural scouts, and 'fringemen' and so forth, definitely was a thing, I don't disagree with that, as was obviously ferocious rural people who knew all the secrets of their own unique terrain.

G

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-09, 06:38 PM
On the subject of infantry and POGs, I'm wondering if anyone here knows much about hazing and rivalrys within conscript forces. Still working on that modernish Pathfinder setting with 60s retrofuturism, and I've run up against the issue of conscription. In a setting with magic and all sorts of nasty beast, there is a nonzero chance that your farmhouse will suddenly be beset by the undead or some fae will try to kidnap your baby or something, and even if soldiers are stationed nearby, nearby can be an hour or more in a rural North American setting (I did mention before that my setting is British, but that's mostly in the sense that it's Commonwealth. Most action takes place in British America.).

So you need a citizen militia, and I like a modified Swiss model, where the militia isn't reckoned to actually be part of the army, but is marshalled for battle in times of need. Every able bodied man and woman has to serve in the militia, but militia service mostly just means training once every couple months and keeping a rifle in the house (the government does encourage more frequent training, though). Militia rifles are surplus military rifles. Imagine if the military had mostly L1A1/FN FALs while the civilians had Lee-Enfields. It's exactly like that. The military has huge numbers of rifles left over from the last major war that it handed over to the militia.

So, anyway, on to the point. Which is that large cities, especially dense cities, are easy enough for a professional force to defend from the odd attack from magical mayhem (Insidentally, this is one among several reasons my setting is rather less suburban than IRL 60s America.). It is rural areas that lack these defensive forces. So, while everyone has to train for the militia, rural people actually get called up to fight sometimes, and city people don't. Which is likely a major cultural divide. What I'd like to ask of you guys is how deep you think that divide may go. And how useful in this style of militia training if the Army suddenly needs to start conscripting soldiers for another war?


I definitely see your point, and the example of the Frisians and Swedes, as well as many others, Austrians from the Tyrol, Finns, borderland Czechs and Poles (Gorali), Cossacks in Ukraine and so forth. Definitely true. also the Eastern Swiss from the forest Cantons were known for this.

But I disagreed with his comment here:

"Rural folk would be more skilled at small arms and small unit tactics, and should be pushed into units where this skill is not wasted, like as snipers, scouts, and such. They would likely be considered elite."

At least prior to 19th Century, the towns seemed to have an advantage in marksmanship, partially due to their culture of shooting, the shooting contests and so on. I have heard of this being done in rural areas (up into the 20th Century in Norway and Switzerland) but I think there was an advantage in the cities. The city folks also did hunt and so on, apparently.

Also Central Europe was full of wilderness, wild forests, ranges of hills that weren't even populated in many cases until the 14th or 15th Centuries - all apparently swarming with bandits and robber knights. Even more so in the East of the Elbe zones where there were still significant challenges even from local fauna like wolves and bears and aurochs and so on.

I think generally speaking there is a persistent assumption that the townfolk were weak and soft, partly due to records left to us by princes and so on and partly the way medieval history was seen in the Victorian era, but it is apparently incorrect. They seem to have engaged in more or less continual warfare to keep the roads safe and open, and while it varied city for city, a lot of them seemed to be really tough..

There is definitely a phenomenon of rural scouts, and 'fringemen' and so forth, definitely was a thing, I don't disagree with that, as was obviously ferocious rural people who knew all the secrets of their own unique terrain.

G

Well, the situation that was laid out in the setting was that urban people usually did not have to fight because monsters in the setting would be committing suicide to attack them. I also assume there is not much fighting between cities because everything is in one empire. Based on the technology described, it seemed the setting was like the modern world, except monsters appeared in the wilds every once in awhile, but I may have read it wrong.

Now who would be better at marksmanship and small unit tactics, city folk who would fight only during actual warfare, or rural folk who once in awhile put together a posse because a troll's wandered onto Old Man Soandso's farm?

Mike_G
2016-03-09, 07:00 PM
Rural militia would probably be better scouts, sure. Hunters might be better snipers.

But the myth of the elite backwoods irregular soldiers is way overblown.

I am a Yankee city kid who joined the Marines a day out of high school, and after three weeks on the range I shot better than most of the inbred squirrel hunting rednecks who think you can't shoot unless your parent were cousins and you have a confederate flag tattoo.

I was also a better point man. Since I can move like a goddamn ghost. I learned that being the smallest kid in Catholic school.

Mr Beer
2016-03-09, 07:05 PM
Since I can move like a goddamn ghost. I learned that being the smallest kid in Catholic school.

Keeping ahead of the priests? I keed I keed.

Mike_G
2016-03-09, 07:34 PM
Keeping ahead of the priests? I keed I keed.

HA!!

Actually, the school I went to was pretty much a "law of the jungle" kinda place. I didn't realize just how violent and bully-centric it was until I transferred to a public school.

I think the big kids learned bullying and abuse from the nuns, who were awesome at it.

I used to call St Joe's "Our Lady of the Flies" and "The Atheist Factory."

I think my sentence in parochial school is one reason I've always had a soft spot for the Vikings. I always imagine Sister Rosemary running away from a burning abbey pursued by bearded Norsemen with axes. Gives me a nice warm feeling.

Clistenes
2016-03-09, 07:48 PM
I definitely see your point, and the example of the Frisians and Swedes, as well as many others, Austrians from the Tyrol, Finns, borderland Czechs and Poles (Gorali), Cossacks in Ukraine and so forth. Definitely true. also the Eastern Swiss from the forest Cantons were known for this.

But I disagreed with his comment here:

"Rural folk would be more skilled at small arms and small unit tactics, and should be pushed into units where this skill is not wasted, like as snipers, scouts, and such. They would likely be considered elite."

At least prior to 19th Century, the towns seemed to have an advantage in marksmanship, partially due to their culture of shooting, the shooting contests and so on. I have heard of this being done in rural areas (up into the 20th Century in Norway and Switzerland) but I think there was an advantage in the cities. The city folks also did hunt and so on, apparently.

Also Central Europe was full of wilderness, wild forests, ranges of hills that weren't even populated in many cases until the 14th or 15th Centuries - all apparently swarming with bandits and robber knights. Even more so in the East of the Elbe zones where there were still significant challenges even from local fauna like wolves and bears and aurochs and so on.

I think generally speaking there is a persistent assumption that the townfolk were weak and soft, partly due to records left to us by princes and so on and partly the way medieval history was seen in the Victorian era, but it is apparently incorrect. They seem to have engaged in more or less continual warfare to keep the roads safe and open, and while it varied city for city, a lot of them seemed to be really tough..

There is definitely a phenomenon of rural scouts, and 'fringemen' and so forth, definitely was a thing, I don't disagree with that, as was obviously ferocious rural people who knew all the secrets of their own unique terrain.

G

People in some cities played some rough sports that were quite war-like:

In Florence they played Pome (throwing a javelin to an apple while running at top speed), and Calcio (sort of like a mix of soccer, rugby and wrestling).

In Spain they had crossbow shooting contests (even highborn ladies took part in them; Felipe II's daughter was a champion), the game of sticks (two teams of armed with leather shields and wooden javelins would fight each other on horses) and bullfighting (they used to kill the bulls with the same weapons they used in war... sometimes they just released the wild bulls on the streets and men would run at them wielding their weapons).

The British had Soule (like rugby, but goalposts were two miles apart, and people fought all the way to carry the ball there... knives were allowed; also, each team could have dozens or hundreds of players).

The Irish had Shinty (like field hockey, but you can wack the other players with your stick), stick fighting and hammer throwing.

I don't think those peope were shy or weaklings...

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-09, 07:57 PM
I think there has been some mistake where people interpreted me as saying rural people are strong because they are rural and urban people are weak because they are urban.

I am actually making the point that rural people are strong in Roxxy's setting because they would be fighting terrifying monsters while urban people are weak in Roxxy's setting because they would not be fighting terrifying monsters.

Ninjadeadbeard
2016-03-09, 08:13 PM
Got a quick question for the thread (though the answer I suspect is more complex).

Why was "Plate" armor replaced with Chainmail in Europe during the Late Roman Empire and Early Middle Ages? Was it just a lack of skill? Too difficult to clean? If so, why did it become so much more practical during the High and Late Medieval Periods?

Mr. Mask
2016-03-09, 09:12 PM
Rural militia would probably be better scouts, sure. Hunters might be better snipers.

But the myth of the elite backwoods irregular soldiers is way overblown.

I am a Yankee city kid who joined the Marines a day out of high school, and after three weeks on the range I shot better than most of the inbred squirrel hunting rednecks who think you can't shoot unless your parent were cousins and you have a confederate flag tattoo. That's not a fair comparison, unless you consider yourself a drunken, STD-laden, fatherless gangster, with more PCP than brain cells. Because what you're describing is the rural version of THAT, and you can add drunken and drug abusing to the things you mentioned about them. Typically, those people are lousy shots, aside from the ones who succeed as dangerous criminals--just like the urban gangsters.


Keeping ahead of the priests? I keed I keed. Catholic kids can be tough. Knowing how to fight and how to avoid a fight are learned right with the seven sacraments and hail Mary. Bonus points if you're also Irish--to Pugilism and Move Silently.


HA!!

Actually, the school I went to was pretty much a "law of the jungle" kinda place. I didn't realize just how violent and bully-centric it was until I transferred to a public school.

I think the big kids learned bullying and abuse from the nuns, who were awesome at it.

I used to call St Joe's "Our Lady of the Flies" and "The Atheist Factory."

I think my sentence in parochial school is one reason I've always had a soft spot for the Vikings. I always imagine Sister Rosemary running away from a burning abbey pursued by bearded Norsemen with axes. Gives me a nice warm feeling. That's not really catholic specific, it varies a lot with the region. The worst case I recall was where the whole crowd of kids at a football match threw pennies at this one girl, and shouted, "whore!". They thought it was hilarious when she ran off crying. Maybe similar things happened at your school. It sounds like it was among the terrible examples out there.



I think there has been some mistake where people interpreted me as saying rural people are strong because they are rural and urban people are weak because they are urban.

I am actually making the point that rural people are strong in Roxxy's setting because they would be fighting terrifying monsters while urban people are weak in Roxxy's setting because they would not be fighting terrifying monsters. So, mountain lions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxo8X5uIWRE), wolves (https://youtu.be/JE-Nyt4Bmi8?t=26s), coyotes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbI698Gk1o), bears (https://youtu.be/ysZ3I1tEets?t=10s), alligator (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgSurkfqXuI) snapping turtles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBSFeJ1WLv4), water (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqsbXIVY5U) moccasins (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/bc/6d/e9bc6d3a8b59b5b76f79730d21181ac3.jpg), and emus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War)?

Mr Beer
2016-03-09, 09:22 PM
HA!!

Actually, the school I went to was pretty much a "law of the jungle" kinda place. I didn't realize just how violent and bully-centric it was until I transferred to a public school.

I think the big kids learned bullying and abuse from the nuns, who were awesome at it.

I used to call St Joe's "Our Lady of the Flies" and "The Atheist Factory."

I think my sentence in parochial school is one reason I've always had a soft spot for the Vikings. I always imagine Sister Rosemary running away from a burning abbey pursued by bearded Norsemen with axes. Gives me a nice warm feeling.

Holy crap dude! Sounds messed up.

Mike_G
2016-03-09, 09:35 PM
Holy crap dude! Sounds messed up.

There is a reason people use the term "recovering Catholic."

Mike_G
2016-03-09, 09:57 PM
That's not a fair comparison, unless you consider yourself a drunken, STD-laden, fatherless gangster, with more PCP than brain cells. Because what you're describing is the rural version of THAT, and you can add drunken and drug abusing to the things you mentioned about them. Typically, those people are lousy shots, aside from the ones who succeed as dangerous criminals--just like the urban gangsters.


Maybe I am going a bit far, but we did use the acronym ICF to mean Inbred Country...Folks.

I just got sick of the idea that people who grew up in the country are all Davy Crockets. Shooting is a skill. You're better off going in with no ingrained bad habits and learning how to shoot the right way, with sight picture and breathing control and proper trigger pull than thinking that because you can beat unarmed ungulates in a gunfight you know it all.

Nobody hunts man sized game at 300 +yards. And you probably don't have to suppress the ducks so your buddy can outflank them and throw grenades at them. It's not that hunting and shooting aren't kinda like combat skills, it's like thinking playing pickup hoops prepares you for the NBA.

I'd rather have a total novice with a brain who knows he's a novice so he pays attention to the right way to do things than a guy who thinks he's Hawkeye.





Catholic kids can be tough. Knowing how to fight and how to avoid a fight are learned right with the seven sacraments and hail Mary. Bonus points if you're also Irish--to Pugilism and Move Silently.



Sounds about right.

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-09, 10:26 PM
I guess I just don't understand how you guys are taking the actual description of the setting


In a setting with magic and all sorts of nasty beast, there is a nonzero chance that your farmhouse will suddenly be beset by the undead or some fae will try to kidnap your baby or something

and it turns into




So, mountain lions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxo8X5uIWRE), wolves (https://youtu.be/JE-Nyt4Bmi8?t=26s), coyotes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbI698Gk1o), bears (https://youtu.be/ysZ3I1tEets?t=10s), alligator (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgSurkfqXuI) snapping turtles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBSFeJ1WLv4), water (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqsbXIVY5U) moccasins (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/bc/6d/e9bc6d3a8b59b5b76f79730d21181ac3.jpg), and emus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War)?

or




Nobody hunts man sized game at 300 +yards. And you probably don't have to suppress the ducks so your buddy can outflank them and throw grenades at them. It's not that hunting and shooting aren't kinda like combat skills, it's like thinking playing pickup hoops prepares you for the NBA.

Roxxy
2016-03-09, 10:55 PM
First of all, if I was a frontiersman who was possibly going to be attacked, I would probably invest in an L1A1 or FAL, even at my own expense.It would certainly be legal, presuming you had the money. A lot of the rural poor don't.

Gun laws restrict firearms to members of the militia and those excused from militia service for reasons of physical infirmity. Those excused from the militia for other reasons, typically mental illness or disability, support for insurrection against the government (yes, that one's been known to get abused), or criminal behavior, are not permitted to own firearms. Those allowed to own guns can purchase almost any non-automatic firearms they wish. Owning a firearm is not reckoned a right in my setting, though firearms ownership is of course very common.


I do not think you will necessarily need to organize a citizen militia to defend your rural communities. Mandating training for rural people is redundant, so long as hey are self-motivated to train. So long as gun laws are lax in rural areas, rural people would be self-motivated to train military skills and form posses to defend themselves should the need arise. A community might have an officer whose job was to call up a posse should the need arise, possibly alongside law enforcement. Individual rural communities could feasibly be empowered to have their own defensive organizations (or lack thereof) based on their needs.I was thinking it to be at least partially inertia. Mandatory militia membership was a reality of life in much of Colonial America, and with clear and present threat from low level monsters, I can easily see it continuing. Hard to justify scrapping a militia system that still occasionally sees action and has been in existence for about as long as British America has.

Roxxy
2016-03-09, 10:58 PM
I think there has been some mistake where people interpreted me as saying rural people are strong because they are rural and urban people are weak because they are urban.

I am actually making the point that rural people are strong in Roxxy's setting because they would be fighting terrifying monsters while urban people are weak in Roxxy's setting because they would not be fighting terrifying monsters.At the same time, it isn't a constant thing. The rural militias need to be ready to fight just like a cop does, in that they very well may have to kill a monster, but likely won't. The chances are a bit higher than the chance of an American cop having to fire a gun, but they aren't high enough to make most rural people combat veterans.

Roxxy
2016-03-09, 11:02 PM
Rural militia would probably be better scouts, sure. Hunters might be better snipers.

But the myth of the elite backwoods irregular soldiers is way overblown.

I am a Yankee city kid who joined the Marines a day out of high school, and after three weeks on the range I shot better than most of the inbred squirrel hunting rednecks who think you can't shoot unless your parent were cousins and you have a confederate flag tattoo.

I was also a better point man. Since I can move like a goddamn ghost. I learned that being the smallest kid in Catholic school.With urban people still having militia training requirements and shooting sports being encouraged by the government, that's probably a factor.

I do think that the fact that rural militias may see action and urban militias won't will lead to myths like this perpetuating, though.

Mike_G
2016-03-09, 11:15 PM
I guess I just don't understand how you guys are taking the actual description of the setting



and it turns into



or

As always, conversations drift.

That said, even if rural people have to deal with occasional threats, formal training in unit tactic is useful.

Any fool can learn to shoot on his own. But teamwork and co-ordination is more important in combat, and that has to be taught to men as a group. That's why I admit you might get a decent sniper or scout out of a backwoods person, but small unit tactics require training and practice.

Local, untrained forces can win ambushes and guerilla fights on their own terrain. but if you want them to perform well outside of taht, they need training.

They are not elite.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-09, 11:16 PM
I was thinking it to be at least partially inertia. Mandatory militia membership was a reality of life in much of Colonial America, and with clear and present threat from low level monsters, I can easily see it continuing. Hard to justify scrapping a militia system that still occasionally sees action and has been in existence for about as long as British America has.

And avoiding calls to muster for the militia was a reality of life in much of Colonial and Early Independent America, to the point of needing to raise regular army forces while Washington was still present, and ultimately becoming so bad it was scrapped at the turn of the 19th century.

Militias have shown a poor record of wanting to actually show up, and a worse record of standing and fighting. At most you get some scale posse comitatus actions, but those have a tendency to cross over into factional and vigilante violence, requiring outside intervention by regulars.

Better to rely on private contractors, like in Larry Correia's Monster Hunter series.

Roxxy
2016-03-09, 11:21 PM
And avoiding calls to muster for the militia was a reality of life in much of Colonial and Early Independent America, to the point of needing to raise regular army forces while Washington was still present, and ultimately becoming so bad it was scrapped at the turn of the 19th century.

Militias have shown a poor record of wanting to actually show up, and a worse record of standing and fighting. At most you get some scale posse comitatus actions, but those have a tendency to cross over into factional and vigilante violence, requiring outside intervention by regulars.
Well, there is a regular army. I do imagine that the militia isn't used outside of their home communities, largely because they rapidly become unreliable with anything but beating back the undead so they don't get eaten before the authorities show up.

Better to rely on private contractors, like in Larry Correia's Monster Hunter series.Any D&D monster over CR,like, 2 is going to be dealt with directly by the government. The government does not contract out combat operations. Player characters are government agents with the authority and responsibility that implies.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-09, 11:42 PM
Mike: Sorry if my response sounded harsh. I just wanted to put things into context, particularly for those unfamiliar with ICFs and military humour.

With hunting and Davy Crockett, have you done much hunting? It's generally a lot trickier than just shooting at a defenceless* animal. You have to learn concealment, tracking, woodcraft and ambush tactics if you want to be a successful hunter. You also need to be alert not just for your prey, but for any predators or dangerous animals that frequent the area, so you need some counter-ambush tactics. Things like squirrel hunting require you to not only have accurate shooting, but good reflexes and a keen eye for movement. Alvin York when asked how he learned to shoot said, "Squirrel hunting".

It's not that these experiences guarantee you'll become a Davy Crockett, or that they apply fully to aspects of war, but they are helpful in several ways. If you're any good as a hunter, you will know how to shoot excellently, and there shouldn't be need to relearn it. Hunting dangerous prey also helps you get used to danger and stress, as you need serious nerve to try and catch a charging boar on a boar spear. Hunting has been a historical means for maintaining and training martial skill for war through the ages, for these reasons. Many people have not taken to shooting as well as you have, they need longer to pick up that level of skill, and many don't ever make Expert in marksmanship with any amount of training. Still, if you have a few thousand hours of practice shooting, that's going to be a big help in reaching your potential.

You're right that group tactics are more important than shooting skill, and that's something that rural forces historically are weak on without some intensive drilling (aside from small-group tactics which are OK). Though Vegetius preferred rural people for recruiting purposes, so they can learn such reliably.


*: Near a buck's antlers... you have to try very hard to remind yourself how defenceless it is.


Vitru: Well, that was in response to, "because they would be fighting terrifying monsters". There are jokes about coyotes kidnapping babies (with an unfortunate related court case), and Tasmanian devils are kind of like undead monsters.




All this talk of effective soldiers and settings full of horrible monsters has got me thinking. What would be the best program to raise fights from cradle to grave? You get systems from the knights, samurai, Spartans, Norse Vikings, Swiss militias, and many other systems of martial societies with various similar traits. The Spartans, notably, were more extreme in their methods. It leads me to wonder if there's any way to measure which methods seemed more effective.

Roxxy
2016-03-10, 12:25 AM
That "special relationship" is that the Marines are Navy, not Army, so they can be funded on an indefinite basis rather than a only in two year segments, along with the understanding developing that the President can send the Navy hither and yon as he sees fit, while Congress will expect to be consulted in detail if the Army is asked to sneeze.This gives me an idea. I wanted my government monster hunting force to be a Commonwealth wide force, so the player characters could be sent all over the place, from Britain to America to Africa, and I think I just figured out who will pay.

The British Commonwealth of my setting is a lot closer knit than the IRL Commonwealth. One of the core ideas of the setting is that Britain tried to preserve what it could of the Empire with a free trade, free movement, and shared currency deal for former colonies, which functions a lot like the European Union. This worked in an economic and geopolitical sense, in that the Commonwealth is a powerhouse, but at the same time, British West America on par with Britain in terms of wealth and power, making it clear that the British are not the masters of the Commonwealth (Not that the Americans are, as much as they'd like to be). More than a little tooth nashing over that in Britain (The fact that Britain is coming to terms with having the Commonwealth slip away from British dominance and into a more multipolar identity is a big zeitgeist of the era in the setting. As is the fact that British West America, Britain's main equal within the Commonwealth, is as Asian and Meditteranean as it is British. And the fact that the Commonwealth's closest allies, Mexico and Japan, are countries that Britain has fought brutal wars with in the past, with Britain once hacking a chunk off of Mexico that became British West America.).

Now, the nations of the Commonwealth maintain their own armies and coastal defense fleets, but the Royal Navy is paid for and staffed by the Commonwealth at large (And the British are just delighted to see the Royal Navy full of Americans). This is meant as both a means of crowdfunding a dozen supercarriers and tying overseas power projection to the Commonwealth at large. However, the Commonwealth won't approve a budget for any security forces besides the Royal Navy. Which makes the raising of a Commonwealth monster hunting force tricky. The Americans really wanted it, and they eventually got around the budgeting issue by finangling a monster hunting gendarmerie into the Royal Navy's procurement budget (Slipping something thought up by Americans into the traditionally British Royal Navy was a big reason the Americans even wanted a Commonwealth wide monster hunting force to begin with, though having a force that can chase monsters from British West America into Canada or New England without waiting for permission was certainly the main factor.) Which makes the player characters technically part of the navy, even though they aren't specifically tasked with nautical operations (though they certainly do them when needed). Which could make Naval Police a slang term for the Commonwealth monster hunters.

Carl
2016-03-10, 01:40 AM
@roxy: I strongly recommend you take a look at switzerland.

Rather than mess around with a militia they just have the entire able bodied population in the military, (in a similar manner to the national guard to my limited understanding), with the cavet that they take their rifles home with them and are legally required to maintain it and a stock of ammo in working order.

Roxxy
2016-03-10, 01:43 AM
@roxy: I strongly recommend you take a look at switzerland.

Rather than mess around with a militia they just have the entire able bodied population in the military, (in a similar manner to the national guard to my limited understanding), with the cavet that they take their rifles home with them and are legally required to maintain it and a stock of ammo in working order.I originally did look at the Swiss military, but I went with the militia because I wanted there to be a clear seperation between the militia, which can't be deployed outside of its county, and the military, which can be deployed anywhere in the world. I also don't want most of the urban population trained as soldiers, which makes having a militia with firearms training but not much in the way of military discipline necessary.

Storm Bringer
2016-03-10, 02:25 AM
This gives me an idea. I wanted my government monster hunting force to be a Commonwealth wide force, so the player characters could be sent all over the place, from Britain to America to Africa, and I think I just figured out who will pay.

The British Commonwealth of my setting is a lot closer knit than the IRL Commonwealth. One of the core ideas of the setting is that Britain tried to preserve what it could of the Empire with a free trade, free movement, and shared currency deal for former colonies, which functions a lot like the European Union. This worked in an economic and geopolitical sense, in that the Commonwealth is a powerhouse, but at the same time, British West America on par with Britain in terms of wealth and power, making it clear that the British are not the masters of the Commonwealth (Not that the Americans are, as much as they'd like to be). More than a little tooth nashing over that in Britain (The fact that Britain is coming to terms with having the Commonwealth slip away from British dominance and into a more multipolar identity is a big zeitgeist of the era in the setting. As is the fact that British West America, Britain's main equal within the Commonwealth, is as Asian and Meditteranean as it is British. And the fact that the Commonwealth's closest allies, Mexico and Japan, are countries that Britain has fought brutal wars with in the past, with Britain once hacking a chunk off of Mexico that became British West America.).

Now, the nations of the Commonwealth maintain their own armies and coastal defense fleets, but the Royal Navy is paid for and staffed by the Commonwealth at large (And the British are just delighted to see the Royal Navy full of Americans). This is meant as both a means of crowdfunding a dozen supercarriers and tying overseas power projection to the Commonwealth at large. However, the Commonwealth won't approve a budget for any security forces besides the Royal Navy. Which makes the raising of a Commonwealth monster hunting force tricky. The Americans really wanted it, and they eventually got around the budgeting issue by finangling a monster hunting gendarmerie into the Royal Navy's procurement budget (Slipping something thought up by Americans into the traditionally British Royal Navy was a big reason the Americans even wanted a Commonwealth wide monster hunting force to begin with, though having a force that can chase monsters from British West America into Canada or New England without waiting for permission was certainly the main factor.) Which makes the player characters technically part of the navy, even though they aren't specifically tasked with nautical operations (though they certainly do them when needed). Which could make Naval Police a slang term for the Commonwealth monster hunters.

so they are Royal Marine Commandos, then?

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are not the only land force to fall under the control of a navy.

Another option is could be something like the RAF Regt, or the Royal Naval Division on WW!. they were originally formed to act as base guards or to size bases for their parent services, but RAF Regt was holding FOBs outside of bastion for most of the afgan war, and the RN divison was thrown onto the western front and fought well enough it managed to make it onto the german armys "top 5 british divisons we would rather not fight" list.


Got a quick question for the thread (though the answer I suspect is more complex).

Why was "Plate" armor replaced with Chainmail in Europe during the Late Roman Empire and Early Middle Ages? Was it just a lack of skill? Too difficult to clean? If so, why did it become so much more practical during the High and Late Medieval Periods?

the seems to have been missed, so I will address it quickly.

the "plate armour" you see here (http://medievalarmour.com/images/PRODUCT/large/AB0006_2_.png), as used by the roman army, was made of iron plates, and had a bad tendency to rust (as well as being more expensive than mail), and while it had a better battlefield performance, any empire needs to balance quality with quantity. My understanding is that the current belief was that mail armour never really went away, but was used by the majority of troops throughout the roman era.

then, the better part of a thousand years later, metalsmiths were able to stand making steel plates of significant size, and thanks to the numerous inventions in mechanisation since roman times, could make such armour much easier (comparatively), which, combined with the private purchase of equipment (rather than the state issuing it all), lead to the replacement of mail as the primary armour.

Roxxy
2016-03-10, 02:45 AM
so they are Royal Marine Commandos, then?

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are not the only land force to fall under the control of a navy.

Another option is could be something like the RAF Regt, or the Royal Naval Division on WW!. they were originally formed to act as base guards or to size bases for their parent services, but RAF Regt was holding FOBs outside of bastion for most of the afgan war, and the RN divison was thrown onto the western front and fought well enough it managed to make it onto the german armys "top 5 british divisons we would rather not fight" list.I was imagining them more as an unholy blend of SAS counterterrorism and FBI field agent. The reason they ended up as a gendarmerie (military police force that mostly polices civilians) is political. British West America wanted an international monster hunting force so they could chase monsters across borders, Canada and New England wouldn't do it unless the Commonwealth as a whole did it, and the Commonwealth as a whole didn't want to fund more defense organizations than the Royal Navy. So the Americans found a way to get the Royal Navy to do it, even though this sort of work really isn't what a navy is typically for, because it was the most expedious route to getting what America wanted. Which, come to think of it, makes this about the most quintessentially English thing the Americans of this setting have ever gotten up to. Now it's been done this way long enough to be tradition, and the whole system is just confusing and illogical enough to feel properly British, so getting the monster hunters out of the Royal Navy would be met with much resistance from the same sort of people who hated the idea when it was first suggested.

Ninjadeadbeard
2016-03-10, 02:46 AM
the seems to have been missed, so I will address it quickly.

the "plate armour" you see here (http://medievalarmour.com/images/PRODUCT/large/AB0006_2_.png), as used by the roman army, was made of iron plates, and had a bad tendency to rust (as well as being more expensive than mail), and while it had a better battlefield performance, any empire needs to balance quality with quantity. My understanding is that the current belief was that mail armour never really went away, but was used by the majority of troops throughout the roman era.

then, the better part of a thousand years later, metalsmiths were able to stand making steel plates of significant size, and thanks to the numerous inventions in mechanisation since roman times, could make such armour much easier (comparatively), which, combined with the private purchase of equipment (rather than the state issuing it all), lead to the replacement of mail as the primary armour.

Ah! Thank you! I've been trying to come up with a good reason to drop Plate from my current game (I like chainmail aesthetic). Well, at least this gives me more of a reason to keep it rarer than normal. Again, thank you!

Tobtor
2016-03-10, 04:04 AM
"Rural folk would be more skilled at small arms and small unit tactics, and should be pushed into units where this skill is not wasted, like as snipers, scouts, and such. They would likely be considered elite."

I agree with the word "elite". The rest: small arms and small unit tactics, snipers and scouts is definitely what I would see frontier (not all rural) people be employed as.


At least prior to 19th Century, the towns seemed to have an advantage in marksmanship, partially due to their culture of shooting, the shooting contests and so on. I have heard of this being done in rural areas (up into the 20th Century in Norway and Switzerland) but I think there was an advantage in the cities. The city folks also did hunt and so on, apparently.

Contest also happened in rural districts, and rural people participated in town contests (at least in Germany and Scandinavia). Its like all Norweigeans in the 20th century skied (and still do) and many learned to shoot. But most of the really good ones did not come from Oslo nor Bergen.

Hunting from cities in the medieval was mostly very rich people (at least in northern Europe). But I agree that many good crossbowmen came from cities, and that their shooting abbility was higher than the average peasant (though these could also be good). However, in Finland you have people hunting squirrels with crossbow as a way of living - I suspect they were also very good with the crossbow - and likely better trackers and hunters. Probably they had less powerful crossbows though (like the Skanian one).

I agree that pure target shooting is reliant on culture rather than rural/town, as in England the longbowmen also came from rural districts, while the just as skilled crossbowmen from the continent came from towns. However, people living in frontier zones with hunting as part of daily routine will ALWAYS be at least adequate shooters (and better trackers).



Also Central Europe was full of wilderness, wild forests, ranges of hills that weren't even populated in many cases until the 14th or 15th Centuries - all apparently swarming with bandits and robber knights. Even more so in the East of the Elbe zones where there were still significant challenges even from local fauna like wolves and bears and aurochs and so on.

Well as Poland and Russia is also "east of the Elb" it is of course true. BUT in the area around Hamborg, Lübeck and Rostock (also east of the Elb) there was not alot of wilderness (forests yes, wilderness no). The forrest was small open forrest-patches between villages. There is actually more forest today than in the medieval period (according to pollen diagrams). But if you move south towards Berlin, then yes there were large forests. The issue is that even agricultural land is filled with hedges, creeks with trees and small patches of forests were you could hide. (and also in Denmark old chalck mines shafts, where the Danish "Robin Hood", Jens Longknife had his hideout in the 17th century)


I think generally speaking there is a persistent assumption that the townfolk were weak and soft, partly due to records left to us by princes and so on and partly the way medieval history was seen in the Victorian era, but it is apparently incorrect. They seem to have engaged in more or less continual warfare to keep the roads safe and open, and while it varied city for city, a lot of them seemed to be really tough..

No disagreement here. But so did the rural population (especially in frontiers). We just have fewer account preserved due to were the account were written.

Tobtor
2016-03-10, 06:05 AM
Ah! Thank you! I've been trying to come up with a good reason to drop Plate from my current game (I like chainmail aesthetic). Well, at least this gives me more of a reason to keep it rarer than normal. Again, thank you!

Apart from the reasons for mail and plate mentioned above, I would like to add that mail is more comfortable to wear. Especially compared to the Roman plates, but also compared to medieval plate armour: even if they give you very good manoeuvrability, you are still hampered by it. The mail you can basically wear all the time (which is why it survives as "civilian" armour for some time).

If you want to keep mail, then just place your campaign anywhere between 3rd-13th century... (including crusades) then you don't have to worry too much about gunpowder either. Plate begins in the Medieval around the middle of the 14th century, and I think if anyone want a setting with many different types of armour a 1350-1375 sort of period is likely the best you get, as mail is still the norm, and you have various forms of brigantines, coat of plates and early plate armour (probably best described as "half-plate" in DnD terms).

http://i.imgur.com/oJMXN1u.jpg

Some of them have likely been inserted in leather (or cloth) armour, like this:

http://www.loricamos.vizz.pl/obrazy/galerie/obraz_384.jpg

While some of the "belt-like" plates have perhaps been worn like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Eastern_riveted_armor.JPG

Both types have likely been worn over mail, as an extra protection. Note how some are made out of many small pieces of plate, while others of much larger pieces.

We dont really know who or how many would have worn each type of armour, as the finds are few, and museum collections are often skewed in favour of the "good stuff" preserved in richer peoples arsenals or collections. So when a person is said to have a coat of plates or plate armour in a document we don't know what they are taking about (similarly with swords, etc). It could be really good stuff or some of these "belt-like" stuff protecting the belly and lower back.

This is also the period when you see the first real "plate" armours:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1VOy-HlrMns/VVmn3uZBTjI/AAAAAAAAA5c/ExMn4hjtR2E/s400/aldboroughbrass1a.JPG

A knigh wearing some plate on the arms and body (at least). But you still have the sword-shield type of knights known from many RPGs, while when you hit the 15-16th century longswords and (short) pole weapons became more used among knights as the shield became less important (for knights fighting on foot in battle, you still have bucklers and pavises etc).

Technologically most of these armours are still basically iron, or iron/mild steel mixes, with the best being all steel but of poor quality with many impurities etc. Later the carbon content goes up, the steel better hardened and the impurities fewer. Thus they are not as impenetrable as the later armours.

Gunpowder did exist in Europe in the early-mid 14th century, but wasn't employed in large scale until the late 14th century and especially in the 15h century when artillery and handguns was a major part of the strategy of battles and sieges (to varies degrees in different parts of Europe). But around 1350 the armour design and battle tactics had not yet adopted to gunpowder.

Khedrac
2016-03-10, 07:16 AM
I was imagining them more as an unholy blend of SAS counterterrorism and FBI field agent. The reason they ended up as a gendarmerie (military police force that mostly polices civilians) is political. British West America wanted an international monster hunting force so they could chase monsters across borders, Canada and New England wouldn't do it unless the Commonwealth as a whole did it, and the Commonwealth as a whole didn't want to fund more defense organizations than the Royal Navy. So the Americans found a way to get the Royal Navy to do it, even though this sort of work really isn't what a navy is typically for, because it was the most expedious route to getting what America wanted. Which, come to think of it, makes this about the most quintessentially English thing the Americans of this setting have ever gotten up to. Now it's been done this way long enough to be tradition, and the whole system is just confusing and illogical enough to feel properly British, so getting the monster hunters out of the Royal Navy would be met with much resistance from the same sort of people who hated the idea when it was first suggested.
Well if you don't want them to be like the Royal Marines, take a look at the Special Boat Service - also Royal Navy and the group that regards the SAS training as a joke...

Carl
2016-03-10, 07:33 AM
@RoxY: Ok not sure how your monster hunter forces fits in with the militia, think i missed a post somwhere in there. But the monster hunter force sounds more like a fantastical version of interpol. Unless the monster problem is restricted to the commonwealth your likely to see the rest of the world get behind such a concept and pressure the rest of the commonwealth into going along.


As for the militia. The problem you've got is as noted militia's had a lot of abuse of power issues. in a vaguely modern setting that means a militia isn't going to fly because no one would stand for such an abuse prone system sticking around. It would have been reformed long since. Which means all the stuff that goes with a military or paramilitary force, namely set training standards, recruitment standards, equipment, rules of engagement and mission limitations. You also have to remember that within the US at least police forces can call on military support in an emergency within just a few hours notice. And that's without anything being on alert as a standard ting. in this kind of setting every base would certainly have an alert force, preferably with dedicated alert force helicopters to move them. Which heavily cuts the need for such a militia. In that situation you'd probably get by with a bigger and better trained and equipped police force than usual.

LeSwordfish
2016-03-10, 09:11 AM
Hi folks!

I'm GM -ing a game of Only War, the Warham mer 40k military RPG, and my players have got themselves caught up in a large urban battle. I have a couple of questions based on this, but to start:

Can anyone point me at good, ideally fairly simple/brief, descriptions of fighting in a city? I feel like I'm not sure what would actually happen, as such - what would an average soldier end up doing on a minute-to-minute basis? The 40K universe is pretty diverse, so I'm sure anything from ww1 onwards could be pressed into service.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-10, 12:57 PM
Ah! Thank you! I've been trying to come up with a good reason to drop Plate from my current game (I like chainmail aesthetic). Well, at least this gives me more of a reason to keep it rarer than normal. Again, thank you!

You could also just refluff heavier plate armors into mail variants:
superior mail
reinforced mail
double mail
Same stats as the plate, same aesthetics as the mail.
The justification being that not having developed plate, they focused their efforts on making mail better and better.

Clistenes
2016-03-10, 03:35 PM
All this talk of effective soldiers and settings full of horrible monsters has got me thinking. What would be the best program to raise fights from cradle to grave? You get systems from the knights, samurai, Spartans, Norse Vikings, Swiss militias, and many other systems of martial societies with various similar traits. The Spartans, notably, were more extreme in their methods. It leads me to wonder if there's any way to measure which methods seemed more effective.

Well, not the Spartans, certainly. Those guys literally drove themselves to extinction. Those who survived their training were very tough, aggressive and motivated, but they were short and had poor health (due to poor feeding and ritual torture and emotional scarring during their growth period), and their numbers tended to shrink every generation even during times of peace, due to their lifestyle.

They fought very few wars, since they couldn't sustain the losses. Their entire society was focused on keeping their Helot slaves under control, not on fighting external wars, and that was the reason they trained so much.

When they finally tried to make a move and become an hegemonic power in Greece, they fought the Peloponnesian Wars and the Corinthian Wars, they won every battle on land save the Battle of Leuctra, nobody conquered them... but they still lost everything. They couldn't replace their losses, so they had to just retreat back to Sparta. Their Arkadian and Messenian subjects told them to f*ck off because they were so few that they couldn't keep them subjugated. The Macedonians didn't bother conquering them... they just took all the land around Sparta, ignoring the city-state itself, and they could do nothing. They were irrelevant.

Even after they stopped fighting any war and they lost most of their land and serfs they kept their warrior traditions -and even made them harsher -which made them unable to build up their numbers and become relevant again. Their population kept shrinking instead.

After the Romans conquered them, they turned Sparta into a tourist attraction, a thematic park of sorts where rich Romans could watch them torture their own children.

Storm Bringer
2016-03-10, 03:38 PM
Hi folks!

I'm GM -ing a game of Only War, the Warham mer 40k military RPG, and my players have got themselves caught up in a large urban battle. I have a couple of questions based on this, but to start:

Can anyone point me at good, ideally fairly simple/brief, descriptions of fighting in a city? I feel like I'm not sure what would actually happen, as such - what would an average soldier end up doing on a minute-to-minute basis? The 40K universe is pretty diverse, so I'm sure anything from ww1 onwards could be pressed into service.

in a word: confused.


nobody can see more than a hundred meters in any direction, any maps you might have don't show which roads are blocked by rubble or mined by the enemy. you know the enemy is in that building over there, but cant really work out which rooms hes in. you know that 3rd company is supposed to be on your left, and you can hear the mother of all firefights over that way, but you haven't seen anyone form them, so your not totally sure that flank is safe. your radio cant reach back to HQ though all the concrete, and the last set of orders you got make no sense when you compare them with what you can see in front of you. You asked for a resupply, but it seems to have got sent to 4th company instead, while you have received a bunch of sappers who are supposed to be supporting the 25th rifles on the other side of the city.

in essence, you have no idea what the "big picture" is, just what's happening in your immediate line of sight. your concern is how to get over that street, or to clear the next room.

if your looking for first hand accounts, try memoirs of Stalingrad, or the city fighting in berlin. .

Mr. Mask
2016-03-10, 10:07 PM
@LeSwordfish: Minute to minute?

Indoors: Traps, Melee, Grenades
Well, melee weapons are the most useful in environments like that (specifically indoor fighting), also grenades. So, if you dive into a building to get cover from artillery or gunmen, you might expect to see enemies with bayonets or swords or chair legs or whatever who will attack before you (or they) have time to draw or point a gun. That is, if you don't just hear a grenade bounce through a doorway and come to a stop in front of you. Or you might open a door only to pull the pin on a trap, normally a grenade or claymore mine which will immediately explode. You will still make use of firearms, but if melee weapons are any use normally they'll be more use here.

Every room and doorway will feel like a tense challenge. Maybe there's no one there, or cowering civilians? Or maybe there's a trap, or someone waiting behind cover to mow down anyone who comes through that door? Or maybe you'll run into an enemy patrol who was worrying about the same things when they entered this room? If you're working with a large force to clear all the buildings, this is easier, you might have support outside ready to shoot grenades through the windows upon your request, or have people watching the stairwell and all the entrances so you know no enemies are going to come in from behind you .Just having enough people to cover all of the doorways and hallways so you know you won't be flanked is nice.

Now, having a details clearing of every room would get tedious for the players, even if it is stressful in the reality. So I'd suggest something like ten rooms, with a streamlined question of, "how do you want to approach this room?" 2 to 4 of the rooms have some kind of encounter in them, but the players don't need to go into every room. Spread the rooms across as many buildings as you like, make them like little modules you can throw down anywhere with small alterations. Include stuff like a room of cowering civilians, so the players can feel bad when they decided to throw a grenade into that one without checking.


Street to Street: Cover, Windows, Rubble
Going street to street, you may desire to quickly get back inside a building. In a big city, if it hasn't been torn completely to rubble, there will just be so many windows which a sniper might shoot you from.... There's a reasonable chance someone will pop out from a street corner and shoot you, if you're not already in cover. There are alley ways, doorways, bridges, roads, rooftops, windows, piles of rubble, cars, hedges, parks, small walls, manholes, so many places an attack could come from that you just don't feel safe. For this reason, you'll want to find cover and watch your corners (all seventeen of them), reducing the number of places to watch as much as you can.

This is a lot easier if you're part of an organized army, which has kept good order in attacking or defending the city. You'll have some idea of which streets should be safe, normally you won't be attacked from behind if you're clearing the city in an orderly fashion, and in the case of defending it there are certain places you can disqualify as unlikely that the enemy has gotten anyone into that position yet, based off their movements. When attacking the city... you have to worry about traps (mines placed near some excellent cover), snipers, ambushes, or just running into the enemy who were running to somewhere themselves.

In short, even crossing the street is dangerous (Full Metal Jacket had a good example of this, with the sniper), so you'll want to move between cover quickly and carefully.

I'd suggest giving the players an objective they're trying to reach, so they don't need to hunt down and kill every patrol and every sniper. Work out some cover and a few different paths they could take, so correct identification of lines of sight and cover allows them to see which paths might allow them to get to their objective by the safest means. Make it that if they go through the open, they will regret it! Force them to move carefully form building to building, from cover to cover.

You could also have perception checks based off their choices. If they go through the middle of the street, there are so many firing angles on their position that there's little chance of spotting their attacker. If they take a trip down an alley with only one window facing it, then the perception check to notice the sniper there is easy (fighting them, while going down a perfect choke-point... is anything but). You might allow them to take their time scouting the path ahead, where they get to make a second perception check. Dawdling would have its own penalties: An armoured vehicle might turn up if you're hanging about, or if your cover wasn't great then someone might have been arranging an attack on you while you were hanging there (they may start with mortars), or you just might have missed a chance to go forward unopposed (sometimes not finding anything is a good thing).

Something I should mention, is that melee weapons are also handy in street fighting. Sometimes you'll come around a corner, and an enemy will be right in front of you--so you bayonet them.



Hope this helps , Swordfish. Let us know if you have any further questions.



Clistenes: These are fair points. To give them a little credit, they did have quite a fearsome reputation near the height of their power. It was said that the sight of a line of Spartan shields was terrifying in itself. They were also skilled soldiers and warriors, they sometimes sent one Spartan to train local forces rather than send a whole force. And while they weren't known for major historical wars, they did regularly raid neighbouring Greeks frequently, and agreed to not raid them for a while in exchange for some Spartan prisoners. That case also attests to how feared the Spartans were, as the news that a force of Spartans surrendered had such a large effect on Athens that they began to aggressively raid Spartan territory.

You may well be better read on these details, and might be able to show it wasn't as impressive as the generalities make them sound. As you said, they were a tough people, even if too few to be effectively warlike, and even if rather insanely brutal.

For working out the details of raising your own soldiers from birth, they're probably still worth studying and possibly employing some of their methods. Like, turning your kids into the wild? That seems way too dangerous and too low on returns. But extrapolating that to advanced outdoor training, children spending extended periods in the wild with older boys and adult teachers? That sounds like you could get most of the toughness with a much higher return of living kids.

The lashing seems to indicate just how tough the Spartan kids were, as some boys are accounted to have mocked their lashers to hit them more and harder, to show their bravery. If you can get the boys from the time they're children to say, "Ha! you lash like a girl!" when whipped, then as far as toughness is concerned it seems to be going well. Intelligence and physical development, I would say, are more pressing concerns.

Snark Knight
2016-03-11, 01:28 AM
With respect to the Spartans, another issue with their warrior culture was that it failed, utterly, to adapt to new tactics. When the Theban general Epanimosodas (I think I spelled that correctly) bolstered the left flank of his phalanx to a ludicrous degree then staggered his formation to send that left flank in first, the Spartan formation reeled. With the beaten remnants of the Spartan right crashed into their comrades, it drove the left directly into a cavalry unit. The Spartan phalanx collapsed, and the Theban carried the day.
There was also another incident, whose name escapes me, wherein an opposing Greek force decided to send light skirmishers against the Spartan Hoplites. Using their superior mobility, the skirmishers would outmanuever the Spartans, inflict painful or aggravating wounds, and fade away into the terrain. Unable to counter the hit-and-run tactics, the Spartan force arrived at the battlefield reduced in strength and with flagging morale.
I believe that such intensive, brutal war training at such a young age effectively beat the creativity out of the Spartan youth. Without that creativity, once their heavy-armored Hoplite phalanx tactics were countered and neutralized, it was only a matter of time before they lost their edge, as we've seen.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-11, 02:07 AM
I'd be hesitant to blame lack of tactical adaptation to their upbringing. You see a lot of this across a lot of cultures, often for dissimilar reasons. For example, if your economy is ill suited for horses, you are not going to produce effective skirmishers. For whatever reason, the Romans had pretty limited interest in cavalry, making heavy use of their auxiliaries for such. This really showed when they were fighting cavalry-heavy nations, where they sometimes got hit pretty hard. Despite that, I'd say the Romans were extremely adaptive in many aspects, they ripped off Carthaginian ships immediately when one washed up ashore, and have at least three major war doctrines to their name (more if you count the Byzantines). But, for some reason, horses weren't there thing until the Eastern Roman Empire got to liking them (probably from the influence of its neighbours).

We also have to consider whether, though annoying, the skirmishing forces that hit the Spartans were actually superior, or if there'd be economic or war issues that would make it worse for them in adoption (or their inability to adopt it and restructure their military would cause it to be). Not saying that is the case, it well could be, as the Spartans did complain about archers being womanly and such.




On that note, anyone know of some interesting attempts at restructuring an army that went badly or was ridiculed from the start? The best I can think of presently is the air rifles used by the Austrian army for a while.

Clistenes
2016-03-11, 07:08 AM
But, for some reason, horses weren't there thing until the Eastern Roman Empire got to liking them (probably from the influence of its neighbours).

Same reason most Greek city states didn't have good cavalry during the classical period. The roman army originally was made of drafted citizens who had to provide their own weapons and armor. The rich ones fought as cavalry, using their own horses (hence the"equites" social class). Since few people could afford to keep horses, they had little cavalry, and those they had weren't professional soldiers, but wealthy men who spent little time training to fight on horseback.

After Marius, their army was a professional one, but they didn't change their equipment too much for the next couple centuries or so. They had something that worked very well, so, why bother to change it? And creating good cavalry was expensive, way more expensive than training foot soldiers.

Eventually they changed and adapted their tactics, and created good Persian style cavalry.

Storm Bringer
2016-03-11, 04:01 PM
on the cavalry thing, Note that both Central Italy and Classical Greece were rather hilly places that were not that suitable for the employment of cavalry. the romans tended to rely on allies or auxiliaries for cavalry (be they other Italian subject states, or auxiliaries for Gaul, Numidia or other horse peoples).

Brother Oni
2016-03-11, 05:09 PM
if not a terrible inconvenience, i would appreciate that.

Looking it up, a fair bit of modern work has been done on rice storage and I see no reason why their findings aren't applicable to pre-Meiji Japan.

Rice when stored at low humidity (<65%RH) and low moisture content (<18%) will essentially keep indefinitely. The problem is, pre-modern era, it was impossible to store it at low humidity for long if you wanted to get access regularly, with fungal growth and insect/rats/other vermin ingress being a major issue. The Japanese used to store it in sacks for bulk storage in specialised storehouses called kura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura_%28storehouse%29), with special wooden lidded casks (ki-oke) for home use.

Note the small windows and entrances/exits of the kura to minimise drafts and hence moisture ingress from the rain and humidity. Some are built elevated on stilts or stands, to help prevent insect and other vermin getting in.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Nihonbashi_bridge_in_Edo.jpg

Ki-oke haven't changed much in style in the ~700 years they've been around:
http://ideasgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/KI-OKE-stool-Shuji-Nakagawa-japanese-Craftman-017.jpg
TED talk on ki-oke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7RIy2kmVI).

Essentially they stacked the rice such that the outer layer would intentionally go bad, but it would help preserve the inner bags, prolonging their storage. This paper (link (http://spiru.cgahr.ksu.edu/proj/iwcspp/pdf2/6/706.pdf)) indicates that when exposed to 88% RH at 25C, wet rough rice will be significantly affected after only 5 days (~20% discolouration due to presumably fungal growth) with 80% discoloured after 10 days. This has an effect on milling yields (down from ~69% to ~64% after only 10 days, all the way down to ~57% after 30 days) and the fungi counts are just plain scary.

So keep it fairly dry and it'll be fine for at least a month, if not longer. Once it starts getting wet, it doesn't last long.

Japan's rainy season is March to October (between 60-80 %RH, so even if you keep it dry, you'll get moisture ingress anyway) and it gets very hot in the summer (it somewhere in the high 30s C the last time I was there).

Mr. Mask
2016-03-12, 02:47 AM
Clistnes&Storm: This brings to mind how there's a difference between having lots of wealth and having usable wealth. In game terms, you might have have millions of florins worth of production, but because so much of it is privately owned you can't just spend it on whatever. You could try making a law that everyone must come to war with a list of equipment, as many places did ordain.

Clistenes
2016-03-12, 07:14 AM
Clistnes&Storm: This brings to mind how there's a difference between having lots of wealth and having usable wealth. In game terms, you might have have millions of florins worth of production, but because so much of it is privately owned you can't just spend it on whatever. You could try making a law that everyone must come to war with a list of equipment, as many places did ordain.

Well, it was made in Rome and many greek city-states. If you were richer, you had more privileges, but you had to provide more expensive equipment when you were called to arms. The assumption was, "since you are richer not only you can afford more expensive equipment, but you also will fight harder because you have more to lose".

In some kingdoms of medieval Spain they had the "knights of wealth". Everybody who was wealthy enough had to keep a warhorse, armor and weapons and be ready to fight if the kingdom was invaded, OR pay a tax so the king could hire mercenaries.

The problem with those kind of laws is, I would probably have the same duties as Bill Gates, despite I would be just wealthy enough to keep the horse, and Bill Gates being rich enough to keep an army bigger than most countries'. That's one of the reasons modern taxation and professional armies are more efficient.

Carl
2016-03-12, 11:49 AM
Completly off topic but i lol'd when i realised this: @Clistenes: is your avatar deliberately supposed to be referencing your poster rank or is that merely a lolzy coincidence?

eru001
2016-03-12, 11:58 AM
A question about shields. Why did they fall out of favor in the late medieval period. I get that armor had improved significantly but to my mind it doesn't seem like that would make a shield less useful. Especially if I'm going up against an opponent armed with say a crossbow or a melee weapon designed specifically for the purpose of killing someone wearing plate, the idea of having an extra layer of metal between their weapon and my squishy bits seem to me to be a rather attractive option.

Gnoman
2016-03-12, 12:37 PM
To put it simply, a shield that offered enough protection to matter against such weaponry was too heavy, and one that was lighter was more trouble than it was worth.

Clistenes
2016-03-12, 01:02 PM
Completly off topic but i lol'd when i realised this: @Clistenes: is your avatar deliberately supposed to be referencing your poster rank or is that merely a lolzy coincidence?

Coincidence.

snowblizz
2016-03-12, 04:41 PM
A question about shields. Why did they fall out of favor in the late medieval period. I get that armor had improved significantly but to my mind it doesn't seem like that would make a shield less useful. Especially if I'm going up against an opponent armed with say a crossbow or a melee weapon designed specifically for the purpose of killing someone wearing plate, the idea of having an extra layer of metal between their weapon and my squishy bits seem to me to be a rather attractive option.
You may have slightly more protection, but you also do not have a weapon with which to defeat your opponent. What you gain in defence you lose several times over in lack of offence. The shield means you are not using a double handed weapon as easily as your opponent does, and anything that goes through your plate will go through your shield too.

Also, shields were not made out of metal until at the tail end of medieaval, and were quite small in comparison due to being heavy.



The problem with those kind of laws is, I would probably have the same duties as Bill Gates, despite I would be just wealthy enough to keep the horse, and Bill Gates being rich enough to keep an army bigger than most countries'. That's one of the reasons modern taxation and professional armies are more efficient.
There was more than one level usually. Bill Gates may be required to bring a company while you get away with yourself and horse. The actual main drawback is that Bill Gates has a company so can bully you around. And if you are king having lots of Bill Gateses doesn't lead to a stable rule for you (because wealth was almost always land, and land is finite).

Clistenes
2016-03-12, 05:17 PM
There was more than one level usually. Bill Gates may be required to bring a company while you get away with yourself and horse. The actual main drawback is that Bill Gates has a company so can bully you around. And if you are king having lots of Bill Gateses doesn't lead to a stable rule for you (because wealth was almost always land, and land is finite).

That would be true if Bill Gates were a feudal lord in Medieval Europe, but not if he were a rich man in Rome, or a wealthy merchant in say, Medieval Spain or France.

Roman Bill Gates would probably contribute to equip the soldiers for the PR if he intended to get into politics, but it would a voluntary contribution, not a mandatory one.

Medieval Wealthy Merchant Bill Gates would pay taxes to the cities, to the local lords and to the crown for stuff like the number of windows and chimneys his houses had, how many ships and shops he owned, the right to use the bridges or to bring merchandise into the cities, and the cities, lords and the crown would spend some of that money in their armies, but he wouldn't be under any obligation to provide troops himself.

Tobtor
2016-03-13, 02:39 AM
That would be true if Bill Gates were a feudal lord in Medieval Europe, but not if he were a rich man in Rome, or a wealthy merchant in say, Medieval Spain or France.

Roman Bill Gates would probably contribute to equip the soldiers for the PR if he intended to get into politics, but it would a voluntary contribution, not a mandatory one.

Medieval Wealthy Merchant Bill Gates would pay taxes to the cities, to the local lords and to the crown for stuff like the number of windows and chimneys his houses had, how many ships and shops he owned, the right to use the bridges or to bring merchandise into the cities, and the cities, lords and the crown would spend some of that money in their armies, but he wouldn't be under any obligation to provide troops himself.

In mediaeval cities that depends on time and place. In many areas the merchants was obligated to provide soldiers to the city militia (and the city militia was a highly professional army), in the city were he is a citizen. At least for most cities and most periods I look at. Possible it is different in England in the late period, I don't know. But Northern/Central Europe they would.Also in the early and mid period England do not have exceptions for very rich men.

That said, the punishment for not showing up could for some people (period, place etc migh affect this) be a monetary fine. In some cases both richer peasants and city-dwellers could easily afford the fine for lack of military service (mainly relevant for territorial towns I think, I let G expand on others if he so wishes). Many taxes actually started out as fines. A "leding" tax was used in Denmark until the 18th century I think, it originated out of the fine for not showing up for military service in the 13th century. At some point the peasant decided they would rather farm their fields and pay the fine than go to war, and the king would rather have the money for mercenaries anyway so he didn't increase the fine (or at least to to a degree were the peasant preferred to actually show up).

The same thing happens in many periods with work provided for the feudal lord: it was often bypassed by paying a fine, I have looked at 18th century manor-records were some peasants failed to show up every year for at least 8-10 years, and just paid the fine. Similar things happened in various places during the medieval period, sometimes the work was transferred to a monetary payment at some point, but it usually starts out as fines being paid every year.

fusilier
2016-03-13, 02:53 AM
In mediaeval cities that depends on time and place. In many areas the merchants was obligated to provide soldiers to the city militia (and the city militia was a highly professional army), in the city were he is a citizen. At least for most cities and most periods I look at. Possible it is different in England in the late period, I don't know. But Northern/Central Europe they would.Also in the early and mid period England do not have exceptions for very rich men.

That said, the punishment for not showing up could for some people (period, place etc migh affect this) be a monetary fine. In some cases both richer peasants and city-dwellers could easily afford the fine for lack of military service (mainly relevant for territorial towns I think, I let G expand on others if he so wishes). Many taxes actually started out as fines. A "leding" tax was used in Denmark until the 18th century I think, it originated out of the fine for not showing up for military service in the 13th century. At some point the peasant decided they would rather farm their fields and pay the fine than go to war, and the king would rather have the money for mercenaries anyway so he didn't increase the fine (or at least to to a degree were the peasant preferred to actually show up).

The same thing happens in many periods with work provided for the feudal lord: it was often bypassed by paying a fine, I have looked at 18th century manor-records were some peasants failed to show up every year for at least 8-10 years, and just paid the fine. Similar things happened in various places during the medieval period, sometimes the work was transferred to a monetary payment at some point, but it usually starts out as fines being paid every year.

Often times the fine was used to hire a replacement. This is how militia were gradually supplanted by mercenaries in Italy. A similar thing for laborers; in the early days of the United States, citizens who lived along national roads were obligated to perform a certain number of days maintenance on the road. Fines for not showing were applied to hire a replacement -- eventually the foremen preferred experienced laborers to average citizens, and taxes were used instead.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-13, 04:55 AM
Is controlling characters and having them make decisions in combat realistic? Someone was of the opinion that everything is reflex to an extreme, that any control you have over the character might realistically be restricted to run or fight, with no details as to how you do either.

Mike_G
2016-03-13, 08:49 AM
Is controlling characters and having them make decisions in combat realistic? Someone was of the opinion that everything is reflex to an extreme, that any control you have over the character might realistically be restricted to run or fight, with no details as to how you do either.

I'm going to disagree with whomever said that. You make decisions in combat.

Training can make plenty of those seem automatic or reflexive, and in the absence of any training, people may just give in to instinct and adrenaline, but the idea that you don't actually think and decide after contact is simply wrong.

Incanur
2016-03-13, 09:26 AM
A question about shields. Why did they fall out of favor in the late medieval period. I get that armor had improved significantly but to my mind it doesn't seem like that would make a shield less useful. Especially if I'm going up against an opponent armed with say a crossbow or a melee weapon designed specifically for the purpose of killing someone wearing plate, the idea of having an extra layer of metal between their weapon and my squishy bits seem to me to be a rather attractive option.

It's hard to say exactly. For infantry, I think the biggest reason was that troops who needed two hands to wield their weapons became prevalent. While a soldier can use a shield in conjunction with a pike and some units did this, it's somewhat awkward and the iconic Swiss style rarely if ever involved a shield. Using shield and halberd together would be even more cumbersome and impractical. Crossbowers, archers, and gunners likewise need two hands to shoot and load. With piker, halberdier, and crossbower/archer/gunner as the most common unit types for battles in the field, the shield necessarily assumed a minority position. Targetiers, troops armed with sword and shield, still saw a fair amount use in the 15th and 16th centuries, so the shield didn't completely fall out of favor for infantry during this period. When it came to assaulting fortification, various 16th-century military writers recommended the shield. In reasonably open terrain, targetiers had serious trouble against cavalry. I tend to think halberdiers had advantages over targetiers against both infantry and cavalry, though period writers went both ways in this regard and targetiers certainly did better in certain situations. In any case, armored targetiers had more weight to bear than armored halberdiers, so that perhaps reduced the shield's popularity. Overall, I suspect style as much as anything accounted for the relative predominance of halberdiers over targetiers in Western European armies. The Swiss used the halberd and they won a lot, so imitators did the same. In the later 16th century, Western European armies tend toward fewer and fewer soldiers with short (nonpike) weapons, so both halberdiers and targetiers saw less use.

For 15th/16th-century men-at-arms, the standard line that the shield was an unnecessary encumbrance gets to the heart of the matter. Riders dressed from head to toe in tempered steel were nearly invulnerable to nongunpowder personal weapons, so a shield was just added weight for little benefit. Some men-at-arms did continue to use small shields, and some lighter cavalry used shields of various sizes.

Weight was a key factor, because soldiers disliked bearing more weight than they had to. While in theory one could load up soldiers with kit, this required discipline and training, and even then probably reduced strategic mobility. Experienced 16th-century commander Raimond de Fourquevaux wanted pikers to wear three-quarters harness with mail hose and carry a shield on their backs to use in the melee when they drew their swords. For a pitched battle that's great, but on the march? Yikes. It was doable in period, but not necessarily worth the trouble.

Mr Beer
2016-03-13, 05:58 PM
Is controlling characters and having them make decisions in combat realistic? Someone was of the opinion that everything is reflex to an extreme, that any control you have over the character might realistically be restricted to run or fight, with no details as to how you do either.

Sounds like a recipe for the world's most boring game, plus as mentioned above, people do make decisions in combat.

It is reasonable to have rules for characters who are completely inexperienced with fighting or have personality traits that are suboptimal in a fight e.g. cowardice, gore induces physical weakness etc. So you could model reality by forcing them to make rolls in order to make decisions.

Berenger
2016-03-13, 06:16 PM
Is controlling characters and having them make decisions in combat realistic? Someone was of the opinion that everything is reflex to an extreme, that any control you have over the character might realistically be restricted to run or fight, with no details as to how you do either.

If this is is case, what is the job of an officer during battle?

Yelling "Attack! Attack... Retreat! Retreat!" really loud?

Mr Beer
2016-03-13, 07:28 PM
If this is is case, what is the job of an officer during battle?

Yelling "Attack! Attack... Retreat! Retreat!" really loud?

Shouting 'arrrgh! aarrggh!' loudly, while clutching their temples and running around in small circles.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-13, 08:05 PM
Thanks for the replies, guys.


I'm going to disagree with whomever said that. You make decisions in combat.

Training can make plenty of those seem automatic or reflexive, and in the absence of any training, people may just give in to instinct and adrenaline, but the idea that you don't actually think and decide after contact is simply wrong. He ended up agreeing that you make undetailed decisions. As in, you don't think, "I will make a diagonal cut from the left towards his abdomen, curving the cut so that it instead strikes his exposed leg." You think, "leg is open!" or just, "leg!".

Of course, I'm of the opinion that the linguistic side of things is pretty absent in conflict. Babies can think about stuff and do it before they learn the words to describe it, and in combat your mind isn't worried about putting a verbal descriptor on your actions. So, while you're thinking, "leg!", verbally, you're actually receiving, calculating, and producing a lot more information than that. You're noticing where your opponent's sword is, their stance leaving their leg open, you're keeping track of your past exchanges for notes on what kind of feint you think will work best, and you make a decision about how to make the cut based off the circumstances (and that has a lot to do with what is actually open to your attack).

Another way to put it, is thinking in combat is a bit like this: http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Fast-talking_Jimmy.jpg If you don't freeze up or panic, you may well think those things, but you won't think them in words. The words that'll come to mind will be something more like, "That is bad".


Sounds like a recipe for the world's most boring game, plus as mentioned above, people do make decisions in combat.

It is reasonable to have rules for characters who are completely inexperienced with fighting or have personality traits that are suboptimal in a fight e.g. cowardice, gore induces physical weakness etc. So you could model reality by forcing them to make rolls in order to make decisions. I agree with this. While you can think during combat consciously, there are circumstances where you can fall entirely to (not necessarily useful) instinct. And I tend to feel someone operating only on instinct will not fight as well as someone who is consciously involved. That's normally when you end up trying to shoot people with your jammed gun, or do something else unproductive.

Of course, I think you can do reasonably well on a momentary basis with instinct. Some people have drawn and fired on snakes before they even consciously noticed them. But while that seems cool, and could act like a bonus to initiative, you wouldn't want to fight a battle in that state. The people who shot the snakes mentioned they could have easily shot off their own feet.


If this is is case, what is the job of an officer during battle?

Yelling "Attack! Attack... Retreat! Retreat!" really loud? Admittedly, some officers probably were about that useful, there to swing at anyone who wasn't attacking. But I'd say that's more to do with them not being useful in those positions (due to lack of ability, or just a FUBAR situation).


Shouting 'arrrgh! aarrggh!' loudly, while clutching their temples and running around in small circles. He would've said the officer's commands would depend on their conditioning, where they'll tell men to get to cover or take whatever positions if they've been drilled to react to those situations. But as mentioned above, he mentioned there is a conscious decision about which reflexes you use. In the case of officers, I think they're the ones who have to force some of the more complicated conscious responses to circumstances during combat.

Incanur
2016-03-13, 08:59 PM
It is reasonable to have rules for characters who are completely inexperienced with fighting or have personality traits that are suboptimal in a fight e.g. cowardice, gore induces physical weakness etc. So you could model reality by forcing them to make rolls in order to make decisions.

More realistically, nearly anybody other than experienced soldiers and/or the highly motivated should have a meaningful chance of succumbing to fear to some extent in combat. Certain RPGs do model morale, especially for NPCs/monsters. This can be a good way to show the importance of inspiring leaders in combat. Forcing PCs to make such checks, however, isn't necessarily much fun, and isn't even appropriate if they're superhuman heroes. A gritty game where the PCs are just mudanes might want regular morale checks of some sort.

Mr Beer
2016-03-14, 12:43 AM
More realistically, nearly anybody other than experienced soldiers and/or the highly motivated should have a meaningful chance of succumbing to fear to some extent in combat. Certain RPGs do model morale, especially for NPCs/monsters. This can be a good way to show the importance of inspiring leaders in combat. Forcing PCs to make such checks, however, isn't necessarily much fun, and isn't even appropriate if they're superhuman heroes. A gritty game where the PCs are just mudanes might want regular morale checks of some sort.

Yeah, in a gritty game, a group of normal folk would be quickly easily killed by a smaller number of thugs who were actively trying to murder them. I imagine that it's highly unusual for a normal person to immediately retaliate with extreme violence, let along do so in a tactically aware manner.

Brother Oni
2016-03-14, 03:20 AM
Roman Bill Gates would probably contribute to equip the soldiers for the PR if he intended to get into politics, but it would a voluntary contribution, not a mandatory one.

Example, Crassus (Marcus Licinius Crassus) who was rich enough to raise several legions.


Sounds like a recipe for the world's most boring game, plus as mentioned above, people do make decisions in combat.

Which was one of the criticisms levelled at FF12's Gambit system where with a good set of AI commands, your AI team mates often killed enemies without you realising you'd aggro'd them in the first place until the post-battle rewards popped up on screen.


A gritty game where the PCs are just mudanes might want regular morale checks of some sort.

Aside from Call of Cthuhlu (the Sanity system does sort of fulfil the same function), I can't think of many games that does that to the players in the base game, since taking player agency away doesn't make for a fun game as you've said.

GraaEminense
2016-03-14, 04:39 AM
WFRP does (or did, don't know about 3rd) have basic Fear rules -some monsters are scary, and you must pass a test or run away for a while. The idea is sound, but the execution is kinda bad to be honest. Also, they lack morale tests for more mundane threats... but the rules are lethal enough that most players self-regulate.

As for how combat works... while the actual exchange of blows may or may not be based on reflexes, combat still has goals that require actual mental effort beyond "hack, parry, slash, dodge":Do you need to take anyone alive? Is anyone moving to flank you? Should you get to a place where they can't use superior numbers effectively? Are your friends winning and you can afford to be careful, or are you running out of time and need to gamble? Who is the greater threat to you right now -and can you take him out?

Most games treat the actual stabbing part with a fair amount of streamlining and stat-focus over decision-making. That's fair enough, but there should be plenty room for tactics as well (and most games don't do that very well, because it's complex).

In a recent session (WFRP2) we were fighting bad guys in a narrow alley, and had them flanked and fighting back-to-back. Kudos to my GM for allowing me rolls to shield-push past my opponent to stab his friend in the back, the rules certainly didn't include that...

Carl
2016-03-14, 05:22 AM
Aside from Call of Cthuhlu (the Sanity system does sort of fulfil the same function), I can't think of many games that does that to the players in the base game, since taking player agency away doesn't make for a fun game as you've said.

GW's Inquisitor RPG had the concept too, had a leadership skill too.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-14, 05:33 AM
You know, one thing I was thinking was difficult about morale in games, is working out individual and group morale and their relation. If your group has really high morale, it tends to give you higher morale. But morale would still vary from individual to individual. You could potentially just average the morale between your character and the group?

Curious what your thoughts on this are.

Mike_G
2016-03-14, 07:53 AM
Morale is essential in a wargame, because a unit might break when charged, or a charge might break when fired on, and that makes a big difference.

I hate morale in an RPG. It's cumbersome, and it just plain sucks when you do the investigating and put the pieces together and when you unmask the bad guy and reach the final encounter with his demon overlord, you fail a roll and spend the climactic battle scene hugging your knees and rocking in a corner, drooling on yourself.

Maybe it's a realistic outcome, but if I wanted depressing realism I can just go apply for a loan or work at a drug rehab. If I'm playing a heroic fantasy adventure, I want a chance to have my heroics.

Carl
2016-03-14, 09:54 AM
From what i recall without double checking you had to fail a nerve test really badly in Inquisitor to have things go that bad, usually you'd be more cowering and firing semi blind shots or avoiding a specific enemy in melee or the like. It was actually a graded system if i remember right. (wanders off to double check).

EDIT: Checked: Aside from psychic powers and some unique rules it's used in 3 main ways:

If you want to aim at an enemy character who is not within 5 yards of you whilst an enemy character is within 5 yards of you, you have to pass a nerve test or snap shot at the closest character.

If you come under fire you have to pass a nerve test to avoid throwing yourself prone, (you can choose to fail this if you wish), prone does confer a number of benefits, but if you're crossing open ground at the time it may not be ideal.

Finally when fighting terrifying or fearsome characters you have to pass a test to charge them and each turn in melee combat, if you fail you take a significant penalty to your to hit chances and against terrifying characters if you fail by twice the required amount you start to run away, but passing a new test will let you stop, and since you only have to take the test under very specific circumstances you can avoid the issues if push comes to shove. Also default failure rats are pretty modest.

GraaEminense
2016-03-14, 01:36 PM
Morale is essential in a wargame, because a unit might break when charged, or a charge might break when fired on, and that makes a big difference.

I hate morale in an RPG. It's cumbersome, and it just plain sucks when you do the investigating and put the pieces together and when you unmask the bad guy and reach the final encounter with his demon overlord, you fail a roll and spend the climactic battle scene hugging your knees and rocking in a corner, drooling on yourself.

Maybe it's a realistic outcome, but if I wanted depressing realism I can just go apply for a loan or work at a drug rehab. If I'm playing a heroic fantasy adventure, I want a chance to have my heroics.
Oh, I absolutely agree -if I'm playing a heroic fantasy adventure. PC morale makes little sense in Barbarians of Lemuria or D&D. CoC and maybe even WFRP are different kettles of cod, though.

GraaEminense
2016-03-14, 01:47 PM
You know, one thing I was thinking was difficult about morale in games, is working out individual and group morale and their relation. If your group has really high morale, it tends to give you higher morale. But morale would still vary from individual to individual. You could potentially just average the morale between your character and the group?

Curious what your thoughts on this are.
If you want something like that in an RPG, you'd probably want an easy system of situational (that is, group) positive and negative modifiers to the individual's morale. If you outnumber them, +1. If they outnumber you, -1. If your allies just defeated someone, +1. If your friend is fleeing, -2. If your wizard got shanked by unseen ninjas behind the lines, -3.

So when something scary happens, you test Bravery with modifiers to see how likely you are to remain fighting.

That's for PCs or non-trivial NPCs, though. Goblin hordes should probably be treated differently: Slightly bad roll, they are more cautious. Bad roll, half the mob runs away. Really bad roll, all of them.

Roxxy
2016-03-14, 04:13 PM
On to a question. In my search for wacky old technological inventions that weren't practical, I've found stuff to use in my setting. One such thing is the tsunami bomb, general idea that you set off a lot of explosives to create a wave. IRL, it proved to be technologically possible but logistically and operationally unfeasible. My setting could easily solve the feasibility portion to create a workable and easily deployable tsunami bomb. The problem is, my setting has nukes. I can't think of a practical reason to use a giant wave bomb when I could open up cans of instant sunshine on the enemy city. Can any of you guys think of a reason a large tsunami would be preferable to a nuclear detonation?I think I got this one. Being wacky 50s and 60s tech, we have nuclear powered everything. Also the ability to survive solar flares during space travel. The reason why things like nuclear airship engines exist in my setting has a lot to do with light but effective radiation shielding, the ability to effectively treat radiation exposure, and the ability to thoroughly clean up contamination. All of this reduces the "last resort only" reputation of nuclear bombs to the point where tactical nukes can be used on military targets without fear that it will balloon into a general exhange or turn the user into an international pariah. And, while nukes remain extremely destructive weapons, radioactuve fallout isn't near as problematic long term as IRL.

Meanwhile, asteroid mining is a big thing in universe. If you can move spaceships around on an industrial scale, you can fling a kinetic rod at a planet. There's your tsunami bomb. If you get the size just right, you should be able to create a tsunami that can devastate a coastline, crippling economic and naval activity, without repeating the extinction of the dinosaurs. Should being the operative word. This is easily a weapon system capable of destroying civilization by throwing enough large rods to blanket the atmosphere with debris. Which is why nobody has ever actually used a tsunami bomb or the logical land based equivalent. The threat is there, though.

Blackhawk748
2016-03-14, 05:18 PM
I think I got this one. Being wacky 50s and 60s tech, we have nuclear powered everything. Also the ability to survive solar flares during space travel. The reason why things like nuclear airship engines exist in my setting has a lot to do with light but effective radiation shielding, the ability to effectively treat radiation exposure, and the ability to thoroughly clean up contamination. All of this reduces the "last resort only" reputation of nuclear bombs to the point where tactical nukes can be used on military targets without fear that it will balloon into a general exhange or turn the user into an international pariah. And, while nukes remain extremely destructive weapons, radioactuve fallout isn't near as problematic long term as IRL.

Meanwhile, asteroid mining is a big thing in universe. If you can move spaceships around on an industrial scale, you can fling a kinetic rod at a planet. There's your tsunami bomb. If you get the size just right, you should be able to create a tsunami that can devastate a coastline, crippling economic and naval activity, without repeating the extinction of the dinosaurs. Should being the operative word. This is easily a weapon system capable of destroying civilization by throwing enough large rods to blanket the atmosphere with debris. Which is why nobody has ever actually used a tsunami bomb or the logical land based equivalent. The threat is there, though.

So why don't they just chuck the rod at the city itself? (ala GI Joe) I mean its got all of the force of a Nuke with 0 fallout.

PersonMan
2016-03-14, 05:30 PM
So why don't they just chuck the rod at the city itself? (ala GI Joe) I mean its got all of the force of a Nuke with 0 fallout.

Style points.

No one will care if you just destroy the city, but you'll be famous forever if you do it via tsunami.

Roxxy
2016-03-14, 05:43 PM
So why don't they just chuck the rod at the city itself? (ala GI Joe) I mean its got all of the force of a Nuke with 0 fallout.

It might be that what you want to do is cripple the ports along an entire coastline with one strike, not attack any specific city. Or it might be that you bust up a line of cities with direct strikes, then drop a tsunami bomb to devastate the wreckage even worse with massive flooding (Imagine Hiroshima getting hit with a tsunami 5 minutes after the bomb fell).

Mr. Mask
2016-03-14, 11:02 PM
There is discussion about the debilitating aspects of injury in another thread. Specifically, whether wounds slow you down or impair you during combat when you receive them.

Of note is someone mentioned this piece: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/92589/Trauma
If anyone knows if it's good, I'd be interested to hear.


What are your thoughts on debilitating wounds?

Tiktakkat
2016-03-15, 12:57 AM
What are your thoughts on debilitating wounds?

They should be avoided as much as possible.

Telok
2016-03-15, 11:45 AM
Oh, I absolutely agree -if I'm playing a heroic fantasy adventure. PC morale makes little sense in Barbarians of Lemuria or D&D. CoC and maybe even WFRP are different kettles of cod, though.
As I recall CoC and WFRP were less 'morale' and more 'sanity'. So not fear of getting stabbed but 'I have gazed into the bad sushi and it has glommed onto my brain. I am the walrus. Goo goo ga joob.'

PersonMan
2016-03-15, 12:47 PM
Question: In a modern setting, how important are cities in warfare? Are they important targets because they're cities, or because they just happen to be where a large number of highways cross (or something similar)?

EDIT: Additionally, would something like an 'accidentally' started battle, that grew into something far larger, make sense? Two small forces stumble into each other due to incomplete intel on both sides, get reinforcements, and a much larger battle "grows" out of a small engagement?

Tiktakkat
2016-03-15, 01:09 PM
Question: In a modern setting, how important are cities in warfare? Are they important targets because they're cities, or because they just happen to be where a large number of highways cross (or something similar)?

That depends on respect for the modern "Laws of War".

Generally, they are vitally important because they happen to be where the majority of the population and industry are located, along with critical financial infrastructure.
Destroying them can cripple a war effort both in morale and materiel. Of course it also turn into a devastating trap, such as Stalingrad and Leningrad, as it is very difficult to run a modern battle in a heavily developed urban area.

"Legally", you aren't supposed to blow them up, making their target status uncertain.


EDIT: Additionally, would something like an 'accidentally' started battle, that grew into something far larger, make sense? Two small forces stumble into each other due to incomplete intel on both sides, get reinforcements, and a much larger battle "grows" out of a small engagement?

Easily.

PersonMan
2016-03-15, 01:15 PM
So a by-the-book fight for a city involves one side arraying itself in a defensive position around said city, then the other attacking them, and the defending side giving up or retreating at some point, going around the city and then giving it up?

I imagine gray zones emerge when military forces retreat through a city, as you have civilians surrounding valid military targets.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-15, 02:06 PM
So a by-the-book fight for a city involves one side arraying itself in a defensive position around said city, then the other attacking them, and the defending side giving up or retreating at some point, going around the city and then giving it up?

Potentially, yes.
As the Germans overran France during WWII, Paris was declared an "open city" to spare it from destruction.
The converse is of course what happened to Warsaw and Berlin when the Soviets advanced.

The problem is, since then, most city battles have been more theoretical than functional, primarily involving irregular forces versus regular forces rather than regular army versus regular army. As such, it is difficult to say what exactly would happen.
There have been some examples in Syria recently, but even that has never really hit the full on scale of WWII battles.


I imagine gray zones emerge when military forces retreat through a city, as you have civilians surrounding valid military targets.

Most people do.
The problem with most such musings is that they pretty much involve war crimes as part of the discussion, which makes getting really "gritty" difficult.
Not impossible mind you, just with lots of digressions into ". . . and then you dispose of 250K civilian bodies before the Red Cross shows up."

Khedrac
2016-03-15, 02:21 PM
EDIT: Additionally, would something like an 'accidentally' started battle, that grew into something far larger, make sense? Two small forces stumble into each other due to incomplete intel on both sides, get reinforcements, and a much larger battle "grows" out of a small engagement?
This doesn't need to be accidental. Pretty much any conflict which does not rapidly have a result will have both sides funneling reinforcements into it, and will thus grow.
One of the main aims will be to get your reinforcements in first to generate a result for your side.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-15, 02:35 PM
What are your thoughts on debilitating wounds?

That thanks to tv/movies/books most people don't realize how debilitating most wounds can really be.

Also thumbs up for Tiktakkat

warty goblin
2016-03-15, 02:43 PM
Question: In a modern setting, how important are cities in warfare? Are they important targets because they're cities, or because they just happen to be where a large number of highways cross (or something similar)?

EDIT: Additionally, would something like an 'accidentally' started battle, that grew into something far larger, make sense? Two small forces stumble into each other due to incomplete intel on both sides, get reinforcements, and a much larger battle "grows" out of a small engagement?

David Killcullen wrote a book a couple years ago about urban guerrilla warfare, Down from the Mountains, which is probably worth a look. It was admittedly focused on irregular warfare, simply because actual direct warfare between states is probably not going to be the dominant form of warfare for the forseeable future, but even if you're mostly interested in more conventional warfare it's probably got some interesting stuff in it.

Mike_G
2016-03-15, 02:47 PM
There is discussion about the debilitating aspects of injury in another thread. Specifically, whether wounds slow you down or impair you during combat when you receive them.

Of note is someone mentioned this piece: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/92589/Trauma
If anyone knows if it's good, I'd be interested to hear.


What are your thoughts on debilitating wounds?

This is really hard to quantify. Plenty of wounds that aren't going to be fatal can be disabling, and some wounds don't slow people down at all until they bleed out.

I have literally tracked a stabbing victim up three flights of stairs following the bloody handprints on the walls and doorknobs while working as a medic in a very high crime city, and we had to restrain him to treat him and get him to the hospital. He was found to have a lacerated spleen and needed surgery and blood transfusions to save him.

Now, in game terms, I don't think he was very disadvantaged. He could still run and fight. But he had a limited window before he passed out and died from blood loss.

On the other hand, you generally don't die from a broken ankle, but you probably won't win many swordfights or footraces.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-15, 02:56 PM
On the other hand, you generally don't die from a broken ankle, but you probably won't win many swordfights or footraces.

Unless you're one of those crazy people who thinks it's just a little tweaked.

Well ok not crazy, but I've come across people who had broken ankles who thought it was just a little sprain or something, and weren't the worse for ware, other than it later swelling up like a watermelon and they realized they just made a mistake to keep keeping on with that!

The guy you had to trail though, he sounds pretty metal. When people do that is it just a huge dose of adrenaline? (sort of like when people lift something they usually shouldn't be able to and crack up their bones with the strain) Or is it just higher pain tolerances in some people (or a combination)

Mike_G
2016-03-15, 03:06 PM
Unless you're one of those crazy people who thinks it's just a little tweaked.

Well ok not crazy, but I've come across people who had broken ankles who thought it was just a little sprain or something, and weren't the worse for ware, other than it later swelling up like a watermelon and they realized they just made a mistake to keep keeping on with that!


Depends on the break. If the bone is fractured, but not in pieces, just cracked, then yeah, you can walk on it and play through the pain. You'll probably make it worse, but better than getting killed if you don't fight or run away. But if the ends of the bone aren't even talking to one another, I don't care how big your brass ones are, it won't hold you up.



The guy you had to trail though, he sounds pretty metal. When people do that is it just a huge dose of adrenaline? (sort of like when people lift something they usually shouldn't be able to and crack up their bones with the strain) Or is it just higher pain tolerances in some people (or a combination)

Humans don't have very many pain receptors in side our bodies, so it probably didn't hurt as much as, say, slicing open a hand. Adrenalin does act as an analgesic, so people sometimes get cut and don't even realize until the crisis passes.

I got a fairly deep cut on my hand, and thought I'd just banged it until I looked down and saw the bleeding minutes later.

I was busy.

So, structural damage is harder to ignore, because broken bones and severed muscles just don't work. Like a cut rope or snapped column.

Pain is much more subjective, and you can work around it with training or drugs or just plain endorphens.

Gnoman
2016-03-15, 05:49 PM
Question: In a modern setting, how important are cities in warfare? Are they important targets because they're cities, or because they just happen to be where a large number of highways cross (or something similar)?

EDIT: Additionally, would something like an 'accidentally' started battle, that grew into something far larger, make sense? Two small forces stumble into each other due to incomplete intel on both sides, get reinforcements, and a much larger battle "grows" out of a small engagement?

In the first part, cities are vital. That's where everything is made, where your labor pool lives, and where all your logistics hubs are.

In the second part, you're describing a "meeting engagement". One of the most famous examples of this is Gettysburg, where a small Union cavalry squadron encounters the leading elements of a Confederate infantry force that had been planning on scouring the small town for shoes. Three days later, it had become the bloodiest battle of the war, and is often credited with breaking the back of the Army Of Northern Virginia, which was never able to mount another large scale offensive.


So a by-the-book fight for a city involves one side arraying itself in a defensive position around said city, then the other attacking them, and the defending side giving up or retreating at some point, going around the city and then giving it up?

I imagine gray zones emerge when military forces retreat through a city, as you have civilians surrounding valid military targets.

There's no grey area in international law. The Hague convention explicitly forbids firing on an undefended town or habitation. If you're aiming at a legitimate target and miss, it's not a violation. If a military chooses to fight from a city, it's no longer undefended and thus is not protected. If you attempt to use civilians as a shield (this is distinct from choosing to fight in a city - if you're attempting to evacuate the civilian populace or making good faith efforts to render yourself distinct from same, you aren't in violation), you are the war criminal, not the people shooting back at you.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-15, 11:27 PM
Depends on the break. If the bone is fractured, but not in pieces, just cracked, then yeah, you can walk on it and play through the pain. You'll probably make it worse, but better than getting killed if you don't fight or run away. But if the ends of the bone aren't even talking to one another, I don't care how big your brass ones are, it won't hold you up.

Pretty much.
I fractured my 5th metatarsal of my right foot. I felt just "ordinary" pain that night. The next day I was in agony.


Pain is much more subjective, and you can work around it with training or drugs or just plain endorphens.

Been there, done that.
And teach the interactions as a core principle.

Of course as my teacher's teacher said:
"I'd rather be known as the guy who can give a punch than the guy who can take a punch."

PersonMan
2016-03-16, 07:33 AM
Related to the former question: What sort of strategies, beyond retreating out of non-vital areas and trying to make the front as small as possible, would a force running low on manpower and materiel utilize to keep fighting as long as possible?

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-16, 08:17 AM
They might withdraw their troops to pre-prepared defensive positions until they can build up their strength again (possibly destroying everything on the way so their enemies have to extend their supply lines), or they might use guerilla or insurgent tactics, or press everyone in the population into military service and equip them with anything they can get their hands on. Depends on the situation - even a ceasefire brokered by a third party might be acceptable if it gives time to rearm, despite any conditions that might be imposed.

And if there's no other option, they might use WMDs and deal with the consequences later. :smallfrown:

MrZJunior
2016-03-16, 08:44 AM
Do like the Germans in ww1 and try to clean up extra fronts/try to end the war as quickly as possible.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-16, 12:44 PM
It seemed more like the guy would still hurt a lot from the stab but I guess not. I didn't know that internal injuries hurt less. Would you consider what that guy did as fairly normal, and anyone could do if they were so inclined? Or was he more of an outlier?

The only broken bone I've personally experienced was definitely a non-walker. The damage was a bit above the ankle. I'm not sure on the details other than that they were concerned it would effect my growth and put me in a full leg cast. The second I stood on it I fell back down. (Was hit by a car, did a shoulder roll, and when I came back onto my feet the leg said EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)

I probably have a really low pain tolerance, cause I got hit again a few years ago. Nothing broke or tore or whatever (I think because I was on a bike, and I relaxed when I knew there was no avoiding being hit), but several hours later my whole body just hurt. I didn't think I'd need the pain killers the ER gave me, but boy was I wrong. (then again I've fallen down a flight of stairs once and belly flopped onto the bottom, and wasn't the worse for wear or sore either so maybe I'm just made of rubber half the time...)

Incanur
2016-03-16, 01:58 PM
Folks commonly remain active for 10 seconds to 10+ minutes after even stabbing injuries to the heart. (Studies show the rate of immediate incapacitation at 14-62%. Few folks involved, but still notable.) See The Dubious Quick (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php) and part 2 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php), as posted in the other thread. Thrusts to the belly and through the lungs typically take longer still to incapacitate.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-16, 02:12 PM
I probably have a really low pain tolerance, cause I got hit again a few years ago. Nothing broke or tore or whatever (I think because I was on a bike, and I relaxed when I knew there was no avoiding being hit), but several hours later my whole body just hurt. I didn't think I'd need the pain killers the ER gave me, but boy was I wrong. (then again I've fallen down a flight of stairs once and belly flopped onto the bottom, and wasn't the worse for wear or sore either so maybe I'm just made of rubber half the time...)

Pain tolerance is composed of two elements:
1. The point at which your body "acknowledges" that something is painful
2. The degree to which your mind reacts to your body acknowledging that something is painful

Just because something "hurts" doesn't mean you "have to" react to it hurting. That was the quip in the scene from Lawrence of Arabia featured in Prometheus - "The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts."
Ignoring the pain doesn't change that you are injured, possibly dying, it just means you don't wince, limp, cry, or faint.

You can get drugs that raise the point at which your body "acknowledges" that something is painful.
You can use other drugs to mask or alleviate elements of pain.
Your system can pump you full of adrenaline and endorphins so you don't notice that something is painful.
You can discipline your mind to ignore pain.

However the injury will still be there, and you may wind up dying spontaneously despite feeling "fine" right up until the point that your heart gives out from the stress or blood loss.

Mike_G
2016-03-16, 04:49 PM
Folks commonly remain active for 10 seconds to 10+ minutes after even stabbing injuries to the heart. (Studies show the rate of immediate incapacitation at 14-62%. Few folks involved, but still notable.) See The Dubious Quick (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php) and part 2 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php), as posted in the other thread. Thrusts to the belly and through the lungs typically take longer still to incapacitate.

Exactly.

This is one reason smallsword duels often resulted in both parties being killed or badly injured. A narrow blade, thrust into you chest or abdomen might not drop you very fast. But it has a very high lethality from blood loss (mostly internal, which is hard to treat, short of surgery) organ damage or infection.

Getting slashed with a sabre might give you a more survivable injury as it's unlikely to be as deep where the organs and great vessels are, and bones protect your organs. Much easier to slip a point between the ribs than to hack through them.

But if that cut severs the muscles in your sword arm, or a leg, you will be much less able to fight. A wide, shallow wound tends to hurt more as well, since it exposes more nerves to the air, and you have more nerves near the surface. It's important to feel your surroundings, not so much to feel your insides.

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-16, 09:16 PM
Question about medieval and classical warfare:

A common video game trope is that fighters using ranged weapons were hilariously inferior in melee combat and would fold almost instantly if the enemy caught them. Is this actually true of historical slingers, archers, crossbowmen, and early gunners? If not, are there any accounts of ranged soldiers giving good account of themselves in a brawl? If so, are there any reasons why they weren't better equipped for melee combat?

Equipment-wise, how impractical would it be for a slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner to have an effective melee weapon on the side? How impractical would it have been for them to wear armor as heavy as a melee soldier might've worn? How about if it was a mounted slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner?

As far as I understand, Classical Greek missile troops were missile troops in the first place based on their inability to afford heavy armor. Peltasts were drawn from unarmored poorer classes and couldn't challenge Hoplites or cavalry in a direct fight, so they were relegated to using ranged weapons. But wouldn't they have carried a sword, or a spear for fighting rather than throwing, just in case?

If I was a gunner or crossbowman in some medieval army, wouldn't I want to have relatively heavy armor, and maybe a neat hand weapon in case I need to use it on some fool who comes close? Wouldn't I be able to wear heavy armor because I can afford it, and hell, I never know if it'll save my life? If I was, say, a arquebusier or crossbowman in Hernan Cortes's expedition, wouldn't I want to have, say, a buckler and a sword, both of which can be worn at the hip while I'm operating my arquebus or crossbow?

Mike_G
2016-03-16, 09:27 PM
Some missile troops were specifically lightly armored skirmishers. They would fare poorly against well armored troops in melee.

But many professional archers or crossbowmen were armed with swords and bucklers, and had at least some armor, so they were capable of fighting in melee.

There's nothing that would prevent a soldier from being an archer and being well prepared for close combat. Carrying a two handed weapon in addition to a bow and arrows might be awkward, but a small shield and a sword, and wearing a mail shirt and a helmet wouldn't interfere with your archery.

Galloglaich
2016-03-16, 10:04 PM
In mediaeval cities that depends on time and place. In many areas the merchants was obligated to provide soldiers to the city militia (and the city militia was a highly professional army), in the city were he is a citizen. At least for most cities and most periods I look at. Possible it is different in England in the late period, I don't know. But Northern/Central Europe they would.Also in the early and mid period England do not have exceptions for very rich men.

That said, the punishment for not showing up could for some people (period, place etc migh affect this) be a monetary fine. In some cases both richer peasants and city-dwellers could easily afford the fine for lack of military service (mainly relevant for territorial towns I think, I let G expand on others if he so wishes). Many taxes actually started out as fines. A "leding" tax was used in Denmark until the 18th century I think, it originated out of the fine for not showing up for military service in the 13th century. At some point the peasant decided they would rather farm their fields and pay the fine than go to war, and the king would rather have the money for mercenaries anyway so he didn't increase the fine (or at least to to a degree were the peasant preferred to actually show up).

The same thing happens in many periods with work provided for the feudal lord: it was often bypassed by paying a fine, I have looked at 18th century manor-records were some peasants failed to show up every year for at least 8-10 years, and just paid the fine. Similar things happened in various places during the medieval period, sometimes the work was transferred to a monetary payment at some point, but it usually starts out as fines being paid every year.


I have a concrete example of this from one of the Free Cities, a war-tax levied to help pay for the Burgundian Wars in 1475. This list includes all the 'full citizens' as well as some people on welfare.

Type------------Tax (in Gulden)----- No
Mendici*-----------0----------107
Craftsmen without property --0--------2700
Burgher (recently married)---0.5----------420
Burgher (craftsmen)-----1------------532
Burgher (craftsmen)-------3----------266
Burgher (mixed)-----6----------98
Burgher (mixed)-----10----------59
Burgher (mixed)-----15----------48
Burgher (patricians)------20----------26
Burgher (patricians)------25----------16
Großburgher----------30------------15
Großburgher----------40----------14
Großburgher----------60----------4
Großburgher----------70----------3


Mendici were people on the city dole, taking alms. They were often counted in the tax rolls just to keep track of them.

'Mixed' status burghers include wealthier craftsmen, professionals like physicians and scribes, nobles living in the city and merchants. Großburgher were almost all patricians and often members of the city council. As you can see it's a "progressive" tax by modern standards, and not too high, this tax would not have been very painful (because Augsburg wasn't that closely involved in this particular war) but sometimes the taxes were painful, high enough to force people to sell a lot of their belongings. Taxes like this often had to be ratified by a vote and frequently triggered riots and sometimes, uprisings or revolutions.

Total on the Tax roll, 4,485. Total population of Augsburg at this time, circa 20,000 – 25,000

Probably another 5,000 or so had some kind of provisional citizenship - mainly journeymen and apprentices who held a partial (sometimes listed as half or a quarter) citizenship through the master they worked for. The rest of the population included a lot of servants (including civil servants- employees of the town government) many of whom were female so they didn't normally fight, members of the church (both priests and nuns/monks/friars or 'religious' - who usually didn't pay city taxes and also were not obligated to fight) citizens of other cities, usually in little merchant colonies from various places that did business there, in the case of Augsburg that would be mainly Italians from Venice (and other Italian cities) and Flemish from Bruges and Ghent would be the most common, as well as Germans, Poles, French, English, Scottish, Spaniards, and Hungarians among others. Wives and children were also not counted in the militia although women who were the heads of households (usually about 15-20% of the craft guild households and about 10% of the merchants, mostly widows) were obligated to arm and equip men for the militia just as any other guild master was.

Militia obligations worked more or less the same way as the taxes, with the main obligations coming from the craft artisan guilds, but the merchants and patricians had to bring more men and also horses. Some of the wealthier guilds also had to provide horses, cannon, and other things like war wagons or provisions, depending on what the economy of the town was based on. In Augsburg this would be the weavers and metalworkers.

This is a militia muster from the town of Rostock in 1450, all of these men had to be armored with at least a cuirass and a helmet, and be equipped with a gun, halberd, pike or crossbow.

De dregher (porters) 150
De shoemakere (shoemakers) 40
De smede (smiths) 40
De beckere (bakers) 30
De haken (retailers) 30
De kremer (haberdashers) 20
De peltzer (furriers) 20
De knockenhouwere (butchers) 20
De boddekere (coopers) 20
De remensnydere (bridelmakers) 20
De scroder (taylors) 20
De gerwer (tanners) 20
De wullenwever (wool weavers) 20
De vischere (fishermen) 20
De kannegetere (pewterers) 16
De lynnenwever (linen weavers) 16
De repere (hoopers) 10
De murlude (masons) 10
De tymmerlude (carpenters) 10
De oltscrodere (old taylors) 10
De bertscherer (barbers) 6

There were 40 more guilds on the list with a quota of 2 or 3 armed men each, for a total of 622 militia... dominated by porters. An odd concept! But Rostock was a Hanseatic town and their main business was loading and unloading ships so it makes sense. The total number of craft guild masters was probably about 1,000 at this time, total population of Rostock at the time was about 12,000 people, of whom maybe one third were citizens. Generally the militia for a given muster provided the hard core around which a force of mercenaries would be built. A city that size could easily hire 5,000 mercenaries or more in a serious emergency.

In addition to infantry, the towns would typically field at least a small force of cavalry. According to Hans Delbruck (quoting from town records) the City of Strasbourg in 1363 fielded the following heavy cavalry: 81 ‘lances’ from among the patricians, 21 from the craft guilds, 5 from the boatmen, 4 from the storekeepers, and 4 from the wine merchants, for a total of 115 lances. The patrician society of the city of Brunswick, called the Lillienvente, fielded 402 Lances in 1435

In most towns, the cavalry was dominated by the merchants and patricians, but in some the craft guilds took on the role. Town records from the city of Wismar from 1483 indicate that the konstafler (cavalry) of this town was dominated by the wealthier members of the butcher’s guild who were obligated to maintain war-horses, and went into battle "accompanied by one councilor and a council employee."

Though reading through a list of weavers, butchers etc. going into an infantry line, especially in such small numbers, doesn't sound very formidable, they often were. In some of the key victories by the Swiss confederation against the Hapsburgs and Burgundians the front lines were made up of different ranks of craft guilds just like that, bakers, butchers, candlestick makers, from towns like Bern and Zurich.

This is all based on the Free Cities though, I'm not sure how it worked with the territorial towns, I think similar but with less obligations for kit, unless it was a rich town (like some of the wealthier Hanseatic towns were technically territorial towns, but they provided a lot of armed men when necessary)

G

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-16, 10:16 PM
Y'know, isn't this actually how the North Korean army is organized? I forgot where I got this information (maybe the comic "Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea"), but should a country invade North Korea, everyone's work units became battlefield units. Their bosses at work would be their leaders in the army.

Galloglaich
2016-03-16, 10:19 PM
Question about medieval and classical warfare:

A common video game trope is that fighters using ranged weapons were hilariously inferior in melee combat and would fold almost instantly if the enemy caught them. Is this actually true of historical slingers, archers, crossbowmen, and early gunners? If not, are there any accounts of ranged soldiers giving good account of themselves in a brawl? If so, are there any reasons why they weren't better equipped for melee combat?

Equipment-wise, how impractical would it be for a slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner to have an effective melee weapon on the side? How impractical would it have been for them to wear armor as heavy as a melee soldier might've worn? How about if it was a mounted slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner?

As far as I understand, Classical Greek missile troops were missile troops in the first place based on their inability to afford heavy armor. Peltasts were drawn from unarmored poorer classes and couldn't challenge Hoplites or cavalry in a direct fight, so they were relegated to using ranged weapons. But wouldn't they have carried a sword, or a spear for fighting rather than throwing, just in case?

If I was a gunner or crossbowman in some medieval army, wouldn't I want to have relatively heavy armor, and maybe a neat hand weapon in case I need to use it on some fool who comes close? Wouldn't I be able to wear heavy armor because I can afford it, and hell, I never know if it'll save my life? If I was, say, a arquebusier or crossbowman in Hernan Cortes's expedition, wouldn't I want to have, say, a buckler and a sword, both of which can be worn at the hip while I'm operating my arquebus or crossbow?

In a word, yes. You would and they did. In the medieval period most troops in battle would have some kind of armor on their torso and a helmet. By the second quarter of the 16th Century though you started to see a lot more infantry, particularly pikemen, who went into battle unarmored.

Think of the Three Musketeers. In theory, they are musketeers, gunmen. But they also studied fencing, and were dangerous with their swords.

Also if you go by paintings, a lot of these guys actually did carry longswords as sidearms. The weapon depended on the choice (and probably skill level) of the individual soldier. For example, gunner on the right looks like he has iron helmet and textile armor, with a longsword sidearm, gunner on the left has steel or iron body armor but only a baselard (short sword, basically) as a sidearm.

http://i29.servimg.com/u/f29/12/59/24/45/gargou11.jpg

If you look at the full pic you can see most of the gunners and crossbowmen are well armored ... and this is how they are usually depicted in most sources I've seen from all over Central and Northern Europe at least in the 14th-15th Century.


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=95185&stc=1

However of course, sometimes they have no armor and only shorter weapons. It depends mainly if they are meant to stand and fight or to hit and run. Running being generally easier and safer on horseback certainly by the medieval period (one substantial difference from early Hoplite warfare, if not later antiquity when cavalry was increasingly common and more and more effective)

G

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-16, 11:03 PM
What's the deal with those polearms (voulges?) sticking out of the formation of gunners in that picture?

Would those polearm users go to the front of the formation if it engaged in melee combat? Did they have a special role, such as to take the lead if the gunners had to go into an enclosed space? Was there a certain ratio of polearm users to gunners that a general would've wanted to abide by?

Mr. Mask
2016-03-17, 04:20 AM
G: What a happy bunch of chaps they look. Thanks for the documentation G, that's very interesting to me. Makes me wonder if there are any arguments over how many men a given guild should lend to fight. I also wonder if the bakers and smiths who are drafted(?) would be selected to act as the force's bakers and smiths, or double as that as well as serving infantry, or whether the bakers and smiths were on a separate draft(?) form.


Mike: It seems in wounds and injuries there is every combination of medical significance, debilitation, and fatality. From a nail to the foot which misses major veins but has you bawling, to gangrene infected scratches, to having to pay a small fortune to get an arrow out of your knee (charged per bone shard, I think). There is some correlation, but the huge variety of injury seems to make it fuzzy at times.

Bleeding in particular is something I wondered about in games. Some injuries seem to take minutes before you bleed out, and as you accounted it is arguable when and if bleeding weakens your ability. You could make bleeding like a HP score, where you don't receive penalties till you've almost bled out, and possibly you make a roll to resist giving in to your injuries at certain stages and severity. I remember one woman, who after killing her attacker, collapsed from her bleeding wounds about a second after that (thankfully she survived).

When wounded, you might roll to see how bad bleeding is, the amount of damage you inflict multiplying the result. If your bleeding is slight enough that it won't be a problem for several minutes, you don't calculate it.

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 09:06 AM
What's the deal with those polearms (voulges?) sticking out of the formation of gunners in that picture?

Would those polearm users go to the front of the formation if it engaged in melee combat? Did they have a special role, such as to take the lead if the gunners had to go into an enclosed space? Was there a certain ratio of polearm users to gunners that a general would've wanted to abide by?

I think what you are actually seeing there is a thin screen of gunners and crossbowmen in front of a larger group of halberdiers. That is pretty typical in the Swiss chronicles. Those volgues are how early halberds were portrayed, though it's unclear if that is what they actually looked like that late in the game. Some probably did but that is because the Swiss intentionally emulated earlier designs - it's really a 14th Century type of Halberd. Many Swiss halberds by that era (1470's) would have a more 'modern' look.

I highly recommend finding and going through a lot of those Diebold Schilling (elder and younger) chronicles if you have any interest in the reality of medieval warfare. You will see a lot of surprising stuff, it's brutal, creative, and fascinating. You'll learn a lot and get a ton of interesting ideas useful for gaming and other purposes. Plus they are drawn almost like comic books. There are hundreds of pages of them.

G

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 09:13 AM
G: What a happy bunch of chaps they look. Thanks for the documentation G, that's very interesting to me. Makes me wonder if there are any arguments over how many men a given guild should lend to fight. I also wonder if the bakers and smiths who are drafted(?) would be selected to act as the force's bakers and smiths, or double as that as well as serving infantry, or whether the bakers and smiths were on a separate draft(?) form.


Without a doubt, many arguments about all kinds of things. Craft guilds put strict restrictions on how the militias were used, especially in expeditions or anything that wasn't directly related to the towns defense. But it wasn't exactly the same as being drafted - being in the militia, (and also paying taxes incidentally - most of which was spent on town walls and other defenses), were viewed as privileges, since it meant you had citizens status. Being a citizen of a powerful town like Augsburg conveyed many important rights, like the right to be armed and the right not to be tried by any court other than the town court. Of course it was also a burden, and obligation, and a risk, but it meant glory, and status. The potential of upward mobility.

Those in the militia decided the fate of the town, and of themselves. In a way you could say membership in an urban 'commune' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_commune) was an extension of the old Germanic / Norse / Celtic / Baltic / Slavic etc. "warrior democracy" from the Iron Age: those who bore arms in defense of the community, had a vote. Most of those towns North of the Alps did not have professional armies or police (or usually, no more than a handful of hired guards) since they didn't trust non citizens. Being a citizen was expensive, and arms and armor (and sometimes horses and other stuff) was one of the biggest expenses for a town dweller. Fighting in the militia was certainly one of the biggest risks. But that was how as a citizen, an artisan or merchant, or a member of the guild, you protected your interests. Guilds would fight over their place in the militia ranks, which was also the order in which they would march in processions and parades like in Carnival, All-Saints day, royal coronations and other major Holy-days (holidays), typically heavily armed.

Medieval world was a complex world, especially in the towns.

Incanur
2016-03-17, 09:46 AM
A common video game trope is that fighters using ranged weapons were hilariously inferior in melee combat and would fold almost instantly if the enemy caught them. Is this actually true of historical slingers, archers, crossbowmen, and early gunners?

Many/most missile infantry troops did fold against dedicated melee units (pikers, halberdiers, targetiers, etc.). You see one example of this in Robert III de La Marck's account of Novara 1513 (https://books.google.com/books?id=RtkePoWkij8C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=florange+%2B+400+halberdiers&source=bl&ots=cOUcpVYctX&sig=iDNbk2B1min9YQlJF-CBbZCNfEY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj316ml7cfLAhUL-2MKHcodCXMQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=florange%20%2B%20400%20halberdiers&f=false): 400 Swiss halberdiers closed with 800 landsknecht gunners and routed them. By default, missile troops might cross swords with their counterparts in a skirmish, but they customarily ran away when confronted by dedicated heavy infantry in formation. Some later 16th-century gunners (arquebusiers, musketeers, etc.) didn't even have swords, for convenience when running around and shooting from cover, as well as possibly to save money. One period Spanish manual mentions this dynamic and gives the advantage to Spanish arquebusiers in a melee confrontation, because Spanish arquebusiers wore helmets and carried swords longer than those of the opposing arquebusiers who did have swords.


If not, are there any accounts of ranged soldiers giving good account of themselves in a brawl? If so, are there any reasons why they weren't better equipped for melee combat?

English archers were famously willing to fight up close and at times did so with impressive results: Poitiers 1346, Agincourt 1415, etc. Going outside of Europe, some Chinese archers and crossbowers also fought well with two-handed swords and so on: this was apparently the Tang dynasty approach. Japanese gunners in their late-16th-century invasions of Korea would shoot a few times and then eventually charge with swords. Elite horse archers from Turkey to Japan excelled at close combat as well as archery.


Equipment-wise, how impractical would it be for a slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner to have an effective melee weapon on the side? How impractical would it have been for them to wear armor as heavy as a melee soldier might've worn? How about if it was a mounted slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner?

English sources differ regarding archer armor. Archers frequently wore quilted jacks (maybe with metal elements) and skullcaps, and sometimes brigandines. 15th-century artwork regularly depicts archers in considerable armor, up to full harness, but it's unclear how often this actually happened in practice, if at all. A 16th-century English manual or two recommends light or no armor for archers. Sir John Smythe recommended light armor. Tons of horse archers across Asia wore considerable armor, so it's quite possible to shoot while armored, at least with many styles of bow.

Wearing something like three-quarters harness would have been awkward for missile infantry in the field who had to skirmish. Skirmishing involves rapid movement, and three-quarters harness increases in the energy required, especially because of the pieces covering the upper legs. Skirmishers so armored would be more likely to get tired and thus fight at a disadvantage. For just defending a wall, though, wearing even three-quarters harness might have been fine.

Overall, missile infantry troops differed notably on their close-combat ability. Some wore no armor, others light armor, and some considerable armor. Both cost and combat role determined this. Most well-equipped missile infantry had at least swords, though later-period gunners even eschewed these. Some missile infantry had the training and morale for extended close combat; other missile infantry didn't.

eru001
2016-03-17, 10:39 AM
Question about medieval and classical warfare:

A common video game trope is that fighters using ranged weapons were hilariously inferior in melee combat and would fold almost instantly if the enemy caught them. Is this actually true of historical slingers, archers, crossbowmen, and early gunners? If not, are there any accounts of ranged soldiers giving good account of themselves in a brawl? If so, are there any reasons why they weren't better equipped for melee combat?

Equipment-wise, how impractical would it be for a slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner to have an effective melee weapon on the side? How impractical would it have been for them to wear armor as heavy as a melee soldier might've worn? How about if it was a mounted slinger/archer/crossbowman/gunner?

As far as I understand, Classical Greek missile troops were missile troops in the first place based on their inability to afford heavy armor. Peltasts were drawn from unarmored poorer classes and couldn't challenge Hoplites or cavalry in a direct fight, so they were relegated to using ranged weapons. But wouldn't they have carried a sword, or a spear for fighting rather than throwing, just in case?

If I was a gunner or crossbowman in some medieval army, wouldn't I want to have relatively heavy armor, and maybe a neat hand weapon in case I need to use it on some fool who comes close? Wouldn't I be able to wear heavy armor because I can afford it, and hell, I never know if it'll save my life? If I was, say, a arquebusier or crossbowman in Hernan Cortes's expedition, wouldn't I want to have, say, a buckler and a sword, both of which can be worn at the hip while I'm operating my arquebus or crossbow?

In terms of practicality of having the gear its all about the money and the weight.

while yes, I as an arquebusier being attacked by a wave of aztecs would love to have a buckler and sword, I might not wish to carry that additional weight when marching twenty miles a day. It all comes down to a balancing act of functionality vs how much do I want to carry on my back. A soldiers kit is heavy that's true today, and it's been true for thousands of years. And during the era in question gear was not very standardised and soldiers often provided their own. If I were buying my own gear and had the choice between buying things like ammo and food, which I know I will need, versus a melee weapon which i might need. It's possible that In many situations I might forgo the sword in exchange for other items. (personally i'd buy the sword but I can understand why many people might not)

In regards to dedicated ranged troops engaging in melee it will vary based on where they were from. Longbowmen, if trained to fight with meelee weapons, could make decent melee troops and have the victories to prove it (agincourt, poitiers etc) part of this is that a lifetime spent drawing a yew war bow tends to leave an individual wis an abundance of muscle. Longbowmen were not the squishy archers of modern gaming, they were often the most muscular men on the battlefield. while physical strength is not the only thing which is important in hand to hand combat, it is helpful, give a longbowman a poleaxe and teach him the basics of using it, and you have got yourself a soldier who will be a significant threat both at range and up close. [It didn't hurt that light to medium armor was available to most late period longbowmen either supplied by their lords, or taken as spoils of war.

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 10:58 AM
In terms of practicality of having the gear its all about the money and the weight.

while yes, I as an arquebusier being attacked by a wave of aztecs would love to have a buckler and sword, I might not wish to carry that additional weight when marching twenty miles a day. It all comes down to a balancing act of functionality vs how much do I want to carry on my back. A soldiers kit is heavy that's true today, and it's been true for thousands of years. And during the era in question gear was not very standardised and soldiers often provided their own. If I were buying my own gear and had the choice between buying things like ammo and food, which I know I will need, versus a melee weapon which i might need. It's possible that In many situations I might forgo the sword in exchange for other items. (personally i'd buy the sword but I can understand why many people might not)


Actually, when it came to conquistadors, at least those facing the Aztecs, they most certainly did carry a sword (and in most cases, also a buckler). And they definitely needed them, and acquitted themselves very well with them. There is no reason for speculation on any of this. Read Bernal Diaz or a variety of other primary sources.

More generally in the medieval context, I'd again recommend looking at those Diebold Schilling chronicles. It seems crazy to carry something as big as a longsword on your hip, marching 20 miles a day through mountains etc., when you might not even have to us it ... but you can clearly see they did (it's also shown in dozens of other pictorial sources, and in the records).

G

Brother Oni
2016-03-17, 12:11 PM
Most well-equipped missile infantry had at least swords, though later-period gunners even eschewed these.

I wonder if this coincides with the development of bayonets that didn't block the barrel when fitted, or is this past the time you meant?

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 12:54 PM
I wonder if this coincides with the development of bayonets that didn't block the barrel when fitted, or is this past the time you meant?

I think that is a later era with the plug bayonett, and early bayonets were kind of problematic, and meant to make the musket into something like a spear or a short pike not so much a sidearm.

I suspect to the extent that gunners didn't carry sidearms in the later 16th Century through the 18th, it's because they were serfs who were equipped by the army or the mercenary Captain or whomever. But in most cases they would have at least a dagger or a big knife. Even in the 17th Century it was very common for gunners to have a sword or a saber or a cutlass or something like that. Ottoman gunners also frequently had maces, axes or hammers.

G

eru001
2016-03-17, 01:23 PM
Actually, when it came to conquistadors, at least those facing the Aztecs, they most certainly did carry a sword (and in most cases, also a buckler). And they definitely needed them, and acquitted themselves very well with them. There is no reason for speculation on any of this. Read Bernal Diaz or a variety of other primary sources.

More generally in the medieval context, I'd again recommend looking at those Diebold Schilling chronicles. It seems crazy to carry something as big as a longsword on your hip, marching 20 miles a day through mountains etc., when you might not even have to us it ... but you can clearly see they did (it's also shown in dozens of other pictorial sources, and in the records).

G

you are correct, and this was primarily due to the low number of soldiers in the conquistador's party meaning that everyone had to be capable of fighting in hand to hand if neccessary, I used it as the example primarily because it came from the original question. I did say that in that situation i too would choose to carry a sword as most of the conquistadors did.

however my point was that, depending on the conditions of the campaign, there are reasons why one might not choose to carry the additional weight. in many European campaigns for instance, armies were large enough that ranged troops could reasonably expect that they would at no point be called on to fight hand to hand as the army had more than enough dedicated melee troops. in those situations the extra weight of a steel sword and buckler would often be unwelcome on a long march and not be brought. On top of weight concerns there is also the financial issue of having to provide one's own gear and simply not wanting to spend large sums of money on a weapon that will not be used.

I personally tend to want to opt more on the side of having and not needing being preferably to needing and not having, but a large number of soldiers throughout history have chosen, not without reason, not to bother carrying the probably unnecessary extra gear, and not just in relation to melee weapons. sometimes it has worked out for them, sometimes it hasn't.

This question of melee weapons for ranged troops came up more and more during the transition into fully firearm equipped armies, as different nations tried to figure out what balance of melee to arquebus, (and later the musket) there should be in each formation, eventually this question went away almost entirely with the introduction of the bayonet which meant that any musketeer could also be equipped with a spear without adding much weight or cost to their gear. (though even today a number of militaries make sure that at least part of their soldiers' kit can be re purposed as melee weapons if needed, usually their entrenching tools, though these are usually considered a last resort weapon)

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-17, 01:50 PM
On the flip side, I can think of a couple reasons I would want to have a sword/axe/mace/whatever even if I was absolutely certain I would never be called on to fight hand-to-hand.

1. Sometimes, it's less that I'm called on to fight by my general, and more that the enemy has forced the issue with me. Even if I intend to be skirmishing and running away when the enemy, they may ambush me, or I may get lost in the chaos and confusion of battle, or some enemy may get lost into me.

2. I might need it to settle some difference with someone *in my own army* or use it on a civilian somewhere in a situation that isn't strictly battle-related. You can't expect me to rape and plunder with just an *arquebus* can you?

3. I would feel like a stone cold badass wearing my sword/axe/mace around. A sword also wasn't that difficult to carry around.

4. If worst comes to worst and we're out of ammunition, I would like to have a weapon I can use over and over without needing ammunition.

Incanur
2016-03-17, 02:16 PM
Martín de Eguiluz's 1595 manual claims (https://books.google.com/books?id=FmiXjd3rpj8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mart%C3%ADn+de+Eguiluz&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq852wr8jLAhXG74MKHS1PBh0Q6AEIHzAA#v=on epage&q&f=false) that few arquebusiers from nations other than Spain and Italy carry swords, though it immediately lists the skirmishing Walloon ("el valon escaramuzando") and the Turk who carries the scimitar as exceptions. The text then lists the Germans as another exception, but says that they're better with the pike than the arquebus, and don't use the latter much. This manual identifies French arquebusiers as skirmishing without swords in order to move more lightly/swiftly ("andar mas lijeros"), noting that they do it freely and well ("lo hazen liberalmente y bien"), but that reaching them with the sword would bring Spanish victory (with God's aid, of course).

So it seems like skirmishing without a sword was a late-16th century French specialty. For running around and for positioning in cover, a sword constitutes at least a slight hindrance, so going without makes some sense. It's just bad news if you get rushed by opposing skirmishers, as Martín de Eguiluz's manual indicates. That text doesn't say mention whether these French arquebusiers carried daggers, but Sir John Smythe's writings from around the same time claim arquebusiers basically never carried daggers. (Smythe's manual does recommend a sword, and the same sword-plus-arquebus technique as Martín de Eguiluz's text.) If these French arquebusiers carried neither swords nor daggers, they would have been pretty screwed when charged by Spanish arquebusiers with their long blades and arquebuses used as makeshift shields. I guess the French could have used their arquebuses as clubs/staves.

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 03:35 PM
you are correct, and this was primarily due to the low number of soldiers in the conquistador's party meaning that everyone had to be capable of fighting in hand to hand if neccessary, I used it as the example primarily because it came from the original question. I did say that in that situation i too would choose to carry a sword as most of the conquistadors did.

however my point was that, depending on the conditions of the campaign, there are reasons why one might not choose to carry the additional weight. in many European campaigns for instance, armies were large enough that ranged troops could reasonably expect that they would at no point be called on to fight hand to hand as the army had more than enough dedicated melee troops. in those situations the extra weight of a steel sword and buckler would often be unwelcome on a long march and not be brought. On top of weight concerns there is also the financial issue of having to provide one's own gear and simply not wanting to spend large sums of money on a weapon that will not be used.

With all due respect, I disagree. You might have some variation in different periods, but during the high to late medieval period (say 12th - 16th Century), in Continental Europe, troops of any kind would usually have a sword or something like a sword, or the equivalent (axe or mace or at least a dagger or some kind of big knife) as a sidearm almost always. It was a requirement on just about every single muster, militia call-up or conscription order I've ever seen from the period, including musters for peasants. It was actually against the law not to own a sword - for this exact reason- through much of Germany well into the 17th Century. We even have records of people being arrested for not owning a sword.

Though swords were very expensive in say, the Viking Age, their value went down rapidly with the spread of the iron industry in the middle ages and cost wasn't much of a factor at least by the Late medieval period. A cheap sword (or equivalent - messer, cutlass, bauernwehr etc.) cost between half and a quarter of a mark new, less than a couple of weeks income at the most for even poor peasants and workers. Many artisans could make more than that in a day. Swords didn't weigh that much either, 2-4 lbs or somewhere between 800 and 2000 grams for you Europeans, even for a longsword. They were certainly bulky, but the positives apparently outweighed the negatives, largely for the reasons Vitruviansquid mentioned. The sword or equivalent sidearm was for your benefit as a soldier. Remember, a gun in that era, (and all the way to the 19th Century) is basically a single-shot weapon when at close range. Pikes and large polearms also had similar disadvantages at close range or in very chaotic situations. As a soldier or a warrior, the sword is to protect you. To save your life, to give you a fighting chance to defend yourself. And to protect your own honor and status as Virtuviansquid noted.

Also, medieval armies weren't really that big. It was a fairly rare battle in which the personal bodyguard of the king or prince didn't have to be committed. It was an extremely rare battle in which any part of the army, gunners, infantry, cavalry, cannon crew, the chaplain, camp followers or prostitutes, could count on not being attacked. The one constant was unpredictability and chaos. Many engagements happened in which nothing happened, sieges for example could be tedious and boring... until they weren't. Then you probably really want a sidearm.

Of course I'm sure there were people without a sidearm, without armor... without shoes, without any weapon at all. But that would not be typical for soldiers, even camp followers.

Again, I'd highly recommend everyone in the thread, look through some medieval books depicting warfare. There are dozens online. It's an eye-opening experience to see the world as they saw it.

This is a scan of the original Bern Chronik, produced in 1474. It covers history related to the Swiss city-state of Berne from 1421-1474. It's full of delicious medieval violence and other lunacy. You can look at it page by page right here. plus the text if you can read the script and suss out the Middle High German or whatever.

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/Mss-hh-I0001/22/0/Sequence-47

Here is the Spiezer Chronik, mid 15th Century

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/Mss-hh-I0016/39

This is the Lucerne Chronicle, published a little later in 1513, covering history of Lucerne from 1387. Art isn't quite as good (as it was done by his son's workshop) but it's still very interesting.

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/kol/S0023-2/25/0/Sequence-1291

This one 'Der Weisskonig', is a bit later in the 16th Century (actually a 19th Century facsimile of the original masterpiece, but it's pretty good)

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/jbksak1888/0387?sid=a8bc3bfab6cea559690af64dfd082001



eventually this question went away almost entirely with the introduction of the bayonet which meant that any musketeer could also be equipped with a spear without adding much weight or cost to their gear. (though even today a number of militaries make sure that at least part of their soldiers' kit can be re purposed as melee weapons if needed, usually their entrenching tools, though these are usually considered a last resort weapon)

Actually, the need for a sidearm never went away until the multi-shot rifle, like a Henry Rifle etc., bolt action Gaand, Mauser and so on, became common on the battlefield. Even then people who had higher status (officers and many NCO's) still had sidearms in the form of a pistol.

G

Gnoman
2016-03-17, 03:59 PM
bolt action Gaand,

What is this? I've never heard of such a brand, and I can't think of anything it might be a typo of, since the only close thing I can come up with is Garand, which was never used for a bolt-action weapon.

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 04:01 PM
What is this? I've never heard of such a brand, and I can't think of anything it might be a typo of, since the only close thing I can come up with is Garand, which was never used for a bolt-action weapon.

guilty on both counts. Bolt action springfield and Mauer, semi-auto Garand. How's that?

Gnoman
2016-03-17, 04:16 PM
guilty on both counts. Bolt action springfield and Mauer, semi-auto Garand. How's that?

Wasn't trying to pick nits. I honestly thought you were referencing a rifle I'd never heard of.

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 04:21 PM
Wasn't trying to pick nits. I honestly thought you were referencing a rifle I'd never heard of.

No worries! I did it again just now when I tried to write "Mauser". Seem to have trouble with the middle-letter for some reason...

fusilier
2016-03-17, 05:16 PM
however my point was that, depending on the conditions of the campaign, there are reasons why one might not choose to carry the additional weight. in many European campaigns for instance, armies were large enough that ranged troops could reasonably expect that they would at no point be called on to fight hand to hand as the army had more than enough dedicated melee troops. in those situations the extra weight of a steel sword and buckler would often be unwelcome on a long march and not be brought. On top of weight concerns there is also the financial issue of having to provide one's own gear and simply not wanting to spend large sums of money on a weapon that will not be used.

I personally tend to want to opt more on the side of having and not needing being preferably to needing and not having, but a large number of soldiers throughout history have chosen, not without reason, not to bother carrying the probably unnecessary extra gear, and not just in relation to melee weapons. sometimes it has worked out for them, sometimes it hasn't.

This question of melee weapons for ranged troops came up more and more during the transition into fully firearm equipped armies, as different nations tried to figure out what balance of melee to arquebus, (and later the musket) there should be in each formation, eventually this question went away almost entirely with the introduction of the bayonet which meant that any musketeer could also be equipped with a spear without adding much weight or cost to their gear. (though even today a number of militaries make sure that at least part of their soldiers' kit can be re purposed as melee weapons if needed, usually their entrenching tools, though these are usually considered a last resort weapon)

The baggage trains need to be kept in mind too. It was not uncommon for muskets and pikes (and perhaps two-handed swords) to be carried with the baggage, although the arquebusiers would be required to carry their arquebuses. Of course you need the logistical capability, and the assumption that combat isn't imminent. But I seem to recall reading that it was often done in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Even after the introduction of bayonets, short swords were standard issue for some nations' infantry well into the 19th century. I can't really say why -- I think I would much rather engage someone with a musket and bayonet than a "hanger" or a "briquet" but they carried them.

Mike_G
2016-03-17, 05:17 PM
Even today, when infantrymen carry a semi automatic or selective fire rifle with a 30 round magazine, you want something else for if your weapon malfunctions, or you get rushed before you can reload.

Modern soldiers, especially in urban fighting, where you might run into the enemy at very close range, often carry pistols, or clear houses with bayonets fixed. And the tactical tomahawk is a thing.

A thing for the psycho in the squad, but a thing.

There's no way I'd feel safe with nothing but my muzzle loader. As G says, after you shoot, you now have a short, heavy, unbalanced staff until you have 20 seconds of unmolested loading time, and an enemy withing 50 yards of you probably won't let you have that time. Even something like a tomahawk or large knife which is useful even out of combat, and not all that bulky, is better than an empty musket.

Incanur
2016-03-17, 06:17 PM
Musketeers apparently often used their pieces as bludgeons in the English Civil War, despite at least sometimes carrying swords. It's not clear that a sword, much less a smaller blade, had the advantage over a 17th-century musket used as a club.

Mike_G
2016-03-17, 06:39 PM
Musketeers apparently often used their pieces as bludgeons in the English Civil War, despite at least sometimes carrying swords. It's not clear that a sword, much less a smaller blade, had the advantage over a 17th-century musket used as a club.

I think it's pretty clear, but that's me.

I've trained in bayonet fighting and close combat in the Marines as well as fencing, and I wouldn't bring a (unloaded) gun to a swordfight. Especially such a big heavy one. If you don't hit, the momentum will carry your weapon so far out of line that you'll never be able to parry with it.

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-17, 07:04 PM
Musketeers apparently often used their pieces as bludgeons in the English Civil War, despite at least sometimes carrying swords. It's not clear that a sword, much less a smaller blade, had the advantage over a 17th-century musket used as a club.

Isn't it self-evident that if a gun was a match for a sword, more people in the past would have used wood and metal tubes in battles over swords?

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 07:25 PM
Isn't it self-evident that if a gun was a match for a sword, more people in the past would have used wood and metal tubes in battles over swords?

Also, while swords and their various sharp friends were fairly affordable, guns weren't so much, particularly in the middle ages. Obviously if your life is on the line it's a secondary consideration, but clobbering somebody with your arquebus could leave you with an arquebus that won't shoot with some expensive parts missing or broken.

That said, I'm sure they did hit people with them when necessary. There even seems to be some strategies for fighting with the crossbow in the off-hand, Incanur has pointed that out I think (or somebody) and you can see some stuff like that in Talhoffer.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c6/21/73/c62173a95d276042b273ae0d971e3661.jpg

But as Mike_G noted, a sword is a lot faster. I think you can cut the guys hand messing around with the big unbalanced club before he could get it into play in many cases.


I also suspect, but don't have any evidence at the moment, that the people who were lugging around more exotic and cumbersome (to carry around) longswords, kriegsmessers, and rapiers (etc.) as sidearms were probably the ones who were trained enough in those weapons to make them useful. Some guys seemed to carry shorter swords, like the katzbalger or the larger baselard, while others were lugging around four foot weapons as sidearms. I think the latter had training because from what I've seen, people can't do much of any use with a longsword or a rapier without training, but almost anybody can make use of a machete.


There is one more slightly counter-intuitive thing I've learned over the years which gives me a theory about sabers. Once sabers became a thing in the late 15th Century, they rapidly became very popular, first with cavalry but later with infantry too. By the later 16th Century in some parts of Europe the saber was probably the most popular sidearm. From playing around with military saber and learning a little bit of the Polish and Hungarian systems for them, (as well as applying German Dussack and Messer techniques from the older fencing manuals) I noticed that they are surprisingly effective at defense.

From period literary evidence and from some of the advice and commentary in the fencing manuals I think in many cases the role of the sword as sidearm was literally self defense, i.e. not just defense through attacking the other guy before he can hurt you, but they were useful in parrying while posing enough of a threat of counter attack to help you survive an encounter even against somebody with a superior weapon like a spear or a halberd, or against numbers. Sabers seem particularly good at this, especially in the later periods when they got a lot of hand protection.

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/czech-steel-dussack-04.jpg?2218b7
Medieval Czech Dussack ... weapons like this go back to the Iron Age

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tasshake-01-mid1500s.jpg?2218b7
The Early Modern Norwegian version, popular with militias

in Norway the Dussack evolved from the simple machete-like tool of the medieval Czechs in Central Europe into this big cutlass like weapon with complex hilts very good at protecting the hands. These were made in large numbers in Norway specifically for conscripts. I think it gives you a fighting chance to protect yourself from attacks while providing you with a big wide blade that you can hack off arms with. Good backup weapon for the lesser trained soldier.

For a weapon like this, you want to have somebody really well trained who can actually use it.

http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zef-2.jpg

Mr Beer
2016-03-17, 07:49 PM
I think it's pretty clear, but that's me.

I've trained in bayonet fighting and close combat in the Marines as well as fencing, and I wouldn't bring a (unloaded) gun to a swordfight. Especially such a big heavy one. If you don't hit, the momentum will carry your weapon so far out of line that you'll never be able to parry with it.

I read Beevor's Stalingrad, IIRC the squads of Germans and Soviets who had the enviable task of fighting through the rubble and buildings commonly carried melee weapons. Spades were used and I think knives and/or bayonets.

fusilier
2016-03-17, 10:27 PM
There's no way I'd feel safe with nothing but my muzzle loader. As G says, after you shoot, you now have a short, heavy, unbalanced staff until you have 20 seconds of unmolested loading time, and an enemy withing 50 yards of you probably won't let you have that time. Even something like a tomahawk or large knife which is useful even out of combat, and not all that bulky, is better than an empty musket.

If you weren't trained in using a sword, and perhaps had broken the rapier issued to you because you were hacking at branches with it to make kindling . . . you might prefer to club someone with your musket. ;-)

American Civil War soldiers are believed to have preferred to use "clubbed muskets" or their fists in hand-to-hand, as there was a reluctance to "stick" someone (with the bayonet). There's probably some truth to it, although the statistics used to back it up might suffer from distortion.

fusilier
2016-03-17, 10:36 PM
I read Beevor's Stalingrad, IIRC the squads of Germans and Soviets who had the enviable task of fighting through the rubble and buildings commonly carried melee weapons. Spades were used and I think knives and/or bayonets.

During WW1 soldiers often sharpened the edges of their entrenching tools (hand shovels) for use in hand-to-hand, as in the confines of a trench the rifle and bayonet were sometimes too long. Although, on the other hand, the Americans and British complained that their shorter rifles were at a disadvantage in hand-to-hand, so there must have been cases where the rifle and bayonet were better. The primary weapons of Italian arditi (assault troops) were daggers and offensive grenades. Although they also carried carbines.

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-17, 10:37 PM
Really?

I can't imagine it's more pleasant to club a man to death than slice/stab him, and it would probably take much more work, involve getting more blood on yourself, and involve the victim doing more screaming and thrashing. You can certainly use the bayonet at a greater distance, if you're afraid of being stabbed/clubbed yourself.

The Confederate cavalry was known to be feared and considered elite by Union soldiers. Certainly their existence should've made Union soldiers see the necessity of the bayonet's reach, or ability to take down a large, powerful animal without having to actually club it to death.

Mike_G
2016-03-17, 11:00 PM
If you weren't trained in using a sword, and perhaps had broken the rapier issued to you because you were hacking at branches with it to make kindling . . . you might prefer to club someone with your musket. ;-)

American Civil War soldiers are believed to have preferred to use "clubbed muskets" or their fists in hand-to-hand, as there was a reluctance to "stick" someone (with the bayonet). There's probably some truth to it, although the statistics used to back it up might suffer from distortion.

But it's also been said that Civil War soldiers were reluctant to close to melee and often stopped an exchanged volleys until one side retreated.

Like Vitruvian Squid says, I can't imagine beating a man to death with the butt of a rifle is any more acceptable than stabbing him. I'd have to see casualty data for blunt injuries to buy that.

I do know that swinging a ten pound rifle in a way it isn't balanced for is a lot slower and less accurate than lunging with a bayonet or using a saber.

warty goblin
2016-03-17, 11:25 PM
Really?

I can't imagine it's more pleasant to club a man to death than slice/stab him, and it would probably take much more work, involve getting more blood on yourself, and involve the victim doing more screaming and thrashing. You can certainly use the bayonet at a greater distance, if you're afraid of being stabbed/clubbed yourself.

The Confederate cavalry was known to be feared and considered elite by Union soldiers. Certainly their existence should've made Union soldiers see the necessity of the bayonet's reach, or ability to take down a large, powerful animal without having to actually club it to death.

Bayonets often have fairly narrow blades, which means that there's a solid chance the person you just stabbed isn't gonna go down right away. Which is particularly problematic for you if your bayonet is stuck in them, and they can now stick you with theirs - the fact that they're mortally wounded is of only moral or poetic satisfaction if you wind up in the same state. If you hit them with the butt of your rifle on the other hand, all you have to do is get your weapon back on guard before they recover from getting smacked with ten odd pounds of hardwood and steel.

Plus, you catch somebody upside the head with your musket butt, they're going to be somewhere between dazed and completely dead. I recall a story about my granddad trying to slaughter a very large pig. First he tried shooting it in the head with a .22 short rifle, at which the pig grunted. So he shot it again, and the pig still didn't go down. So he smashed it in the head with a sledgehammer, which dropped it like a rock. Much easier to cut its throat that way.

Galloglaich
2016-03-17, 11:31 PM
Interestingly this squeamishness about stabbing people did seem to exist in the medieval period too, and a little bit beyond, at least in some regions. In the German-speaking areas it was sort of an unwritten rule not to stab people especially in private disputes. It's mentioned in a few of the German fencing manuals.

The Landsknechts also notably carried 'katzbalger' swords as sidearms, which were mostly made for cutting (though you could definitely stab too, just in soft-tissue areas)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzbalger

G

Carl
2016-03-17, 11:37 PM
I've heard even today teaching a recruit to use a bayonet such that they actually will when confronted with an enemy is tough.

fusilier
2016-03-17, 11:54 PM
Like Vitruvian Squid says, I can't imagine beating a man to death with the butt of a rifle is any more acceptable than stabbing him. I'd have to see casualty data for blunt injuries to buy that.

I do know that swinging a ten pound rifle in a way it isn't balanced for is a lot slower and less accurate than lunging with a bayonet or using a saber.

I'm not arguing that it's *better* to swing a musket at someone, than it is to use a bayonet or sword. I'm only stating what is claimed to be the historical case (that they preferred not to stab each other).

Beating some one to death in melee is overkill. You only need to get them out of action (or at least off you) and then move on to the next one, and a musket butt to the face or gut is probably going to accomplish that pretty speedily. This isn't a one-on-one duel we're talking about, it's two dense lines of infantry smashed together and fighting it out. Spending time making sure someone is dead is not what you do when there is fighting going on all around you.

Few soldiers had bayonet training*, bayonet wounds are ugly and it often took a long time to die from them. There's little doubt in my mind that the mentality needed to shoot someone at a distance, versus stabbing them in their gut face-to-face is considerably different, and with a lack of training and discipline they would have fallen back on old brawling habits. Of course, there's also evidence they rarely bothered to fix bayonets in combat, so perhaps the unexpected nature of hand-to-hand was another factor -- but we are talking about a war where some soldiers refused to dig trenches because they considered hiding behind a pile of dirt an unmanly way of fighting.


But it's also been said that Civil War soldiers were reluctant to close to melee and often stopped an exchanged volleys until one side retreated.

That's generally true of 18th - 19th century "charges". The defenders broke or the attackers lost their nerve and halted. In fact, getting into hand-to-hand wasn't really the point of a charge, but it was a potential outcome, and hand-to-hand fighting did happen during the Civil War -- and when it did the casualties could be very high and often unpredictable -- it was a very risky business.

---------
* Events during the Crimean War demonstrated what a major difference effective bayonet training had on melee, and while a number of bayonet manuals were published just prior and during the Civil War the IG reports clearly show they were haphazardly applied to the Regular US Infantry prior to the war, and most volunteers never received any -- they also received very little to no marksmanship practice either, so it's hardly surprising that bayonet training was neglected.

Mr Beer
2016-03-17, 11:58 PM
During WW1 soldiers often sharpened the edges of their entrenching tools (hand shovels) for use in hand-to-hand, as in the confines of a trench the rifle and bayonet were sometimes too long. Although, on the other hand, the Americans and British complained that their shorter rifles were at a disadvantage in hand-to-hand, so there must have been cases where the rifle and bayonet were better. The primary weapons of Italian arditi (assault troops) were daggers and offensive grenades. Although they also carried carbines.

That reminds me, I read a book on incidents of hand-to-hand fighting in modern combat and WWI trench raids was a chapter on its own. Absolutely brutal, they'd sneak out at night, nip into the enemy trench, murder some people and then withdraw. Only the more aggressive commanders organised these events though and I believe it was strictly volunteer missions. The author described some dude who was basically a stone sociopath, did multiple trench raids purely because he liked killing people. Kind of guy that's great in warfare and absolutely terrible in most other situations.

It surprised me how often grenades come up as prized in close combat, I guess there are lots of times that you don't really want to poke your head around a corner/over a trench/into a foxhole/through a window, so rolling a grenade in to 'scout ahead' would be tempting.

Mr Beer
2016-03-18, 12:00 AM
Interestingly this squeamishness about stabbing people did seem to exist in the medieval period too, and a little bit beyond, at least in some regions. In the German-speaking areas it was sort of an unwritten rule not to stab people especially in private disputes.

This persists even into modern times and cultures. In my workplace, there's an unwritten rule against stabbing people too. At least they made a hell of a fuss last time I had an argument with someone about an invoice...office culture can be quite restrictive sometimes.

Incanur
2016-03-18, 12:09 AM
Isn't it self-evident that if a gun was a match for a sword, more people in the past would have used wood and metal tubes in battles over swords?

This does not necessarily follow, no. Medieval/Renaissance soldiers did use all manner of two-handed bludgeons in preference to swords: goedendags (http://www.liebaart.org/figuren/goedendr.jpg), lead mauls,morning stars (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Boeheim_Morgenstern_01.jpg) (the morgenstern group), pollaxes (http://i.imgur.com/JRE33Rp.jpg), and so on. Certainly a 17th-century musket seems inferior to these weapons designed for the job, but a bad two-handed bludgeon might still match or trump the singled-handed sword.

Honestly, I would've thought a sword superior, but various 17th-century English sources attest to the use of muskets as clubs. Thomas Fairfax himself (https://books.google.com/books?id=hoMDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA178&dq=fairfax+musket+butt+roundhead&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWmrCFtcnLAhUS0mMKHX6OBUgQ6AEIQDAH#v=on epage&q=fairfax%20musket%20butt%20roundhead&f=false) even has an account of a single musketeer who fended off three enemy horsemen: he shot one, struck down another's horse with butt of his musket, and then broke the last's swords (presumably also with the musket butt).

Of course, they also had troops called "club-men" in the English Civil War, armed about as the name suggests. One can analyze the English Civil War as a time of desperation.


I think the latter had training because from what I've seen, people can't do much of any use with a longsword or a rapier without training, but almost anybody can make use of a machete.

Anybody can perform a basic vertical cut with a longsword. Judging by period artwork, this was a common battlefield technique. It's likewise trivial to thrust with a longsword or rapier. Training/experience is always key, of course, but I strongly suspect random people who've never held any sort of blade before would do better with a longsword than with a machete. That would be an interesting experiment to perform.

I tend to think fashion and custom influenced sidearm choice as much as anything.

eru001
2016-03-18, 12:14 AM
This persists even into modern times and cultures. In my workplace, there's an unwritten rule against stabbing people too. At least they made a hell of a fuss last time I had an argument with someone about an invoice...office culture can be quite restrictive sometimes.

i'm pretty sure most places have actual written rules about stabbing people, as far as I am aware it is considered poor manners in most settings ;)


in regards to the use of bayonets vs clubbed muskets in the civil war two things that should be considered.

1 Not every soldier in the confederate army was issued a bayonet or carried a weapon to which a bayonet could be fixed.

2 I can say from personal experience that loading a rifle-musket with a bayonet fixed takes more time than loading one without. It is therefore, to me, not a huge leap of logic to assume that in some situations, troops may have deliberately chosen not to fix bayonets even when closing with the enemy to enable faster firing.

fusilier
2016-03-18, 12:46 AM
i'm pretty sure most places have actual written rules about stabbing people, as far as I am aware it is considered poor manners in most settings ;)


in regards to the use of bayonets vs clubbed muskets in the civil war two things that should be considered.

1 Not every soldier in the confederate army was issued a bayonet or carried a weapon to which a bayonet could be fixed.

2 I can say from personal experience that loading a rifle-musket with a bayonet fixed takes more time than loading one without. It is therefore, to me, not a huge leap of logic to assume that in some situations, troops may have deliberately chosen not to fix bayonets even when closing with the enemy to enable faster firing.

Concerning point 2, my experience with muskets with a socket bayonet have been that it doesn't significantly slow down loading. Although I admit that I rarely time myself these days, and I don't like to fire with the bayonet on as then I've got one more thing to clean. ;-) I don't have experience with rifles with sword bayonets, but most of them do look like they could be a problem for muzzle-loading.

fusilier
2016-03-18, 12:59 AM
That reminds me, I read a book on incidents of hand-to-hand fighting in modern combat and WWI trench raids was a chapter on its own. Absolutely brutal, they'd sneak out at night, nip into the enemy trench, murder some people and then withdraw. Only the more aggressive commanders organised these events though and I believe it was strictly volunteer missions. The author described some dude who was basically a stone sociopath, did multiple trench raids purely because he liked killing people. Kind of guy that's great in warfare and absolutely terrible in most other situations.

It surprised me how often grenades come up as prized in close combat, I guess there are lots of times that you don't really want to poke your head around a corner/over a trench/into a foxhole/through a window, so rolling a grenade in to 'scout ahead' would be tempting.

Trench raids were common, and I know sometimes people were "volunteered" -- there was a Native American who was sent on trench raids every night for something like two weeks until he finally didn't come back. They were very dangerous things and the idea of sending someone on a raid two nights in a row was considered rare and basically cruel (let alone for weeks).

The idea behind them was to scout out the enemy lines and bring back useful intelligence (prisoners if possible). It may have taken the more bold soldiers/leaders to actually go enter an enemy trench, rather than trying to simply observe it, but it does seem to have happened often. The various hand weapons used included things like clubs with nails driven through them and wrapped in barbed wire. Ugly stuff. During the first was use of poison gas on the Italian Front, the Austrians finished off the choking survivors by clubbing them in the head -- very brutal.

Prior to WW1 grenades had had a "niche" role in warfare for centuries -- usually in sieges and siege like conditions. The trench warfare of WW1 was basically ideal for the use of grenades, and they were used a lot.

Lacco
2016-03-18, 03:56 AM
Anybody can perform a basic vertical cut with a longsword. Judging by period artwork, this was a common battlefield technique. It's likewise trivial to thrust with a longsword or rapier. Training/experience is always key, of course, but I strongly suspect random people who've never held any sort of blade before would do better with a longsword than with a machete. That would be an interesting experiment to perform.

I would disagree, but mostly based on my experience.

When I begun practicing the longsword, I could swing machete around quite well, while longsword was more complicated for me. This was mostly because I have had a significantly weaker left arm - to be effective with longsword, you need to use both hands, while with machete you use only your primary, which makes it easier at first.

Currently after time spent practicing with longsword, I would say it is equal. But - I had to defend myself agains an axe-wielding me when I begun practicing the longsword, I would have lost - my favourite pasttime at my grandparents' when young was cutting wood.

Still, the experiment would be quite interesting.

Mr. Mask
2016-03-18, 06:11 AM
Anyone have an estimate on the speed a sword or other hand weapon travels in an attack? I was looking at batting speeds, but I don't think they sync well with swordplay speeds.

Galloglaich
2016-03-18, 10:03 AM
This persists even into modern times and cultures. In my workplace, there's an unwritten rule against stabbing people too. At least they made a hell of a fuss last time I had an argument with someone about an invoice...office culture can be quite restrictive sometimes.

Indeed. When I declared a feud on my boss over his refusal to give me a 5 day weekend he wouldn't agree to a judicial combat to settle the issue. I don't know what this country is coming to.

G

Blackhawk748
2016-03-18, 10:15 AM
Indeed. When I declared a feud on my boss over his refusal to give me a 5 day weekend he wouldn't agree to a judicial combat to settle the issue. I don't know what this country is coming to.

G

Well glad to see im not the only one who challenges their boss to judicial combat.

Galloglaich
2016-03-18, 10:16 AM
I would disagree, but mostly based on my experience.

When I begun practicing the longsword, I could swing machete around quite well, while longsword was more complicated for me. This was mostly because I have had a significantly weaker left arm - to be effective with longsword, you need to use both hands, while with machete you use only your primary, which makes it easier at first.

Currently after time spent practicing with longsword, I would say it is equal. But - I had to defend myself agains an axe-wielding me when I begun practicing the longsword, I would have lost - my favourite pasttime at my grandparents' when young was cutting wood.

Still, the experiment would be quite interesting.


Of course. This is basically everyone's experience. It was my experience too the first time I tried to use a longsword against a trained opponent. Incannur likes to be contrary, and probably has very little experience fencing with a longsword or a rapier.


It's actually not trivial to thrust or make a vertical cut in a fight, effectively and in a manner that you don't telegraph it abysmally. That is the real issue in fencing. Of course against a static target that isn't fighting back you can cause harm easily enough, but even executing a cut is quite difficult to do properly. If you own a machete or better yet, a decent quality sword replica (don't try it with one of those "sword like objects" that has a screw on tang because you could hurt yourself!) try cutting a plastic Gatorade bottle full of water. If you know what you are doing you can easily slice right through it leaving the bottom half of the bottle standing on whatever it's sitting on. If you don't know, it will just go flying away with a dent.

Something like a machete is much easier to use because being short, it's more like an extension of your arm. You may not cut that effectively with it either, but you can still make cuts, and more importantly you can get it to go where you want it. To use a longsword effectively you really have to be able to do false edge cuts and guard transitions. You can't even cut properly with a longsword unless you know how to grip it and extend your arms properly and so on.

Parrying is even more of an issue, and as I noted, the documents show that swords were often in the role of self defense. Fending off opponents. This means being able to parry and keep your weapon posing a realistic threat against your opponent (s). If you don't know how to shift from false edge to true edge, which is counter-intuitive enough that you are very unlikely to figure out on your own, this tends to make the longsword much slower to get into position after an initial bind. With rapiers, sure you can stab easily enough, but if your blade gets off-line or is parried or voided even once, getting it into position to protect yourself or threaten your opponent again quickly enough is very hard to do if you aren't trained. Using a rapier requires subtle movements, keeping the point in the center, controlling the lines. If you don't know how to do that you are going to have your point way off-line and yourself completely vulnerable in a matter of seconds.



As for the use of big unwieldy clubs, the weapons like the Morgenstern, Godendag etc. were balanced for fighting, and were quite long, and were primary weapons. Early arquebusses and hand-cannons (used as clubs) were neither. We are talking about the role of a sidearm here. Yes it's probably better than nothing at all, but no, it's not comparable to weapons they would use intentionally. If so, why would tens of thousands of arquebus gunners (and musketeers etc. in later eras) carry swords? The vast majority, over 90% of them, in period art are shown carrying swords or at least large daggers.

G