Dragonlance Reading Soulforge and uh, I have questions

[Ruin Explorer]

Midshipmen in the Royal Navy, during the Napoleonic period, could functionally serve in battle and lead gun crews at the age of 12 or 13, but that'd be acting as junior officers over full grown men actually loading and firing the guns, and it would be after a few years of learning from the adult officers.

Also it's worth considering how much they actually added, and how much was just a matter of finding something vaguely useful for them to do, given the main reason for their presence on ships was to act as apprentice officers and learn the trade of being an officer, rather than to actually do work like the enlisted men or actual officers and so on.

Further, one might actively question the value of said training even, given some Midshipmen were simply put "on the books" of ships, didn't actually sail on them, thus didn't learn much if anything at sea, yet seem to have been very good officers nonetheless! (C.f. Thomas Cochrane, who was basically an anime character in terms of his ludicrous career!)

 

[Mannahnin]

Also it's worth considering how much they actually added, and how much was just a matter of finding something vaguely useful for them to do, given the main reason for their presence on ships was to act as apprentice officers and learn the trade of being an officer, rather than to actually do work like the enlisted men or actual officers and so on.

Further, one might actively question the value of said training even, given some Midshipmen were simply put "on the books" of ships, didn't actually sail on them, thus didn't learn much if anything at sea, yet seem to have been very good officers nonetheless! (C.f. Thomas Cochrane, who was basically an anime character in terms of his ludicrous career!)

Cochrane was exceptional in a lot of ways, that's for sure.

Though many mids were put on the books early and falsely, some did actually start their service young. It was the closest real-life example I could think of for kids that age actually serving usefully in battle, and of course it's after firearms became predominant.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We are talking about fiction, but I don't feel confortable with this threat about child soldiers.

If some detail may be too unconfortable or controversial, then the coherence with the continuity has to be sacrificed

From TV tropes: Child Solider - Real Life.

• Ancient Sparta is one of the most infamous examples, with boys as young as 7 entering a formalized and brutal training system known as agoge. Although actual combat duties didn’t start until years later, this arguably produced the toughest soldiers in the Greek world.

• The Middle Ages: The training of a knight usually began at the age of seven (7), and it was claimed after twelve, the boy is fit only for a priest. When a young nobleboy turned 14, he was expected to serve his master on the battlefield as a squire. Around age 20, he would serve as a full-fledged man-at-arms. It's noteworthy, though, that while training did begin at seven, the first years were generally spent under the tutelage of the wife of the knight the boy would eventually serve, where the boy was taught things such as proper etiquette and conduct, chess, music and other societal skills. They weren't expected to actually fight in battle until reaching squirehood unless the fight came to them, for the practical reason that most children that age wouldn't have the strength to make a meaningful contribution in the battle line anyway.
  • Most feudal systems with a warrior-aristocrat caste, such as Japan's samurai and India's rajputs were raised in a similar manner.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ancient Sparta is one of the most infamous examples, with boys as young as 7 entering a formalized and brutal training system known as agoge. Although actual combat duties didn’t start until years later, this arguably produced the toughest soldiers in the Greek world.

I'd argue the evidence to support that their youth training produced exceptional troops is pretty weak. Also, the agoge could start at 7, but only if you thought your kid was hard enough, and you only had to actually graduate from it by age 30.

The real difference seems to have been the Spartan hoplites was simply that they spent a lot more time practicing and actually fighting than other hoplites, because they were effectively a professional army in an era when that was uncommon, as they had to be on standby 24-7 to put down the constant revolts from the helots, the ethnic underclass they brutally suppressed, and kept as somewhere between slaves and serfs (basically with a degree of freedom more like serfs, but a total lack of a value on their lives which was more like that of slaves - there was also a component of aggressive humiliation tactics not normally seen with serfs or slaves).

However, it's also questionable whether the level of elite training they engaged in actually was all that beneficial in hoplite warfare, because it's peculiar form of combat that whilst requiring discipline, does not actually benefit much from martial skill (as far as we can tell). Only when a phalanx falls apart and people have to start engaging with swords and so on will skill at arms play much of a part.

I would argue that you can tell that they were only so good because when they fought other states in Greece, they didn't just auto-win, in fact despite all this they fairly often lost. They had two centuries during which they won enough to create these dodgy legends, but that was it.

 

[CandyLaser]

I'd argue the evidence to support that their youth training produced exceptional troops is pretty weak. Also, the agoge could start at 7, but only if you thought your kid was hard enough, and you only had to actually graduate from it by age 30.

The real difference seems to have been the Spartan hoplites was simply that they spent a lot more time practicing and actually fighting than other hoplites, because they were effectively a professional army in an era when that was uncommon, as they had to be on standby 24-7 to put down the constant revolts from the helots, the ethnic underclass they brutally suppressed, and kept as somewhere between slaves and serfs (basically with a degree of freedom more like serfs, but a total lack of a value on their lives which was more like that of slaves - there was also a component of aggressive humiliation tactics not normally seen with serfs or slaves).

However, it's also questionable whether the level of elite training they engaged in actually was all that beneficial in hoplite warfare, because it's peculiar form of combat that whilst requiring discipline, does not actually benefit much from martial skill (as far as we can tell). Only when a phalanx falls apart and people have to start engaging with swords and so on will skill at arms play much of a part.

I would argue that you can tell that they were only so good because when they fought other states in Greece, they didn't just auto-win, in fact despite all this they fairly often lost. They had two centuries during which they won enough to create these dodgy legends, but that was it.

This is pretty well-attested to in the historical record. I recommend Bret Deveraux's excellent series of articles about it, found here. That link goes to the first in a seven part series, so it's not a short read, but it is informative. The first few parts focus on Spartan society and its brutality; their supposed military might gets discussed in depth in sections six and seven, which can largely be read without reading the earlier bits if you're so inclined. The articles go into detail as to what advantages the Spartans did and did not have on the battlefield, and what that translated to in terms of battlefield success.

The short summary is that the Spartan heavy infantry (their hoplites) probably had some advantages in terms of command structure and organization, and they might have been slightly more individually capable than their peers in comparable societies (other Greek city-states, Persia, Macedon, etc). These advantages didn't really translate to much when it came to success on the battlefield, where their reputation for military might didn't really have much to back it up, as they lost about as many battles as they won, which is about normal for large Greek city-states. They were basically a regional hegemon with control over the Peloponnese for ~175 years, which was largely due to the fact that they were about 3x bigger than any of the other city-states in the area. There's a stretch of ~10 years where they manage to extend their hegemony across Greece at large, which they mainly do by allying with Persia against Athens, which ends with Sparta being turned into basically a client state of Persia, ironically.

Deveraux's conclusion is this:

When we started this series, we had two myths, the myth of Spartan equality and the myth of Spartan military excellence. These two myths dominate the image of Sparta in the popular consciousness, permeating game, film and written representations and discussions of Sparta. These myths, more than any real society, is what companies like Spartan Race, games like Halo, and – yes – films like 300 are tapping into.

But Sparta was not equal, in fact it was the least equal Greek polis we know of. It was one of the least equal societies in the ancient Mediterranean, and one which treated its underclasses – who made up to within a rounding error of the entire society by the end – terribly. You will occasionally see pat replies that Sparta was no more dependent on slave labor than the rest of Greece, but even a basic demographic look makes it clear this is not true. Moreover our sources are clear that the helots were the worst treated slaves in Greece. Even among the spartiates [Sparta's landowning citizen class], Sparta was not equal and it never was.

And Sparta was not militarily excellent. Its military was profoundly mediocre, depressingly average. Even in battle, the one thing they were supposed to be good at, Sparta lost as much as it won. Judging Sparta as we should – by how well it achieved strategic objects – Sparta’s armies are a comprehensive failure. The Spartan was no super-soldier and Spartan training was not excellent. Indeed, far from making him a super-soldier, the agoge made the Spartans inflexible, arrogant and uncreative, and those flaws led directly to Sparta’s decline in power.

And I want to stress this one last time, because I know there are so many people who would pardon all of Sparta’s ills if it meant that it created superlative soldiers: it did not. Spartan soldiers were average. The horror of the Spartan system, the nastiness of the agoge, the oppression of the helots, the regimentation of daily life, it was all for nothing. Worse yet, it created a Spartan leadership class that seemed incapable of thinking its way around even basic problems. All of that supposedly cool stuff made Sparta weaker, not stronger.

This would be bad enough, but the case for Sparta is worse because it – as a point of pride – provided nothing else.

Emphasis in the original.

 

[DarkCrisis]

So, what is the age difference between Tika and Caramon?

The last time it mentions age Caramon is 20 and he later meets Tika who is a child. And not like 13 years old but running around jumping on peoples back etc. Like maybe 6-ish? It doesn't really day. Thats when he met her.

Which i get later they are both consenting adults but still.


Also, man Raist's heart almost grew 3 times that day when he thought a pretty girl liked him. Turns out she just liked to sample all the local dudes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is pretty well-attested to in the historical record. I recommend Bret Deveraux's excellent series of articles about it, found here. That link goes to the first in a seven part series, so it's not a short read, but it is informative. The first few parts focus on Spartan society and its brutality; their supposed military might gets discussed in depth in sections six and seven, which can largely be read without reading the earlier bits if you're so inclined. The articles go into detail as to what advantages the Spartans did and did not have on the battlefield, and what that translated to in terms of battlefield success.

The short summary is that the Spartan heavy infantry (their hoplites) probably had some advantages in terms of command structure and organization, and they might have been slightly more individually capable than their peers in comparable societies (other Greek city-states, Persia, Macedon, etc). These advantages didn't really translate to much when it came to success on the battlefield, where their reputation for military might didn't really have much to back it up, as they lost about as many battles as they won, which is about normal for large Greek city-states. They were basically a regional hegemon with control over the Peloponnese for ~175 years, which was largely due to the fact that they were about 3x bigger than any of the other city-states in the area. There's a stretch of ~10 years where they manage to extend their hegemony across Greece at large, which they mainly do by allying with Persia against Athens, which ends with Sparta being turned into basically a client state of Persia, ironically.

Deveraux's conclusion is this:

Emphasis in the original.

Oho, it's always delightful when someone brings the receipts to show you were right! Thank you! I shall look into those articles so I can argue from a better factual basis in future.

 

[Azzy]

So, what is the age difference between Tika and Caramon?

According to Dragonlance Adventures, at the beginning of the Legends series, he's 28. Tika is mentioned as being in her early 20s.

 

[DarkCrisis]

According to Dragonlance Adventures, at the beginning of the Legends series, he's 28. Tika is mentioned as being in her early 20s.

Im starting to wonder about inaccuracies in this book.

Ages seem off compared to Legends. Descriptions are off. Sturm is blonde. Tanis has brown hair (isn’t it red?)

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Im starting to wonder about inaccuracies in this book.

Ages seem off compared to Legends. Descriptions are off. Sturm is blonde. Tanis has brown hair (isn’t it red?)

I believe - and it's been awhile since I read the original Chronicles(?) - but I believe Tanis had auburn hair. And Sturm, I'm pretty sure, was always depicted with black, or at least dark brown, hair I believe.