What impact would flying mounts have on a non-magical medieval-style world?

[rbingham2000]

I have an idea born of a picture in my head of a division of shining-armored cavalry on gleaming white pegasi launching a furious charge against an enemy below.

Basically, these pegasus-riders are from a kingdom in the sky that up until recently has been on pleasant terms with the land-bound kingdoms. But now, the old king has passed on and a new king has taken the throne, an ambitious king who has his heart set on conquest.

Now, bear in mind that magic as we know it in D&D is not part of the setting. The only fantastical elements of this world, at least so far, are the kingdom in the sky and the flying mounts (griffons, pegasi, giant eagles, and the like) that it has used to interact with the land-bound world.

So...what impact would these flying mounts have on a non-magical medieval-style world? What kind of technology would arise as a result of their existence (in particular, how would trade be conducted?)? How would transportation in the land-bound world be affected? And what kinds of battles would take place when these flying mounts are used for war?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

First, just to nitpick, giant eagles and pegasi could no way, no how exist in a truly non-magical world. Not that you should care, I'm just bringing it up before one of your players does.

The sky-kingdom would, to put it simply, kick butt.

They would be able to drastically undercut communications and trade to a ceratain extent. They would not be able to move bulk quantities, but they would own the market for luxuries. The two disadvantages the sky-kingdom would have is water and real estate. All those flying horses gotta drink something and the sky-kingdom has to grow food somehow. So there is probably an existing trade of necessities and luxuries between the sky kingdom and the dirt-kingdoms.

Now, your evil sky king comes along and realizes that he has full tactical control of any battlefield. He can always outflank the dirt armies. He can move faster than they can. Strafing runs are probably out of the question because the sky mounted archers could only shoot so fast, but they could do the old trick in Return of the King where they pick some hapless guy up and drop him from 100 feet.

If the sky king has any sense the first thing he'll do is form an alliance with one of the earthbound kings. That will give him a proxy army on the ground, which the sky king will need because his supply of flying beasts is not unlimitied (I assume). From there, all he has to do is use the proxy army to do the dirty work while he provides air support, communications, and scouting efforts that will essenitally wipe the floor with the other kingdoms. Now all he has to do is tell his dirt-bound ally that the sky guys are taking over and the dirt king can leave quietly or live to see his entire staff do the 10,000 foot one-way bungee drop.

Does that help?

 

[Turjan]

In a non-magical medieval-style world, flying mounts would grant complete domination. Forget walled cities. An aggressor could always destroy or burn down a city without a chance of resistance by the defenders, with the only exception that the defenders had mounted troops themselves. Or, maybe, they'd have big shields on top of their roofs or build the cities into mountainsides or below rock formations, like those Indian ruins here in the Southwest.

 

[pdkoning]

I am designing a no-magic world. No-magic meaning that characters, NPC's and Monsters can't cast spells. There are however strange creatures like Orcs but there are no flying mounts.

Those who have flying mounts can indeed, like the previous poster said, render any regular defenses useless. This might not be what you want. One idea is that cities and fortresses have a number of guards using ballistas watching the air.

 

[maddman75]

How common are these mounts? If they are rare and expensive, I actually don't see them used much in combat. The best uses for these beasts would be communication and scouting. One of the most difficult parts of fighting a war, well, pretty much any time before the last 50 years or so is figuring out who is where and what they are doing. With eyes in the sky, the kingdom with the fliers could make suprise attack all but impossible. It would be easy to set up ambushes and avoid enemy armies, striking at their supply lines instead.

The other is in communication. A flying mount could travel in hours what could take a mounted rider days to traverse. The generals would know troop movements, hear of victories and defeats, and know news from the rest of the war effort much faster than the opposition.

There would be several ways to counteract this advantage of course. The best would be to get flying mounts yourself, but that may not be possible. I could see such a kingdom sending out units of skilled archers, looking for any flying scouts or messengers and taking them down. Even with such countermeasures, this is a HUGE advantage.

If there's enough to enter combat and aid in seige, again I would see archers becoming more valued. The biggest danger isn't in the beasts themselves, but that they could drop someone inside who could open the gates. Perhaps the controls to the gate would be protected by a portcullis on both sides, only opened from within the gatehouse. Or the courtyard could be filled with large sharp stakes to prevent the mounts from landing nearby.

I don't think trade would be massively affected - I don't get the impression you see these creatures as common as horses. But they would be most useful for diplomacy, able to ferry messages and diplomats to foreign langs with unparalleled speed. Rare or valuable items could be ferried as well if they are not too heavy, but I imagine this would be very costly.

 

[Bagpuss]

A dirtside ally is a must, there is no pratical way for a flying fortress or city to support the population or livestock it needs, at least not unless you have a load of D&D clerics doing Create Food and Water all day long. So supplies would need to be regularly raised up to the city (probably via ropes) this would be its main weakness, depending on the speed of the city it could be very easy to cut off its food supplies from below.

 

[maddman75]

A dirtside ally is a must, there is no pratical way for a flying fortress or city to support the population or livestock it needs, at least not unless you have a load of D&D clerics doing Create Food and Water all day long. So supplies would need to be regularly raised up to the city (probably via ropes) this would be its main weakness, depending on the speed of the city it could be very easy to cut off its food supplies from below.

On the other side, this is yet another advantage of the flying mounts. With no magic, it would be easy to slip a few of these mounts out of a besieged city at night to bring back food. Water was generally kept in wells or cisterns. They could bring in enough food to keep the garrison going.

 

[Jdvn1]

There's also the Dragon Rider PrC from the Draconomicon. If it's too much of a stretch, maybe you could adapt it for a different mount?

 

[rbingham2000]

Almost all of the stuff that I have on both discussions (here and on the Wizards boards) have been focused on war.

The people on the Wizards boards mentioned archers as a viable anti-flier weapon as well. Shooting down a flying mount from a hundred or so feet up is going to take down both the mount and the rider in one fell swoop -- and pray you're not directly under them when they hit the ground!

The land-bound kingdoms will almost certainly want to get an aerial cavalry program going as soon as possible after their first battles with the fliers -- when your enemy has a distinct advantage over you, you have to adapt or die.

Also, there was the mention of most of the sky-king's army being peasant conscripts on ground duty, which makes the aforementioned alliance with one of the land-bound kings a definite good idea for our resident evil skyking.

I am throwing out the link to the Wizards discussion here.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not to get political--

But for a pretty good analog, the United States vs. Iraq.

Air power may win battles, but it takes boots on the ground to effect real victory. (Assuming you want to "conquer" the enemy and not simply annihilate them.)


Wulf