The first entry in my new series! A helpful resource to help other writers. Patreon: / jamestullos Twitter: / fortullos Discord: / discord goodreads: / james-tullos
my first nitpick is do not downplay the competence and intelligence of "barbarians" . whenever you study history especially the gallic wars caesar didnt fight dumbasses but very smart people who outsmarted him and severel times theow caesars tactics right back at him. hell some of them knew caesar so much they were aware of his difficult political Situation in rome.
One factor he doesn't cover, which is something I think should always be taken into account when creating a fantasy army, is "What kind of enemy or war are they most often going to fight." An army conceived largely to crush rebellions or defending the homefront is going to be trained, armed, and organized differently than one primarily focused on foreign campaigning. Take the Byzantine Thematic Armies and compare them to their predecessor, the Roman Legions. The Legions were organized to be largely self sufficient, capable of managing large-scale operations in lands outside of officialy Roman Territory. The Thema Tagmata on the other hand were dependent upon the local populations, given most of their fighting strength came from citizen militias with a core of career soldiers.
That's just a difference between what they were capable of doing, most of the time Roman Legions were inside borders protecting provinces, With Legions being stations to different provinces. The Roman Legions were logistically better off then later Byzantine Armies allowing for multi use. A Roman standing army is going to be better in both situations then a Byzantine citizen militias army (not accounting for armour and weapons difference from the different time periods), plus the fact that Roman Armies could be station to different provinces then where they were recruited.
@@L0rd0fLight1 Another thing is that an Army evolves with the country and that in one era it may be comprised of mostly of the people born in said country but several 100 years down the line a lot of the army may get replaced with mercenaries and people considered barbarians, one of the reasons Roma fell was that they couldn't afford to pay soldiers who weren't loyal to Roma in the first place which of course led to strikes and revolts, so yeah a lot goes into an army lol.
Is it not if u play your own world style. That u can buy in game wat u have in your inventory. Mits u earned the points in game. The nice thing of this is that a battle like in RL is never fair. But how u feel if u destroy 4K points whit 2K points even if u loose the battle. In de compleet war u won 2K on your enemy. Units can enter the field again after they are compleet death and u have them in your reinforcement list. This makes it a bit better for army’s whit a smaller own inventory. Special character slain can never come back. Can use the model as hero of wat. And if u do good things in battle u can win a special rule of a extra stat. In my case I what’s Empire, High Elves, Skaven. My uncle: Undead, chaos and Bretonia. My cousin: Orcs. So yea here u know who can be your potential enemy. But like in RL beter u build en create a army that can handle al. And if u attack your self. Send your specialist units to the best enemy. Have no use to send my witch-hunters to the Orcs. Must say this freedom let me maked love wharer fantasy. Those fixt unit rules of those 2k against 2K battles. Is the thing I don’t like 🤷🏼♂️
There's a magic the Gathering card with a flavor text to that affect, It goes something along the lines of "starving and army that feeds on its opponent is a sound strategy"
Tribal societies were certainly capable of advanced battle tactics. When Caesar fought the Germanic king Ariovistous, the Germanic tribesmen fought in a phalanx formation, with cavlary behind them making hit&run attacks from the cover of the shieldwall. This formation was very difficult for the Romans to handle, and the tribesmen also attacked with enourmous speed on the charge, so fast the Romans had to drop their javelins and just start fighting, there was no time to throw. Celts in Britain also had clear combat tactics and used advanced maneouvers with cavalry and chariots working with foot skirmishers to give the Romans a bad day. During the battle of the Teutoburg Forest, the Germanic ambushers also displayed discipline and restraint, not charging blindly into battle against the Romans, but whittling them down and attacking from their hidden position only when the Romans were engaged on another front. So saying that "barbarians" are only capable of simple ambushes and the like is not right. They were not as organized as a roman legion, but with decent commanders and subchiefs they could give the romans an asswhooping. See the Cimbrian Wars, for example, or the Dacians.
The problem is that Germanic tribes were not the classic nomad tribe. They were semi-sedentary, had a complex society and some of them were even literate. For example the modern justice system did not evolve from the Greco-Roman model of feud, but from the Germanic weregild.
@@danisrusski6297 Because barbarian derives from the Greek word barbaros which meant "the one who stutters", so the one who didn't speak Greek. Later it was expended to everyone who was not part of the Greco-Roman world. It took the current meaning only after thousands of years.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 *The modern Anglo Saxon model Most countries outside the commonwealth use the roman system (or the Islamic system) so your assessment is not wrong, but it definitely needs to be nuanced a lot (same for the literate part, there were literate germanic and Celtic people, but still a very low amount overall and it was lower than that of the more "civilised" societies like Rome, Greece or Persia). But yes these people were more the exception than the rule, especially those closer to the Mediterranean like the Iberians, the Gauls or the Dacian because of their closer proximity with other civilisation, while it came later on for the Germanic and Northern Celtic people when this boundary came closer to them as well. An example to show that they weren't that savage, in his story of the conquest of the Gauls, Caesar talks extensively about the development of the gallic people and how impressive some of their cities and crafts were, which definitely shows that they were in an intermediate level, not totally a tribe yet not totally a great civilisation
If you're wondering how to get the actual tactics of fantasy battles down then my advice would be to read about significant battles in history (Trasimene, Cannae, Alesia, Gaugamela, Vienna, Waterloo as a few random examples) and play loads of Total War. Copying real battles exactly is a bit cheap but you can take inspiration from what real armies did, and playing Total War lets you do some first-hand research on battle tactics and helps you visualise battles when you're planning them out
@@franjokrajinovic3534 Total War isn't a realistic simulation and never claimed to be, and playing against AI will only teach you the absolute basics, but it can still give you a decent idea of how armies interact and how a commander might react to a given situation
@@franjokrajinovic3534 Even if the general wasn't doing it, units did respond to threats immediately in battle because of officers lower down the chain of command. In TW you represent all the commanders in an army, not just the general. Again, I'm not claiming that TW is the same as reality but it is close enough to give you an idea of what it's like and to help you write about fictional battles, and its far more accessible than the more hardcore strategy simulators. Even though it's a far cry from reality it can turn your battle planning from "both sides charge at each other" to something a bit more complex with flanking manoeuvres and so on
why write a fantasy battle to simply copy a real one? it's not really fantasy then, is it? if there are mages and unnatural beasts and such under the command of one or more armies that changes the entire dynamic of warfare as a whole.
@@commander31able60 while you shouldn't exactly copy rl battles it can be useful to make battles similar to real world ones which showcase interesting or ingenious strategies. Also not every fantasy army has dragons and monsters. Mine just has mages which are, depending on their training, analogous to artillery, chemical weapons, or CAS bombers, making most strategies from between 1910 and 1960 useful depending on the situation.
"The Incas actually used thick layers of linen and cotton as armor" Yes, so did everyone everywhere else. It's called a gambeson. Also leather was almost never used as protective armor, since it was way more expensive than linen and way less protective.
There are many ways to make Leather a Good armor. First is what type of animal did it come from? Generally the bigger the animal the better and thinker the leather. Then you also know that you can treat leather to make it much harder to get through. and you can also layer the leather to make it better. Most types of leather armor I know off. Was a type of Scale or Over lapping smaller pieces of leather. the over lapping of smaller pieces could more easily be replaced. And get new Leather strips for. But there is also Historic accounts of Native america Leather shields stopping musket fire. It was that thick and had several Properties that helped it stop a musket ball. And there are big animals in our world that can take several gun shots even modern gun shots. and be mostly fine/recover in time. Like African Crocodiles and Elephents. Then there is also Reports from Native americans history and also from Native african history of Wooden armor also Stopping musket fire. Such wood would Generally be made out of Heavy/Dense wood. The kind of wood that doesn't float. and is pretty hard to work with. There is some so hard they are called Iron wood. And if you didn't know. The Chest plat on a Conquestador was made thick enough to stop musket fire as well. And they removed the armor on them that was less important to lighten the load. that is why Knights armor was less used after Muskets became common place. But their still was heavy cav that used really think armor to stop gun fire. Like the Winded Hussars from History. Who were active around the time of the Pike and shot Era.
Regarding swords, a simple way of putting it is that they are (mostly) sidearms. So, the sword is roughly equivalent to a pistol, not the most powerful weapon but easy to carry around and still perfectly lethal. A polearm meanwhile would be the equivalent of a battle rifle or assault carbine - they have a definitive advantage over swords but are much larger and will always occupy at least one hand since you can't just strap it to yourself. (No matter how much video games insist you can.) A lot of people misunderstand this and go: _"Actually,_ swords were historically considered stupid and weak weapons for losers and the samurai totally liked the spear or the bow a lot better!" While it's true you would usually prefer a polearm on the battlefield, that doesn't mean swords weren't appreciated and used as a symbol of the warrior class: Because they were more expensive and harder to make, and warriors could carry them around even in a civilian context, they became status symbols. Basically, historical people thought swords were cool too. You just need to keep all of this in mind when deciding how warriors and soldiers would actually be armed in your setting.
Indeed (ik I'm two years late but bear with me) there are also examples of swords having advantages over spears and other Polearms in various battles. The Roman's for example with their gladius managed to be a major reaosn for dominating much of Europe and even Greece. Polearms just have a major advantage but it's not a defenative win.
About the swords, its true. Hell even when gunpowder warfare began. Officers still insisted to carry around a sabre they aren't even gonna use at some point of the long wars
@@erichvondonitz5325 It's actually more interesting than that. See, firearms didn't just make swords and armor obsolete over night - it took like 500 years, in fact. Early firearms were already around in the 1400s, at the end of the medieval era. Back then, people were still using plate armor and carrying pikes around. Then something interesting happened: Previously there was sort of an arms race between swords and armor, the former tending to be specialized to counter the latter and vice versa. But as firearms improved people started wearing less armor, but since guns were still single-shot and troublesome to reload, you still wanted a good backup melee weapon. This actually resulted in a _greater variation_ of sword design. It's during the Renaissance we start seeing rapiers, sabers, messers, giant zweihanders, baskethilts, and a return of cutting-oriented broadswords. There was simply less need to specialize. In the 19th century, sword design started getting very experimental. Like, militaries of the time took their swords quite seriously and there were a lot of odd designs, arguments about cut vs thrust and so on. The last time swords were officially carried in warfare in Europe was during WW1, by cavalry units. (This was also pretty much when cavalry went out of style.) So, yeah, swords and guns coexisted for quite some time. Arguably, the cramped trench warfare of WW1 was the last nail in the coffin for large melee sidearms like swords, as it was found that even very long bayonets tended to get in the way and soldiers kept shortening them to what was basically modern combat knives.
@@erichvondonitz5325 Also fun fact, cavalry sabres weren’t sharp. They were bludgeoning weapons. Because a sharp weapon could get caught in an enemy’s bone and stuck but a bludgeoning weapon will break the bone and let you keep going. At least this is true for cavalry sabres used in the US civil war. I don’t feel confident extrapolating that to every cavalry sabre in every time period.
Leather? Did you just say leather armour? *REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE* The most common type of armour was padded armour e.g. Gambeson. Actually really effective. Don’t have to look to the Incas too. Most of the European armies of the middles ages wore padded armour most of the time. It was really effective and relatively cheap.
For armor: I would add that Gambeson was historicaly one of the most used types of armor and are very effective (Especially against arrows and swords) and was NOT just used by the Incas and was very popular in medieval Europe and it is very correct to include it in a fantasy story because it's just made out of linen wich nearly every cultur should have acces to. (P.S. And Neuschwanstein is not a good example for defensive Castles)
Yes, by far the most common form of armor, basically everywhere, throughout history. Not just Incas. EVERYONE wore cloth armor. Even those who wore other armor wore it over cloth. Also, leather wasn't all that common, and wasn't anything like the DnD pictures of it. And chain mail wasn't all that expensive. Nor was scale/lamelar. They were both more common than leather.
According to Ancient Chinese military theorist and general, Sun Tzu, you should never feed your army three times. The first time, you supply food from your home region. The second time, you take whatever food you need from the enemy. And by the time it comes to a third time, the war should be over.
Some wars still go on for years, so its not really possible. Unless you would rather surrender if the war lasts so long that you have to get food a third time, and for whatever reason havent won yet. There is no garantee to winning
@@zakosist According to Sun Tzu, if you haven't won by that time, then you've messed up. The war's been going on for too long, and you should seek to make peace. But the whole "Feed your army three times" could be interpreted in different ways. If your army is constantly on the move, you could feed it off of the enemy from different areas. The whole point of this is to achieve your goal and end the war as quickly as possible. Don't drag it out longer than absolutely necessary.
@@frisa96 Not every war was minor scale like Sun Tzu, Yes he was a master of strategy but many Generals have far surpassed him in actually performance on the field well constantly breaking many of his rules.
Imagine if WWI generals had followed his advice. "Oh, we just need a bit of food brought from home, then take the rest from our enemy, and by then we should have won." Whoever did that would have lost hard. Same with the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Year War, etc.
L0rd0fLight I think what he meant was first you supply your army from your homeland. Then, after you push into enemy territory you replenish supplies from the enemy territory. If the supplies in enemy territory run out before the war ends and you must supply your army from home again, the situation has become disadvantageous. This thinking doesn’t translate well in the age of global logistics and MRE’s, but the logic is sound.
Geography is also a major thing to consider; Mongolian cavalry and Greek phalanx formation-based warfare, for example, work best on an open plane, whereas elves who mostly dwell in a thick forest and mountain tribes would most definitely have a method of warfare that reflects their respective environments. It can also effect weaponry; for example, wood is harder to come by in a desert, so bows would likely be of the composite variety, made of horns and the like, while making their shields out of layers of hide and woven plant fiber, so they can prioritize using what wood they do have for arrows or spears. Also, padded armor is the most common type in the medieval period, because it was easier to make and repair. Whether or not Leather armor was actually used (at least in Europe) is a hotly contested. It would have also been harder to make than linen, so if you wanna have leather armor, you should probably justify its usage by making it clear how and why it's more effective (or perhaps more available) than a padded jack.
Gambesons should allways be a go to armor if you just want some cheap and basic armor. Unless you have some other idea that fits in to the story and setting, then do that.
And because of this a civilization from a forested or mountainous environment might lean towards a highly skilled, professional army as a opposed the sort of quickly trained hoplites that were popular in Greece.
Watching at 11:54 Sees Codpiece "As for armor, the most important piece by far..." IS HE GOING TO SAY IT!? IS HE GOING TO TAKE THE PLUNGE!? WILL HE GRACE US WITH THE OBVIOUS JOKE HISTORY HAS PROVIDED!? "...is the helmet" No. It is not yet time. The world is not ready for such pristine humor. I move on, content with the fact that this is a good video...but always contemplating "What if?". Maybe one day we will know. But then again, some things are better off remaining mysteries.
The earth trembled beneath the raining clouds as the horde approached. Ferocious barbarians, almost more animal than the very horses they rode on came charging down the hill. Their war cries echoed through the deep valleys like it was the sound of death itself. "Hold the line!" The general called out as his supposedly brave legionares started to slowly move back out of fear they felt. Sweaty hands grabbed harder onto their spears. Hearts beat fast against the iron cheatplate, all warm inside after their long march. "Hold the line!" The general shouted once again as morale almost broke when the enemy made it's way down from the hill, now only a couple of hundreds of meters away. Foul stench of horses and bloodied men with rotten wounds now filled the air. The sounds of their barbaric cries and the hundreds of horse feet, bashing against the soil of their dear homeland was deafening. "Behind us are your homes! Behind us are your families! We protect the land our ancestors built and they will not that away from us! Today we die for our land and make our last stand!" The general made a loud speech as all his men got into formation. Suddenly all the enemy horses collapsed. Mary Sue walked up to the General with a smile on her face. "I placed small little metal spikes on the ground with my magic and the power of Tolp." And then everyone loved Mary Sue forever after and everyone lived happily in love triangles.
If you have a professional army in your story, it helps to look at history, especially the Kingdoms and Empires that lasted longer. I know the Romans came up with some stuff I can barely believe. From the ability of a Legion building a fortified camp in hours, sandals nearly on the level of modern sport shoes when it comes how they distribute weigth during a march, javelins where the wooden part breaks off behind the metal so the enemy can't pick it up and throw it back to dart throwers were one dart was found to have gone through a soldier's armor and was lodged in the spine while the same darts only bruise when they hit someone with a roman armor, so turning a captured dart thrower around was next to useless unless you hit a body part without armor. SunTsu's The Art of War is still a good guide for tactics as it has been for a very long time. As for magic, as it was said, it depends on the system, but sometimes it can be more important in support roles than actually dealing damage. A few fireballs might be small change against a sudden thick fog that allows some troops to be repositioned without being seen. And again, a look at history can be interesting what crazy stuff happened. A castle defender making his men light many torches on the ramparts and throwing open the gates, daring the enemy to attack. Fearing a trap they did not attack. The castle had less then 20 men. Hannibal surrounding a larger army with his smaller one and annihilating it. Admiral Yi loosing only a few ships (if any at all) while defending his country during a japanese invasion lasting years. At one time he had 12 ships and faced 133 japanese ships, loosing not a single ship while 31 japanese vessels were sunk. And so on.
As far as I can tell, magic has 3 uses. Direct damage, status effects and healing. If there are more, learn them and understand the needs of military roles before use. Don't fireball the land you intend to grow crops on later. Don't mudslide a pond of crossing soldiers where you drink from.
@@furyberserk Not every fantasy universe is DnD. Magic could be used to reveal enemy positions, conceal your own, damage critical supplies or equipment... any number of things depending on the setting. Also, fireballing cropland probably wouldn't the worst thing to do. It would destroy anything already there, true, but wouldn't render the land barren either. The stuff that burned might even fertilize the soil.
The Roman pila (their specialized javelins) did NOT break on impact. They were capable of piercing shields and armor to kill the guy behind those protections (after all, with all those civil wars Rome had, they needed to be good at killing each other, too). There is one battle where pila "bent" and that was through replacing a metal pin attaching the iron shank to the wooden shaft with a much more fragile wooden pin. The wooden pin broke after the pilum pierced its target, causing the iron shank to become too loose to be useful, but also enabling the Romans to rapidly repair those pila back to combat effectiveness after the battle.
@@justinthompson6364 The Sky is (not) the Limit when it comes to Magic. Magic could be used for espionage ...concealment/disguise. To make Arrows always find target, to mak magic barrier shields for formations or even magic Shields/Armour/Weapons for individual soldiers.
@@Arnaere They were all warring tribesmen that Ghenghis Khan reorganized. Most of there training and battle experience came from when they were tribesmen. Ghenghis Khan didn’t give them formal training.
The armor made of layered clothing was used in medieval europe as well and according to a certain fan of machicolations it was probably one of, if not the most, used armor during that period!
_Leather is shitty armor in almost all cases and those where it isn't are the crazy exceptions due to other circumstances not the rule_ , god I had hoped that misconception was dead already
I think what he was saying was thick leather at a minimum as it's a better than nothing situation, though its a very scratching the bottom of the barrel kinda thing
While leather armour was nothing like portrayed in games and movies, it was by no means shit. Leather armour was more or less on par with padded armour, like the gambeson. The main difference being is that leather armour was much more expensive than padded armour, so you wouldn't find it being worn by common soldiers. And why would a noble want to wear leather armour when he could wear chain mail? TL;DR Leather armour isn't shitty, just expensive and really uncommon (in Europe anyway)
I would not recommend to use leather armor a lot. The amount of cattle you'll have to slay in order to get armor-grade leather for an entire army is insane.
This is more true with minute men militia armies or indefinite standing armies. But with mercenaries, small warbands, tribal warriors, or just metal poor societies, leather armor is the best option because unless they have solid methods of even obtaining metal, good metal smiths, and it's cheap and easily accessible then they aren't gonna use metal armor that much even in partial. Remember the normal population (Which always outnumber the army/warriors.) will need to eat so there should be a good amount of livestock. Because of this leather is cheap and readily available and if you can get leather easily than why not use it. This is especially true in an agricultural society. This may exclude the most important of commanders or best of that force's troops. Hell even cultural and religious factors must be taken into account. Also take into account projectile units like archers and javelin throwers or light infantry troops where mobility and flexibility is better suited and leather is preferable than metal armor. For them the ability of not getting hit in the first place is better than taking a few blows.
@@mill2712 This is nothing but nonsense. Quite contrary to what you're saying, leather armor was virtually never used by socities which had no acces to metal, but especially by societies which had rather sophisticated metal working. The reason for that is that leather as an armor supplement only really works in conjunction with metal, as it can be used to make lamellar armor more flexible or to cover joints in plate armor. There are extremely few archeological remains of leather armor, and most written sources or depictions of warriors don't show leather armor being used very frequently either. You should really consider that if your hypothesis had even the faintest of bases in reality, leather armor would probably have been used a lot by nomadic peoples of the asian steppes. And yet, we almost have no surviving evidence for something like this occuring at all, even though one of those nomadic asian peoples just so happened to at one point have ruled the largest land empire that ever existed.
@@mill2712 I'd also like to mention that using cloth-based armor would also (almost) always be available- it's been used from Europe to Meso-America for good reason. And that leather you mentioned would have to be treated long and hard, and gauged to be of more importance as a full suit of armour instead of, say; shoes, belts, straps, paper, some weird sex thing, wallets, clothing, bags, etc.
You made a Point about Bringing up weapons to destroy a Wall, One thing to remember about Big stone walls is that when you knock them down, all you've done is make a big pile of rocks which isn't that much easier to get over. Or In the Case of Japanese (And some European) Castle walls, you still have a big vertical wall of packed dirt to climb
In the Great Siege of Malta, there are records of the Maltese resisting the Ottomans even after the walls of their forts had been leveled by hiding in the rubble. They did this again in WW2 with the added bonus of hiding in craters from the bombings. Movies make it seem that once the walls are rubble that a slaughter is about to start but even a pile of rocks is a good hiding place. Even the Lord of The Rings is guilty of this when the walls of Helms Deep are blown, the enemy pours in the breach like water without being hindered by the debris blowing up a wall would make.
@@hyperion3145 I don't remember what it says in the book but the movie does kind of get around that by making the explosion absolutely massive so the debris gets scattered widely rather than simply falling into a large pile. If you are writing about trebuchets or similar siege weapons bringing down a wall, that debris wouldn't scatter.
Nation's with militia often tried to curtail the decrease in quality by holding annual musters. Once a year, even in times of peace, all the men in a community who qualified to be in the militia would be required to come to a designated spot (usually a military installation like a fort) and train and drill for a weekend. Granted, this didn't completely work at maintaining quality (a lot of militiamen didn't have the necessary equipment to wage war) but it made sure the men remembered basic training and tactics should an emergency arise.
A good time would be in early summer, when the crops are planted, but not ready for harvest. In areas where war is a distant memory or discipline is just loose, this would also be a great opportunity for drinking and stuff. A part of said training, could be competitions in things like wrestling, weight-lifting and archery.
@@TheManofthecross If archery is outdated (depending on the era), then things like turkey shooting or even target shooting with rifles and muskets are good competitions.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 Well, Albania (or some other stain on the Balkans map) burned through 20% of their GDP for a couple years to build outdated bunkers everywhere. (The Russians are better at defense-in-dept and partisans behind enemy lines, though.)
Additional note about nomadic cultures and their weapons, a lot of nomadic groups had a deep contempt for any weapon that couldn't be used for hunting, protecting their livestock or doing chores around camp. So, axes, spears, bows, lassos, bolas and bardiches would be the most common weapons with a tribal society, with maybe only the chief and his (or her) closest guards carrying swords of good quality steel/iron.
@@TheManofthecross that's true, but the swords were then often kept among the family of the chief, as well as his bondsmen or the equivalent. Same with armor, but even there, the better quality armor tended to be the same style of armor that would have been worn with less high-quality materials, just forged out of captured ore. Drawing on the history of the Mongols, one of the issues that defined Chinggis's family in the immediate wake of his father's death was what should be done with the sword of his father as blades of good steel were very hard to find. And one of the first things he bargained from the Chinese in exchange for going to war with the tartars was metal scale/lamellar armor, an improved version of the leather armor already worn among the tribes.
some medieval militia were actually very well equipped, especially late medieval/ early renaissance "city state" militia, composed of the middle class of craftsmen, blacksmiths(sword smiths/ armor smiths) , property owners, merchants (venice?) . As these were the one wealthy enough to arm themselves in almost the same level of knights, with state of the art weapons, and at the same time have the money and time to train themselves, in fact, most fencing masters of the 15th and 16th century were these kind of middle classes. These city militia could be seen in the holy roman empire and Italian states, fighting off knights, nobles and kings. of course, there are other example of free city state militia which were not as rich, but due to danger around them, train themselves and experienced alot of fighting, such as the swiss and flanders.
The Haida people in the Pacific Northwest used armor made from wood and woven redwood bark in the conflicts between themselves and colonists (and also in conflicts with other tribes pre-colonialism)
Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Divine or unholy beings. None of need food or at least not much. Also vegetarian elves would have alot of issues if they went on the planes
I've very much enjoyed your previous videos, and really hope for the success of your channel. These sorts of videos are really interesting and helpful, so I would just like to use our historical understanding of tribal nations to perhaps more clearly define some aspects of the beginning of the video. I'm aware these aren't 'hard and fast' rules, but (from what I understand) this is what history says. 1. Chieftains weren't usually just arbitrary charismatic people. Vercingetorix, leader of the Averni, was the son of Celtillus, also leader of the Averni. His uncle and other members of his family were also part of the ruling nobility. There was no strict succession laws (ultimate primogeniture for example) and indeed leaders' charisma would often play a part in determining a ruler, but it was usual for members of the nobility / ruling classes to be chosen as chief. 2. People were 'free' to leave the tribe but without the organised infrastructure of a state like Rome, leaving the tribe would mean almost certain death. It was dishonourable, not to mention the other factors (family, harsh winter, isolation) which would heavily deter anyone from freely being able to leave. 3. 'Tribal armies with more than a couple hundred men in size would likely be an alliance of multiple tribes' - just keep in mind Celtic armies typically numbered in the 10,000s. Roman reports put them at much higher. 4. Tribal tactics (such as that of the Suebi under Ariovistus) could be very sophisticated. For example Ariovistus used groups of 100 soldiers with cavalry behind launching small-scale hit and run attacks against Caesar. Unless their numbers were too large to coordinate, tribal tactics weren't just *run head first and hope you kill them before they kill you* Tribal societies as we know them weren't savages. They were usually fairly organised, specialised societies. They had towns, trade networks, and cultural practices that made them cohesive. These were just my thoughts to what you said in the video.
This is a really nice, extensive video, and I think it not only helps people wanting to do world building, but some historical misconceptions of war. One thing I feel like you didn't stress enough was the importance of formations, even for tribal armies. All armies fought in formation, or almost all of them, and the army that stopped fighting and routed was usually the one breaking formation. It isn't like in many fantasy work pieces where they march in formation and then charge to fight one on one duels for the remainder of the battle.
An undead army really is superior in every way. No food, no worries about lack of following instructions, and after every battle, your army only ever grows. Also, I only ever see caltrops used in media in the context of ninjas.
4:14 Well, no. Some basic formations like a _tela_ for the Italian tribes (loose formation of javelineers with big shields), a _Keilerkopf_ or _svinfylking_ for the Germanic ones (wedge-like attack formation with warchief on the tip of the wedge leading his shield wall behind him) or just a basic shield wall can be maintained on this level of organization. Manoeuvres, however, are the tricky part, and that's where the more professional armies shine. 5:12 In fact, *most* of them. It's no wonder why feudal systems emerged in all those different regions of the world - to compensate for the lack of funds to spend on professional standing army. 5:22 I don't think you can really say that all militias had only basic training. E.g., take a look at the hoplites of some Greek polis. They mostly came from well-off families, were trained in martial arts from the young age and were led by nobles, who, in turn, were likely career mercenary officers before they got into prominent enough position in their own city. 14:35 One, however, should also take into account the behaviour of the mount in question. You'll have a hard time getting into close combat on the camel's back, given the relative lack of combat spirit inherent to this species.
Padded cloth armor was basicly used the most. Even a knight with chain mail or Plate would have padded cloth under. Cloth armor was used by mostly all, not only common soldiers, look at the gambeson. One of my personal favorite armors are wood armor.
I used to use caltrops in DnD during camping scenes and in dungeons. It was fun listening to Drow swearing at the PCs as they ran over the caltrops whilst chasing us through the caverns.
They used their swords in melee like most other armies would spears: in tight and organized formations, with somewhat limited angles of attack for each individual fighter. Also, the pilums they threw were no joke. The Romans have expected a lot of their enemies ro be routed from just one volley and the following melee charge.
Three notes for people reading this: Padded linen armor is equal, if not supirior to leather, while being cheap enough that even Levy troops can usually afford it. Silk is also an extreamly effective armor against arrows and other smaller projectiles. Horses will NEVER charge head on into a wall of soldiers in formation, and espcially not a spear wall. Doing so would kill them, and no matter how well trained they are, they will stop or turn away. So the best counter to chargeing horses, is for you and your mates to stand shoulder to shoulder and call the bluff; as that's all cavalry really is to infantry; a bluff trying to make you scatter and run. Battles very rearely involve fighting to the bitter end. Most of the tem an army will flee prematurely to avoid being completely destroyed, exception of course being for last stands. When plotting out a battle consider what things could happen that would cause the enemy to consider cutting their loses and fleeing the field. Also one last point to that. Normally when an army routes, the back line are the ones to go first, as they are the ones seeing the battle going south. The soldiers in the front are normally to busy fighting the people in front of them to notice they're being encircled.
Leivve Ehh.... It might not be common but it happened, Polish hussars created the hollow lance to out range pikes and charge them directly and there’s plenty of accounts of cavalry breaking infantry squares just though sheer mad valour. I’d say be very careful when using the word ‘never’ across all of military history.
While yes padded linen armor is fairly good however we do know leather armor was used primarily in eastern cultures like china and mongolia fairly often and on mass scale up to entire armes in some cases, leather armor was uncommon in western armies but that is not the case for eastern armies at least until metal armor became more popular so we cant completly right off leather armor depending on the context. Case in point what if silk or linen isnt particularily available in a region then leather actully makes some sense well made leather armor offers decent protection with good flexability and you can reinforce with iron or steele plates if necesssary.
Actually yeah horses will run into spear walls. Even more so when you realize that most military groups were not trained Spartans ready to die rather then retreat - usually they were levies or ad hoc groups and really rather get paid or go back to their farms. Also, The bravery needed to have a horse fall on you (dead horses don’t disappear) tends to make people think twice about standing your ground. To be clear horses are not thoughtless cars but they will run you over is they feel there is no other option. But... The main reason that you don’t see it often is because the BEST use of your hyper EXPENSIVE horses and horseman is in attacking the rear, flanks and formation seams in that order. That is what they are good at and something other unita have trouble doing. If you want to kill a sword wall the two better options are good tactics and ballistic attacks (bow, javelin or actual artillery).
I find it interesting that you talk about Incan gambesons as if they're something completely unique. Gambesons were dominant in Feudal Europe because linen was easy to produce. Everyone was using them. Even the knights wore them under their mail or plate because they provided nice padding to keep the armour from scraping their skin.
You explain easily, go quickly through it all and you also explain the important parts so you actually understand the points. You my friend, have gotten yourself a subscriber
Start with part 6 and see how it would effect strategy before you build the army. If you have fireball shooting wizards on hipogrifs, then you have an airforce, and medieval warfare goes out the window.
Regarding fortifications: Keep in mind that, with rare exceptions, both sides should always want to have fortifications and should never want to attack them. While during a war or campaign fortresses and castles might see a lot of use, most should rarely see battle since their entire purpose is to make attacking them a really bad idea. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't siege battles or have an army fortify it's position and make a heroic stand to rival the battle of Agincourt, but just keep in mind that there should be some reason for the attacker to attack anyway despite their foes' fortifications. *I realized my post was getting long, so I"ll just point out that the paragraphs below are mostly just examples of reasons to attack or forego fortifications* Are the defenders expecting reinforcements forcing the attackers to strike swiftly? Does the location of the fortifications make it (nearly) impossible for the attackers to achieve their goals without overcoming them? Do the defenders have a large enough force that they would pose a serious threat if you left them and went for easier targets, exposing your flank to them in the proces? Are the attackers some kind of mindless (possibly undead) horde that have no care for the losses they would suffer during a siege? Do the attackers simply underestimate the fortifications like they did at Agincourt? Conversely, if they battle in the open, give a reason why neither side used fortifications. For the attackers this reason should be obvious, they can't achieve their goals without leaving the safety of their own fortifications back home and marching into foreign territory. The defenders still need a reason to face the attackers in the open field however. The most common reason would be that hiding inside a castle or something would give the invaders free rein to plunder the surrounding lands and villages. Otherwise the attackers might be expecting reinforcements forcing the defenders to strike before they can unite. Perhaps there is civil unrest and commander of the defenders (possibly the ruling monarch himself) needs this battle to win the favour of their countrymen/citizens. When people ask "Why didn't they just hide behind their walls and force the attackers to come to them?" the answer should be akin to "Because they couldn't force the attackers to come to them" *And the actual post continues* Just remember, nobody would want to fight a battle if they expect to lose it. So both sides need to A: Have little to no choice in the matter, or B: Believe they stand a good chance at winning. Naturaly it would most often be option A for the defenders and option B for the attackers, but they might be reversed, both sides might be forced, or they might both believe they stand a better chance than their opponent, though that last option should usually be attributed to limmited intel, as it would be highly unlikely for two opposing commanders to reach such vastly different conclusions if they could both see the full picture. Any of these reasons and many more might suffice. Just make sure your audience doesn't go "Why didn't they just (insert obvious tactic here)" without having an answer ready. Of course, incompetent commanders obviously do exist and even skilled commanders might make plenty of mistakes in the heat of war, but only a huge fool would position their immobile siege weaponry in front of all his fortifications without any protection. tl'dr: Both side would want any advantage they can get, so whenever they lack a certain advantage (fortifications) it should be because they *can't* get it.
Imagine the army organization of non-humans that not only utilize their fallen dead as a means of food, but equipment and weapons as well. (E.g. Orc/Goblin/Troll-like tribesmen that not only breed fast, but are also cannibals and do not have honor or similar. They will use the bones of not just their dead but even foes as spears, arrows, or even clubs, then sprinkle a dash of creativity, magic, some mystic mumbo jumbo and, boom, trebuchets with disease-ridden corpse ammo and undead zombies/summoned spirits of fallen warriors to aide in the never ending assault on their puny enemies. Only thing missing now is some evil warlord or dark lord and you have an Undead Horde that don't stop for nothing.)
@Lord Admiral Spire I know. Essentially, they'd need to have a reproductive factor and growth factor greater than mice or spiders (a pair giving birth to colony-size litters). But then again, that's the 'fantasy' aspect. XD
Warhammer is not good example. It is in some cases just cheap copy of real world.... Nippon is just Japan ( literaly nippon in japansese is Japan...), Ind is India, Araby desert is Arabia, Kitay mean china in many languages. Worldbuilding in Warhammer is weak. Map look like copy of our world, nations, continents, names, cultures... Ofc some parts are great, I love stories about Nehekhara/ Khemri - Setra and Nagash necromancy, even that region is heavily inspired by ancient Egypt it have some fresh things. Vlad von Carlstain, Lamia other vampires and Sylvania also a have great story. And the Empire with Carl Franz and Chaos gods are enjoyable too. Even if Empire is mostly copy od Holy Roman Empire story is good enough. Rest of Warhammer is avereage. I still like Warhammer, but it could be better and have more subtle conections to our world.
no desertion tolerated, promotion by merit and being allowed to take home what you plunder, and an almost army like discipline due to the harshness of the steppe will help with that. also their horses survived mostly by grazing so food costs were easier for them
@@sadowphoenix01 well, the Mongols do have a chain of command and military organization. They basically have a squad of 10 men, with the next rank having 10 squads under them, and so on. Each commander, from the general to the squad leader, are also given some freedom to adapt their orders to suit the current situation of the battlefield. They're not the misguided barbarian warriors that was often popularized in culture. Recent discoveries and rediscoveries in Mongolia have shown that the Mongol Empire was a much more civil and progressive state than what we gave them credit for.
Great video, just wanted to point out leather armor was very rare in history and usually made into leather scale-armor rather than just a thick leather breast plate. Very small nit-pic
GeekParkingOnly Leather scale armor afaik is in and of itself a myth. At least a thick breast plate of cuir bouili is real, even if it's basically leather turned into plastic.
@@farmerboy916, leather lamellar and scale armor is extremely well documented, mostly in China. They tended to lacquer the leather, but they fielded entire armies outfitted in it for literally centuries.
I was struggling on this short story I was writing for my friend because I have 0 idea of worldbuilding and I thought to check out your divergent worldbuilding video. i didn't know you had this series as well and it's super helpful! thank you!
Also people should keep in mind how certain tactics would change when you add elements such as magic or flying units. For example if in my setting magic can be utilized as a form of artillery with large fireballs and equivalently destructive effects then maybe walls are less prominent or are made out of a material that can take the magical effects, or the walls might be magically protected by things ect.
Thanks to my childhood of playing Total War games, I ended up thinking about half of the stuff you brought up, and people said I overthink my fantasy world lol. But yeah, you're right, it's important to make a believable world, you can build a lot of stories for them. The one I'm working on has my empire able to provide swords & heavy armors to their soldiers because they monopolize the economy of the entire continent & they own all the major mines. They supplement what they lack via mercenary companies or demanding local garrison to train specific troops for that campaign. The mercs & these temporary soldiers are obviously using lighter armor & specific types of weapons, but they are made to compliment the core troops. I tried to keep magic as some sort of major events or exclusively for the "bad" guy. But yeah, it's a lot of fun trying to make everything believable.
I'd like to point out no matter how logical/realistic you make your setting, there will always be someone to nitpick it apart. That is not wrong - after all, this is a community about picking settings apart - just be prepared your work most definitely won't be found flawless ubiquitously.
Slight pet peeve with when you group shields into the armour category. Shields are weapons, defencive weapons, but weapons. Yes, the basic of a shield is just hold it in front of yourself but one can go into so much detail with how to wield a shield that it's several days of videos worth of knowledge of what i know only partly. But in truth, most of the fancy shield stuff is mostly useful in duels, in a field battle sticking it in front of you goes a long way. The size of shield is also very important regarding tactics. The roman scutum is way different in use and deployment than a buckler. Material, type and prevalence is important to consider. But as a general rule, as armour tech/commonality goes up, shields become smaller and rarer. Anyway, rant over. This is a good video, goes over the basics and gets one thinking. I was already doing all these but it's still informative and enjoyable to watch.
@@TheManofthecross Heater shields are rather small shields. While not as small as bucklers, the heater shield is generally smaller than most shields. A fantastic shield. Especially in duels. But in the late medieval period, the plate armour was getting comparably common, and knights and men-at-arms were mostly clad in it while the infantry focused heavily on pole-weapons. myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_shield24.jpg The pic is an example of a common shield worn by knights in this period, smaller than a heater but with added features of weapon catching shapes. While mace and shield was a viable weapon choice for field combat, most preferred a sturdy pollaxe or similar in this period. The strength of the armour making most focus on really hard-hitting weapons over defence which was already mostly covered with the plate armour. While more mobile artillery was a factor in the death of plate armour, the true end of it was simple economics. With the wide advent of gunpowder weapons, it was cheaper to spam loads of musketmen than to outfit plate armoured infantry. The last plate armours were actually mostly immune to musket shots from most ranges. But alas, those who could afford it no longer went to war themselves, focusing on the musket infantry who could be trained in a fraction of the time of decent melee infantry.
@@TheManofthecross the gun tech that really does it is supersonic bullets, before that it isn't something one can count on. I don't know if miniball does this as well, i don't think there's much testing on that subject. But going supersonic, the armour stand no chance, sadly. Before that, you can load heavy charges all you want, it will not go through unless it hits in a bad spot. Or repeated hits in one spot. Which is low odds considering musket accuracy.
@@TheManofthecross They do however state in the video that the armour is not authentic compared to historical armour. On top of that the lamellar while a decent armour stand no chance when compared to spring steel plate armour. The hun armour in the video is very low tech compared. Sure it's modern stainless steel, but stainless does not share the properties of spring steel. Plus the small lames while perfectly capable of stopping arrows and swords has issues against such narrow piercing attacks. Where the single lame is pushed out of the way where a larger plate would have to deform more, needing more energy to go through. So i'm not saying a plate armour would stop all the attacks in the vid. But i am saying it would perform better than the low tech odd material armour in the vid. The problem with plate armour tests is that either the videos have way modern guns, way modern armour materials which make the tests odd, or the armours themselves are of exceptionally poor craftsmanship. For some reason people don't want to shoot muskets at tempered spring steel plate armour, while i am sure many muskets would not go through, the dents would be monstrous and possible tears as well. In all respects the armour would be ruined but would mostly protect the wearer.
@@TheManofthecross Well i did say i don't know about the miniball vs armour, i mostly know of the mini since my friends are fans of it. And if a guy would go unto such a battlefield in plate armour, he'd probably go with the cavalry. Where their speed and the horse carrying the weight would allow maximum mobility to dodge as much fire as possible. Sure, cavalry is not perfect defence against artillery, as shown by this classic piece. i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/29/251C0C9900000578-2931207-image-m-22_1422528664158.jpg It's a good way to avoid it mostly. The speedy horses tricky to home in on with cannons. And of course the victorian era weapons could punch through it, that's the advent of the supersonic bullets i talked about. But my original point stands, at the late middle ages, where plate armour reached it's maximum numbers in the field. The shield was at its smallest. Mostly since guys in plate armour could simply walk through incoming barrages of arrows and bolts. Nothing could pierce them at range and only the most powerful bows and arbalests could down them up close. Barring the odd weak point hit, which were rare.
In short: Base it off of historical armies as a base, then consider how the changes in your world over reality would affect them and add or take away accordingly.
Swords were also considered a sign of extreme wealth. At least in tribal Europe. Swords were very expensive and as you said required training to use effectively.
Already had the caltrops in my story, prepared food, but the raid traveling to the volcanic land to kill the dragon -never thought about the horses needing food. 🤦🏻♀️ Good point
4:42 "Battle of a disorganized army is the only time..." So, basically most units in actual combat, after the first few minutes. With practice, formations are easy enough to maintain - that is, until the enemy hits you or makes a clear enough attempt of doing so. Metatron has a nice video about the subject, I think...
Point to mention many Greeks in militias were rich Greeks who would train for example Sparta being built on slavery they had time to educate, think and train
Swords are actully very useful for an infantry force, the Roman legionaries used swords over spears because they fought very close quarters where the advantage of a spear line would fall apart
My Take on my Fantasy Army 1. Organization Basically a citizen Militia that already have the right Culture. Schools for all Class of citizen have the "Military" Lesson, where the Student will train in basic combat and discipline. Basically if you attack a town of this Fantasy nation, just prepare that all the citizen inside can quickly be formed into soldiers(Even the Female, they're Egalitarian). 1,5. Food & Supply These Army has a Specialized Unit that deal with the Supplies, they're like a Cavalry unit that can buy or stole supplies from nearby towns, and some of these Elite unit even grow their food on the march(Mobile Farms). 2. Arms and Armor For their Weapons they have quite an innovation to begin with. For Starters their "Sword" blade can be detached from the hilt, meaning that a Soldier can carry at least more than 1 Sword Blade. Their Spear is more like the Japanese Yari, a short blade on a staff, it's cheap and can be used to slash, but not too often. Their Armor is defined by their Ranks: -Their Regular Soldiers are often just armored with a Gambeson alike vest, and a Kite Shield. -Their Veteran Soldiers have Chestplate, and keeping the Gambeson, also they use a Scutum like shield -Their Elite Soldiers wore Partial plates, and a Thyreos Shield 3. Cavalry Their Cavalry uses the same as their Foot Soldiers, only that a wealthy Citizen can afford horses and serve as a Cavalry, their Equipment depend on what Class of these Cavalrymen and their Horses are, Big Old Heavy Horse are more useful as a Heavy Cavalry, Lighter Younger Horses are more suited as a Light Cavalry. 4. Fortifications they build castles, but depending on the lords the castles can be different from one or the other. Some Castles is more specialized in being surrounded, basically already having a farm or other stuff that can grow food inside the castle. Other Castle is just asking to be attacked and then only for the attacker to realize there's more Soldier in the castle which will ambush them inside the castle. 5. Laws of War This Fantasy Nation is actually divided into 4 Nations(White,Black,Grey,and Blue) Lets say that the White, Grey and Blue ones abide the Rules of war. But the Black are different, if you fight honorably, they will take care of the prisoners, and release them, but if you're a Warmongering Fuckboy who fight dirty, and the biggest offense to them "Rape and Kill prisoners"(Remember, they're Egalitarian), once they Conquer your city, they will round up all the non combatants(Civilians,Children and Old Folks)in the town square surrounded by a makeshift wall, and shot them one by one, but the Shooter will make sure they always hit the head, just to reduce the Pain a little. 6. Magic Some Attack Magic were not really used, due to the Nation Defensive Nature, they use more Healing and Anti Magic Barrier, and they might not even study Attack magic.
Great video. Lots of good information delivered in a clear and concise manner. One thing I would add about the rules of war though. If a castle or fortified city was called upon to surrender, it was almost universally accepted that they had until the first siege weapon touched the walls. If they surrendered before that, honour dictated that they should be treated with leniency. If the fortifications had to be stormed or taken by stealth or treachery, then it was tacitly agreed by all sides that the victor could do whatever they wanted to the vanquished. This is one of the reasons the Mongols were so feared. They often massacred civilians of a city that had surrendered. Or they would use them as forced labour or cannon fodder in the next battle.
I believed you might have a different definition of surrender and possibly even some false misconceptions there. The Mongols are very lenient to those who surrendered against them in the first place. It was when they resisted or refused to surrender that they lay waste to their enemies. An example of this would be the Khwarazm campaign. The Khwarazm empire first offended the Khan by killing his merchant envoys. Then Genghis Khan smacked them in a couple battles and won their submission. They, however, later rebelled. It was during that rebellion that the brutalities of the Mongols became legendary as a fear tactic to make future conquests easier. Interestingly, when a city surrenders, the Mongols would be very lenient towards the peasantry and the craftspeople/merchants. However, they would not spare the ruling elites.
An interesting use of the dynamics between militias and professional armies can be seen in Warhammer Fantasy. Dwraves and Elves mostly utilize militia troops, because with their low populations they can't afford to field big armies all year round. Meanwhile, the main human faction of the setting relies on professional soldiers. This allows to, for the most part, avoid the disparity in the skill level of average soldiers, since elven and dwarven lifespan mean their militia troops get a lot of experience.
Speaking of using axes and maces instead of swords, there's also the question of utility. Tribal warriors and militia often used the same or similar knives, axes, and hammers in battle as they did during their daily lives at home because you could use these as tools for any number of trades and tasks during peacetime. Swords, spears, bows, and a few other weapons are tools made specifically for killing, so their utility in non-battle situations is limited almost exclusively to hunting, self-defense, or decoration.
For good measure, also read Sun Tsu's The Art of War. It helps with tactics, strategy, terrain, and so on. It encourages the reader to play it smart if they must send men into battle and how to outmaneuver your enemy's forces. One cool example: a besieged army was out of arrows, so they whipped up straw dummies to lower down the walls to lure the enemy to shoot them, thus collecting the arrows and using them against the enemy, leaving them none the wiser.
Historically, shields weren't really used much for defense in melee. They were used as a defense against *arrows*, but in melee they're equally suited to defense and offense.
I use to do medieval reenactment, been hit in the face with padded shield enough times. In my groups D&D house rules, if you get hit by a Shield Bash and take a full damage from 1d4, the person hit must make a Strength check or get knock back and fall down. Awhile a few years back, there was this show,"Deadliest Warriors." The EP: Spartan vs Ninja" It show one person chrushing the skull of a balistic crash dummy with the edge of a Spartan Shield. It was wicked to see. Side note, I have seen vets in MRA run to attack someone with their padded sword, only to run face first into a foam padded shield, and be knock out for a few minutes. Then laugh it off later saying, thank god it was padded, or I could have broke my nose.
@Taistelusammakko you seem to have missed that _any_ weapon can be used to block in melee, and be more or less equivalent in their effectiveness. Even a bare hand can be an effective defense in melee, because it can catch, grapple, disarm, or just deflect an incoming blade, throwing off its edge alignment, making a cut useless. The advantage of a shield in defense is surface area. The reason most armies historically used spear and shield is efficiency - it's the weapon pairing that required the least training.
@Taistelusammakko did you notice that I said in melee shields equally effective for offense and defense? Or did you respond to my post after only reading the first of the two sentences?
Awesome channel, bro! Im watch all your vids. It's helping me to think more about my own universe. I am a novice brazilian writer of "epic" fantasy (it's not High neither Low fantasy, so...). I intent do translate to english and publish, and maybe you can one day read it haha It tooks like 10 years of careful worldbuilding to start to write something apresentable (the first book is complete, I just need to review and publish). Write long stories in brazilian portuguese is not that easy, but is pleasurable. Ah, Totalwar Rome II is my main source to create fantasy battles, and that's why my fantasy universe is more like Ancient Greek style than medieval. Keep the awesome work!
I agree that a full army wouldn’t be outfitted in plate armor but chainmail is easily the most common type of armor ever (at least in Europe and the Middle East) and wouldn’t be too expensive to maintain.
There are a few more aspects to mention about militia, like the fact that campaigns wouldn't extend for long as they needed to be back home for harvest, and such. I recomend reading Adam Smith's wealth of nations book 5, first chapter. It tackles down this subject and explains the advantages and dissavantages of each kind of army from an economic view but to do so he explains how they are composed and the differences btw each kind. And if you are into it, I highly recomend reading it whole (wealth of the nations) as it's an amazing insight in the history of civilization. How and why did we organized in the ways we did and what moves society forward. Even if you don't agree with his economic views. It's amazing how much you learn from it of how societies worked in the past
![[TH] G2 vs PRX | EDG vs FUT - VALORANT Champions 2024 DAY 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Bkr_qM7dIaM/mqdefault.jpg)
Instruction unclear, create love triangle between the 3 armies.
If 2 armies are in love would that count as polyamory?
But what about the very plot crucial love tetrahedron among the generals?
but the chosen one and the evil overlord will fight to decide the fate of the world?
"Why does it hurt so much?"
@@Reluxthelegend "Poly Armory." Fixed that for you.
Obviously the best armor is of course.......
*PLOT ARMOR*
up you go, sir
You're only saying that because the author likes you!
Military History Nerds helping out fantasy writer is like the best symbiotic relationship in the internet.
my first nitpick is do not downplay the competence and intelligence of "barbarians" . whenever you study history especially the gallic wars caesar didnt fight dumbasses but very smart people who outsmarted him and severel times theow caesars tactics right back at him. hell some of them knew caesar so much they were aware of his difficult political Situation in rome.
One factor he doesn't cover, which is something I think should always be taken into account when creating a fantasy army, is "What kind of enemy or war are they most often going to fight."
An army conceived largely to crush rebellions or defending the homefront is going to be trained, armed, and organized differently than one primarily focused on foreign campaigning.
Take the Byzantine Thematic Armies and compare them to their predecessor, the Roman Legions. The Legions were organized to be largely self sufficient, capable of managing large-scale operations in lands outside of officialy Roman Territory. The Thema Tagmata on the other hand were dependent upon the local populations, given most of their fighting strength came from citizen militias with a core of career soldiers.
He literally starts off by mentioning army types.
@@AbelDuviant But he didn't mention how different types of armies would be effective in different types of wars.
That's just a difference between what they were capable of doing, most of the time Roman Legions were inside borders protecting provinces, With Legions being stations to different provinces. The Roman Legions were logistically better off then later Byzantine Armies allowing for multi use. A Roman standing army is going to be better in both situations then a Byzantine citizen militias army (not accounting for armour and weapons difference from the different time periods), plus the fact that Roman Armies could be station to different provinces then where they were recruited.
@@L0rd0fLight1 Another thing is that an Army evolves with the country and that in one era it may be comprised of mostly of the people born in said country but several 100 years down the line a lot of the army may get replaced with mercenaries and people considered barbarians, one of the reasons Roma fell was that they couldn't afford to pay soldiers who weren't loyal to Roma in the first place which of course led to strikes and revolts, so yeah a lot goes into an army lol.
Is it not if u play your own world style. That u can buy in game wat u have in your inventory. Mits u earned the points in game. The nice thing of this is that a battle like in RL is never fair. But how u feel if u destroy 4K points whit 2K points even if u loose the battle. In de compleet war u won 2K on your enemy.
Units can enter the field again after they are compleet death and u have them in your reinforcement list. This makes it a bit better for army’s whit a smaller own inventory.
Special character slain can never come back. Can use the model as hero of wat. And if u do good things in battle u can win a special rule of a extra stat.
In my case I what’s Empire, High Elves, Skaven. My uncle: Undead, chaos and Bretonia. My cousin: Orcs. So yea here u know who can be your potential enemy. But like in RL beter u build en create a army that can handle al. And if u attack your self. Send your specialist units to the best enemy. Have no use to send my witch-hunters to the Orcs.
Must say this freedom let me maked love wharer fantasy. Those fixt unit rules of those 2k against 2K battles. Is the thing I don’t like 🤷🏼♂️
8:21: All armies need food
Evil Necromancer: "Hold my beer! We can do better than that!"
There's a magic the Gathering card with a flavor text to that affect, It goes something along the lines of "starving and army that feeds on its opponent is a sound strategy"
@Hans Hanzo Good Necromancers dont drink beer and dont raise an armies of undead
Army is food!
Last orc alive is lvl 85 god tier monster
Had a character turn necromancer... Once, the rest were just for the fun of it.
@Hans Hanzo good is a bit of a stretch,now neutral good is definitely a possibility(what I'm working on:P)
Tribal societies were certainly capable of advanced battle tactics. When Caesar fought the Germanic king Ariovistous, the Germanic tribesmen fought in a phalanx formation, with cavlary behind them making hit&run attacks from the cover of the shieldwall. This formation was very difficult for the Romans to handle, and the tribesmen also attacked with enourmous speed on the charge, so fast the Romans had to drop their javelins and just start fighting, there was no time to throw.
Celts in Britain also had clear combat tactics and used advanced maneouvers with cavalry and chariots working with foot skirmishers to give the Romans a bad day.
During the battle of the Teutoburg Forest, the Germanic ambushers also displayed discipline and restraint, not charging blindly into battle against the Romans, but whittling them down and attacking from their hidden position only when the Romans were engaged on another front.
So saying that "barbarians" are only capable of simple ambushes and the like is not right. They were not as organized as a roman legion, but with decent commanders and subchiefs they could give the romans an asswhooping. See the Cimbrian Wars, for example, or the Dacians.
And what about the mapuche and Lautaro?
The problem is that Germanic tribes were not the classic nomad tribe.
They were semi-sedentary, had a complex society and some of them were even literate.
For example the modern justice system did not evolve from the Greco-Roman model of feud, but from the Germanic weregild.
Tomans labeled anyone else as a "barbarian" even though their societies were complex and layered.
@@danisrusski6297 Because barbarian derives from the Greek word barbaros which meant "the one who stutters", so the one who didn't speak Greek.
Later it was expended to everyone who was not part of the Greco-Roman world.
It took the current meaning only after thousands of years.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 *The modern Anglo Saxon model
Most countries outside the commonwealth use the roman system (or the Islamic system) so your assessment is not wrong, but it definitely needs to be nuanced a lot (same for the literate part, there were literate germanic and Celtic people, but still a very low amount overall and it was lower than that of the more "civilised" societies like Rome, Greece or Persia).
But yes these people were more the exception than the rule, especially those closer to the Mediterranean like the Iberians, the Gauls or the Dacian because of their closer proximity with other civilisation, while it came later on for the Germanic and Northern Celtic people when this boundary came closer to them as well. An example to show that they weren't that savage, in his story of the conquest of the Gauls, Caesar talks extensively about the development of the gallic people and how impressive some of their cities and crafts were, which definitely shows that they were in an intermediate level, not totally a tribe yet not totally a great civilisation
If you're wondering how to get the actual tactics of fantasy battles down then my advice would be to read about significant battles in history (Trasimene, Cannae, Alesia, Gaugamela, Vienna, Waterloo as a few random examples) and play loads of Total War. Copying real battles exactly is a bit cheap but you can take inspiration from what real armies did, and playing Total War lets you do some first-hand research on battle tactics and helps you visualise battles when you're planning them out
@@franjokrajinovic3534 Total War isn't a realistic simulation and never claimed to be, and playing against AI will only teach you the absolute basics, but it can still give you a decent idea of how armies interact and how a commander might react to a given situation
@@franjokrajinovic3534 Even if the general wasn't doing it, units did respond to threats immediately in battle because of officers lower down the chain of command. In TW you represent all the commanders in an army, not just the general. Again, I'm not claiming that TW is the same as reality but it is close enough to give you an idea of what it's like and to help you write about fictional battles, and its far more accessible than the more hardcore strategy simulators. Even though it's a far cry from reality it can turn your battle planning from "both sides charge at each other" to something a bit more complex with flanking manoeuvres and so on
Or watch videos on Total War and other strategy games (Pixelated Apollo, cough, cough)
why write a fantasy battle to simply copy a real one? it's not really fantasy then, is it? if there are mages and unnatural beasts and such under the command of one or more armies that changes the entire dynamic of warfare as a whole.
@@commander31able60 while you shouldn't exactly copy rl battles it can be useful to make battles similar to real world ones which showcase interesting or ingenious strategies. Also not every fantasy army has dragons and monsters. Mine just has mages which are, depending on their training, analogous to artillery, chemical weapons, or CAS bombers, making most strategies from between 1910 and 1960 useful depending on the situation.
"The Incas actually used thick layers of linen and cotton as armor"
Yes, so did everyone everywhere else. It's called a gambeson. Also leather was almost never used as protective armor, since it was way more expensive than linen and way less protective.
true enough but leather was sometimes used in lamallar and for helmets but was not as common as other types of armor
Blanket statement alert.
Africans used Elephant, buffalo, and crocodile Leather armor.
Leather armor was occasionally used, but it was hardened leather unlike what we see in fantasy
There are many ways to make Leather a Good armor. First is what type of animal did it come from? Generally the bigger the animal the better and thinker the leather. Then you also know that you can treat leather to make it much harder to get through. and you can also layer the leather to make it better. Most types of leather armor I know off. Was a type of Scale or Over lapping smaller pieces of leather. the over lapping of smaller pieces could more easily be replaced. And get new Leather strips for. But there is also Historic accounts of Native america Leather shields stopping musket fire. It was that thick and had several Properties that helped it stop a musket ball. And there are big animals in our world that can take several gun shots even modern gun shots. and be mostly fine/recover in time. Like African Crocodiles and Elephents. Then there is also Reports from Native americans history and also from Native african history of Wooden armor also Stopping musket fire. Such wood would Generally be made out of Heavy/Dense wood. The kind of wood that doesn't float. and is pretty hard to work with. There is some so hard they are called Iron wood. And if you didn't know. The Chest plat on a Conquestador was made thick enough to stop musket fire as well. And they removed the armor on them that was less important to lighten the load. that is why Knights armor was less used after Muskets became common place. But their still was heavy cav that used really think armor to stop gun fire. Like the Winded Hussars from History. Who were active around the time of the Pike and shot Era.
Regarding swords, a simple way of putting it is that they are (mostly) sidearms. So, the sword is roughly equivalent to a pistol, not the most powerful weapon but easy to carry around and still perfectly lethal. A polearm meanwhile would be the equivalent of a battle rifle or assault carbine - they have a definitive advantage over swords but are much larger and will always occupy at least one hand since you can't just strap it to yourself. (No matter how much video games insist you can.)
A lot of people misunderstand this and go: _"Actually,_ swords were historically considered stupid and weak weapons for losers and the samurai totally liked the spear or the bow a lot better!" While it's true you would usually prefer a polearm on the battlefield, that doesn't mean swords weren't appreciated and used as a symbol of the warrior class: Because they were more expensive and harder to make, and warriors could carry them around even in a civilian context, they became status symbols. Basically, historical people thought swords were cool too.
You just need to keep all of this in mind when deciding how warriors and soldiers would actually be armed in your setting.
Indeed (ik I'm two years late but bear with me) there are also examples of swords having advantages over spears and other Polearms in various battles. The Roman's for example with their gladius managed to be a major reaosn for dominating much of Europe and even Greece. Polearms just have a major advantage but it's not a defenative win.
About the swords, its true. Hell even when gunpowder warfare began. Officers still insisted to carry around a sabre they aren't even gonna use at some point of the long wars
@@erichvondonitz5325 It's actually more interesting than that. See, firearms didn't just make swords and armor obsolete over night - it took like 500 years, in fact.
Early firearms were already around in the 1400s, at the end of the medieval era. Back then, people were still using plate armor and carrying pikes around.
Then something interesting happened: Previously there was sort of an arms race between swords and armor, the former tending to be specialized to counter the latter and vice versa. But as firearms improved people started wearing less armor, but since guns were still single-shot and troublesome to reload, you still wanted a good backup melee weapon. This actually resulted in a _greater variation_ of sword design.
It's during the Renaissance we start seeing rapiers, sabers, messers, giant zweihanders, baskethilts, and a return of cutting-oriented broadswords. There was simply less need to specialize.
In the 19th century, sword design started getting very experimental. Like, militaries of the time took their swords quite seriously and there were a lot of odd designs, arguments about cut vs thrust and so on.
The last time swords were officially carried in warfare in Europe was during WW1, by cavalry units. (This was also pretty much when cavalry went out of style.) So, yeah, swords and guns coexisted for quite some time.
Arguably, the cramped trench warfare of WW1 was the last nail in the coffin for large melee sidearms like swords, as it was found that even very long bayonets tended to get in the way and soldiers kept shortening them to what was basically modern combat knives.
@@RelativelyBest Fun fact: The last cavalry charge was during WW2 by the Italians in the Soviet Union who charged a small Soviet force
@@erichvondonitz5325 Also fun fact, cavalry sabres weren’t sharp. They were bludgeoning weapons. Because a sharp weapon could get caught in an enemy’s bone and stuck but a bludgeoning weapon will break the bone and let you keep going. At least this is true for cavalry sabres used in the US civil war. I don’t feel confident extrapolating that to every cavalry sabre in every time period.
Leather? Did you just say leather armour?
*REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*
The most common type of armour was padded armour e.g. Gambeson.
Actually really effective.
Don’t have to look to the Incas too. Most of the European armies of the middles ages wore padded armour most of the time. It was really effective and relatively cheap.
yeah, when he talked about the incas I cringed a little
Narrator: *researches about pre colonial era armor in Europe
*Incas used linen and cotton armor*
Me: wtf?
"You can't just make a castle in an afternoon."
You hear that, Hideyoshi? Can't be done.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi is the most chad person ever, he grew from illiterate peasant to Japan's unifier
For armor: I would add that Gambeson was historicaly one of the most used types of armor and are very effective (Especially against arrows and swords) and was NOT just used by the Incas and was very popular in medieval Europe and it is very correct to include it in a fantasy story because it's just made out of linen wich nearly every cultur should have acces to. (P.S. And Neuschwanstein is not a good example for defensive Castles)
A variant of Gambeson was even used in Ancient Greece and called Lionthorax.
Medieval Battle Sweater.
Thank you!
WhiteCode
Shad
Yes, by far the most common form of armor, basically everywhere, throughout history. Not just Incas. EVERYONE wore cloth armor. Even those who wore other armor wore it over cloth.
Also, leather wasn't all that common, and wasn't anything like the DnD pictures of it. And chain mail wasn't all that expensive. Nor was scale/lamelar. They were both more common than leather.
According to Ancient Chinese military theorist and general, Sun Tzu, you should never feed your army three times. The first time, you supply food from your home region. The second time, you take whatever food you need from the enemy. And by the time it comes to a third time, the war should be over.
Some wars still go on for years, so its not really possible. Unless you would rather surrender if the war lasts so long that you have to get food a third time, and for whatever reason havent won yet. There is no garantee to winning
@@zakosist According to Sun Tzu, if you haven't won by that time, then you've messed up. The war's been going on for too long, and you should seek to make peace.
But the whole "Feed your army three times" could be interpreted in different ways. If your army is constantly on the move, you could feed it off of the enemy from different areas. The whole point of this is to achieve your goal and end the war as quickly as possible. Don't drag it out longer than absolutely necessary.
@@frisa96 Not every war was minor scale like Sun Tzu, Yes he was a master of strategy but many Generals have far surpassed him in actually performance on the field well constantly breaking many of his rules.
Imagine if WWI generals had followed his advice. "Oh, we just need a bit of food brought from home, then take the rest from our enemy, and by then we should have won." Whoever did that would have lost hard. Same with the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Year War, etc.
L0rd0fLight I think what he meant was first you supply your army from your homeland. Then, after you push into enemy territory you replenish supplies from the enemy territory. If the supplies in enemy territory run out before the war ends and you must supply your army from home again, the situation has become disadvantageous.
This thinking doesn’t translate well in the age of global logistics and MRE’s, but the logic is sound.
Geography is also a major thing to consider; Mongolian cavalry and Greek phalanx formation-based warfare, for example, work best on an open plane, whereas elves who mostly dwell in a thick forest and mountain tribes would most definitely have a method of warfare that reflects their respective environments. It can also effect weaponry; for example, wood is harder to come by in a desert, so bows would likely be of the composite variety, made of horns and the like, while making their shields out of layers of hide and woven plant fiber, so they can prioritize using what wood they do have for arrows or spears.
Also, padded armor is the most common type in the medieval period, because it was easier to make and repair. Whether or not Leather armor was actually used (at least in Europe) is a hotly contested. It would have also been harder to make than linen, so if you wanna have leather armor, you should probably justify its usage by making it clear how and why it's more effective (or perhaps more available) than a padded jack.
Gambesons should allways be a go to armor if you just want some cheap and basic armor. Unless you have some other idea that fits in to the story and setting, then do that.
And because of this a civilization from a forested or mountainous environment might lean towards a highly skilled, professional army as a opposed the sort of quickly trained hoplites that were popular in Greece.
@@justinthompson6364 Basically, yes.
@@ottoprokke6649 That's precisely what I'm saying, lol.
it was definitely used, the question is rather how much, & it is a question
Watching at 11:54
Sees Codpiece
"As for armor, the most important piece by far..."
IS HE GOING TO SAY IT!? IS HE GOING TO TAKE THE PLUNGE!? WILL HE GRACE US WITH THE OBVIOUS JOKE HISTORY HAS PROVIDED!?
"...is the helmet"
No. It is not yet time. The world is not ready for such pristine humor. I move on, content with the fact that this is a good video...but always contemplating "What if?". Maybe one day we will know. But then again, some things are better off remaining mysteries.
Until then, we have Shadiversity to give us the best codpieces.
Armor of the SHLOOOONG.
LOL good comment, good laugh.
You: "As for armor, the most important piece by far..." IS HE GOING TO SAY IT!?
Me: "machicolations?"
@@xxDEAGORxx. Yes.
The earth trembled beneath the raining clouds as the horde approached. Ferocious barbarians, almost more animal than the very horses they rode on came charging down the hill. Their war cries echoed through the deep valleys like it was the sound of death itself. "Hold the line!" The general called out as his supposedly brave legionares started to slowly move back out of fear they felt. Sweaty hands grabbed harder onto their spears. Hearts beat fast against the iron cheatplate, all warm inside after their long march. "Hold the line!" The general shouted once again as morale almost broke when the enemy made it's way down from the hill, now only a couple of hundreds of meters away. Foul stench of horses and bloodied men with rotten wounds now filled the air. The sounds of their barbaric cries and the hundreds of horse feet, bashing against the soil of their dear homeland was deafening. "Behind us are your homes! Behind us are your families! We protect the land our ancestors built and they will not that away from us! Today we die for our land and make our last stand!" The general made a loud speech as all his men got into formation.
Suddenly all the enemy horses collapsed. Mary Sue walked up to the General with a smile on her face. "I placed small little metal spikes on the ground with my magic and the power of Tolp."
And then everyone loved Mary Sue forever after and everyone lived happily in love triangles.
Roban hahahaha
Brilliant
I was just getting ready to comment on how this highlighted the weaknesses of conscripts when I read the conclusion.
Well that was a great read
@@na.meless Thank you
If you have a professional army in your story, it helps to look at history, especially the Kingdoms and Empires that lasted longer. I know the Romans came up with some stuff I can barely believe. From the ability of a Legion building a fortified camp in hours, sandals nearly on the level of modern sport shoes when it comes how they distribute weigth during a march, javelins where the wooden part breaks off behind the metal so the enemy can't pick it up and throw it back to dart throwers were one dart was found to have gone through a soldier's armor and was lodged in the spine while the same darts only bruise when they hit someone with a roman armor, so turning a captured dart thrower around was next to useless unless you hit a body part without armor.
SunTsu's The Art of War is still a good guide for tactics as it has been for a very long time.
As for magic, as it was said, it depends on the system, but sometimes it can be more important in support roles than actually dealing damage. A few fireballs might be small change against a sudden thick fog that allows some troops to be repositioned without being seen.
And again, a look at history can be interesting what crazy stuff happened.
A castle defender making his men light many torches on the ramparts and throwing open the gates, daring the enemy to attack. Fearing a trap they did not attack. The castle had less then 20 men.
Hannibal surrounding a larger army with his smaller one and annihilating it.
Admiral Yi loosing only a few ships (if any at all) while defending his country during a japanese invasion lasting years. At one time he had 12 ships and faced 133 japanese ships, loosing not a single ship while 31 japanese vessels were sunk.
And so on.
As far as I can tell, magic has 3 uses. Direct damage, status effects and healing. If there are more, learn them and understand the needs of military roles before use. Don't fireball the land you intend to grow crops on later. Don't mudslide a pond of crossing soldiers where you drink from.
@@furyberserk Not every fantasy universe is DnD. Magic could be used to reveal enemy positions, conceal your own, damage critical supplies or equipment... any number of things depending on the setting.
Also, fireballing cropland probably wouldn't the worst thing to do. It would destroy anything already there, true, but wouldn't render the land barren either. The stuff that burned might even fertilize the soil.
The Roman pila (their specialized javelins) did NOT break on impact. They were capable of piercing shields and armor to kill the guy behind those protections (after all, with all those civil wars Rome had, they needed to be good at killing each other, too). There is one battle where pila "bent" and that was through replacing a metal pin attaching the iron shank to the wooden shaft with a much more fragile wooden pin. The wooden pin broke after the pilum pierced its target, causing the iron shank to become too loose to be useful, but also enabling the Romans to rapidly repair those pila back to combat effectiveness after the battle.
@@justinthompson6364 The Sky is (not) the Limit when it comes to Magic. Magic could be used for espionage ...concealment/disguise. To make Arrows always find target, to mak magic barrier shields for formations or even magic Shields/Armour/Weapons for individual soldiers.
"Tribal armies are disorganised"
**Mongol Horde, with its advanced tactics and better organisation than many modern armies**
Mongols are proffessional army my friend they are more of exception than the rule.
@@courseair1363 That's actually not true, they were completely conscripted.
@@Arnaere They were all warring tribesmen that Ghenghis Khan reorganized. Most of there training and battle experience came from when they were tribesmen. Ghenghis Khan didn’t give them formal training.
The armor made of layered clothing was used in medieval europe as well and according to a certain fan of machicolations it was probably one of, if not the most, used armor during that period!
But what about dragons?
@@andrewberhamsen2175 nothing you can use as armor will save you from dragons.
@@JustLooking1996 Andrew was making a reference.
@@JustLooking1996 Except for plot armour.
@@andrewberhamsen2175 true
It took me a second to realize that the first map you had in the beginning was just Europe turned 90 degrees counterclockwise.
With Iberia merging into France.
I just loved that rant about the design of European geography. :D
And Iceland moved. I think some other bits were re-arranged too.
_Leather is shitty armor in almost all cases and those where it isn't are the crazy exceptions due to other circumstances not the rule_ , god I had hoped that misconception was dead already
@Gideon Chan I blame DnD
farmerboy916 yup
I think what he was saying was thick leather at a minimum as it's a better than nothing situation, though its a very scratching the bottom of the barrel kinda thing
Thanks. One of the common made misconceptions all the fucking Time. So annoying.
While leather armour was nothing like portrayed in games and movies, it was by no means shit. Leather armour was more or less on par with padded armour, like the gambeson. The main difference being is that leather armour was much more expensive than padded armour, so you wouldn't find it being worn by common soldiers. And why would a noble want to wear leather armour when he could wear chain mail?
TL;DR Leather armour isn't shitty, just expensive and really uncommon (in Europe anyway)
I would not recommend to use leather armor a lot. The amount of cattle you'll have to slay in order to get armor-grade leather for an entire army is insane.
This is more true with minute men militia armies or indefinite standing armies. But with mercenaries, small warbands, tribal warriors, or just metal poor societies, leather armor is the best option because unless they have solid methods of even obtaining metal, good metal smiths, and it's cheap and easily accessible then they aren't gonna use metal armor that much even in partial. Remember the normal population (Which always outnumber the army/warriors.) will need to eat so there should be a good amount of livestock. Because of this leather is cheap and readily available and if you can get leather easily than why not use it. This is especially true in an agricultural society.
This may exclude the most important of commanders or best of that force's troops. Hell even cultural and religious factors must be taken into account.
Also take into account projectile units like archers and javelin throwers or light infantry troops where mobility and flexibility is better suited and leather is preferable than metal armor. For them the ability of not getting hit in the first place is better than taking a few blows.
@@mill2712 This is nothing but nonsense. Quite contrary to what you're saying, leather armor was virtually never used by socities which had no acces to metal, but especially by societies which had rather sophisticated metal working. The reason for that is that leather as an armor supplement only really works in conjunction with metal, as it can be used to make lamellar armor more flexible or to cover joints in plate armor.
There are extremely few archeological remains of leather armor, and most written sources or depictions of warriors don't show leather armor being used very frequently either. You should really consider that if your hypothesis had even the faintest of bases in reality, leather armor would probably have been used a lot by nomadic peoples of the asian steppes. And yet, we almost have no surviving evidence for something like this occuring at all, even though one of those nomadic asian peoples just so happened to at one point have ruled the largest land empire that ever existed.
@@mill2712
I'd also like to mention that using cloth-based armor would also (almost) always be available- it's been used from Europe to Meso-America for good reason. And that leather you mentioned would have to be treated long and hard, and gauged to be of more importance as a full suit of armour instead of, say; shoes, belts, straps, paper, some weird sex thing, wallets, clothing, bags, etc.
Leather producing trees? :D
Linen armor is a fine alternative.
You made a Point about Bringing up weapons to destroy a Wall, One thing to remember about Big stone walls is that when you knock them down, all you've done is make a big pile of rocks which isn't that much easier to get over. Or In the Case of Japanese (And some European) Castle walls, you still have a big vertical wall of packed dirt to climb
In the Great Siege of Malta, there are records of the Maltese resisting the Ottomans even after the walls of their forts had been leveled by hiding in the rubble. They did this again in WW2 with the added bonus of hiding in craters from the bombings.
Movies make it seem that once the walls are rubble that a slaughter is about to start but even a pile of rocks is a good hiding place. Even the Lord of The Rings is guilty of this when the walls of Helms Deep are blown, the enemy pours in the breach like water without being hindered by the debris blowing up a wall would make.
@@hyperion3145 I don't remember what it says in the book but the movie does kind of get around that by making the explosion absolutely massive so the debris gets scattered widely rather than simply falling into a large pile. If you are writing about trebuchets or similar siege weapons bringing down a wall, that debris wouldn't scatter.
Nation's with militia often tried to curtail the decrease in quality by holding annual musters. Once a year, even in times of peace, all the men in a community who qualified to be in the militia would be required to come to a designated spot (usually a military installation like a fort) and train and drill for a weekend. Granted, this didn't completely work at maintaining quality (a lot of militiamen didn't have the necessary equipment to wage war) but it made sure the men remembered basic training and tactics should an emergency arise.
A good time would be in early summer, when the crops are planted, but not ready for harvest. In areas where war is a distant memory or discipline is just loose, this would also be a great opportunity for drinking and stuff. A part of said training, could be competitions in things like wrestling, weight-lifting and archery.
So kind of like the National guard and reserves? Except they train more often than that.
@@TheManofthecross If archery is outdated (depending on the era), then things like turkey shooting or even target shooting with rifles and muskets are good competitions.
Or do it like the Swiss. Every house is a fort and every person is constantly training.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 Well, Albania (or some other stain on the Balkans map) burned through 20% of their GDP for a couple years to build outdated bunkers everywhere. (The Russians are better at defense-in-dept and partisans behind enemy lines, though.)
Additional note about nomadic cultures and their weapons, a lot of nomadic groups had a deep contempt for any weapon that couldn't be used for hunting, protecting their livestock or doing chores around camp. So, axes, spears, bows, lassos, bolas and bardiches would be the most common weapons with a tribal society, with maybe only the chief and his (or her) closest guards carrying swords of good quality steel/iron.
@@TheManofthecross that's true, but the swords were then often kept among the family of the chief, as well as his bondsmen or the equivalent. Same with armor, but even there, the better quality armor tended to be the same style of armor that would have been worn with less high-quality materials, just forged out of captured ore. Drawing on the history of the Mongols, one of the issues that defined Chinggis's family in the immediate wake of his father's death was what should be done with the sword of his father as blades of good steel were very hard to find. And one of the first things he bargained from the Chinese in exchange for going to war with the tartars was metal scale/lamellar armor, an improved version of the leather armor already worn among the tribes.
You should do a crossover with “Terrible Writing Advice” or “Hello Future Me”.
12:00 Of all the medieval armor pic you can get, you pick the one with a codpiece.
"As for armour, the most important piece by far is the helmet. The codpiece being a close second."
some medieval militia were actually very well equipped, especially late medieval/ early renaissance "city state" militia, composed of the middle class of craftsmen, blacksmiths(sword smiths/ armor smiths) , property owners, merchants (venice?) . As these were the one wealthy enough to arm themselves in almost the same level of knights, with state of the art weapons, and at the same time have the money and time to train themselves, in fact, most fencing masters of the 15th and 16th century were these kind of middle classes. These city militia could be seen in the holy roman empire and Italian states, fighting off knights, nobles and kings.
of course, there are other example of free city state militia which were not as rich, but due to danger around them, train themselves and experienced alot of fighting, such as the swiss and flanders.
remember,don't try to be perfect,no one is perfect
The Haida people in the Pacific Northwest used armor made from wood and woven redwood bark in the conflicts between themselves and colonists (and also in conflicts with other tribes pre-colonialism)
Bones can also be used for armour and also things like pieces of turtle shells and bamboo. Maybe even sea-shells and stone.
@@TheManofthecross When things like wood, bone, layered cloth and leather are used for armour, it means that bows, not rifles are the used as weapons.
Weren't fish scales used in armour? Like didn't the Majahapit use such armours? It was like a Lameller design if I remember
Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Divine or unholy beings. None of need food or at least not much. Also vegetarian elves would have alot of issues if they went on the planes
I've very much enjoyed your previous videos, and really hope for the success of your channel. These sorts of videos are really interesting and helpful, so I would just like to use our historical understanding of tribal nations to perhaps more clearly define some aspects of the beginning of the video. I'm aware these aren't 'hard and fast' rules, but (from what I understand) this is what history says.
1. Chieftains weren't usually just arbitrary charismatic people. Vercingetorix, leader of the Averni, was the son of Celtillus, also leader of the Averni. His uncle and other members of his family were also part of the ruling nobility. There was no strict succession laws (ultimate primogeniture for example) and indeed leaders' charisma would often play a part in determining a ruler, but it was usual for members of the nobility / ruling classes to be chosen as chief.
2. People were 'free' to leave the tribe but without the organised infrastructure of a state like Rome, leaving the tribe would mean almost certain death. It was dishonourable, not to mention the other factors (family, harsh winter, isolation) which would heavily deter anyone from freely being able to leave.
3. 'Tribal armies with more than a couple hundred men in size would likely be an alliance of multiple tribes' - just keep in mind Celtic armies typically numbered in the 10,000s. Roman reports put them at much higher.
4. Tribal tactics (such as that of the Suebi under Ariovistus) could be very sophisticated. For example Ariovistus used groups of 100 soldiers with cavalry behind launching small-scale hit and run attacks against Caesar. Unless their numbers were too large to coordinate, tribal tactics weren't just *run head first and hope you kill them before they kill you*
Tribal societies as we know them weren't savages. They were usually fairly organised, specialised societies. They had towns, trade networks, and cultural practices that made them cohesive. These were just my thoughts to what you said in the video.
This is a really nice, extensive video, and I think it not only helps people wanting to do world building, but some historical misconceptions of war.
One thing I feel like you didn't stress enough was the importance of formations, even for tribal armies. All armies fought in formation, or almost all of them, and the army that stopped fighting and routed was usually the one breaking formation.
It isn't like in many fantasy work pieces where they march in formation and then charge to fight one on one duels for the remainder of the battle.
“One of those weirdos who makes worlds for fun”
I feel personally attacked
Upvote for caltrops.
But you didn't mention slings.
An undead army really is superior in every way. No food, no worries about lack of following instructions, and after every battle, your army only ever grows.
Also, I only ever see caltrops used in media in the context of ninjas.
4:14 Well, no. Some basic formations like a _tela_ for the Italian tribes (loose formation of javelineers with big shields), a _Keilerkopf_ or _svinfylking_ for the Germanic ones (wedge-like attack formation with warchief on the tip of the wedge leading his shield wall behind him) or just a basic shield wall can be maintained on this level of organization. Manoeuvres, however, are the tricky part, and that's where the more professional armies shine.
5:12 In fact, *most* of them. It's no wonder why feudal systems emerged in all those different regions of the world - to compensate for the lack of funds to spend on professional standing army.
5:22 I don't think you can really say that all militias had only basic training. E.g., take a look at the hoplites of some Greek polis. They mostly came from well-off families, were trained in martial arts from the young age and were led by nobles, who, in turn, were likely career mercenary officers before they got into prominent enough position in their own city.
14:35 One, however, should also take into account the behaviour of the mount in question. You'll have a hard time getting into close combat on the camel's back, given the relative lack of combat spirit inherent to this species.
Padded cloth armor was basicly used the most. Even a knight with chain mail or Plate would have padded cloth under. Cloth armor was used by mostly all, not only common soldiers, look at the gambeson. One of my personal favorite armors are wood armor.
I used to use caltrops in DnD during camping scenes and in dungeons. It was fun listening to Drow swearing at the PCs as they ran over the caltrops whilst chasing us through the caverns.
You: Swords are not the primary weapon of many pre-modern army
Roman Army post-Phalanx Era: *Throws Spears and fights with Swords*
They used their swords in melee like most other armies would spears: in tight and organized formations, with somewhat limited angles of attack for each individual fighter.
Also, the pilums they threw were no joke. The Romans have expected a lot of their enemies ro be routed from just one volley and the following melee charge.
Three notes for people reading this:
Padded linen armor is equal, if not supirior to leather, while being cheap enough that even Levy troops can usually afford it. Silk is also an extreamly effective armor against arrows and other smaller projectiles.
Horses will NEVER charge head on into a wall of soldiers in formation, and espcially not a spear wall. Doing so would kill them, and no matter how well trained they are, they will stop or turn away. So the best counter to chargeing horses, is for you and your mates to stand shoulder to shoulder and call the bluff; as that's all cavalry really is to infantry; a bluff trying to make you scatter and run.
Battles very rearely involve fighting to the bitter end. Most of the tem an army will flee prematurely to avoid being completely destroyed, exception of course being for last stands. When plotting out a battle consider what things could happen that would cause the enemy to consider cutting their loses and fleeing the field. Also one last point to that. Normally when an army routes, the back line are the ones to go first, as they are the ones seeing the battle going south. The soldiers in the front are normally to busy fighting the people in front of them to notice they're being encircled.
Leivve
Ehh....
It might not be common but it happened, Polish hussars created the hollow lance to out range pikes and charge them directly and there’s plenty of accounts of cavalry breaking infantry squares just though sheer mad valour. I’d say be very careful when using the word ‘never’ across all of military history.
While yes padded linen armor is fairly good however we do know leather armor was used primarily in eastern cultures like china and mongolia fairly often and on mass scale up to entire armes in some cases, leather armor was uncommon in western armies but that is not the case for eastern armies at least until metal armor became more popular so we cant completly right off leather armor depending on the context. Case in point what if silk or linen isnt particularily available in a region then leather actully makes some sense well made leather armor offers decent protection with good flexability and you can reinforce with iron or steele plates if necesssary.
Actually yeah horses will run into spear walls. Even more so when you realize that most military groups were not trained Spartans ready to die rather then retreat - usually they were levies or ad hoc groups and really rather get paid or go back to their farms. Also, The bravery needed to have a horse fall on you (dead horses don’t disappear) tends to make people think twice about standing your ground. To be clear horses are not thoughtless cars but they will run you over is they feel there is no other option.
But...
The main reason that you don’t see it often is because the BEST use of your hyper EXPENSIVE horses and horseman is in attacking the rear, flanks and formation seams in that order. That is what they are good at and something other unita have trouble doing. If you want to kill a sword wall the two better options are good tactics and ballistic attacks (bow, javelin or actual artillery).
I find it interesting that you talk about Incan gambesons as if they're something completely unique. Gambesons were dominant in Feudal Europe because linen was easy to produce. Everyone was using them. Even the knights wore them under their mail or plate because they provided nice padding to keep the armour from scraping their skin.
"Unless you create a race of walking plant people that get sustenance from the sun".......You mean like Knights of Sidonia?
This video expanded my magic system IMMENSELY. I’ve been stuck on it for YEARS, thank you so much!!
Great job!
You explain easily, go quickly through it all and you also explain the important parts so you actually understand the points. You my friend, have gotten yourself a subscriber
Start with part 6 and see how it would effect strategy before you build the army. If you have fireball shooting wizards on hipogrifs, then you have an airforce, and medieval warfare goes out the window.
This was a great video! I like the positive spin and how much thought you put into it
Regarding fortifications: Keep in mind that, with rare exceptions, both sides should always want to have fortifications and should never want to attack them. While during a war or campaign fortresses and castles might see a lot of use, most should rarely see battle since their entire purpose is to make attacking them a really bad idea.
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't siege battles or have an army fortify it's position and make a heroic stand to rival the battle of Agincourt, but just keep in mind that there should be some reason for the attacker to attack anyway despite their foes' fortifications.
*I realized my post was getting long, so I"ll just point out that the paragraphs below are mostly just examples of reasons to attack or forego fortifications*
Are the defenders expecting reinforcements forcing the attackers to strike swiftly? Does the location of the fortifications make it (nearly) impossible for the attackers to achieve their goals without overcoming them? Do the defenders have a large enough force that they would pose a serious threat if you left them and went for easier targets, exposing your flank to them in the proces? Are the attackers some kind of mindless (possibly undead) horde that have no care for the losses they would suffer during a siege? Do the attackers simply underestimate the fortifications like they did at Agincourt?
Conversely, if they battle in the open, give a reason why neither side used fortifications. For the attackers this reason should be obvious, they can't achieve their goals without leaving the safety of their own fortifications back home and marching into foreign territory. The defenders still need a reason to face the attackers in the open field however. The most common reason would be that hiding inside a castle or something would give the invaders free rein to plunder the surrounding lands and villages. Otherwise the attackers might be expecting reinforcements forcing the defenders to strike before they can unite. Perhaps there is civil unrest and commander of the defenders (possibly the ruling monarch himself) needs this battle to win the favour of their countrymen/citizens.
When people ask "Why didn't they just hide behind their walls and force the attackers to come to them?" the answer should be akin to "Because they couldn't force the attackers to come to them"
*And the actual post continues*
Just remember, nobody would want to fight a battle if they expect to lose it. So both sides need to A: Have little to no choice in the matter, or B: Believe they stand a good chance at winning. Naturaly it would most often be option A for the defenders and option B for the attackers, but they might be reversed, both sides might be forced, or they might both believe they stand a better chance than their opponent, though that last option should usually be attributed to limmited intel, as it would be highly unlikely for two opposing commanders to reach such vastly different conclusions if they could both see the full picture.
Any of these reasons and many more might suffice. Just make sure your audience doesn't go "Why didn't they just (insert obvious tactic here)" without having an answer ready.
Of course, incompetent commanders obviously do exist and even skilled commanders might make plenty of mistakes in the heat of war, but only a huge fool would position their immobile siege weaponry in front of all his fortifications without any protection.
tl'dr: Both side would want any advantage they can get, so whenever they lack a certain advantage (fortifications) it should be because they *can't* get it.
Imagine the army organization of non-humans that not only utilize their fallen dead as a means of food, but equipment and weapons as well. (E.g. Orc/Goblin/Troll-like tribesmen that not only breed fast, but are also cannibals and do not have honor or similar. They will use the bones of not just their dead but even foes as spears, arrows, or even clubs, then sprinkle a dash of creativity, magic, some mystic mumbo jumbo and, boom, trebuchets with disease-ridden corpse ammo and undead zombies/summoned spirits of fallen warriors to aide in the never ending assault on their puny enemies. Only thing missing now is some evil warlord or dark lord and you have an Undead Horde that don't stop for nothing.)
@Lord Admiral Spire I know. Essentially, they'd need to have a reproductive factor and growth factor greater than mice or spiders (a pair giving birth to colony-size litters). But then again, that's the 'fantasy' aspect. XD
All you have to do is look at Warhammer Fantasy.
Yes-yes!
Warhammer is not good example. It is in some cases just cheap copy of real world.... Nippon is just Japan ( literaly nippon in japansese is Japan...), Ind is India, Araby desert is Arabia, Kitay mean china in many languages. Worldbuilding in Warhammer is weak. Map look like copy of our world, nations, continents, names, cultures... Ofc some parts are great, I love stories about Nehekhara/ Khemri - Setra and Nagash necromancy, even that region is heavily inspired by ancient Egypt it have some fresh things.
Vlad von Carlstain, Lamia
other vampires and Sylvania also a have great story. And the Empire with Carl Franz and Chaos gods are enjoyable too. Even if Empire is mostly copy od Holy Roman Empire story is good enough.
Rest of Warhammer is avereage.
I still like Warhammer, but it could be better and have more subtle conections to our world.
Yes
@@Dark-wy9yb so on conclusion you mean it's rather good...
@@Dark-wy9yb I mean the Empire is probably a better version of the HRE, alot more unified and alot less divided.
Great guidelines, clearly articulated. Gave me some interesting ideas for my fantasy RPGing and fiction. Appreciated!
This is so handy, I actually starter remaking some aspects of my fantasy world after I 1st bumped into this channel. Keep up the great work man!
3:15
Exception: The Mongols.
Funny how them fuckers took over most of the known world
no desertion tolerated, promotion by merit and being allowed to take home what you plunder, and an almost army like discipline due to the harshness of the steppe will help with that. also their horses survived mostly by grazing so food costs were easier for them
@@sadowphoenix01 well, the Mongols do have a chain of command and military organization. They basically have a squad of 10 men, with the next rank having 10 squads under them, and so on. Each commander, from the general to the squad leader, are also given some freedom to adapt their orders to suit the current situation of the battlefield.
They're not the misguided barbarian warriors that was often popularized in culture. Recent discoveries and rediscoveries in Mongolia have shown that the Mongol Empire was a much more civil and progressive state than what we gave them credit for.
As they tend to be!
Your channel is a hidden gem and I'm glad you exist.
"One of those weirdos who just makes worlds for fun."
Never before have I been so offended by something I 100% do all the time.
looking forward to the continuation of this new series. I'll definitely be taking that caltrop advice, thanks!
Great video, just wanted to point out leather armor was very rare in history and usually made into leather scale-armor rather than just a thick leather breast plate. Very small nit-pic
Gambeson, which is made from thick layers of cloth, was used far more often in medieval times and worked better
GeekParkingOnly Leather scale armor afaik is in and of itself a myth. At least a thick breast plate of cuir bouili is real, even if it's basically leather turned into plastic.
@@farmerboy916, leather lamellar and scale armor is extremely well documented, mostly in China. They tended to lacquer the leather, but they fielded entire armies outfitted in it for literally centuries.
I was struggling on this short story I was writing for my friend because I have 0 idea of worldbuilding and I thought to check out your divergent worldbuilding video. i didn't know you had this series as well and it's super helpful! thank you!
Also people should keep in mind how certain tactics would change when you add elements such as magic or flying units. For example if in my setting magic can be utilized as a form of artillery with large fireballs and equivalently destructive effects then maybe walls are less prominent or are made out of a material that can take the magical effects, or the walls might be magically protected by things ect.
Thanks to my childhood of playing Total War games, I ended up thinking about half of the stuff you brought up, and people said I overthink my fantasy world lol. But yeah, you're right, it's important to make a believable world, you can build a lot of stories for them. The one I'm working on has my empire able to provide swords & heavy armors to their soldiers because they monopolize the economy of the entire continent & they own all the major mines. They supplement what they lack via mercenary companies or demanding local garrison to train specific troops for that campaign. The mercs & these temporary soldiers are obviously using lighter armor & specific types of weapons, but they are made to compliment the core troops. I tried to keep magic as some sort of major events or exclusively for the "bad" guy. But yeah, it's a lot of fun trying to make everything believable.
Brilliant analysis! Love it!!🎉
Actually, the thick linen armour was also used in europe, and is called gambesone and it was much more prevalent than any leather protection
I'd like to point out no matter how logical/realistic you make your setting, there will always be someone to nitpick it apart. That is not wrong - after all, this is a community about picking settings apart - just be prepared your work most definitely won't be found flawless ubiquitously.
Slight pet peeve with when you group shields into the armour category.
Shields are weapons, defencive weapons, but weapons. Yes, the basic of a shield is just hold it in front of yourself but one can go into so much detail with how to wield a shield that it's several days of videos worth of knowledge of what i know only partly.
But in truth, most of the fancy shield stuff is mostly useful in duels, in a field battle sticking it in front of you goes a long way.
The size of shield is also very important regarding tactics.
The roman scutum is way different in use and deployment than a buckler.
Material, type and prevalence is important to consider.
But as a general rule, as armour tech/commonality goes up, shields become smaller and rarer.
Anyway, rant over.
This is a good video, goes over the basics and gets one thinking.
I was already doing all these but it's still informative and enjoyable to watch.
@@TheManofthecross Heater shields are rather small shields.
While not as small as bucklers, the heater shield is generally smaller than most shields. A fantastic shield. Especially in duels.
But in the late medieval period, the plate armour was getting comparably common, and knights and men-at-arms were mostly clad in it while the infantry focused heavily on pole-weapons.
myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_shield24.jpg
The pic is an example of a common shield worn by knights in this period, smaller than a heater but with added features of weapon catching shapes.
While mace and shield was a viable weapon choice for field combat, most preferred a sturdy pollaxe or similar in this period.
The strength of the armour making most focus on really hard-hitting weapons over defence which was already mostly covered with the plate armour.
While more mobile artillery was a factor in the death of plate armour, the true end of it was simple economics.
With the wide advent of gunpowder weapons, it was cheaper to spam loads of musketmen than to outfit plate armoured infantry.
The last plate armours were actually mostly immune to musket shots from most ranges.
But alas, those who could afford it no longer went to war themselves, focusing on the musket infantry who could be trained in a fraction of the time of decent melee infantry.
@@TheManofthecross the gun tech that really does it is supersonic bullets, before that it isn't something one can count on.
I don't know if miniball does this as well, i don't think there's much testing on that subject.
But going supersonic, the armour stand no chance, sadly.
Before that, you can load heavy charges all you want, it will not go through unless it hits in a bad spot. Or repeated hits in one spot. Which is low odds considering musket accuracy.
@@TheManofthecross They do however state in the video that the armour is not authentic compared to historical armour.
On top of that the lamellar while a decent armour stand no chance when compared to spring steel plate armour.
The hun armour in the video is very low tech compared.
Sure it's modern stainless steel, but stainless does not share the properties of spring steel. Plus the small lames while perfectly capable of stopping arrows and swords has issues against such narrow piercing attacks. Where the single lame is pushed out of the way where a larger plate would have to deform more, needing more energy to go through.
So i'm not saying a plate armour would stop all the attacks in the vid. But i am saying it would perform better than the low tech odd material armour in the vid.
The problem with plate armour tests is that either the videos have way modern guns, way modern armour materials which make the tests odd, or the armours themselves are of exceptionally poor craftsmanship.
For some reason people don't want to shoot muskets at tempered spring steel plate armour, while i am sure many muskets would not go through, the dents would be monstrous and possible tears as well. In all respects the armour would be ruined but would mostly protect the wearer.
@@TheManofthecross Well i did say i don't know about the miniball vs armour, i mostly know of the mini since my friends are fans of it.
And if a guy would go unto such a battlefield in plate armour, he'd probably go with the cavalry.
Where their speed and the horse carrying the weight would allow maximum mobility to dodge as much fire as possible.
Sure, cavalry is not perfect defence against artillery, as shown by this classic piece.
i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/29/251C0C9900000578-2931207-image-m-22_1422528664158.jpg
It's a good way to avoid it mostly. The speedy horses tricky to home in on with cannons.
And of course the victorian era weapons could punch through it, that's the advent of the supersonic bullets i talked about.
But my original point stands, at the late middle ages, where plate armour reached it's maximum numbers in the field. The shield was at its smallest.
Mostly since guys in plate armour could simply walk through incoming barrages of arrows and bolts. Nothing could pierce them at range and only the most powerful bows and arbalests could down them up close. Barring the odd weak point hit, which were rare.
In short: Base it off of historical armies as a base, then consider how the changes in your world over reality would affect them and add or take away accordingly.
Swords were also considered a sign of extreme wealth. At least in tribal Europe. Swords were very expensive and as you said required training to use effectively.
Already had the caltrops in my story, prepared food, but the raid traveling to the volcanic land to kill the dragon -never thought about the horses needing food. 🤦🏻♀️ Good point
4:42 "Battle of a disorganized army is the only time..." So, basically most units in actual combat, after the first few minutes. With practice, formations are easy enough to maintain - that is, until the enemy hits you or makes a clear enough attempt of doing so.
Metatron has a nice video about the subject, I think...
Your video is an awesome sum up for beginner worldbuilders, good job mate!
Point to mention many Greeks in militias were rich Greeks who would train for example Sparta being built on slavery they had time to educate, think and train
Swords are actully very useful for an infantry force, the Roman legionaries used swords over spears because they fought very close quarters where the advantage of a spear line would fall apart
I appreciate this. Tell people that what they are doing is not good. Is okay. But trying to help do better and improve. That is awesome.
My Take on my Fantasy Army
1. Organization
Basically a citizen Militia that already have the right Culture.
Schools for all Class of citizen have the "Military" Lesson, where the Student will train in basic combat and discipline.
Basically if you attack a town of this Fantasy nation, just prepare that all the citizen inside can quickly be formed into soldiers(Even the Female, they're Egalitarian).
1,5. Food & Supply
These Army has a Specialized Unit that deal with the Supplies, they're like a Cavalry unit that can buy or stole supplies from nearby towns, and some of these Elite unit even grow their food on the march(Mobile Farms).
2. Arms and Armor
For their Weapons they have quite an innovation to begin with.
For Starters their "Sword" blade can be detached from the hilt, meaning that a Soldier can carry at least more than 1 Sword Blade.
Their Spear is more like the Japanese Yari, a short blade on a staff, it's cheap and can be used to slash, but not too often.
Their Armor is defined by their Ranks:
-Their Regular Soldiers are often just armored with a Gambeson alike vest, and a Kite Shield.
-Their Veteran Soldiers have Chestplate, and keeping the Gambeson, also they use a Scutum like shield
-Their Elite Soldiers wore Partial plates, and a Thyreos Shield
3. Cavalry
Their Cavalry uses the same as their Foot Soldiers, only that a wealthy Citizen can afford horses and serve as a Cavalry, their Equipment depend on what Class of these Cavalrymen and their Horses are, Big Old Heavy Horse are more useful as a Heavy Cavalry, Lighter Younger Horses are more suited as a Light Cavalry.
4. Fortifications
they build castles, but depending on the lords the castles can be different from one or the other.
Some Castles is more specialized in being surrounded, basically already having a farm or other stuff that can grow food inside the castle.
Other Castle is just asking to be attacked and then only for the attacker to realize there's more Soldier in the castle which will ambush them inside the castle.
5. Laws of War
This Fantasy Nation is actually divided into 4 Nations(White,Black,Grey,and Blue)
Lets say that the White, Grey and Blue ones abide the Rules of war.
But the Black are different, if you fight honorably, they will take care of the prisoners, and release them, but if you're a Warmongering Fuckboy who fight dirty, and the biggest offense to them "Rape and Kill prisoners"(Remember, they're Egalitarian), once they Conquer your city, they will round up all the non combatants(Civilians,Children and Old Folks)in the town square surrounded by a makeshift wall, and shot them one by one, but the Shooter will make sure they always hit the head, just to reduce the Pain a little.
6. Magic
Some Attack Magic were not really used, due to the Nation Defensive Nature, they use more Healing and Anti Magic Barrier, and they might not even study Attack magic.
Hey man this is exactly the kind of stuff I’m looking for! Keep up the good work
Awesome video. Thanks so much for the great advice!
I love this, its so useful! Im glad to say I've included Caltrops in my WIP
Thanks man your videos have really helped me in writing my stories
Great video. Lots of good information delivered in a clear and concise manner.
One thing I would add about the rules of war though. If a castle or fortified city was called upon to surrender, it was almost universally accepted that they had until the first siege weapon touched the walls. If they surrendered before that, honour dictated that they should be treated with leniency. If the fortifications had to be stormed or taken by stealth or treachery, then it was tacitly agreed by all sides that the victor could do whatever they wanted to the vanquished.
This is one of the reasons the Mongols were so feared. They often massacred civilians of a city that had surrendered. Or they would use them as forced labour or cannon fodder in the next battle.
I believed you might have a different definition of surrender and possibly even some false misconceptions there. The Mongols are very lenient to those who surrendered against them in the first place. It was when they resisted or refused to surrender that they lay waste to their enemies.
An example of this would be the Khwarazm campaign. The Khwarazm empire first offended the Khan by killing his merchant envoys. Then Genghis Khan smacked them in a couple battles and won their submission. They, however, later rebelled. It was during that rebellion that the brutalities of the Mongols became legendary as a fear tactic to make future conquests easier.
Interestingly, when a city surrenders, the Mongols would be very lenient towards the peasantry and the craftspeople/merchants. However, they would not spare the ruling elites.
An interesting use of the dynamics between militias and professional armies can be seen in Warhammer Fantasy.
Dwraves and Elves mostly utilize militia troops, because with their low populations they can't afford to field big armies all year round. Meanwhile, the main human faction of the setting relies on professional soldiers. This allows to, for the most part, avoid the disparity in the skill level of average soldiers, since elven and dwarven lifespan mean their militia troops get a lot of experience.
Speaking of using axes and maces instead of swords, there's also the question of utility. Tribal warriors and militia often used the same or similar knives, axes, and hammers in battle as they did during their daily lives at home because you could use these as tools for any number of trades and tasks during peacetime. Swords, spears, bows, and a few other weapons are tools made specifically for killing, so their utility in non-battle situations is limited almost exclusively to hunting, self-defense, or decoration.
This is a great video! Really helpful
15:49 relic of the first legos ever created, 14th century A.D.
Good stuff mate, would love to see a guide on scifi universe building.
I was amazed that I managed to tick all the boxes from the video, in my world. Guess I'm a fan :D
That point about swords just goes to show how effective training was for the romans there’s nothing else that would attribute that much success
This channel proves that anal-attentive readers, analysts, etc. will break down a fantasy world's plot holes or illogical things. I love it!
For good measure, also read Sun Tsu's The Art of War. It helps with tactics, strategy, terrain, and so on. It encourages the reader to play it smart if they must send men into battle and how to outmaneuver your enemy's forces. One cool example: a besieged army was out of arrows, so they whipped up straw dummies to lower down the walls to lure the enemy to shoot them, thus collecting the arrows and using them against the enemy, leaving them none the wiser.
"Unless you create a race of walking plant people who get their sustenance from the sun..."
That's actually a good idea.
It was very very very useful. Thanks so much
This series will be really good!
smart videos, i'm loving your content!
Historically, shields weren't really used much for defense in melee. They were used as a defense against *arrows*, but in melee they're equally suited to defense and offense.
I use to do medieval reenactment, been hit in the face with padded shield enough times. In my groups D&D house rules, if you get hit by a Shield Bash and take a full damage from 1d4, the person hit must make a Strength check or get knock back and fall down.
Awhile a few years back, there was this show,"Deadliest Warriors."
The EP: Spartan vs Ninja"
It show one person chrushing the skull of a balistic crash dummy with the edge of a Spartan Shield. It was wicked to see.
Side note, I have seen vets in MRA run to attack someone with their padded sword, only to run face first into a foam padded shield, and be knock out for a few minutes. Then laugh it off later saying, thank god it was padded, or I could have broke my nose.
Thats such an odd statement. You cant similify all shields in history like that, there was whole bunch of shields used solely for melee defence
@Taistelusammakko you seem to have missed that _any_ weapon can be used to block in melee, and be more or less equivalent in their effectiveness. Even a bare hand can be an effective defense in melee, because it can catch, grapple, disarm, or just deflect an incoming blade, throwing off its edge alignment, making a cut useless. The advantage of a shield in defense is surface area. The reason most armies historically used spear and shield is efficiency - it's the weapon pairing that required the least training.
@@notoriouswhitemoth no i meant shields, they are not exclusively for defending against arrows
@Taistelusammakko did you notice that I said in melee shields equally effective for offense and defense? Or did you respond to my post after only reading the first of the two sentences?
I'm really excited for this series. I only wish I had this when I started making my world which currently has a couple issues.
Good luck bringing it to life
fucking europe turned on its side in the beginning, absolutely hilarious.
I love to make worlds for fun! :D
great video, I'd love to see one based on sci-fi!
Awesome channel, bro! Im watch all your vids. It's helping me to think more about my own universe. I am a novice brazilian writer of "epic" fantasy (it's not High neither Low fantasy, so...). I intent do translate to english and publish, and maybe you can one day read it haha It tooks like 10 years of careful worldbuilding
to start to write something apresentable (the first book is complete, I just need to review and publish). Write long stories in brazilian portuguese is not that easy, but is pleasurable.
Ah, Totalwar Rome II is my main source to create fantasy battles, and that's why my fantasy universe is more like Ancient Greek style than medieval.
Keep the awesome work!
best of luck! good shit takes time to get going!
I agree that a full army wouldn’t be outfitted in plate armor but chainmail is easily the most common type of armor ever (at least in Europe and the Middle East) and wouldn’t be too expensive to maintain.
There are a few more aspects to mention about militia, like the fact that campaigns wouldn't extend for long as they needed to be back home for harvest, and such.
I recomend reading Adam Smith's wealth of nations book 5, first chapter. It tackles down this subject and explains the advantages and dissavantages of each kind of army from an economic view but to do so he explains how they are composed and the differences btw each kind.
And if you are into it, I highly recomend reading it whole (wealth of the nations) as it's an amazing insight in the history of civilization. How and why did we organized in the ways we did and what moves society forward. Even if you don't agree with his economic views. It's amazing how much you learn from it of how societies worked in the past