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

[KineticDiplomat]

To build on Gnoman, for human aimed weapons with static man sized targets (a lot of caveats there, I know) the bulk of missing is over-under rather than side-to-side. A) humans are not very good at visualizing ballistics without lots of practice, and B) between breathing and the biomechanics of fighting gravity, it’s possible for a weapon to fluctuate several degrees up or down, even when aimed.

This dynamic creates three basic bands of ranges.

1. So close it doesn’t matter. Basically a combination of when the ballistics drop and the potential for a few degrees of vertical variance won’t change a hit to a miss. A 200 FPS crossbow drops less than two feet by 20 yards, and a couple degrees up or down will shift the vertical by another two feet or so…

At twenty yards, even a barely trained crossbow shooter is going to hit a static standing man so long as they take a moment to point the thing at him.

As you get into increasingly fast and low recoil modern weapons, the practical range for this goes up and is mostly limited by the human…the classic 5.56 and 7.62 rounds drop less by 300 yards than the crossbow does at 20…but as a rule of thumb for rifles, under 50m is almost impossible to miss from any position, while from a decent prone position anyone bothering to use the sights is going to hit at 150m and below.

2. Grazing fire. For a certain range based on the weapon, the trajectory is essentially one that if there is a human along the path, they’re going to get hit because the projectile is traveling in a manner where it it is basically striking the target head on.

—->T

As a result, you can still aim AT the target. If you under-over, it’s human error and not a result of some technical issue. This is where shooting starts to require some practice, but isn’t full on hard.

For our previous 200 FPS crossbow, out to 35 yards you have something of a grazing trajectory before it gets to the point where you have 4+ feet of drop and really can’t just aim AT the target anymore. So the difference between this and “point and shoot” isn’t that big. Modern hunters tend to estimate 40-60 yards being the practical effective range for a deer, and they frankly have much nicer crossbows than your happy medieval mercenary.

For modern rifles etc this covers most practical ranges out to 400-600 meters or so depending on the round/weapon. It really becomes a matter of how perfectly you can execute fundamentals by not having the barrel waver off target during the shot…being half a degree off obviously makes a much bigger difference at 500m than 200m.

3. Plunging fire. At a point the game becomes less one of hitting the target head on, and more one of dropping the projectile onto the target, creating a beaten zone where the final part of the trajectory crosses through a man height:

.\
.. T
… \
—————

This is generally speaking, much harder to do against a single man than a large formation of men or a simple desire to fill the ground with enough rounds from an automatic weapon that the law of large numbers works out for you.

This where “effective range” becomes very, very subjective. Yes, you can shoot a crossbow 350 yards, and with enough training reliably drop bolts into the “beaten zone” at the far end. And that is going to be a bad day for a block of men, or enough to make standing around the area for a single man seem dangerous (one will get him eventually), but it’s a far cry from the modern concept of “can reliably hit a point target with a single engagement”.

———

So for RPG purposes where the PC is usually shooting a single target, the apparently low ranges on most medieval weapons are pretty rational. The low ranges on things like assault rifles are definitely not

[rs2excelsior]

I have a (maybe oddly specific) question. Does anyone have any good sources for what Transylvanian, Wallachian, or Hungarian military forces would have looked like in terms of organization, equipment, and so on anywhere in the rough period of 1500-1650 (although moreso towards the end of that period - roughly around the 30 Years' War)? Doesn't need to be anything super in-depth, but preferably more detail than a short wikipedia article.

[Martin Greywolf]

My first question is, what relevant (Slovak, Czech, German, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian, ...) languages do you speak? English sources that actually focus on sub-kingdom provinces in eastern Europe are pretty much non-existent, outside of small academical papers.

For a very general overview, with some mistakes in it, Osprey has Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe that ends in this period, as well as Armies of the Ottoman Turks (see firther on why this is relevant).

Also, youre time period is... very problematic. Battle of Mohacs happens in 1526, and after that Transylvania, Wallachia and what is modern Hungary are eiter parts of Ottoman empire, or satellites, so you'd find more on them in sources on Ottoman military, as local troops would be serving as auxiliaries, if that. Kingdom of Hungary is pretty much reduced to modern Slovakia's territory, and even that gets nibbled on, Ottomans advance up to Nove Zamky in 1662. The soldiers fighting for the Kingdom of Hungary are therefore more often than not troops from other Habsburg realms, and this reliance on foreign mercenaries is pretty widespread in the region.

What I'm getting at is that yourr question is a bit like asking for what soldiers defending Constantinople looked like and then giving a date range that has fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans right in the middle of it.

[snowblizz]

I spent some time last night trying to figure out if Osprey actually covers the period and place, and as Martin says it cuts out at about that time and in about that region. Cossacks, Polish-Lithuanians, Ottomans


The material they have on the Ottoman military focuses more on earlier times and/or more famous troops, predominantly the Janissaries. The armies of Ottomans 1300 - 1774 yielded no help either.
While they are alluded to there is no detail what forces the #rebel Hungarians" would have brought either.

Basically, they are the less interesting sidekicks to a bigger Ottoman - Habsburg fighting in most material.

For the absolute close of your period I would suggest armies would be similar in equipment, though not in dress, to Western and Ottoman forces.

To make things more annoying I know I watched some youtube vids of battles fought between Ottomans and the principalities in the region, but I can't find them anymore.

[Martin Greywolf]

To make things more annoying I know I watched some youtube vids of battles fought between Ottomans and the principalities in the region, but I can't find them anymore.

That's... probably for the best. This is a very, very nationalistically charged topic, so anything on YouTube is, well... suspect. Frankly, a lot of academic research is suspect as well, but at least they have to have some ground for their biases.

[snowblizz]

That's... probably for the best. This is a very, very nationalistically charged topic, so anything on YouTube is, well... suspect. Frankly, a lot of academic research is suspect as well, but at least they have to have some ground for their biases.

It was made in a historical vein and not that controversial.

Also it doesn't really matter what they say if they at least mention what weapons armies fought with...

[rs2excelsior]

My first question is, what relevant (Slovak, Czech, German, Hungarian, Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian, ...) languages do you speak? English sources that actually focus on sub-kingdom provinces in eastern Europe are pretty much non-existent, outside of small academical papers.

Unfortunately none. Well, German, but not great - I could get by with it but would prefer English sources. Which I realize for a lot of places outside of Western Europe means sources are quite sparse.

For a very general overview, with some mistakes in it, Osprey has Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe that ends in this period, as well as Armies of the Ottoman Turks (see firther on why this is relevant).

Should have known Osprey would be a decent place to look - they seem to have basic (if many times a bit flawed - which is fine, really, this is for an RPG setting that I'll probably be playing solo rather than an academic paper) overviews for a lot of periods.

Also, youre time period is... very problematic. Battle of Mohacs happens in 1526, and after that Transylvania, Wallachia and what is modern Hungary are eiter parts of Ottoman empire, or satellites, so you'd find more on them in sources on Ottoman military, as local troops would be serving as auxiliaries, if that. Kingdom of Hungary is pretty much reduced to modern Slovakia's territory, and even that gets nibbled on, Ottomans advance up to Nove Zamky in 1662. The soldiers fighting for the Kingdom of Hungary are therefore more often than not troops from other Habsburg realms, and this reliance on foreign mercenaries is pretty widespread in the region.

What I'm getting at is that yourr question is a bit like asking for what soldiers defending Constantinople looked like and then giving a date range that has fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans right in the middle of it.

Yep, I am aware that the time frame is one where the region was in flux. I am more interested in what the independent soldiers of those principalities/kingdoms would have looked like... but I don't know enough about eastern European history in the time frame to know how meaningful a question that is.

Regardless, thanks (to both of y'all) for the insight - I'll take a look at some of those places.

[Palanan]

I have a question on forge temperatures, in particular how hot a blacksmith’s forge would get using early 1800s technology.

I’ve just read a descriptive passage claiming that the forge “burned blue hot,” which doesn’t feel right to me. The only other information is that the blacksmith is using bellows and heating a long bar of iron. This is all in a purely historical context, with no magic and nothing else special about the forge.

So, what temperatures could a typical forge of that period reach, and would they be hot enough to generate a blue color?

[Gnoman]

Coal can reach around 3500 degrees (f), and bellows can deliver enough air to do it.

[Palanan]

Okay, thanks. Is that hot enough to produce a blue flame?

[Kraynic]

Okay, thanks. Is that hot enough to produce a blue flame?

Is it possible they were forge welding and the flux was causing the blue color? As the son of a blacksmith that used coal in the forge, I haven't seen blue just from the coal itself. That was primarily bituminous coal from northeastern Ohio. That would be ranging from the deep reddish orange of the fire "at rest", to a very bright orange/white when running really hot. I don't know if anthracite or lignite produces different colors or not.

Keep in mind that temperature isn't the only factor for flame color. Propane (air mixture) is only supposed to be burning at about 2,000F, and I haven't seen a propane stove burner that didn't burn blue (if it doesn't something is wrong). Forge fires (of whatever fuel) have to be running above that to melt steel for welding (2,800F). The trace elements of what you are burning will have an effect on the flames.

[Palanan]

Thanks, I appreciate the extra information. This is historical fiction, mid-1800s, so no propane or exotic materials. The only other details are that the forge is using charcoal, so no actual coal either. Given this, I'm going to assume that the "blue hot" description is the author's mistake.

Also, very cool that you grew up watching your father work at the forge.

[Kraynic]

The only other details are that the forge is using charcoal, so no actual coal either. Given this, I'm going to assume that the "blue hot" description is the author's mistake.

Ok, that might make the difference. I have heard of forest fires burning so hot that there were purple flames from live trees. Charcoal might very well produce blue sometimes. My father did use charcoal (briquettes) at one point when he was out of coal for some reason. I don't remember the color of the flames. All I remember is that it produced a lot of sparks when the blower was being cranked for high heat. As the kid turning the crank on the blower, I was either avoiding sparks to the best of my ability or leaving as quickly as possible when not needed for that duty any longer!

[Palanan]

Hmm, okay. Sounds like this might be a question for someone who works as a reenactor at a period forge.

And sparks from the blower sounds like something you'd want to avoid, especially if there were a lot of dry leaves around.

[AdAstra]

Hmm, okay. Sounds like this might be a question for someone who works as a reenactor at a period forge.

And sparks from the blower sounds like something you'd want to avoid, especially if there were a lot of dry leaves around.

Coal/charcoal can absolutely burn blue, at least if grills and stoves are any indication. Wood, charcoal, coal, coke, whatever, can all be induced to burn with a bluish flame. CH, CO, C2, and methane will all burn quite blue and can be released from the charcoal in certain conditions.

[Martin Greywolf]

I second AdAstra here, I've seen some blue flames in forges over the years. Mind you, I don't think I ever saw a purely blue flame, but a lot of orange with a part of it blue. It could well be something specifically about forge-grade charcoal.

[Pauly]

Blue fire is usually an indicator that there is no soot.

Gas fires usually burn yellow->light blue—>deep blue
Solid fuel fires (coal/charcoal/wood) usually burn orange->yellow->white.

For a coal fire to burn blue it would have to be not producing soot. I Assume it is possible, but not common.

Also what is being burned can affect the color of the flame.

[Calthropstu]

Blue fire is usually an indicator that there is no soot.

Gas fires usually burn yellow->light blue—>deep blue
Solid fuel fires (coal/charcoal/wood) usually burn orange->yellow->white.

For a coal fire to burn blue it would have to be not producing soot. I Assume it is possible, but not common.

Also what is being burned can affect the color of the flame.

I have seen blue burning coal more than once. It is only a small portion of the flame, but it's there.

[SpoonR]

I have a question on forge temperatures, in particular how hot a blacksmith’s forge would get using early 1800s technology.

I’ve just read a descriptive passage claiming that the forge “burned blue hot,” which doesn’t feel right to me. The only other information is that the blacksmith is using bellows and heating a long bar of iron. This is all in a purely historical context, with no magic and nothing else special about the forge.

So, what temperatures could a typical forge of that period reach, and would they be hot enough to generate a blue color?

Obvious question first, just to check. Are they talking about the Forge getting blue-hot, or the iron bar?

On coal or charcoal forge fires, chemistry can color flames. Copper is the most well known for making a flame turn blue. So, impurities in the charcoal or in the bar could change the color until the impurities are gone. Just color from heat alone? Dunno, but pretty dependent on how much air is flowing through the coals.

Un-natural gas can burn blue. I just double checked on wiki, and the process to make coal gas was known by 1800. Wide use waited a couple decades, but it was a known thing. I assume that under the right conditions the coal could be relasing some gases that burn blue.

And I have my own question about this. Is blue-hot actually good for working iron? Iirc, if the bar gets too hot it loses its carbon impurities and becomes brittle and unsharpenable. An extrahot forge makes it more likely you get into that heat zone.

[Xuc Xac]

Things don't visibly glow blue when they're hot enough. To the human eye, heat radiation goes red -> orange -> yellow -> white.

Other colors are a result of the chemical reactions of the flame. The blue flame of a propane stove is a result of blue light being released by the reaction of CH radicals. If your gas stove was blue because it was radiating that much heat, your pots and pans would melt.

[Catullus64]

Here's a question that I feel somewhat foolish asking, but it seems really important to understanding medieval warfare.

What's so flipping important about castles?

I am conceptually aware that medieval warfare in Europe centered a lot around besieging or attacking castles, but I've never really gotten why a castle is so strategically valuable. I get why it's valuable as an administrative center, a status symbol, and a safeguard against domestic unrest, but I feel I don't fully understand the value of a castle as a defensive military asset.

Sure, a castle is very defensible, but what advantage does it actually confer in terms of defending territory? Most castles seem too small to house a very large number of troops or people, so even if it provides a place of safety, it doesn't allow you to offend against an enemy any more effectively. Unless the castle is positioned right near a natural chokepoint such as a river crossing or a mountain pass (which, I grant, many castles were, but just as many seem to have been built on hilltops or on open ground) the enemy isn't terribly impeded in moving about your country by the fact that you possess a castle. In fact, a castle seems more advantageous to an attacker than a defender, since it provides a ready-made defensible foothold in hostile country. I feel there's something very fundamental about warfare, overland movement, or even just human psychology that I haven't grasped here. Any insights?

[Grim Portent]

One of the biggest advantages is that forces inside a castle can't easily be ignored, they can send out messengers or raiding parties to interfere with the advance of a hostile force that has decided to try and just move past the castle. A medieval army has a pretty big chain of non-combatants that follow it and take care of various things necessary for basic survival or for the army's morale. If you get forced into a fight near a castle the defenders can also sally out to join the defenders.

So you can't really leave the castle in enemy hands without guarding it, the enemies inside can sneak up behind you as you travel nearby and steal or destroy things. You also can't really leave a small force of guards to keep them trapped inside because they'll just get ambushed and killed by the defenders when the time is right.

This means you need to bring to bear enough forces for enough time to take the castle by force or by forcing them to negotiate. Castles are obviously really hard to attack, and a dozen people in the right castle can hold off hundreds or even thousands of people who lack the means to assault the particular castle they're facing effectively. Even once you capture it you have to leave people behind to hold it, which in turn means you have less people for the next fight.


If you try to drive deep into enemy territory without capturing the castles along the route you take you wind up getting harassed and harried and with no clear path of retreat if things go really badly, if you do capture the castles you have to commit resources to holding them. The defenders win either way.

[halfeye]

Here's a question that I feel somewhat foolish answering, but it seems really important to understanding medieval warfare.

What's so flipping important about castles?

I am conceptually aware that medieval warfare in Europe centered a lot around besieging or attacking castles, but I've never really gotten why a castle is so strategically valuable. I get why it's valuable as an administrative center, a status symbol, and a safeguard against domestic unrest, but I feel I don't fully understand the value of a castle as a defensive military asset.

Sure, a castle is very defensible, but what advantage does it actually confer in terms of defending territory? Most castles seem too small to house a very large number of troops or people, so even if it provides a place of safety, it doesn't allow you to offend against an enemy any more effectively. Unless the castle is positioned right near a natural chokepoint such as a river crossing or a mountain pass (which, I grant, many castles were, but just as many seem to have been built on hilltops or on open ground) the enemy isn't terribly impeded in moving about your country by the fact that you possess a castle. In fact, a castle seems more advantageous to an attacker than a defender, since it provides a ready-made defensible foothold in hostile country. I feel there's something very fundamental about warfare, overland movement, or even just human psychology that I haven't grasped here. Any insights?

They were big. The outer walls would be up to hundreds of yards from the inner ones, inside that you'd have a small town, and inside that you'd have a keep which was independently fortified. Without siege weapons, which pretty much disappeared between the end of the roman occupation of Britain and the British civil war, they were pretty nearly invulnerable.

[Berenger]

@Catullus64: This article from acoup.blog covers your question in some detail. Short version: enemy forces in your back make a mess of logistics. The castle garrison can ride out and engage vulnerable elements of the invading army (such as scouts, patrols, messengers or foraging parties), then retreat to the castle and do it again the next day.

[KineticDiplomat]

There’s also an operational-strategic reality to all of this: the ability to stand on a field is not the same thing as the ability to control a region,. You can raid, burn crops and huts, make yourself richer and leave, or just march right by on your way somewhere else, but if you wanted to take that land from lord Bob, well if he didn’t like his odds he just pulled back into the castle. His fighting force, some chunk of the local population (or not…), and for a medieval context the all important Lord Bob himself, are now behind walls.

Want to proclaim yourself lord and master? Go ahead. He can wait years in there. You leave, he’s back to governing the land. You say “well I’ll just sit here and govern” and you get the joyous task of trying to keep a force supplied in the field long enough for that to matter, all while keeping Bob penned in, and all while draining your coffers and most likely the capacity of the local area to feed you - all while wondering if some pro-Bob folks are going to come over the hill any month now, or if winter is going to destroy your core retinue, thereby removing one of the pillars of your own political authority. And if you let up and just leave him be, you get to fight a war of a thousand cuts while he sallies whenever he wants.

You can march by of course, and it’s not like you have “supply lines” in the modern sense, but if you lose a battle a week down the road you might not want to retreat this way…

[Pauly]

To go a little deeper on something touched on earlier. In addition to the military damage a garrison can do and the difficulty of controlling an area where you don’t control the local castle, castles were sited to interdict supply/communication lines.

Marching your army past the castle is pretty easy and happened a lot. But not when you need to run supplies down the road the castle overlooks. There were some pretty epic marches in medieval history where because of the chequered alliances you could march past castle A, meet your buddies in Town B, march past castle C then join up with Army D and attack enemy E. But those type of leapfrogging marches were the exception.


So if you could march past a castle and then keep doing your thing, armies did that. It’s just that that was generally an uncommon thing.

[snowblizz]

They were big. The outer walls would be up to hundreds of yards from the inner ones, inside that you'd have a small town, and inside that you'd have a keep which was independently fortified.

Most castles were never that large though. Dozens or some hundreds of troops was more likely.

In fact, a castle seems more advantageous to an attacker than a defender, since it provides a ready-made defensible foothold in hostile country.

And sometimes that was the whole point! The English kings' great castles in Wales lie around the coast. They don't seem great at controlling the Welsh hinterland standing at the edges of the sea. But they aren't meant to. They protect incursion points that the English would use to ferry in troops to invade against eventual Welsh rebellions. They can be supplied by sea regardless of the activities of a land based army. And you can therefore insert troops who can move out to attack the lands. So in a sense they do control the hinterland, as they provide a point where the English king can put in men and material at his leisure should you try and rebel. Sorry, I mean *when* you try to rebel.

[eru001]

Here's a question that I feel somewhat foolish answering, but it seems really important to understanding medieval warfare.

What's so flipping important about castles?

So, the point that a number of people have touched on, which I will also lead with, is the issue of Enemy Troops in your rear. This is a very bad no good thing. Even a small amount of determined, well equipped enemies can cause trouble completely out of proportion to their numbers if in your rear area. This makes bypassing a castle a bad idea. Also worth noting that in medieval Europe armies were generally much smaller than in both Antiquity and in later times. A castle garrison might not have a huge number of troops present by modern standards, but still be considered a noteworthy force by medieval standards.

If bypassing a castle isn't an option, the castle must be dealt with, either by taking it, or masking it. Taking a castle is either expensive financially, logistically, and in terms to time, or very expensive in terms of manpower. Masking a castle means detaching enough troops to keep the garrison from sallying out, which means significantly more than the size of the garrison. This masking force is now vulnerable to being destroyed by any enemy reinforcements that arrive once you have moved on, and significantly reduces the size of your useable army. A Castle serves as a force multiplier, allowing a relatively small number of troops to make themselves enough of a problem to an attacker that they have to be dealt with somehow, and making the dealing with of them very difficult.

The effect is even greater if the castle is placed at a strategic point, say, directly overlooking the main crossing point of a river, or in a position that dominates a mountain pass, as these natural choke points can allow a fortification to physically bar an army from entering a region without being taken first.

You also brought up the issue of prestige as if it was something to be discounted. It is important to understand, that if you wish to control a region for any substantial length of time, you do have to convince the people you are controlling, one way or another, that you are in charge. This can be by making them want you to be in charge, or by making them fully, (and bloodily) understand that you are in charge whether they want it or not. This is easier when you have a castle, both from the practical physical aspect of making it harder for them to kill you, but also from the psychological aspect of controlling the largest and most impressive man made object most of the peasents are ever likely to see in their lives. That's the kind of thing a ruler controls, and if the populace thinks of you as a ruler, thats most of the way towards getting you there. Morale is an important factor, no two ways about it.

[VonKaiserstein]

The primary advantage of an attacker is that they have the initiative. They have already concentrated their forces, armed them and know when they will strike. Balancing this, the defenders are more familiar with the territory, and generally have the support of the local civilian population.

If you march past the castle... you just left the fighting forces of the region in your rear, fully supplied, on their home territory. When they strike, and they will, they may attack your field army, or they may go off and invade your homelands knowing that your forces are over here. They may even just start marching between you and the castle, threatening battle, and retreating into their safe zone when they need to. They now have the initiative, and because every man at arms will have heard about the invasion and rallied to the very obvious castle, they have had time to concentrate their force. They also can leave an extremely small force in the castle, because it can be held with a massive imbalance of forces.

It's a deterrent, a fortress, and poses many problems for the invader that all have to be dealt with, which reduces their available forces- even before the battle is joined.

Also- never underestimate the psychological aspect of it. Ok, you've decided to march past the castle. Your men now know you don't think you can take the castle. They know what it can do to them, and they look up at it and see certain defeat that they are avoiding, if not running from.

[KineticDiplomat]

There’s a bit too much focus on “Front” and “Rear” here to be accurate for the time period. These are actually comparatively modern concepts.

Simply put for much of history, there was no assumption that you would have a large and fairly politically unified strategic interior feeding men and materiel up to a line of contact, on one side of which (partisans not withstanding) you could expect to realistically exercise governance and move men and supplies fairly risk free, while on the other was the enemy who’s extended presence along the line safeguarded his own operational and strategic depths full of useful political and economic objectives.

So modern in fact, that in the 1920s and 30s military theorists are still writing about it as a problem that had to be solved. While what we would think of as linear strategy starts evolving before that - Schlieffen writes “Cannae” about it - but it becomes increasingly “strategy of the point” as you go back in history. Which is to say operational art (such as it were) primarily concerned itself with maneuvering forces on a comparatively open canvas to arrive at a single point where it would seek either the destruction of an enemy force or seizure of a singular point of importance, and away from that point notions of “front” and “rear” lose most of their meaning.

Take the Crecy campaign as a single example, useful because it contrasts so well with the allied advance of WW2. The English land in Normandy, sack Caen, raid Rouen, and eventually march all the way to Calais which they besiege for just short of a year, but not before the famous battle. During that time they leave multitudes of castles in their “rear” to no great detriment, because they are supplied predominantly by the land they are on, not lines of supply. When they are trapped short of food, it’s because the French removed it all prior to their arrival near the Somme. Rather than return to the “rear” back to Normandy, the English break through to the NE, or “front” - forcing the French to pursue, the French who it must be noted spend a decent portion of the campaign with the English in their “rear”.

In the interim, it is not as if everything to the “rear” of the English army was now English…it was still French, with a multitude of castles and towns untaken. And when they fight Crecy even though “enemy territory” is to their “front” on the way to Calais, that is considered a good line of retreat to the coast.

In all that time, one, perhaps two, major field actions are fought at specific points, the rest of the time spent either with armies assembling, marching around, or besieging things.

———

With that in mind the castle is really more about preservation of governance, wealth, your own skin, and of course the forces that make you a lord, not some intricate series of forts meant to force a threat to an enemy “rear” or allow for sudden decisive operational strokes (your adversaries after all also have castles…it’s not like your garrison gets bypassed and now you have a shot at the capital!)