Questions on medieval armies!
- Thread starter Anime Kidd
- Start date
Victim
First Post
Defense over a broad area that moves will generally be harder than attacking it. Most spells will have enough range to attack from beyond the effective range of wards.
Look at spell ranges. Fireballs from Improved Invis outrange See Invisibility and True Seeing. Sure, you can ward an area against Teleportation. But that doesn't prevent people from teleporting to areas not warded, and then moving, or using Wind Walk and so forth.
It's far easier to attack than defend.
Look at spell ranges. Fireballs from Improved Invis outrange See Invisibility and True Seeing. Sure, you can ward an area against Teleportation. But that doesn't prevent people from teleporting to areas not warded, and then moving, or using Wind Walk and so forth.
It's far easier to attack than defend.
Ulrick
First Post
In regards to magic, I've run a modified Chainmail rules set for larger skirmishes a few times.
Each side had four units. Each unit averages about 10 individuals. Most were 1st level sorts, but there where higher level leaders (paladins, clerics, wizards, etc.) None were higher than 4th level.
I've witnessed a Glitterdust render half a unit of archers ineffective. I've seen
darkness completely halt a major advance of troops. It's no surprise that I haven't introduced Fireball .
Obviously, the more powerful the magic, the greater the impact.
Yet, I can see in mass combat magic only functioning as "specialized" artillery. But I think most spells would be cast before the battle begins.
I think it would be reasonable that a survivors in a unit suffering from a magic attack would have shaky morale.
The presence of clerics, even low level, in a unit would raise morale.
Higher level spellcasters I think would be kept in reserve...they are almost priceless assets to an army.
One thing I have learned to appreciate from my customized chainmail game is that even low level characters are like unto champions on the battlefield. A second level fighter, for example, reasonably equiped, is worth 8 1st level warriors.
Oh yes, and peasant conscripts die fast.
Each side had four units. Each unit averages about 10 individuals. Most were 1st level sorts, but there where higher level leaders (paladins, clerics, wizards, etc.) None were higher than 4th level.
I've witnessed a Glitterdust render half a unit of archers ineffective. I've seen
darkness completely halt a major advance of troops. It's no surprise that I haven't introduced Fireball .
Obviously, the more powerful the magic, the greater the impact.
Yet, I can see in mass combat magic only functioning as "specialized" artillery. But I think most spells would be cast before the battle begins.
I think it would be reasonable that a survivors in a unit suffering from a magic attack would have shaky morale.
The presence of clerics, even low level, in a unit would raise morale.
Higher level spellcasters I think would be kept in reserve...they are almost priceless assets to an army.
One thing I have learned to appreciate from my customized chainmail game is that even low level characters are like unto champions on the battlefield. A second level fighter, for example, reasonably equiped, is worth 8 1st level warriors.
Oh yes, and peasant conscripts die fast.
Victim
First Post
Mark CMG said:
AMF Standard: 6*11*2000 = 132k GP to protect a 10 ft radius circle. How many guys can you fit into that circle? How many of these expensive items can you afford?
And it still won't prevent a flying and Improved invisible archer from hovering 310 ft overhead and killing people. Neither will it block summoned creatures with ranged attacks, dropped or telekinetically thrown objects, etc. It doesn't prevent Control Weather effects from attacking your army - how about a Russian winter on demand?
In fact, because the AMF prevents magical defenses from working as it blocks magical attacks, your entire unit is now exceedingly vulnerable to mass missile fire. If your in the AMF, you can't magically ward against cold. Antimagic is very much a double edge sword.
Effective offense is much cheaper than effective defense.
a few ideas on a few of the questions
#1) a lot of the above advice (1 man per 6 families) is pretty good. Some other factors to take into account include:
- population of the country
- wealth and ability to pay the troops (or at least offer them loot and/or incentives to join up
- logistics and administrative technology (once you've got the men mobilized, how do you manage them and keep them functioning as a coherent force) for example: Alexander the Great's Army was about 40,000 strong; the armies from the small feudal kingdoms of the Braveheart movies were only about 8,000-15,000; the Pike & Shot armies of the early renaissance of the 1500s & 1600s mobilized 20-40,000 men. In populous Japan, the well oiled military machines of the Shoguns in the 1500s typically fielded 40,000-60,000 men... in one case a combined army of 100,000! With the institution of a draft, the invention of modern accounting and paperwork practices, and literate generals, Napoleon even fielded an army of 200,000 men.
Note that the bigger the army, the more hangers on and camp followers moved in the army's wake. This slowed armies down and made them less maneuverable until ways were invented in the 1800s that allowed armies to speed up and maneuver (one of the reason Napoleon won so many battles is that his well administered French Army kept flanking, surprising and surrounding the old-fashioned, ponderous professional armies of his enemies...
A medieval force would be small due to the small size and population of the kingdoms. Lack of funds to pay troops led to limited service times and led to regular desertions. Medieval armies were mobilized according to the Feudal system, in which Nobles were "honor bound" to serve their king in the army and pay and provide additional men-at-arms (henchmen) who were more loyal to the Knight than the king. Sometimes, due to politics or personal reasons, Knights wouldn't always show up to fight. They might pay the king instead of joining the army, or simply came up with excuses to not show. The ability of the King to command and control thousands of independent nobles with their own private troops was difficult. It was hard to mobilize, pay, manage and order around more than 10,000 men.
#3) There were'nt many special troops, but you could invent your own (it's a fantasy world after all). Perhaps magically armed "ninja assassins" might exist in your world who specialize in killing the enemy generals...
#4) In medieval armies, equipment was based on the wealth of the individual soldier.
- Peasant levies used padded/quilted or leather armor, and used simple weapons adapted from farm implements for military use. Usually this meant some kind of spear or other pole arm. Typical pole weapons: Glaive (spear with a knife blade on the end), Bill (spear with a chopping knife on end), Hook (spear with a pruning hook or scythe for dismounting riders), Guisarme (spear with an axe blade on end). High tech combinations of these were invented (Bill-Hooks had chopping blade with a hook sprouting out the top; Halberds combined a spear point with a short hook and and axe blade). Peasants also used military flails (flails are traditionally used to thresh wheat), crossbows (armor piercing weapons that took little skill or time to train), spiked clubs and axes (peasants chop wood).
- Mercenaries and Men at Arms were armed better than peasant levies. Usually they operated on foot. Sometimes they would specialize in certain weapons and tactics. Examples: Geonese Crossbowmen, Swiss Mercenaries (they used a mix of long pikes insterspersed with Halberd armed men in case enemy footmen infiltrated into the pikes). These troops were better armed, had weapons training, wore padded thru chain armor (depending on how rich the noble lord who equipped them was). Some specialized troops, english longbowmen for example, were peasants allowed to train in a weapon in return for extra rights. Though peasants, they were expert marksmen.
- Professional Armies were established in the larger, wealthier ancient kingdoms, especially Ancient Rome. The Roman Republic standardized their troop types into Skirmishers, Cavalry, medium infantry and heavy infantry. All troops bought their own equipment, so poor guys were the skirmishers out front, wealtheir guys wore leather and ringmail w/shield in the middle, and the richest wore chain and shield in the rear ranks. After the Emperor Marius reformed the Roman Army about the time of Jesus' the army became uniformly equipped: Banded mail or ring mail and shield, standard equipment packs, and javelins and gladius. The uniforms of the legionaires in Ben Hur or Gladiator are examples of this standardized uniform. A powerful empire in your campaign might be able to afford standardized troops of this sort with equipment funded by the state
- Noble Knights in medieval times had the most money and a culture that dictated they bear arms, as a duty and a privilege. Knights wore ring, scale, chain and plate + shield. They were armed with lances and equipped with stirrups and strong armored warhorses (think clydesdales). Knights would charge en masse at the enemy and plow into them. They were the expensive armored tanks of their day. Once the charge was over, knights wielded mace, sword, axe and flail in hand to hand combat to kill anybody who didn't flee after the initial charge.
#1) a lot of the above advice (1 man per 6 families) is pretty good. Some other factors to take into account include:
- population of the country
- wealth and ability to pay the troops (or at least offer them loot and/or incentives to join up
- logistics and administrative technology (once you've got the men mobilized, how do you manage them and keep them functioning as a coherent force) for example: Alexander the Great's Army was about 40,000 strong; the armies from the small feudal kingdoms of the Braveheart movies were only about 8,000-15,000; the Pike & Shot armies of the early renaissance of the 1500s & 1600s mobilized 20-40,000 men. In populous Japan, the well oiled military machines of the Shoguns in the 1500s typically fielded 40,000-60,000 men... in one case a combined army of 100,000! With the institution of a draft, the invention of modern accounting and paperwork practices, and literate generals, Napoleon even fielded an army of 200,000 men.
Note that the bigger the army, the more hangers on and camp followers moved in the army's wake. This slowed armies down and made them less maneuverable until ways were invented in the 1800s that allowed armies to speed up and maneuver (one of the reason Napoleon won so many battles is that his well administered French Army kept flanking, surprising and surrounding the old-fashioned, ponderous professional armies of his enemies...
A medieval force would be small due to the small size and population of the kingdoms. Lack of funds to pay troops led to limited service times and led to regular desertions. Medieval armies were mobilized according to the Feudal system, in which Nobles were "honor bound" to serve their king in the army and pay and provide additional men-at-arms (henchmen) who were more loyal to the Knight than the king. Sometimes, due to politics or personal reasons, Knights wouldn't always show up to fight. They might pay the king instead of joining the army, or simply came up with excuses to not show. The ability of the King to command and control thousands of independent nobles with their own private troops was difficult. It was hard to mobilize, pay, manage and order around more than 10,000 men.
#3) There were'nt many special troops, but you could invent your own (it's a fantasy world after all). Perhaps magically armed "ninja assassins" might exist in your world who specialize in killing the enemy generals...
#4) In medieval armies, equipment was based on the wealth of the individual soldier.
- Peasant levies used padded/quilted or leather armor, and used simple weapons adapted from farm implements for military use. Usually this meant some kind of spear or other pole arm. Typical pole weapons: Glaive (spear with a knife blade on the end), Bill (spear with a chopping knife on end), Hook (spear with a pruning hook or scythe for dismounting riders), Guisarme (spear with an axe blade on end). High tech combinations of these were invented (Bill-Hooks had chopping blade with a hook sprouting out the top; Halberds combined a spear point with a short hook and and axe blade). Peasants also used military flails (flails are traditionally used to thresh wheat), crossbows (armor piercing weapons that took little skill or time to train), spiked clubs and axes (peasants chop wood).
- Mercenaries and Men at Arms were armed better than peasant levies. Usually they operated on foot. Sometimes they would specialize in certain weapons and tactics. Examples: Geonese Crossbowmen, Swiss Mercenaries (they used a mix of long pikes insterspersed with Halberd armed men in case enemy footmen infiltrated into the pikes). These troops were better armed, had weapons training, wore padded thru chain armor (depending on how rich the noble lord who equipped them was). Some specialized troops, english longbowmen for example, were peasants allowed to train in a weapon in return for extra rights. Though peasants, they were expert marksmen.
- Professional Armies were established in the larger, wealthier ancient kingdoms, especially Ancient Rome. The Roman Republic standardized their troop types into Skirmishers, Cavalry, medium infantry and heavy infantry. All troops bought their own equipment, so poor guys were the skirmishers out front, wealtheir guys wore leather and ringmail w/shield in the middle, and the richest wore chain and shield in the rear ranks. After the Emperor Marius reformed the Roman Army about the time of Jesus' the army became uniformly equipped: Banded mail or ring mail and shield, standard equipment packs, and javelins and gladius. The uniforms of the legionaires in Ben Hur or Gladiator are examples of this standardized uniform. A powerful empire in your campaign might be able to afford standardized troops of this sort with equipment funded by the state
- Noble Knights in medieval times had the most money and a culture that dictated they bear arms, as a duty and a privilege. Knights wore ring, scale, chain and plate + shield. They were armed with lances and equipped with stirrups and strong armored warhorses (think clydesdales). Knights would charge en masse at the enemy and plow into them. They were the expensive armored tanks of their day. Once the charge was over, knights wielded mace, sword, axe and flail in hand to hand combat to kill anybody who didn't flee after the initial charge.
Victim
First Post
Balance doesn't mean that nothing changes. Modern armies for advanced countries have access to missiles, bombers, tanks, maybe nukes. That's balanced. But wars today aren't fought the same way as medieval wars, WWI, or WW2. ICBMs balanced each other, but they still changed the military and political situation.
Because both sides can have flying characters with ranged attacks, each side will have a tough time marching guys through unfortified areas. So you might have forces defending static fortresses with lighting quick raids intended to neutralize the enemies elite characters, or whatever.
Because both sides can have flying characters with ranged attacks, each side will have a tough time marching guys through unfortified areas. So you might have forces defending static fortresses with lighting quick raids intended to neutralize the enemies elite characters, or whatever.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
#1 - How big was a typical army?
Depends on what you mean by army. Throughout the medieval period there are many different types of armed forced operating in Eurasia with numerous motivation, organizations, and support structures. Even if you are limiting things to strictly controlled and supported permanent national forces with a political goal the numbers vary greatly. The overall range for these forces would be between 1,000 or less for an elite king's guard to the close to 200,000 permanent Turkish Troops maintained by the Ruler of Samarkand. That particular ruler had a lot of trade and political centralization and was thus free of some of the population constraints mentioned earlier. The Mongols took him out. I do not know how large their total numbers were but they organized themselves into 10,000 man divisions.
#2 - What troops were in it and what were their numbers?
Again wildly various, however, most of the more famous armies of the period relied very heavily on mounted troops. Competent Infantry Forces are pretty much limited to conflicts in Iberia, the Saxons, early Franks, Late Romans, Vikings, Scotsmen, Swiss, Byzantines, and late Germans. The game Medieval Total War gives you a good idea of the variety of troops involved though it does seem to me to overemphasize infantry.
#3 - Any sort of 'Special Ops' units?
Yes. There were many elite units and much of the period was characterized nearly entirely by small scale conflicts involving only these troops and then sieges involving larger forces of cheaper units. William the Conqueror, for instance, spent 40 years of rule in ceaseless conflict, but only fought in two pitched battles. Eleanor of Aquitane immobilized all of France through the skills of William Marshall and a small group of knights in the conflicts following the death of Henry II. El Cid only commanded an army at the end of his career, and most of his more celbrated victories were accomplished by a small band of elite fighters. Some theorists argue that current reliance on special forces is a return to the most basic pattern of warfare.
#4 - What type of equipment would ordinary infantry have?
Wildly varying, there are a few basic patterns for horseman but infantry vary a great deal. Infantry are going to be better equipped in the dark ages, worse in the high middle ages, and better again at the end. Peasant levies were often abysmally equipped, but many knights brought with them retinues of well equipped men-at-arms who were more than able to serve as able infantrymen and archers.
#5 - In a generic fantasy setting, how would magic and healing abilities play into the army?
I've seen a lot of differnt arguments for this. Personally I feel that the effect depends just as much on the type of militaries that you are playing with as on the level of magic. We tend to think in terms of large national armies, and most of the arguments for magics tremendous effect seem to focus on that aspect. I have seen very few arguments as to how it would affect the patterns of warfare most common to the period. Personally, I believe that DnD is balanced very well for that pattern and so magic tends to play out 'naturally' in that arena.
#6 - What type of food did the troops eat? Just ordinary tail rations or were they fed with cooked food gathered by hunters?
Grain would be the most common form of ration and fodder. Lots of scrounging did occur but the best armies had particular supply systems. The Feudal system commonly expects people to show up with food to support them for forty days, the length of their obligation, beyond which time whoever is employing them is expected to provide the men with food or the men are pretty much free to abandon their commander, something that happened fairly frequently. The Vikings had elaborate systems for calculating and distributing supply without the aid of mathematical notation. Mongols carried herds with them and every soldier was equipped with yogurt culture. Most armies who weren't willing to loot, it really slows down your marching, would organize markets in which the locals would sell the normally comparatively wealthy soldier all they needed.
#7 - Did I ask to many questions?
Never!!!!
Anyone have any sites for this kind of info? Or book suggestions, etc?
There previous suggestions are very good. There are some new fairly radical theories on the practice of medieval warfare, but they are likely to be in high academic language at this point, and probably in German. I can make a few recommendations for primary sources:
1.) There are several Byzantine books on warfare and tactics from the period. I do not know how difficult they are to find. They are much more specfic than Vegetius, who was the most frequently read theorist in Western Europe, and are give explicit details on the armament, tactics, politics, organization, and logistics of armies of the period as well as information on how to exploit them.
2.) The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, the Lives of Charlemagne by Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, and the Life of St. Louis by John of Joinville are my favorite military books of the period. The Alexiad actually serves as the basis for much of Dune.
3.) The literature of the period is filled with accounts of warfare that are fairly accurate, they just don't tend to reflect the large scale warfare we are intrested in. Malory of Morte D'Arthur, for instance, was a veteran of the War of the Roses and the picture he paints of knights running around kidnapping people and fighting in small battles does have literary and mythical levels, but it is also reflective of the world he knew.
The best army at war book from the pre-modern period is, in mine and others opinion, The March Up Country by Xenophon. It's from a much much earlier time period, but it is still very informative about many of the basic issues and tactical situations a pre-modern army that wasn't Roman would face. Said to have inspired Alexander the Great.
All of the books I've listed titles for can be found in Penguin editions.
Depends on what you mean by army. Throughout the medieval period there are many different types of armed forced operating in Eurasia with numerous motivation, organizations, and support structures. Even if you are limiting things to strictly controlled and supported permanent national forces with a political goal the numbers vary greatly. The overall range for these forces would be between 1,000 or less for an elite king's guard to the close to 200,000 permanent Turkish Troops maintained by the Ruler of Samarkand. That particular ruler had a lot of trade and political centralization and was thus free of some of the population constraints mentioned earlier. The Mongols took him out. I do not know how large their total numbers were but they organized themselves into 10,000 man divisions.
#2 - What troops were in it and what were their numbers?
Again wildly various, however, most of the more famous armies of the period relied very heavily on mounted troops. Competent Infantry Forces are pretty much limited to conflicts in Iberia, the Saxons, early Franks, Late Romans, Vikings, Scotsmen, Swiss, Byzantines, and late Germans. The game Medieval Total War gives you a good idea of the variety of troops involved though it does seem to me to overemphasize infantry.
#3 - Any sort of 'Special Ops' units?
Yes. There were many elite units and much of the period was characterized nearly entirely by small scale conflicts involving only these troops and then sieges involving larger forces of cheaper units. William the Conqueror, for instance, spent 40 years of rule in ceaseless conflict, but only fought in two pitched battles. Eleanor of Aquitane immobilized all of France through the skills of William Marshall and a small group of knights in the conflicts following the death of Henry II. El Cid only commanded an army at the end of his career, and most of his more celbrated victories were accomplished by a small band of elite fighters. Some theorists argue that current reliance on special forces is a return to the most basic pattern of warfare.
#4 - What type of equipment would ordinary infantry have?
Wildly varying, there are a few basic patterns for horseman but infantry vary a great deal. Infantry are going to be better equipped in the dark ages, worse in the high middle ages, and better again at the end. Peasant levies were often abysmally equipped, but many knights brought with them retinues of well equipped men-at-arms who were more than able to serve as able infantrymen and archers.
#5 - In a generic fantasy setting, how would magic and healing abilities play into the army?
I've seen a lot of differnt arguments for this. Personally I feel that the effect depends just as much on the type of militaries that you are playing with as on the level of magic. We tend to think in terms of large national armies, and most of the arguments for magics tremendous effect seem to focus on that aspect. I have seen very few arguments as to how it would affect the patterns of warfare most common to the period. Personally, I believe that DnD is balanced very well for that pattern and so magic tends to play out 'naturally' in that arena.
#6 - What type of food did the troops eat? Just ordinary tail rations or were they fed with cooked food gathered by hunters?
Grain would be the most common form of ration and fodder. Lots of scrounging did occur but the best armies had particular supply systems. The Feudal system commonly expects people to show up with food to support them for forty days, the length of their obligation, beyond which time whoever is employing them is expected to provide the men with food or the men are pretty much free to abandon their commander, something that happened fairly frequently. The Vikings had elaborate systems for calculating and distributing supply without the aid of mathematical notation. Mongols carried herds with them and every soldier was equipped with yogurt culture. Most armies who weren't willing to loot, it really slows down your marching, would organize markets in which the locals would sell the normally comparatively wealthy soldier all they needed.
#7 - Did I ask to many questions?
Never!!!!
Anyone have any sites for this kind of info? Or book suggestions, etc?
There previous suggestions are very good. There are some new fairly radical theories on the practice of medieval warfare, but they are likely to be in high academic language at this point, and probably in German. I can make a few recommendations for primary sources:
1.) There are several Byzantine books on warfare and tactics from the period. I do not know how difficult they are to find. They are much more specfic than Vegetius, who was the most frequently read theorist in Western Europe, and are give explicit details on the armament, tactics, politics, organization, and logistics of armies of the period as well as information on how to exploit them.
2.) The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, the Lives of Charlemagne by Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, and the Life of St. Louis by John of Joinville are my favorite military books of the period. The Alexiad actually serves as the basis for much of Dune.
3.) The literature of the period is filled with accounts of warfare that are fairly accurate, they just don't tend to reflect the large scale warfare we are intrested in. Malory of Morte D'Arthur, for instance, was a veteran of the War of the Roses and the picture he paints of knights running around kidnapping people and fighting in small battles does have literary and mythical levels, but it is also reflective of the world he knew.
The best army at war book from the pre-modern period is, in mine and others opinion, The March Up Country by Xenophon. It's from a much much earlier time period, but it is still very informative about many of the basic issues and tactical situations a pre-modern army that wasn't Roman would face. Said to have inspired Alexander the Great.
All of the books I've listed titles for can be found in Penguin editions.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Victim said:
If WotC or some other company manages to bring to market a game that supports the type of warfare/combat rules that we're discussing, perhaps you and I will get a chance to put into practice some of the theories we are bandying about here in this thread. Would you be game to playing out some of these scenarios should some rule set come along that allows us to do so?
Similar Threads
