Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV

[rs2excelsior]

When I was a child, I had a toy A-10 with that decoration.

I have been reading Machiavelli's Discourses about Livy. Among other things, he reports Livy's description of the old Roman system of principes, hastati and triarii. This comprises that somewhat odd description of their formation, in which the second line kept its ranks loose to allow the first line to merge into it if things went badly, and the third line was even looser to allow both lines to merge if forced to retreat.
The commenter said that Livy probably took these descriptions from a work of Cato Maior, and that they must have referred to some exercise, and not to a normal order of battle. However, while denying the reality of this practice in battle, the comment does not address how this exercise impacted battle performance, which I guess is the purpose of all military exercises.
Right now, my theory is that it was a way of showing soldiers how to handle it, if the men in front of them were forced to retreat, as to avoid two things: first, sandwiching the retreating first line between the advancing enemy and the back lines, when they couldn't fight; second, that the retreating first line would have impeded the ones behind it, stopping them from advancing and from joining combat, possibly weakening the formation and causing danger or defeat.
So, in practice, I think it was a way to teach the lines how much room they needed to create between each man if need be, and to teach the officers to be on the lookout and ensure that the line did have enough room to widen.

Are there some modern studies of how the system would have been applied, or, generally speaking, some educated guess?

There was a pretty well researched site that discussed different ways to interpret the various histories depict Roman battle formations, but I can't seem to find it right now. Short answer is, we know they did something like this, but we don't really know how it worked.

The breakdown Machiavelli described was accurate. Republican-era legions consisted of three lines. The hastatii in the front were the least experienced and least well equipped, intended to deliver the initial charge and wear down the enemy a bit. The principes in the second line were more experienced and better armored, and in case the hastatii could not deal with the enemy the principes would engage. The triarii were the most experienced soldiers, and often carried spears instead of gladii like the rest of the legion. They were there in case everything else went horribly wrong--I can't remember the exact phrase, but something along the lines of "the battle reached the triarii" became an idiom in non-military settings to describe a situation where things had gone badly and you were desperately trying to avert complete disaster. As KarlMarx said, there were also Velites, who were light infantry that would not operate in line, and which the Romans never relied on as much as their heavy infantry. During the Second Punic War, for example, Roman velites were almost always swept aside by the Carthaginian light infantry. We know that in the late Republican/early Imperial period, after they did away with the distinction between hastatii, principes, and triarii, they kept the triplex acies (triple line) formation common to the pre-reform armies. We also know that these lines did support one another and one line could move forward and replace the other in battle. The way it was done is unclear.

The Romans fought in looser formations than, say, the Macedonian phalanxes (which gave them an edge over said phalanxes in rough terrain), but it would still be difficult to move through a formed-up body of infantry. One of the more common theories is that they formed in the "checkerboard," as Karl Marx said. If each maniple (which equated to two centuries working together) deployed with its centuries in front of/behind one another, instead of beside, with one century worth of room in between, you could move one line through the other, then form a solid line by having the rear centuries march to the side and then forward into the gap. The site I was talking about did some calculations about the time that would take, and it does take a while--possibly longer than would be practical in battle. Plus, the engaged line would have to have its centuries march backward then to the side, while in contact with the enemy, opening gaps which could be exploited. Additionally, post-reform, the triplex acies checkerboard was done with cohorts of six centuries rather than maniples of two, which multiplies the problems.

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that ancient battles often weren't continuous affairs. There would be relatively brief periods of fighting, followed by longer lulls where the armies would fall back a bit and skirmish with ranged weapons, lighter troops, etc. That could provide an opportunity for such complex maneuvers, but still, it would be a prime opportunity for the enemy to take advantage of.

So basically, we know that the Romans did use a formation like Machiavelli describes in battle--and in battle with other heavy infantry, not just against light infantry--and that they did use more rearward lines to replace the forward ones as they became tired/demoralized/etc. But the details of how are not really well understood.

[Roxxy]

Okay, yet another question. In the quest to compare wand combat with firearms in my modernish fantasy "kinda like Harry Potter meets D&D, but every muggle knows about magic), I've tried to differentiate the two, and I've run into the issue that I don't know how deadly wands should be. My general assumption is that wizards fight by shooting magic blasts from their wands because it's convenient, not because it's superior to a gun (if you were casting spells, you had the wand out anyway).

The main issue with wand blasts is that they lack kinetic energy. They injure by burning a hole of maybe an inch right through the target, but tend not to cause wounds that bleed, or impart any kinetic energy into the target. Which means little stopping power, and wounds that are often easy to ignore in the heat of combat. A lot of magical creatures are much more susceptible to these wounds than humans, however. They're more accurate than handguns at close range because they lack recoil, are very light and easy to handle, and don't have ballistic properties, but the lack of sights is a huge issue at anything but immediate self defense ranges (not that handguns are that useful outside of this range). You can fire maybe 1 blast every 1.5 seconds, and don't need to reload. They're not as loud as gunshots, but not quiet, either (it's like clapping your hands really hard).

Because of these limitations, I imagine it isn't unheard of for wizards to carry and use firearms, and I think the wand really sees most of its use because the wizard already had it out (Even in the military, that'd be common, because an M16 has such a massive lethality advantage over a wand that you don't use your rather rare wizards as rifle infantry, you use them to cast support spells that help the dudes with M16s do their jobs better in classic D&D fashion. A military wizard like has a handgun, but not the time to stow their wand and draw it when they could just use the wand.), couldn't aquire or carry a gun (very common circumstance), or the enemy has specific vulnerabilities.

Which brings me to the question. Given how I described wand wounds, how lethal is that compared to something like 9mm, .40, or .45? I know its less effective, but I don't really have a solid handle on how much less effective.

[Gnoman]

This is an extremely complex subject, but the gist of it is that these wand wounds probably aren't going to be comparable to anything but the smallest of bullets.

If you get shot with an AP round from handgun or rifle (the closest analog to your wandshots, as it would be a straight hole with no fragmenting), the direct line of the bullet still isn't the main cause of your injury. The round will create a shockwave in your body that will open a wound channel much larger than the 7-12mm of the bullet itself, and this is the main thing that hurts you.


Any other sort of round will be significantly more damaging. Soft lead bullets will mushroom, full metal jacket bullets will fragment, hollowpoints will mushroom AND fragment, and all types will tumble in the body, greatly increasing the damaged area.

The only real exceptions are "mouse gun" calibers such as .25 ACP or .22LR. These don't have the energy to do much in the way of shock damage, and are small enough that the bullet itself won't do too much damage unless it directly strikes something vital.


Your wandshots make a pretty good sized hole (roughly the size of a US quarter, or about twice the diameter of most handgun bullets), but that's all the damage they'll do. They've certainly got the potential to be crippling or deadly, but they have to hit something important to do so, and even a handgun bullet doesn't.

Edit because I missed something:

One blast every 1.5 seconds takes this from "a tolerable backup weapon" to "worthless". A pistol can easily empty a magazine in not much more than that, giving a much greater chance of getting a hit in the first place, and likely resulting in multiple hits. That's not good odds even considering the "I'm already holding the wand, and would have to draw my pistol" factor.

[Roxxy]

This is an extremely complex subject, but the gist of it is that these wand wounds probably aren't going to be comparable to anything but the smallest of bullets.

If you get shot with an AP round from handgun or rifle (the closest analog to your wandshots, as it would be a straight hole with no fragmenting), the direct line of the bullet still isn't the main cause of your injury. The round will create a shockwave in your body that will open a wound channel much larger than the 7-12mm of the bullet itself, and this is the main thing that hurts you.


Any other sort of round will be significantly more damaging. Soft lead bullets will mushroom, full metal jacket bullets will fragment, hollowpoints will mushroom AND fragment, and all types will tumble in the body, greatly increasing the damaged area.

The only real exceptions are "mouse gun" calibers such as .25 ACP or .22LR. These don't have the energy to do much in the way of shock damage, and are small enough that the bullet itself won't do too much damage unless it directly strikes something vital.


Your wandshots make a pretty good sized hole (roughly the size of a US quarter, or about twice the diameter of most handgun bullets), but that's all the damage they'll do. They've certainly got the potential to be crippling or deadly, but they have to hit something important to do so, and even a handgun bullet doesn't.

Edit because I missed something:

One blast every 1.5 seconds takes this from "a tolerable backup weapon" to "worthless". A pistol can easily empty a magazine in not much more than that, giving a much greater chance of getting a hit in the first place, and likely resulting in multiple hits. That's not good odds even considering the "I'm already holding the wand, and would have to draw my pistol" factor.

So, I really need to think about making wands more damaging, then, if I want to maintain the "It'll do the job, even if it isn't quite as good as a gun" factor? Maybe it can fire faster and the burning can open up a deep wound channel?

[Gnoman]

That's one option. Another would be to give the shots some (possibly random) secondary effect unique to magic, or supplement the damaging shot with something that works as a flash-bang or other distraction device.

[gkathellar]

How deep are these wand wounds? How rapidly can you fire? Because if you're basically shooting inch-wide holes through people, that may have it own immediate utility (and would be horribly disfiguring).

[Brother Oni]

The triarii were the most experienced soldiers, and often carried spears instead of gladii like the rest of the legion. They were there in case everything else went horribly wrong--I can't remember the exact phrase, but something along the lines of "the battle reached the triarii" became an idiom in non-military settings to describe a situation where things had gone badly and you were desperately trying to avert complete disaster.

From earlier on in the thread where we were discussing Roman spears, the phrase was 'rem ad Triarios redisse', meaning "it has come to the triarii", indicating an act of desperation.

That's one option. Another would be to give the shots some (possibly random) secondary effect unique to magic, or supplement the damaging shot with something that works as a flash-bang or other distraction device.

Given the description of burning through the target, could you treat them like a plasma based directed energy weapon? The beam ablates the top-most layer of the target, causing a small plasma explosion which can potentially knock down the target. In addition, the plasma explosion emits EM radiation, triggering nerves cells and causing intense pain and/or temporary paralysis.

All of these effects are on top of burning a hole through the target, thus giving it some parity with the significantly higher fire rate of modern SA/FA firearms. That said, any wounds it would cause are cauterised, thus blood loss would be minimal at best.

[Roxxy]

Given the description of burning through the target, could you treat them like a plasma based directed energy weapon? The beam ablates the top-most layer of the target, causing a small plasma explosion which can potentially knock down the target. In addition, the plasma explosion emits EM radiation, triggering nerves cells and causing intense pain and/or temporary paralysis.

All of these effects are on top of burning a hole through the target, thus giving it some parity with the significantly higher fire rate of modern SA/FA firearms. That said, any wounds it would cause are cauterised, thus blood loss would be minimal at best.

That might well work pretty well. My main question is whether the pain would be comparable to gunshot wounds.

What I really like is that, by maintaining a slow rate of fire for wands, it reinforces that, powerful as they are, wizards HAVE to go into battle with infantry support if they want to stay alive to screw up the enemy.

[Xuc Xac]

That's one option. Another would be to give the shots some (possibly random) secondary effect unique to magic, or supplement the damaging shot with something that works as a flash-bang or other distraction device.

This is the way to go. It's magic. Let it do things that a gun can't.

The wand fires a little blast of elemental energy like a little fireball or an ice bullet or a miniature ball lightning. When it strikes a target, it doesn't have the physical impact of a bullet, so the damage is more localized. However, it really, really hurts and it doesn't stop. It's not just a puff of flame: it's a tiny salamander-like quasi-living elemental creature that bites, burns, and burrows into the target's flesh. It might not have the "stopping power" of a large bullet to knock the target down, but it will definitely get their attention.

If you use a pistol, you might fill your enemy full of bullets but he'll keep fighting back with an adrenaline rush if the bullets don't hit something important to stop him immediately. If you use a wand, even a minor hit to a non-vital area will result in your enemy screaming "Get it off! Get it off of me! Oh God! Get it out!" instead of shooting back at you.

[Brother Oni]

That might well work pretty well. My main question is whether the pain would be comparable to gunshot wounds.

They have only tested the technology on animals, but given that the project has been been put on the backburner due to concerns it could be used as a method of torture, I'd say the potential is certainly there - remember that the beam also burns a rather large hole through the target, which would painful in its own right.

As this is magic, you could arbitrarily state that it causes the same pain as a gunshot, rather than dig into the mechanics of weaponised plasma induced EM radiation causing nerve induction: Jiang and Cooper, "Frequency-dependent interaction of ultrashort E-fields with nociceptor membranes and proteins", Bioelectromagnetics 32: 148–63.

If you use a wand, even a minor hit to a non-vital area will result in your enemy screaming "Get it off! Get it off of me! Oh God! Get it out!" instead of shooting back at you.

I really like this idea much better than mine though. It's magic, make it something arcane and fearsome, rather than just a future-tech weapon brought forward a hundred years.

It gives the weapon more flavour and personality - having a small superhot critter eating and burrowing its way into you is far more disturbing to an enemy combatant than a energy weapon or a bullet in my opinion. If it makes cheerful little 'omnomnom' noises as it eats, it emphasises the effect - it's a weapon that enjoys killing, which is all kinds of disturbing on its own.

[Kiero]

There was a pretty well researched site that discussed different ways to interpret the various histories depict Roman battle formations, but I can't seem to find it right now. Short answer is, we know they did something like this, but we don't really know how it worked.

The breakdown Machiavelli described was accurate. Republican-era legions consisted of three lines. The hastatii in the front were the least experienced and least well equipped, intended to deliver the initial charge and wear down the enemy a bit. The principes in the second line were more experienced and better armored, and in case the hastatii could not deal with the enemy the principes would engage. The triarii were the most experienced soldiers, and often carried spears instead of gladii like the rest of the legion. They were there in case everything else went horribly wrong--I can't remember the exact phrase, but something along the lines of "the battle reached the triarii" became an idiom in non-military settings to describe a situation where things had gone badly and you were desperately trying to avert complete disaster. As KarlMarx said, there were also Velites, who were light infantry that would not operate in line, and which the Romans never relied on as much as their heavy infantry. During the Second Punic War, for example, Roman velites were almost always swept aside by the Carthaginian light infantry. We know that in the late Republican/early Imperial period, after they did away with the distinction between hastatii, principes, and triarii, they kept the triplex acies (triple line) formation common to the pre-reform armies. We also know that these lines did support one another and one line could move forward and replace the other in battle. The way it was done is unclear.

Another important element of the manipular system was that each was autonomous. While they acted as part of a greater whole, unit commanders were trusted to act on their own initiative. In battles like Pydna, the local flanking movements that ultimately routed the phalanx weren't ordered by the general leading the army, but by individual centurions in the fighting line seeing an opportunity and directing their men to take it.

On of the reasons the legions from Marius' Mules onwards did away with the distinctions between the three was that equipment was standardised. They were all basically equipped as principes. However, centuries were still referred to by those titles, with the triarii being the most senior and their centurion, the primus pilus - first spear, being the highest-ranking.

Triarii didn't do away with their gladii, there's no reason for them not to carry a sidearm. They probably didn't bother with any pila, though.

The Romans fought in looser formations than, say, the Macedonian phalanxes (which gave them an edge over said phalanxes in rough terrain), but it would still be difficult to move through a formed-up body of infantry. One of the more common theories is that they formed in the "checkerboard," as Karl Marx said. If each maniple (which equated to two centuries working together) deployed with its centuries in front of/behind one another, instead of beside, with one century worth of room in between, you could move one line through the other, then form a solid line by having the rear centuries march to the side and then forward into the gap. The site I was talking about did some calculations about the time that would take, and it does take a while--possibly longer than would be practical in battle. Plus, the engaged line would have to have its centuries march backward then to the side, while in contact with the enemy, opening gaps which could be exploited. Additionally, post-reform, the triplex acies checkerboard was done with cohorts of six centuries rather than maniples of two, which multiplies the problems.

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that ancient battles often weren't continuous affairs. There would be relatively brief periods of fighting, followed by longer lulls where the armies would fall back a bit and skirmish with ranged weapons, lighter troops, etc. That could provide an opportunity for such complex maneuvers, but still, it would be a prime opportunity for the enemy to take advantage of.

So basically, we know that the Romans did use a formation like Machiavelli describes in battle--and in battle with other heavy infantry, not just against light infantry--and that they did use more rearward lines to replace the forward ones as they became tired/demoralized/etc. But the details of how are not really well understood.

Everyone fought in a looser formation than the Makedonian phalanx, there was nothing denser than it. It's also pretty clear that the phalanx declined in quality from their peak under Philippos II (Alexandros basically used the armies his father had trained and bloodied). In the Hellenistic era after Alexandros' death, the blocks got larger and denser. Pikes got longer and armour heavier. All of which was a cover for a reduction in capability.

In Philippos II's day, every phalangite was dual-trained a skirmisher, and could fight in both roles. As in he could tell off an entire block before a battle and tell them they were going to be javelineers for that encounter, especially useful for sieges. They were also described as fast and having an incredible fighting spirit. The survivors of these original bodies were still active in their eighties and nineties.

This was the sort of thing they were capable of, according to Arrian:

Then Alexander drew up his army in such a way that the depth of the phalanx was 120 men ; and stationing 200 cavalry on each wing, he ordered them to preserve silence, in order to receive the word of command quickly. Accordingly he gave the signal to the heavy-armed infantry in the first place to hold their spears erect, and then to couch them at the concerted sign ; at one time to incline their spears to the right, closely locked together, and at another time towards the left. He then set the phalanx itself into quick motion forward, and marched it towards the wings, now to the right, and then to the left. After thus arranging and re-arranging his army many times very rapidly, he at last formed his phalanx into a sort of wedge, and led it towards the left against the enemy, who had long been in a state of amazement at seeing both the order and the rapidity of his evolutions.

Changing formation in the face of the enemy. Not something later Hellenistic armies were capable of.

By the time of the Roman ascent, things were so formalised, with defeated phalanxes defecting to the winner and mutually-understood norms of behaviour, that they bore little resemblance to those originals. The Romans didn't understand when the phalanxes were surrendering at Pydna, and carried on killing them even though they were trying to stop fighting.

[DerKommissar]

In my campaign a smaller scale military conflict is about to begin, so I wanted to ask for historical examples or general input how you think this would go down.

Assume the setting to be close to 13th/14th century Northern Italy but with magic.

The situation:
There is an important trade route along a river. Downstream is Town A, upstream is Town B so goods are transported from Town B passing Town A to the final destination. Town A decided to impose a hefty fee on goods passing by which infuriates Town B as the general income drops. After a while a rebel group from Town B starts to attack ships from Town A and sink them. The Rebels are operating in guerilla tactics and come from the lower classes, which are affected worst by the fee. Officially they are not supported by Town B, but the local population helps and hides them.
Some people in Town A wanted the conflict to escalate, so they increased the fee further and finally made a false-flag-attack and in response the town council decided it’s time to take (punitive) actions against the Rebels.

Both towns have ~15-20k population and are wealthy free cities, but Town A is quite a bit richer than Town B.

So the situation at the moment in my campaign is, that Town A is gathering a strike force of Mercenaries in order to weaken/punish/discourage the rebels, but they won’t siege Town B directly (yet). Still Town A sees Town B responsible for the Rebel activities, as they should get them under control but rather they seem to support the Rebels.

So my questions:
- Do you know any historical examples I could read up about similar conflicts about trading tolls?
- Do you know any historical examples for renaissance mercenaries fighting militia rebels?
- What are your thoughts on the actions Town A might take against the rebels?
- How might Town B respond to those actions?

Sorry if the questions are a bit broad, but I'm still trying to brainstorm the whole thing, as the raids should start in the next session on sunday :) If you think its better to open a new thread then thats fine as well (maybe Im gonna do it anyways), but my hopes are you can give me some sources and ideas!

[Haighus]

The info about combat in the late antiquity period is reminding me- has anyone here played any 0 AD? Any comments on how realistic aspects of it are? I understand it has limitations due to the game wanting to have a certain build and destroy mechanic, but aside from that.

[jayem]

The info about combat in the late antiquity period is reminding me- has anyone here played any 0 AD? Any comments on how realistic aspects of it are? I understand it has limitations due to the game wanting to have a certain build and destroy mechanic, but aside from that.

Not for a while. It was pretty, but unfinished then.
It didn't feel massively realistic, it's very much a C&C -> Age of Empires -> 0AD progression, (not say even Total War).

[KarlMarx]

In my campaign a smaller scale military conflict is about to begin, so I wanted to ask for historical examples or general input how you think this would go down.

Assume the setting to be close to 13th/14th century Northern Italy but with magic.

The situation:
There is an important trade route along a river. Upstream is Town A, Downstream is Town B so goods are transported from Town B passing Town A to the final destination. Town A decided to impose a hefty fee on goods passing by which infuriates Town B as the general income drops. After a while a rebel group from Town B starts to attack ships from Town A and sink them. The Rebels are operating in guerilla tactics and come from the lower classes, which are affected worst by the fee. Officially they are not supported by Town B, but the local population helps and hides them.
Some people in Town A wanted the conflict to escalate, so they increased the fee further and finally made a false-flag-attack and in response the town council decided it’s time to take (punitive) actions against the Rebels.

Both towns have ~15-20k population and are wealthy free cities, but Town A is quite a bit richer than Town B.

So the situation at the moment in my campaign is, that Town A is gathering a strike force of Mercenaries in order to weaken/punish/discourage the rebels, but they won’t siege Town B directly (yet). Still Town A sees Town B responsible for the Rebel activities, as they should get them under control but rather they seem to support the Rebels.

So my questions:
- Do you know any historical examples I could read up about similar conflicts about trading tolls?
- Do you know any historical examples for renaissance mercenaries fighting militia rebels?
- What are your thoughts on the actions Town A might take against the rebels?
- How might Town B respond to those actions?

Sorry if the questions are a bit broad, but I'm still trying to brainstorm the whole thing, as the raids should start in the next session on sunday :) If you think its better to open a new thread then thats fine as well (maybe Im gonna do it anyways), but my hopes are you can give me some sources and ideas!

First question: why is Town B at a disadvantage? the downstream town, being closer to the ocean, should have the overall upper hand in trade disputes and the incentive to levy such fines.

As to the historical examples, I can't think of any in particular, but I would advise researching the military history of Italy basically from the departure of Byzantium to the Italian wars to get some background. Doesn't have to be exhaustive, just enough to get some idea of what's going on.

Town A could do several things. They could levy soldiers/hire mercenaries to guard trade better, attempt to pay off the rebels, or apply diplomatic pressure on B. It seems unlikely that they will offer to nullify the tariff (Italian towns were notoriously self-interested), but it's an option. As you hypothesized, however, going directly after the rebels seems most likely.

B's response to such an action is more interesting. If they still cover for the rebels, open war is only so far away, which will work to A's advantage as money=>mercenaries=>victory in late medieval Italy. Alternatively, they might sue for peace, offering to give up the rebels and take a subordinate position to A to preserve their freedom. Or, in what seems most interesting for a campaign to me, they could try to bribe a high-ranking official or powerful nobleman of A, as well as fomenting rebels within that city's territory.

[DerKommissar]

Thanks for the reply!

First question: why is Town B at a disadvantage? the downstream town, being closer to the ocean, should have the overall upper hand in trade disputes and the incentive to levy such fines.

I confused up- and downstream, so it is Town A that is closer to the ocean - fixed that in my original post.

Town A could do several things. [...] As you hypothesized, however, going directly after the rebels seems most likely.

In the campaign there is a shapeshifted demon, whose goal it is to bring people to kill each other. He suggested the tax raise and staged the false flag attack inside the city (burning down an iconic building). Being attacked directly in their city the townspeople want to see the rebels punished and the council of the town (inspired by the demon) think it’s best to hire mercenaries and send them out to "discourage" the rebels.

What do you think would be a likely first step in doing so? Some iconic atrocities to show town B cannot protect their people? Some random raids to punish the population?
I don’t really have a clue how people at that time would have seen collateral damage in the population: Unimportant as long as the rebels stop their attacks? Dangerous as you would gain a bad reputation? E.g. the Sack of Magdeburg didn’t get a lot of good press, but I don’t know if it had such a big ‘practical’ aftermath for the ones responsible

B's response to such an action is more interesting. If they still cover for the rebels, open war is only so far away, which will work to A's advantage as money=>mercenaries=>victory in late medieval Italy. Alternatively, they might sue for peace, offering to give up the rebels and take a subordinate position to A to preserve their freedom. Or, in what seems most interesting for a campaign to me, they could try to bribe a high-ranking official or powerful nobleman of A, as well as fomenting rebels within that city's territory.

These are some interesting ideas, as I think when it would really turn in a full scale war between A and B, the Town B would have to surrender and try to shut down the rebels themselves. But that will be up to my Players actions as well ;)

[snowblizz]

So my questions:
- Do you know any historical examples I could read up about similar conflicts about trading tolls?
- Do you know any historical examples for renaissance mercenaries fighting militia rebels?
- What are your thoughts on the actions Town A might take against the rebels?
- How might Town B respond to those actions?

I actually think there are similar parallells in real world medieaval Italy actually. I think it was Florens and Pisa and ended with Pisa essentially becoming a harbour for Florens.
The Öresund toll was a go to casus belli between Denmark and Sweden for about 400 years.

Something to note though is that in cases where random taxation occurs trade tends to find other ways. So if it was Pisa and Florens, Florens started fixing up and securing alternate routes over passes and improving rivers to be navigable further up. But also you risk rerouting trade patterns to the benfit of your rivals. So Town A may end up losing too on this, as Town C gets increased trade. It was a persistent risk when you had bridges and passes providing important income to you and some were tempted to try and "abuse" the position inevitably marginalising themselves in trade patterns.
In these times city merchants were fairly independant and cosmopolitan too and would not like the taxes and disrupted traderoutes. This kind of economic war can be kinda ruinous. There is a book about medieval trades and tradepatterns I read that covered a lot of stuff like this but be damned if I can find the name and author. Even though I mentioned it while I had it in one incarnation of the thread.

Town B would probably get on hiring mercenaries too, as self-defence and trying to get rid of their rebel problem, but also exploring other options for trade.
Some kind of raiding against the economy of Town B would be early steps, under the guise of hunting down the rebels, farms and mills and what not. Though this is a good way to ruin both towns economies in raiding and counterraiding. Medieval Spain saw a lot of it and set back economic development severly in e.g. Andalusia IIRC.

[Haighus]

Not for a while. It was pretty, but unfinished then.
It didn't feel massively realistic, it's very much a C&C -> Age of Empires -> 0AD progression, (not say even Total War).

Hmm, I should clarify I meant from a graphics and feel perspective, as in how the units are portrayed, the designs of soldiers, the buildings, the general units available to armies and their general use. I appreciate that any game with a build and destroy mechanic, where buildings are constructed and cities pop up in the same screen as the combat occurs, are intrinsically less realistic than games that divide the strategic building and the tactical combat (the exceptions being games where only small tactical buildings, like trenchlines and medic tents, are constructed).

From what I can see, they generally have a good attention to detail with the names of units, their designs, and the importance of their roles within different classical militaries, as well as the aesthetics of structures for different civilisations. But I don't know enough about the period to understand if my general feel for this is right.

Also, if you haven't played it for awhile, it still isn't finished, but has got a whole lot prettier ;)

[paddyfool]

I read somewhere that the big axes synonymous with viking warriors in various fiction were actually used as weapons to strike at enemies from behind a shield wall, i.e. as an adjunct to the ubiquitous spear and shield strategy and only for a limited period of viking history at that. How true is this?

[snowblizz]

I read somewhere that the big axes synonymous with viking warriors in various fiction were actually used as weapons to strike at enemies from behind a shield wall, i.e. as an adjunct to the ubiquitous spear and shield strategy and only for a limited period of viking history at that. How true is this?

If you are talking about the twohanded Dane axe it was a weapon mostly associated with the more elite warriors and of the later periods of the somewhat misnamed "viking period". You need good armour, in the period a full chainmail hauberk, to forgo the protection of the shield. Scandinavians were seldom initially heavily armoured lacking domestic armour manufacture in a large scale compared to the continent. And it's most famous use seems to come from "viking derivatives" Irish Galloglaich, Normans and the Varangian Guard in Byzantium which were much less "viking" by the later stages. Either way you won't have loads of people with the two-handed axes.

I think it depends on what you mean with striking from behind a shield wall. In reality if you are actually behind your shield wall only bows and spears are going to be easily used to attack the enemy. I would say the Dane-axe comes into it's own in breaking down the opponents shieldwall.

[Brother Oni]

I would say the Dane-axe comes into it's own in breaking down the opponents shieldwall.

This is both in actually hacking through shields and hooking enemy shields out of the way to enable your allies to stab through the newly made gaps.

[Yora]

Armor training in the 15th century. Apparently non-standard, but still interesting to note.

[Lemmy]

So... I was thinking about pommels. Obviously, they work, considering how common they are...

Therefore, my question is: How effective were pommels as counter-weight? I mean... They are pretty close to the pivot (your hand) and (I'm guessing, but have no idea) not nearly as heavy as the blades.

But how much of a difference do they make? (as a counter-weight, I mean. They're still useful for stopping the hand from slipping and for flooding Skallagrim's comment sessions with overused memes).

Bonus Question: If you were designing a custom weapon for D&D, how would you represent the benefits of having a pommel (other than a simple bonus to attack rolls)?

Thank you all in advance.

[Mike_G]

So... I was thinking about pommels. Obviously, they work, considering how common they are...

Therefore, my question is: How effective were pommels as counter-weight? I mean... They are pretty close to the pivot (your hand) and (I'm guessing, but have no idea) not nearly as heavy as the blades.

But how much of a difference do they make? (as a counter-weight, I mean. They're still useful for stopping the hand from slipping and for flooding Skallagrim's comment sessions with overused memes).

Bonus Question: If you were designing a custom weapon for D&D, how would you represent the benefits of having a pommel (other than a simple bonus to attack rolls)?

Thank you all in advance.

It's pretty significant, but, as in all thing, it depends on the weapon. I used an extra heavy pommel when I was fencing competitively, and I think it did make my point more agile. For a cutting weapon, I'm not sure how much you want to counterweight the blade.

[snowblizz]

Bonus Question: If you were designing a custom weapon for D&D, how would you represent the benefits of having a pommel (other than a simple bonus to attack rolls)?

In short I think you simply don't. A pommel for sword that's supposed to have one isn't optional really. And adding one to a sword that's not meant to have one is not somethign you'd do either. I'd also say you are introducing unnecessary micromanaging in something like D&D with this. If you must I'd say treat an unblanced weapon as improvised (I knwo that temr exists but not sure of it's rule implication) or something like that. Low quality? I'm not familair with the rules obviously. But also feel it's incorrect to say a sword with a pommel gets a bonus, rather a sword without a pommel that's meant to should get a penalty. A bog standard D&D longsword comes with the assumptions that it's made the appropriate way, which includes a properly balanced pommel. (Or maybe it doens't and baseline D&D weaponry are really what IRL woudl be inferior.)
It's not just weight balance, the pommel keeps your grip stuff in place without it a good swing nets you a hollow wooden tube wrapped with leather in your hands and a longsword 5 yards further along and you in trouble.

[Brother Oni]

It's not just weight balance, the pommel keeps your grip stuff in place without it a good swing nets you a hollow wooden tube wrapped with leather in your hands and a longsword 5 yards further along and you in trouble.

Are there many longswords made in this fashion? I was under the impression that the vast majority had the grip firmly secured to the blade's tang.

[Vinyadan]

Thank you all for the answers about the Roman tripartite system. While I agree with Kiero's assessment about Livy and Polybius as a rule of thumb, it's worth saying that it becomes problematic when you do in-depth analysis of Livy, mostly because of the underlying source network. The most evident example I can think of is how Livy actually is one of the most important indirect sources for the lost parts of Polybius, which he very closely followed in some books.

I think that someone (Galloglaich?) talked about how nobility put itself out of the political game in many cities, since its strength was depleted through internal and civil strife during the XIV century. If anyone is interested into reading an example, the second book of Machiavelli's Florentine Histories deals with how this happened in Florence.

[Galloglaich]

Thank you all for the answers about the Roman tripartite system. While I agree with Kiero's assessment about Livy and Polybius as a rule of thumb, it's worth saying that it becomes problematic when you do in-depth analysis of Livy, mostly because of the underlying source network. The most evident example I can think of is how Livy actually is one of the most important indirect sources for the lost parts of Polybius, which he very closely followed in some books.

I think that someone (Galloglaich?) talked about how nobility put itself out of the political game in many cities, since its strength was depleted through internal and civil strife during the XIV century. If anyone is interested into reading an example, the second book of Machiavelli's Florentine Histories deals with how this happened in Florence.

Where can you get those? is there a cheap translation available?

I've been re-reading The Prince and noticed he had interesting comments about German cities:

"The cities of Germany are absolutely free, have little surrounding country, and obey the emperor when they choose, and they do not fear him or any other potentate that they have about them. They are fortified in such a manner that everyone thinks that to reduce them would be tedious and difficult, for they all have the necessary moats and bastions, sufficient artillery, and always keep food, drink and fuel for one year in the public storehouses. Beyond which, to keep the lower classes satisfied, and without loss to the commonwealth, they have always enough means to give them work for one year in these employments which corm the nerve and life of the town, and in the industries by which the lower classes live. Military exercises are still held in high reputation, and many regulations are in force for maintain them."

I suspect he has read my Baltic book ;)

I think Germany and Italy are slightly different in how the towns were organized, the Italian towns seemed to have included nobles a bit longer, whereas the big class struggle in late medieval Germany was more between the merchants and the artisans. The nobles and the prince (usually a bishop or archbishop, sometimes a Duke or a King) was typically evicted or pushed to the margins back in the 12th or 13th Century. Basically whenever the town was able to build walls. By the time you get through the Black Death (say 1360's) the German cities are accelerating rapidly toward their peak of power and influence which probably happened about 1510-1520. Decline began with the Reformation and religious wars but it was a long, slow decline. Their city walls protected a lot of them even in the 30 Years War.

In Italy it was more complex. For one thing the Italian cities were far more ruthless to each other, and more than willing to involve the nobility, and even foreign princes in their internecine conflicts. Ultimately this proved to be the undoing of many of them. You also had the Guelph-Ghibeline conflicts which played into the whole vendetta thing in Italy, leading to multi-generational conflicts and intense hatreds between families and factions, which I think began to eclipse the older class (or more precisely, 'estate') rivalries of their heyday which was probably like 1250-1400.

I think ultimately the Italian citizens just got tired of constant fighting and it led to the decline of their militia system. That is what Machiavelli is always on about, (a reflection of his personal experiences). They fought off the Emperor in the 12th and 13th Centuries, and then the Popes in the 14th, and the Kings of France and Spain in the 15th, but they wasted so much energy (and caused themselves so much misery) fighting rival factions and fighting other City-States. Eventually they just got sick of fighting, let the mercenaries take over in many cases.

The 16th Century turned into an endless series of wars, and in the end, only Venice was really left as a Republic out of all the towns of the once mighty Lombard League. And Venice, mighty as they were, was trapped between Spain (with all it's New World gold) and the Ottomans (with all the wealth of the Silk Road), with very little breathing room between.

G

[harlokin]

Are there many longswords made in this fashion? I was under the impression that the vast majority had the grip firmly secured to the blade's tang.

The vast majority of what we call longswords indeed had grips of leather wrapped wood, secured by compression, and possibly adhesive. Grosse messer, on the other hand, had a knife-like construction, with the handle securely pegged to the tang.

[Vinyadan]

@Galloglaich
I am reading the Italian OV, but there is an English translation at project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2464/...#link2H_4_0012
Machiavelli talked about the German cities pretty often. He spent some time in his Discourses about Livy explaining how and why they functioned. There also is his 'Rapporto di cose della Magna', 'Report on German Affairs', but I am not sure of its content, because I haven't read it yet.