Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Yora]

Since this very interesting and productive discussion probably burried it, I would like to repeat my previous question:

Does anyone here know something about military "ranks" and hierarchy in Brittain/France/Germany/Scandinavia during the 6th to 10th century?

How was military leadership structured and what special positions where there?

[Spiryt]

Also that F=m*a formula, doesnt that only apply towards things like say, a thrown projectile? I mean, that weapon still has the force of the warriors muscles behind it pushing it further. Like how a rocket still has force behind it even if its held at a dead stop, because there is still something pushing it forward. I dont know how the formula gets adjusted, its probably something like F=m*a+x where x equals the force being applied externally or something.

If force of man is still acting, it accelerates the weapon, and the arms/shoulders etc. themselves. They go faster, pretty simple.

If some significant force is still being imparted during the impact, then calculating the force of impact on particular matter could get a bit trickier, I guess - deceleration could would get a bit lower, since there's still acceleration, but on the other hand, more force means more energy and more violent deceleration.

[Galloglaich]

Someone just sent me a link to this, I thought it was fascinating. Mentions using crossbows on horseback, and tactics for fighting on ships. From Norway 13th Century.

http://web.archive.org/web/201109101...ingsmirror.htm


G

[Brother Oni]

How useful would the cavalry armour in the Fire Emblem series be in reality? Pictures below:

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

Further to previous posts, the bottom character's leg plates are so unsecured to be useless when she's mounted (they really need to be strapped to her thigh/knee, like the first character's).
Traab's assessment is right on the money though - the lack of abdominal protection mark these out as unfeasible.
I would also say that the armour depicted also has a general emphasis on flexibility, since it leaves large parts of the arm unprotected (especially compared to western armour).

You're right in that cavalry armour tends to leave the rear and inner leg unprotected (that's covered by the horse) but the thigh plates you're interested in were sorted in one of two ways - either very elaborate layered armour or an armoured 'skirt' with leg plates:

Spoiler

Show

Some cavalrymen got around the issue by having the leg protection built into the saddle, so they were pretty much strapped into their horse (I have a sneaking suspicion that this was mostly for jousting though).

Since this very interesting and productive discussion probably burried it, I would like to repeat my previous question:

For Britain, you're mostly looking at the Saxons during that time period.

Wikipedia gives me this link.

Essentially it was very loosely structured with no real hierarchy. Aside from the chief, it was generally a matter of experience and strength that dictated the pecking order.

Later by the 10th century you get some more structure with a standing army along with the king's elite bodyguard, the huscarls.

[Galloglaich]

Armies in this period break down to Tribal, Militia, Feudal, and Royal types.

Scandinavia is almost exclusively Tribal, with some Royal elements thrown on top of that during the reign of some very powerful Cheiftains (Harold Bluetooth in Denmark, Harald Finehair in Norway and so on). England is a mix of tribal and Feudal mostly with the exception of a few powerful Kings (Alfred the Great of Wessex and later Canute the Great but he’s really after this period). In Germany it was also a mix, mostly Tribal, Militias in some of the larger towns, some Feudal areas and a few Kings (mostly Carolingian plus some in the Slavic / Wendish areas). France had the strongest Royal army, but also a lot of urban militias, feudal armies, and some tribal armies.

Tribal
Tribal armies are clan based militaries, built around extended families or septs, like Scottish, Welsh or Irish Clans. Leaders are elected, usually from the richest and strongest in the community (in the Gaelic areas this was done according to a complex ruleset called tanistry, which meant the next leader was always chosen from a different wing of the clan, specifically to prevent hereditary rule). In Scandinavia these guys were called Hersir, or sometimes Godi or Gothi. In Saxon England Thegns. In Germany they were called different things, I know one term used in Bavaria was Herzog. The term konig or ‘king’ was sometimes also used in this way, which was probably the original meaning of that term, an elected war leader of a tribal army. In the Slavic areas (which you didn’t ask about, but they were mixed up quite a bit in the area which is now Germany, especially in places like Mecklenburg and lower Saxony) these type of leaders were sometimes called Voivode or Starost, the former meaning war-leader the latter meaning just village elder, but both terms were sometimes used to mean military leaders in period documents. They also used the term Knyaz in Russia, which is really the same word as Konig, usually translated as ‘Prince’, but this meant Chieftain. Tribal armies have heavy and light skirmishers, the ‘heavy’ skirmishers have wooden shields, iron helmets, some kind of armor, (maybe just textile) and weapons like spears and axes as well as javelins. The ‘light’ skirmishers are armed with light (hide and / or wicker shields), darts and javelins, and / or throwing axes, as well as the sax knife for backup. In Scandinavia some documents from this period shows that the muster required people show up with bows as well as spears, swords, shields and armor, and they were most often organized as ships crews. This overlaps with the feudal system there but the Feudal system was never very strong in Scandinavia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knyaz#Middle_Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzog#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidang

Tribal chieftains, whatever they were called, often had special bodyguards who were more heavily armed and armored. In Scandinavia, (Saxon) England and Germany these guys would often be mounted though typically fight on foot, and were called Huskarls (house karls). In Russia they were known as Druhzina. In West Slavic areas Tovarich (Towarzysza pancerni,Mailed Companions’, which I think came to eventually be a Euphemism for knights). In the Slavic world they were more likely to fight on horseback. These bodyguards are also the ones most likely to have a sword and armor. As the chieftains and their bodyguards became more well established, it usually (though not always) correlated with conversion to Christianity and Latin culture and a switch to Feudalism.

Militias
Militias are armies which derive from towns and villages, quasi-urban communities or ‘communes’. They are led by the advocates (Church or Royal representatives or governors who lived in the towns) also sometimes called alderman. In Germany these men were called Schöffen, in France, échevin, in Italy Scabino and in Czech šepmistři. These terms were also used for the elected town magistrates of independent towns and villages. Some towns were basically independent even this early but most were at least nominally under the control of a Feudal Lord or a Prelate (Bishop, Abbot, or Archbishop). When the towns went to war in this period (6th-10th Centuries) they most often did so under the banner of a Prelate, who were typically warlike at this time (and were known as Prince-Bishops, Prince-Abbots and so on). These armies were similar to the Tribal armies but more disciplined and much better equipped, with many more of the soldiers being armored and more likely to have crossbows, swords and other expensive weapons. They mostly fought as infantry, both heavy infantry and ‘shooters’ with crossbows and bows and so on. They could be effective especially in defense but they usually wouldn’t go too far away from their town walls.

Feudal
The lowest level leader of a local administrator was called a Vogt in some parts of Germany, who would organize peasant levies and groups of better-armed henchmen (the foremen and henchmen on the local ranches and farms) which would be called the Comitatus. In Saxon England this came to be called a Reeve (as in Shire Reeve, Sheriff). These guys were organized into banners lead by a Knight (Ritter in German speaking areas, Chevalier in France) who would in turn gather around the banner of a Comes (count) or Duke, or some other Prince. In the period 6th –Century – 10th Century there was considerable overlap between Feudal and Tribal armies, but the Feudal ones would have more and better armed bodyguards or henchmen serving with each knight, and more emphasis on cavalry. Most of the gentry and nobility fought as heavy cavalry, and this cavalry can be very good – better and better toward the end of this period. Conversely, their infantry isn’t as good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitat...ssical_meaning)

Royal
Royal armies were basically Feudal armies with an added layer of administration, a larger and better equipped bodyguard layer, and then elements of the Tribal, Feudal, and Militia armies who owed fealty to the King. This is most characteristic of the Franks. Another interesting thing about the Royal armies of this time is that you see them bringing in tribes from Central Asia, notably Iran, such as the Alans and the Taifals (see article below) who had very good cavalry, both heavy cavalry of the Cataphract type, as well as light cavalry. These Iranians eventually became part of the aristocracy in France, Germany and some other places in Europe.

I made a detailed post a few years ago about the military organization of the Franks in the 10th Century (I think it was originally done for an earlier incarnation of this forum thread, though I can’t remember now) but anyway you can read it here, it holds up pretty well I think.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...=1#post5345843

[fusilier]

Someone just sent me a link to this, I thought it was fascinating. Mentions using crossbows on horseback, and tactics for fighting on ships. From Norway 13th Century.

http://web.archive.org/web/201109101...ingsmirror.htm


G

Most of what I've read lately (not all), is of the opinion that mounted crossbowmen were expected to dismount in battle. Now, the sources agree that they became popular as bodyguards -- so they don't imply that the weapon couldn't be used from horseback, just that it wasn't practical in battle conditions.

However, I'm not totally convinced either way. The article linked above claims that a bow or light crossbow (which is easy to draw) should be used on horseback. And, as has been pointed out before, the cranequin was available by the 15th century, and it is wellsuited to horseback (although it is slower loading than some other methods). On the other hand, Stradiots used bows and javelins, and Spanish Jinetes used javelins, which would have less range than a crossbow (I assume), yet such troops were becoming increasingly popular, alongside mounted crossbowmen and arquebusiers.

I liked the list of weapons for ship combat. Some old pictures show them dropping stones and javelins from the fighting tops.

[Galloglaich]

It's obvious and very well established that in the German - speaking and Latin-Slavic parts of Europe (i.e., most of Europe) mounted crossbowmen shot from horseback, and that people also hunted this way, from at least the 14th Century onward.

The details of how they spanned the heavier weapons, when they shot vs. when they reloaded, did they linger after a shot or ride away to reload and so on, are not entirely clear. But there is no doubt that they were shooting from horseback.

What I found surprising about that document is that it mentioned shooting crossbows from horseback in the 13th Century and in Western Scandinavia. I would not have expected that. But that is so great about primary sources, they always (to my experience) seem to expand and enrich the world you are looking at, overthrowing your expectations.

G

[fusilier]

It's obvious and very well established that in the German - speaking and Latin-Slavic parts of Europe (i.e., most of Europe) mounted crossbowmen shot from horseback, and that people also hunted this way, from at least the 14th Century onward.

The details of how they spanned the heavier weapons, when they shot vs. when they reloaded, did they linger after a shot or ride away to reload and so on, are not entirely clear. But there is no doubt that they were shooting from horseback.

Oh, yeah -- there's no doubt that they could shoot their crossbows from horseback, but there is doubt that they deployed that way in battle. My guess is that either rate of fire, or proper coordination of troops, or both, are assumed to have been adversely affected on horseback. Certainly hunting, and bodyguard duties could be performed while mounted, but that's under a different set of conditions. But, I'm not certain that they weren't employed in a mounted fashion during battle, at least on occasion.

[Galloglaich]

Well, they were deployed as cavalry with cavalry, at least some of the time. It was common throughout Central Europe, certainly in the Baltic, Poland, Bohemia, for knights to be accompanied by 1 or 2 mounted crossbowmen, whose equipment (including the horse) cost half as much as the lancers did, much more than any infantry. Knights themselves also frequently carried a crossbow on their saddle.

I don't think knights or their retainers usually fought on foot in the open, other than in the English army where it seems to have been a common practice. Sometimes they did, but not commonly.

They were also used as Scouts, Jan Ziska gave crossbowmen captured warhorses at the beginning of the Hussite wars and trained them to fight as armed scouts. I have read accounts of how they used to harass enemies with 'bremsen' (whistling) bolts from horseback, to panic the enemies horses. In that part of the world there wasn't a whole lot of fighting on foot in the open since it was important to be able to move quickly.

And it was common enough that Talhoffer and some others devoted whole sections in their fechtbucher to dealing with the problem of a lancer fighting a mounted crossbowman and vice versa.

I think it was just like with guns. When it was basically almost physically impossible to shoot them from horseback (powder you had to mix in the field, touch-hole firearms) they were only very rarely used on horseback (there is some evidence both the Mongols and the Mamelukes may have used some fire-lances that way in the 13th Century), but as soon as they were a little easier to use, (matchlock arquebus) you started to see some increasing mounted use, by the time you had pretty easy to use systems (i.e. wheellock) their use became widespread.

I'd say the goats-foot (and the other similar spanners in that family), the lachett, and the cranequin are roughly equivalent to these systems, for different grades of crossbows. Certainly it is no harder to re-span a crossbow with one of those than it would be to reload a horse pistol or a dragon.


It's also interesting in that Norwegian "King's Mirror" that they mention using 'horn bows' from horseback, I wonder if he's talking about a Central-Asian style recurve.

G

[fusilier]

I know that in Italy, the lance began to expand from the traditional three man unit to four men around 1450, and the new man was often a mounted crossbowman. [The others being the man-at-arms, a less well-armored/equipped sergeant, and a "page"]. The expansion in the size of the lance had to do with the man-at-arms needing more logistical support: his armor, and his horse's armor, were both increasing, requiring more horses, and more people to look after the horses and maintain the equipment. However, it is believed that the mounted crossbowmen were formed in their own units during battle. Their logistical function being primarily a strategic one (while the pages were expected to have more of tactical support function).

Concurrent with this development, dedicated companies of mounted crossbowmen were being employed. They were certainly employed as "light cavalry" -- but in a strategic sense (scouting, etc.).

Did the mounted crossbowmen in Central/Eastern Europe deploy with their knights on the field? Or did they fight as separate units?

As for mounted arquebusiers -- I'll need to track down the sources -- I recently saw a discussion on another forum where the consensus was that they never fought on horseback, they were purely mounted infantry. The wheellock, seems to have made mounted firearms more practical.* Schwartzreiters and the like did use pistols on horseback, but those weapons were almost hand-to-hand weapons: firing immediately before contact, and then they either charged into hand-to-hand or pulled away to reload (classic caracole method) -- I've never heard of crossbows being used in a similar way, although I suppose it's possible . . .

Also, by way of analogy -- mounted English longbowmen, and mounted hand-gunners are attested, but they are also believed to have been just mounted infantry. [As an aside, mounted infantry in Italy in the 15th century usually drew more pay than regular infantry as they had to maintain a horse, equipment, and were usually considered more prestigious/valuable in general.]

*Matchlock pistols did exist. They are usually associated with "the east", but if memory serves me right, they may have been used by forces in the Balkans. Western Europeans, at the very least, seem to have been reluctant to use matchlock weapons on horseback.

[fusilier]

Here you can read a discussion about mounted arquebusiers, and their development in Italy, France, and Germany:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=277151

Returning to crossbowmen, Paul Dolnstein sketched an encounter he had with a mounted crossbowman during the Landshut war -- however the description was patrols encountering each other, and not a full-fledged battle. In such conditions, shooting from horseback then fleeing to reload, or attacking with some other weapon seems plausible. Were they expected to do the same in full battle? Or were they expected to shoot many times at an opposing force -- in which case dismounting them seems preferable. Were they used in both styles -- some as mounted infantry, and others fought as light cavalry?

The link above, when talking about mounted arquebusiers, states that references to them fighting on horseback don't appear very much until the 1540s (once wheellocks have had time to spread). I get a similar feeling about crossbows, but I'll admit that there's not much information out there. We *know* that crossbowmen were being mounted, but so far there's not much to say that they fought on horseback in battle (other than minor skirmishes). Likewise, there's nothing denying it. So while I lean toward the position that they were intended as mounted infantry, I'm keeping it open that they may have been used as light cavalry.

--EDIT-- I'm not sure if they were used as light cavalry in a full-scale battle -- there's no doubt in my mind that they were used as light cavalry for patrols, skirmishing, etc. Although in some cases, entire infantry forces were mounted purely to increase the mobility of the army, those probably couldn't be considered light cavalry in any real sense of the term. --EDIT--

[fusilier]

I happened to find this throw away line on another forum:

According to Seldeneck's manual, mounted crossbowmen were to attack in hand-to-hand after shooting their bolts. Whether this was done in practice I do not know.

Who is Seldeneck??? Some searching reveals "Philipp von Seldeneck" who wrote a "Kriegsbuch" sometime in the 15th century? But another line states that he's the only source for the use of mounted crossbowmen in such a way.

Light crossbows called "latches" were apparently used by the Border Reivers basically as pistols.

[Yora]

How did overall strategy work in the centuries before total war?
I think I have a pretty good understanding of the overall objectives in the wars of the past 100 years or so, and there's lots of information on how battles were won and lost before that. But what where the actual overall goals of military leaders in medieval and early modern wars?

It surely wasn't that two political leaders got into a heated argument until one said "let's meet with our armies on a field next month and whoever has the most men standing at the end wins this debate".

[Brother Oni]

How did overall strategy work in the centuries before total war?
I think I have a pretty good understanding of the overall objectives in the wars of the past 100 years or so, and there's lots of information on how battles were won and lost before that. But what where the actual overall goals of military leaders in medieval and early modern wars?

The objectives in warfare haven't changed much from ancient to modern times - areas of resource production (food, ore, weapons, etc), supply lines and vital strategic points like bridges/fords or mountain passes.

Capturing forts and cities were also common as they gave you control of the surrounding area. Ports were also common targets as they let you embark/disembark troops and supplies more effectively (it's one thing to try and land a platoon, entirely another for a regiment).

About the only thing that is different is capture of religious sites - I believe a number of skirmishes in European warfare revolved about capturing the Vatican and hence the Pope.

As can be deduced from Galloglaich's excellent outline of military hierarchy, a lot of wars could be finished by killing the enemy leader, something that wouldn't happen these days.

It surely wasn't that two political leaders got into a heated argument until one said "let's meet with our armies on a field next month and whoever has the most men standing at the end wins this debate".

Surprisingly enough this did happen.

During the Sengoku Jidai (16th century Japan), two warlords, Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kenshin, met and fought at Kawanakajima a total five times over the course of the war: link.

Their friendship/rivalry reached the stage where Takeda was ambushed by another lord (Hojo) cutting off his supply lines, Uesugi sent Takeda supplies, saying "Wars are to be won with swords and spears, not with rice and salt."

[GraaEminense]

From what I understand, pre-modern wars often ran something like this:

The overall goal would usually be to force the enemy to negotiations from a weak position rather than conquest.

The strategy to achieve this usually seems to have been wide-scale siege: harass, plunder and burn their trade routes, production sites and food supply until continuing the war becomes too costly in money or suffering. Good way to feed and pay the army as well. Occasionally sack a town, to hasten the process and gain more loot.

The counter would be to force battle in the hope of a quick victory, or at least chase the enemy army around to limit their ability to effectively plunder. Alternatively return the favour and hope they withdraw their armies to defend their territory.

(Awaiting correction )

[Brother Oni]

(Awaiting correction )

I believe this style of warfare was known as Chevauchee, unless Galloglaich gives another ridiculously detailed post that humiliates all of us well crafted and highly informative post.

[GraaEminense]

Indeed, though the term was new to me. I´m not certain that the strategy was actually abandoned as early as the 1400s though, it seems to have remained in use through the 30-years´-war at least?

[Spiryt]

I don't think that 'dragoon' crossbowmen in Central/Eastern Europe are very defensible - whole Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg was being fought of horses, for example. Ridden into battle, fought, retreated, new lances/bolts taken...

In whole region of battlefield, at least 10 bolt-heads were being found, more than any other form of weapon, AFAIK (founds that can be attributed to Grunwald are sadly very scarce from few reasons).

[Galloglaich]

I don't think that 'dragoon' crossbowmen in Central/Eastern Europe are very defensible - whole Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg was being fought of horses, for example. Ridden into battle, fought, retreated, new lances/bolts taken...

Yes this is my understanding as well, the mounted crossbow was used a lot like the lance, just from further out, attack, wheel away, re-arm, attack again. I know from as early as the 1330's, the Lance formation for the Teutonic Order consisted of a lancer, two mounted crossbowmen, a demi-lancer, and a 'valet'. IIRC the cost was 22,11 (x2), 6, and 2 zloty / gulden respectively to equip these different troop types.

Of course both lancers and crossbowmen might be compelled to fight in a sustained manner with swords, and / or on foot, but the goal was to attack, wheel away, attack again in the typical cavalry manner.

In whole region of battlefield, at least 10 bolt-heads were being found, more than any other form of weapon, AFAIK (founds that can be attributed to Grunwald are sadly very scarce from few reasons).

A Polish archeologist I was corresponding with out of the UK who is working on the big ecological analysis of the Baltic Crusades said they were tracking the course of battles by finding crossbow bolt-heads embedded in the ground and sometimes trees with metal detectors. But of course these can also be from infantry crossbowmen. Many battles in the region however, as you noted, consisted largely of cavalry.

G

[Galloglaich]

I believe this style of warfare was known as Chevauchee, unless Galloglaich gives another ridiculously detailed post that humiliates all of us well crafted and highly informative post.

Hahah oh dear ... yes I think you are right, the Cheavauchee, also called the 'Reysa' in the East, was a very common type of warfare in Medieval times. So were small sieges, buidling castles and forts as an offensive strategy, naval blockades, and more rarely, large pitched battles just like in modern times (though typically on a smaller scale, as Medieval armies tended to be small in numbers.)

G

[Maquise]

I have a few questions about lances. I understand that they were the primary weapons of knights, but I don't actually know much about them.

1. What did war lances actually look like? I know most people think of the wide, conical jousting lances, but I've seen depictions where they more closely resembled spears.

2. If you were dismounted, how effective would a lance be as a weapon? Could you use it like a spear?

[Yora]

All demonstrations of lances I've seen looked pretty much exactly like spears and in contemporary depictions there isn't any real difference either.

Unmounted, you probably could wield them like pikes, but those are used in formations with other pikemen. For one on one combat, I think they would be too large and heave to effecively fight with, and probably impossible if you also carry a shield.

[Galloglaich]

I have a few questions about lances. I understand that they were the primary weapons of knights, but I don't actually know much about them.

1. What did war lances actually look like? I know most people think of the wide, conical jousting lances, but I've seen depictions where they more closely resembled spears.

They varied enormously, from dual purpose spears not very different from infantry spears, and were about 9'-12' more or less, to specialized heavy lances not to much unlike jousting lances, but around 9'-12' range, to 'extreme' lances specialized for dealing with pike squares, which could be 18-20' long or more, and were very carefully made so that they could be handled in spite of that length.

A lot of times they would have a tassel or pennet at the end, which was there to absorb the blood from what I understand (so the lance didn't get slippery after you killed people)

So an example of the first type



Examples of the second





Example of the third



More details about the Polish Hussars lance

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/lance.htm

2. If you were dismounted, how effective would a lance be as a weapon? Could you use it like a spear?

They were typically broken in half when they had to be used this way, and it was fairly common (if not ideal) that they were.

G

[Maquise]

Thank you, that basically answers all the questions I have at the moment.

[Spiryt]

I have a few questions about lances. I understand that they were the primary weapons of knights, but I don't actually know much about them.

1. What did war lances actually look like? I know most people think of the wide, conical jousting lances, but I've seen depictions where they more closely resembled spears.

2. If you were dismounted, how effective would a lance be as a weapon? Could you use it like a spear?

There were a lot of things that one could call 'lance'.

Latin "lancea" was being used in Medieval period as description of general spear like stuff, together with few other terms.

Today, we generally use 'lance' to describe long(ish), heavy(ish) spear that was mainly usable for charging while mounted.

From roughly 14th century, lance was beginning to take it's 'stereotypical' form - long, large haft with compact spearhead on the end, with cionical, round, spherical etc. hand support.

Spoiler

Show

Pictorial sources still show countless examples of more 'simple' lances way into the 15th century anyway.

Before, pretty much most lances were just long spears optimized for heavy cavalry use.

And before 12th century, 'normal' spear and lance probably weren't really very distinguishable. Probably one and the same in most cases.

In results, some lances, especially early ones, most probably could be used on feet without much problem.

While more 'developed' ones most certainly weren't very good at this.

I believe that Froissart chronicles mentioned dismounting knights shortening their lances to fight on foot many times.

[Storm Bringer]

while hardly a primary soruce, in one of Benard Cowells novels (Harlequin) the english knights at cercy are discribed as using thier lances a pikes, though only in a disposeable sense (they use the lances to absorb some of the impact of the charge, then switch to other hand weapons for the melee).

[lsfreak]

As raiding was brought up in the context of larger wars, I recently set up a world where it seems like small-scale raiding for goods/gold/possibly slaves would be the primary form of warfare (small clans of 20-60 miles square patchworked together). Basically I just want confirmation that the idea I have is fairly realistic.

There would be small raiding forces of 50-150 men, sent into enemy territory. The entire raid might last a day, from setting out, spending a few hours getting to a village that a) lacked defenses but b) wasn't so close to a major settlement a runner could get to a major settlement and back with reinforcements, defeating any resistance and getting the goods organized, and retreating back into friendly territory. Targets would be livestock, objects made of precious metals, and possibly food stores, probably using the village's own resources (oxen and carts) to return the goods. And of course, these might escalate into bigger wars, but the raid itself is mostly just for slightly weakening an enemy clan and the boon of an extra two dozen pigs and some harvest for your village. Raids are also semi-ritualized, so they may be specifically for goods with as little damage to enemy lives and infrastructure as possible, in part to mitigate the chances for escalation.

Now, I know nothing about how raids were actually conducted (except for when they were part of that chevauchee strategy) and this was just brainstorming on my part. Are there glaring problems with this?

[GraaEminense]

Sounds like you are describing the Border Reivers of the English-Scottish border in the 1500s.

Read up on those and you'll get all the material you'll ever need (Steel Bonnets by George MacDonald Fraser of Flashman fame is good fun). In sum though, what you are describing is fairly realistic.

[Spiryt]

Well, not sure how well I understand, but quick glare at google maps and view from my window suggests that 60 square miles is pretty small area.

Capable of supporting limited amount of villages/life in roughly medieval setting, depending on climate and stuff.

It would be also pretty easy to control, although it also depends on terrain/climate, I guess.

If those things were getting repeated, even if some serious escalation doesn't happen from some reason, such raids would probably become quite complicated charade... Everyone would know where x could attack, what could y plunder, and how it can be stopped.

That's all assuming that significant forces are all stationed around said area.

And raiding party that's burdened with loot becomes obviously easier to intercept.

All that can obviously be incorrect, haven't ever raided much more than a snow-fort.

[Galloglaich]

while hardly a primary soruce, in one of Benard Cowells novels (Harlequin) the english knights at cercy are discribed as using thier lances a pikes, though only in a disposeable sense (they use the lances to absorb some of the impact of the charge, then switch to other hand weapons for the melee).

Yeah I think that happened quite often, especially with English knights who often fought on foot.



Regarding the raiding scenario, I think it's not too far off the mark (you see situations like this in many parts of the world) with one exception - if you assume this raiding has been going on for a while, it seems unlikely to me anyway that you would find a lot of undefended villages very near the border area. This is why the Tartars for example would go on deep penetration raids well beyond the border zone to catch people unprepared.

This is one of my pet peeves with fantasy genre films (et al) is that the simple / crude / medieval caveman villagers are always astounded when the raiders with the animal horn helmets show up to slaughter them and overturn their square wheeled ox-cart. Even though they live right next to Mount Doom. It's kind of a problem in video games and RPG's too, the assumption seems to usually be that people never notice that they are in danger even though they are repeatedly in danger. Actual people in real life are usually a little smarter.

Historically in border areas villages were often either hidden, or fortified, or were situated near a castle.

Also villagers not too likely to have precious metals in any significant quantity. Cattle on the other hand, and horses and other livestock* would be valuable and quite common to steal.


* depending on how realistic you want to be, human livestock was often the goal of raids. The Mongols / Tartars used to call their raids into Poland and the Ukraine "Harvesting the Steppe". Of course real life Nomads are a little more harsh than Orcs...

G