How can nations afford armies?

[LightPhoenix]

The question is, in a world like D&D where magic is commonplace, why don't small armies have magical defenses? Allowing the adventurers to have magical items and spellcasting and not allowing the army to is creating an artificially unbalanced battle.

Realistically, you would find that if bands of adventurers attacked armies as in this example, defenses would be developed to stop them. This would more than likely be, as some people have said, opposing bands of adventurers.

Since the most dangerous aspect of these adventurers would be spellcasters, you would see the development of specifically anti-spellcaster bands of adventurers to combat this threat. Adventurers who end up in melee will get swarmed by lower level soldiers, eventually taking too many criticals to survive.

On a mechanical note, in an average army I would expect the majority of combatants to be either Com 1 or War 1. Veterans would probably be more like War 2 or 3. Any mid-level characters would probably be in special strike teams to deal with rampaging melee adventurers or be formed into an anti-spellcaster unit.

This is, of course, all IMO.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I gave armies magic items specifically designed for war and large units. It varied from country to country, but it might be something like 4 battle standards that funcitoned as a protection v evil, prayer spell for all those who wore country x's symbol and were somewhere in between the 4 standards which formed a box pattern. Or devices that funcitoned like minor globes of invuln but mobile with the large magic device, and with a much larger area of effect etc.

I just assumed that there normally would be many items made specifically for war, and not just to make one fighter a bigger stomper.

 

[Ace]

Greetings!

Yep...You really nailed it down Green Knight! I suppose I run a very unique style of campaign, but since I have several huge empires in the campaign area, who all have vast armies, it changes the equation dramatically. In many ways, my world takes a lot of the assumptions of 14th century European D&D and throws them out the window! For example:

The armies you speak of Green Knight--exactly! In many areas, soldiers in my campaign are very professional, with fine-quality equipment, constant training, and good leadership. From a leadership standpoint, the adventurers have several advantages:

(
Vallorean Platoon--Legionnaires

(3) Infantry Squads, each composed of the following:

(1) Sergeant; Usually 8th-12th lvl Fighter/Ranger
(12) Legionnaires; 4th lvl Fighter/3rd lvl Feat Master is typical.
basicly they are 4th lvl Fighters with a few more hit points and a few more feats that better represent their abilities as professional soldiers of the Vallorean Empire.

(1) Weapons Squad, each composed of the following:

(1) Sergeant, usually a Wizard that is 8th-12th lvl.
(2) Bards, 4th-8th lvl.
(4) Rogue/Wizards, usually between 2/2-5/5.
(4) Wizards, from 4th-8th lvl
(2) Fighter/Wizards, 2/2-5/5 in lvl.

Thus, these four squads forms a Legionnaire Platoon. In addition, there is the command unit, composed of the following:

(1) Platoon Commander: An officer of proven ability, this officer usually has 16 lvls, composed of Fighter 8/Feat Master 5/Ranger 1/Expert (Scholar) 2.

(1) Platoon Sergeant: usually 10th-14th lvl. Same as a line sergeant with additional levels.

(1) Warrior-Priest, usually a Fighter 2/Cleric 2--Fighter 5/Cleric 5.
(4) Fighter/Clerics, 1-2 lvls lower in experience.

(1) Wizard; This Wizard is usually 8th-12th lvl, and has a number of magic items, SNIP

Training, equipping, and maintaining powerful, professional military forces is very expensive. But the payoff is considerable, too. Like dominating the political, military, and economic destiny of a continent, and safeguarding a vast empire of over 100 Million people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I like the way you think SHARK! You are almost as nasty as Iam

Just for comparrison a Vinyaran "Company" 20 men mostly warriors L2-L3 with chain shirt, shield, 3 javelins and longsword lead by 5 corporals Warriors l3-L4 and a leftenant L5-L6.

Each company had 2 spellcasters usually Wizards but occasionally Sorcererers or Bards L6 or better typically one at level 6-10 and another a level or two lower but still able to cast third level spells.

Every 12 companies is backed up with a Support vehicle, a big robot a zepplin whatever....

Some of the companys are Ranger (non magical) companys and Archer/Sniper units called Harriers (or derisivly Rakers)

Clerics never engage in secular wars directly (it is not allowed by the gods) but they often play support roles in the rear and are basically medics and protectors of non combatants.

Tactics, Well ...

big barrage of Energy Substitued Fireballs (the Wizards usually have a "battle guantlet" capable of casting them at will as well as flight, missle protection and invisiblity items), fast movement by the troops ,oppportunity missle fire and a meele.
Repeat as needed

Definetly not your midievil battle....

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Utrecht: My friend! What the Romans accomplished was amazing! You know, there are advancements that the Europeans made during the Dark Ages, but like I explained to my wife, in comparison, a merchant in Rome in say, 85 AD had far more in common with our lifestyle today, than a Castle Lord in 10th century Britain! I mean, really! The "Dark Ages"--though some scholars eschew the term, while others do not--was named thusly for a number of reasons. Lets say there are twenty categories of advancement and technology, with each being rated at a scale of 1-20. If the Roman Empire could be described as averaging straight 15's across the board, Dark Ages Europe outscored the Romans in two or three categories, rating say, 16-18, while the other categories were at the level of 5. I explained this to my wife at dinner tonight. Did you know that in the 8th or 9th centuries, while most of Europe huddled by the fire and scurried from the wrath of the Vikings, Byzantium had street lights? Yeah, real, working lamps that the city had placed throughout the boulevards of the sprawling city that illuminated the city at night along the broad streets. The Byzantines also had running water, heated rooms, and a fully developed civil service. Before this, the citizen in Rome could take his case to a real magistrate, with a lawyer!--and have his case determined in a court of law. The same people in Britain, or France in the 8th century, well, their justice was only as good as the knight who oversaw them. Since he was often a rough barbarian who raped and preyed upon the local population at whim, any kind of "justice" was usually reserved for only when a fellow warlord was somehow wronged. It should be understood that with the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe lost so much that it took them a 1000 years or more, to fully recover. By this, I mean at least a framework of comprehensive recovery, integrated economy, political unity, rule of law, and the gradual refinement and progress of philosophy and technology. The great lack of these things is the reason why the first thousand years or so after the fall of Rome is considered to be the "Dark Ages." Did you also know that the Romans had not only running water, but hot and cold water-pools for the bath houses? The Romans also had indoor heating for their houses, too. True, such wasn't available for everyone, of course, but many of the wealthy and important could have them. It consisted of having stone floors in a house lets say, with a series of water pipes under the flooring. These pipes ran under some simple metal grills, which touched the stone flooring. When scalding hot water was run throught he system, and maintained, it caused the pipes to conduct heat through the stone flooring. This in turn heated the room quite nicely. This, without the endless logs of firewood, and the smoke and all that, though fire-places were also used. Pretty nifty, huh?

Hey, Utrecht! I just thought of something you will get a kick out of! Do you have the movie Gladiator? You know, with Russell Crowe? Stick that in the player! I was so excited when they noted the history right in front of the starting of the movie! I laughed when I saw it! I gained respect for them immediately, because I knew they had done their homework! Utrecht, sir, I must confess that I never took umbridge with anything you said. It's not like a debate or something! It's just the History Professor coming out in me!(smile)I just love to share knowledge, especially history!

You know, long before I began attending college, when I was in high school, as well as in the Marine Corps, I would check out *literally* a dozen or so books on the Roman Empire. These aren't Readers Digest ones, for popular reading, either!(smile)These are the huge 400-1200 page books that could kill someone if you bopped them on the head with one! I would read them each, very carefully, even taking notes. When I finished reading them, say a dozen or so, I then proceeded to check out a dozen or so books, like the earlier ones, on Dark Ages Europe. Then, I checked out a dozen or so books on the Byzantine Empire. When I was done, I not only had a foundation for my later studies in college, but even at the time, my thinking was revolutionized! I was awe-struck with the legacy that the Roman Empire, and the inheritors--the Byzantine Empire--had accomplished! I highly encourage all to pursue the same journey! Even if you don't teach, the journey will always be interesting, that I can assure you!

I chew on this stuff all the time. It's really facinating! You know, in thinking about D&D, I think there are some very different presuppositions. 14th century European standards do not have to be the *standard* Did you know that when William the Conqueror invaded Britain in 1066, there were advanced kingdoms in Africa that fielded armies of 200,000 soldiers? William invaded England with, what, 16000 knights? These African kingdoms, at that time, were not only ruled by strong united governments, but also had sophisticated economies and trade routes in place. A vast trade of gold, ivory, exotic animal skins, pepper, gems, dyes, and other spices were constantly travelling from these African kingdoms to the Middle East, and the Far East, including India, as well as into other areas of southern Africa. Yeah, 200,000 soldiers, and some kingdoms had thousands of elephants, and others had tens of thousands of horse-cavalry. Some had chain-mail, too. That was in 1066 AD, when the biggest army led by the most powerful king in Europe, was vastly smaller than that. Pretty incredible, you know?

It's also interesting to note that long before the middle-ages in Europe, China had developed a vast professional army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, perhaps even millions. The Chinese, while not terribly aggressive outside their vast borders, none the less developed sophisticated technology in weaponry, chemicals, communications, command and control, logistics, as well as recruitment and training. Long before Europe started to get the idea. China had developed a professional army that was recruited from all over the empire. The Chinese also built the Great Wall, as well as a sophisticated road system throughout China. The Chinese also had a regular mail delivery system that could promptly deliver mail from one side of the empire to the other.

I mention all of this, because whether one is thinking about the accomplishments of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, or the kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, or of the Chinese, or the Inca, there are a lot of different accomplishments outside the confines of 14th century Europe. Many say, "well, in medieval times, 5000 troops were an enormous army! Nothing bigger could be done!"--that's fine for poor, backwater Europe. But there is more beyond the impoverished backwaters of Europe! Change some of the presuppositions, and possibilities begin to really blossom! The game--your game!--can be played with different assumptions than from 10th-14th century Europe. The History of Europe, and of the world!--is rich with fresh possibilities!

What do you think Utrecht?

Alaric!--You're a Classicist? That is so cool my friend! I love the Classics! I'm glad that you like my contributions Alaric! Thankyou!

Ace!--Go brother! See, I love it. I don't let adventurers just think they can stomp all over the world! Heh, they had best not try that nonsense with armies in my campaign! I just don't quite see why kingdoms and empires throughout D&D worlds, who have more wealth and power than the adventurers could ever imagine, wouldn't train, and equip their armies to be able to deal effectively with adventurers, you know?

What do you think?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Kichwas]

[BThe Romans also had indoor heating for their houses, too. True, such wasn't available for everyone, of course, but many of the wealthy and important could have them. It consisted of having stone floors in a house lets say, with a series of water pipes under the flooring. These pipes ran under some simple metal grills, which touched the stone flooring. When scalding hot water was run throught he system, and maintained, it caused the pipes to conduct heat through the stone flooring. This in turn heated the room quite nicely. This, without the endless logs of firewood, and the smoke and all that, though fire-places were also used. Pretty nifty, huh?[/b]

This is the system used in modern day Korea as well. It's also vastly more efficient than our western system.

It also tends to put people low to the ground. Although the heat rises quite well. I notice in American homes the warm part of the house is near the cieling. Which since I lack the Spider Climb spell is a massive wast of my energy bill...

One thing about low to ground heating and keeping people low to the ground is furniture can be about 1/4 to 1/2 height. Which is ideal if you have halflings and gnomes in your city...

And part of why much of my own fantasy world uses this system since Halflings are so common there.

Humans and halflings can sit at the same floor table with little difficulty.

You don't need running water for the system to work either. Until recently the Koreans did it with a coal brick burning in a shack outside the home and heating the water in pipes within a self contained system.

In rural areas with older homes you still spot this, and sometimes spot people with 'floor burns' from shoddy made floors...


I'm another subscriber to the 'use Rome and not the middle ages' school of thought. So much of the way things were under Roman days is better suited to adventuring than the medival paradigm.

invaded Britain in 1066, there were advanced kingdoms in Africa that fielded armies of 200,000 soldiers? William invaded England with, what, 16000 knights? These African kingdoms, at that time, were not only ruled by strong united governments, but also had sophisticated economies and trade routes in place. A vast trade

I remember learning this in High School. We had an African Studies department and they made sure everyone knew this sort of stuff. People would always try to dismiss it the same way they dismiss all the 'ancient mother goddess' theories.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hey Arcady! Yeah, I like the *Use Rome and not the Medieval European model approach*! You know, the thing I don't understand is the idea that if the Europeans in the 14th century couldn't do *X* then it can't be done then. Well, what about Europe *before* the medieval times? Or Africa from before 1650 AD, or ancient China, or the Inca, or the ancient Babylonians? The Europe of the 14th century is not the only approach one can take to building campaign societies, or even the best, as you mentioned Arcady. You'd think after all of these years that people would be kinda done with a European flavor that is entombed in such a narrow scope, and be eager to branch out and incorporate other stuff.

I like 14th century Europe. But 14th century Europe isn't all of time, nor is it the whole world. I like to integrate other elements of culture, society, government, economics, and technology into different areas of the campaign world, to allow it to depart from the old paradigm when and where I want it to. For example, I have backwater areas of the campaign world that resemble an impoverished non-magical European area, stuck somewhere between the Viking raids and the Black Death. But that's only part of the world. There are other areas, other kingdoms, other populations, that can think, dream, and build more than the backwater areas can even imagine. This campaign flexibility also provides interesting contrast, as well as different challenges and nuances from one area to another. It's great.

I'm wondering about the cultures of the "Mother Goddess" that many seem to embrace. I even have a good number of books that discuss these ideas, and issues. The problem being, though, is that the model of the Cultures of Old Europe, who worshipped the "Mother Goddess" and being happy, friendly people that just danced, traded, and made love all the time, and lived in cities that were unwalled, and had no real military, and then all of the lovely Goddess-worshipping people were swept away in bloody conquest and slaughter by the Indo-European hordes who invaded from the East, and outlawed the Goddess, in favour of their own warlike Sky and Mountain Gods, just has a long distance to go in acceptable evidence. I had one history professor, an PHD, and expert in Ancient History from USC, explain that that stuff was just nonsense. It never existed, as there is precious little evidence for it. The logic of it just isn't there. he explained that no credible authority in History embraced such an understanding. He concluded that it was simply very unlikely that European history, and nearby societies developed that way at all.

I checked many of my books at home about it, as well as magazine articles, and well, those who were making such claims were not often titled with degrees, or they were archeologists, or anthropologists, or something else. Even then, their "positions" were not accepted by the vast majority of scholars of History, or even the other academic disciplines. In all such cases, they seemed to be a tiny minority, whose positions were not accepted or taken seriously by professional academic circles. It was frustrating, because a lot of what they had to say was tantalizing and intriguing, but any evidence was open to different interpretations, and in any event, as I mentioned, they were all almost universally dismissed as fringe ideologically-motivated "history" and "myth-making."

I've done an extensive paper on the subject, and while I think there is certainly evidence that the cultures of Old Europe may have been different from the invading Indo-Europeans, and there may have been goddess-cults that were popular, there isn't much evidence of the pristine, idyllic society that pagans like to depict. Even considering the fact that the Greeks and Romans were Indo-Europeans, and Patriarchal, they also had very strong goddess-cults that were extremely popular. These goddess-cults weren't necessarily peaceful, or peace-loving. The cultures that they influenced, and which developed around them, long before the advent of the "hated, ultimate patriarchal Christianity" were some of the bloodiest, most savage and cruel cultures ever recorded in the annals of history. Evidence--real evidence from historical and modern-day goddess-cults--indicates that they are no more united, nor are they any less bloodthirsty and violent than religions that are "patriarchal" and "male-dominated." This considerable and irrefutable evidence though, exists in massive scale, compared to the very "iffy" conjectures, seems to, perhapses, and maybes that constitute the mantra of the primarily feminist scholars that embrace such a historical theory.

Myself, well, while some of the evidence is intriguing, and even interesting, I am doubtful that Old Europe ever existed as the feminist scholars claim it did. That doesn't mean that there is *no accuracy or truth* in their positions, just that much of their position is conjecture, and is thus fallacy to embrace such position as historical truth. That's my assessment of it at any rate.

Oh, geez. I'm doing a fine job of hijacking the thread, aren't I? Well, it is just difficult for me to restrain myself from chewing on these kind of historical discussions, you know? Please, everyone, forgive my ranting monologue!

Some interesting thoghts, Arcady!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Dispater]

Weren't armies in the anitquity quite large? I think Alexander the great fielded hundred thousands of troops, as well did the Persians, who had incredible ammounts of cavalry. After winning a battle, Alexander ordered the execution of around 10.000 greek mercenaries who had fought on the other side. Just like that. As SHARK mentions, the Romans lost 80.000 men at Cannae and still managed to deal with Hannibal.

The Romans were indeed great, but I am left with the impression that in the late days of the western roman empire they were so spoiled by 'bread and circus' that they didn't even bother to defend their empire. Instead they paid of german mercenaries, who eventually sacked Rome instead. I have read somewhere, that romans complained to the authorities after a town had been plundered, that 'they wanted its circus rebuilt rather than its walls'. Anyhow, the western roman empire stagnated (while the eastern remained), much due to a failing government but also, I think, a lack of will among the people. Instead, the fate of europe laid in the hands of those who had been summoned to defend the romans.

The dark ages were perhaps not all that dark. In the 8th century
Karl the great, king of the franks (and later emperor of the western roman empire), was no barbarian knight. Under his rule he united the gauls, saxons, franks, goths and other german folk as well as he took northern italy and Rome in his protection. Of course, the empire he made was shattered by civil wars after his death, but in this was laid the foundations for modern europe and its borders.

Just my 2c.
-Dispater

 

[S'mon]

Sure they stack in the sense that prot from arrows will block 10 points of missile damage and stoneskin will block 10 points of damage from any source. So that's still 20 points.

The default 3e rule is that sadly same-type protections never stack, so the same 10 points of damage will overcome the resistance of both spells. Anyone have a Sage etc quote to confirm/deny this?

 

[Ace]

Greetings!

SNIP COOL STUFF!

Ace!--Go brother! See, I love it. I don't let adventurers just think they can stomp all over the world! Heh, they had best not try that nonsense with armies in my campaign! I just don't quite see why kingdoms and empires throughout D&D worlds, who have more wealth and power than the adventurers could ever imagine, wouldn't train, and equip their armies to be able to deal effectively with adventurers, you know?

What do you think?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Absolutely. If a really serious threat aka high adventurers or somethimg worse shows up my Nations have many options.

Favorites include assassin teams mid level rog/wiz and rog/rngr combos with lots of "slaying" weapons and nasty tricks

"Special" units basically Counter Adventurers

A friendly Archmage, most antions have a few high level wizards about 12+ and because I allow longevity magic there are more really high level mages out there than one would expect

If things get really bad The Church Of the Way can call for a band of Seekers which are a mixture of Clerics, Paladins and various others with Clerical Abilities. 5, 10th level Paladins 5 10th level Clerics backed up with 300 infantry (l3 warriors) with magic arrows can usually handle most threats.

The thing to remember is that society are organized. In the real world if a person ran rogue he would face in decending order Citizens, Police, SWAT, National Guard and Federal Cops, then theoertically the armed forces. In theory a big enough threat (maybe a rogue military unit or a Tarrasque-A-Liche) a could be met with a nuclear weapon!

Granted I doubt the real world would see any Tarrasque-A-Liche show up but the potential is there.

D&D soxcietys are probably more violent than the real world would be (healing magic and raise dead being out there) and less organized but like real societys they can protect themselves quite well.

 

[Kichwas]

The Goddess theories: I'd give them some credcence in the area that cultures were different at one point and then went through a massive change. That those early people did worship some kind of goddess figure.

But that's where it ends for me.
Worship of a goddess != hippy love fest. The problem comes from modern neo-pagan feminism trying to put it's morals on something very ancient and lacking written record.

It's a lot like the Noble Native American concept touted by another branch of these same groups... the neo-pagan shamanism crowd.

That ideal has serious problems when it runs headlong into the Sioux, Crow, Apache, Aztec, and so on...

Sure it has some basis in some things that are true; but it is falsely interpreted using their own modern morals rather than the realities of the people they are 'recoloring'.

Only in this case it only takes one of my cousins to walk over and slap them around a bit in order to set the record straight...

The ancient goddess cultures of prehistoric europe are long dead so they can't really come by and slap anybody around to get their own record straightened out...


So... moving on.

I have a '14th century europe model' location in my world. It's one of the 'backward places'. A region constantly stuck in internal warfare and highly destabalized. Actually a good source of slaves for the people in the civilized world.

If the 'Eastern Kingdoms' ever got organized though; they'd be a terror to the rest of the world. Presently they can't field a kingdom that controls more than a few hundred miles at best before it rips itself apart in infighting.

They do field sizeable armies there, but lack naval skill which is what is important given the geography I use. Many of the more developed nations actually have small land armies but vast naval and merchant fleets. The most developed form of military combatant is not the knight on his warhorse... but the marine with his ability to be launched in from a naval attack on a city and quickly take ground on a beachhead or port until footmen can be brought in to hold it. Or boarding actions along major trade routes.

Warfare does not have to follow the typical paradigms of the middle ages...