Building a Fantasy Army

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
The other popular high quality armor is the brigandine, which offers nearly as much protection as plate armor but is much easier to make because it retains its shape using cloth or leather rather than metal links.

And many small plates riveted into a textile or leather sandwich are easier/cheaper/more efficient to manufacture than a single large plate for a breast or back.
 

ATP

Well-known member
It really depends. Yes, armour production required much highly skilled labour, but together with the grinding of bread-flour, steel production and arms and armour were the first things to benefit from wind and water power and the first glimmerings of industrial production, often at the direction of the monasteries that directed arms and armour production under first Charlemagne and then later the Ottonian Emperors.

By the 1400s, which is to say late Medieval and stretching into early Modernity, you could and did have 'armoury' plate that was intended for the common footman, worked just enough to do its job and in standard sizes that fit no one very well, but fit many men 'good enough'.

If i remember correctly,water mills was used to really mass-produce plate after 1405.That is why during war polish with Teutonic order in 1410 maybe 10-15% of combatants have full plate,when in 1456 practically all./on both sides/
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
If i remember correctly,water mills was used to really mass-produce plate after 1405.That is why during war polish with Teutonic order in 1410 maybe 10-15% of combatants have full plate,when in 1456 practically all./on both sides/

Water/Wind driven trip hammers go back (at least) to the centralized manufacturing of swords for Charlemagne's armies by monasteries (which drives the transformation of the form of the sword from its migration era 'viking' form [spatha shaped] to the characteristically medieval cruciform shape).

What allows for the mass production of plate defenses is the restoration of mass smelting techniques that give bigger blooms of better quality higher carbon steels starting in the late 1300s. It takes a while for the supply chains to work themselves out. The first use for the increase in the supply of steel to make more/better tools.
 

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
An expanding or expansionist state will often focus on heavy infantry, whereas a defensive one will focus on cavalry.

  1. Need for mobile response force. Cavalry can respond very quickly to incursions which were detected at the last minute. But traditional Roman cavalry was only used in harrassment role. Thus, heavy shock cavalry was required to dispatch infantry-based barbarian armies.
  2. Avoidance of attrition warfare. Roman Empire, especially in the Late Antiquity, could not well afford casualties. Because of this, a cavalry unit capable of dispersing and slaughtering the enemy was required.

Does this apply to navies as well? Mainly speaking up to the 18th century here). If an expansionist empire like Britain favors heavily gunned warships for battle, with their ships having upwards of 60, 80, and sometimes 100+ cannons to ground anything to dust. Whereas smaller nations (ie the Dutch or the Danes) that just want to defend themselves have smaller, faster ships with faster response times within their waters and outrun the huge overgunned ships?

What about mountainous/heavily forested regions, where cavalry are impractical? Does a defensive army continue to rely on infantry, or do they switch to some other substitute that is not cavalry?

The reason why Romans could afford to send out huge armies for a direct conquest is that they were so much better at logistics than most of their enemies.

I remember your article about logistics and armies being like sharks that have to keep moving, but I can't remember anything special about Roman logistics. What did they do differently?
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Does this apply to navies as well? Mainly speaking up to the 18th century here). If an expansionist empire like Britain favors heavily gunned warships for battle, with their ships having upwards of 60, 80, and sometimes 100+ cannons to ground anything to dust. Whereas smaller nations (ie the Dutch or the Danes) that just want to defend themselves have smaller, faster ships with faster response times within their waters and outrun the huge overgunned ships?

For the most part, yes. Though in that case general conditions are often more important: British could afford to build large numbers of first-rates because they were a) rich and b) on island, so they didn't have to spend large sums on army. French, Dutch, Danes, all of them had to maintan powerful armies and so had to adopt Jeune Ecole - like approach against the British.

But importance of geography can be seen in the Mediterranean and Baltic, where galleys kept being used up until 18th century or so.

I remember your article about logistics and armies being like sharks that have to keep moving, but I can't remember anything special about Roman logistics. What did they do differently?

It wasn't mine, that particular reference was made by Bret Deveraux over at acoup. As for me, only the part 7 of this series details logistics. So four weeks from now.

As for Roman logistics, it comes down to organization. They had centralized organization of supply system, and this organization scaled: minor campaigns could be supplied by a single province, but major campaigns had involvement of the entire Empire.
 
Last edited:

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
One thing I haven't seen touched upon much is how difficult it is to maintain control/discipline over your forces depending on where they are from, which can have varying levels of bad consequences.

Militia seem prone to getting extremely... passionate, or vindictive, especially if your being invaded and/or the militiamen perceive that they are victims of something. During the very first battle of the American Revolution, already you had militiamen scalping redcoats, and militiamen travelling from dozens of miles from the surrounding countryside just to get a chance to shoot at the fleeing redcoats. Were it not for the timely arrival of reinforcements from Boston, the British forces that went to Concord would have never made it back alive to Boston (and even then, only a fraction of the initial force made it back alive). You also have instances where militia/patriots who perceive that someone isn't patriotic enough will brutally punish said person by burning their house down, or "pressuring" that person to leave the country (which in turn only encouraged the "punished" individuals to join the Loyalists).

Mercenaries are obvious enough. They follow the source of the most coin. If they aren't paid on time... or think they will get more money by going rogue, they will go rogue. IIRC during the Spanish occupation/invasion of the Netherlands, the Spanish missed one of their payments to their mercenary forces. Said mercenary forces then proceeded to brutally sack a nearby wealthy city, which galvanized Dutch resistance against the Spanish.

Hiring/allying with foreign tribes or clans that do not share your culture to fight for you seems to be highly volatile. During the Revolutionary War, an Indian tribe that was allied with the British scalped a few civilians during one raid, which fed the Revolutionaries' well oiled propaganda machine. "The king is hiring savages to butcher his own people!". The Indian tribes hired by/allied with the British during the Revolutionary War were either not given proper instructions (perhaps the British liaison overlooked this, or something wasn't communicated properly), or the Indian tribes were bloodthirsty or ignorant enough to not care.
 
Last edited:

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Mercenaries are obvious enough. They follow the source of the most coin. If they aren't paid on time... or think they will get more money by going rogue, they will go rogue. IIRC during the Spanish occupation/invasion of the Netherlands, the Spanish missed one of their payments to their mercenary forces. Said mercenary forces then proceeded to brutally sack a nearby wealthy city, which galvanized Dutch resistance against the Spanish.

Sack of Antwerp in 1576. And it was not just "wealthy city", but the seat of regional Spanish government. Though I don't think it was just one missed payment.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Part 5, or how to recruit the troops for the army:

So,Tagmata system for semi-proffesionals,levies for rest.
Some elite royal guard,and mercaneries - but only trusted.

That would be most practical kind of army.Gentry levies - polish was good till at least 1514,and border one on tatar frontier remain good as long as tatar keep coming - but till 1655 rest was so bad,that polish career slodier,Jan Pasek,author of famous Memories,wrote thet he would prefer to lead pigs to pasture then gentry levies to battle.And he himself was polish gentry.

Peasant infrantry - peasants with scythes serwed well during polish 1794 uprising,so they could serve in fantasy,too.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
So,Tagmata system for semi-proffesionals,levies for rest.

That would be the themata. Tagmata were full-time professionals.

That would be most practical kind of army.Gentry levies - polish was good till at least 1514,and border one on tatar frontier remain good as long as tatar keep coming - but till 1655 rest was so bad,that polish career slodier,Jan Pasek,author of famous Memories,wrote thet he would prefer to lead pigs to pasture then gentry levies to battle.And he himself was polish gentry.

Agreed.

Peasant infrantry - peasants with scythes serwed well during polish 1794 uprising,so they could serve in fantasy,too.

Peasants could be effective in irregular warfare and sieges (see Siege of Belgrade). But they could never form the basis of a field army.
 

ATP

Well-known member
That would be the themata. Tagmata were full-time professionals.



Agreed.



Peasants could be effective in irregular warfare and sieges (see Siege of Belgrade). But they could never form the basis of a field army.

My mistake,themata.
Indeed,in two battles where scythers fought/Racławice and Szczekociny/ they were shadowed by regular units which look for them to not escape.But - they fought well,in Racławice battle their charge break russians and captured 12 guns.
During Szczekocin battle where we lost they not run where enemy guns killed them,and repel enemy calvary charges with their scythes.
So,we could use them in battles the same way - schadowed by semi-regulars,but still used.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Peasants could be effective in irregular warfare and sieges (see Siege of Belgrade). But they could never form the basis of a field army.
That depends entirely on how much money you have. Ultimately the point of infantry is to occupy space. Being able to do anything more than sit on a piece of land and wave a flag is nice, but that is the main job of regular infantry.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
That depends entirely on how much money you have. Ultimately the point of infantry is to occupy space. Being able to do anything more than sit on a piece of land and wave a flag is nice, but that is the main job of regular infantry.

Not so much money as society. Peasants who are treated as crap by their social superiors will not be very keen to die for the society they live in. But even free, well-treated and well-equipped peasants were generally no match for a proper army, unless they managed to turn terrain into their favour. See Battle of Visby and Battle of Masterby.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Not so much money as society. Peasants who are treated as crap by their social superiors will not be very keen to die for the society they live in. But even free, well-treated and well-equipped peasants were generally no match for a proper army, unless they managed to turn terrain into their favour.
I think you misunderstand my point. A nation will use peasant levies not because of preference, but because they cannot afford better in the numbers needed. If you can afford a regular army, you will use that instead.
 

ATP

Well-known member

So,it would be 1% - unless i would lead nomad people,like mongols,where every adult was soldier,or german/gallic/slavic like tribe where all adults was warriors,too.
Another possibility - rich city-state which could hire as many mercaneries as they need.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
So,it would be 1% - unless i would lead nomad people,like mongols,where every adult was soldier,or german/gallic/slavic like tribe where all adults was warriors,too.
Another possibility - rich city-state which could hire as many mercaneries as they need.

Expense of mercenaries would still prevent such numbers from being maintained long-term. Also, 1% is merely rule-of-thumb; as I have explained in the article, a lot depends on what troops you have, and how you are supporting them. A full-time professional army of heavy cavalry will field far fewer troops than light infantry militia. A seasonal infantry army may recruit up to 10% of total population, while professional army - even that of infantry - will likely be below 1%. An army of part-time professionals will be somewhere between <1% and >2%, depending on how rich the country is and how much cavalry it has by proportion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top