Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[KineticDiplomat]

I apologize; I answered on a phone and scrolled past the follow up about a defunct government thinking it part of the captive discussion. Having now read that:

You’re looking for an Mi-8 “Hip”. Passenger space for up to twenty six (but not the carry weight if you pack on weapons), comparatively cheap to operate prior to weapons (you can charter one, according to the internet, for $170/hr), mass produced in civil and military models allowing for easy access to parts except for the dedicated mil-suite stuff. Up to six hard points for rockets and guns (no specialized ATGMs). Long history of being used in developing world environments because it is simple and reliable - wouldn’t want to try it out against modern ADA, but for putting a bunch of supplies into a hilly landing area, or blowing the hell out of a tree line...it’ll do just fine.

Cheap and simple enough for a mercenary company to operate, but once you factor in risk premiums, fixed cost defrayal, and munitions costs, hard to believe you’d pull it out for an actual attack for only $30k.

[Lemmy]

Heh... Someone posted this in a D&D discord channel. I believe it's joke, so it's probably not meant to be taken seriously:

Spoiler

Show

In any case, I just saw the image and it reminded me of this thread.

[AdAstra]

I apologize; I answered on a phone and scrolled past the follow up about a defunct government thinking it part of the captive discussion. Having now read that:

You’re looking for an Mi-8 “Hip”. Passenger space for up to twenty six (but not the carry weight if you pack on weapons), comparatively cheap to operate prior to weapons (you can charter one, according to the internet, for $170/hr), mass produced in civil and military models allowing for easy access to parts except for the dedicated mil-suite stuff. Up to six hard points for rockets and guns (no specialized ATGMs). Long history of being used in developing world environments because it is simple and reliable - wouldn’t want to try it out against modern ADA, but for putting a bunch of supplies into a hilly landing area, or blowing the hell out of a tree line...it’ll do just fine.

Cheap and simple enough for a mercenary company to operate, but once you factor in risk premiums, fixed cost defrayal, and munitions costs, hard to believe you’d pull it out for an actual attack for only $30k.

Seems like the perfect fit.

As for the financial viability of the attack, considering it’s one guy, and it seems like the mercs knew about the location and are likely close enough to be within a helicopter’s combat radius (doubt that the mercs are going to spring for in-flight refueling), they could reasonably expect the attack to be wrapped up in a couple hours with that kind of firepower. If the mercs don’t land and dismount they’ll HAVE to return to base pretty soon anyhow.

[Sapphire Guard]

You're all awesome, folks. I thought this would be unanswerable, but that's perfect. Thanks so much.

[Vinyadan]

You're all awesome, folks. I thought this would be unanswerable, but that's perfect. Thanks so much.

Also, don't forget the cheaper options

[Kiero]

With the rise of mercenary warfare in Italy during the late middle ages, it became commonplace to parole most soldiers taken prisoner after stripping them of their arms and horses. Nobles and officers were usually ransomed. This was basically a professional courtesy, which was not always extended, and invading foreign armies often received short-shrift.

Ransom is much older than the medieval era, it was done in antiquity too. If you were an important person fighting another "civilised" peoples, chances were you'd be captured rather than killed, so your family/friends could buy you back.

Not just in a military context either, august personages taken by pirates were ransomed, too.

[fusilier]

Ransom is much older than the medieval era, it was done in antiquity too. If you were an important person fighting another "civilised" peoples, chances were you'd be captured rather than killed, so your family/friends could buy you back.

Not just in a military context either, august personages taken by pirates were ransomed, too.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't mean to imply that ransom was new to the condottieri -- instead I meant the whole system: of releasing common soldiers captured in battle (but still ransoming the "important" prisoners) was practiced in Italy. But it wasn't always done (they did sometime execute the common soldiers, or, rarely, hold them for some reason).

[Lemmy]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

[Storm Bringer]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

In the Greek and Roman republics, the military was basically the entire Citizen population.

I must point out that Citizenship was a restricted category, forming a subset of the greater population. they were generally wealthier, and had certain rights and privileges in exchange for the requirement to serve in the military if called upon. They owned their own weapons and armour (indeed, wealth sufficient to own suitable weaponry was one of the primary requirements to citizenship). I don't have any hard data for the Greek cities, but Athens had between 10 and 20% of its population as voting citizens, so thats a rough idea. For solid numbers, Athens was getting maybe 30,000 voting citizens out of its total population of 250,000 (including slaves, foreigners etc), but she was by far the largest city state in Greece, with most having 1,000-2,000 citizens and populations of 25,000 ish.

However, by the end of the Roman republic (ie 1st century BCE, the time of Julius Caesar), The roman army had become professional, with long service volunteers being the norm. At the end of the Civil Wars that founded the Principate (the early empire), their were roughly 30 legions in service, with a paper strength of about 150,000 (actual strengths were much lower and variable), plus maybe the same again in Auxiliary units, and this was the rough strength going forward for many decades. roughly about 250,000-300,000 men strong. As to the civil population that supported this, its really hard to say. very few of the records of the Census have survived form this period, and the interpretation of those few records gives a quite divergent population figures. I cant find a figure for the end of the republic itself, so i'll give you some other numbers that help narrow it down. in 168BCE, the estimated population of the Italian peninsular is 8-12 million people, and the 14CE estimate is a much also around that size, with a total empire population of around 45 million.


for medieval kingdoms, its a bit more difficult, and I don't really know, so I'll leave that to someone else. hope what I have written helps.

[AdAstra]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

This one’s definitely complicated by the fact that militaries tend to increase and decrease in size depending on how much warring is going on. Especially for the Greeks, who for the most part fielded armies of wealthier citizens for relatively short periods of time, often not really having standing armies. Then there are things like temporary levies, the role of a Knight being both political and military (and the existence of men-at-arms separate from that), the role of nobles in general as military forces, etc. The Romans often did have standing armies and Auxillia, but even they would be regularly raising and demobilizing legions as needed at any given time.

[AdAstra]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

This one’s definitely complicated by the fact that militaries tend to increase and decrease in size depending on how much warring is going on. Especially for the Greeks, who for the most part fielded armies of wealthier citizens for relatively short periods of time, often not really having standing armies. Then there are things like temporary levies, the role of a Knight being both political and military (and the existence of men-at-arms separate from that), the role of nobles in general as military forces, etc. The Romans often did have standing armies and Auxillia, but even they would be regularly raising and demobilizing legions as needed at any given time. And even that system was only implemented by Marius in the 2nd century BCE. Before that you had a system somewhat similar to the Greeks, with wealthy men levied and expected to provide their own equipment, though you did still have a number of legions active at any given time.

[Pauly]

This one’s definitely complicated by the fact that militaries tend to increase and decrease in size depending on how much warring is going on. Especially for the Greeks, who for the most part fielded armies of wealthier citizens for relatively short periods of time, often not really having standing armies. Then there are things like temporary levies, the role of a Knight being both political and military (and the existence of men-at-arms separate from that), the role of nobles in general as military forces, etc. The Romans often did have standing armies and Auxillia, but even they would be regularly raising and demobilizing legions as needed at any given time.

Confusing the issue is also the fact that many men in those times were required to maintain some form of military training, in addition to their civilian roles. So up to 50% or higher of eligible men were potentially soldiers.

Soldiers are expensive to maintain and the tax revenue system available was not high by modern standards. Generally speaking kingdoms kept as few men as possible as soldiers.

In Ancient China and Medieval Europe when the king called for levees or militia service up to 10% of the available manpower was accepted as the maximum. More than that disrupted the civilian economy too much. You might call for more if the local city was under siege or for one season’s campaign in extremis.

[KineticDiplomat]

A couple answers from the 100 years war:

The English fielded about 10-12k men during their major forays, though by the time battle came about it was somewhat lower. Perhaps 6k at Agincourt for instance. In contrast, getting population estimates is hard...but probably between 2-3M.

The French army at Agincourt was about 20k, maybe more, in a population of at least 10M.

So in the age of the contract soldier, we’re talking less than one percent as an actively campaigning force.

———

From the Peloponnesian war, most of the numbers in battle are quite low. A few thousand on each side in many cases, with certain larger ones possibly breaking the ten thousand mark under higher estimates.
So
The high end estimate for Athens says 50k citizens, 100k non-citizens, 50k aliens/foreigners, and 100k slaves. The Spartans had maybe 8-10k spartiates and 100k others ranging from helots to mostly-free “friends and neighbors”.

So we have things like the Sicilian expedition bringing 5k Athenians to war...which represent possibly 10% (probably not; foreign mercenaries were popular) of the core Athenian “citizenry”, but maybe 2% of its population.

Or the Spartans marching 2,000 hoplites to Amphilous - though someone with more inclination to research or knowledge than me would be able to tell you how many were Spartans and how many were allies. Still, potentially up to a quarter of the Spartiates actually on campaign - which would only represent a little over 2% of the population.

———

A century later, the Macedonian army is supposedly 24k infantry and 3k cavalry under Phillip and over 45k under Alexander as it marches to glory. Unfortunately I don’t know what their population is at the time...

———
Long story short, producing a military beyond raiding bands and local garrisons in the age of muscle powered agriculture requires a LOT of population to support the excess. Then again, through most of human history, the average person generates a comparatively small amount of excess productivity once they’ve managed to account for their daily calories.

[Max_Killjoy]

Long story short, producing a military beyond raiding bands and local garrisons in the age of muscle powered agriculture requires a LOT of population to support the excess. Then again, through most of human history, the average person generates a comparatively small amount of excess productivity once they’ve managed to account for their daily calories.

And in much of "Greece proper", this is particularly true, as much of the soil and terrain aren't super-productive.

[jjordan]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

Years and years and years ago I got into an argument with an ROTC instructor and had to do an ad-hoc research project on this. The short answer is that the number ranges from 1% to 10% with 10% representing the sort of mobilization the United States undertook in WWII. Larger mobilizations are possible, but only for shorter periods of time. When you try to sustain larger mobilizations over longer periods of time you find that increasing amounts of your military are, effectively, working in sustainment operations that are important but aren't directly connected to combat; essentially you've got military forces doing civilian jobs.

The longer answer is a lot longer and takes many more factors into account. We could talk about the Roman Army and how it was enormous but actually represented a fairly small percentage of the population (less than 1%) but first we'd have to isolate a specific time period and reference several books. We could talk about the feudal model but, again, we'd have to isolate a time period AND a geographic area before we could bring the books into play. Broadly it all tends to boil down to how many troops of what quality you can sustain for how long. And those factors are influenced by the amount of consolidated political will and logistical capability the polity has.

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for your replies. I'm once again humbled by your dedication to this thread.

[Pauly]

One further issue about comparing pre-modern armies as a % of population against modern armies is the supply train.

Generally speaking in pre-modern times the supply train was made up of civilians. Consequently almost 100% of soldiers were combatants. In WW2, for example, around 25% of soldiers were combatants, with the exception of the Soviets who had notorious supply problems.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I have a bit of a silly question that proves pretty hard to google: why/since when is shooting called fire, with people yelling "fire!" and such? Is this a term that came up with cannons/firearms, or was firing a bow already a thing and is the fact that gunpowder/a match actually burns just a funny coincidence? And if so, why was shooting bows and such called firing?

[Max_Killjoy]

I have a bit of a silly question that proves pretty hard to google: why/since when is shooting called fire, with people yelling "fire!" and such? Is this a term that came up with cannons/firearms, or was firing a bow already a thing and is the fact that gunpowder/a match actually burns just a funny coincidence? And if so, why was shooting bows and such called firing?

I'm almost positive that it comes from "applying fire" to the gunpowder, or something along those lines.

There were other commands in whatever language the archers were speaking.

[Dienekes]

I have a bit of a silly question that proves pretty hard to google: why/since when is shooting called fire, with people yelling "fire!" and such? Is this a term that came up with cannons/firearms, or was firing a bow already a thing and is the fact that gunpowder/a match actually burns just a funny coincidence? And if so, why was shooting bows and such called firing?

One would "loose" an arrow.

According to Roger Ascham (who noticeably was born and working after the transition from bows to early guns, but I don't know of a better source) the medieval English army had the following orders:

"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

[Mike_G]

Seeing the command "fire" for archers makes me nuts.

Maaaaaybe in a modern setting where the characters are used to saying "fire" I can see it, like in a post apocalyptic world where people have had to go back to using bows, but if you yelled "fire" to a bunch of pre-gunpowder era archers, they'd likely all look around startled and say "Where? Where?"

[Lvl 2 Expert]

One would "loose" an arrow.

According to Roger Ascham (who noticeably was born and working after the transition from bows to early guns, but I don't know of a better source) the medieval English army had the following orders:

"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

Thanks. So it's the logical thing after all.

I now have one more thing to look out for in less serious time travel movies.

[rrgg]

One would "loose" an arrow.

According to Roger Ascham (who noticeably was born and working after the transition from bows to early guns, but I don't know of a better source) the medieval English army had the following orders:

"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

Makes sense I guess. Having separate commands for draw and loose makes for nice simultaneous volleys, which can be very useful, but it probably also wears out the arms a bit more than just trusting the archer with their own movement, especially with the heavy old school war bows. Both (as well as the third option, a general "shoot at will"-kind of order, which has the marked downside of part of your troops running out or arrows within two minutes) might have been used at different times/places/occasions.

[Willie the Duck]

Seeing the command "fire" for archers makes me nuts.

Maaaaaybe in a modern setting where the characters are used to saying "fire" I can see it, like in a post apocalyptic world where people have had to go back to using bows, but if you yelled "fire" to a bunch of pre-gunpowder era archers, they'd likely all look around startled and say "Where? Where?"

Regardless, we are usually projecting modern English vernacular onto people (if we are talking about pre-gunpowder era archers) who would be using either another language, or a version of English we'd barely recognize.

This just occurred to me-- when did the term 'shoot' come into parlance and does it have any connotations like 'fire' has?

[Vinyadan]

"sceotan" as "hurl or strike with missiles" is already present in Old English, and there are related words in other Germanic languages (schießen in German, skjota in Old Norse), and even the oldest reconstructed root (P.I.E. *skeud-) has the meaning of "shoot".

So it doesn't seem to have shifted its meaning.

[Max_Killjoy]

"sceotan" as "hurl or strike with missiles" is already present in Old English, and there are related words in other Germanic languages (schießen in German, skjota in Old Norse), and even the oldest reconstructed root (P.I.E. *skeud-) has the meaning of "shoot".

So it doesn't seem to have shifted its meaning.

Chucking stuff at targets as an attack or as a game is as old as or older than language for humans, so that makes a sort of sense that it's one of those really old words.

[Dienekes]

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

Hmm, I remember it being a military discussion. But then I read it over a decade ago, and my memory has only gotten worse since then.

[Mike_G]

Regardless, we are usually projecting modern English vernacular onto people (if we are talking about pre-gunpowder era archers) who would be using either another language, or a version of English we'd barely recognize.

Yeah, kinda.

But "fire" is so obviously anachronistic, it would be like hearing a squad of crossbowmen being told "Lock and load." Just gets on my nerves.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, kinda.

But "fire" is so obviously anachronistic, it would be like hearing a squad of crossbowmen being told "Lock and load." Just gets on my nerves.

Oh, don't get me wrong, if it's an anachronism too far for you, it is an anachronism too far for you. There's no right answer to what crosses the line.