Clubs have been used in warfare from prehistory to the world wars. They are still being used by modern soldiers on the border of India and China. There likely has not been a whole army armed with clubs, but they have always held a place in the toolkit of human violence.
Yeah, in case of emergency, anything will be used for clubbing sword hilts, rifle butts, any piece of something close enough at the moment, pretty much any dull, handheld thing doubles as a club
Matthew: warriors with clubs never actually went to war Tetsubo, maces, and Iroquois ball-club wielders: are we a joke to you? Meanwhile Shadiversity: Get me my big stick. Still a great video nonetheless btw. Keep up the good work!
Kanabo, warhammer, halberd (some had hammers). Clubs and spears are the two weapons that never go out of style of account of one not caring about armor and the other being very long. Swords have no place. We could have very easily reached the 21st century without ever making a long expensive and less useful knife.
@@CharliMorganMusic swords do have a reason to exist. you can strike anywhere along the blade and still stab with it. if they were truly useless, the 'arming sword' and any other non ceremonial swords would have never been used
@@CharliMorganMusic I'd say it's more spears and "bludgeoning weapons" that never go out of style - maces and warhammers are a whole lot more useful against heavy armor than "big club".
The matter of army size is different back then than how they are now. While yes a general would lead an army the matter of size is dependent on the way the state, technology, beuracry, and population. Corps were introduced during the napolenic wars since these would act as a smaller and more cohesive unit than a larger army and would carry far more ground. However the the largest standing army during the classical period before the Roman's were the persians with over a 100,000 soldiers. And the Roman's would grow an even larger army where it was over 150,000 soldiers. Keep in mind these empires were over millions of people under their domain. But when these Empire's fell armies during the middle period were only a few thousand or less.
Definitely, I simply used modern army structures as an example most would be familiar with. Another limiting factor of army size is logistics. In modern times, we have near instant communication, though historically that certainly was not the case, and managing large numbers with delay was impractical and in some cases detrimental.
@@WorldbuildingCorner Well even back then they still had sophisticated communication and logistics. Look at the Mongol Empire for example, their messages could communicate forces hundreds of kilometres from each other yet still achieve resounding successes.
Considering the first known instance of warfare included blunt force trauma, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the earliest warriors who waged war would have used clubs. It may not have been preferred over bows, but logic dictates that one would need some kind of close up weapon in case an enemy got close enough to render a bow ineffective. I would also say the earliest wars were over land control instead of strictly over control of resources as we don't really see much evidence for warfare until after the advent of agriculture, when people started settling into permanent dwellings.
Also it depended on the society’s access to metallurgy and how dense their native trees were, Polynesian had ornately crafted warclubs made from extremely dense hardwood.
@@InquisitorThomasIndeed, the Iroquois had something similar as well. Metallurgy seems to disproportionately aid bladed weapons over blunt force weapons, at least from these examples
@@connormcgee4711 well yeah it doesn't particularly matter if your club is harder or not. It's going to crush things pretty much the same amount. It's damage is based on its weight. Blades on the other hand need to be made of a strong material or they'll snap too easily and not cause any real damage. Thus metal is more important for a blade than a club.
Or perhaps they did. In 272AD the mid Roman Emperor Aurelian is reported to have employed 'Palestinian Clubmen' at the battle of Emesa, armed with large wooden clubs to defeat Palmyran Cataphracts (lancer cavalry with both horse and man fully armoured , so difficult to attack with light weapons - concussive damage is a thing) Its not clear if these were Auxiliaries recruited from the province of Palestina or legionaries from the local garrison. Some sources credit Constantine the Great for the same trick at the Milvian Bridge in 312AD. Earlier Trajan's column depicts German Symmachiarii (Auxiliary troops trained by the Romans and led by Roman Officers but fighting in their native style) wielding wooden clubs (and spears) in battle against the Dacians. Anglo-Saxon 'Great Fyrd (the rough equivalent role to AWI Minutemen from 1776) called up for the battle of Hastings in 1066 are described as armed with spears, javelins, bows, wooden clubs (apparently sometimes thrown!) and stones (for throwing) plus seaxes (single edged long knives/short swords). Bishop Odo of Bayeux (William the Conqueror's half brother) is depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry wielding a huge wooden club during the battle (as a priest he was forbidden to spill blood...) At the late c19th battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, soldiers of the Zulu armies, organised into regular, disciplined and officered regiments, as part of a highly stratified military state, used knobkerries (round headed wooden clubs) as back-up weapons. All these examples are of major state organised military forces taking part in major set piece battles. So warriors did use wooden clubs in 'battle', even allowing for your definition , sometimes by choice to achieve a particular effect, sometimes because it was part of their military culture and sometimes because it was what they had - you fight with the army you have, not the one you want. This said, still enjoyed the world building! Seeing one of the elite bear warriors being targeted in mid rampage by a co-ordinated attack from a specially trained 'kill team' of enemy soldiers wielding large wooden clubs might be amusing (though i leave it for you to decide for whom!)
Hey, i didn't think you could make the Na'aquil more terrifying but for some reason i forgot about the nonsapient species you made that they could dominate. Fun! Super smart organic mechapilot creatures! Love this world and this process. I'm going to have to try this on my own!
I've been working on my story, Descent, for a while and had my own ideas on how the military functions across different states. Glad to see you touch on the subject! Edit: Just for some light worldbuilding talk, in Descent, there are Elementalists (think Avatar, but with more rules) that ended up carving an empire on the continent. Ironically, because of the fear mongering against them, Guns and other ranged weapon development were made to combat them, hence causing many Elementalist to be subdued, enslaved, or otherwise killed outright in their already small numbers. One nation, Navine, the birthplace of the firearms, use Elementalists as a sort of tactical setting. Enslaved, these Elementalist would serve as shock troopers, while the regular force would act as blocking units, normal troops, and anti Elementalist troopers, where need be. In another nation, Veia, the Elementalist are free and would often be used as force multiplier, while the military as a whole would emphasise on a mobile force to force their opponents to exhaust themselves and fight in planned counter attacks. It's a fun little military worldbuilding exercise when you throw magic into the mix.
I think those are really cool ideas! Just one question. How in the setting did the invention of advanced tactics take place? It took hundreds of years of basically hoping your lucky today before we start to see more advanced tactics that we see to do become the norm and not the acceptation. These are at least ww1 era tactics so I was wondering if you had thought of an idea on why military tactics advanced so quickly with the addition of these elemantalists?
@@joshred1571 Indeed! What was shown was the olden military tactics (since I didn't really know my watermark on revealing stuff...) The Elementalist may seem like a "be all end all," a weapon to surpass metal gear. But the true reality on the ground is that a bullet doesn't discriminate. Hence, different nations went to lengths to find ways to improve and protect their latent pool of "weapons," so that they might tip the scales of war. While Navine is the first to create the weapon that would be the bane of the Elementalist, and would employ them greatly, Veia was the first to understand that the tactical value of the Elementalist is no longer relevant in war. To that end, they no longer rely on Elementalist centric platoons and would instead put priority on weapons on war that we're more used to seeing today. (At least, irl.) This shift means that now, instead of intentionally having squads work in tandem with their attached Elementalist, troopers are expected to be able to dispatch their mission with or without other means of support provided to them, although many wished that they'd at least not see any Elementalist barreling at them on the opposing side.
@@ZearthGJL neat. Using the elementalists as more like living artillery pieces does make sense. I think they would be highly prized because the hardest part of using anti-tank and artillery guns has always been maneuvering them. That’s not an issue with them although they can’t be everywhere, they can certainly cover more ground and be more maneuverable. I like this idea. If you get more progress and publish it, please let me know through this comment because i find this to be an interesting idea if it can be written well.
That's a really cool setting! It is truly fascinating how much magic affects warfare (and the world in general). A lot of what we know of warfare needs to be adjusted to make way for it, especially in settings with particularly powerful mages. Sounds like you've got some really cool implementations of this!
You want to make Yeerks even more terrifying? Make them incapable of ageing, and when they run out of Kandrona they enter a torpor that lasts until they get more, and they could wait millennia if they need to and nobody would ever realize they're not dead until they wake up.
It's such an interesting concept, and warfare in general is far more in depth than I can cover in ~20 mins, let alone how magic can affect it, but in the future I might specifically discuss magical warfare!
A LOT of early warfare used clubs. Even up until the renaissance, maces were being used which is just a fancier metal club. Whole whole armies are rarely equipped with clubs, they weren’t very rare to see.
ive had a fantasy world brewing in my mind for over 10 years that i have never had the discipline to put into writing - finally making more headway than i ever have before - I'm amazed at how little thought I've put into the military, the plot points are mostly interpersonal, but the militaries will shape the settings around them - very cool thank you
I love this series! Every episode is brief but contains most important information of the respected topic. In addition everything is well summarised and each episode feels well thought through! Really exellent job!
I recently starting writing a series of novels about a people that go to war against a branch of their own that were ostracized ages ago. Since they are predominantly hunter/gatherers, I try to make them develop military order out of their hunting groups. A platoon is a group of four, three hunters plus a leader (since they only have four fingers on their limbs, this equals three fingers and a thumb, hence the platoon is called a 'palm').
What is interesting is that prehistoric archery battles were not at all like medieval ones. Usually arrows lacked fletchings and were quite light, with archers engaging without any structure at max ranges, and after a couple were wounded one side fled the field, with the other taking their territory and women, if they could catch them. It is depicted well in "The white headhunter"
Found your channel on Saturday, and have now fully binged the entire thing. It's a bit weird having to actually "join you next time" instead of continuing right away, but I guess that just gives me time to start worldbuilding!
I'm also planning on writing a novel series about a guy building his own dukedom in another world, so this came in pretty handy. Thanks for the vid, chief. Loving every valuable information it gave me to prepare for my writings 😁
Another thing to always keep in mind that many militaries are constantly adapting and changing, as it is sometimes a misconception for war to never change when really war is something that always evolves such as for example a early 18th century army is gonna be drastically different in terms of outward aesthetics and way of fighting from a late 18th century army and that many militaries could evolve many times over the course of a single war so to keep your military interesting is to probably note the change it has done to itself over the course of its existence, Rome as a civilization technically existed for over 2000 years from its founding of its first kings to the fall of Constantinople by the ottomans in what we could call the Byzantine empire and in this very very long time frame, rome's military force had to change and adapt many times in order to remain viable and relavent.
I recently saw a video (re. the comparison of modern day trenches in Ukraine with those of the Western Front in WWI) which stated both sides on the Western Front continuously evolved and that either side would have made the breakthrough they both wanted, if they were faced by the army of a year earlier.
I am super excited to have found this channel! World building is my favorite aspect of any location and world. Anything from fantasy to real life, I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve paused a video and just thought of the world at the time.
fun thing about prehistoric warfare: there were developments in ranged weaponry even before the bow. weapons like the sling and atlatl are so often slept on, but david kills goliath with a sling in the bible for a reason. the sling was the glock of its age.
Wow, again, I'm only 2 minutes in and I'm already disagreeing with you. You seem to be under the impression that all military forces throughout history have operated exactly like our modern armed forces. That's not true at all - our modern system is something of an oddity in history, being highly deracinated from civilian society. If you're designing a pre-industrial, pre-gunpowder military force, and especially if you're designing a force raised by a feudal monarchy of some kind, then this system doesn't fit very well. I would recommend the work of military historian Bret Deveraux, on his blog A Collection Of Unmitigated Pedantry. Specifically I would direct you towards his analysis of the Siege of Helm's Deep from the Lord of the Rings series, where he breaks down the events of the war between Rohan and Isengard from a military historian's perspective. Part IV of that series is particularly pertinent to this discussion (though the whole series, and the man's entire body of work, are well worth browsing for worldbuilding fodder - the man's a huge nerd as well as a historian). In that part, Deveraux details some of the ways that feudal monarchies approached the matter of raising and commanding military manpower, be it through vassal retinues or various levy systems. I honestly suffered culture shock from reading about them, they are that far removed from how we modern folk assume armies "should" operate. And they are a far cry from the assumptions you make in this video.
"Patrol" is a type of mission or action, not a unit designation or size. you were probably confusing it for the actual size of "Squad" with what you labeled squad which is usually called a fire team (or simply a team. Your teams are usually sub sections of a squad with one team being led by the sergeant proper and the other being led by a corporal, the distinction between the teams allows the squad to move as two manouver elements and perform flanking manouvers, L shape ambushes, ect. For commonwealth countries "Squad" is usually reffered to as a Section instead
Your concept for the Tarna'qua is fascinating... I shrugged it off as a reskin of the Mind Flayer, but your idea would play out _sooo_ much more interestingly. Love it. Stealing it. Thx.
Clubs were certainly used, though an important distinction, especially for conflicts as recently as Ypres is that warfare very certainly was not entered into with the assumption that most soldiers would be using wooden clubs as their primary weapons.
@@WorldbuildingCorner No, but the club is still one of the few weapons that modern soldiers will train on. In fact, it's more common than the bayonet, and only surpassed by the knife. EVERYONE in EVERY conflict throughout human history was expected to know how to use a club. You can't argue against this.
Wonderful video as always. For my personal verse, in the current time line there is for the humans of the continent on which the story is set a mostly feudal armed force, with some local peasants sometimes being conscripted and trained when greater numbers are needed. The Pyroxene Drows do not have a military, since they are a city-state hidden from the outside world. The closest thing they have are guards, that serve as a police force, and make sure nobody reveals to other cultures their existance. The Emerald Drows on the other hand have a reserve-type of military, with every male being a soldier. They are not as organized, though, and their function is mostly to raid, and keep their main location secret. In Drow cultures, enemies and criminals who earned themselves the death penalty are either consumed, dissected or turned into soap. As Drow view decomposition as sacred, saponification is reserved for the most hated, the one to who they see no honor and are beyond redemption. The stateless Ice Elves have warrior mages, adult males of their society who are physically strong and magically gifted. They are the closest thing this world in the XVIth century (equivalent to our XVIth century) have to an air force, since Ice Elves are capable of flight. However, they cannot stay airborne for very long, and three hours is the maximum most can take. Magic and archery are performed at ground level. Since magic require transe to perform, these warrior mages would be a lot less responsive to terror tactics. Also, their particular style of magic are "psychic blades", which do not pierce the skin, but causes severe pain and potentially lethal internal damage, as well as confusion and hallucinations. The bonus of this is that they can never run out of ammunitions. The minus, it requires a lot of time and effort to maintain. There are also catpeople, who don't really have any state of their own either. They form small villages, in which virgins are the fighters. In their territorial rage, they can take down opponents that are physically stronger and better armed then themselves, but are quite vulnerable in a calmer state. Dwarves strongly value peace , and they tend to avoid conflicts when they can, excepted when competing for ressources. They mostly work through reserves. Also, there is the occasional human Dark Lord, and during the course of History, one of this Dark Lord and his army of the undead formed an independent, multicultural country out of the old necropolises.
Fascinating, as always. I absolutely love the concept of psychic blades, it is so mysterious and otherworldly, but the combat style of them being familiar. Very cool!
Reminder that there's many types of army organization other than the Irregular and Professional Militaries. Retinue Organization is one of the most common for Tribal society where a High Chief would have Lower Chief becoming his retinue and having Retainers of his own, when called for war the Lower Chief would gather up men which could be levied peasant or their own retainers, the Retainers are usually chosen close people in the tribe who has been given the wealth and spend more time training. Example of this Army Organization are the Classical Barbarians, Medieval Kings with their Knights and to a certain Extend the Samurai of Sengoku Jidai.
@@TheAchilles26 It still depend on the Context, as Retinues are often Professional to Semi-Professional Soldiers when serving people of high status, in many Medieval European Society the Term "Man-at-Arms" are given to soldiers who fight while serving a lord who paid them for their service and even housed their family in the lord's lands. In a Modern Context the Retinue Organization is almost non-existent as the military equipment getting more state owned as you cannot just own a Tank in your house where you would ride into battle once your Governor calls for war like a Medieval Man-at-Arms owning a War Horse.
I think your understanding of prehistoric conflicts is a tad lacking, I recommend Prehistory Guys from youtube. Also clubs from hardwood have been common weapons for warriors in Africa since club was invented ("rungu" is a prime example). Wooden clubs have been found from many prehistorical battle sites, and in for example aztecs also used clubs to get live captives for sacrifices. Arming your men with clubs to get more sacrifices sounds a good worldbuilding aspect too. And this is only about prehistory. Later maces and hammers were the tools of war knights used against other and peasants learned to wield too in Netherlands for example. In a worldbuilding standpoint, some culture might have a winning strategy, until other culture gets some cultural innovation, usually something like city state rivalry can develop warfare a lot in short time. developing strategies to counter enemies,. Thus we can see many kinds of fortifications and field strategies come about.
In the Tollense Valley archeologist have found the site of a battle from c.1250BC. From the part excavated they estimate it involved c.750-1,500 people. They found arrowheads of flint and bronze, bronze spearheads and they also wooden clubs. In WWI soldiers used wooden cubs in trench raids, called trench raiding clubs. I don't understand how you can say warriors never used wooden clubs.
He could’ve said better “No well armed warrior uses a club” A club is a makeshift weapon, if they want a bludgeoning weapon to use against armor they use a hammer or mace, not a club
@@Goblinhandler He would have said better, if he hadn't said it at all. A club isn't necessarily a makeshift weapon: there is nothing of a temporary substitute nature about knobkerrie, gunstock club, wahaika, etc. it's a long list.
@@stephena1196 okay bucko you can quit it with the smug attitude because you read one too many Wikipedia articles No professional army for the last thousand years has used clubs unless desperate
Really love this video series. Kind of wish there is more. I know you’re probably gonna upload one in a couple of days considering the previous upload schedule. Can’t wait to see it.
Being as the primary weapon of the Aztecs were clubs, spears, and atlatls, yes. Soldiers prior to the advent of bronze used clubs for warfare. The maquahuitl is literally just a primitive mace using obsidian blades instead of steel. That was the main armament for their military elite.
Always love watching your vids, they've helped me realize that science-based worldbuilding is what I need to do in order to break this six month writer's block. I followed a ton of advice before about things being smoke and mirrors and how the art is in making worlds that people believe are fully fleshed out but is really just what is needed to be fleshed out for a plot. Turns out that doesn't work for me and I need actual hard info to pull from when I need it. Thanks so much, man.
im glad this video exists, im currently am working a manga that is based around militaries (designs are around 20th century ww1), magic, religion,and cult. It starts off like a normal fantasy but after foundation of resources the world starts industrializing and eventually starts modernizing.
Got a suggestion for a future video. Talk about the world-building logistics of having a professional Navy. You're fictional world has several populations located on island archipelagos, which makes it likely that they would depend more on a Navy than an army.
Actually, warriors used clubs for just about as long as there have been warriors. Furthermore, there is no reason swords need to exist; spears, clubs, knives, and javelins need to exist, but not swords. If your armies are anything other than bows, spears, and shields, you need to have a very good reason that this isn't the standard kit.
@@TheAchilles26 axes, knives, spears are multi purpose tools, swords aren't. axes can cut down a tree; spears for fishing, hunting and used as a walking; knives can be used to skin the animals hunted with the spear or bone fish caught. 2) swords are expensive to make compared to the former, and iirc were rare for peasants
@Just saying , actually spears and axes specifically designed for warfare are NOT multipurpose. But yes, swords were expensive, which both contributed to their relative rarity and to their position as a status symbol. Swords weren't PRIMARY weapons, but they were effective sidearms and civilian self defense weapons. It is infinitely better to bring a sword to a knife fight than to bring a knife to a sword fight.
I think that it helps to define a military in at least two ways. The first is what the military does. There are roughly four military functions. The first is the professional army whose primary purpose is to defeat the external enemies of a nation (see US Army for example). The second is the police army, whose primary function is the defeat of internal enemies (see the Friekorps of the Weimar Republic). The third is a ceremonial force whose function is primarily symbolic (see the Crossbow Corps of San Marino). The last is political in which the military often determines the political fate of the state (see the Praetorian Guard of the Roman Empire). The second way to define a military is to remember Clausewitz's dictum that wars are fought by people. So, recruitment strategies with their advantages and disadvantages should be considered. The oldest, at roughly the beginning of the species, is the warrior system where a group of individuals fights voluntarily for no direct compensation for a cause, usually for family or ideological reasons. The primary advantage of this system is that it is cheap since such warriors largely equip themselves. Also, leadership rapidly evolves towards effectiveness since individual warriors will choose who they follow. The primary disadvantage is that such forces are inevitably small (either due to the limits of a clan size or due to representing a small percentage of the population) and they cannot afford more expensive weapons. The second group, arising roughly at the same time as agriculture, is conscription. Conscription acts as a tax on time, one which is historically disproportionately paid by the poor. Conscription creates large forces, but those forces are expensive (consider the cost just to feed that high a percentage of your population). Also, bear in mind that the state is arming the poorest and thus potentially most rebellious portion of its population. The third system arose roughly around the time of money and those are mercenaries (hiring outsiders to fight for you). This has the advantage of not requiring a standing force as a mercenary army can be hired and fired as needed. Also, if a mercenary outfit exists, that must mean there is enough fighting for that mercenary group to represent an experienced military group. The disadvantages are first, that the mercenary might rob the paymaster and second, that mercenary leaders tend to caution since their soldiers represent their working capital, a thing not to be risked by businesspeople. The fourth system, the regular, is a volunteer subject or citizen paid by the government to fight, or the way most modern militaries work. The advantage is a long-standing highly-capable force, but often with lower numbers than may be needed in an emergency. The fifth system grew out of early democracies and that is the militia system where military service was a condition of citizenship. The major advantages were numbers and the major disadvantages were cost since this is also just universal conscription. However, since historically citizenship has sometimes been tied to wealth, some militaries simply vanished due to economic stratification reducing citizens to tiny numbers. For instance, Sparta's supply of full Spartiates went from about 8000 to about 300 in the two centuries after the Peloponnesian War simply because wealth became concentrated among fewer and fewer families. The last system is military slavery, most often seen in Islamic countries like Mamelukes and Janissaries. These forces were formidable in their day, but stagnated over time. Whether that would be true of all such forces, I don't know.
I've been trying to build a world and a story for a while now, so watching through these videos has been interesting, lots of notes to take. Still trying to find a good way to pull the story together through the world though =P Some ideas for future videos could be how to design kingdoms or cities, what would be the essentials a settlement would need and is there logic or a system to how a good fantasy city would be laid out Or even more than that, maybe try to put together a list of settlement types that would usually spring up other than the main kingdoms. Like smaller villages, ports and harbors, farmland or various types of outposts, and break down the logic or reasoning on where they would most likely be placed Also maybe a video giving a few tips or tricks for how to create fantasy names. I just can never understand how a person comes up with cool sounding new names for people, places or things. Whenever i try to come up with something it feels like i'm just doing random sounds until something comes through, whereas other works seem to have elaborate names which sound legit
I can give you a little tip for fantasy names, which helped me! Write down a bunch of natural things, like river, hill, tree, mountain, and make up a name for them that sounds like it could be called if you discovered those things (e.g. River = Flume, Hill = Bulge) Then, mix the word up a little to give it a fantasy kick (e.g. Flume = Flusè, Bulge = Bulega) Then, when making a place name, use this new language to name it, or what you think the creator/ discoverer of this place would name it (e.g. town at the top of hill with a river flowing down it? Welcome to Bulèse!) Bit quick and dirty, but can tie every place using the same language (or a language that isn't used anymore) together! That's pretty much where most of the real life names of places come from (e.g. Torpenhow Hill, coming from several different languages and translates to "Hill Hill Hill Hill") Hope this helps!
Matthew, I've watched this entire series thus far, and I've enjoyed it. I really hope you're considering writing novels with the world of Locus. I find the concepts fascinating, but seeing them put to use in a story setting would be marvelous! 😊
About army heirarchies, the example you used is very modern, army hierarchies in the middle ages were a lot less well defined and as a result most fantasy armies probably should too. Also it's important to note than standing armies weren't used in medieval Europe. The closest you get is mercenaries and feudal bound knights.
Sparta is such a hilariously absurd example of a real life society. Basically, they had tons of slaves, called helots, that actually did all the economic work like farming. These helots were always on the verge of rebellion, so Sparta kept a large standing army and massive reserves, because they were always waiting for the next rebellion. Of course, supporting such a large army required a lot of work, so they would be insanely cruel to the helots, while getting more helots, to support this large army. But now you have more helots, and the helots are way angrier, so now you need a bigger army... At its peak, the helot population reached 90% of the total, meaning the 10% had to try and match the 90% in terms of military power. This cycle of paranoia and escalation created a culture that was engineered from the ground up to do nothing but produce soldiers. Women were basically relegated to just being "soldier-makers," while men grew up training, served for most of their life, then trained the next generation if they survived. It wasn't even some "manly-man" testosterone thing either, it was basically the Spartans constantly realizing how utterly insane it was that 90% of their population was literally one step away from killing them all.
While I enjoyed this video quite a bit, I feel like you basic premise (warfare requires the development of true ranged weaponry like slings and bows) is rather flawed, and ignores many early examples of conflict.
Indeed. There have always been periods where ranged weapons played, at best, a secondary role in successful military organisation - the Greek hoplite phalanx, Roman legions, late Medieval to early modern pike squares...
Absolutely, all of your examples played huge roles in historical warfare. All of these examples however include melee weapons made of metal. In the video I do clarify that once bronze (the first metal we used for weaponry) is introduced, melee foot soldiers start being introduced (and become the norm for much of history).
@@WorldbuildingCorner The Americas and Polynesia did not have metal (in any meaningful amount for tool use) yet still had primarily melee weapons. Ranged weapons are not all modern guns, they are easily outmatched in close combat and cannot reliably prevent close combat in a battle which is why most human combat has utilized both ranged and melee together up until modern guns became powerful, reliable, and fast enough. Even in Europe, among the prehistoric battle sites, clubs and stone maces are found as well as spears.
@@WorldbuildingCorner Which is why early Egyptian armies used stone Macemen, being supplemented by archers. Or why the Aztecs had a huge focus on melee.
I'm happy and sad to reach the last of this 27 videos playlist I really can't wait to see what's next also the more I see your video the more I'm willing to finally start working on my own world so keep going with amazing content, i'm no expert but you're definitely becoming a reference in world building (also I strongly believe that your videos could be used as a pedagogic support as a lot of the material you use and put in your videos are things that are teach in school (at least in France where I'm from) and they could definitely use world building as a tool to explain these subjects to children it would make it way more interesting)
I am going to be the military historian saying; "aaaaachktuallyyyy". Germanic warriors did use clubs against Roman legions. Probably for the same reason later knights used maces. And what is a mace but a club?
The comments got it covered but just to add my voice to the uproar: clubs were widely used for a variety of reasons. Videos still good despite that, gonna watch more of your stuff
I'm gonna need you to define the word "club" for a second and the implications around it. Because maces are just fancy clubs and they were used extensively in war because of their affect against armored targets.
@@ianyoder2537 ironically it was the introduction of bronze helmets that led to their replacement by axes. In fact war clubs were used by mesoamerican armies, who despite lacking metal often had melee centric armies.
The bonk stick is and has been the most effective weapon ever, other than the pointy stick and the boom stick. It's the easiest to make, easiest to supply, easiest to wield and fucks a dude in fancy armour
What if the armour is made out of the same material as guns and the shield is made out of a door of a tank? And fantasy army is modernised with guns and swords and since the designer was lazy why bother switching the armour?
I fantasy worldbuild based on my old Mega Bloks, and one of the factions uses maces and clubs. Their mold was bad, causing many broken hands. I have used that as a cultural trait that those warriors use heavy clubs but many break their hands doing so. In the unified kingdom, they are restricted from using those weapons, which they see as taking away their culture, causing divides in society.
Warriors don't use clubs? Then why do we keep finding them on Bronze Age and Iron Age battlefields? Just look at the weapons they found at the Tollense battlefield. Historically, clubs were definitely used on the battlefield, just like maces, hammers and other blunt weapons. Also, there is A TON of evidence for the use of flint, obsidian, bone, horn, wood and other non-metal melee weapons (primarily spears, pick-axes, hammers and clubs) during the Neolithic, Bronze Age and even into the Iron Age (and well into historical periods if we consider areas outside of Europe such as the Americas). Speaking as an archaeologist here, the idea that non-state, migratory tribes have no intergroup conflict is absolute nonsense. The same goes for settled, non-migratory tribes (don't forget that agriculture and permanent settlement predate the emergence of states and especially the invention of metallurgy by a long time). It was once a popular hypothesis for sure, but it has long since been discredited in the face of overwhelming evidence of prehistoric warfare (primarily from excavated mass graves and battlefield contexts). In other words, you might want to read up a bit on the archaeology of Human prehistory.
What military uses a "patrol" as a standard unit of hierarchy? I've never heard of this. A patrol is a task. A mission. The force size present for a patrol will depend on how likely having a TIC is, the predicted size of the opfor, and the specific goal of the patrol. The US military structure is Fireteam -> Squad -> Platoon. The Canadian structure is Assault Group -> Section -> Platoon. The UK structure is Fireteam -> Section -> Platoon. There is no rank of "leader", that is a role. In US structure, a fireteam leader is often a Sergeant. A squad leader is often a Staff Sergeant. Neither a Sergeant nor a Staff Sergeant is an officer. Officer starts at Lieutenant and above. Would love to hear your sources on that example military structure from "north america and europe". Might sound like nitpicking but if you are trying to help authors make their worlds believable and pull in readers, especially veterans, this could be quite harmful with their target audience to get such basics wrong.
I love your videos I'm glad I found them I was thinking of making my own games and this helps out beautifully. how do you play this game that you made?
I mean what really is a hammer or a mace, if not a sophisticated club? Sure if you have access to metal (or even stone, as seen with some disc-maces) you would always use those heavier and denser materials to give your bludgeoning device more oomph, but blunt weapons are very efficient, especially in times of armor. On the topic of non-metal societies not having organized armed forces: the Aztecs would like a word. While not strictly pre-metal, their armed forces were armed with wooden and stone weapons and were very much organized. There is also examples of the aforementioned disc-maces from all over the world, using stone-heads. These weapons most certainly were not hunting-weapons and were designed to kill other humans. I also dont know when slings came around, but I imagine slings would be available in prehistoric societies as well and would remain potent weapons of war well up through the classical era. ps: I really like that analysis videos like this seem to become more popular. More people need to pay more attention to what I call "analytical worldbuilding". Being creative is great and all, but if you want your world to be believable, you need to consider consequences of the changes you introduce. A setting where every run-off-the-mill mage can demolish a thick stone wall, people are not very likely to build castles, unless mages are very rare or there is ways to protect against that (for example lead-sheets embedded in the wall or something idk its magic make something up).
My Sci-Fi started as a short story following one character who's past comes back to haunt her. As I decided to expand on it, the original story becoming part 3, of the series that has at least 5 parts planed now, I had to delve more into space tech, war tech, planetary and galactic governments, to planet seeding. Galactic wise, there are three main powers, a monarchy, a federation, and a confederacy (weakly aligned planets who are independent, usually at war with each other, but, ally for a common defense). Each uses different tech, which makes their strategies vary both in military and politics.
I was certain that I posted a long-winded comment about the use of clubs in warfare and their relevance to levied or irregular armies here yesterday, but it is gone today. Maybe I am losing it. Are you operating a comment filter bot? Maybe I tripped a flag somehow. But to explain what I meant to yesterday. Poorer or less formal militaries tended to give their levied or drafted soldiers as cheap a weapon as possible, so long as it was still effective. For this reason you can see most large armies throughout history primarily wielding clubs, spears, slings, and thin shields. Examples of widely used war clubs from various points in history: Burda(Celts), Goedendag(Gauls), Kanabō(Japanese), Jade Mere(Pacific Islanders), Shillelagh(Irish), Stone-Capped or gun-stock clubs(Native North America) , Macuahuitl(Native South America). And this list doesn't include maces or ceremonial weapons. It only includes actual clubs that were used en-masse by warriors of their respective cultures.
"40% of Americans live in a house where someone owns a weapon [firearm] but this ownership doesn't make individuals an armed force, unless they become organised." Given the events of January 6th and the escalating domestic terrorism in the US that quote's going to sound a little outdated pretty soon.
I love these videos, but the prehistoric history of warfare is not so basic. Since the evolution of man, humans have fought with one another over resources or land. Evidence of this is found in chimps, and though we are different from a few million years, they are the most similar to us. The earliest forms of war between humans are raids for food or hunting grounds. Also, bows are quite difficult to make. These weapons require a lot of time and effort to be put in, and the matter of creating rope out of materials will be challenging depending on the area. Instead, we made Atalal or spear throwers. These are spears that are more of a large dart with feathers on the end besides the spearhead. We would put them on a piece of wood that would act as a hook. With the same movement of throwing a spear, this would cause the dart to go 3 times as far and precise. Also, we have evidence of clubs being used for warfare. Though a rather famous one is where evidence of a massacre occurred where prisoners were clubbed to death and left to rot. Also, walls for defense were built before farming.
I haven't learned much about human pre-historic warfare but I have looked into chimpanzee warfare. One of the most noteworthy things about chimp wars is that they are primarily made up by hunting for other chimps, its almost 4-5 on 1 so the aggressors don't have any fear of losing and can tear their victim apart without fear. I wonder if early human conflict would be similar to this. This would be so small scale that the it would make sense for there to be little evidence of it even by pre-history standards. This also makes sense considering how one of the toughest things an armed force has to do is stand your ground against a determined enemy. My rather ignorant speculation would be that most pre-historic "warfare" would be similar to how chimps operate. Groups of armed youths invading territory and massacring any group that they could easily kill. This would be with melee weapons, clubs and such. Large scale and organized fights would be much rarer and the combatants would rely more on ranged weaponry. Am I way off or does what I say make sense?
@ShandoGuardian in the later years before states there was effective organization. Yes there would be groups separated into units archery wouldn't make the most of the battle. When a weapon is introduced a means to protect against it is introduced. With shields made up of material dependent on the area melee weapons would still be put into effect. Clubs have been used for thousands of years and is effective against a good amount of armor. All weapons would still be put into play. Even if you put alot of your forces into long range a good flanking and strategic maneuver could wipe them all out.
@@ShandoGuardian - In nomadic and semi-nomadic society, it would make sense for warfare to be kind of... well, the best word that comes to mind is "ritualistic". There is some sort of low-level conflict - raids, ambushes, skirmishing, perhaps a duel of chieftains or champions - until it is clear that one side is superior to the other, then the inferior side gives and leaves. Neither side could afford to risk losing a good chunk of their adult males in a pitched battle, so the losers gave up before it got that far. All that changed when people settled down to practice agriculture; nomads carry everything their own on their horses and wagons, so when they have to flee, all that stuff goes with them, whereas settled people have houses and fields and granaries that they cannot simply pack up and take elsewhere. They pretty much HAVE to fight until they´re no longer able to, because if they leave, they lose everything and are just as doomed as if they all die fighting.
Can you start assigning your sources because as an American with an intimate understanding of how our military works the definitions for a lot of the terms you use are completely wrong.
Hunting associations, while armed and are AN organization, are organized for the purpose of hunting, not warfare or logistics. If a hunting club began to operate in either of those areas, they would become an armed force.
The Na'qwuil continue to be absolutely mind-crunchingly terrifying. (Which I'm sure they're perfectly fine with.) So it turns out I know very little about warfare! Fun. This makes me question why I decided to write a story set at the end of a war between dinosaur-powered stronghold city-states at some point in the future. Notes: Taken. More learning required. (I must construct additional pylons.)
I'm not sure what references you're using for your military hierarchical structure example at 9:04. Although the titles are correct for platoon level & above, the "squad" & "patrol" numbers & officer titles are incorrect. Also, "patrol" is not usually used in this way, at least in the U.S. Army Infantry. I would recommend downloading a pdf version of ATP 3-21.8 (Army Technical Publication) Infantry Platoon and Squad. It has basically everything you could want to know about small unit tactics & organizational structure, as it applies to U.S. Army Infantry. Hope this helps.
Hot take: If your soldiers in a fantasy aren't using any magic en masse, it's not a fantasy army it's a medieval-army-we-have-at-home with mages that are glorified artillery pieces. Even modern soldiers have electric equipment for the modern age so why not fantasy soldiers with magic equipment? Imagine a fire spear wall that launches fireballs as the front line marches forward
Dang, Im going to need to go through this whole series. Have had an idea for a world with several different powers often across species lines (Dragons/humans/orcs/crossbreeds between the three as one group, goblinoids as another, elves/fey as another, undead/crossbreeds with parentage from different factions as a sort of outcast alliance, etc) and really interested in how to bring things together with a sense of realism
Now that I think about it, even when everyone in my world pretty much has magic. The usage of sharp weapons like swords or ranged weapons like bow and arrows. Would make sense due to how the magic system works where everyone has the same weakness. Which is bleeding or getting wounded. But one of the military in this world of mine uses a special cloth that was discovered in their homeland that can resist cutting. Having an improved and armored version of that cloth and they can overwhelm an opposing army who relies on the bleeding weakness.
Sounds interesting! This is oversimplified, but we tend to see armor evolving reactively to the weapons used. When slashing weapons reached their peak usage, chain mail and plate were common outfitting, but once firearms were introduced, were quickly replaced.
@@WorldbuildingCorner Tbh I do wanna introduce firearms in this world via a more advanced civilization technologically speaking. But it may take some time to figure out how to world build it and to how such technology hasn't spread on other parts of the world yet.
I would love for them to return to the original charaters and see where they are now, but I would be happy to see a completely brand new story in that same univers
The Sahakuth military reminds me of ancient Carthage's military. Which leads to all sorts of possibilities: 1) mercenaries revolting if they can't get paid (as Extra History says: if history has taught us anything, it's "always pay your mercenaries), and 2) I can easily see important military dynasties being developed (similar to the Barca family), who may or may not decide to defy the state in the name of their own glory or other goals. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up the very first Extra History video about the First Punic War.
I've recently stumbled over your channel and haven't yet had time to watch all your vidoes. Have you already explored the primary food production of the different cultrues at this particular point in time? Depending on circumstances, it can dictate a nation or culture's approach to warfare. if for exampe between 8 and 9 out of 10 adults (definition of "adult": old enough to sire or bear children) need to work in primary food production to feed the population, a standing army of any significant size would be pretty much out of the question. Pesant levies - often in some sort of feudal system - with campaigning seasons being restricted to the time between planting and harvest - and maybe winter - would be pretty much the only possible way to go fight abroad. I would think that ancient civilisations with such a massive food surplus that they can afford large standing armies would be the exception rather than the rule.
tangential, but related: Different kinds of food can also affect tactics. E.g. crops can be easily burned down by enemy forces, while potatoes cannot. (if I remember correctly this was one of the reasons why European leaders were so eager to implement potatoes as the new staple food during/after the 30-years-war)
"An army fights on it's stomach" is certainly very true. I have not directly covered food beyond looking at yields in each location, which determined where each culture settled (and which ones failed), but that is something I plan on doing in the future!
@@WorldbuildingCorner It's not just about the army's supply situation. Rather it's about the nation's ablity to feed itself. In many places historicaly the majority of the common folks were subsistance farmers, producing a limited food surplus to sell on the market. A pesant levy would call the strongest pair of hands away from the farm. And if those hands stay on the battle field - or if the campaign just takes too long, the rest of the family may not be able to bring in the entire harvest before it rots on the field. At best, there will be no surplus generated this year by this farm. At worst, the entrie family starves to death during the winter. In the case of a culture using slave labour, ethical considerations aside, it's a double edged sword. While you may be able to squeeze a larger surplus out of your involuntary labour force, you will have to devote considerable ressources - especialy military assets - to keep your slaves in check. Slavery doesn't allow you to have a standing army, it forces you to have one. Your society will live in constand fear of a widespread slave revolt. And considerable military recources will need to be kept at home at all time, making large and long military campaigns a dangerous gamble. If your army suffers a Cannae or Morat, you will not only find yorself in a tight spot on the battlefield, but also facing more wildfires in the form of slave uprisings than you can possibly put out in time.
9:08 Fun fact, the mongol invasion where were over 100000 warriors Genghis Khan (and next minor rulers) divided their army to 30000 men corps. Slavic High King of Kiev Svyatoslav when he beated Byzantine Empire during the war for Bulgary in 970-971 AD, in probably real numbers has less than 7000-ish men vs 6000-ish byzantines (ok, 10000 vs 7000 some rounded numbers in byzantine scripts). That was the maximum for the 10th century. And as for the Europe till 17th c. was the same. That was not even the population problem, that was the logistic, distance communications and supplying problem (esp, when roman's legion system was forgotten), no one warchief/warlord/general/military leader couldn't effectively rule the army more than 10000 units. Swords, maces, lances, spears, shields and main/plate armor dictate the strategic (prisoners mostly valuable than dead) till with gun era begins, when it become almost useless (countries become more national, so tactic was to destroy enemy population and supply - the lines of musket shooters were effective, and with the strict formations got the battle, however lances and spears still were alive as the cavalry in WW2).
Absolutely, logistics plays a huge role in army structure, as does soldier equipment (and many other factors). They're important to keep in mind for any fictional army as well 🙂
It makes sense on a very pragmatic basis to use ranged over melee. It takes skill, training and maybe a little luck against armored opponents, but it makes hurting the ranged warrior harder. And if the warrior feels more powerful and in less danger, their morale is less likely to suffer. It takes a significant warrior culture to indoctrinate the "bravery and heroism," to charge into danger for life and limb. In wargames I tend to put emphasis on ranged units because it maximizes my KD. I can retreat easier, I get surrounded less often, I can bombard at maximum range and "kite" enemies with less range or that are using melee weapons. An enemy can't be scary if they're dead. I've primarily used melee troops as screening, protection against cavalry and a means to "lock down" my enemy so I can break them from a fixed position. Melee warfare has always seemed to me to require a high honor culture influence to make it stick.
Hey new subscriber, I watched your backlog of videos in a couple of days and this video shortly after it came out and love the world and magic system you're crafting but I'm just wondering do you have a upload schedule or just whenever the video is finished? Thanks from a fellow aussie
Magic users in my fantasy worlds militaries tend to have heavy guards places around them since they’re squishy. They also have a high attrition rate sooo colleges of magic tend to get forcibly conscripted from time to time
![On Worldbuilding: Fallen Civilizations! [ Forbidden West | Halo | Doctor Who ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DdH3RqVNUaE/mqdefault.jpg)
Clubs have been used in warfare from prehistory to the world wars. They are still being used by modern soldiers on the border of India and China. There likely has not been a whole army armed with clubs, but they have always held a place in the toolkit of human violence.
Spears.
Swords
Spears.
@@realstevetyler maces
Yeah, in case of emergency, anything will be used for clubbing
sword hilts, rifle butts, any piece of something close enough at the moment, pretty much any dull, handheld thing doubles as a club
Matthew: warriors with clubs never actually went to war
Tetsubo, maces, and Iroquois ball-club wielders: are we a joke to you?
Meanwhile Shadiversity: Get me my big stick.
Still a great video nonetheless btw. Keep up the good work!
Kanabo, warhammer, halberd (some had hammers). Clubs and spears are the two weapons that never go out of style of account of one not caring about armor and the other being very long. Swords have no place. We could have very easily reached the 21st century without ever making a long expensive and less useful knife.
@@CharliMorganMusic swords do have a reason to exist. you can strike anywhere along the blade and still stab with it.
if they were truly useless, the 'arming sword' and any other non ceremonial swords would have never been used
@@CharliMorganMusic I'd say it's more spears and "bludgeoning weapons" that never go out of style - maces and warhammers are a whole lot more useful against heavy armor than "big club".
@@comet.x that and it like a personal defense weapons when you traveling around the city
@@CharliMorganMusic Tell that to a cavalryman. Lances are only okay until your target gets past the point.
The matter of army size is different back then than how they are now.
While yes a general would lead an army the matter of size is dependent on the way the state, technology, beuracry, and population.
Corps were introduced during the napolenic wars since these would act as a smaller and more cohesive unit than a larger army and would carry far more ground.
However the the largest standing army during the classical period before the Roman's were the persians with over a 100,000 soldiers.
And the Roman's would grow an even larger army where it was over 150,000 soldiers.
Keep in mind these empires were over millions of people under their domain.
But when these Empire's fell armies during the middle period were only a few thousand or less.
Definitely, I simply used modern army structures as an example most would be familiar with.
Another limiting factor of army size is logistics. In modern times, we have near instant communication, though historically that certainly was not the case, and managing large numbers with delay was impractical and in some cases detrimental.
@Worldbuilding Corner fantasy settings lead to some interesting differences in logistics even at pre industrial tech levels
@@WorldbuildingCorner Well even back then they still had sophisticated communication and logistics. Look at the Mongol Empire for example, their messages could communicate forces hundreds of kilometres from each other yet still achieve resounding successes.
@@GrimReaper-qp6fv yeah their ability to right click and kite enemy troops was unparalleled
What about the Chinese?
Considering the first known instance of warfare included blunt force trauma, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the earliest warriors who waged war would have used clubs. It may not have been preferred over bows, but logic dictates that one would need some kind of close up weapon in case an enemy got close enough to render a bow ineffective. I would also say the earliest wars were over land control instead of strictly over control of resources as we don't really see much evidence for warfare until after the advent of agriculture, when people started settling into permanent dwellings.
Also it depended on the society’s access to metallurgy and how dense their native trees were, Polynesian had ornately crafted warclubs made from extremely dense hardwood.
@@InquisitorThomasIndeed, the Iroquois had something similar as well. Metallurgy seems to disproportionately aid bladed weapons over blunt force weapons, at least from these examples
@@connormcgee4711 well yeah it doesn't particularly matter if your club is harder or not. It's going to crush things pretty much the same amount. It's damage is based on its weight. Blades on the other hand need to be made of a strong material or they'll snap too easily and not cause any real damage. Thus metal is more important for a blade than a club.
@@raider363 Ah that makes a lot of sense! Does the shape of clubs have an impact though? This is sort of unrelated, just curious.
Spear
I'm finally caught up! can't wait to watch the rest of this series as it comes out
Glad you are enjoying the content! 😊
This is shaping up to be an incredibly interesting and unique world. Good work sir.
Thank you! Glad it is as interesting to others as it is interesting to me as I make it 🙂
Or perhaps they did. In 272AD the mid Roman Emperor Aurelian is reported to have employed 'Palestinian Clubmen' at the battle of Emesa, armed with large wooden clubs to defeat Palmyran Cataphracts (lancer cavalry with both horse and man fully armoured , so difficult to attack with light weapons - concussive damage is a thing) Its not clear if these were Auxiliaries recruited from the province of Palestina or legionaries from the local garrison. Some sources credit Constantine the Great for the same trick at the Milvian Bridge in 312AD. Earlier Trajan's column depicts German Symmachiarii (Auxiliary troops trained by the Romans and led by Roman Officers but fighting in their native style) wielding wooden clubs (and spears) in battle against the Dacians. Anglo-Saxon 'Great Fyrd (the rough equivalent role to AWI Minutemen from 1776) called up for the battle of Hastings in 1066 are described as armed with spears, javelins, bows, wooden clubs (apparently sometimes thrown!) and stones (for throwing) plus seaxes (single edged long knives/short swords). Bishop Odo of Bayeux (William the Conqueror's half brother) is depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry wielding a huge wooden club during the battle (as a priest he was forbidden to spill blood...) At the late c19th battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, soldiers of the Zulu armies, organised into regular, disciplined and officered regiments, as part of a highly stratified military state, used knobkerries (round headed wooden clubs) as back-up weapons. All these examples are of major state organised military forces taking part in major set piece battles. So warriors did use wooden clubs in 'battle', even allowing for your definition , sometimes by choice to achieve a particular effect, sometimes because it was part of their military culture and sometimes because it was what they had - you fight with the army you have, not the one you want. This said, still enjoyed the world building! Seeing one of the elite bear warriors being targeted in mid rampage by a co-ordinated attack from a specially trained 'kill team' of enemy soldiers wielding large wooden clubs might be amusing (though i leave it for you to decide for whom!)
Hey, i didn't think you could make the Na'aquil more terrifying but for some reason i forgot about the nonsapient species you made that they could dominate. Fun! Super smart organic mechapilot creatures!
Love this world and this process. I'm going to have to try this on my own!
I've been working on my story, Descent, for a while and had my own ideas on how the military functions across different states. Glad to see you touch on the subject!
Edit: Just for some light worldbuilding talk, in Descent, there are Elementalists (think Avatar, but with more rules) that ended up carving an empire on the continent. Ironically, because of the fear mongering against them, Guns and other ranged weapon development were made to combat them, hence causing many Elementalist to be subdued, enslaved, or otherwise killed outright in their already small numbers.
One nation, Navine, the birthplace of the firearms, use Elementalists as a sort of tactical setting. Enslaved, these Elementalist would serve as shock troopers, while the regular force would act as blocking units, normal troops, and anti Elementalist troopers, where need be. In another nation, Veia, the Elementalist are free and would often be used as force multiplier, while the military as a whole would emphasise on a mobile force to force their opponents to exhaust themselves and fight in planned counter attacks.
It's a fun little military worldbuilding exercise when you throw magic into the mix.
I think those are really cool ideas! Just one question. How in the setting did the invention of advanced tactics take place? It took hundreds of years of basically hoping your lucky today before we start to see more advanced tactics that we see to do become the norm and not the acceptation. These are at least ww1 era tactics so I was wondering if you had thought of an idea on why military tactics advanced so quickly with the addition of these elemantalists?
@@joshred1571 Indeed! What was shown was the olden military tactics (since I didn't really know my watermark on revealing stuff...)
The Elementalist may seem like a "be all end all," a weapon to surpass metal gear. But the true reality on the ground is that a bullet doesn't discriminate. Hence, different nations went to lengths to find ways to improve and protect their latent pool of "weapons," so that they might tip the scales of war.
While Navine is the first to create the weapon that would be the bane of the Elementalist, and would employ them greatly, Veia was the first to understand that the tactical value of the Elementalist is no longer relevant in war. To that end, they no longer rely on Elementalist centric platoons and would instead put priority on weapons on war that we're more used to seeing today. (At least, irl.)
This shift means that now, instead of intentionally having squads work in tandem with their attached Elementalist, troopers are expected to be able to dispatch their mission with or without other means of support provided to them, although many wished that they'd at least not see any Elementalist barreling at them on the opposing side.
Also as a side note, "Magi-tech" isn't a thing.*
@@ZearthGJL neat. Using the elementalists as more like living artillery pieces does make sense. I think they would be highly prized because the hardest part of using anti-tank and artillery guns has always been maneuvering them. That’s not an issue with them although they can’t be everywhere, they can certainly cover more ground and be more maneuverable. I like this idea. If you get more progress and publish it, please let me know through this comment because i find this to be an interesting idea if it can be written well.
That's a really cool setting!
It is truly fascinating how much magic affects warfare (and the world in general). A lot of what we know of warfare needs to be adjusted to make way for it, especially in settings with particularly powerful mages. Sounds like you've got some really cool implementations of this!
Oh you've made Yeerks that pilot dragons. That is both awesome and truly terrifying.
That's the Na'qwuil design philosophy haha
You want to make Yeerks even more terrifying?
Make them incapable of ageing, and when they run out of Kandrona they enter a torpor that lasts until they get more, and they could wait millennia if they need to and nobody would ever realize they're not dead until they wake up.
This is really cool. For some D&D material, 3.5 Complete Warrior has a section dedicated to how magic can fundamentally change warfare.
It's such an interesting concept, and warfare in general is far more in depth than I can cover in ~20 mins, let alone how magic can affect it, but in the future I might specifically discuss magical warfare!
I D&D wizards and sorceress are basically artillery. You don't need a cannon if your mage can cast Fireball over and over.
@@daniel_rossy_explica and if your enemy is using a cannon cast heat metal
@@daniel_rossy_explica Wand of Fireballs > Cannon
Shadiversity also did a nice video on using magic on the battle feild
A LOT of early warfare used clubs. Even up until the renaissance, maces were being used which is just a fancier metal club.
Whole whole armies are rarely equipped with clubs, they weren’t very rare to see.
Your mindflayer equivalents are truly terrifying, especially when they start subjugating the strongest warriors from other sapient races too
I can imagine a cinematic moment where a hero has to encounter their old partner or mentor, piloted by a Na'qwuil.
ive had a fantasy world brewing in my mind for over 10 years that i have never had the discipline to put into writing - finally making more headway than i ever have before - I'm amazed at how little thought I've put into the military, the plot points are mostly interpersonal, but the militaries will shape the settings around them - very cool thank you
I love this series! Every episode is brief but contains most important information of the respected topic. In addition everything is well summarised and each episode feels well thought through! Really exellent job!
The entire Pacific used primarily clubs and spears right up until 1800's. The Maori defeated British soldiers using clubs vs muskets
I recently starting writing a series of novels about a people that go to war against a branch of their own that were ostracized ages ago. Since they are predominantly hunter/gatherers, I try to make them develop military order out of their hunting groups. A platoon is a group of four, three hunters plus a leader (since they only have four fingers on their limbs, this equals three fingers and a thumb, hence the platoon is called a 'palm').
2:27 You have already saved me so much work! Video is 10/10, and everything else is extra credit.
Glad to have been of such quick help!
What is interesting is that prehistoric archery battles were not at all like medieval ones. Usually arrows lacked fletchings and were quite light, with archers engaging without any structure at max ranges, and after a couple were wounded one side fled the field, with the other taking their territory and women, if they could catch them. It is depicted well in "The white headhunter"
Found your channel on Saturday, and have now fully binged the entire thing. It's a bit weird having to actually "join you next time" instead of continuing right away, but I guess that just gives me time to start worldbuilding!
I'm also planning on writing a novel series about a guy building his own dukedom in another world, so this came in pretty handy. Thanks for the vid, chief. Loving every valuable information it gave me to prepare for my writings 😁
That sounds fun and interesting. I love the idea.
@@thesevendeadlysins578 Thanks 😄
Another thing to always keep in mind that many militaries are constantly adapting and changing, as it is sometimes a misconception for war to never change when really war is something that always evolves such as for example a early 18th century army is gonna be drastically different in terms of outward aesthetics and way of fighting from a late 18th century army and that many militaries could evolve many times over the course of a single war so to keep your military interesting is to probably note the change it has done to itself over the course of its existence, Rome as a civilization technically existed for over 2000 years from its founding of its first kings to the fall of Constantinople by the ottomans in what we could call the Byzantine empire and in this very very long time frame, rome's military force had to change and adapt many times in order to remain viable and relavent.
I recently saw a video (re. the comparison of modern day trenches in Ukraine with those of the Western Front in WWI) which stated both sides on the Western Front continuously evolved and that either side would have made the breakthrough they both wanted, if they were faced by the army of a year earlier.
This series and as a whole your channel is heavily underrated. Thanks for the interesting & helpful vids.
It's nice to see some of your examples.
Glad to hear they are enjoyable! I am enjoying putting them together across this series :)
I am super excited to have found this channel! World building is my favorite aspect of any location and world. Anything from fantasy to real life, I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve paused a video and just thought of the world at the time.
fun thing about prehistoric warfare: there were developments in ranged weaponry even before the bow. weapons like the sling and atlatl are so often slept on, but david kills goliath with a sling in the bible for a reason. the sling was the glock of its age.
but remember not the type of sling you can buy in toy shop
Congratulations on the channel's growth! The content you present is incredible and you really deserve it.
Wow, again, I'm only 2 minutes in and I'm already disagreeing with you.
You seem to be under the impression that all military forces throughout history have operated exactly like our modern armed forces. That's not true at all - our modern system is something of an oddity in history, being highly deracinated from civilian society. If you're designing a pre-industrial, pre-gunpowder military force, and especially if you're designing a force raised by a feudal monarchy of some kind, then this system doesn't fit very well.
I would recommend the work of military historian Bret Deveraux, on his blog A Collection Of Unmitigated Pedantry. Specifically I would direct you towards his analysis of the Siege of Helm's Deep from the Lord of the Rings series, where he breaks down the events of the war between Rohan and Isengard from a military historian's perspective.
Part IV of that series is particularly pertinent to this discussion (though the whole series, and the man's entire body of work, are well worth browsing for worldbuilding fodder - the man's a huge nerd as well as a historian). In that part, Deveraux details some of the ways that feudal monarchies approached the matter of raising and commanding military manpower, be it through vassal retinues or various levy systems. I honestly suffered culture shock from reading about them, they are that far removed from how we modern folk assume armies "should" operate. And they are a far cry from the assumptions you make in this video.
didn't know i would find 1 of bert's readers here
This series has been amazing and very interesting,
Can't wait for the rest of them. I've pretty much watched everything up to this point back to back.
"Patrol" is a type of mission or action, not a unit designation or size. you were probably confusing it for the actual size of "Squad" with what you labeled squad which is usually called a fire team (or simply a team. Your teams are usually sub sections of a squad with one team being led by the sergeant proper and the other being led by a corporal, the distinction between the teams allows the squad to move as two manouver elements and perform flanking manouvers, L shape ambushes, ect. For commonwealth countries "Squad" is usually reffered to as a Section instead
Yoooo I just caught up with this series yesterday and was so sad I had to wait. Thanks!
Good timing! Hope you are enjoying the series ☺️
Honestly this video didn’t really go into much detail on why the warriors in your world don’t carry clubs.
Your concept for the Tarna'qua is fascinating... I shrugged it off as a reskin of the Mind Flayer, but your idea would play out _sooo_ much more interestingly. Love it. Stealing it. Thx.
i think my great great grandfather would disagree about warriors not using clubs he used one extensively at Ypres
Clubs were certainly used, though an important distinction, especially for conflicts as recently as Ypres is that warfare very certainly was not entered into with the assumption that most soldiers would be using wooden clubs as their primary weapons.
@@WorldbuildingCorner No, but the club is still one of the few weapons that modern soldiers will train on. In fact, it's more common than the bayonet, and only surpassed by the knife. EVERYONE in EVERY conflict throughout human history was expected to know how to use a club. You can't argue against this.
Listening to the breakdown at the end with all the different cultures was very fascinating, well done!
Wonderful video as always.
For my personal verse, in the current time line there is for the humans of the continent on which the story is set a mostly feudal armed force, with some local peasants sometimes being conscripted and trained when greater numbers are needed.
The Pyroxene Drows do not have a military, since they are a city-state hidden from the outside world. The closest thing they have are guards, that serve as a police force, and make sure nobody reveals to other cultures their existance. The Emerald Drows on the other hand have a reserve-type of military, with every male being a soldier. They are not as organized, though, and their function is mostly to raid, and keep their main location secret. In Drow cultures, enemies and criminals who earned themselves the death penalty are either consumed, dissected or turned into soap. As Drow view decomposition as sacred, saponification is reserved for the most hated, the one to who they see no honor and are beyond redemption.
The stateless Ice Elves have warrior mages, adult males of their society who are physically strong and magically gifted. They are the closest thing this world in the XVIth century (equivalent to our XVIth century) have to an air force, since Ice Elves are capable of flight. However, they cannot stay airborne for very long, and three hours is the maximum most can take. Magic and archery are performed at ground level. Since magic require transe to perform, these warrior mages would be a lot less responsive to terror tactics. Also, their particular style of magic are "psychic blades", which do not pierce the skin, but causes severe pain and potentially lethal internal damage, as well as confusion and hallucinations. The bonus of this is that they can never run out of ammunitions. The minus, it requires a lot of time and effort to maintain.
There are also catpeople, who don't really have any state of their own either. They form small villages, in which virgins are the fighters. In their territorial rage, they can take down opponents that are physically stronger and better armed then themselves, but are quite vulnerable in a calmer state. Dwarves strongly value peace , and they tend to avoid conflicts when they can, excepted when competing for ressources. They mostly work through reserves.
Also, there is the occasional human Dark Lord, and during the course of History, one of this Dark Lord and his army of the undead formed an independent, multicultural country out of the old necropolises.
Fascinating, as always. I absolutely love the concept of psychic blades, it is so mysterious and otherworldly, but the combat style of them being familiar. Very cool!
Reminder that there's many types of army organization other than the Irregular and Professional Militaries.
Retinue Organization is one of the most common for Tribal society where a High Chief would have Lower Chief becoming his retinue and having Retainers of his own, when called for war the Lower Chief would gather up men which could be levied peasant or their own retainers, the Retainers are usually chosen close people in the tribe who has been given the wealth and spend more time training.
Example of this Army Organization are the Classical Barbarians, Medieval Kings with their Knights and to a certain Extend the Samurai of Sengoku Jidai.
By the definition given in the video, Retinue Organization is Irregular, Medieval levies were even specifically mentioned
@@TheAchilles26 It still depend on the Context, as Retinues are often Professional to Semi-Professional Soldiers when serving people of high status, in many Medieval European Society the Term "Man-at-Arms" are given to soldiers who fight while serving a lord who paid them for their service and even housed their family in the lord's lands.
In a Modern Context the Retinue Organization is almost non-existent as the military equipment getting more state owned as you cannot just own a Tank in your house where you would ride into battle once your Governor calls for war like a Medieval Man-at-Arms owning a War Horse.
Nice another video from my new favorite worldbuilding guy
Thank you for that status! ☺️
I just want to let you know as a fellow worldbuilder your videos have been so helpful.
I think your understanding of prehistoric conflicts is a tad lacking, I recommend Prehistory Guys from youtube. Also clubs from hardwood have been common weapons for warriors in Africa since club was invented ("rungu" is a prime example). Wooden clubs have been found from many prehistorical battle sites, and in for example aztecs also used clubs to get live captives for sacrifices. Arming your men with clubs to get more sacrifices sounds a good worldbuilding aspect too. And this is only about prehistory. Later maces and hammers were the tools of war knights used against other and peasants learned to wield too in Netherlands for example.
In a worldbuilding standpoint, some culture might have a winning strategy, until other culture gets some cultural innovation, usually something like city state rivalry can develop warfare a lot in short time. developing strategies to counter enemies,. Thus we can see many kinds of fortifications and field strategies come about.
In the Tollense Valley archeologist have found the site of a battle from c.1250BC. From the part excavated they estimate it involved c.750-1,500 people. They found arrowheads of flint and bronze, bronze spearheads and they also wooden clubs. In WWI soldiers used wooden cubs in trench raids, called trench raiding clubs. I don't understand how you can say warriors never used wooden clubs.
He could’ve said better
“No well armed warrior uses a club”
A club is a makeshift weapon, if they want a bludgeoning weapon to use against armor they use a hammer or mace, not a club
@@Goblinhandler He would have said better, if he hadn't said it at all.
A club isn't necessarily a makeshift weapon: there is nothing of a temporary substitute nature about knobkerrie, gunstock club, wahaika, etc. it's a long list.
@@Goblinhandler what was said is demonstrably untrue and your attempt to explain away his ignorance, as an inability to express himself is bizarre.
@@stephena1196 okay bucko you can quit it with the smug attitude because you read one too many Wikipedia articles
No professional army for the last thousand years has used clubs unless desperate
Really love this video series. Kind of wish there is more. I know you’re probably gonna upload one in a couple of days considering the previous upload schedule. Can’t wait to see it.
Being as the primary weapon of the Aztecs were clubs, spears, and atlatls, yes. Soldiers prior to the advent of bronze used clubs for warfare. The maquahuitl is literally just a primitive mace using obsidian blades instead of steel. That was the main armament for their military elite.
Always love watching your vids, they've helped me realize that science-based worldbuilding is what I need to do in order to break this six month writer's block. I followed a ton of advice before about things being smoke and mirrors and how the art is in making worlds that people believe are fully fleshed out but is really just what is needed to be fleshed out for a plot. Turns out that doesn't work for me and I need actual hard info to pull from when I need it. Thanks so much, man.
im glad this video exists, im currently am working a manga that is based around militaries (designs are around 20th century ww1), magic, religion,and cult. It starts off like a normal fantasy but after foundation of resources the world starts industrializing and eventually starts modernizing.
Got a suggestion for a future video. Talk about the world-building logistics of having a professional Navy. You're fictional world has several populations located on island archipelagos, which makes it likely that they would depend more on a Navy than an army.
Drachinifel is the man you're looking for. Also, check out Perun.
Actually, warriors used clubs for just about as long as there have been warriors. Furthermore, there is no reason swords need to exist; spears, clubs, knives, and javelins need to exist, but not swords. If your armies are anything other than bows, spears, and shields, you need to have a very good reason that this isn't the standard kit.
Swords have reasons to exist. They're sidearms, great as a backup to your primary weapon, good for civilian self-defense
@@TheAchilles26 Yes, but a long knife, axe, or club also work.
@@TheAchilles26 axes, knives, spears are multi purpose tools, swords aren't. axes can cut down a tree; spears for fishing, hunting and used as a walking; knives can be used to skin the animals hunted with the spear or bone fish caught. 2) swords are expensive to make compared to the former, and iirc were rare for peasants
@Just saying , actually spears and axes specifically designed for warfare are NOT multipurpose. But yes, swords were expensive, which both contributed to their relative rarity and to their position as a status symbol.
Swords weren't PRIMARY weapons, but they were effective sidearms and civilian self defense weapons. It is infinitely better to bring a sword to a knife fight than to bring a knife to a sword fight.
I already know about most of the civics stuff in these videos but your worldbuilding is so neat and thought-provoking
I think that it helps to define a military in at least two ways. The first is what the military does. There are roughly four military functions. The first is the professional army whose primary purpose is to defeat the external enemies of a nation (see US Army for example). The second is the police army, whose primary function is the defeat of internal enemies (see the Friekorps of the Weimar Republic). The third is a ceremonial force whose function is primarily symbolic (see the Crossbow Corps of San Marino). The last is political in which the military often determines the political fate of the state (see the Praetorian Guard of the Roman Empire).
The second way to define a military is to remember Clausewitz's dictum that wars are fought by people. So, recruitment strategies with their advantages and disadvantages should be considered. The oldest, at roughly the beginning of the species, is the warrior system where a group of individuals fights voluntarily for no direct compensation for a cause, usually for family or ideological reasons. The primary advantage of this system is that it is cheap since such warriors largely equip themselves. Also, leadership rapidly evolves towards effectiveness since individual warriors will choose who they follow. The primary disadvantage is that such forces are inevitably small (either due to the limits of a clan size or due to representing a small percentage of the population) and they cannot afford more expensive weapons. The second group, arising roughly at the same time as agriculture, is conscription. Conscription acts as a tax on time, one which is historically disproportionately paid by the poor. Conscription creates large forces, but those forces are expensive (consider the cost just to feed that high a percentage of your population). Also, bear in mind that the state is arming the poorest and thus potentially most rebellious portion of its population. The third system arose roughly around the time of money and those are mercenaries (hiring outsiders to fight for you). This has the advantage of not requiring a standing force as a mercenary army can be hired and fired as needed. Also, if a mercenary outfit exists, that must mean there is enough fighting for that mercenary group to represent an experienced military group. The disadvantages are first, that the mercenary might rob the paymaster and second, that mercenary leaders tend to caution since their soldiers represent their working capital, a thing not to be risked by businesspeople. The fourth system, the regular, is a volunteer subject or citizen paid by the government to fight, or the way most modern militaries work. The advantage is a long-standing highly-capable force, but often with lower numbers than may be needed in an emergency. The fifth system grew out of early democracies and that is the militia system where military service was a condition of citizenship. The major advantages were numbers and the major disadvantages were cost since this is also just universal conscription. However, since historically citizenship has sometimes been tied to wealth, some militaries simply vanished due to economic stratification reducing citizens to tiny numbers. For instance, Sparta's supply of full Spartiates went from about 8000 to about 300 in the two centuries after the Peloponnesian War simply because wealth became concentrated among fewer and fewer families. The last system is military slavery, most often seen in Islamic countries like Mamelukes and Janissaries. These forces were formidable in their day, but stagnated over time. Whether that would be true of all such forces, I don't know.
“My name is Matthew, at least according to my commanding officer” has to be one of the infantry-est lines I have heard in a while
Hi! I just stumbled on this video and it's the first one I've seen from you. I liked it so much I decided to subscribe. I'm looking forward to more 👍
I've been trying to build a world and a story for a while now, so watching through these videos has been interesting, lots of notes to take. Still trying to find a good way to pull the story together through the world though =P
Some ideas for future videos could be how to design kingdoms or cities, what would be the essentials a settlement would need and is there logic or a system to how a good fantasy city would be laid out
Or even more than that, maybe try to put together a list of settlement types that would usually spring up other than the main kingdoms. Like smaller villages, ports and harbors, farmland or various types of outposts, and break down the logic or reasoning on where they would most likely be placed
Also maybe a video giving a few tips or tricks for how to create fantasy names. I just can never understand how a person comes up with cool sounding new names for people, places or things. Whenever i try to come up with something it feels like i'm just doing random sounds until something comes through, whereas other works seem to have elaborate names which sound legit
I can give you a little tip for fantasy names, which helped me! Write down a bunch of natural things, like river, hill, tree, mountain, and make up a name for them that sounds like it could be called if you discovered those things (e.g. River = Flume, Hill = Bulge)
Then, mix the word up a little to give it a fantasy kick (e.g. Flume = Flusè, Bulge = Bulega)
Then, when making a place name, use this new language to name it, or what you think the creator/ discoverer of this place would name it (e.g. town at the top of hill with a river flowing down it? Welcome to Bulèse!)
Bit quick and dirty, but can tie every place using the same language (or a language that isn't used anymore) together! That's pretty much where most of the real life names of places come from (e.g. Torpenhow Hill, coming from several different languages and translates to "Hill Hill Hill Hill")
Hope this helps!
Matthew, I've watched this entire series thus far, and I've enjoyed it. I really hope you're considering writing novels with the world of Locus. I find the concepts fascinating, but seeing them put to use in a story setting would be marvelous! 😊
About army heirarchies, the example you used is very modern, army hierarchies in the middle ages were a lot less well defined and as a result most fantasy armies probably should too.
Also it's important to note than standing armies weren't used in medieval Europe. The closest you get is mercenaries and feudal bound knights.
The Eastern Roman Empire still maintained standing armies throughout most of the Medieval Period
@@TheAchilles26 calling Byzantium medieval Europe doesn't seem very accurate.
@Ninjamanhammer you're only saying that because it singlehandedly disproves your absolute
@@TheAchilles26 I'm only saying it because the average fantasy setting is inspired by medieval England/Germany/France/Italy, not the Byzantine Empire.
@Ninjamanhammer the most iconic fantasy setting ever quite flagrantly has an Eastern Roman Empire knockoff
Sparta is such a hilariously absurd example of a real life society. Basically, they had tons of slaves, called helots, that actually did all the economic work like farming. These helots were always on the verge of rebellion, so Sparta kept a large standing army and massive reserves, because they were always waiting for the next rebellion. Of course, supporting such a large army required a lot of work, so they would be insanely cruel to the helots, while getting more helots, to support this large army. But now you have more helots, and the helots are way angrier, so now you need a bigger army...
At its peak, the helot population reached 90% of the total, meaning the 10% had to try and match the 90% in terms of military power. This cycle of paranoia and escalation created a culture that was engineered from the ground up to do nothing but produce soldiers. Women were basically relegated to just being "soldier-makers," while men grew up training, served for most of their life, then trained the next generation if they survived.
It wasn't even some "manly-man" testosterone thing either, it was basically the Spartans constantly realizing how utterly insane it was that 90% of their population was literally one step away from killing them all.
While I enjoyed this video quite a bit, I feel like you basic premise (warfare requires the development of true ranged weaponry like slings and bows) is rather flawed, and ignores many early examples of conflict.
Indeed. There have always been periods where ranged weapons played, at best, a secondary role in successful military organisation - the Greek hoplite phalanx, Roman legions, late Medieval to early modern pike squares...
Absolutely, all of your examples played huge roles in historical warfare.
All of these examples however include melee weapons made of metal. In the video I do clarify that once bronze (the first metal we used for weaponry) is introduced, melee foot soldiers start being introduced (and become the norm for much of history).
@@WorldbuildingCorner The Americas and Polynesia did not have metal (in any meaningful amount for tool use) yet still had primarily melee weapons. Ranged weapons are not all modern guns, they are easily outmatched in close combat and cannot reliably prevent close combat in a battle which is why most human combat has utilized both ranged and melee together up until modern guns became powerful, reliable, and fast enough. Even in Europe, among the prehistoric battle sites, clubs and stone maces are found as well as spears.
@@WorldbuildingCorner Which is why early Egyptian armies used stone Macemen, being supplemented by archers.
Or why the Aztecs had a huge focus on melee.
I'm happy and sad to reach the last of this 27 videos playlist I really can't wait to see what's next also the more I see your video the more I'm willing to finally start working on my own world so keep going with amazing content, i'm no expert but you're definitely becoming a reference in world building (also I strongly believe that your videos could be used as a pedagogic support as a lot of the material you use and put in your videos are things that are teach in school (at least in France where I'm from) and they could definitely use world building as a tool to explain these subjects to children it would make it way more interesting)
I am going to be the military historian saying; "aaaaachktuallyyyy".
Germanic warriors did use clubs against Roman legions. Probably for the same reason later knights used maces. And what is a mace but a club?
He tried to argue that a club is exclusively made of wood in a comment. This entire video left a sour note in my mouth...
I hope you upload versions of these videos without music at some point! love this series nonetheless
Question: where do i find the scientific books and articles basing each Episode?
I do not find them in your site.
The comments got it covered but just to add my voice to the uproar: clubs were widely used for a variety of reasons. Videos still good despite that, gonna watch more of your stuff
keep it up dude! love your work
Just found this channel, looking forward to this content.
I'm gonna need you to define the word "club" for a second and the implications around it. Because maces are just fancy clubs and they were used extensively in war because of their affect against armored targets.
Stone Mace's were very common in early bronze age societies.
Having the same place swords would later have culturally.
@@georgethompson913 Exactly, they were once a highly decorated weapon that was used as a status symbol.
@@ianyoder2537 ironically it was the introduction of bronze helmets that led to their replacement by axes.
In fact war clubs were used by mesoamerican armies, who despite lacking metal often had melee centric armies.
The Na’qwuil are definitely my favorites. Octopi are super cool and I really like their military style.
The bonk stick is and has been the most effective weapon ever, other than the pointy stick and the boom stick. It's the easiest to make, easiest to supply, easiest to wield and fucks a dude in fancy armour
What if the armour is made out of the same material as guns and the shield is made out of a door of a tank? And fantasy army is modernised with guns and swords and since the designer was lazy why bother switching the armour?
I fantasy worldbuild based on my old Mega Bloks, and one of the factions uses maces and clubs. Their mold was bad, causing many broken hands. I have used that as a cultural trait that those warriors use heavy clubs but many break their hands doing so.
In the unified kingdom, they are restricted from using those weapons, which they see as taking away their culture, causing divides in society.
Warriors don't use clubs? Then why do we keep finding them on Bronze Age and Iron Age battlefields? Just look at the weapons they found at the Tollense battlefield. Historically, clubs were definitely used on the battlefield, just like maces, hammers and other blunt weapons.
Also, there is A TON of evidence for the use of flint, obsidian, bone, horn, wood and other non-metal melee weapons (primarily spears, pick-axes, hammers and clubs) during the Neolithic, Bronze Age and even into the Iron Age (and well into historical periods if we consider areas outside of Europe such as the Americas). Speaking as an archaeologist here, the idea that non-state, migratory tribes have no intergroup conflict is absolute nonsense. The same goes for settled, non-migratory tribes (don't forget that agriculture and permanent settlement predate the emergence of states and especially the invention of metallurgy by a long time). It was once a popular hypothesis for sure, but it has long since been discredited in the face of overwhelming evidence of prehistoric warfare (primarily from excavated mass graves and battlefield contexts).
In other words, you might want to read up a bit on the archaeology of Human prehistory.
i can't believe this is free content honestly it's so good
Thank you for the great praise! Very glad you are enjoying it this much ☺️
What tool did you use to create the maps? They are neat!
What military uses a "patrol" as a standard unit of hierarchy? I've never heard of this. A patrol is a task. A mission. The force size present for a patrol will depend on how likely having a TIC is, the predicted size of the opfor, and the specific goal of the patrol. The US military structure is Fireteam -> Squad -> Platoon. The Canadian structure is Assault Group -> Section -> Platoon. The UK structure is Fireteam -> Section -> Platoon. There is no rank of "leader", that is a role. In US structure, a fireteam leader is often a Sergeant. A squad leader is often a Staff Sergeant. Neither a Sergeant nor a Staff Sergeant is an officer. Officer starts at Lieutenant and above. Would love to hear your sources on that example military structure from "north america and europe". Might sound like nitpicking but if you are trying to help authors make their worlds believable and pull in readers, especially veterans, this could be quite harmful with their target audience to get such basics wrong.
I love your videos I'm glad I found them I was thinking of making my own games and this helps out beautifully. how do you play this game that you made?
There were stone maces used in battles. A ring shaped stone that is shoved towards the end of a tapering rod.
I mean what really is a hammer or a mace, if not a sophisticated club? Sure if you have access to metal (or even stone, as seen with some disc-maces) you would always use those heavier and denser materials to give your bludgeoning device more oomph, but blunt weapons are very efficient, especially in times of armor.
On the topic of non-metal societies not having organized armed forces: the Aztecs would like a word. While not strictly pre-metal, their armed forces were armed with wooden and stone weapons and were very much organized. There is also examples of the aforementioned disc-maces from all over the world, using stone-heads. These weapons most certainly were not hunting-weapons and were designed to kill other humans. I also dont know when slings came around, but I imagine slings would be available in prehistoric societies as well and would remain potent weapons of war well up through the classical era.
ps: I really like that analysis videos like this seem to become more popular. More people need to pay more attention to what I call "analytical worldbuilding". Being creative is great and all, but if you want your world to be believable, you need to consider consequences of the changes you introduce. A setting where every run-off-the-mill mage can demolish a thick stone wall, people are not very likely to build castles, unless mages are very rare or there is ways to protect against that (for example lead-sheets embedded in the wall or something idk its magic make something up).
My Sci-Fi started as a short story following one character who's past comes back to haunt her. As I decided to expand on it, the original story becoming part 3, of the series that has at least 5 parts planed now, I had to delve more into space tech, war tech, planetary and galactic governments, to planet seeding.
Galactic wise, there are three main powers, a monarchy, a federation, and a confederacy (weakly aligned planets who are independent, usually at war with each other, but, ally for a common defense). Each uses different tech, which makes their strategies vary both in military and politics.
I was certain that I posted a long-winded comment about the use of clubs in warfare and their relevance to levied or irregular armies here yesterday, but it is gone today. Maybe I am losing it.
Are you operating a comment filter bot? Maybe I tripped a flag somehow.
But to explain what I meant to yesterday. Poorer or less formal militaries tended to give their levied or drafted soldiers as cheap a weapon as possible, so long as it was still effective. For this reason you can see most large armies throughout history primarily wielding clubs, spears, slings, and thin shields. Examples of widely used war clubs from various points in history: Burda(Celts), Goedendag(Gauls), Kanabō(Japanese), Jade Mere(Pacific Islanders), Shillelagh(Irish), Stone-Capped or gun-stock clubs(Native North America) , Macuahuitl(Native South America). And this list doesn't include maces or ceremonial weapons. It only includes actual clubs that were used en-masse by warriors of their respective cultures.
or they showed with what they can afford or available
"40% of Americans live in a house where someone owns a weapon [firearm] but this ownership doesn't make individuals an armed force, unless they become organised."
Given the events of January 6th and the escalating domestic terrorism in the US that quote's going to sound a little outdated pretty soon.
I love these videos, but the prehistoric history of warfare is not so basic.
Since the evolution of man, humans have fought with one another over resources or land.
Evidence of this is found in chimps, and though we are different from a few million years, they are the most similar to us.
The earliest forms of war between humans are raids for food or hunting grounds.
Also, bows are quite difficult to make. These weapons require a lot of time and effort to be put in, and the matter of creating rope out of materials will be challenging depending on the area.
Instead, we made Atalal or spear throwers. These are spears that are more of a large dart with feathers on the end besides the spearhead. We would put them on a piece of wood that would act as a hook. With the same movement of throwing a spear, this would cause the dart to go 3 times as far and precise.
Also, we have evidence of clubs being used for warfare. Though a rather famous one is where evidence of a massacre occurred where prisoners were clubbed to death and left to rot. Also, walls for defense were built before farming.
I haven't learned much about human pre-historic warfare but I have looked into chimpanzee warfare. One of the most noteworthy things about chimp wars is that they are primarily made up by hunting for other chimps, its almost 4-5 on 1 so the aggressors don't have any fear of losing and can tear their victim apart without fear. I wonder if early human conflict would be similar to this. This would be so small scale that the it would make sense for there to be little evidence of it even by pre-history standards. This also makes sense considering how one of the toughest things an armed force has to do is stand your ground against a determined enemy. My rather ignorant speculation would be that most pre-historic "warfare" would be similar to how chimps operate. Groups of armed youths invading territory and massacring any group that they could easily kill. This would be with melee weapons, clubs and such. Large scale and organized fights would be much rarer and the combatants would rely more on ranged weaponry. Am I way off or does what I say make sense?
@ShandoGuardian in the later years before states there was effective organization. Yes there would be groups separated into units archery wouldn't make the most of the battle. When a weapon is introduced a means to protect against it is introduced. With shields made up of material dependent on the area melee weapons would still be put into effect. Clubs have been used for thousands of years and is effective against a good amount of armor. All weapons would still be put into play. Even if you put alot of your forces into long range a good flanking and strategic maneuver could wipe them all out.
@@ShandoGuardian - In nomadic and semi-nomadic society, it would make sense for warfare to be kind of... well, the best word that comes to mind is "ritualistic". There is some sort of low-level conflict - raids, ambushes, skirmishing, perhaps a duel of chieftains or champions - until it is clear that one side is superior to the other, then the inferior side gives and leaves. Neither side could afford to risk losing a good chunk of their adult males in a pitched battle, so the losers gave up before it got that far.
All that changed when people settled down to practice agriculture; nomads carry everything their own on their horses and wagons, so when they have to flee, all that stuff goes with them, whereas settled people have houses and fields and granaries that they cannot simply pack up and take elsewhere. They pretty much HAVE to fight until they´re no longer able to, because if they leave, they lose everything and are just as doomed as if they all die fighting.
Can you start assigning your sources because as an American with an intimate understanding of how our military works the definitions for a lot of the terms you use are completely wrong.
I'm already looking forward to the things you're gonna cover on the Na'quil domestication video...
*looks at your armed force definition* So would hunting associations/clubs be an armed force?
Hunting associations, while armed and are AN organization, are organized for the purpose of hunting, not warfare or logistics. If a hunting club began to operate in either of those areas, they would become an armed force.
The Na'qwuil continue to be absolutely mind-crunchingly terrifying. (Which I'm sure they're perfectly fine with.)
So it turns out I know very little about warfare! Fun. This makes me question why I decided to write a story set at the end of a war between dinosaur-powered stronghold city-states at some point in the future. Notes: Taken. More learning required. (I must construct additional pylons.)
I can imagine some of the conquered human settlements remaining as human settlements purely to breed new things for the Na'qwuil to pilot.
I'm not sure what references you're using for your military hierarchical structure example at 9:04. Although the titles are correct for platoon level & above, the "squad" & "patrol" numbers & officer titles are incorrect.
Also, "patrol" is not usually used in this way, at least in the U.S. Army Infantry.
I would recommend downloading a pdf version of ATP 3-21.8 (Army Technical Publication) Infantry Platoon and Squad. It has basically everything you could want to know about small unit tactics & organizational structure, as it applies to U.S. Army Infantry.
Hope this helps.
Hot take: If your soldiers in a fantasy aren't using any magic en masse, it's not a fantasy army it's a medieval-army-we-have-at-home with mages that are glorified artillery pieces.
Even modern soldiers have electric equipment for the modern age so why not fantasy soldiers with magic equipment? Imagine a fire spear wall that launches fireballs as the front line marches forward
Dang, Im going to need to go through this whole series. Have had an idea for a world with several different powers often across species lines (Dragons/humans/orcs/crossbreeds between the three as one group, goblinoids as another, elves/fey as another, undead/crossbreeds with parentage from different factions as a sort of outcast alliance, etc) and really interested in how to bring things together with a sense of realism
Now that I think about it, even when everyone in my world pretty much has magic. The usage of sharp weapons like swords or ranged weapons like bow and arrows. Would make sense due to how the magic system works where everyone has the same weakness. Which is bleeding or getting wounded. But one of the military in this world of mine uses a special cloth that was discovered in their homeland that can resist cutting. Having an improved and armored version of that cloth and they can overwhelm an opposing army who relies on the bleeding weakness.
Sounds interesting!
This is oversimplified, but we tend to see armor evolving reactively to the weapons used. When slashing weapons reached their peak usage, chain mail and plate were common outfitting, but once firearms were introduced, were quickly replaced.
@@WorldbuildingCorner Tbh I do wanna introduce firearms in this world via a more advanced civilization technologically speaking. But it may take some time to figure out how to world build it and to how such technology hasn't spread on other parts of the world yet.
I would love for them to return to the original charaters and see where they are now, but I would be happy to see a completely brand new story in that same univers
The Sahakuth military reminds me of ancient Carthage's military. Which leads to all sorts of possibilities: 1) mercenaries revolting if they can't get paid (as Extra History says: if history has taught us anything, it's "always pay your mercenaries), and 2) I can easily see important military dynasties being developed (similar to the Barca family), who may or may not decide to defy the state in the name of their own glory or other goals. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up the very first Extra History video about the First Punic War.
I've recently stumbled over your channel and haven't yet had time to watch all your vidoes.
Have you already explored the primary food production of the different cultrues at this particular point in time?
Depending on circumstances, it can dictate a nation or culture's approach to warfare.
if for exampe between 8 and 9 out of 10 adults (definition of "adult": old enough to sire or bear children) need to work in primary food production to feed the population, a standing army of any significant size would be pretty much out of the question. Pesant levies - often in some sort of feudal system - with campaigning seasons being restricted to the time between planting and harvest - and maybe winter - would be pretty much the only possible way to go fight abroad.
I would think that ancient civilisations with such a massive food surplus that they can afford large standing armies would be the exception rather than the rule.
tangential, but related: Different kinds of food can also affect tactics. E.g. crops can be easily burned down by enemy forces, while potatoes cannot. (if I remember correctly this was one of the reasons why European leaders were so eager to implement potatoes as the new staple food during/after the 30-years-war)
"An army fights on it's stomach" is certainly very true.
I have not directly covered food beyond looking at yields in each location, which determined where each culture settled (and which ones failed), but that is something I plan on doing in the future!
@@WorldbuildingCorner It's not just about the army's supply situation.
Rather it's about the nation's ablity to feed itself. In many places historicaly the majority of the common folks were subsistance farmers, producing a limited food surplus to sell on the market. A pesant levy would call the strongest pair of hands away from the farm. And if those hands stay on the battle field - or if the campaign just takes too long, the rest of the family may not be able to bring in the entire harvest before it rots on the field.
At best, there will be no surplus generated this year by this farm. At worst, the entrie family starves to death during the winter.
In the case of a culture using slave labour, ethical considerations aside, it's a double edged sword.
While you may be able to squeeze a larger surplus out of your involuntary labour force, you will have to devote considerable ressources - especialy military assets - to keep your slaves in check.
Slavery doesn't allow you to have a standing army, it forces you to have one.
Your society will live in constand fear of a widespread slave revolt. And considerable military recources will need to be kept at home at all time, making large and long military campaigns a dangerous gamble.
If your army suffers a Cannae or Morat, you will not only find yorself in a tight spot on the battlefield, but also facing more wildfires in the form of slave uprisings than you can possibly put out in time.
9:08 Fun fact, the mongol invasion where were over 100000 warriors Genghis Khan (and next minor rulers) divided their army to 30000 men corps. Slavic High King of Kiev Svyatoslav when he beated Byzantine Empire during the war for Bulgary in 970-971 AD, in probably real numbers has less than 7000-ish men vs 6000-ish byzantines (ok, 10000 vs 7000 some rounded numbers in byzantine scripts). That was the maximum for the 10th century. And as for the Europe till 17th c. was the same. That was not even the population problem, that was the logistic, distance communications and supplying problem (esp, when roman's legion system was forgotten), no one warchief/warlord/general/military leader couldn't effectively rule the army more than 10000 units. Swords, maces, lances, spears, shields and main/plate armor dictate the strategic (prisoners mostly valuable than dead) till with gun era begins, when it become almost useless (countries become more national, so tactic was to destroy enemy population and supply - the lines of musket shooters were effective, and with the strict formations got the battle, however lances and spears still were alive as the cavalry in WW2).
Absolutely, logistics plays a huge role in army structure, as does soldier equipment (and many other factors). They're important to keep in mind for any fictional army as well 🙂
will you be posting a webpage or a readable source for this world?
Hoping to see the fashion and architecture of these cultures
Yo bro, can you turn this video script into a PDF? I'd buy this off your site. I would buy this whole series if available.
Great content.
It makes sense on a very pragmatic basis to use ranged over melee. It takes skill, training and maybe a little luck against armored opponents, but it makes hurting the ranged warrior harder. And if the warrior feels more powerful and in less danger, their morale is less likely to suffer. It takes a significant warrior culture to indoctrinate the "bravery and heroism," to charge into danger for life and limb.
In wargames I tend to put emphasis on ranged units because it maximizes my KD. I can retreat easier, I get surrounded less often, I can bombard at maximum range and "kite" enemies with less range or that are using melee weapons. An enemy can't be scary if they're dead. I've primarily used melee troops as screening, protection against cavalry and a means to "lock down" my enemy so I can break them from a fixed position.
Melee warfare has always seemed to me to require a high honor culture influence to make it stick.
"Warriors don't use clubs". Say it to Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom, and their mighty stone clubs.
Hey new subscriber, I watched your backlog of videos in a couple of days and this video shortly after it came out and love the world and magic system you're crafting but I'm just wondering do you have a upload schedule or just whenever the video is finished? Thanks from a fellow aussie
Didn't the oldest intact human remains found have defensive wounds?
Magic users in my fantasy worlds militaries tend to have heavy guards places around them since they’re squishy. They also have a high attrition rate sooo colleges of magic tend to get forcibly conscripted from time to time
The Aztec’s would like to have a conversation with you (I know they’re not fully clubs but they’re still counted in my head)